Possibly, I find it hard to be objective about Owens, because I have a rather firm negative opinion of her. I think she is very talented, and in her chosen area, very skilled. But I also think she is self-serving, a fame hound driven by her own ambitions, in which focusing on sensational issues (whether justifiably sensational or not) serves that end.
I think her chosen field is "how can I gain as much influence as possible, and get my listeners to come along?"
Source
Here is what appears to be the source of the information Candace is saying 'Are clearly doctored'.
The source of this information is what? It's the COURT FILING, which the prosecutors submit to the court when indicting the suspect. In this case, Robinson.
OF course they are doctored. Sheeesh. Or, expressed less sensational manner: The text is formatted and prepared as part of a summary statement outlining the basis for the indictment.
It's NOT evidence. It's NOT the original data. It's a summary in a court submission.
And yet, what Owens is doing here is affirming (promoting) a specific narrative, one that I think can be summarized as follows:
The FBI is a corrupt organization, still, now, and we are being lied to. We should NOT trust Trump, NOT Trust the FBI under Patel, etc
What's her basis for promoting this, in this case? There are no time stamps!!!!
You are justified in being a little upset because I am VERY upset about the 'fact' that they are not giving us <what I demand or want>!
I short, Owens is taking the court submission and making it ALL ABOUT HER (oh, and you, if you will join 'me' in distrusting the Trump administration and Kash Patel and everyone else I want you to distrust here....)
She is prompted here by MJTruthUltra. But his reasoning?
MJTruthUltra here is saying, "they are cherry picking the messages"
Um, yeah. It's a court submission summarizing the overall facts of the case. EVERYTHING in the submission is 'cherry picked' aka chosen, according to the specific purpose of the document.
Which is NOT a general release to the public for public informational purposes, like a release of the original documents or even a press release.
Ask questions, certainly. Query, sure. But at least have a reasonable basis for the narrative you are promoting.
Ellipses
the ellipses are a frequently used device to show that something has been omitted. The ellipses here say, very clearly, <we've removed something here>. The ellipses are input there on purpose.
So, if the authors of the court filing are saying "by the way, we've just omitted certain things here' (using a textual device), how is it suspicious?
imo.
Addendum: Just going to share a very brief textual analysis of the Owens clip.
Textual analysis is a research method used to interpret and understand texts by closely examining their content, structure, and context to reveal deeper meanings, themes, and underlying messages.
The Clip
MJTruthUltra mentions the ellipses. Owens then says
Yeah, these messages are clearly <pause for effect> doctored... I would say.
Commentary
the pause for effect is part of Owen's style, but its worth noting what kind of delivery she uses for dramatic effect. which in this case, is the pause.
She tacks on "I would say" on the end, because it softens the original assertion 'they are clearly doctored..... I would say"
By framing this using the hypothetical future tense, this takes the statement 'they are clearly doctored and makes it a hypothetical. Semantically, its the same as saying "If I was going to say what they are, which I'm not, but if I was, I would say they are doctored"
Then, after layering in this concept first as a hypothetical, which leaves a pivot point for plausible deniability if needed, Owens proceeds.
They are doctored! Now....
She follows up the 'I would say they are doctored <semantically in a hypothetical world>' with an emphatic statement presented as a fact. They ARE doctored!
Instead of really discussing the point: are they doctored? Why are they presented this way? is 'doctored' the right word? (Doctored has very clear negative connotation, as does "cherry picking". So, the words chosen by the speakers already have negative connotations embedded in them, which may or may not beg towards utilize the biases of listeners.
Owens establishes "they are doctored" and ery, very quickly goes on to "now...."
This method quickly shifts the listener OFF the question "are they really doctored? Or is something else going on?" and thrusts them into the next leverage point:
(Now....) They could decide why they're doing that?
Body language: hands up, looking questioningly to the upper left, hands open >>> "i have nothing to hide here, I'm innocent in what I'm doing"
The proposition is very strange. The people who are presenting this information (aka in the court filing) could 'decide' why they are doing that? Um, yeah. Essentially she is saying "they could have had a reason for deciding to do that" but its a very unusual way of expressing this point. Grammatically, it makes no sense. Grammatically, it should be "Could they decide why they are doing that?" which would be a more objective question. But Owen's opts for a very weird way of making her point.
Noticeably, she then fumbles her next delivery. Fumbles in speech are frequently (not always, but frequently) an indication that they speaker is trying to cover something up, or not say what they are really thinking, but trying to say something else. What it means in this case is debatable but perhaps notable.
Tyler's being court (caught?)... er, forthcoming... we're protecting him in some capacity... I find that to be unacceptable (emphatic)
Body language: Here, Owens points her previously open palms downward, a gesture which indicates "this is what it is", and looks very directly, serious face, into the camera.
Owens introduces the idea that <they> "we're" protecting him in some way. Which is a completely unfounded assertion (aka there is no actual evidence provided to say that those who prepared the court submission are trying to somehow protect Kirk's killer, but that is what she is implying.
So, she makes an assertion, and instead of discussing or analyzing the foundations for the assertion, she directly zips to the next point, "I find that unacceptable!" which semantically embeds the proposition that 'they are protecting him in some way' as a fact, and moves on.
OK? Unacceptable!! I want every (pause) single (pause) text message, I want time stamps. It is conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent.... (pause). Because it sounds like when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back... <etc, etc>(details)
They're not telling us that.
Body language: again, open palms facing outward 'I have nothing to hide here, i have no agenda'
OK? And you have a right to be a little bit uncomfortable about that, because I'm a lot a bit uncomfortable about that... We need full answers
A few points. Owens uses very powerful rhetorical techniques to deliver her content.
In this short clip, she manages to embed certain propositions as facts, by driving the listener to a self-focused conclusion, self focused in the sense that it focuses on Owens, and what SHE thinks or feels, and self-focused in the sense that there is a direct invitation for the listener to take the same posture, aka "what I think or feel is what is important here! Not the questions that I didn't ask or the supposed facts that I glossed over just now."
On a rhetorical level, this has the willing listener accept the embedded facts now reinforced by "what I feel".
Also, Owens is offering a direct suspicion and only mildly veiled accusation against <them>. She ignores the fact that the texts are part of a court filing, the actual indictment filing, and pretends (my words) that somehow they are a fake, public release of information that is incomplete and dodgy.
Final Comment: opinions about Owens are often polarized. As GKTH implies, "whether you love her or hate her".
I personally think this is because Owens deliberately uses issues that, while sometimes important, are very sensational, triggering the biases of certain sectors in the 'truth-seeking community'. (JFK murder, Macron Transgender, etc)
In other words, she uses emotionally charged issues. Also (imo) she deliberately and skillfully uses powerful rhetorical devices, almost NLP level language control and manipulation (in the neutral sense), that can be very effective on the right targets.
So, her specific target audience resonates strongly with her (which is the very objective she is trying to accomplish) but those who see her techniques and approach more critically see this for a manipulative (in the negative sense) strategy with self-serving objectives.
I've only seen several clips of candace over the years but her last two days are nuclear sniffing out untruths. you are clearly biased as you say. That is a lot of words for your points that are frankly nitpicky and small and don't sway my opinion one bit. sheesh she held up the court docs. atm she is calling out bibi and so may be helping the plan to save I for last. chill
Just a few points: My purpose in writing this is NOT to sway your opinion. And, if you approach the work like that, then I think you are already injecting your own bias.
(This is one of the biggest problems in the entire truth sphere these days - so many trying to sway other's opinions, and so many projecting that. Instead of simply sharing, being objective, and leaving it up to the reader/listener. My opinion.)
All I'm doing is presenting a view, an analysis, and its 100% left up to you to make up your own mind.
But, for what its worth, I wrote this post based on a very small sample, and approached it in that limited context. I just noticed the stickied post with Owen's full show - although I'm not sure if the clip I looked at is from this particular show, but I'm going to listen to the whole thing, and in the meantime, take down this post, until I can form a more informed perspective.
I watched both Candace videos in full. I don't have any bias against any of the conservative commentators, I don't think any of them are "controlled opposition" or whatever the crazies are saying these days. She is simply asking for timestamps so we can piece together the timeline of events of 9-10. Makes perfect sense when you put your emotions to the side and look at it objectively.
Basically what I'm saying is your bias is why you're missing it.
I decided to watch/listen to the whole video in full, which I didn't really have any desire to do previously. (Prompted by the short-take I did on this clip).
I have listened to about 70% of it so far (I do this in chunks).
A few points:
One, the sample size of this clip was too small to get a good overview. Some of my conclusions were correct, I think, and some of them were not (aka off the mark).
My comments re: rhetorical devices and body, language, etc, are by and large accurate I think (she's very skillful and talented in this area) but her motives and objectives can't be properly gleaned from this small sample, and I certainly let my subjective bias influence my interpretation.
(I'm ok with that, because I don't really see anything wrong with having a bias - generally everybody does on some level - the problem comes when you ignore or pretend you don't have a bias, or deny that it influences you if and when it does.)
Two, listening to her whole video broadcast was pretty painful up until it got interesting, which was for me when she began talking about Charlie Kirk and Israel, etc. Prior to that point, I personally just felt like she was really loud and demanding, like an entitled screeching liberal almost (in terms of attitude), focusing on MY timeline, MY wants, etc, etc. rather than objectively making her points or criticisms of the authorities or processes she was talking about.
It was painful to listen to, but I persevered, and I feel like getting to the Kirk / Israel stuff has made it worth while.
I also would give her credit for acknowledging her emotional state and agitated approach. Few will do that (they have too much to lose, often).
So, I still think that Owen's is a little too slick on the emotional/rhetorical/infloooencers side for me, with a bit of an entitlement attitude, and not quite the more objective, dispassionate presentation or stance approach that I like, but her positives seem to be some solid aggressive research chops.
(I have no idea if her stories about her team contacting relatives of Robinson and Robinson's romantic interest are true - but no real reason at this point to doubt them.)
Not sure what her other positives are, and although I'm not fan of the rhetorical style she uses (primarily because I think this sort of approach does not foster objective, critical thinking in the audience but rather promotes emotional reaction/celebrity passions), she does seem ferocious in her stance, which is probably overall a positive.
In effect, I try not to be emotionally attached or identified with my opinions - my ultimate value does not come from having the right opinion or 'being right', and I'm glad to have found the opportunity to take a wider look at Owen's so far. I certainly feel I have enough now to keep a bit of an open mind:
Conclusion: Candace Owens? I have my likes and dislikes, but I'll continue to observe, ideally to both critique and recognize both positives and negatives when there are some. (No one is perfect, so its OK to both appreciate good points while critiquing weaknesses, etc).
But, re: the time stamps? Nah. This was NOT a press release and not a public release of information. It was an indictment paper, and Owen's making a big noise about this does NOT suit her or Serve HER wants and purposes, um, no.
She could have criticized them or acknowledged that the indictment papers do not provide as much information as she wants without ignoring the fact that these papers were NOT FOR HER. The prosecutors involved have a job to do.
So, man, she really just ranted, unjustifiably in my view. Nothing wrong with wanting to know or have the timeline, but her criticism of the indictment papers because they did not provide the information SHE wanted? That's just a little to self-focused, imo.
But, I mean, that's ok. no one's perfect. If she's genuine, she'll make a contribution and advance the overall work of God's plan.
I do appreciate the other frogs who called me out on my initial comments, as a few of these are what prompted me to take a wider look.
um, if you think that controlled opposition does NOT exist, it might just be you that's the crazy!
Controlled opposition is just a shill, plain and simple. Sometimes they're easy to detect (tards) and other times they're not (you may agree with them about everything except this one little issue)
That said, perhaps we agree that some of the 'crazies' do go overboard in accusing everyone and everything as 'controlled opposition'.
It's not always a 1 or a 0. It's somewhere in between. One's own internal bias often leads them to shill for one cause, or another. Or, shill against one (Candace in this case)
These were not 'released' tho. They are part of a submission to the court, the indictment papers, which have a specific purpose that is totally unrelated to 'informing the public about the details of the case OR the evidence'.
She isn't the only one saying what she's saying. Even Nick Fuentes, who does not like Candace one bit, is saying she's right and is talking about sources telling him Bibi offered Charlie 150 million
Hey, just saying, this is actually how controlled opposition works, fyi.
So, maybe they is, and maybe they ain't, but don't just takes things at face value, and don't discount the possibility that infloooencers can be 'in opposition' but serve the same masters. It's possible.
As I pointed out in another discussion (and I'm sorry if you are offended by my opinion):-
Q wrote "Be careful who(m) you follow". Candace is controlled opposition who pushes the official conspiracy theory. Much like Alex Jones. There are always three alternatives for any false flag operation:
Sounds like you've been listening to Chris Paul too much.
Note: You can never really listen to Chris Paul too much.
Controlled opposition? By who, tho. Even those who are genuine but limited in their view or understanding are 'controlled' by their spiritual foundation, to some extent.
I'm starting to suspect merely that Owen's is driven by her own, limited perspective agenda, which, although limited might be genuine.
I don't really have enough data to make any hard and fast conclusion, although I can admit to my own biases.
Fwiw, I don't see how I could be offended by anyone's opinion, unless it was about me!
FYI, these was a section of the indictment papers, something the FBI have NO ROLE in preparing, I believe. DOJ. And, state level DOJ for that. The prosecuting team draft and submit the indictment papers.
Grasping at straws in an attempt to understand how such a good man could be struck down in cold blood.
I get it. Historically, we've done the same with every high profile assassination throughout history.
However, if you think about how I verstigatik s look this are carried out, there isn't an agency in this country that would post official materials. Especially when the investigation is ongoing, has led to more and more threads to be pulled, and disclosing source material would also divulge sources and methods of collection.
I get her frustration and anger. We're all angered and frustrated with the course of the world right now. But I would caution everyone to remain as calm and clear headed as possible. Emotionally based thinking and criticism doesn't do anyone any good. And it clouds judgement.
Disclaimer:
Possibly, I find it hard to be objective about Owens, because I have a rather firm negative opinion of her. I think she is very talented, and in her chosen area, very skilled. But I also think she is self-serving, a fame hound driven by her own ambitions, in which focusing on sensational issues (whether justifiably sensational or not) serves that end.
I think her chosen field is "how can I gain as much influence as possible, and get my listeners to come along?"
Source
Here is what appears to be the source of the information Candace is saying 'Are clearly doctored'.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26098894-tyler-robinson-indictment/
The source of this information is what? It's the COURT FILING, which the prosecutors submit to the court when indicting the suspect. In this case, Robinson.
OF course they are doctored. Sheeesh. Or, expressed less sensational manner: The text is formatted and prepared as part of a summary statement outlining the basis for the indictment.
It's NOT evidence. It's NOT the original data. It's a summary in a court submission.
And yet, what Owens is doing here is affirming (promoting) a specific narrative, one that I think can be summarized as follows:
The FBI is a corrupt organization, still, now, and we are being lied to. We should NOT trust Trump, NOT Trust the FBI under Patel, etc
What's her basis for promoting this, in this case? There are no time stamps!!!!
I short, Owens is taking the court submission and making it ALL ABOUT HER (oh, and you, if you will join 'me' in distrusting the Trump administration and Kash Patel and everyone else I want you to distrust here....)
She is prompted here by MJTruthUltra. But his reasoning?
MJTruthUltra here is saying, "they are cherry picking the messages"
Um, yeah. It's a court submission summarizing the overall facts of the case. EVERYTHING in the submission is 'cherry picked' aka chosen, according to the specific purpose of the document.
Which is NOT a general release to the public for public informational purposes, like a release of the original documents or even a press release.
Ask questions, certainly. Query, sure. But at least have a reasonable basis for the narrative you are promoting.
Ellipses
the ellipses are a frequently used device to show that something has been omitted. The ellipses here say, very clearly, <we've removed something here>. The ellipses are input there on purpose.
So, if the authors of the court filing are saying "by the way, we've just omitted certain things here' (using a textual device), how is it suspicious?
imo.
Addendum: Just going to share a very brief textual analysis of the Owens clip.
https://rumble.com/v6z1te6-candace-owens-the-text-messages-released-today-are-clearly-doctored.html
What is textual analysis?
The Clip
MJTruthUltra mentions the ellipses. Owens then says
Commentary
the pause for effect is part of Owen's style, but its worth noting what kind of delivery she uses for dramatic effect. which in this case, is the pause.
She tacks on "I would say" on the end, because it softens the original assertion 'they are clearly doctored..... I would say"
By framing this using the hypothetical future tense, this takes the statement 'they are clearly doctored and makes it a hypothetical. Semantically, its the same as saying "If I was going to say what they are, which I'm not, but if I was, I would say they are doctored"
Then, after layering in this concept first as a hypothetical, which leaves a pivot point for plausible deniability if needed, Owens proceeds.
She follows up the 'I would say they are doctored <semantically in a hypothetical world>' with an emphatic statement presented as a fact. They ARE doctored!
Instead of really discussing the point: are they doctored? Why are they presented this way? is 'doctored' the right word? (Doctored has very clear negative connotation, as does "cherry picking". So, the words chosen by the speakers already have negative connotations embedded in them, which may or may not beg towards utilize the biases of listeners.
Owens establishes "they are doctored" and ery, very quickly goes on to "now...."
This method quickly shifts the listener OFF the question "are they really doctored? Or is something else going on?" and thrusts them into the next leverage point:
Body language: hands up, looking questioningly to the upper left, hands open >>> "i have nothing to hide here, I'm innocent in what I'm doing"
The proposition is very strange. The people who are presenting this information (aka in the court filing) could 'decide' why they are doing that? Um, yeah. Essentially she is saying "they could have had a reason for deciding to do that" but its a very unusual way of expressing this point. Grammatically, it makes no sense. Grammatically, it should be "Could they decide why they are doing that?" which would be a more objective question. But Owen's opts for a very weird way of making her point.
Noticeably, she then fumbles her next delivery. Fumbles in speech are frequently (not always, but frequently) an indication that they speaker is trying to cover something up, or not say what they are really thinking, but trying to say something else. What it means in this case is debatable but perhaps notable.
Body language: Here, Owens points her previously open palms downward, a gesture which indicates "this is what it is", and looks very directly, serious face, into the camera.
Owens introduces the idea that <they> "we're" protecting him in some way. Which is a completely unfounded assertion (aka there is no actual evidence provided to say that those who prepared the court submission are trying to somehow protect Kirk's killer, but that is what she is implying.
So, she makes an assertion, and instead of discussing or analyzing the foundations for the assertion, she directly zips to the next point, "I find that unacceptable!" which semantically embeds the proposition that 'they are protecting him in some way' as a fact, and moves on.
Body language: again, open palms facing outward 'I have nothing to hide here, i have no agenda'
A few points. Owens uses very powerful rhetorical techniques to deliver her content.
In this short clip, she manages to embed certain propositions as facts, by driving the listener to a self-focused conclusion, self focused in the sense that it focuses on Owens, and what SHE thinks or feels, and self-focused in the sense that there is a direct invitation for the listener to take the same posture, aka "what I think or feel is what is important here! Not the questions that I didn't ask or the supposed facts that I glossed over just now."
On a rhetorical level, this has the willing listener accept the embedded facts now reinforced by "what I feel".
Also, Owens is offering a direct suspicion and only mildly veiled accusation against <them>. She ignores the fact that the texts are part of a court filing, the actual indictment filing, and pretends (my words) that somehow they are a fake, public release of information that is incomplete and dodgy.
Final Comment: opinions about Owens are often polarized. As GKTH implies, "whether you love her or hate her".
I personally think this is because Owens deliberately uses issues that, while sometimes important, are very sensational, triggering the biases of certain sectors in the 'truth-seeking community'. (JFK murder, Macron Transgender, etc)
In other words, she uses emotionally charged issues. Also (imo) she deliberately and skillfully uses powerful rhetorical devices, almost NLP level language control and manipulation (in the neutral sense), that can be very effective on the right targets.
So, her specific target audience resonates strongly with her (which is the very objective she is trying to accomplish) but those who see her techniques and approach more critically see this for a manipulative (in the negative sense) strategy with self-serving objectives.
No doubt, frogs can make up their own minds.
I've only seen several clips of candace over the years but her last two days are nuclear sniffing out untruths. you are clearly biased as you say. That is a lot of words for your points that are frankly nitpicky and small and don't sway my opinion one bit. sheesh she held up the court docs. atm she is calling out bibi and so may be helping the plan to save I for last. chill
exactly, we may be seeing the ball start to roll. every step of the way has been an exposure op as much as anything else.
u/#q916
Hey.
Um, yeah, I disclosed that up front.
Just a few points: My purpose in writing this is NOT to sway your opinion. And, if you approach the work like that, then I think you are already injecting your own bias.
(This is one of the biggest problems in the entire truth sphere these days - so many trying to sway other's opinions, and so many projecting that. Instead of simply sharing, being objective, and leaving it up to the reader/listener. My opinion.)
All I'm doing is presenting a view, an analysis, and its 100% left up to you to make up your own mind.
But, for what its worth, I wrote this post based on a very small sample, and approached it in that limited context. I just noticed the stickied post with Owen's full show - although I'm not sure if the clip I looked at is from this particular show, but I'm going to listen to the whole thing, and in the meantime, take down this post, until I can form a more informed perspective.
Thanks for the comment. Cheers.
I watched both Candace videos in full. I don't have any bias against any of the conservative commentators, I don't think any of them are "controlled opposition" or whatever the crazies are saying these days. She is simply asking for timestamps so we can piece together the timeline of events of 9-10. Makes perfect sense when you put your emotions to the side and look at it objectively.
Basically what I'm saying is your bias is why you're missing it.
I decided to watch/listen to the whole video in full, which I didn't really have any desire to do previously. (Prompted by the short-take I did on this clip).
I have listened to about 70% of it so far (I do this in chunks).
A few points:
One, the sample size of this clip was too small to get a good overview. Some of my conclusions were correct, I think, and some of them were not (aka off the mark).
My comments re: rhetorical devices and body, language, etc, are by and large accurate I think (she's very skillful and talented in this area) but her motives and objectives can't be properly gleaned from this small sample, and I certainly let my subjective bias influence my interpretation.
(I'm ok with that, because I don't really see anything wrong with having a bias - generally everybody does on some level - the problem comes when you ignore or pretend you don't have a bias, or deny that it influences you if and when it does.)
Two, listening to her whole video broadcast was pretty painful up until it got interesting, which was for me when she began talking about Charlie Kirk and Israel, etc. Prior to that point, I personally just felt like she was really loud and demanding, like an entitled screeching liberal almost (in terms of attitude), focusing on MY timeline, MY wants, etc, etc. rather than objectively making her points or criticisms of the authorities or processes she was talking about.
It was painful to listen to, but I persevered, and I feel like getting to the Kirk / Israel stuff has made it worth while.
I also would give her credit for acknowledging her emotional state and agitated approach. Few will do that (they have too much to lose, often).
So, I still think that Owen's is a little too slick on the emotional/rhetorical/infloooencers side for me, with a bit of an entitlement attitude, and not quite the more objective, dispassionate presentation or stance approach that I like, but her positives seem to be some solid aggressive research chops.
(I have no idea if her stories about her team contacting relatives of Robinson and Robinson's romantic interest are true - but no real reason at this point to doubt them.)
Not sure what her other positives are, and although I'm not fan of the rhetorical style she uses (primarily because I think this sort of approach does not foster objective, critical thinking in the audience but rather promotes emotional reaction/celebrity passions), she does seem ferocious in her stance, which is probably overall a positive.
In effect, I try not to be emotionally attached or identified with my opinions - my ultimate value does not come from having the right opinion or 'being right', and I'm glad to have found the opportunity to take a wider look at Owen's so far. I certainly feel I have enough now to keep a bit of an open mind:
Conclusion: Candace Owens? I have my likes and dislikes, but I'll continue to observe, ideally to both critique and recognize both positives and negatives when there are some. (No one is perfect, so its OK to both appreciate good points while critiquing weaknesses, etc).
But, re: the time stamps? Nah. This was NOT a press release and not a public release of information. It was an indictment paper, and Owen's making a big noise about this does NOT suit her or Serve HER wants and purposes, um, no.
She could have criticized them or acknowledged that the indictment papers do not provide as much information as she wants without ignoring the fact that these papers were NOT FOR HER. The prosecutors involved have a job to do.
So, man, she really just ranted, unjustifiably in my view. Nothing wrong with wanting to know or have the timeline, but her criticism of the indictment papers because they did not provide the information SHE wanted? That's just a little to self-focused, imo.
But, I mean, that's ok. no one's perfect. If she's genuine, she'll make a contribution and advance the overall work of God's plan.
I do appreciate the other frogs who called me out on my initial comments, as a few of these are what prompted me to take a wider look.
er, so, thanks for the comment, too!
um, if you think that controlled opposition does NOT exist, it might just be you that's the crazy!
That said, perhaps we agree that some of the 'crazies' do go overboard in accusing everyone and everything as 'controlled opposition'.
Controlled opposition is just a shill, plain and simple. Sometimes they're easy to detect (tards) and other times they're not (you may agree with them about everything except this one little issue)
It's not always a 1 or a 0. It's somewhere in between. One's own internal bias often leads them to shill for one cause, or another. Or, shill against one (Candace in this case)
That's a transcript not a screenshot of his phone.....
Transcripts should have time stamps.though.
They may have retarded.
Saving the good ones for court I betcha. The President of France backed down, I suspect he won't be the first.
For the one's that were released. I'm calling bullsht.
These were not 'released' tho. They are part of a submission to the court, the indictment papers, which have a specific purpose that is totally unrelated to 'informing the public about the details of the case OR the evidence'.
She isn't the only one saying what she's saying. Even Nick Fuentes, who does not like Candace one bit, is saying she's right and is talking about sources telling him Bibi offered Charlie 150 million
Nick Fuentes ------ Candace Owens
Don't like each other. Hmmm...
Telling (promoting) the same narrative. Hmmm...
Hey, just saying, this is actually how controlled opposition works, fyi.
So, maybe they is, and maybe they ain't, but don't just takes things at face value, and don't discount the possibility that infloooencers can be 'in opposition' but serve the same masters. It's possible.
As I pointed out in another discussion (and I'm sorry if you are offended by my opinion):-
Q wrote "Be careful who(m) you follow". Candace is controlled opposition who pushes the official conspiracy theory. Much like Alex Jones. There are always three alternatives for any false flag operation:
The official story.
The official conspiracy theory.
The real truth.
Sounds like you've been listening to Chris Paul too much.
Note: You can never really listen to Chris Paul too much.
Controlled opposition? By who, tho. Even those who are genuine but limited in their view or understanding are 'controlled' by their spiritual foundation, to some extent.
I'm starting to suspect merely that Owen's is driven by her own, limited perspective agenda, which, although limited might be genuine.
I don't really have enough data to make any hard and fast conclusion, although I can admit to my own biases.
Fwiw, I don't see how I could be offended by anyone's opinion, unless it was about me!
Much respect for Candace. Just unsubbed from the quartering over his video criticizing her. Plus he's insufferable
I was gonna say - WHERE ARE THE TIMESTAMPS! Anyone that works with data knows.
I am so fucking sick of this Pajeet led FBI
wow Nego much.
FYI, these was a section of the indictment papers, something the FBI have NO ROLE in preparing, I believe. DOJ. And, state level DOJ for that. The prosecuting team draft and submit the indictment papers.
Grasping at straws in an attempt to understand how such a good man could be struck down in cold blood.
I get it. Historically, we've done the same with every high profile assassination throughout history.
However, if you think about how I verstigatik s look this are carried out, there isn't an agency in this country that would post official materials. Especially when the investigation is ongoing, has led to more and more threads to be pulled, and disclosing source material would also divulge sources and methods of collection.
I get her frustration and anger. We're all angered and frustrated with the course of the world right now. But I would caution everyone to remain as calm and clear headed as possible. Emotionally based thinking and criticism doesn't do anyone any good. And it clouds judgement.