Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Charlie Kirk: Aftermath, Gravedancing, and Manhunt
A summary: Daily mail and TMZ published articles that suggested that the ballistics evidence was expultory. Christopher Ballard from prosecution reasonably talked to them to correct the record, but also made statements regard the strength of the case and with that tainted the jury pool. They are considered to have broken the court order for participating lawyers not to make substantial public statements.
It's considered to not be a malicious breach of said order and it considered an indirect form of contempt.
Defense asked for death penalty to be removed as a result, but that's been ruled against.
Tucker Carlson interviews Alex Bruesewitz, Trump's social media advisor.
It starts with the latter accusing Carlson of saying that Israel killed Charlie Kirk, and Tucker denies ever having said that, but that he knows a lot of people in the Trump administration who believe it:
Carlson points out that it hasn't been fully investigated, as there were twitter posts that predicted Charlie Kirk's death and they haven't been hauled in by FBI.
Alex Bruesewitz also confirms he saw tiktok videos from a day before that suggested Charlie Kirk would die.
It's a very tense interesting conversation. Kinda peters out quickly though.
-The beanie boy appears to have gone soft on critiquing people questioning the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Tim says you are permitted to think "the deep state" killed Kirk, which he had previously denigrated as a loony proposition:
If you are correct about possible foreign or domestic powers involved with this shooting, I owe you a very big apology. I was needlessly dismissive before, but the more this trial goes on, the more you appear to be on to something. But for the time being, it seems like you begin with a conclusion then work back from it. That’s my only criticism as of now, I take back the mockery from before.
As I said, if I’m wrong I will freely admit it. I hope I’m correct that governments didn’t conspire to murder Charlie Kirk. It’s a cruel, twisted underworld beneath the surface. But this all beggars belief
If you are correct about possible foreign or domestic powers involved with this shooting, I owe you a very big apology. I was needlessly dismissive before, but the more this trial goes on, the more you appear to be on to something. But for the time being, it seems like you begin with a conclusion then work back from it.
As I said, if I’m wrong I will freely admit it. I hope I’m correct that governments didn’t conspire to murder Charlie Kirk. It’s a cruel, twisted underworld beneath the surface. But this all beggars belief
I appreciate the message and if it comes to that and you would come to that conclusion, an apology is not necessary. I have been wrong about plenty in trying to dig through the details.
Sure some have treated me pretty badly, but there is a lot at stake so it's understandable and this thing really isn't about me, it's about truth and tyranny.
Charlie Kirk, particularly in his last year of life dedicated himself to truth courageously. I guess my activity in this thread is the holy spirit/Kirk inspiring me to take the slings of outrageous fortune. If you get to the point where you feel like apologizing to me, pay it forward instead. Take a courageous stance on truth somewhere, and pay the personal cost. That's what I've tried to do in Charlie's honor with all my ineptness.
Technical detail, he was murdered, but not in front of his children.
I think both Vance and Trump Junior have claimed so, so it's an understandable mistake, but his kids weren't present.
---
As for the video, it doesn't sound like gravedancing to me. Most of us here would wish we could click to save Kirk.
Looking at one of his other videos he is angry that people aren't taking the death of Charlie Kirk more seriously, albeit from a left wing perspective. He says it should have been more like 9/11 where people were speaking in hushed tones afterward and the first question of a father being murdered wasn't "what were his opinions?"
I'm kind of surprised that I saw this thread on my Watched list get bumped, and it wasn't for the Shawn Ryan interview with Candace Owens. Four-plus hours of insanity was far too much for me but here it is anyway.
Someone probably already linked it in Candace's thread but it definitely fits here too.
I'm kind of surprised that I saw this thread on my Watched list get bumped, and it wasn't for the Shawn Ryan interview with Candace Owens. Four-plus hours of insanity was far too much for me but here it is anyway.
This one spawned a new twitter back and forth between Kolvet and Candace.
It starts with Andrew responding to a clip from the shawn ryan podcast that candace was at.
Andrew Kolvet dijo:
Quite literally all of this is BS.Lets address one claim at a time...Netanyahu did NOT offer TPUSA millions. It's literally just an internet rumor popularized by crank Max Blumenthal.
Even if Netanyahu had offered, Charlie would not and could not have accepted because TPUSA cannot accept foreign money.
Even if Netanyahu had done so (which again, he did not) and CK could accept (he could not) and had CK asked my opinion (he did not), I would have told him to turn it down.
I did NOT lose “millions” when CK turned down said money (that was never offered and he couldn't accept) because on top of everything, I don’t make any money off donations. I have exactly zero to do with fundraising. In fact, it was my one stipulation I made to Charlie years ago when we started working together. Nothing against it, it’s just not my thing.
I NEVER told Candace any of this because it didn’t happen.
I NEVER told any family members any of this either, because again, it never happened.
If Israel offered us money, prove it. Show the proof. You wont be able to because it's a lie and always has been.
Andrew is lying through his teeth. I would take a lie detector test on this. He told me explicitly, that Bibi offered “to take Turning Point to the next level and Charlie said no”. This was in the course of the same conversation where he told me that Charlie declined to have Bibi on his show. The ONLY REASON I knew that Bibi Netanyahu called in the Hamptons was because of Andrew Kolvet.
Men should not be capable of telling a bare-faced lie like this. We are a weaker society because of men like this.
And to be clear, Erika denied this to my face. She claims she was present for the call, but that Bibi just wanted to check in on the letter Charlie had written months earlier. So Andrew is now claiming that I not only made this up, but that I then boldly asked Erika about it in early December.
Erika was surprised I knew about the call at all. Prior to, no one would even admit the call happened.
I should add a caveat — I was never told it was millions or billions or any specific amount. Just an offer to “take it to the next level”. I was then told from a family friend of Andrew’s that when Charlie said no to Bibi, Andrew complained that he lost out on millions. That makes me think the money would have come in through the Charlie Kirk Show structure—not the TPUSA 501c3 structure.
Given the subsequent Salem media FARA filings, that is what I assume is most likely. The specific 150 million dollar amount did not come from Andrew.
Again, this is Candace admitting she has ZERO proof. I ask for proof, and she screams “I’ll take a lie detector test, guys, I promise!" She's adding caveats, hedging, and changing her story...But it’s important to point out what she just did here. The psychology behind it is wild.
She gets called out for a bald-faced lie - a central lie to her entire narrative - then immediately retreats back to two true things that are insignificant, in an attempt to confer truth onto the original, key lie.Yes, we politely declined having Netanyahu on the show. So what? And yes, months later CK took a call from him after he wrote him a letter.
Again, so what?Neither are extraordinary, and neither explain her next ridiculous leap that Netanyahu offered “to take TPUSA to the next level” and that I lost out on either "millions" or "billions" when CK declined (all complete idiocy).Originally I was supposed to be her source for this fairytale, but I deny it. So all she has left is a friend of the family, someone in the general familial "orbit."
Lol Originally it was about "taking TPUSA to the next level," but now apparently TPUSA wasn't really going to get any of that money, only The Charlie Kirk Show. She can’t admit to her audience that she’s just wrong about this because it’s a core, foundational myth fueling her daily YouTube soap opera (where she’s the one actually making millions of dollars!).She has no proof, and she knows it.
She probably fell for an internet rumor from wackjob Max Blumenthal and now she’s flailing to save face. Enjoy the show.
I literally did not change one thing about my story dumb ass. I never once said it was 150 million dollars because you never told me that. Go back and watch every single episode. I have never ever changed this because I know what you said. To the contrary, you finally admit Charlie declined to have Bibi on the show. Why was that Andrew?
No no, Candace. You don’t get off that easy. You’re the one making the explosive claim Israel made an offer to Charlie, TPUSA (or The Charlie Kirk Show now?lol) to “take Turning Point to the next level.”
So, where’s your proof? It’s a simple question.
And no thanks on watching every episode. Your central claim is literally in this thread:
“There is no question an offer came in though.
”But there actually was no offer, was there. It’s a complete fiction, an internet rumor you recklessly repeat with maximum confidence because if you say it with your chest, the internet will believe you.
This is why you’ve always sucked as a PR agent. You just made a claim that I changed my stance, then admit you have no idea what I actually even said. “Where’s your proof”.
I don’t know Andrew…since it took you about 10 months to verify every other element that I reported from that call—that Bibi did in fact call in the Hamptons, that Charlie did decline to have Bibi on his show, and that he did receive death threats the night before— people can safely assume that if told the truth about everything else, I likely didn’t concoct just one element for flair.
You told me Bibi offered to take it to the next level, Andrew. People can decide whether you’ve been forthcoming and honest about anything and consider why it’s taken you this long to tell the truth about Charlie’s perspective when Bibi callously attempted to hijack his legacy. Why not share all of the truth back in September?
Your silence as I’ve told the truth, repeatedly, has been enough to expose what you are. You betray Charlie every single day Andrew, and the entire world sees it.
Billions of dollars and the DOJ on your side and you’re still a loser, Andrew because there is no real power without truth.
Technical detail, he was murdered, but not in front of his children.
I think both Vance and Trump Junior have claimed so, so it's an understandable mistake, but his kids weren't present.
---
As for the video, it doesn't sound like gravedancing to me. Most of us here would wish we could click to save Kirk.
Looking at one of his other videos he is angry that people aren't taking the death of Charlie Kirk more seriously, albeit from a left wing perspective. He says it should have been more like 9/11 where people were speaking in hushed tones afterward and the first question of a father being murdered wasn't "what were his opinions?"
Oh I didn't watch a second of the video I was specifically talking about the thumbnail. The thumbnail made me feel sick. I edited my post to remove the in front of his children part. Changed it to in front of his fans which is accurate.
Do we have a trial thread somewhere else? Surprised that there was so little interest given that there is video.
I'm going to be very interested in what the state presents about the cartridge fired, since I have been assured by the newly minted ballistics experts here and on Youtube and Twitter that .30-06 is a death-ray and mini nuke combined. Sure would be something if it was either a vintage cartridge or a Garand spec commercial load...
Do we have a trial thread somewhere else? Surprised that there was so little interest given that there is video.
I'm going to be very interested in what the state presents about the cartridge fired, since I have been assured by the newly minted ballistics experts here and on Youtube and Twitter that .30-06 is a death-ray and mini nuke combined. Sure would be something if it was either a vintage cartridge or a Garand spec commercial load...
Considering the pictures of the supposed ammunition carried by the shooter we have, I'd say the damage we see on video actually makes a lot of sense.
They look like some kind of full metal jacket, importantly, they aren't soft- or hollowpoint hunting ammo. With something like that you would expect to see a big wound cavity being formed soon after entering tissue, but a high velocity, jacketed projectile could very well zip through the rather thin neck of someone with minor deformation and without imparting too much of its energy.
People aren't watermelons or ballistics gel after all.
Considering the pictures of the supposed ammunition carried by the shooter we have, I'd say the damage we see on video actually makes a lot of sense.
They look like some kind of full metal jacket, importantly, they aren't soft- or hollowpoint hunting ammo. With something like that you would expect to see a big wound cavity being formed soon after entering tissue, but a high velocity, jacketed projectile could very well zip through the rather thin neck of someone with minor deformation and without imparting too much of its energy.
People aren't watermelons or ballistics gel after all.
It didn't go through though. There was no exit wound. The official version of events is that the bullet hit his neck, fragmented and got redirected downward.
That's also where the TPUSA claim of him having a neck of steel and being so healthy that he had incredible bone density came from to try and support that.
The resulting fragments could not conclusively be proven to be fired from the relating gun. Have undergone FBI testing without defense supervision that may have damaged the fragments. And defense have never gotten access, and received some of the testing information only last week rather than 10 months ago.
Yeah! How dare they say that the CIA killed charlie when the CIA just investigated themselves and found themselves to be free of guilt! God i can't stand these conspiracy jewspergs so much!!! Who even gave them the idea that the US government and the CIA would ever lie to a anybody??
