destiney :)

@desbradshaw

Joined November 2014

214 Following

319 Followers

5.9K Posts

desbradshaw retweeted

Travis

@NihiloX

about 5 hours ago

Candace Owens did not make any profit from Charlie Kirk’s death. Erika Kirk & Andrew Kolvet did. 💰

131

417

117

33K

desbradshaw retweeted

Ricky Zaccaglino

@RickyTheGuido

1 day ago

How is Blake Neff only 35? He looks like a 50 year old man. 🤣🤣🤣

151

633

desbradshaw retweeted

theleahfiles

@leahfiles

2 days ago

Part 3 of TPUSA's fraud playbook: Stacy Sheridan. And spoiler alert, she ranks higher than Bowyer or Kolvet. Stacy Sheridan is TPUSA's inside fundraising boss AND she owns the outside firm the charity pays to raise its money. She sits on both sides of the same check. More than $88 million in donations has run through her hands, and her private companies quietly kept ~$5+ million of it. She is the highest-scoring name in this series so far. Who is Sheridan? Stacy Sheridan spent two decades as a professional fundraiser at Pepperdine, the Reagan Foundation, and the Gary Sinise Foundation. Turning Point then hired her as its Senior Advancement Director on a salary north of $180,000. Her job was to raise the charity's money. So she did, into companies she owns. Three of them, GSM Strategy, then Lionrock Ventures, then Cloverstone Ventures. Each one billed the charity she already worked for. Each one traced back to her only through another state's corporate records and her own home address, never as the owner of those companies on the tax return itself. As each drew scrutiny, it went dark and the next one appeared. She turned a nonprofit's donor base into a private revenue stream, made herself almost invisible on paper, and made herself indispensable in person. Today she sits at the right hand of TPUSA's new CEO, Erika Kirk, closer to the money than she has ever been. What she is doing: the four signatures of an inside job This looks like an insider-controlled fundraiser, a specific and well-documented form of self-dealing. It has four signatures, and Sheridan hits all four. 1. Same hand on both sides: the employee who helps decide who gets hired to raise the money owns the firm that gets hired to raise it. She is the buyer and the seller of the same service, sitting on both sides of a table with no one across from her. 2. Custody and control: she does not just get paid, she holds the donations. The money lands in her company's account first, and she is the one who counts it and reports the number to the IRS and to the people who gave it. The insider who profits is also the one keeping the books. 3. The relay: not one company. Three, in a chain. Each terminated or gone dark the moment it drew a reporter, each reborn in a more sheltered state than the last. The entities keep changing names but the owner never changes. 4. Concealment: the return never says she owns the firm it pays. You only learn that in another state's records. In Minnesota, Cloverstone, whose sole officer is Sheridan, registered under oath as an independent outside professional fundraiser. Based on the record, it is not. Individually, each can have an explanation. But if I have taught you one thing, it's that stacked is where the real picture is and stacked, they are the textbook architecture of running a charity for the private benefit of an insider. Let's look deeper into Sheridan's red flags: 1) Stacy Sheridan is a salaried TPUSA employee, its Senior Advancement Director. She also owns Cloverstone Ventures, the charity's number-one outside fundraiser. Confirmed in state corporate records. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the cleanest way to take from a charity is to never take from it, just sell to it. You do not touch the donation. You own the company the charity hires to collect it, and you set the price. Buyer and seller are the same hand, and every "fee" is a check she writes to herself. 2) Cloverstone is a custody fundraiser. In FY2025 it held custody of $19.3 million in donations, forwarded $18.8 million to the charity, and kept $482,568. Sheridan is also listed personally as a custody fundraiser, another $3.1 million through her own name. Over five years her firm has had custody of more than $88 million in donor money. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: custody is the whole game. A normal vendor sends an invoice. A custody fundraiser holds the account the money lands in before the cause ever sees it. She is not a vendor, she is a tollbooth on her own employer's donations, counting the cash and reporting the one number nobody else can see. 3) She is paid as a fundraiser three ways off the same donors: through Cloverstone, under her own name, and as a salaried employee. Across the years her private companies have kept roughly $5 million in fees (Lionrock ~ $1.4 million, Cloverstone ~ $3.5 million, GSM ~ $200,000), on top of a six-figure salary. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you never take one big number that trips an audit. You take modest cuts off many angles of the same transaction you also control. Salary for being staff, company fees for being the vendor, personal billing for the third straw in the same cup. Sliced up, each looks fine. Stacked, it is a faucet she controls. 4) It is a relay of shell companies. GSM Strategy, then Lionrock, then Cloverstone. California's records show Lionrock is now terminated, and Cloverstone never registered in California at all. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you retire the entity the second it gets named in a story and reopen another one in a more sheltered state. Each new shell resets the trail to zero and strips one more public record. The money never stops. Only the name on it changes. The constant across all three is her. 5) On the tax return, Cloverstone reads as an ordinary top contractor. The return never says its owner is the charity's own development director. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the trick is to make the insider read as an outsider. Book the payment to what looks like a third-party firm on the federal form, and keep the one document that exposes it, the ownership record, in a different agency in a different state. Two systems that never touch, so the conflict never surfaces in one place. 6) To raise from Minnesotans, Cloverstone had to register with the Minnesota Attorney General as a professional fundraiser, post a $20,000 bond because it takes custody of donations, and file reports certified UNDER OATH by both the fundraiser and the charity. Registration #02304, now lapsed. WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: pick the lie. Either the "independent fundraiser" she swore to the State of Minnesota is really the charity's own development director, or the federal return that treats it as arm's-length is the false one. Both cannot be true. She is on both. How a charity actually loses over this A 501(c)(3) has one iron rule: it must be run for the public, not the private profit of its own insiders. When an insider makes money off the charity through a company she owns, an examiner runs three questions. Was it disclosed on Schedule L, the section built for exactly these insider deals? Was it approved by an independent board with the conflicted person out of the room? Was the price fair, or did the firm charge more than a normal outsider would? Here is what it can cost them. First, the scalpel: excess-benefit taxes under IRC Section 4958, a 25% excise tax on Sheridan personally, rising to 200% if she does not pay it back, plus a tax on the board members who signed off. Then the real penalty: a 501(c)(3) is flatly barred from letting its earnings benefit an insider, which is private inurement, an absolute prohibition. If the IRS concludes the charity is run for the private enrichment of the people who control it, it can revoke the exemption outright. Donations stop being deductible. The custody detail is what turns a conflict of interest into an inurement case: the insider who profits is also the one holding and counting the money. Some CYA: A conflict of interest is not automatically a crime. An insider-owned fundraiser can be legal IF it was disclosed on Schedule L, approved by an independent board with the conflicted person recused, and priced at a true market rate. That was not on the 990s I saw, but that is exactly what a review would test. No government agency has publicly questioned, investigated, or charged Stacy Sheridan; the questions here are mine, drawn from public filings. And most of the money she had custody of did reach the charity; the issue is the structure and the fees, not a claim that she pocketed the $88 million. I am not saying she stole anything. I am saying this is the exact setup regulators are trained to look for, and donors deserve to know their money passes through an employee's private company before it reaches the cause.

leahfiles's tweet photo. Part 3 of TPUSA's fraud playbook: Stacy Sheridan. And spoiler alert, she ranks higher than Bowyer or Kolvet.

Stacy Sheridan is TPUSA's inside fundraising boss AND she owns the outside firm the charity pays to raise its money. She sits on both sides of the same check. More than $88 million in donations has run through her hands, and her private companies quietly kept ~$5+ million of it. She is the highest-scoring name in this series so far.

Who is Sheridan?
Stacy Sheridan spent two decades as a professional fundraiser at Pepperdine, the Reagan Foundation, and the Gary Sinise Foundation. Turning Point then hired her as its Senior Advancement Director on a salary north of $180,000. Her job was to raise the charity's money. So she did, into companies she owns.

Three of them, GSM Strategy, then Lionrock Ventures, then Cloverstone Ventures. Each one billed the charity she already worked for. Each one traced back to her only through another state's corporate records and her own home address, never as the owner of those companies on the tax return itself. As each drew scrutiny, it went dark and the next one appeared. She turned a nonprofit's donor base into a private revenue stream, made herself almost invisible on paper, and made herself indispensable in person.

Today she sits at the right hand of TPUSA's new CEO, Erika Kirk, closer to the money than she has ever been.

What she is doing: the four signatures of an inside job
This looks like an insider-controlled fundraiser, a specific and well-documented form of self-dealing. It has four signatures, and Sheridan hits all four.
1. Same hand on both sides: the employee who helps decide who gets hired to raise the money owns the firm that gets hired to raise it. She is the buyer and the seller of the same service, sitting on both sides of a table with no one across from her.
2. Custody and control: she does not just get paid, she holds the donations. The money lands in her company's account first, and she is the one who counts it and reports the number to the IRS and to the people who gave it. The insider who profits is also the one keeping the books.
3. The relay: not one company. Three, in a chain. Each terminated or gone dark the moment it drew a reporter, each reborn in a more sheltered state than the last. The entities keep changing names but the owner never changes.
4. Concealment: the return never says she owns the firm it pays. You only learn that in another state's records. In Minnesota, Cloverstone, whose sole officer is Sheridan, registered under oath as an independent outside professional fundraiser. Based on the record, it is not.

Individually, each can have an explanation. But if I have taught you one thing, it's that stacked is where the real picture is and stacked, they are the textbook architecture of running a charity for the private benefit of an insider.

Let's look deeper into Sheridan's red flags:

1) Stacy Sheridan is a salaried TPUSA employee, its Senior Advancement Director. She also owns Cloverstone Ventures, the charity's number-one outside fundraiser. Confirmed in state corporate records.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the cleanest way to take from a charity is to never take from it, just sell to it. You do not touch the donation. You own the company the charity hires to collect it, and you set the price. Buyer and seller are the same hand, and every "fee" is a check she writes to herself.

2) Cloverstone is a custody fundraiser. In FY2025 it held custody of $19.3 million in donations, forwarded $18.8 million to the charity, and kept $482,568. Sheridan is also listed personally as a custody fundraiser, another $3.1 million through her own name. Over five years her firm has had custody of more than $88 million in donor money.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: custody is the whole game. A normal vendor sends an invoice. A custody fundraiser holds the account the money lands in before the cause ever sees it. She is not a vendor, she is a tollbooth on her own employer's donations, counting the cash and reporting the one number nobody else can see.

3) She is paid as a fundraiser three ways off the same donors: through Cloverstone, under her own name, and as a salaried employee. Across the years her private companies have kept roughly $5 million in fees (Lionrock ~ $1.4 million, Cloverstone ~ $3.5 million, GSM ~ $200,000), on top of a six-figure salary.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you never take one big number that trips an audit. You take modest cuts off many angles of the same transaction you also control. Salary for being staff, company fees for being the vendor, personal billing for the third straw in the same cup. Sliced up, each looks fine. Stacked, it is a faucet she controls.

4) It is a relay of shell companies. GSM Strategy, then Lionrock, then Cloverstone. California's records show Lionrock is now terminated, and Cloverstone never registered in California at all.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: you retire the entity the second it gets named in a story and reopen another one in a more sheltered state. Each new shell resets the trail to zero and strips one more public record. The money never stops. Only the name on it changes. The constant across all three is her.

5) On the tax return, Cloverstone reads as an ordinary top contractor. The return never says its owner is the charity's own development director.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: the trick is to make the insider read as an outsider. Book the payment to what looks like a third-party firm on the federal form, and keep the one document that exposes it, the ownership record, in a different agency in a different state. Two systems that never touch, so the conflict never surfaces in one place.

6) To raise from Minnesotans, Cloverstone had to register with the Minnesota Attorney General as a professional fundraiser, post a $20,000 bond because it takes custody of donations, and file reports certified UNDER OATH by both the fundraiser and the charity. Registration #02304, now lapsed.
WHY BAD ACTORS DO EXACTLY THIS: pick the lie. Either the "independent fundraiser" she swore to the State of Minnesota is really the charity's own development director, or the federal return that treats it as arm's-length is the false one. Both cannot be true. She is on both.

How a charity actually loses over this
A 501(c)(3) has one iron rule: it must be run for the public, not the private profit of its own insiders. When an insider makes money off the charity through a company she owns, an examiner runs three questions. Was it disclosed on Schedule L, the section built for exactly these insider deals? Was it approved by an independent board with the conflicted person out of the room? Was the price fair, or did the firm charge more than a normal outsider would?

Here is what it can cost them. First, the scalpel: excess-benefit taxes under IRC Section 4958, a 25% excise tax on Sheridan personally, rising to 200% if she does not pay it back, plus a tax on the board members who signed off. Then the real penalty: a 501(c)(3) is flatly barred from letting its earnings benefit an insider, which is private inurement, an absolute prohibition.

If the IRS concludes the charity is run for the private enrichment of the people who control it, it can revoke the exemption outright. Donations stop being deductible. The custody detail is what turns a conflict of interest into an inurement case: the insider who profits is also the one holding and counting the money.

Some CYA:
A conflict of interest is not automatically a crime. An insider-owned fundraiser can be legal IF it was disclosed on Schedule L, approved by an independent board with the conflicted person recused, and priced at a true market rate. That was not on the 990s I saw, but that is exactly what a review would test. No government agency has publicly questioned, investigated, or charged Stacy Sheridan; the questions here are mine, drawn from public filings. And most of the money she had custody of did reach the charity; the issue is the structure and the fees, not a claim that she pocketed the $88 million. I am not saying she stole anything. I am saying this is the exact setup regulators are trained to look for, and donors deserve to know their money passes through an employee's private company before it reaches the cause.

316

576

130K

desbradshaw retweeted

Ricky Zaccaglino

@RickyTheGuido

5 days ago

Just for shits and giggles id like to see Erika, Andrew Kolvet, Blake Neff and Charlie’s security team all take a polygraph. Just to see what happens.

180

18K

Who to follow

Chance

@chancerogers6

#Thunderup #GBO🍊#BoomerSooner

desbradshaw retweeted

Mikki Willis Official

@MikkiWillis

5 days ago

Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along! Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.” They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying. I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself. What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude. Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.” To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few: THE OTHER GUNMAN An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case. He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up. DISPATCH AUDIO 911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.” DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.” DNA DISCREPANCIES Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle. INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment. THE UNFIRED BULLET During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was. ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop—but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom. As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims. Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.” As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture. Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones. And… exhale. These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk. What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions. Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice. This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Mikki Willis Investigative Filmmaker

$MikkiWillis's tweet photo. Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along! Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.” They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying. I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself. What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude. Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.” To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few: THE OTHER GUNMAN An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case. He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up. DISPATCH AUDIO 911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.” DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.” DNA DISCREPANCIES Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle. INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment. THE UNFIRED BULLET During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was. ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop—but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom. As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims. Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.” As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture. Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones. And… exhale. These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk. What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions. Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice. This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Mikki Willis Investigative Filmmaker$

450

244K

destiney :) @desbradshaw

about 4 years ago

#NewProfilePic

desbradshaw retweeted

𝖏𝖆𝖍 ツ @fullautojayy

about 4 years ago

if I say “im hungry” we got about 27 minutes till I’m a different person

230

107K

18K

desbradshaw retweeted

🐌 @Wheeema

over 4 years ago

u ever looked at someone and be like damm you really a liar😭😭😭 like u just don’t stop

136

51K

11K

939

desbradshaw retweeted

Inner Practitioner

@MindTendencies2

over 4 years ago

Seeing someone's lack of effort as their lack of interest in you regardless of what they tell you is self-care.

299

desbradshaw retweeted

noodlehead @riceemammii

over 4 years ago

I match energies so don’t get mad at me for the way you’re acting

579K

120K

destiney :) @desbradshaw

over 4 years ago

Good news one day, bad news the next lol

desbradshaw retweeted

A.STYAR🎖️ @ASTYARR

over 4 years ago

They think you mad whole time you just disgusted & losing respect for them

24K

718

desbradshaw retweeted

Taija 🌻👑 @taijagaten

over 4 years ago

Sneak Dissing never phase me, You already showed me you WEAK af by not being direct.

181

desbradshaw retweeted

Bronxology 🔮

@MindBodyBronx

over 4 years ago

I never felt comfortable being close with people who were cool with other people that didn’t like me or had animosity towards me. It almost feels disrespectful in a sense cause you know these people either would hurt me or wanna see me fail, and you ok with that? Nahhh.

460