Andrew
Character attacks are not evidence. Ridicule is not evidence. Moral outrage is not evidence.
The issue is not whether you can insult Candace forcefully enough to make her cave — or indeed, vice versa. The issue is getting to the truth—anyone who truly loved Charlie should want that.
The actual issue is whether you can answer reasonable questions directly and bring your own receipts.
But too often, instead of refuting Candace’s claims with solid counter-evidence, you attack her character, motives, and relationship with Charlie.
That does not prove your account true.
It is a tactic — and people should recognize it as one.
You are trying to invalidate her relationship with Charlie and portray her as some vicious lunatic, as if destroying her character somehow proves your own account as the indisputable truth.
That won’t do Andrew.
People who are being honest and transparent do not need to destroy the person asking questions. They answer the questions.
USEFUL INFORMATION FOR EVERYONE FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT
😎👉Attached is a thread describing tactics commonly used to manipulate, disorient, and discredit people who are asking uncomfortable questions.
Read it, then examine exchanges between Andrew and Candace.
☝️Are reasonable questions being honestly answered — or is the person asking them, Candace, being attacked to shut her down and bury her investigation?
#CharlieKirk #TPUSA #AndrewKolvet #CandaceOwens #FBI #TylerRobinson
@realDonaldTrump@JDVance@TuckerCarlson@elonmusk@RealCandaceO@baroncoleman@JohnMappin@LionelMedia@TPUSA@BlakeSNeff@IanCarrollShow@jimmy_dore