If the prosecution has 4k footage of Tyler Robinson pulling the trigger, why is TPUSA dedicating full episodes of The Charlie Kirk Show to disproving the exploding mic theory?
@AndrewKolvet Why do you want it to be TYLER so badly?? So this is 50/50. Why doesn’t that give you pause and a head scratching moment that there is another option? I would be exploring all options, but for some reason yall are hell bent on it being Tyler. no prints or dna at the rooftop.
@RealCandaceO I cannot handle this guy anymore. It’s like he will literally tell you the sky is green and believe it. I hate that Charlie was surrounded by these fools.
RØDE Wireless PRO transmitter glass face shattered. The fragments seen in the floorboard are undoubtedly fragments from the RØDE Wireless PRO glass face. This glass face has a adhesive backing and shatters into jagged fragments which adhere to fabric and need agitation to break free from the threads.
@BlakeSNeff@ProjectConstitu I feel like this suv looks silver/grey…but I would still like to know where @BlakeSNeff went. Even my husband who doesn’t listen to any of this like me thought that was super sus. How do you not know where you went?
@paramounttactcl We have ears. He was unsure bc of the crap quality but said bc Tyler likes jeans, it could be him. So much reasonable doubt it’s crazy
@IanCarrollShow@baroncoleman@Savsays Do we even have evidence that they were in fact boyfriend/boyfriend? I can’t remember if that was ever truly defined early on, but after seeing LT yesterday, he did not come across as a “trans furry” at all.
@addsszz It actually reminds me of when I used to write letters from Santa to my kids and I would use my left hand to make it not look like mine since I am right-handed. It’s uncanny the resemblance honestly!
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