
wallscometumblin’
2.7K posts

wallscometumblin’
@wallstumblin
Karma is beautiful





I can’t be the only one looking forward to Turning Point USA execs and resident goofus @blakeneff’s response to this. Think they’ll call a Seal Team 6 sniper a lying sociopath? Get their influencers to smear a Brigadier General? Ask Brian Harpole to sue them or run their usual Pastor bit and call these men “demonic”? What’s your move here, @AndrewKolvet? Got another report on “Digital Assassin culture” cooking?



For ten months the TPUSA/Erika Kirk camp has responded to @RealCandaceO not by addressing her specific claims point by point, but by criticizing her personally. They call her evil, demonic, a grifter and much much worse. And they criticize you as being a blind sycophant and lickspittle of this evil spirit. Yet the substance of their public response remains remarkably consistent, viz. an unqualified blind acceptance of the official narrative. A preposterous narrative that has nothing to do with reality. Or the evidence at hand. Rather than presenting a detailed counter-analysis, they dismiss her conclusions without offering a comprehensive alternative examination of the evidence. The debate has become less about competing factual narratives and more about attacking the messenger instead of systematically answering the message. They have no Candace. How could they?

Worth the watch she brings up some good points





Welcome to the Riot, @JJWatt and fam 🤩






Did TPUSA, Mikey McCoy and Charlie Kirk's security guarantee his death by IGNORING multiple EMTs shown in this video?










Andrew Let me offer advice. Experienced investigators pay close attention not only to what a person says, but to what they avoid, what provokes disproportionate anger, and where they repeatedly try to redirect attention. When someone confronted with factual questions responds by attacking the questioner’s character, motives, sanity and reputation, that behavior does not make the questions disappear. It makes investigators more interested in why those questions produce such an extreme reaction. Your response is not the language of a man calmly confident that the evidence supports him. It is the language of someone desperate to control the frame: Charlie’s death must be discussed only on your terms, Tyler Robinson must be accepted as the killer, alternative explanations must be ridiculed rather than examined, and anyone who refuses to comply must be publicly destroyed. That is not a rebuttal. It is containment. Candace has been conducting what every genuine investigation requires: collecting testimony, crowdsourcing information, following leads, testing theories and discarding those that fail. Some leads will inevitably reach dead ends. That is not proof of dishonesty; it is the nature of investigation. What matters is whether substantial questions remain unanswered—and they do. Yet instead of answering those questions with evidence, you substitute moral outrage, mockery and character assassination. You invoke Charlie, Erika and the children as emotional shields, as though grief grants you exclusive authority over the facts or makes scrutiny immoral. It does not. You claim Candace lacks proof while demanding that everyone accept Tyler Robinson’s guilt despite evidence that remains weak, contested and inconclusive. You therefore apply one standard to Candace and another to the official narrative: absolute proof is required before she may ask questions, but certainty is demanded from the public before the case itself has established it. That contradiction is becoming impossible to miss. So here is the advice an experienced interrogator might give you: stop attacking the person asking the questions and start answering the questions themselves. Stop repeating certainty where certainty has not been earned. Stop behaving as though investigation is a threat. Because every time you respond to evidence with sarcasm or moral outrage, to questions with insults, and to uncertainty with enforced certainty, you do not make Candace look less credible. You make yourself look more concerned about where the investigation may lead. @RealCandaceO @baroncoleman @JohnMappin @ImMappin @joekent16jan19 @TRobinsonNewEra @LionelMedia @IanCarrollShow @AwakenWithJP @jimmy_dore @OwenBenjamin @leahfiles @realstewpeters @EstulinVz @RealAlexJones @HarrisonHSmith @BlakeSNeff @TPUSA @DonaldJTrumpJr #TylerRobinson #CharlieKirk #TPUSA #Israel


See, your big problem is that this entire thing is not about you, Candace. It’s about Charlie. It’s about Erika. It’s about his kids and his legacy. But time and time again you’ve hijacked Charlie’s story by smearing and slandering his wife, his org, and his friends (and countless other people). Now you’re even crashing out with the “I’m not suicidal” nonsense. It’s not about YOU, Candace. And yes, I have questions. I’ve always had them. I’ve voiced them publicly before. But unlike you, I choose not to recklessly smear innocent people, orgs, companies, and entire countries without actual PROOF of wrongdoing. You, by contrast, target innocent people, ruin their lives for sport, inspire a wave of harassment and death threats against them, before predictably moving on to your next harebrained “theory” when that one collapses. You literally manufacture content for your next show. It’s truly one of the most vile, disgusting displays in the history of the internet. Record breaking levels of idiocy and wickedness combined in one person. You’ve attempted to appropriate everyone else’s grief and honest searching and replaced it with Egyptian planes and exploding mics. What an awful trade for the country and the world. You’re a record breaking narcissist, Candace. But your credibility is also collapsing at record breaking speed. Enjoy the crash out.










