The “Good” Woman's banner

The “Good” Woman

@thegoodwomanp • 1,640 subscribers

Jesus 1st

Shorts

“Most people don’t care if someone says licensed instead of certified.” AKA: You don’t care that Leah blatantly lied about her credentials and misled thousands of people. And that is exactly where you’re wrong. People absolutely care because those words are not interchangeable. They may ignore it because of the sunk cost fallacy, but people who have not tied their entire identity to apophenia and these conspiracy theories will understand why it matters. That is why Leah blocks people with a following when they call her out for lying. “Licensed” communicates a higher level of professional oversight, scrutiny, and accountability than “certified.” That is why people use the term. It carries more authority. A genuine question for the defenders of theleahfiles: You told us Erika’s alleged lies about her college accolades were enough to destroy her credibility. You even used those allegations to insinuate that she could be involved in covering up Charlie’s assassination. Meanwhile, Leah has been doing phony “deep dives” into financial structures and business dealings. As a licensed professional who reviews financials and has experience with multiple business structures, I can see that she is either ignorant of how these arrangements work or deliberately misleading people into believing there are nefarious financial dealings without sufficient evidence. Yet with Leah: • She publicly claimed she was licensed, doubled down when I asked where she was licensed, and later changed it to certified. • She publicly claimed she had been doxed, but later acknowledged that the image and information people found came from a public X post made by a former employer. Meanwhile, the person she accused, Lisa Knows, ended up having non-public personal information circulated online. Yet now Brave Report you are saying none of this matters. So which standard are you using while claiming to be “seekers of truth”? If alleged dishonesty was enough for you to conclude that Erika might be involved in a cover-up, why doesn’t the same reasoning cause you to question Leah’s credibility and integrity? Or was it never really about honesty? Is it simply about who you want people to believe? And if Leah’s followers paid for her content because they believed she was a licensed fraud examiner, and that was a major reason they trusted her “investigations”, I think they should ask for a refund.

“Most people don’t care if someone says licensed instead of certified.” AKA: You don’t care that Leah blatantly lied about her credentials and misled thousands of people. And that is exactly where you’re wrong. People absolutely care because those words are not interchangeable. They may ignore it because of the sunk cost fallacy, but people who have not tied their entire identity to apophenia and these conspiracy theories will understand why it matters. That is why Leah blocks people with a following when they call her out for lying. “Licensed” communicates a higher level of professional oversight, scrutiny, and accountability than “certified.” That is why people use the term. It carries more authority. A genuine question for the defenders of theleahfiles: You told us Erika’s alleged lies about her college accolades were enough to destroy her credibility. You even used those allegations to insinuate that she could be involved in covering up Charlie’s assassination. Meanwhile, Leah has been doing phony “deep dives” into financial structures and business dealings. As a licensed professional who reviews financials and has experience with multiple business structures, I can see that she is either ignorant of how these arrangements work or deliberately misleading people into believing there are nefarious financial dealings without sufficient evidence. Yet with Leah: • She publicly claimed she was licensed, doubled down when I asked where she was licensed, and later changed it to certified. • She publicly claimed she had been doxed, but later acknowledged that the image and information people found came from a public X post made by a former employer. Meanwhile, the person she accused, Lisa Knows, ended up having non-public personal information circulated online. Yet now Brave Report you are saying none of this matters. So which standard are you using while claiming to be “seekers of truth”? If alleged dishonesty was enough for you to conclude that Erika might be involved in a cover-up, why doesn’t the same reasoning cause you to question Leah’s credibility and integrity? Or was it never really about honesty? Is it simply about who you want people to believe? And if Leah’s followers paid for her content because they believed she was a licensed fraud examiner, and that was a major reason they trusted her “investigations”, I think they should ask for a refund.

16,195 views

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

Some things summaries don’t show. Candace once again reveals pieces of her childhood trauma surrounding mistakes and how she says she was treated by her mother. According to Candace, her own mother kicked her out at 14 years old and sent her to live with a boyfriend. It makes me wonder how much of what we’re watching now is projection. Does seeing Erika so loved, protected, and nurtured by multiple motherly women of God trigger something in Candace? Is that why she repeatedly attacks Erika’s mother, along with Tracey Martin, another motherly figure in Erika’s life? And then there’s this little moment that immediately caught my attention. Right after talking about making mistakes as a child and how her mother responded to them, Candace almost repeats one of her own infamous mistakes. “Genie back in the…” She stops herself. “…bottle.” Remember, Candace previously slipped and said “genie back in the Bible” instead of “genie back in the bottle.” Maybe it’s coincidence, but the timing is interesting. She had JUST been talking about making mistakes and being corrected by her mother. Did talking about that experience make her hyperaware of making another mistake in that exact moment? Is that what made her catch herself before “genie back in the Bible” made its second appearance? Obviously, none of us can know exactly what is happening inside Candace’s head. But when someone repeatedly tells you about the wounds of their childhood, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether those wounds are influencing who they choose to attack today. And as for Candace calling herself “Legion”… I fully believe her when she says it.

Some things summaries don’t show. Candace once again reveals pieces of her childhood trauma surrounding mistakes and how she says she was treated by her mother. According to Candace, her own mother kicked her out at 14 years old and sent her to live with a boyfriend. It makes me wonder how much of what we’re watching now is projection. Does seeing Erika so loved, protected, and nurtured by multiple motherly women of God trigger something in Candace? Is that why she repeatedly attacks Erika’s mother, along with Tracey Martin, another motherly figure in Erika’s life? And then there’s this little moment that immediately caught my attention. Right after talking about making mistakes as a child and how her mother responded to them, Candace almost repeats one of her own infamous mistakes. “Genie back in the…” She stops herself. “…bottle.” Remember, Candace previously slipped and said “genie back in the Bible” instead of “genie back in the bottle.” Maybe it’s coincidence, but the timing is interesting. She had JUST been talking about making mistakes and being corrected by her mother. Did talking about that experience make her hyperaware of making another mistake in that exact moment? Is that what made her catch herself before “genie back in the Bible” made its second appearance? Obviously, none of us can know exactly what is happening inside Candace’s head. But when someone repeatedly tells you about the wounds of their childhood, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether those wounds are influencing who they choose to attack today. And as for Candace calling herself “Legion”… I fully believe her when she says it.

The “Good” Woman

18,625 views • 1 day ago

What do you think about this?? Why hasn’t Candace Owens used the same software that she used to make up her mind and convince herself and many of her fans that Emmanuel Macron’s wife is a man. So, is this software as reliable as you touted?? If it is NOT as reliable then did you just make that episode to make money for no reason regardless of who it affected? If it IS reliable, would you stop questioning if Tyler was the one that got up on that roof and not a look-a-like? Just asking questions! Go ahead and try it for yourself with those two images. 😊 Receipts to follow.

What do you think about this?? Why hasn’t Candace Owens used the same software that she used to make up her mind and convince herself and many of her fans that Emmanuel Macron’s wife is a man. So, is this software as reliable as you touted?? If it is NOT as reliable then did you just make that episode to make money for no reason regardless of who it affected? If it IS reliable, would you stop questioning if Tyler was the one that got up on that roof and not a look-a-like? Just asking questions! Go ahead and try it for yourself with those two images. 😊 Receipts to follow.

The “Good” Woman

82,295 views • 1 month ago

I didn’t know about this other case till today. So sad.

I didn’t know about this other case till today. So sad.

The “Good” Woman

22,023 views • 12 days ago

“Most people don’t care if someone says licensed instead of certified.” AKA: You don’t care that Leah blatantly lied about her credentials and misled thousands of people. And that is exactly where you’re wrong. People absolutely care because those words are not interchangeable. They may ignore it because of the sunk cost fallacy, but people who have not tied their entire identity to apophenia and these conspiracy theories will understand why it matters. That is why Leah blocks people with a following when they call her out for lying. “Licensed” communicates a higher level of professional oversight, scrutiny, and accountability than “certified.” That is why people use the term. It carries more authority. A genuine question for the defenders of theleahfiles: You told us Erika’s alleged lies about her college accolades were enough to destroy her credibility. You even used those allegations to insinuate that she could be involved in covering up Charlie’s assassination. Meanwhile, Leah has been doing phony “deep dives” into financial structures and business dealings. As a licensed professional who reviews financials and has experience with multiple business structures, I can see that she is either ignorant of how these arrangements work or deliberately misleading people into believing there are nefarious financial dealings without sufficient evidence. Yet with Leah: • She publicly claimed she was licensed, doubled down when I asked where she was licensed, and later changed it to certified. • She publicly claimed she had been doxed, but later acknowledged that the image and information people found came from a public X post made by a former employer. Meanwhile, the person she accused, Lisa Knows, ended up having non-public personal information circulated online. Yet now Brave Report you are saying none of this matters. So which standard are you using while claiming to be “seekers of truth”? If alleged dishonesty was enough for you to conclude that Erika might be involved in a cover-up, why doesn’t the same reasoning cause you to question Leah’s credibility and integrity? Or was it never really about honesty? Is it simply about who you want people to believe? And if Leah’s followers paid for her content because they believed she was a licensed fraud examiner, and that was a major reason they trusted her “investigations”, I think they should ask for a refund.

“Most people don’t care if someone says licensed instead of certified.” AKA: You don’t care that Leah blatantly lied about her credentials and misled thousands of people. And that is exactly where you’re wrong. People absolutely care because those words are not interchangeable. They may ignore it because of the sunk cost fallacy, but people who have not tied their entire identity to apophenia and these conspiracy theories will understand why it matters. That is why Leah blocks people with a following when they call her out for lying. “Licensed” communicates a higher level of professional oversight, scrutiny, and accountability than “certified.” That is why people use the term. It carries more authority. A genuine question for the defenders of theleahfiles: You told us Erika’s alleged lies about her college accolades were enough to destroy her credibility. You even used those allegations to insinuate that she could be involved in covering up Charlie’s assassination. Meanwhile, Leah has been doing phony “deep dives” into financial structures and business dealings. As a licensed professional who reviews financials and has experience with multiple business structures, I can see that she is either ignorant of how these arrangements work or deliberately misleading people into believing there are nefarious financial dealings without sufficient evidence. Yet with Leah: • She publicly claimed she was licensed, doubled down when I asked where she was licensed, and later changed it to certified. • She publicly claimed she had been doxed, but later acknowledged that the image and information people found came from a public X post made by a former employer. Meanwhile, the person she accused, Lisa Knows, ended up having non-public personal information circulated online. Yet now Brave Report you are saying none of this matters. So which standard are you using while claiming to be “seekers of truth”? If alleged dishonesty was enough for you to conclude that Erika might be involved in a cover-up, why doesn’t the same reasoning cause you to question Leah’s credibility and integrity? Or was it never really about honesty? Is it simply about who you want people to believe? And if Leah’s followers paid for her content because they believed she was a licensed fraud examiner, and that was a major reason they trusted her “investigations”, I think they should ask for a refund.

Nish Perez 🇺🇸🇵🇷

16,195 views • 1 month ago

No more content to load