正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Candace has some issues coming with the Harpole case. Here is Nicholas Brooks, who is a lawyer breaks it all down. I’ve watched many of his videos for the Macron case. He isn’t bias. And this case Candace should be very worried about. Believe me she’s not excited about...

48,218 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

‼️BOMBSHELL: Candace Owens FULL RESPONSE To Brian Harpole's Frivolous Lawsuit —She DISMANTLED It Count By Count. 😱 Candace just dropped a massive deep-dive into the 69-page lawsuit filed by Brian Harpole, and she isn’t just defending herself—she’s going on the offensive. If you thought this was going to quiet her down, think again. The Breakdown: andace reveals Harpole is using the same legal team The Daily Wire used against her. Coincidence? She doesn't think so. She calls out the "dishonest" presentation of text messages used to explain why rooftops weren't secured, proving they weren't even Harpole’s messages. Candace shows the receipts—she reached out to Harpole four times to confirm his whereabouts before interviewing Mitch Snow. He chose silence; now he’s choosing a lawsuit. This is the kicker. Candace realizes this lawsuit grants her the legal authority to subpoena unseen footage and private text messages from the entire Turning Point USA circle. The Quote of the Night: "Is the power of subpoena actually going to be our only way to get to the truth of what happened to Charlie Kirk? If that’s the path, let’s get started." Candace is framing this not as a legal threat, but as a golden ticket to discovery. She’s ready to sit everyone down for depositions—from security to leadership. Is this the move that finally breaks the Charlie Kirk case wide open, or is it just a PR stunt that will backfire in discovery? FOLLOW FULL, RT and watch her full EPISODE linked below. 👇

Project Constitution

245,494 次观看 • 2 个月前

Watch Candace contradict herself from one month to the next. 👇👇👇 In January, Candace confirmed that a TPUSA donor who’s a “very good person” and was at the Aspen retreat said that Charlie did actually say he’d want Erika to take over in the event of something happening. Candace said the story “checked out” and that she had her answer. Now, she’s telling us that another donor has said actually no Charlie said nothing of the sort. Obviously two separate donors can say two separate things; it happens. The problem is that Candace is pretending she never said what she said in January. She seems to have forgotten all about this very good person donor from January who’s story checked out. She doesn’t seem at all concerned that this donor apparently lied to her, and she doesn’t explain to her audience—an audience she claims to be working with to “crowdsource” an “investigation”—why she believes one donor over the other. Both (or all) donors remain unnamed, so we can’t check for ourselves why we’re getting conflicting stories from them and from Candace. Another problem? Candace is now saying that Charlie saying this in Aspen never passed the sniff test for her—but if that’s the case, why did she hide that from us in January? Why didn’t she clue her audience into that? The audience she again claims to be working alongside? Why did she lead us to believe the story checked out if it “didn’t pass the sniff test”? Candace is making it up as she goes along. Her story shifts from month to month—not in the typical way for a fluid investigation but rather in ways wherein she all-out contradicts herself from one month to the next and never actually explains why. It’s as if previous months are simply forgotten by her—and she’s hoping you’ll forget too.

Natalie Jean Beisner

81,959 次观看 • 1 个月前