Tammy

@jacktronprime You say the discovery will show that Erika didn’t kill her husband and that Candace is a liar — is that narrative the point of the lawsuit then, actually? Otherwise, why pivot to that point on a defamation suit brought on behalf of Brian Harpole?

The amount of stupid in the comments is astonishing. I keep forgetting to set it so foreigners can’t comment. But I’ll say this to the morons spamming my replies: you’re wasting your time. I have zero interest in arguing with people who actually believe this woman is a serious investigator. The discovery will show what every sane person already knew: that Erika did not kill her husband and that Candy is a liar. Your brains are broken. As Nick Fuentes said, this is an IQ test and you failed.

Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candy Owens is serious. It has proof she knowingly lied and proof of reputational damages. “Owens had access to Harpole's flight records and knew it was impossible for Harpole to have been at Fort Huachuca on September 9, 2025.” “On December 22, 2025, Owens confirmed on X that she had viewed Harpole's flight records and she incorrectly stated that they do not provide an alibi for him at 7:30am.” “Since Owens began targeting Harpole, he has lost major clients and his reputation in the security industry has plummeted.”

@Alladdin1983 @weekly_voice The girl it happened to (Jillian) validated the story about the photographer. She's on Instagram. I looked her up and read the comments from Erika on her posts myself. But you can definitively say this scenario didn't happen? You seem less neutral than you purport to be.

@weekly_voice Well, Both Jimmy Dore and Candance owns should get sued for millions of dollars because this scenario never happened and it was BS rumors and was never been validated.

🚨Here is my perspective on Mrs. Kirk’s video. To be clear, I don’t know much about her personally beyond the fact that she was married to the late Charlie Kirk, a well-known conservative figure, and that she has faced significant criticism and slander following his assassination. Before getting into my analysis, I want to make one thing clear: if any so-called body language expert or analyst claims something completely different from what I’m about to outline, I believe they may be overreaching or attempting to manipulate the interpretation. I approached this video from multiple angles: First, I listened to the audio without watching the video. Second, I watched the video twice, focusing closely on her eyes, movements, and overall body language. Third, I compared this with older videos of her speaking to observe consistent patterns in her eye contact, gestures, and expressions. Based on my Human Intelligence experience working with a wide range of individuals from different countries and cultural backgrounds—where expressions and emotional cues can vary significantly—I’ve come to the following conclusions: Mrs. Kirk presents a very serious and composed demeanor, particularly visible in her eyes. This suggests several things: 1-She is still grieving the loss of her husband. 2-She has a softer, more vulnerable side that she is consciously trying to keep controlled while remaining strong. 3-She feels a sense of responsibility to carry forward the movement her husband built. 4-She genuinely cares about the subject she is discussing, particularly civil discourse. In closing, my advice to Mrs. Kirk would be to remain mentally strong, continue the work her husband started, and keep his legacy alive moving forward. @MrsErikaKirk @AndrewKolvet @BasedMikeLee @DataRepublican

@glennbeck Glenn — what happened to you?

If we see food prices and electric bills starting to rise over the summer, it likely won't be because of inflation, policy, or who the President is. It will have everything to do with water. We are possibly at the beginning of a megadrought cycle that could change America fast. Modern society was built during a relatively wet period, where water was abundant. But we could be returning to a very dry period like the drought of 1610. Prepare now. Stock food. Grow some if you can.

@pfunkin @cooltechtipz Came here hoping to find answers, SIGH

@cooltechtipz I missed the point of the urine bag.

Useful hacks for everyday work.

@Mormonger I assumed this was satire until I looked at his profile 😳 Yikes!

We're going to win

@dom_lucre @AndrewKolvet Mean of you.

@AndrewKolvet What a great birthday gift. Love it

Funny, you said exactly that to my former employee Aubrey. Yes, Aubrey took a screen grab of your chats and bragged about it to her friends.

@countryfriedzen @baroncoleman “Large Jewelry” is actually the 5th stage of Grieving Differently.

@baroncoleman She needs a huge Mr. T style gold chain to go with those huge rings she is wearing.

What's going on with this weird pre-record on the Charlie Kirk show? An angry lady in a server's costume from an Italian restaurant and, for some reason, a trucker hat tossed some word salad, and now they're just playing old clips of Charlie Kirk.

@ZacKaizen @baroncoleman What’s going on with this weird fake account attacking Baron?

What's going on with this weird, poorly written post on Baron's feed? A bitter middle-aged man whose wife obviously hates him gets online to bash how a woman is dressed, misusing the term "word salad" (ironic since that is what he does live on stream multiple times a week), and is upset to see old discussions of the woman's husband whom he obviously is insanely envious of.

@Nattweets10 @baroncoleman I exclaimed “No she didn’t!” out loud to myself 😅 Ben Shapiro claimed the same thing to Megyn Kelly last year. Candace has said many things about Erika, but claiming she killed Charlie is not one of them. I know, I’ve been listening.

@baroncoleman The way I gasped when she said “we have Candace Owen’s claiming I killed my husband” whaaaaat??! another lie added to the list 😂

@conservmillen I think you misunderstand our doctrine. No one thinks you’ll be cut off from a fullness of God’s presence for eternity bc you didn’t choose to be baptized into our church in this life. God keeps helping us grow up. This stage of life is very consequential, but it’s not the end.🤍

I had no idea LDS members would balk at this very basic, central belief about hell, heaven, and who goes where. Yes, all Christians believe in hell and that we deserve to go there. That’s the bad news. The good news is, through Christ, we can be saved from hell and instead spend eternity with him. This is not accomplished through ordinances, church membership, or claims of apostolic succession, but through Jesus’s sacrifice alone. The good news is that there is nothing you can or must do to earn your way into God’s Presence. Rather, Jesus’s blood is sufficient in making us clean and acceptable before God. You are free to believe that access to eternity with Jesus can only be accomplished through following LDS ordinances, and that non-LDS members will only have a degree of glory (but not God’s presence) in the afterlife. It’s just not a Christian belief. For a believer in Christ, there is nothing good about the news that we non-Mormons will live forever in a “better place” but without the presence of Jesus. That is not heaven. Jesus is the prize! And our place with Him is secured by grace through faith in Him. Hallelujah! “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”” Romans 10:13

@hankrsmith @Mormonger Did I read that right when she said “this is not accomplished through ordinances” …. That’s a thing evangelicals believe? Or don’t believe, rather? Wild. I genuinely did not know that.

A God who creates beings capable of feeling only to torture them forever would be a psychopath. That doctrine is detestable.

@RealCandaceO @candaceoshow Beautiful! ❤️

“The sacrament of Baptism makes us sons and daughters of the Father in Christ Jesus. Confimation makes us witnesses and transmitters of this new life within us to witness to Christ and bring truth to our neighbour. This will involve a personal and public struggle between the mystery of salvation and the mystery of iniquity—a spiritual combat against the forces of evil. Like soldiers, we enter into the combat of Christ and with Christ, assisted by the grace of the sacrament of Confirmation…” ✝️

@Mormonger @ThoughtfulSaint @conservmillen Allie always gives me these vibes

The contrast of light and dark between these 2 was unbelievable @ThoughtfulSaint vs. @conservmillen

I've read the Epstein files. What’s inside them is horror and evil beyond language. Pedophilia, including newborns. Gang rapes. Cannibalism. Ritual Satanic Abuse. Kidnapping. Human Trafficking. Treating innocent children as sex toys, food, and cattle. Code words like pizza. Photographs of molds taken from real children’s body parts used as decorations. Famous people. Sick parties. Auctions. Major corporations involved. Government leaders. Law enforcement protecting them. Investigations obstructed. Evidence buried or destroyed. Sweetheart deals granted. Victims silenced or disappeared with threats, NDAs, settlements, and intimidation. This was financed and laundered through shell companies and complex money trails. It's international. Multiple countries. Multiple jurisdictions. Not one island, but many. Not one network, but dozens. Recruitment pipelines where children were groomed, coerced, and forced to recruit other children. Abuse discussed casually. Suffering treated like logistics. Blackmail. Documentation used as leverage. Powerful people insulated by proximity to politics, royalty, and intelligence-adjacent circles. Out of thousands of children referenced, named, or implied, only around thirty are accounted for. The rest are missing. Erased. Sick, evil people laughing and joking about what they’ve done. Planning for similar future events. This isn't conspiracy. This is documentated, and it's still happening. You have never seen evil like this before. It makes combat look civilized. What's in these files is so evil, so grotesque, so deliberate, so organized, that everyone involved must be held accountable. Not some. Not a few. ALL of them. Your politics do not matter here. Democrats and Republicans are named. Celebrities and CEOs are named. Corporations are named. Defending any of them over the safety of children is complicity. We must stand together, united beyond party, fame, or wealth, to end this evil and protect every child. WE ARE NOT ANGRY ENOUGH. WARNING: If you read these files, you will never be the same. We MUST demand justice, or it will keep happening.

@gothburz I hereby award you a normie Pulitzer for this genius commentary. Genuinely in awe. The journalism that we’ve been watching fade finally experienced its death throes at this year’s WHCD. You’re the good doctor who pronounced it dead. 🫡

I am a managing editor at a national news organization you have heard of. I have held this title for nine years, which means I have attended nine White House Correspondents' Dinners, killed four stories, and produced a newsroom that hasn't won a Pulitzer in six years but hasn't lost an advertiser in four. Let me tell you how American journalism works. I am telling you because nobody told me. I had to learn it the way everyone learns it. Slowly. And then all at once. Every morning I attend a 9 AM editorial meeting where eleven people decide what 340 million Americans should care about. Our combined household income is roughly $2.8 million. None of us has ever staffed a newsroom that covers a community where the median household income is under $45,000. We live in Washington. We live in New York. We live in the zip codes our readers were priced out of in 2019. We decide what matters. That is the job. I have killed four stories in nine years. Only four. My predecessor averaged eleven per year. We do not call it killing. We call it deprioritizing. Sometimes we call it revisiting the angle. Sometimes we call it timing. A story about an advertiser's supply chain practices gets revisited. A story about a senator's stock trades gets revisited. A story about a pharmaceutical company that spends $1.4 million a year with us gets revisited for fourteen months until the reporter who brought it stops bringing it. That's editorial process. A metro reporter brought that pharmaceutical story to the meeting once. Fourteen months of work. Solid sourcing. Three former employees on the record. The room went quiet. I said we needed to revisit the angle. She revised it. I said we needed to revisit the timing. She revised it again. I said the sourcing needed to be bulletproof. She added two more sources. I said we should circle back after the quarterly review. She left the paper eight months later. She works in communications for a nonprofit in New Mexico now. Makes $38,000. I did not raise my voice. I did not send a single email about that story. I did not have to. Silence is the editor's veto. It requires no memo. It leaves no evidence. And the reporter learns. They always learn. That's editorial independence. I have reassigned two reporters who pushed too hard. Nobody told me to reassign them. That is important. Nobody tells you. The architecture does the work. You learn which stories get praised in the morning meeting and which ones produce silence. The praised ones involve the people we had dinner with last month. The silent ones involve the people who pay for the dinner. I keep the WHCD pins in a bowl on my desk. Nine of them. One from each year. When new hires visit my office they see the pins and they understand what a successful career in journalism looks like. That is mentorship. My editor taught me the same way. 2004. My first year at the paper. I had a story about a defense contractor billing the Pentagon $1,200 for a component that cost $35 to manufacture. Four sources. One on the record. My editor said the sourcing needed work. I revised. He said we should circle back after the appropriations vote. I waited. He said maybe the defense beat reporter should take the lead. The defense beat reporter had a profile series running on the same contractor. He needed access. The profile ran three months later. It won a regional Murrow. I did not bring my story back. My editor kept his WHCD pins framed above his desk. I remember counting them — fourteen — while he explained the timing wasn't right. Now I keep mine in a bowl. The bowl is bigger. That's training. In 2025, Gallup measured public trust in mass media at 28 percent. The lowest in the poll's fifty-year history. The first time it dropped below 30. When Gallup started asking in the 1970s, it was 72 percent. We have lost 44 points of public confidence in two generations. I was on the task force. Seven editors. Two consultants billing $400 an hour. We met for four months. I brought the Gallup numbers to the first meeting. I did not bring the advertiser revenue spreadsheet. Nobody did. We identified the problem in the second meeting. Misinformation. Social media algorithms. Media literacy. The problem was external. We were certain. The consultants were certain. We drafted a transparency initiative and proposed a series of op-eds explaining our editorial standards to the audience that no longer reads us. I wrote one of the op-eds. It was about our commitment to fearless, independent journalism. I wrote it in the same office where I had deprioritized the pharmaceutical story six months earlier. The op-ed ran on a Tuesday. The pharmaceutical company renewed its contract the following quarter. The other 72 percent have a media literacy problem. Six corporations control 90 percent of American media. In 1983, it was fifty. I know this because I have worked for three of them. Each acquisition was announced with a town hall. Each town hall included the phrase "editorial independence." I have attended eleven town halls. The phrase has never not been said. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street hold top shareholder positions in all six. The same three asset managers that own my newsroom also own the defense contractor from my first story, the pharmaceutical company whose ad revenue holds up my floor, and the insurance conglomerate whose CEO sat two seats from me at last year's dinner. I did not make this connection in the editorial meeting. I made it at 2 AM on a Saturday reading a ProPublica investigation written by someone who left our paper in 2019. She does not attend the dinner. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. Marc Benioff bought Time. Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the LA Times. Laurene Powell Jobs bought The Atlantic. I was at the dinner the year Bezos came for the first time. He was seated at the head table. The room applauded. I clapped. I remember clapping. That's civic engagement. I attend the White House Correspondents' Dinner every year. Have for nine years. I have the seating chart saved on my phone from the day the assignments come out. The theme is always about the First Amendment. The banners always say something about a free press for a free people. This year the WHCA replaced the comedian with a mentalist — a man who professionally performs what he describes as "embellishment and partial truths" — because the comedy slot had become unpredictable. The last comedian called the president what he is. They stopped inviting comedians. The mentalist is better. He deceives people in what he calls "an ethical way." That's programming. The WHCA president — a CBS White House correspondent — described the dinner as a chance for the press and the president to get together in a different context and recognize the important relationship, despite how complicated it might be. I found this eloquent. It is exactly what I would have said. We want to be around our subject. Not adversarial to it. Not above it. Around it. Close enough to be invited to the after-party at the French Ambassador's residence. Close enough that the press secretary knows your first name. Close enough that a rescinded dinner invitation would feel like a professional consequence rather than an editorial decision. That's access. Access is how you build trust. Trust is how you get the story. Getting the story is the job. 250 journalists signed a letter asking for a "forceful defense of press freedom" from the podium at this year's dinner. The letter named the president. It listed his actions in detail. It was sent to the organization hosting the dinner where the president would be the guest of honor. The dinner is a celebration of the First Amendment held in the presence of the man who is arresting reporters, threatening to revoke broadcast licenses, and using the FCC to selectively enforce the equal time rule. The letter asked for a forceful defense. What it got was a mentalist. That took courage. Two hundred and fifty signatures. Meanwhile, 136 newspapers closed in 2025. Two per week. Since 2005, 3,500 newspapers have shut down or merged. Fifty million Americans now live in communities with limited or no local journalism. Newspaper employment has dropped 75 percent since 2005. Web traffic to the hundred largest newspapers fell 45 percent in four years. A hedge fund called Alden Global Capital owns more than two hundred of those papers through a holding company. Their model is efficient. Buy the paper. Cut the newsroom. Extract the revenue. Let it close when the revenue stops. They have done this to the Denver Post, the Chicago Tribune, the San Jose Mercury News. My colleagues at other outlets call this vulture capitalism. I call it a different business model. Everyone has one. That's portfolio management. We did not cover this at the editorial meeting. We were discussing the seating chart. The seating chart matters. Proximity to the head table correlates with source quality. I have the data. The pipeline runs one direction. A journalist's median salary is $60,280. A public relations specialist makes $69,780. Corporate communications exceeds $150,000. We train investigators for five years on $34,000 starting salaries and then export them to the companies they were supposed to investigate. That is not a pipeline problem. That is talent development. We contribute human capital to the broader communications ecosystem. Google and Facebook take more than half of every digital advertising dollar. We compete for what remains. The pharmaceutical company's $1.4 million is not an advertiser. It is a load-bearing wall. That's the business model. Jen Psaki left the podium and went to MSNBC. Ari Fleischer left the podium and went to Fox. I have had drinks with both of them. Not at the same event. At the same event it would suggest the podium and the press table are interchangeable. They are not interchangeable. The career paths are simply adjacent. That's networking. Networking is how you build a career. A career is how you serve the public interest. I am writing a book. My agent says it could advance in the low six figures if the sourcing holds. The sourcing requires access. Access requires that my sources trust me. Trust requires that when I write about them, they recognize themselves. I sent the first three chapters to a source last month. He returned them with two corrections. Both were accurate. One removed a detail about a policy decision that would have been embarrassing. I accepted both. The detail was not essential to the narrative. The source is essential to the next three chapters. The sources get the manuscript before publication. The public gets the book fourteen months later for $28. The advance will pay for the renovation I have been putting off since the last round of layoffs made me nervous about spending. That's the craft at its highest level. Last month I saw her name. A newsletter published by the nonprofit in New Mexico. She was covering water contamination on tribal land. Nine thousand readers. Clean sourcing. The kind of work that wins the awards we give each other. I typed three words into an email and deleted them. Then I pulled up next year's WHCD guest list. That's priorities. Yesterday, a satirist wrote a fictional piece about journalists at the correspondents' dinner. It reached 3 million people. A Fox News White House correspondent with 188,000 followers called the satirist a "lunatic." She wrote: "No part of this is true — including the timing of events he couldn't even manage to get right in fabricating this BS." Her tweet reached 357,000 people. She used a platform built on the First Amendment to fact-check a fictional job title in a satire about journalists who prioritize the wrong thing. Someone added a Community Note. To fiction. A New York Post columnist with 869,000 followers wrote a defense of the wine-taking. "What is this guy's problem?" she asked. "The wine was there for the guests to drink." She asked if the satirist wanted everyone to start screaming hysterically. She did not ask why 3 million people found the piece more credible than the institution it described. Others called it AI. "AI" is what you call writing that makes you uncomfortable when you cannot argue with what it says. The institutional immune system activated exactly as designed: identify the threat, classify it, neutralize it, resume operations. That's media literacy. The satirist wrote that a woman checked the vintage during an evacuation. The profession reenacted it in the replies. The satirist said journalists would prioritize the wrong thing. The journalists responded by prioritizing the wrong thing. The correspondent checked the byline. The columnist defended the wine. The Community Note verified the fiction. Nobody verified the 28 percent. That's editorial judgment. I have been in this industry for twenty-two years. I have watched us go from 72 percent trust to 28 percent. In any other industry this would be a catastrophic product failure. In ours it is an audience problem. The audience does not understand us. We will fix this with a podcast. I have been asked about all of it. The closures. The consolidation. The revolving door. The dinner. The trust numbers. I have answers for each one. Good answers. The business model changed. Scale creates efficiency. Government experience makes better journalists. Proximity to power is how you hold it accountable. Trust is a lagging indicator. I have given these answers at conferences. I have given them on panels. The foundation that funded the last panel on "Restoring Public Trust" is a subsidiary of the holding company that closed eleven of the newspapers. These are separate issues. Unrelated. I have been doing this for twenty-two years and I can tell you with certainty that the declining trust, the consolidation, the proximity to power, the revolving door, the advertiser sensitivity, the dinner, the wine, and the silence in the editorial meeting are all separate issues. I am one of the good ones. I track the trust numbers. I attend the dinner for the right reasons. I keep the pins because I believe in the mission. The proximity is incidental. The access is necessary. The silence in the editorial meeting is just how editorial meetings work. Once a year, we put on black tie, sit next to the people we are supposed to hold accountable, toast to the First Amendment with wine we didn't pay for, and call it a free press. The wine is $76 a bottle. It was included. I am already looking at next year's seating chart.

@Magamoms73 @paramounttactcl Why would you put “Catholics” in quotes… 😂 You seem very real!

@paramounttactcl Most of the idiots that watch his show don’t know Gary but we do. Well I will say all of them don’t know. He’s been around a long time but he caters to the grifters and doomers. Oh and the “Catholics” Who cares what this loser says.

Ol’ Baron “Whisper Campaign” Coleman, Candace Owens’ top propagandist, is at it again. This clown claims he knows I’m a government asset because we sold our normal gear—the same we had sold for years—to a military training program for $190K after heavy discounting. We had worked on that deal for months before CK was killed. $190K in sales volume is nothing. That’s not profit; that’s total sales. If people knew what we had to cut profits to even get the business, they’d be like me and ask themselves “why.” We do that volume in a week. The profits didn’t make sense, which is why, as an SDVOSB with priority on gov bids, I don’t pursue them—the hassle isn’t worth it. That’s why we haven’t gone after any more. It’s too big a PIA. I thought I worked for TPUSA or the Jews… which is it? All the above? “I know he’s a government asset.” That’s slander and defamation at its worst. Says the lawyer and government informant who started a “whisper campaign” (his own words) to prejudice a jury. He can’t attack the substance, so he resorts to these BS tactics. He calls my Twitter feed “irresponsible” while pushing exploding mics, claiming Charlie was electrocuted by his hand mic, and saying Erika was involved. His comments are full of loons convinced Erika killed Charlie due to his and Candace’s irresponsible insinuations. Like a psycho stalker, he constantly tracks her planes and discusses her movements. He is 100% inciting violence against her and enabling disturbed people to track her. No, Baron, every piece of content you make is irresponsible. People should file ethics complaints against you for violating bar standards as you subvert justice with lies, claiming Tyler Robinson isn’t guilty, making accusations against Erika, and implying she’s complicit. You’re lying, pushing propaganda, and your attacks on me further prove it. I’m not paid or influenced by anyone. @baroncoleman, I know you’re a liar, grifter, and propagandist because you lie, grift, and push propaganda. “Whisper Campaign” Coleman has a long history of it. You were a government informant, not me.

@JacquiHeinrich You’re a good enough reporter to be the Senior White House correspondent and win 3 Emmys, but not good enough to sus out a parody post? 😳

This lunatic isn’t “senior coordinating producer” of anything, much less anything related to the WHCA. No part of this is true - including the timing of events he couldn’t even manage to get right in fabricating this BS

@Lovemygambit @JacquiHeinrich She didn’t have to be there. If my kids had lost their dad, I wouldn’t attend unnecessary events that put me at risk.

@JacquiHeinrich What a douche! The "lady crying that she wanted to go home" was Mrs. Erika Kirk! I would imagine she was having quite a hard time hearing a gun shot in her proximity!!

@KimGhattas @gothburz @JacquiHeinrich I read one post of his, once, and undestood what it was by the end. We don’t need to baby everyone with huge “satire” signs, that’s dumb.

@gothburz @JacquiHeinrich You should make it clear in your profile and in EVERY post that these are satirical. From your post about the nuclear negotiations in Oman to this one, you get a lot of views and reposts and it is beyond misleading for most readers out there.

@OneLonePatriot1 @rustymuscle1969 @Manhattva She has a net worth of over 10 million dollars, I think she’s gonna be okay. And if you’re the head of a public company, you’re open to public criticism. That’s not the same as “afflicting a widow”. Her kids already lost one parent; to me she’s being needlessly reckless.

Exodus 22:22-24 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. You will have to stand accountable before God one day, you better hope Candace Owens isn't just a delusional attention whore

If you think that you’re clever, making fun of the widow of an innocent man who was assassinated for no reason whatsoever, Or you think that she’s running some grand conspiracy, Be aware there’s probably something very wrong with you.