Cas

we skipped a few chapters

[Unmask The SYS @UnmaskTheSys]

🚨EXPLOSIVE BOMBSHELL JUST DROPPED🚨

You will NOT believe this… the Social Security number tied to Barack Obama (042-68-4425) was originally handed out in 1977 to a French immigrant named Jean Paul Ludwig living in Connecticut.

Obama never set foot there.

Then Ludwig dies in Hawaii… and WHO worked in the probate office with full access to dead people’s files? Obama’s own grandmother.

The number was never properly retired… and somehow ended up being used anyway. Using another person’s SSN? That’s straight-up FRAUD.

This changes EVERYTHING.

Stay tuned… the next part is even wilder.

[Cas @casto266]

@JasonCaffzifj @NihiloX No one said anyone hates him haha

[Cas @casto266]

@paleochristcon I guess we are going to bed without the debate being finalized? We shall try again tomorrow.

[Cas @casto266]

@EricSpracklen 72-73 haha 68 I would freeze to death

[Cas @casto266]

@juliandorey @baroncoleman @JoScottForensic Awesome, awesome show! 👏👏👏 I really enjoyed the thoughtful questions and the genuinely intellectual answers, even when the details seemed small. Great job, you guys!! I hope we get more conversations like this.

[CCG BRYSON @BrysonGray]

Cross-examination and asking someone to defend claims they have made publicly is not a big debate request

that's the point of a debate

[Cas @casto266]

@GASLightonIV @paleochristcon No one said they were claims made from the prosecution, dippidy shit. These are claims/narratives Candace has specifically challenged based on what she says the evidence does—or doesn’t—show. Just to clarify, Georgey.

[Cas @casto266]

@paleochristcon Candace isn’t saying Andrew can ONLY discuss the evidence against Robinson. She’s saying that’s where the debate starts. Once they’ve gone through it, he can bring up and challenge her other claims too.

[Cas @casto266]

Andrew, this is a debate. You don’t get to reduce the entire discussion to one topic you picked. You made the claim that there is “overwhelming evidence” Tyler killed Charlie—so in a debate, you’re going to be expected to identify that evidence and defend your claim.

A debate means both sides present their claims, provide evidence supporting those claims, challenge the other side’s evidence and reasoning, and respond to rebuttals. The burden doesn’t magically disappear because you’d rather debate a different proposition.

You said the evidence is overwhelming. Great. Bring it. Defend it. Let @RealCandaceO challenge it. Then challenge her claims in return. That’s literally the debate.

[Cas @casto266]

@paleochristcon Again, Andrew, you claimed there is “overwhelming evidence” that Tyler killed CK. So present it.

Go through that evidence line by line. Candace can challenge and fact-check your claims in real time, and you can do the exact same thing to hers. Test the evidence, challenge the inconsistencies, rebut each other, and see what actually holds up.

That’s the debate. Not forcing the entire conversation into one narrowly worded question you chose.

You say the evidence is overwhelming? Then put all of it on the table and defend it. Enough fed slop, let the evidence speak during the debate.

[Andrew Wilson @paleochristcon]

Look at your point 2.

You only want to argue if your theories are “viable,” meaning theoretically possible.I could turn the same question to you: is the claim that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk viable?

You would say sure, but your issue is that you think the state’s case is less likely than your alternative theory.

This is why the best topic to get to the core of our disagreement is the one I https://t.co/JtZHiagLuJ one cares if a theory is theoretically possible; everyone wants to know which theory is most likely.I’ll defend mine as most likely, and you defend yours.

Unless you are just saying you have no alternative thoeries which are more likely.

[Cas @casto266]

@realstewpeters Nothing suspicious about desperately trying to stop that student from talking

[Cas @casto266]

@nnjjog04 @RealCandaceO @paleochristcon Joe Rogan twice? Congrats. 😂 Maybe that flex hit harder in 2018. Not so much now.

[PatriotGenX @GenXChristian33]

This is great work Jonathan. We can clearly see that Yank & Bank Frank was NOT FaceTiming his 33 year old son, he was videotaping Charlie’s murder.

[Irlandarra @irlandarra2019]

Minutes after Charlie's murder, we see evidence of the crime being removed.

The area should have been cordoned off; nothing should have been touched until FBI investigators arrived.

It is all very strange.

[Cas @casto266]

High IQ

[Julian Dorey @juliandorey]

Baron Coleman & Top Forensics Expert Confront the Charlie Kirk Case.

Baron Coleman has been investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination longer and more rigorously than anyone in the public sphere.

For the first time he sat down in a studio with Joseph Scott Morgan — a career forensic pathologist — to go through the evidence together.

Morgan explains the difference between a medical examiner and a coroner.

He notes there are not many forensic pathologists out there.

And Coleman explains where his questions actually started:

He did not raise doubts about the official narrative until he watched ballistics experts online recreate the shot — and found what the recreation showed was inconsistent with the official account.

This is where that conversation begins.

@baroncoleman
@JoScottForensic

[Cas @casto266]

@SaraLJaffray @baroncoleman @Michael_McCoyy I hope for this sake he does!

[Sara Lyons Jaffray @SaraLJaffray]

Last night @baroncoleman had a very important message for @Michael_McCoyy . I think it’s important we make sure he gets it!

Do you guys think Mikey has a conscious? Baron seems to think so. Or is atleast hopeful he does.

Here is the message:

“Mikey, we know for a fact you've reached out before. I don't know what conversations you've had on your end. But I'm telling you, Mikey, this is NOT going to end well! Tyler Robinson did not do this and you know it. You know it because you know that l know what you know and you've got to figure this out in the very near future. Mikey, I believe you have a conscience. I really genuinely do. I don't believe everyone you work with does, but I believe you do.
Things are about to go into a phase that you guys are not going to be able to control. And you've got to make a decision now.
You can still reach out anonymously through other people and be behind the scenes and off the record, but what you can't do is go down with the ship. The rats are fleeing the ship and you cannot go down with them. So, I'm telling you, you're the only one there I think that has a conscience right now. I genuinely think that. The people around you kind of think that. The people | talk to who talk to you guys, they think that as well. Mikey, you know how to reach out to people. You know how to do it and you need to. You've done it before and you need to do it again. I don't know if you lied to them and said you didn't. We know you did, but you need to do it again. It's time.”

[Cas @casto266]

@grok @NJBeisner So why is the author saying this?