Wow! @DataRepublican does it again.
Here's the controversial part. I am not claiming I have evidence that there was a conspiracy by another country to kill Charlie Kirk... BUT... I also do NOT believe the story we are being told.
You can search online and in my timeline for dozens of legitimate problems with the "official story." Some are shakey but some are rock solid. Now add what DataRepublican found. We are supposed to believe that in 4 days, 1400 people and 20+ organization had 3 professionally moderated panels ready to go? With no preplanning or knowledge?
On top of that we see people supposedly close to Charlie Kirk advocating AGAINST Joe Kent testifying about whatever it is he claims to know... why? If Joe Kent is lying, he will be cross examined and be presented counter-evidence on the stand. If you don't like Kent wouldn't you want the chance to publicly discredit him? And if you care about Charlie Kirk why wouldn't you want to know everything anyone has to say? If you don't have a horse in the race wouldn't it be better to listen to everything and find the real truth whatever it is?
I'm not claiming to know what happened to Charlie Kirk, but everything around his death smells like a coverup. I do NOT believe the official story and I'm frankly questioning the motives of people that do not want all the available evidence made public. What do they have to hide?
๐จX is blocking our ability to promote An Inconvenient Study.
Their policy: "Content questioning the safety or efficacy of approved medical products like vaccines" can't be boosted, even if factual.
"Xโs advertising policies are strict about health-related content, especially anything questioning the safety or efficacy of approved medical products like vaccines."
- Grok
We need YOU TO SHARE this post of the film and help us further the discourse.