Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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...

RavenGrace0613's profile picture

Raven Grace 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

20,529 subscribers

48,459 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

ComedyNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Candace begging to be sued for a minute straight…. Turns out Candace is full of hot air. She is all talk and no walk. She has started the process to dismiss the Harpole case, which she so badly wanted discovery on.
1:58

Candace begging to be sued for a minute straight…. Turns out Candace is full of hot air. She is all talk and no walk. She has started the process to dismiss the Harpole case, which she so badly wanted discovery on.

lisaknows

11,176 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

‼️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. 👇
36:59

‼️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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Andrew went to TPUSA and asked for evidence to dispute all the BS Candace and the other minions have been saying for months. He said they were happy to give it to him. He also says he will give everyone evidence that on Friday all this will be dropped. - Erika was not at Ft H. He says the entire Ft H conspiracy will be blown out of the water. Mitch and Stew Peters are screwed. But also if the evidence shows this the Harpole case is a in a great position. - Where Erika was when Charlie died - Charlie wanted Erika to take over - The text - That Candace was after TPUSA almost as soon as Charlie died. I bet it’s texts and emails from Candace wanting to go back to TPUSA and being told no but I could be wrong. And more….. That what he shows will shut down all the conspiracies. This is what Candace is so mad about. She knew when that text was read that Andrew had more than just that. We shall see. I hope it’s iron clad.
1:34

Andrew went to TPUSA and asked for evidence to dispute all the BS Candace and the other minions have been saying for months. He said they were happy to give it to him. He also says he will give everyone evidence that on Friday all this will be dropped. - Erika was not at Ft H. He says the entire Ft H conspiracy will be blown out of the water. Mitch and Stew Peters are screwed. But also if the evidence shows this the Harpole case is a in a great position. - Where Erika was when Charlie died - Charlie wanted Erika to take over - The text - That Candace was after TPUSA almost as soon as Charlie died. I bet it’s texts and emails from Candace wanting to go back to TPUSA and being told no but I could be wrong. And more….. That what he shows will shut down all the conspiracies. This is what Candace is so mad about. She knew when that text was read that Andrew had more than just that. We shall see. I hope it’s iron clad.

Raven Grace - Operative #22/92

36,934 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

Undeniable proof that Candace Owens lied. She didn’t just get it wrong — she knowingly lied to her audience, treating them like idiots. This is also clear evidence of reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice in her defamation of Brian Harpole and Erika Kirk. I break down exactly why she’s going to lose the Harpole defamation case. Watch below 👇 *Uploaded the directly to X bc I know some don't like switching platforms to view videos. This one's important for people to see. Please share! Dhillon Law Group
23:25

Undeniable proof that Candace Owens lied. She didn’t just get it wrong — she knowingly lied to her audience, treating them like idiots. This is also clear evidence of reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice in her defamation of Brian Harpole and Erika Kirk. I break down exactly why she’s going to lose the Harpole defamation case. Watch below 👇 *Uploaded the directly to X bc I know some don't like switching platforms to view videos. This one's important for people to see. Please share! Dhillon Law Group

Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton

440,608 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Today is a court hearing in the case Emmanuel Macron et al. v. Candace Owens et al. where Candace’s lawyer will ask the judge to dismiss the case against her. Flashback to the time where Candace told Tucker she doesn’t want it dismissed. Candace has a problem with telling the truth.
0:29

Today is a court hearing in the case Emmanuel Macron et al. v. Candace Owens et al. where Candace’s lawyer will ask the judge to dismiss the case against her. Flashback to the time where Candace told Tucker she doesn’t want it dismissed. Candace has a problem with telling the truth.

The Great Gats🐝

55,248 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"SHE WAS HOPING FOR DISCOVERY!" Candace Owens followers says she’s playing 4D chess and WANTS discovery. Here’s what an actual defamation lawyer has to say about that 👀 BeardLawyer breaks it down on the Brian Harpole defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens. Full interview 👇
3:39

"SHE WAS HOPING FOR DISCOVERY!" Candace Owens followers says she’s playing 4D chess and WANTS discovery. Here’s what an actual defamation lawyer has to say about that 👀 BeardLawyer breaks it down on the Brian Harpole defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens. Full interview 👇

Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton

26,323 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I think Candace last night setup her excuse for asking for a dismissal. That I don’t think she will get. In these two videos she explains she has to plead her case to her husband to not file for a dismissal. The first she has to “plead her case” with Georgie not to. The second video she says she knows he’s going to say to because it’s expensive and George folds and will not want to fight it. George is more sensible. So it’s going to be my husband over rode me. Just my opinion and I’ve been wrong before but I think she will say George wants her to file for dismissal on these grounds. Any thoughts?
0:29

I think Candace last night setup her excuse for asking for a dismissal. That I don’t think she will get. In these two videos she explains she has to plead her case to her husband to not file for a dismissal. The first she has to “plead her case” with Georgie not to. The second video she says she knows he’s going to say to because it’s expensive and George folds and will not want to fight it. George is more sensible. So it’s going to be my husband over rode me. Just my opinion and I’ve been wrong before but I think she will say George wants her to file for dismissal on these grounds. Any thoughts?

Raven Grace 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

35,702 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

“This would be your unique opportunity as the French first man to prove your case about Candace to the public. In the court of public opinion, this would be your time to slam dunk.” This is regarded because the French first couple are currently suing Candace in a court of law, which I think is outrageous but it’s the reality. Why would they speak publicly when they’re suing her, and the case is going through, and her motion to dismiss has been denied?
3:29

“This would be your unique opportunity as the French first man to prove your case about Candace to the public. In the court of public opinion, this would be your time to slam dunk.” This is regarded because the French first couple are currently suing Candace in a court of law, which I think is outrageous but it’s the reality. Why would they speak publicly when they’re suing her, and the case is going through, and her motion to dismiss has been denied?

Natalie Jean Beisner

23,238 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

People need to realise that Candace Owens and her loyal followers don’t live in the real world and couldn’t care less about the truth. She’s literally claiming this case is the last straw that will lead to a revolution. Bullet doesn't match gun = proof Tyler Robinson didn't kill Charlie Kirk = conspiracy. Even If the bullet did match with the gun = proof of conspiracy. No matter what happens in the Tyler Robinson case, she will spin the outcome to push her agenda. Candace Owens - who embodies being elite with obscene wealth - is profiting from her audience while calling for a populist uprising. At the same time, she tells them they can’t trust the media, the government, the legal system, or anyone but her. There is no possible outcome of this case where she will back down, admit fault, or acknowledge being wrong. Every scenario will be reframed to reinforce her narrative - that a cabal of satanic elites (mostly Jews) control the world and are the reason for why her audience has problems. Anything that doesn’t support this agenda - or anyone who stands in its way - is dismissed or attacked.
3:12

People need to realise that Candace Owens and her loyal followers don’t live in the real world and couldn’t care less about the truth. She’s literally claiming this case is the last straw that will lead to a revolution. Bullet doesn't match gun = proof Tyler Robinson didn't kill Charlie Kirk = conspiracy. Even If the bullet did match with the gun = proof of conspiracy. No matter what happens in the Tyler Robinson case, she will spin the outcome to push her agenda. Candace Owens - who embodies being elite with obscene wealth - is profiting from her audience while calling for a populist uprising. At the same time, she tells them they can’t trust the media, the government, the legal system, or anyone but her. There is no possible outcome of this case where she will back down, admit fault, or acknowledge being wrong. Every scenario will be reframed to reinforce her narrative - that a cabal of satanic elites (mostly Jews) control the world and are the reason for why her audience has problems. Anything that doesn’t support this agenda - or anyone who stands in its way - is dismissed or attacked.

Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV)

14,060 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

After Charlie Kirk died, Candace Owens promised if Erika Kirk told her to “STOP” "her investigation" - which, to this day, has yielded nothing other than engagement and $$$$ for Candace - she would. The moment Erika Kirk did exactly what Candace told her to do and said “STOP,” Candace turned on her. Because... 1. Nobody was going to take away Candace’s cash cow. 2. Candace Owens has a terminal case of “Main Character Syndrome.” 3. It’s become abundantly clear that Candace has scores to settle. Candace Owens is a psycopath, looking back, this was always what she was going to do. What’s truly evil is the audience and influencers that have enabled and even egged her on, and the so-called friends of Charlie Kirk and figures on the right too cowardly to call it out.
3:03

After Charlie Kirk died, Candace Owens promised if Erika Kirk told her to “STOP” "her investigation" - which, to this day, has yielded nothing other than engagement and $$$$ for Candace - she would. The moment Erika Kirk did exactly what Candace told her to do and said “STOP,” Candace turned on her. Because... 1. Nobody was going to take away Candace’s cash cow. 2. Candace Owens has a terminal case of “Main Character Syndrome.” 3. It’s become abundantly clear that Candace has scores to settle. Candace Owens is a psycopath, looking back, this was always what she was going to do. What’s truly evil is the audience and influencers that have enabled and even egged her on, and the so-called friends of Charlie Kirk and figures on the right too cowardly to call it out.

Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV)

42,762 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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.
0:34

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

81,992 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

“The important thing I want to stress to you is how abnormal it is that the prosecution—Erika’s team—is arguing against a continuance. I am perpetually involved in lawsuits. Continuances are basically like common courtesies…” lol Candace is RETARDED. The prosecution isn’t “Erika’s team.” The prosecution represents the state. Erika didn’t hire these lawyers, and they don’t represent her. Utah has special victims rights, and she’s listed as the victim in this case because she’s next-of-kin to the man who was murdered. It’s not “her team.” Plus, it is WILD to compare Candace’s defamation lawsuits to a homicide case. There is literally no comparison. She’s never been involved in a murder case, and she has no idea what she’s talking about. She cannot be this stupid.
1:12

“The important thing I want to stress to you is how abnormal it is that the prosecution—Erika’s team—is arguing against a continuance. I am perpetually involved in lawsuits. Continuances are basically like common courtesies…” lol Candace is RETARDED. The prosecution isn’t “Erika’s team.” The prosecution represents the state. Erika didn’t hire these lawyers, and they don’t represent her. Utah has special victims rights, and she’s listed as the victim in this case because she’s next-of-kin to the man who was murdered. It’s not “her team.” Plus, it is WILD to compare Candace’s defamation lawsuits to a homicide case. There is literally no comparison. She’s never been involved in a murder case, and she has no idea what she’s talking about. She cannot be this stupid.

Natalie Jean Beisner

78,675 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

“How did Erika Kirk scam a genius like Charlie? The more I hear her past interviews, the dumber she sounds.” Candace Owens is asked how Charlie could fall for Erika. Her answer is that “we’re all human, and we all make mistakes.” She suggests that Charlie didn’t know the real Erika, and if he had things might’ve been different. But sure, tell me this woman isn’t in love with Charlie and bitter towards Erika. This is a despicable way for a Christian woman to talk about her murdered “best friend” and the widow he leaves behind. But that’s the trap Candace and her fans fall into—for them to be right about even half of this, Charlie had to have been really dumb. And we’re not talking one or two big betrayals over the course of a life. We’re talking about being—according to Candace—“betrayed by EVERYONE.”
1:30

“How did Erika Kirk scam a genius like Charlie? The more I hear her past interviews, the dumber she sounds.” Candace Owens is asked how Charlie could fall for Erika. Her answer is that “we’re all human, and we all make mistakes.” She suggests that Charlie didn’t know the real Erika, and if he had things might’ve been different. But sure, tell me this woman isn’t in love with Charlie and bitter towards Erika. This is a despicable way for a Christian woman to talk about her murdered “best friend” and the widow he leaves behind. But that’s the trap Candace and her fans fall into—for them to be right about even half of this, Charlie had to have been really dumb. And we’re not talking one or two big betrayals over the course of a life. We’re talking about being—according to Candace—“betrayed by EVERYONE.”

Natalie Jean Beisner

44,068 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

You're telling me Erika Kirk knew about the 4K video showing Tyler Robinson taking the shot that killed her husband, while Candace went around saying he wasn't even on campus? Erika knew Candace was making a fool of herself and just sat back, knowing her faith and the truth would prevail. BTW, the reason Erika knew about the video and Candace didn't is because Erika is Charlie's WIFE, and Candace is an unhinged "acquaintance" (and I use that word lightly, she was someone he needed to "manage") who wasn't even invited to the wedding. Candace is brainrot. She will never let facts and hard evidence get in the way of clicks and fame!
2:50

You're telling me Erika Kirk knew about the 4K video showing Tyler Robinson taking the shot that killed her husband, while Candace went around saying he wasn't even on campus? Erika knew Candace was making a fool of herself and just sat back, knowing her faith and the truth would prevail. BTW, the reason Erika knew about the video and Candace didn't is because Erika is Charlie's WIFE, and Candace is an unhinged "acquaintance" (and I use that word lightly, she was someone he needed to "manage") who wasn't even invited to the wedding. Candace is brainrot. She will never let facts and hard evidence get in the way of clicks and fame!

Avery Daye

492,203 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

‼️Candace Owens Has NEW Evidence That Suggests Erika Kirk Was EMBEDDED in the Epstein Network 👀 Tonight is the final episode of Candace Owens’ show before a two-week summer break, and she’s promising a major bombshell. Candace says her team discovered something “insane” about an audience member who appeared in the chaos surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She revealed that she now believes she was right about the maroon berets and France, and that she missed a critical piece of the puzzle that points to Erika Kirk having ties to Jeffrey Epstein’s network. According to Candace, they now have enough evidence that Erika should be required to respond. This is shaping up to be one of her biggest episodes yet before the break. FOLLOW Candace Owens , RT and watch her FULL episode linked below.👇 ⚠️If you value our work and want to help us financially, your support is what helps us stay independent and keep the lights on. DONATE Here:
0:37

‼️Candace Owens Has NEW Evidence That Suggests Erika Kirk Was EMBEDDED in the Epstein Network 👀 Tonight is the final episode of Candace Owens’ show before a two-week summer break, and she’s promising a major bombshell. Candace says her team discovered something “insane” about an audience member who appeared in the chaos surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She revealed that she now believes she was right about the maroon berets and France, and that she missed a critical piece of the puzzle that points to Erika Kirk having ties to Jeffrey Epstein’s network. According to Candace, they now have enough evidence that Erika should be required to respond. This is shaping up to be one of her biggest episodes yet before the break. FOLLOW Candace Owens , RT and watch her FULL episode linked below.👇 ⚠️If you value our work and want to help us financially, your support is what helps us stay independent and keep the lights on. DONATE Here:

Project Constitution

31,954 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Blair Cottrell posts a follow up video explaining how the first person to break ranks and publicly criticise the hate crimes legislation is a Labor Party MP from NSW. The MP is also a Barrister, and he says how he thinks WAP will win their High Court case and be launched into politics. Very good video and Blair is right to criticise One Nation who have been silent on the case. This case is at the forefront of freedom of speech and freedom of political expression for the nation. As Blair says, everyone should be talking about this.
2:44

Blair Cottrell posts a follow up video explaining how the first person to break ranks and publicly criticise the hate crimes legislation is a Labor Party MP from NSW. The MP is also a Barrister, and he says how he thinks WAP will win their High Court case and be launched into politics. Very good video and Blair is right to criticise One Nation who have been silent on the case. This case is at the forefront of freedom of speech and freedom of political expression for the nation. As Blair says, everyone should be talking about this.

Lone Patriot

13,482 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Candace Owens mocked that, in the latest defamation lawsuit against her, Brian Harpole said he didn’t give her an alibi in December for the absurd claim he was at Fort Huachuca military base the day before Charlie Kirk died - because he didn’t want Candace to engagement farm off his response. Which is EXACTLY what she did. To Erika Kirk and others when they provided alibis for this exact wild claim. Even holding an X Space where she titled it "Fort Huachuca: Why it suddenly matters" - because people had provided alibis. Candace now claims that if Harpole had simply given her an alibi, she would have let the entire thing go. The COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what she actually did. In that Space, she directly argues that providing an alibi proves guilt. And says that if Erika and others hadn’t responded, she would have dropped it - Which is exactly what Harpole did. As always zero consistency. Entirely BS. These kinds of games won't fly in court.
1:07

Candace Owens mocked that, in the latest defamation lawsuit against her, Brian Harpole said he didn’t give her an alibi in December for the absurd claim he was at Fort Huachuca military base the day before Charlie Kirk died - because he didn’t want Candace to engagement farm off his response. Which is EXACTLY what she did. To Erika Kirk and others when they provided alibis for this exact wild claim. Even holding an X Space where she titled it "Fort Huachuca: Why it suddenly matters" - because people had provided alibis. Candace now claims that if Harpole had simply given her an alibi, she would have let the entire thing go. The COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what she actually did. In that Space, she directly argues that providing an alibi proves guilt. And says that if Erika and others hadn’t responded, she would have dropped it - Which is exactly what Harpole did. As always zero consistency. Entirely BS. These kinds of games won't fly in court.

Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV)

94,851 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Candace Owens explains why Erika Kirk’s 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk made her question whether Erika was somehow complicit. Candace Owens: "How could you sit up there and say, yes I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it? That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erika Kirk is not complicit somehow." Andrew Wilson: "How would it be the case that even if Erika Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk, that somehow she's complicit?" Candace Owens: "When I sat down with [Erika] and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that or whatever, but when I sat down with her, it was nothing, it was nothing."
1:45

Candace Owens explains why Erika Kirk’s 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk made her question whether Erika was somehow complicit. Candace Owens: "How could you sit up there and say, yes I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it? That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erika Kirk is not complicit somehow." Andrew Wilson: "How would it be the case that even if Erika Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk, that somehow she's complicit?" Candace Owens: "When I sat down with [Erika] and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that or whatever, but when I sat down with her, it was nothing, it was nothing."

PBD Podcast

251,792 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens has moved to dismiss Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit over her claims that Harpole, Erika Kirk, and the U.S. military helped plan Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Fort Huachuca. Owens repeatedly said she wanted to be sued because discovery and subpoena power would help her expose the truth about Kirk's murder. She said the same about Macron. Now she’s seeking dismissal in both cases. Funny how “Sue me. I want subpoena power” turns into “Your Honor, please dismiss” once the discovery actually gets close.
0:39

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens has moved to dismiss Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit over her claims that Harpole, Erika Kirk, and the U.S. military helped plan Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Fort Huachuca. Owens repeatedly said she wanted to be sued because discovery and subpoena power would help her expose the truth about Kirk's murder. She said the same about Macron. Now she’s seeking dismissal in both cases. Funny how “Sue me. I want subpoena power” turns into “Your Honor, please dismiss” once the discovery actually gets close.

KanekoaTheGreat

359,554 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

‼️BREAKING: Candace Owens Just RESPONDED To Brian Harpole's LAWSUIT —He Just Handed Her Full DISCOVERY Power! 👀 Candace isn’t just responding to the Brian Harpole lawsuit—she’s celebrating it. After waking up "highly upset" over Erica Kirk’s claims, Candace revealed that Harpole’s legal move might be the biggest mistake he’s ever made. The Power Move: "That would grant me, your girl, the power of subpoena. Let’s get started." She’s promising that the "punishment is more truth" and hinting that something massive is coming undone behind the scenes. With a secret ready to be revealed and the legal power to dig deep, the "crazy" is officially hitting a breaking point. ☕️🍿 Is this a tactical error for Harpole, or is Candace playing with fire? Drop your theories in the comments. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her full EPISODE linked below.👇
1:06

‼️BREAKING: Candace Owens Just RESPONDED To Brian Harpole's LAWSUIT —He Just Handed Her Full DISCOVERY Power! 👀 Candace isn’t just responding to the Brian Harpole lawsuit—she’s celebrating it. After waking up "highly upset" over Erica Kirk’s claims, Candace revealed that Harpole’s legal move might be the biggest mistake he’s ever made. The Power Move: "That would grant me, your girl, the power of subpoena. Let’s get started." She’s promising that the "punishment is more truth" and hinting that something massive is coming undone behind the scenes. With a secret ready to be revealed and the legal power to dig deep, the "crazy" is officially hitting a breaking point. ☕️🍿 Is this a tactical error for Harpole, or is Candace playing with fire? Drop your theories in the comments. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her full EPISODE linked below.👇

Project Constitution

199,059 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten