Brave Report
@BraveReport • 9,213 subscribers
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence..a free people ought to be constantly awake.”
Shorts
Videos
Why is everyone suddenly having amnesia about who runs the business side of Candace’s podcast, including the ads? She has repeatedly said it’s her husband, who stays off social media and is unlikely to know the ins and outs of this community. Considering how often she says she doesn’t understand tech, the idea that she suddenly knows all about the Glacier app and how it works makes me wonder whether the people trying to cancel her over it have ever even watched her show.
Brave Report24,209 次观看 • 1 天前
In my opinion, this one question was the main reason Andrew was sent to “debate” Candace. I’ve never heard this guy use such blatant legalese ever, and there’s NO reason that a question needed to be asked this way. It’s clear, in my view, that this was specifically written down word for word and it was required that he deliver it at some point. It also shows to me he was not debating at all in good faith. Candace knew what he was doing immediately and handled this perfectly.
Brave Report1,188,695 次观看 • 2 个月前
![The hypocrisy shared by Blake Neff and Andrew Wilson in how they treat Erika’s beliefs versus Candace’s beliefs is stunning. Watch this clip to see that double standard play out in real time during the recent debate. When Erika publicly expressed 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson murdered her husband, Andrew’s defense was: “Let’s say [Erika] believed it with every fiber of her being…” And: “How is [Erika] trying to fool the public…if she believes it?” When it comes to Erika, sincere belief itself is treated as a sufficient enough explanation. She can arrive at 100% certainty based on whatever personally convinces her, and Andrew treats “she believes it” as the answer. But, when Candace says she believes with full confidence that Israel and France were involved, suddenly her personal assessment is illegitimate unless she produces evidence sufficient enough for Blake Neff, Andrew Wilson, and the entire rest of the world to independently reach the same conclusion. If she fails, that "proves" she is irrational, dishonest, and was merely trying to fool the public. You cannot coherently defend Erika with “but what if she really believes it?” and then declare Candace’s belief illegitimate merely because you remain unconvinced by the reasons she gave for it. Those are just two completely different standards that seem to depend entirely on whose conclusion you prefer. Meanwhile, these beliefs are not even remotely equivalent in their real world stakes. Erika is the murdered man’s widow publicly saying with certainty that the defendant, who has not even been convicted yet and could literally be sentenced to death, murdered her husband. Candace is expressing her belief that additional people or governments were likely involved in a broader conspiracy. Israel and France are not sitting in jail right now waiting to find out whether they’re going to be executed because Candace said she believes they were involved. So if “she sincerely believes it” is enough to defend absolute certainty in the first situation, I am struggling to understand why it suddenly becomes worthless in the second. What if Candace just believes it with every fiber of her being, Blake?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2089011865825243154/amplify_video_thumb/2089011297878753280/img/7UY_s94tj9BNNKSA.jpg)
The hypocrisy shared by Blake Neff and Andrew Wilson in how they treat Erika’s beliefs versus Candace’s beliefs is stunning. Watch this clip to see that double standard play out in real time during the recent debate. When Erika publicly expressed 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson murdered her husband, Andrew’s defense was: “Let’s say [Erika] believed it with every fiber of her being…” And: “How is [Erika] trying to fool the public…if she believes it?” When it comes to Erika, sincere belief itself is treated as a sufficient enough explanation. She can arrive at 100% certainty based on whatever personally convinces her, and Andrew treats “she believes it” as the answer. But, when Candace says she believes with full confidence that Israel and France were involved, suddenly her personal assessment is illegitimate unless she produces evidence sufficient enough for Blake Neff, Andrew Wilson, and the entire rest of the world to independently reach the same conclusion. If she fails, that "proves" she is irrational, dishonest, and was merely trying to fool the public. You cannot coherently defend Erika with “but what if she really believes it?” and then declare Candace’s belief illegitimate merely because you remain unconvinced by the reasons she gave for it. Those are just two completely different standards that seem to depend entirely on whose conclusion you prefer. Meanwhile, these beliefs are not even remotely equivalent in their real world stakes. Erika is the murdered man’s widow publicly saying with certainty that the defendant, who has not even been convicted yet and could literally be sentenced to death, murdered her husband. Candace is expressing her belief that additional people or governments were likely involved in a broader conspiracy. Israel and France are not sitting in jail right now waiting to find out whether they’re going to be executed because Candace said she believes they were involved. So if “she sincerely believes it” is enough to defend absolute certainty in the first situation, I am struggling to understand why it suddenly becomes worthless in the second. What if Candace just believes it with every fiber of her being, Blake?
Brave Report53,017 次观看 • 2 个月前
Can someone, anyone, explain the major discrepancies in Lance Twiggs’s testimony that I’m hearing? 1. Lance testified that Tyler did not text him directly AT ALL on September 10th. He testified that the only message that came through that day was via an automated Discord message from Tyler to a D&D server group chat that they were both a part of at 11 pm. Why then are we shown screenshots of a personal text message thread from September 10th where there are texts from Tyler to Lance starting at 4:33 pm?? There’s also a direct text supposedly from Tyler at 11 pm as well — is that what’s being referred to as the “automated” message (although it’s not remotely from Discord)?? Tyler then supposedly sends a flurry of texts detailing his crime to Lance all before midnight. Why did Lance not account for any of these messages when he said Tyler “did not text him directly” all day?? 2. How would Lance know if the one 11 pm text message was “automated” when iMessage doesn’t differentiate between messages that are scheduled before or sent in the moment? 3. Prosecutor Ryan McBride, in his interview of Lance, while reading the messages exchanged.. said clear as day that the messages spanned from September 10th to September 12th. Lance agrees with this. Seconds later, he changes the story and says the messages were from September 10th to the evening of September 11th. Why? Agent Brian Davis, while on the stand, then testified to the messages ending September 11th, but the attorney who questioned him also sounded majorly confused based on what she was reading. She kept saying: “Does September 12th.. make more sense? Does it make sense?” Why did she initially ALSO say September 12th but then backtrack?? 4. Lance says in his testimony that he picked the note up and then never saw it again. Did he not burn it? How could he not pick it up again if he did that. Why was there no testimony to him burning it?
Brave Report21,523 次观看 • 3 个月前
🚨 BREAKING Laurie Cardoza Moore wasn't a "Zionist activist" for decades. She was a working actress for 20+ years in romance hotline ads and tire commercials. Then after a Jewish Federation of Nashville-sponsored trip to Israel, she suddenly "found her mission." Why is it always actresses positioned as the loudest enforcers of Christian Zionism? Sound like anyone else we know? Watch her transformation 👇
Brave Report28,959 次观看 • 9 个月前
没有更多内容可加载