We are talking about texts from 2018 though. If Charlie changed for example the phone, and if you dont care about old messages from someone you disassociated with, would you keep the texts? What if she knew that nobody else will still have these. I mean its before! she joined DW.

Some of you love handing Candace Owens victories…it’s remarkable. You love giving her propaganda to show her followers so she can say that the establishment, Zionists, and Jews are just trying to discredit them. When you deny the authenticity of something put out by a media figure like Candace, you sure as hell better be right. And if you’re not, then it’s not something that just vanishes and gets lost in the mix. Candace will weaponize your attempts to debunk her to further radicalize her followers and recruit new ones who were previously on the fence. We’ve seen this happen time and time again with her. Remember the group chat where Charlie Kirk was talking about Israel? How many of you fools came out and immediately accused her of fabricating it? Well, of course, it turned out to be accurate. I am in no position to verify the authenticity of these texts, but Candace is not dumb, she’s likely not going to make up texts that other people have access to, in this case, Erika Kirk. Using ChatGPT is not a legitimate method to authenticate text messages or refute the authenticity of text messages. This does not mean that Candace doesn’t spend her days spreading conspiracy theories and lies. It means she’s not fully self-destructive.

Trump’s attacks on legal immigration are hurting Colorado’s economy. 60% of ski resorts rely on workers with J-1 visas, and many are now scrambling as they are unable to fill the positions needed. When we shut immigrants out, we hurt our local businesses, our tourism industry, and our economy. bit.ly/3LqK1eU

So easy to debunk— and you are beyond pathetic for trying this: 1) See email below: My CNN interview was booked BEFORE Charlie died and it was related to my book launch. We kept the interview, which took place about 20 days AFTER he had passed, and we told them in writing, multiple times that I wanted NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARLIE. Despite this, CNN was CNN and violated our request and asked about him once cameras were rolling. 2) You awarded an interview to WSJ about Charlie’s death, 4 days after he was gone and chose to pose outside of his public memorial site in high boots. We are not the same. 3) “Davidic” was Charlie’s word, not mine.

When Candace first launched her so-called “Davidic” crusade to defend Charlie and “uncover the truth” behind his assassination, she accused me of being unfazed by his death and publicly condemned me for giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal a week later, calling my timing and tone “icky,” and insinuating that I—and TPUSA—were somehow exploiting Charlie’s death to advance our mission. (It should be noted that I was the only TPUSA contributor who declined ALL media for the first week.) Normal people don’t respond to death the way they did, she attested. But we responded in the only way Charlie would have wanted: (1) empowering law-enforcement allies like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino—two men Charlie himself advocated for to secure positions within this administration, to pursue justice for his killer; and (2) working tirelessly to ensure that Charlie’s message and legacy were amplified across the globe. Exactly what that WSJ article did. That was the beginning of Candace’s tirade against the very people Charlie called his closest friends and mentors. She’s stopped just short of outright accusing them of orchestrating his death, preferring instead to “just ask questions,” say “the vibes are off,” or otherwise insinuate what she didn’t have the courage (or legal standing) to claim directly, likely fearing another defamation lawsuit. Candace has said she was virtually incapacitated with grief in the days following Charlie’s death—that she couldn’t bear to speak to the media about it. Yet by her own later admission, this was false. While defending her incoherent CNN interview, she excused her erratic answers by saying it was recorded “a couple of days after Charlie’s death.” (She now says it was two weeks after the assassination.) I was icky and self-seeking for talking to the media a week after his death, to honor Charlie’s legacy, mind you. But when Candace jumps to do a CNN interview about conspiracies she started (not even honoring him) a “couple of days” after his death? She’s Charlie’s guardian angel. Cool. Makes sense! Since then, she’s been weaving strings of “evidence” connecting Charlie’s mentors and allies (e.g., “everyone at TPUSA is involved in a coverup”) to sinister motives, all while accusing them of mismanaging or profiting from his death. Candace, positioning herself as Charlie’s self-styled “David,” claims she’s only seeking truth. But it’s become increasingly clear that she’s projecting, doing precisely what she accuses us of doing: leveraging Charlie’s death for brand awareness and personal profit. Unlike David, however, Candace hasn’t slain a giant. She’s been sparring with a lightweight libtarded CNN reporter, and somehow still losing.

Working through the weekend with President Donald J. Trump. It’s always an honor to be in the Oval Office— I never take this opportunity to serve Oklahoma for granted. 🇺🇸