@Grok fact-check Blake Neff’s post against the actual 41-page defense filing. Is his characterization misleading—yes or no? Specifically address his implication that the defense effectively conceded Robinson killed Charlie, when the defense also challenges the evidence identifying Robinson as the shooter, argues the State failed to establish probable cause, and asks the court not to bind him over on ANY charges. Quote the filing where relevant. Facts only.
@OwenBenjamin@CrucibleOnX Answer this since @thevivafrei didn’t want to contend w/ it. Are you able to explain why the quality of images of suspects in the murder of Alexander Kazanowski outside of a bar at 320am are of such greater quality than those at a college campus known for its intelligence ties?
@thevivafrei@takenaps@RekietaLaw@karynrenee Are you able to explain why the quality of images of suspects in the murder of Alexander Kazanowski outside of a bar at 320am are of such greater quality than those at a college campus known for its intelligence ties?
@paleochristcon Remember nuh-huh isn’t a valid response to inconsistencies in the states case that calls into question the sufficiency of the evidence. It’s also not a valid response to evidence that isn’t endorsed by the state. You must contend with it.
@thevivafrei@takenaps@RekietaLaw@karynrenee So once again… Are you ok Viva using the “original” image to convict a man Can you say with any certainty that the person in that video is Tyler Robinson?
@RegularguyTN@DefiantLs What will you concede? If you are presented w/ evidence to the contrary or inconsistencies that render the states evidence insufficient, in an actual debate, you must contend w/ that. You can’t just say nu-huh.
You cannot make the debate claim something that neither you nor I have ever stated. LOL That’s not how debates work.
YOU have claimed the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming and crystal clear. I have disputed that entirely and offered many alternative pieces of evidence that I feel should be thoroughly explored which poke holes in the official story.
The debate topics should be in this order:
1) Is there “overwhelming” “crystal clear” evidence that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk, as Andrew Wilson and a great many others have stated? (Claim made by Andrew)
2) Are the alternative theories presented by Candace regarding Charlie’s assassination viable? (Claim(s) made by Candace)
I get the feeling you don’t actually believe the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming at all.
Just a hunch. Prove me wrong.
@JasonDa89962874@RealCandaceO How exactly would she prompt ChatGPT to respond this way without putting all of the information in and basically writing it herself?
@JMezey33135@OwenShroyer1776 If your federal income tax bill far exceeds your local taxes and that money goes elsewhere then the U.S. will never be sovereign
@benshapiro@ConceptualJames Remember when Ben Shapiro said nobody needs to retire as he tells you how stupid you are for not wanting to send endless American resources(your money) to Israel…Pepperidge Farm remembers
@paleochristcon You’re not doing this in good faith. There’s no debate to be had if your position is : “I’m a a gay fed slopper & I take the position that the only evidence that’s available is what the state presented & it’s all super good. Oh yeah & I was hired by TPUSA to make them not suck.”
@BlakeSNeff@RealCandaceO So your only point in acting appalled is because you, Blake, do not what anything further to be released. Your only goal is to shutdown the real investigation.
@BlakeSNeff@RealCandaceO The state and its influenceers are not interested in investigating the evidence they have, or presenting it accurately, so they won’t be interested in what evidence Candace “has.” They’re certainly not interested in any revelation that we bring the real killers in.
@scrowder Glad to see every right wing influencer totally cooking their credibility over this shit. I hope it’s worth shekels or whatever else they promised to compensate you with.