🔴 http://noblegoldinvestments.com/nation
Protect Your Retirement With A Gold IRA
Noble Gold is Who I Trust ^^^
Call Now 877-646-5347 TELL THEM LIONEL SENT YOU
TPUSA and Blake Neff appear to be retreating into one of the weakest narratives imaginable: that “the radical left” killed Charlie Kirk and that Candace Owens, merely by questioning the official story, has somehow become an accessory after the fact. That is not an argument. It is a slogan desperately searching for evidence.
If there is proof that a specific person, organization or political faction planned, financed, encouraged or participated in Charlie’s murder, produce it. Name names. Show the communications. Establish the chain of events. Connect the evidence. But simply invoking “the radical left” as some giant amorphous villain does absolutely nothing to answer the factual questions surrounding the case. Politics is not ballistics. Ideology is not forensic evidence.
The attack on Candace is even more ridiculous. Asking questions about a homicide investigation does not make a journalist, commentator or citizen an accessory to murder. If that accusation is meant literally, it requires evidence of actual assistance to an offender, not skepticism, criticism or uncomfortable questions. Investigating inconsistencies is not obstruction. It is scrutiny.
What makes this strategy particularly self defeating is that it increasingly looks like an attempt to substitute outrage for answers. Every insult aimed at Candace merely highlights the questions TPUSA apparently would rather not confront.
And now comes the looming debate with Andy “Pickles,” the self proclaimed master debater. If his strategy is sneering, name calling and recycling the same unsupported accusations, he may be walking directly into a rhetorical buzz saw. Candace is unlikely to let slogans substitute for proof.
The issue is remarkably simple. Present the evidence. Answer the questions. Stop pretending accusation equals proof. Charlie Kirk’
