Jess

Wife | Conservative 🇺🇲 | Conspiracy Theorist | CIK
Accountant | Auditor | Former Legal Assistant

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@realtalkstruth

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@AndrewKolvet Let's hook both you and Candace up for a lie detector test and see how that plays out. She already offered. Your move.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

"Akin to rhetoric that caused Trump's assassination attempt"? Spare us the melodramatic gaslighting, @BlakeSNeff. You are out here equating pointed questions about glaring inconsistencies in a high-profile murder, Fort Huachuca sightings, security lapses, and succession stories that keep shifting with incitement.

That is rich coming from the guy who continues stonewalling while your side cries "harassment" every time someone notices the plot holes. @RealCandaceO has repeatedly said she wants no harm to come to Erika, yet you blame her rhetoric for the threats. Of course it could not possibly be the lies, inconsistencies, and weird behavior from Erika and TPUSA.

Calling out potential psychopath behavior is not "activating schizos." It is demanding truth in a case where the widow, inner circle, and official story have more red flags than a Soviet parade.

If the facts were clean, you would not need to smear skeptics as dangerous for simply asking: Where is the proof? Show some receipts instead of playing victim. The public is not buying the "just trust us" routine anymore. Keep lying though. It is making the scrutiny louder.

And Erika's "thousand threats"? Funny how that report magically surfaces as the questions intensify and more lies come to light.

[Blake Neff @BlakeSNeff]

“akin to rhetoric that caused Trump’s assassination attempt.”

Yes, calling somebody a psychopath who murdered her husband, platforming obvious fabulists babbling about Fort Huachuca in order to activate schizos, and encouraging people to harass and spy on Erika in real life will draw that comparison.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@AndrewKolvet

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@LauraLoomer @netanyahu

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Dude, you're a liar. For example, the leaked texts that show you knew TPUSA registrations were about 150k but pushed 350k on Fox anyway. You said, "just go with it lol."

Oh, and let's not forget the clip where you suggested a white lie to Charlie and he shut it down with we dont lie. Unfortunately, he's no longer here to stop you.

I'll take Candace's word over yours any day, especially on a conversation neither of you can prove. She offered a lie detector test. You haven't. That says plenty.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@unkonfined 2,000

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@AnaKasparian @netanyahu The fact that this comment has more likes than than the video itself says it all. 🤭

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@MrBeast 1,400,000

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@AndrewKolvet

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Not a fan of Taylor Swift or Travis Kelce, but I am a fan of love. 💕

Who wouldn’t plan the wedding of their dreams if they had the means? It is her money. She can spend it however she wants. They deserve their happy day without the negativity. There are far more important things to focus energy on. It has zero effect on my life, so I will keep scrolling instead of throwing shade at someone else’s special moment.

Instead, try and spread kindness where you can. 🫶 Wishing them well. 💍❤️

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@paramounttactcl Oh no, not someone who brings people together across political divides for the sake of truth. How dare she. 🙄

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Such a compelling interview with nothing off limits. @RealCandaceO has stayed true through every setback, trusting God's plan. A must-watch!

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

My full interview with Shawn Ryan is now available on YouTube.

Hope you all enjoy it. X

https://t.co/am9vtDiHjo

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@KM99442840 @AndrewKolvet @ShawnRyan762 Arguing with you is pointless. You clearly don’t understand what critical thinking is.🤦‍♀️ Mocking and attacking isn’t it. That’s feelings over truth. I’m done here. ✌️

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@KM99442840 @AndrewKolvet @ShawnRyan762 What's hilarious is your inability to grasp critical thinking after making it the centerpiece of your meritless mockery. But ok, yup you got me. 🤣🙄

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Again, resorting to name calling doesn't prove your point. It paints you in the light you're reflecting. You keep assuming I believe every theory you're mocking.
I don't only watch Candace. I watch all sides, evaluate specific claims and evidence on their merits, and come to my own conclusions. It's quite literally called critical thinking.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Calling questions 'ridiculous nonsense' based on how they make you feel intuitively is not the same as critical thinking. Real critical thinking demands examining the actual claims, evidence, and logic rather than dismissing them outright and labeling anyone who disagrees as lacking the skill.
That approach relies more on common sense, intuition, or prior bias than rigorous analysis. People can apply proper critical thinking and still reach different conclusions. Just because someone watches Candace doesn't mean they lack either skill. It's presumptuous to assume her audience lacks the capacity to evaluate what's presented and form their own independent views.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

I appreciate your perspective. I don’t just blindly accept every theory from Candace (or anyone else for that matter), but I also don’t automatically trust the official narrative.
When public statements from those close to Charlie have changed and specific claims face challenges without detailed context, questions are reasonable. Of course private individuals have no legal obligation to provide ongoing public transparency. However, dismissing inquiries as conspiracy theories tends to increase speculation rather than reduce it. Candace has also presented documents, videos, and timelines to support some of her questions.
Questioning inconsistencies is a legitimate part of seeking accurate information. I truly pray for Charlie’s loved ones, and I hope they find peace and justice for Charlie.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

Labeling an entire audience as unintelligent simply for asking questions and conducting independent research is an ad hominem tactic, not a substantive argument. Distorting those questions into caricatures (“It’s the Jews! It’s Erika! It’s TPUSA!”) substitutes a simplistic narrative for what was actually asked.
Asserting it’s a “fact” that no intelligent person takes Candace seriously is false. Claiming your opinion is an objective fact while saying everyone else is stupid and lacks critical thinking skills only proves the opposite.

[Jess @AnalyticalJess]

@Kate20846560 @paramounttactcl I haven’t seen anyone accuse Erika of murder. She isn’t on trial, and if she were, the standard should be the same: innocent until proven guilty.