Bigpapapaco

about 8 hours ago

Who's John Galt? Idk but this right here is everything I would say if I were more eloquent but I'm not so I'll just say thank you John Galt for putting into words what we all feel! Those of us who may not "know know but we know" , anyway 👏👏👏

John Galt

@dadiani_george

2 days ago

I just love Candace Owens. It’s not just that she’s funny, sassy, fearless and relentless, though she’s all of that. It’s not even dry, flat “nope, I’m not having it” tone she does, the one that tells you she’s just not buying whatever BS they’re selling. It’s what’s underneath all that. She’s real; authentic, genuine, sincere, fallible maybe, like the rest of us, and fearless, and under attack from every side, she stays committed to the truth as she sees it, and there ain’t no budging her on that. That’s not nothing. Most people fold long before it gets that uncomfortable. You can disagree with her on plenty. I’m sure I have at some point. But you always know where you stand with her, and in the media cesspool full of people saying whatever keeps them out their jobs safe, that really is something. And what she’s saying here is so right. Why do the Kash Patel and Bow Mason, who are standing right there (the ones whose job it is to speak up in that moment) not say a word? If they were real people doing the real jobs they were supposedly the best qualified for, at least one of them, at some point, would have stepped forward, trapped Cox on the shoulder and said “actually, that’s not quite right, Governor. I should clarify.” But they don’t. These people never do. Nobody ever does. Because so much of public life is just a performance. Officials are just actors occupying a role, going through the motions of the job rather than actually doing it. You see it everywhere, not just in the Tyler Robinson case. The appearance of the job being done matters more than the job itself. There is no job. It’s theatre! It’s the same with all of our politicians with any influence: Trump, Vance, Von Der Leyen, Starmer - maybe even Netanyahu. Scripts get written, and people - who for one reason or another cannot stand up and be counted - are there deliver them, rather than actually saying what’s true in the moment or doing their job, which they’re not qualified to do anyway, which is exactly why they were given the job in the first place. Just look at Kash Patel - the gormless fucking wonder (pardon my french). He couldn’t solve a crossword puzzle. You really think he’s qualified to be director of the FBI for any other reason other than his compliance is guaranteed? That’s exactly why’s Charlie Kirk had to go: because when he finally realised that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark he did his job: he spoke out and they knew they would not silence him whilst he was breathing. And that’s why someone like Candace stands out. She says the thing everyone else is too frightened to say. She deviates from the script, and she is risking her own life for what she believes - make no mistake about that. I love this girl, as I love Tucker Carlson and half a dozen others who have positions to protect, platforms they stand to lose, but deviate from the script anyway. I trust these people more than I trust any public official. @RealCandaceO @TuckerCarlson

143

377

52K

about 19 hours ago

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

1 day ago

Explosive show today: -We reveal two more never-before-seen photos of Charlie’s SUV. -Erika Kirk goes mask-down and calls me a soulless ghoul and b*tch. -Turning Point begins signaling that they want a Sandy Hook lawsuit to put an end to people asking questions about Charlie Kirk’s assasination. It may be time to revisit what Charlie Kirk thought about that mentality—in his own words. Join us LIVE! https://t.co/ULOrbjkw8g

279

404K

about 20 hours ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen I'm leaning towards the paid shill so you're welcome for the engagement & if you want to continue with me I must demand a cut of your profit 😝

about 20 hours ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen 🤣 Just as I'm sure that when he conveniently gets "Epstein'd" while in custody you will tout that as proof of his guilty conscience. I'm also pretty sure that you are either a paid troll or that you still wear a mask, social distance & are 1st in line for that mrna booster

1 day ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen Don't you mean "mountain of overwhelming evidence "? 🤣🤡

2 days ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen I wouldn't consider it evidence but since you are so willing to stake your opinion on hearsay, yes. Multiple sources, trusted by me, have spoken to his family members and they believe he was set up & did not pull the trigger. Wouldn't make sense if he confessed to family.

2 days ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen 🤔🤔🤔 soooo hearsay? I ask again, doesn't it seem odd to even have a trial if he's already admitted guilt & as you seem to believe will be pleading guilty? I'm not atty but I have stayed at many Holiday Inn Express & pretty sure they could have skipped the pretrial hearing if so

2 days ago

@Sleepy___P @jay_dee_4_real @DiligentDenizen It doesn't strike you as odd that never at any point during the pretrial did the prosecution mention that he has already confessed 3×? Seems like they could have saved much time & energy by presenting his confessions and the witnesses he confessed to! 🤔🤔🤔

3 days ago

Wow 👀

theleahfiles

@leahfiles

3 days ago

Part 3 of TPUSA's fraud playbook: Stacy Sheridan. And spoiler alert, she ranks higher than Bowyer or Kolvet. Stacy Sheridan is TPUSA's inside fundraising boss AND she owns the outside firm the charity pays to raise its money. She sits on both sides of the same check. More than $88 million in donations has run through her hands, and her private companies quietly kept ~$5+ million of it. She is the highest-scoring name in this series so far. Who is Sheridan? Stacy Sheridan spent two decades as a professional fundraiser at Pepperdine, the Reagan Foundation, and the Gary Sinise Foundation. Turning Point then hired her as its Senior Advancement Director on a salary north of $180,000. Her job was to raise the charity's money. So she did, into companies she owns. Three of them, GSM Strategy, then Lionrock Ventures, then Cloverstone Ventures. Each one billed the charity she already worked for. Each one traced back to her only through another state's corporate records and her own home address, never as the owner of those companies on the tax return itself. As each drew scrutiny, it went dark and the next one appeared. She turned a nonprofit's donor base into a private revenue stream, made herself almost invisible on paper, and made herself indispensable in person. Today she sits at the right hand of TPUSA's new CEO, Erika Kirk, closer to the money than she has ever been. What she is doing: the four signatures of an inside job This looks like an insider-controlled fundraiser, a specific and well-documented form of self-dealing. It has four signatures, and Sheridan hits all four. 1. Same hand on both sides: the employee who helps decide who gets hired to raise the money owns the firm that gets hired to raise it. She is the buyer and the seller of the same service, sitting on both sides of a table with no one across from her. 2. Custody and control: she does not just get paid, she holds the donations. The money lands in her company's account first, and she is the one who counts it and reports the number to the IRS and to the people who gave it. The insider who profits is also the one keeping the books. 3. The relay: not one company. Three, in a chain. Each terminated or gone dark the moment it drew a reporter, each reborn in a more sheltered state than the last. The entities keep changing names but the owner never changes. 4. Concealment: the return never says she owns the firm it pays. You only learn that in another state's records. In Minnesota, Cloverstone, whose sole officer is Sheridan, registered under oath as an independent outside professional fundraiser. Based on the record, it is not. Individually, each can have an explanation. But if I have taught you one thing, it's that stacked is where the real picture is and stacked, they are the textbook architecture of running a charity for the private benefit of an insider. Let's look deeper into Sheridan's red flags: 1) Stacy Sheridan is a salaried TPUSA employee, its Senior Advancement Director. She also owns Cloverstone Ventures, the charity's number-one outside fundraiser. Confirmed in state corporate records. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the cleanest way to take from a charity is to never take from it, just sell to it. You do not touch the donation. You own the company the charity hires to collect it, and you set the price. Buyer and seller are the same hand, and every "fee" is a check she writes to herself. 2) Cloverstone is a custody fundraiser. In FY2025 it held custody of $19.3 million in donations, forwarded $18.8 million to the charity, and kept $482,568. Sheridan is also listed personally as a custody fundraiser, another $3.1 million through her own name. Over five years her firm has had custody of more than $88 million in donor money. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: custody is the whole game. A normal vendor sends an invoice. A custody fundraiser holds the account the money lands in before the cause ever sees it. She is not a vendor, she is a tollbooth on her own employer's donations, counting the cash and reporting the one number nobody else can see. 3) She is paid as a fundraiser three ways off the same donors: through Cloverstone, under her own name, and as a salaried employee. Across the years her private companies have kept roughly $5 million in fees (Lionrock ~ $1.4 million, Cloverstone ~ $3.5 million, GSM ~ $200,000), on top of a six-figure salary. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you never take one big number that trips an audit. You take modest cuts off many angles of the same transaction you also control. Salary for being staff, company fees for being the vendor, personal billing for the third straw in the same cup. Sliced up, each looks fine. Stacked, it is a faucet she controls. 4) It is a relay of shell companies. GSM Strategy, then Lionrock, then Cloverstone. California's records show Lionrock is now terminated, and Cloverstone never registered in California at all. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you retire the entity the second it gets named in a story and reopen another one in a more sheltered state. Each new shell resets the trail to zero and strips one more public record. The money never stops. Only the name on it changes. The constant across all three is her. 5) On the tax return, Cloverstone reads as an ordinary top contractor. The return never says its owner is the charity's own development director. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the trick is to make the insider read as an outsider. Book the payment to what looks like a third-party firm on the federal form, and keep the one document that exposes it, the ownership record, in a different agency in a different state. Two systems that never touch, so the conflict never surfaces in one place. 6) To raise from Minnesotans, Cloverstone had to register with the Minnesota Attorney General as a professional fundraiser, post a $20,000 bond because it takes custody of donations, and file reports certified UNDER OATH by both the fundraiser and the charity. Registration #02304, now lapsed. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: pick the lie. Either the "independent fundraiser" she swore to the State of Minnesota is really the charity's own development director, or the federal return that treats it as arm's-length is the false one. Both cannot be true. She is on both. How a charity actually loses over this A 501(c)(3) has one iron rule: it must be run for the public, not the private profit of its own insiders. When an insider makes money off the charity through a company she owns, an examiner runs three questions. Was it disclosed on Schedule L, the section built for exactly these insider deals? Was it approved by an independent board with the conflicted person out of the room? Was the price fair, or did the firm charge more than a normal outsider would? Here is what it can cost them. First, the scalpel: excess-benefit taxes under IRC Section 4958, a 25% excise tax on Sheridan personally, rising to 200% if she does not pay it back, plus a tax on the board members who signed off. Then the real penalty: a 501(c)(3) is flatly barred from letting its earnings benefit an insider, which is private inurement, an absolute prohibition. If the IRS concludes the charity is run for the private enrichment of the people who control it, it can revoke the exemption outright. Donations stop being deductible. The custody detail is what turns a conflict of interest into an inurement case: the insider who profits is also the one holding and counting the money. Some CYA: A conflict of interest is not automatically a crime. An insider-owned fundraiser can be legal IF it was disclosed on Schedule L, approved by an independent board with the conflicted person recused, and priced at a true market rate. That was not on the 990s I saw, but that is exactly what a review would test. No government agency has publicly questioned, investigated, or charged Stacy Sheridan; the questions here are mine, drawn from public filings. And most of the money she had custody of did reach the charity; the issue is the structure and the fees, not a claim that she pocketed the $88 million. I am not saying she stole anything. I am saying this is the exact setup regulators are trained to look for, and donors deserve to know their money passes through an employee's private company before it reaches the cause.

leahfiles's tweet photo. Part 3 of TPUSA's fraud playbook: Stacy Sheridan. And spoiler alert, she ranks higher than Bowyer or Kolvet.

Stacy Sheridan is TPUSA's inside fundraising boss AND she owns the outside firm the charity pays to raise its money. She sits on both sides of the same check. More than $88 million in donations has run through her hands, and her private companies quietly kept ~$5+ million of it. She is the highest-scoring name in this series so far.

Who is Sheridan?
Stacy Sheridan spent two decades as a professional fundraiser at Pepperdine, the Reagan Foundation, and the Gary Sinise Foundation. Turning Point then hired her as its Senior Advancement Director on a salary north of $180,000. Her job was to raise the charity's money. So she did, into companies she owns.

Three of them, GSM Strategy, then Lionrock Ventures, then Cloverstone Ventures. Each one billed the charity she already worked for. Each one traced back to her only through another state's corporate records and her own home address, never as the owner of those companies on the tax return itself. As each drew scrutiny, it went dark and the next one appeared. She turned a nonprofit's donor base into a private revenue stream, made herself almost invisible on paper, and made herself indispensable in person.

Today she sits at the right hand of TPUSA's new CEO, Erika Kirk, closer to the money than she has ever been.

What she is doing: the four signatures of an inside job
This looks like an insider-controlled fundraiser, a specific and well-documented form of self-dealing. It has four signatures, and Sheridan hits all four.
1. Same hand on both sides: the employee who helps decide who gets hired to raise the money owns the firm that gets hired to raise it. She is the buyer and the seller of the same service, sitting on both sides of a table with no one across from her.
2. Custody and control: she does not just get paid, she holds the donations. The money lands in her company's account first, and she is the one who counts it and reports the number to the IRS and to the people who gave it. The insider who profits is also the one keeping the books.
3. The relay: not one company. Three, in a chain. Each terminated or gone dark the moment it drew a reporter, each reborn in a more sheltered state than the last. The entities keep changing names but the owner never changes.
4. Concealment: the return never says she owns the firm it pays. You only learn that in another state's records. In Minnesota, Cloverstone, whose sole officer is Sheridan, registered under oath as an independent outside professional fundraiser. Based on the record, it is not.

Individually, each can have an explanation. But if I have taught you one thing, it's that stacked is where the real picture is and stacked, they are the textbook architecture of running a charity for the private benefit of an insider.

Let's look deeper into Sheridan's red flags:

1) Stacy Sheridan is a salaried TPUSA employee, its Senior Advancement Director. She also owns Cloverstone Ventures, the charity's number-one outside fundraiser. Confirmed in state corporate records.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the cleanest way to take from a charity is to never take from it, just sell to it. You do not touch the donation. You own the company the charity hires to collect it, and you set the price. Buyer and seller are the same hand, and every "fee" is a check she writes to herself.

2) Cloverstone is a custody fundraiser. In FY2025 it held custody of $19.3 million in donations, forwarded $18.8 million to the charity, and kept $482,568. Sheridan is also listed personally as a custody fundraiser, another $3.1 million through her own name. Over five years her firm has had custody of more than $88 million in donor money.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: custody is the whole game. A normal vendor sends an invoice. A custody fundraiser holds the account the money lands in before the cause ever sees it. She is not a vendor, she is a tollbooth on her own employer's donations, counting the cash and reporting the one number nobody else can see.

3) She is paid as a fundraiser three ways off the same donors: through Cloverstone, under her own name, and as a salaried employee. Across the years her private companies have kept roughly $5 million in fees (Lionrock ~ $1.4 million, Cloverstone ~ $3.5 million, GSM ~ $200,000), on top of a six-figure salary.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you never take one big number that trips an audit. You take modest cuts off many angles of the same transaction you also control. Salary for being staff, company fees for being the vendor, personal billing for the third straw in the same cup. Sliced up, each looks fine. Stacked, it is a faucet she controls.

4) It is a relay of shell companies. GSM Strategy, then Lionrock, then Cloverstone. California's records show Lionrock is now terminated, and Cloverstone never registered in California at all.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you retire the entity the second it gets named in a story and reopen another one in a more sheltered state. Each new shell resets the trail to zero and strips one more public record. The money never stops. Only the name on it changes. The constant across all three is her.

5) On the tax return, Cloverstone reads as an ordinary top contractor. The return never says its owner is the charity's own development director.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the trick is to make the insider read as an outsider. Book the payment to what looks like a third-party firm on the federal form, and keep the one document that exposes it, the ownership record, in a different agency in a different state. Two systems that never touch, so the conflict never surfaces in one place.

6) To raise from Minnesotans, Cloverstone had to register with the Minnesota Attorney General as a professional fundraiser, post a $20,000 bond because it takes custody of donations, and file reports certified UNDER OATH by both the fundraiser and the charity. Registration #02304, now lapsed.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: pick the lie. Either the "independent fundraiser" she swore to the State of Minnesota is really the charity's own development director, or the federal return that treats it as arm's-length is the false one. Both cannot be true. She is on both.

How a charity actually loses over this
A 501(c)(3) has one iron rule: it must be run for the public, not the private profit of its own insiders. When an insider makes money off the charity through a company she owns, an examiner runs three questions. Was it disclosed on Schedule L, the section built for exactly these insider deals? Was it approved by an independent board with the conflicted person out of the room? Was the price fair, or did the firm charge more than a normal outsider would?

Here is what it can cost them. First, the scalpel: excess-benefit taxes under IRC Section 4958, a 25% excise tax on Sheridan personally, rising to 200% if she does not pay it back, plus a tax on the board members who signed off. Then the real penalty: a 501(c)(3) is flatly barred from letting its earnings benefit an insider, which is private inurement, an absolute prohibition.

If the IRS concludes the charity is run for the private enrichment of the people who control it, it can revoke the exemption outright. Donations stop being deductible. The custody detail is what turns a conflict of interest into an inurement case: the insider who profits is also the one holding and counting the money.

Some CYA:
A conflict of interest is not automatically a crime. An insider-owned fundraiser can be legal IF it was disclosed on Schedule L, approved by an independent board with the conflicted person recused, and priced at a true market rate. That was not on the 990s I saw, but that is exactly what a review would test. No government agency has publicly questioned, investigated, or charged Stacy Sheridan; the questions here are mine, drawn from public filings. And most of the money she had custody of did reach the charity; the issue is the structure and the fees, not a claim that she pocketed the $88 million. I am not saying she stole anything. I am saying this is the exact setup regulators are trained to look for, and donors deserve to know their money passes through an employee's private company before it reaches the cause.

318

580

133K

4 days ago

@ShaneCashman Hey @ShaneCashman idk if I missed sumn but just went to catch up on IWL & realized I didn't need to feel guilty for missing the show bcuz there hasn't been 1 for a couple weeks! I hope all is well for you & the fam & you are still in my prayers every day 🙏 Christ is King 💯🙏

MichellePcha retweeted

5 days ago

I have seen the receipt without it being blurred. I also spoke directly to the owner of the restaurant who recovered the charge and spoke with the FBI. There is going to be no way around this one Viva— it's banking. You can save this tweet and keep accusing me of dishonest (as is your new grift)—but what I reported is completely true and the truth always ages well.

404

574

174

366K

5 days ago

🤣🤣🤣

Jennifer Valentine

@jvalentine82

7 days ago

I had to make one too. 🤣🤣🤣 @RealCandaceO

188

824

168

62K

MichellePcha retweeted

Shane Cashman

@ShaneCashman

7 days ago

The only marriage Candace ruined was Ben and Jeremy’s.

138

33K

6 days ago

👏👏👏

Mikki Willis Official

@MikkiWillis

6 days ago

Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along! Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.” They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying. I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself. What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude. Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.” To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few: THE OTHER GUNMAN An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case. He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up. DISPATCH AUDIO 911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.” DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.” DNA DISCREPANCIES Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle. INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment. THE UNFIRED BULLET During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was. ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop—but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom. As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims. Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.” As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture. Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones. And… exhale. These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk. What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions. Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice. This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Mikki Willis Investigative Filmmaker

$MikkiWillis's tweet photo. Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along! Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.” They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying. I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself. What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude. Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.” To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few: THE OTHER GUNMAN An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case. He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up. DISPATCH AUDIO 911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.” DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.” DNA DISCREPANCIES Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle. INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment. THE UNFIRED BULLET During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was. ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop—but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom. As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims. Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.” As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture. Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones. And… exhale. These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk. What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions. Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice. This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Mikki Willis Investigative Filmmaker$

449

247K

MichellePcha retweeted

Ian Carroll

@IanCarrollShow

6 days ago

Well, Valhalla VFT just did the most definitive test of the magic bullet theory yet and surprise surprise, it blew through everything. They used the type of bullets Tyler allegedly used, recreated the same distance and slope, and shot through a freshly butchered hog as well as some other hunks of meat and bone. Once again, soft point .30-06 easily blew through all of it. Not even remotely similar to what happened to Charlie. If Charlie Kirk had been shot by one of these the scene would have been considerably more traumatizing. But for the trust the narrative crowd, I’m sure they’ll find a new way to tell you to ignore your eyes and ears and just get vaccinated against common sense. This is just a short highlight reel- the full video with all their shots and results is in the comments 👇 go give it some love- Nate invested a lot of time and money into this test and YouTube is throttling it.

560

16K

792K

MichellePcha retweeted

Karl K. Wuckert

@KarlWuckert

8 days ago

We’re watching Jack Posobiec’s entire career go down in flames in real time.

493

617

121

270K

MichellePcha retweeted

7 days ago

Late show to accommodate the World Cup Semi. 😩 Today we have an Exclusive Recording of the LONE person to have recorded the alleged shooter dropping onto Losee Rooftop. Remarkably, the prosecution, defense, and Feds have not followed up with him. His stunning testimony will make you understand why. Also— Israel has spent millions on the war for your mind via bots and influencers. They are now angry that their campaign has failed. Join us LIVE: https://t.co/Po2IoUjDLW

613

879

167

403K

6 days ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

7 days ago

New level of propaganda unlocked. 😂

18K

343

925K

MichellePcha retweeted

theleahfiles

@leahfiles

9 days ago

Let's expose the fraud playbook TPUSA's structure follows, one person at a time. First up, Tyler Bowyer. Fraud within organizations, especially when dealing with executives, is more often than not, structural. The goal isn't to steal a lump sum, it's to build a system where money moves constantly among related entities so that no single document ever shows the whole picture, insider pay is relabeled as arm's-length business expense, and the ultimate recipient is hidden behind a layer. You don't write yourself a check. You'd design exactly what I have been seeing across all TPUSA entities. Here's what Tyler Bowyer's playbook looks like: 1. On his own charity's return, Bowyer is the Chief Operating Officer AND its #1 outside “vendor”. $288,255 for “COO SERVICES,” invoiced from his house. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: a salary gets audited and a vendor invoice doesn't. Executive pay triggers board sign-off, comparability studies, reasonableness tests, an excise tax. A “purchased service” melts into the expense pile. So you stop being an employee getting paid and start being a company getting hired by yourself. Billing it from your house is the tell: there's no firm on the other end. It's you, writing invoices to a charity you run.... 2. His pay is split across three entities. $288K from the charity, $88K from the political arm, $0 from TPUSA. Total: ~$376K. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: everyone who might catch you pulls one filing at a time. Put the whole number on one return and it draws the excess-comp tax and the headline. Slice it across three affiliates and each piece looks modest. You're not hiding the money, you're hiding the total, and betting nobody cross-references three separate 990s. They usually don't, which is why it's one of the first things I do. 3. His public role is politics, he's COO of Turning Point Action, the (c)(4) political arm. Yet the tax-deductible (c)(3) charity pays him roughly three times what the political arm does. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: charity money is the cheapest money in the building. It's tax-deductible, so it's easier to raise and comes in bigger amounts. If a person's real work is political and you load that salary onto the charity, you're paying for work the charity is legally barred from doing, with subsidized dollars, and the donors wrote off politics on their taxes without knowing it. You push every cost onto the entity with the cheapest money and the least scrutiny for that line. Whether this split reflects real charitable work or a misallocation is exactly what an audit would settle, and it's the first thing I'd pull his time records for. 4. The charity paying him takes 100% of its money as grants from TPUSA, spends nearly all of it, and holds nothing. In its 2023 return it booked $3.7 million in salaries against zero employees on its federal wage form. The next year it reported 124. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: a satellite entity is a second set of books you fully control. Money leaves the closely-watched flagship as a "grant", which looks charitable, lands in a smaller entity nobody audits hard, and gets spent there on payroll and insiders with a fraction of the oversight. And millions in salaries booked against zero reported employees is the classic ghost-employee signature, wages to people who may not exist, or to insiders dressed as staff. Maybe 2023 was a filing error. That's the innocent read. But a swing from zero to 124 is the exact anomaly a forensic examiner reconciles first, because it's also how payroll fraud hides. 5. Within a few months of Charlie Kirk's assassination, as control of a nine-figure network changed hands, Tyler Bowyer opened five companies all within 54 days of one another. Four are anonymous Wyoming LLCs using one Cheyenne "mailbox". One is named “Vote LLC.” One is “Tyler Bowyer Inc.,” at the same address he already invoices the charity from. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the entire purpose of an anonymous LLC is that no one can prove YOU got paid. Send money to “Victory Advisors LLC” and the trail dead-ends at a mail drop. Stand up a personal corporation at your billing address and your fees now flow through a company with one more wall between the cash and your name. And you build the pipes before the money moves, right when the org is in transition and everyone's looking at the funeral instead of the filings. 6. He co-owns Resolute Media, run out of a building on the charity's campus, and chairs Superfeed, the for-profit the movement pays, with Erika Kirk's own mother on the board. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: self-dealing is invisible when the counterparty wears a different name. You don't embezzle from the nonprofit, you sell to it, at your price, through a company you own. The charity pays “Superfeed” or “Resolute,” it reads as a normal vendor, and the profit lands with the same people who run the charity. 7. On their signed federal returns, TPUSA and Turning Point Action both answered "No" to the question regulators scan for self-dealing: any business transactions with an officer, or with a company an officer controls. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: that box is the one you most need blank, because a "yes" invites the audit you're avoiding. And here's the defense they'll reach for, so let me get ahead of it. They'll say the "No" is technically correct: officer pay gets reported elsewhere, and this schedule only captures a company an officer owns more than 35% of. Fine. But that's exactly the problem. Those thresholds are the exits. Officer comp is excluded. A 34% stake is excluded. So a person can be paid by the charity, own a slice of the vendors it hires, and chair a company it does business with, and still, truthfully, check "No." The schedule built to expose insider dealing has doors an insider can walk right through. A "No" here doesn't mean there's nothing to see. It means the only way to see it is the one thing they haven't handed over: the ownership percentages and the payment records. That, again, is the audit. The pattern: Every one of these findings align to what someone committing fraud would do and reveals a behavioral pattern: to make the money harder to see, the recipient harder to name, and the total harder to add up. Real fraud isn't loud. It's a hundred small, individually-defensible decisions that all lean the same way, toward the insiders and away from the light. One of these could be considered a "quirk", but all seven, across every entity, for years, it is a design. I can't prove intent from a tax form. Intent lives in the bank records and the operating agreements, and those aren't public. But every structural choice here is the one a person with something to hide would make. That is the reason to open the books. Tyler Bowyer (and all of TPUSA, but I'll get there in the following parts) needs a real forensic audit, by the IRS, by the Arizona AG, by anyone with the subpoena power to pull what a 990 will never show you. They built the structure betting nobody would read the filings or pay attention. I'm paying attention. Part 2 coming next. Who do you want? Erika Kirk or Andrew Kolvet?

$leahfiles's tweet photo. Let's expose the fraud playbook TPUSA's structure follows, one person at a time. First up, Tyler Bowyer. Fraud within organizations, especially when dealing with executives, is more often than not, structural. The goal isn't to steal a lump sum, it's to build a system where money moves constantly among related entities so that no single document ever shows the whole picture, insider pay is relabeled as arm's-length business expense, and the ultimate recipient is hidden behind a layer. You don't write yourself a check. You'd design exactly what I have been seeing across all TPUSA entities. Here's what Tyler Bowyer's playbook looks like: 1. On his own charity's return, Bowyer is the Chief Operating Officer AND its #1 outside “vendor”. $288,255 for “COO SERVICES,” invoiced from his house. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: a salary gets audited and a vendor invoice doesn't. Executive pay triggers board sign-off, comparability studies, reasonableness tests, an excise tax. A “purchased service” melts into the expense pile. So you stop being an employee getting paid and start being a company getting hired by yourself. Billing it from your house is the tell: there's no firm on the other end. It's you, writing invoices to a charity you run.... 2. His pay is split across three entities. $288K from the charity, $88K from the political arm, $0 from TPUSA. Total: ~$376K. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: everyone who might catch you pulls one filing at a time. Put the whole number on one return and it draws the excess-comp tax and the headline. Slice it across three affiliates and each piece looks modest. You're not hiding the money, you're hiding the total, and betting nobody cross-references three separate 990s. They usually don't, which is why it's one of the first things I do. 3. His public role is politics, he's COO of Turning Point Action, the (c)(4) political arm. Yet the tax-deductible (c)(3) charity pays him roughly three times what the political arm does. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: charity money is the cheapest money in the building. It's tax-deductible, so it's easier to raise and comes in bigger amounts. If a person's real work is political and you load that salary onto the charity, you're paying for work the charity is legally barred from doing, with subsidized dollars, and the donors wrote off politics on their taxes without knowing it. You push every cost onto the entity with the cheapest money and the least scrutiny for that line. Whether this split reflects real charitable work or a misallocation is exactly what an audit would settle, and it's the first thing I'd pull his time records for. 4. The charity paying him takes 100% of its money as grants from TPUSA, spends nearly all of it, and holds nothing. In its 2023 return it booked $3.7 million in salaries against zero employees on its federal wage form. The next year it reported 124. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: a satellite entity is a second set of books you fully control. Money leaves the closely-watched flagship as a "grant", which looks charitable, lands in a smaller entity nobody audits hard, and gets spent there on payroll and insiders with a fraction of the oversight. And millions in salaries booked against zero reported employees is the classic ghost-employee signature, wages to people who may not exist, or to insiders dressed as staff. Maybe 2023 was a filing error. That's the innocent read. But a swing from zero to 124 is the exact anomaly a forensic examiner reconciles first, because it's also how payroll fraud hides. 5. Within a few months of Charlie Kirk's assassination, as control of a nine-figure network changed hands, Tyler Bowyer opened five companies all within 54 days of one another. Four are anonymous Wyoming LLCs using one Cheyenne "mailbox". One is named “Vote LLC.” One is “Tyler Bowyer Inc.,” at the same address he already invoices the charity from. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the entire purpose of an anonymous LLC is that no one can prove YOU got paid. Send money to “Victory Advisors LLC” and the trail dead-ends at a mail drop. Stand up a personal corporation at your billing address and your fees now flow through a company with one more wall between the cash and your name. And you build the pipes before the money moves, right when the org is in transition and everyone's looking at the funeral instead of the filings. 6. He co-owns Resolute Media, run out of a building on the charity's campus, and chairs Superfeed, the for-profit the movement pays, with Erika Kirk's own mother on the board. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: self-dealing is invisible when the counterparty wears a different name. You don't embezzle from the nonprofit, you sell to it, at your price, through a company you own. The charity pays “Superfeed” or “Resolute,” it reads as a normal vendor, and the profit lands with the same people who run the charity. 7. On their signed federal returns, TPUSA and Turning Point Action both answered "No" to the question regulators scan for self-dealing: any business transactions with an officer, or with a company an officer controls. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: that box is the one you most need blank, because a "yes" invites the audit you're avoiding. And here's the defense they'll reach for, so let me get ahead of it. They'll say the "No" is technically correct: officer pay gets reported elsewhere, and this schedule only captures a company an officer owns more than 35% of. Fine. But that's exactly the problem. Those thresholds are the exits. Officer comp is excluded. A 34% stake is excluded. So a person can be paid by the charity, own a slice of the vendors it hires, and chair a company it does business with, and still, truthfully, check "No." The schedule built to expose insider dealing has doors an insider can walk right through. A "No" here doesn't mean there's nothing to see. It means the only way to see it is the one thing they haven't handed over: the ownership percentages and the payment records. That, again, is the audit. The pattern: Every one of these findings align to what someone committing fraud would do and reveals a behavioral pattern: to make the money harder to see, the recipient harder to name, and the total harder to add up. Real fraud isn't loud. It's a hundred small, individually-defensible decisions that all lean the same way, toward the insiders and away from the light. One of these could be considered a "quirk", but all seven, across every entity, for years, it is a design. I can't prove intent from a tax form. Intent lives in the bank records and the operating agreements, and those aren't public. But every structural choice here is the one a person with something to hide would make. That is the reason to open the books. Tyler Bowyer (and all of TPUSA, but I'll get there in the following parts) needs a real forensic audit, by the IRS, by the Arizona AG, by anyone with the subpoena power to pull what a 990 will never show you. They built the structure betting nobody would read the filings or pay attention. I'm paying attention. Part 2 coming next. Who do you want? Erika Kirk or Andrew Kolvet?$

363

631

78K