For those talking shit: we began mapping this network from the inside in 2015. The media may have ignored our work, but the government clearly didn’t.
Years later, everyone is celebrating the “DSA map.” It is impressive—but the network is far bigger than the DSA, and Soros is only one piece of a much larger system.
We have published and continually updated this research for years because we believe it serves the public interest. Now, a government employee—using government resources—appears to be recreating our work without credit, while she and others build audiences and revenue around findings we originally made public.
We are not asking for her money. We are asking for honest attribution.
If you have greater visibility, why not acknowledge the independent researchers who did this work without government support, institutional backing, or sponsors? And if people dispute our account, they should explain specifically what they believe is wrong.
@paleochristcon Yes you win. The question is the definition of "won". Candace has trained her disciples not to understand the difference between "possibility" and "evidence".
You would have done well to point that fact out over and over throughout the debate.
@canncon@bennyjohnson Not all questions need to be answered. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean every question is answered. And it is not the general public that needs to be prepared. It will be just the jury. Obviously, the public will need enough answers.
@KaySu00@Tweety152250417@RealCandaceO No, Charlie was willing to have honest and open debate. When someone was obviously not debating in good faith, he would attack them or move to the next in line. Most people he debated were debating in good faith.
Candace is not.
@KaySu00@RealCandaceO Charlie would have an honest debate with people willing to have an honest debate. If they weren't debating in good faith, he would change tactics.
Candace is not debating in good faith.