TMac 🇺🇸

Panda Express kicked out @DannyRebel333 and Myself out for Simply for wearing a MAGA hat, and giving a thumbs up to a cook that just stood and Stared at me the whole time because of my Hat. I asked if there was an issue and the cook said “You’re Hat” so I asked if he supported it. They proceeded to call the police, and falsely say we were refusing to leave. I left the store and stood on the side walk and multiple employees came out to intimidate me to leave and stop filming on the public sidewalk. The Police informed the staff that we did nothing wrong, the woman who called 911 cried and walked back into the building. No crime, No disturbance, Just a hat and a Thumbs up. This is blatant political discrimination. Panda Express should be ashamed and hold its employees to higher standards.

You’re pretending “implication” doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. She repeatedly implied that Gary/@paramounttactcl was part of a behind-the-scenes TPUSA/Erika Kirk/Andrew Colvette operation. The implications were clear: Candace implied Gary was taking direction from TPUSA. Candace implied Paramount Tactical was being used as a PR weapon against her. Candace implied Gary was involved in a coordinated pressure campaign to stop or control her interview with Mitch Snow. Candace implied Gary was connected to threats or intimidation behind the scenes. A normal person hearing that would not walk away thinking, “Oh, she just means he had an opinion.” They would reasonably believe Gary was secretly working with TPUSA or Erika Kirk to target Candace. That is exactly how defamation by implication works. You do not have to say the exact words “Gary is paid by TPUSA” for the meaning to be defamatory. If you arrange facts, insinuations, and accusations in a way that causes the audience to believe something false and damaging, that can still be defamatory. So no, I didn’t lie about the implications. I understood them exactly the way Candace intended her audience to understand them.