grit_foc ✝️

@jyapsalot I’m still confused as to who his audience is 😂

Buddy sound so corny. I can’t stand listening to him talk. It’s equivalent to nails scratching a chalkboard.

@CarriePrejean1 Yes ! @BlakeSNeff wants you to believe that CK talked about his succession plan OFTEN, to close friends, to donors and board members. Everyone knew (except those asking questions ), no one is willing to verify this & now they’re annoyed most people don’t believe them 🧐

Blake, You mean to tell me that Charlie believing he would be killed as CEO of turning point USA would then want the mother of his children and his widow to then take on that same “dangerous” role as CEO that got Charlie killed and not be home raising Charlie’s children, essentially leaving them orphaned and parentless? You really think Charlie was stupid don’t you? And you think we are all stupid. We don’t believe you. We don’t trust TPUSA. We all believe the video you played ushering in Erika as CEO is AI. Charlie wouldn’t want his widow stepping in to the girl boss CEO role especially if it was as dangerous as being murdered. Oh and weird number of likes Blake. 33K. You guys are shameless. Candace was Charlie’s only true friend.

@charliespiering @BlakeSNeff @RealCandaceO @TPUSA …..Multiple people , ……,several Turning Point donors, …….close friends of Charlie….. Names given : ZERO !! Not a single one !

You’re right, Candace. The video is crucial, which is why I asked @TPUSA to see it. I approached them in good faith, and they agreed. It’s real, and multiple people who were in Aspen that day remember the moment. The video does matter, but it’s not the only reason the board voted to appoint Erika. I spoke to several Turning Point donors and close friends of Charlie who revealed that after Butler, there was a very real fear about his safety and the future of his organization. Charlie reassured them: He would leave Turning Point to Erika and the board to carry on the mission if the worst happened.

I’m sorry but I still can’t get over this. Turning Point USA colluded with the Daily Mail to host a screening of the now “secret video” of Charlie naming Erika as his successor. This video is crucial. It was introduced to the public by Erika as Charlie’s dying wish: her takeover of the company. Erika CHOSE to walk out to Charlie’s alleged voice naming her as the CEO at Amfest, but stopped short of airing the video footage. Donors who were present say the audio is A.I., and that Charlie never uttered these words at the event in question. Turning Point is now gaslighting us—bringing in experts to secretly screen and report on the video while claiming its existence doesn’t even matter because Charlie had told his friends that’s what he wanted. WTF is going on?

@JodyChaseTN At this point everything feels orchestrated. Anytime Blake Neff, Andrew Kolvet or Erika Kirk realise they are losing credibility, they get to work on their next strategy. It’s never about transparency or truth, it’s just one cover-up stacked on top of the next

🚨 TRENDING 🚨 Blake Neff says that the video of Charlie wanting Erika Kirk to succeed him is not needed or coming out He also said that Candace Owens obviously wanted Charlie to hand TPUSA over to her . He says the Daily Mail did watch the video

@BlakeSNeff WILD. You call everyone else lunatics while @RealCandaceO was the only one who displayed genuine devastation and grief. The rest of you are like robots rolling out TPUSA v2 . Was Charlie’s death just a succession plan & PR exercise you were all prepared for. Congrats

Current situation: -A Daily Mail reporter was writing up the "controversy" over who Charlie wanted to succeed him: His wife who knew him best, whom he trusted most, and whom the TPUSA board eagerly supported, or some other person (Hint: Candace obviously thinks it should have been herself). -Of course, no video is actually needed to "prove" Charlie wanted Erika to succeed him if something happened -- everyone who knew Charlie well and spent time around him knew this was the case and there was zero suspense going into the board vote. -Still, while Turning Point would still rather not release private videos in response to insane screaming from lunatics, they did show it to the Daily Mail reporter just to confirm that the video exists. For good measure, the reporter also spoke to three separate donors to confirm that the question and answer did happen. So, the Mail accordingly reported that the video is real. -Candace is now screaming that the video must be made using AI, exactly as I said she would a month ago. -Candace has publicly accused the Mail of lying about contacting her, so he posted a screengrab of his email to her publicist, which was sent two whole days before the article came out.

@RealCandaceO Unfortunately the last 8 months have shown us exactly who they are. The lies, the narrative control, the selective “evidence,” the shifting stories. THIS IS THE PATTERN. People keep expecting honesty from people who haven’t operated honestly since September 10th.

@RealCandaceO So let me get this straight: Charlie Kirk’s “succession” plans were openly discussed with the board, donors, and friends “all the time”, so often that “everybody knew.” But now the donor who asked about it at Aspen needs protection and the video must stay hidden? Right 🙄

They put this article behind a paywall because its contents are so absurd that even the journalists are too embarrassed to perpetuate it. Here is what it says: "Video of the Aspen donor conference has never been released publicly. But the Daily Mail has been given exclusive access to screen the full video, report on its contents and speak to individuals who were in the room in Aspen that day, as secrecy around the footage has become a major point of contention for critics of Turning Point and its new CEO, Erika Kirk." Yep, you read that right. They did a special screening JUST for Daily Mail writers and they are reporting that the video is like, totally legit! So why won't Turning Point USA just release it? Don't worry, I'll save you time. The first reason is because, well..does it even really matter if the video exists? "Several Turning Point allies feel that too much attention has been focused on the video from Aspen and said it was always clear to them that Charlie had intended for Erika to lead the organization in his absence. One board member, who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed to the Daily Mail he was personally involved with personal, financial and estate planning with the couple after they were married. During those discussions, they made it clear that if anything should happen to Kirk, his wife would be responsible for the organization that he had founded. 'Erika knows more about Charlie's feelings and emotions and where he wanted to bring Turning Point than anybody else out there,' the board member said. 'The board already knew what the plan was because they talked about it with Charlie, everybody knew.' Friends of Charlie Kirk also told the Daily Mail that he frequently spoke of his wife taking over the organization in his absence." And the second reason they won't release it? Because apparently Turning Point no longer remembers how to black out a body in editing. Or mute its voice. They want to protect the person asking the question: "While the public release of the video would prove Owen's suggestions of a fraud to be false, some in the organization believe good-faith efforts would be rejected and the video would be weaponized. On top of those concerns, the donor who asked the 'succession' question does not want her question and identity revealed to the public, sources within the organization told the Daily Mail." Yes, Turning Point USA now wants you to trust the experts! They continue to have ZERO respect for the public.

No one will be tuning in lmao

@RealAmVoice @GrahamAllen @AndrewKolvet @GrahamAllen calling CO a liar while blatantly twisting & lying about what she said is peak hypocrisy. You are no more credible than the person you’re attacking. If I ever stopped believing Candace, I certainly wouldn’t start believing dishonest clowns like you three. 🙄

CONFRONTING CANDANCE OWENS: WH RESPONDS TO ALLEGATIONS Owens claimed that some like Kolvet and Erika Kirk "staged" the WHCD assassination attempt. But she never "provides any type of proof, and I hope the WH does respond." And THEY DID! @GrahamAllen @AndrewKolvet

@JohnMappin And so they should. Their lies and schemes for power and self-interest are being exposed. I hope the panic keeps them awake at night. Hopefully, someone’s conscience will outweigh their fear, and they break … and when they do, I pray all who betrayed Charlie will be exposed.

It has now been confirmed to me personally. They are panicking.

@BlakeSNeff If he couldn’t improve your emotional intelligence while he was alive, I’m quite sure visiting you in a dream would be equally futile.

For what it's worth, Charlie has not appeared to me in any dreams. But I did actually talk to him daily in real life.

@jyapsalot Perfectly said. They think they can just gaslight us into following their ‘newly curated story’ and we’ll follow blindly like sheep. We see what they are doing and we don’t accept it !! We are NOT sheep

Yes I watched the entire debate with my own eyes. After Charlie died and I went down the rabbit hole of his content, it was there. Now it’s not. So they went on a dead man’s account and deleted videos on his behalf, on his page… he’s dead. That’s weird, no?

@RealCandaceO @JustTheTweets17 Best 🙌

Good morning to everyone. ESPECIALLY Blakey Neff!!

@RealCandaceO The Blake Neff calendar made my day. I’m going to laugh about this for days to come 😂

Today on the show: -It becomes increasingly likely that the Charlie audio “I appoint Erika” was A.I. We explain why this may become the single most consequential lie. -Erika becomes a doctor. -Nick Shirley is rightly called into question. youtube.com/live/KpxIBWkNs…

Gary please come to the front of the class.

@candaceoshow I’m going to call him Ted from now on 😂

Candace Owens Exposes Former Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing’s Deranged Attempt to Break Up Her Family "Jeremy Boreing is Ted Bundy doing a Mr. Rogers impression."

@JeremyDBoreing ‘Also, my audience is rightly concerned for my safety if I go to Candace’s studio’ Right !

The video is Prime Candace. Every manipulative rhetorical technique in the books. She makes roughly 236 claims in roughly 30 minutes in what is probably one of the most concise examples of a Gish gallop I have ever seen. A Gish gallop is firing off so many claims in rapid succession your opponent can’t possibly address them all. Even if every claim is wrong, the preponderance of false claims produces the impression of a devastating case. Coupled with Brandolini’s Law, which posits that the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The whole process is meant to make the accused look crazy for even trying. Candace uses rhetorical sleight of hand to accuse me of accusing her husband of lying on his immigration documents. I might respond that I’ve never made any such claim. But Candace has already suggested I’m working with Laura Loomer to launder the accusation against her. I might respond that I haven’t spoken privately to Laura Loomer in years. But Candace has already moved on to say that I’m coordinating with Ben Shapiro to launder ideas to Laura Loomer. So I might respond that I haven’t spoken to Ben Shapiro in over a year, other than a single text exchange when Charlie died. But Candace has already moved on to calling me a creep. Each of my responses, by the way, will be immediately attacked in its own right. Candace’s audience will insist her accusation is true, even though she has offered no proof, and will likewise demand I provide proof of my counter claim. Asymmetric skepticism and burden shifting. I will not be able to prove that I didn’t make a claim, because one cannot prove a negative. Sure, they won’t be able to show any proof that I did make such a claim, but no burden of proof applies to them. Show us your texts! You must have deleted the texts! You had a stupid haircut as a child! The over 200 accusations scale with your answers. Answering one doesn't drop the total to 235 – it scales it up exponentially, because your answer becomes the source of a new onslaught of charges from Candace and her legion. Pretty soon, not only is the sheer number of accusations condemning, but the sheer number of accusers becomes proof that Candace is winning! Vox populi, vox Dei! Trying to defend yourself against such madness is madness. It’s like trying to nail Jello to a wall. You might think there is one claim I simply have to address: That a Daily Wire employee was arrested for sex crimes involving a minor. But while that accusation is terrible, it has nothing to do with me. As the document Candace posted makes clear, this person was arrested in May of 2025. I left the company in March of 2025. Whatever actions the company did or didn’t take when it learned of the situation, I was not a part of it. To be honest, I’m not actually sure what Candace is accusing me of, other than her deeply twisted statement that “people who support Israel will also protect the Epstein class of pedophiles.” Protect how? What exactly am I being accused of? I would ask Candace to state her allegations clearly and specifically. Otherwise, I choose door number three. By the way, if you employ enough people, you will inevitably employ some terrible ones. Hell, I once employed Candace Owens! Employees are people. If you have enough of them, you have all of the different kinds of people there are. Some will even be criminals, and you will have to fire them, which is what I’m guessing the Daily Wire did in this case. Other than that, I have nothing to say to Candace. She invited me to come on her show to talk about George, but I have nothing to say about George at all. She invited me to talk about this person she says committed this terrible crime, but an hour of “Have you stopped beating your wife,” guilt-by-association slander isn’t my idea of a good time. And I may not be the smartest person in media, but I’m just sophisticated enough to know you can’t have a good-faith conversation with someone who uses rhetoric in such dishonest ways. Candace doesn’t want to talk; she wants to overwhelm me with so many allegations and insinuations, so much projection and presupposition and false consensus signaling that her audience builds a negative narrative about me – whatever negative narrative sticks! I see no reason to engage in that kind of spectacle. Also, my audience is rightly concerned for my safety if I go to Candace’s studio.

On the show today: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and the rest of the New Left remove the mask; Vivek Ramaswamy swamps his own New Left contender in the Ohio gubernatorial primary; and a California gubernatorial debate shows just how screwed the state may be. open.spotify.com/episode/50Fx6f…

@JeremyDBoreing @perseusnovum Congratulations Jeremy. How long ago was that ? And yet you’re still so bitter you can’t move on ? Maybe take some advice from @RealCandaceO’s priest and chill. I think it will do you wonders.

@perseusnovum Candace didn't leave Daily Wire. I fired her.

Last week Candace Owens told the world the Daily Wire had laid off over 50% of its workforce — then updated it to “60% absolute bloodbath.” I’m sure it will shock you to learn those figures aren’t anywhere close to the truth. But there’s a much bigger story beyond Candace’s "mistaken" reporting. The story is how lying has become the default operating system for huge swaths of both legacy media and the new online right. The Grift Industrial Complex rewards speed, sensationalism, and telling the audience exactly what it wants to hear over anything resembling journalistic standards, due diligence, or basic honesty. I know this world because I helped build part of it. We broke past the old gatekeepers for good reason. The old gatekeepers broke all of their own standards. But too few in new media even have standards to break. They say bad money drives out good. It turns out bad journalism does too. youtu.be/z59rdbK7VR4?si…

Live view of George on his way to the grocery