Erika Kirk was asked how much she knows. She said "Everything"
(www.instagram.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Did she elaborate further?
Context:
Megyn Kelly is talking with 3 people from the TPUSA team, including Andrew Kolvet, Kirk's executive producer, and (I think) two of Charlie's researchers/assistants
https://youtu.be/wpW04tdI0cw?si=RzSWOiFLvCoLs0Lx&t=566
The whole discussion is about the show, about TPUSA, about the work they did with Charlie, and NONE of the discussion at ANY POINT is about Charlie's assassination, the details, the murderer, etc.
To take this clip, and twist this up to imply that they are talking about who killed Kirk, all the secret, hidden, conspiratorial details behind the killing is not only a complete stretch, it's pretty offensive, imo, ignoring what the show was really about: Charlie, Turning point, his legacy, Erika, etc.
I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy behind the murder. I'm not saying there aren't things we do not know, or whether Robinson was the real killer, whether he acted alone, whether he was part of a larger operation, or even (who/what) was behind it if that is the case.
What I am saying is, taking a very small clip, piling on assumptions and conclusion based entirely on your biases - and by biases, I mean, your beliefs, closely held assumptions, or theories (and I mean the generic 'you', not Fat or anyone specifically) - it's not only NOT helpful. It's a negative. It doesn't advance the pursuit of truth. It creates noise where there should be and could be signal.
IMO.
A Transcript
MK: and now, there's a question about who's going to lead the team forward, and who's going to lead this enormously important organization...
AK: Since everything has happened, the number one question is, what is going to happen with turning point, what is going to happen next, and I'm pleased to be able to announce ..... that the turning point board has selected Erika Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of the board... Charlie told me, told Mikey, told others that if anything ever happened to him, that this is exactly what he wanted....
MK.... It had to be....right? I don't think anyone would accept a leader of the organization who they didn't feel completely understood Charlie and be 100% dedicated to fulfilling his vision... jump to clip
AK: and let me just add one more thing, and I want mikey to chime in here as well, in the immediate hours afterwards, Erika got a call from someone very important - I'll leave that vague out of privacy -
AK: she got a call from someone very important, and the question was: "what do you know". Sort of asking, how much of what's going on behind the scenes and with the relationship(s), like, what do you know?
AK: and her reply back was: "Everything. I know everything"
MK: that's good. You can tell, um, the bits of the two of them, and clips that you guys have released, show first of all, their immense, intense love story... and we pulled this one that you guys ran because its so touching ....
Runs clip of Erika with Charlie on set of TPUSA... when they were engaged...
(Pretty touching, actually. Worth watching, imo)
Given the whole context, and after listening to the podcast before and after the statements in this short clip are shown, I would say that AK is talking about what happened in the immediate hours after the turning point board appointed Erika as CEO & Chair. Someone important (could be someone important to the nation, or to the Turning Point operation or mission), asked her,
how well do you really know this operation? How well do you understand how it is run, and how it works, and what the relationships are behind the scenes. and Erika said (paraphrase):
I know everything. In other words, I know everything about Charlie's operation here and I am perfectly suited - best suited - to take up the position of leading Charlie's operation going forward.
Contextually, its a massive stretch to say that AK was reporting that Erika knows "everything" about the assassination, who did it, all the facts, the 'conspiracy' behind it, and all that stuff. That makes no sense (imo) in the context of everything they were talking about. There's no foundation here for assuming or thinking that Kolvet was talking about the hours after the assassination.
This is also borne out by Kelly's response. She doesn't go
Wow! Erika knows everything about the assassination! Wow. She's knows (Israel/Mossad/Antifa/Soros/Ukraine/The Khazars, blah blah) did it all! Shocking! Amazing!!
What Megyn Kelly does say is quite sedately, "that's good". and then proceeds to talk about the closeness between Charlie and Erica.
"That's good." Very sedately. In other words, its good that Erika knows how everything she needs to know to run the operation perfectly after Charlie. And, Kelly goes on immediately to talk about the relationship between Charlie and Erika.
No one here is talking about the assassination event.
I think its an easy leap to a conclusion based only on the very short narrow clip on instagram, to imagine that Kolvet was talking about Erika saying she knows everything about the assassination. I can understand why people might make that leap. But its a leap that too easily feeds to confirmation bias, imo, which is why I simply go to the facts: the context. What were they talking about? is there any other content there that supports the idea that <she was talking about the hidden/secret details behind the assassination>?
Confirmation Bias is more dangerous to us than the lamestream media and disinformation operations. It's the biggest distraction there is and it inhibits, imo, actually advancing the info war. Its generates so much noise - In OUR camp - and it dampens the signal so much. Unnecessarily. By simply practicing being self-guarded from confirmation bias, I think our overall effectiveness at GAW would be increased significantly.
Thank you, it seems ridiculous that the post seems to imply Erica knows everything about the conspiracy behind his death. When really this more so about her being able to run TP USA
The most reasoned response I’ve seen in a while. This echos my sentiments and responding as well.
This. Yes. o7
I shared it because I found it interesting that Andrew Kolvet (executive producer and close friend of Charlie) wanted to be sure he stated this. I have been listening to each of these shows in full and Andrew has been on all of them. But this statement stood out. His tone was different. As if maybe he was letting us know, not to worry, that Erica does know all the potential enemies she's a target for.
We on this board always listen for clues in what Trump is saying. We know sometimes there are messages being conveyed indirectly. This entire board is mostly people piecing potential clues together. Sometimes a post about something notable turns out to be nothing and that's fine. How is sharing this clip any different?
I'm not quite sure I understand your angle here. I don't see anything wrong with sharing this clip at all. It feels a bit like you're being defensive, but I don't think there is any need to be with simply sharing the clip.
The issue might be, however, the way you framed the Subject Line sort of tee'd this up for some folks here to LEAP to the conclusion: this is about the Assassination. Which I would say it is not.
But, you have been listening to all the shows in full, and if you picked up on something here that Kolvet was emphasizing, that would be post-worthy. But, I don't see how the actual context here supports the idea that he was talking about the assassination OR any potential enemies.
I guess all you can do is ask yourself if your own bias led you to think 'this statement stood out. His tone was different. As if maybe .....'. That's a possibility you might consider.
I think if it was me, from that point, I would jump into research. I would check to see if my hunch has any foundation. Does it hold up in a close analysis? Is there other corroborating data or evidence that upholds that idea?
But, not everyone does that and I think its OK to post to the board a clip like this. But if it were me, I'd be checking before I posted it with a subject that implies "conspiratorial leanings".
In any case, I don't see anything wrong with the posting itself, and I was directly addressing those who either saw that subject line and leapt to a conclusion, or listened to the isolated clip and then leapt to a conclusion. That's how confirmation bias misleads us: leaping to conclusions without the relevant vetting of ideas or theories.
Sorry about the downvote. Not sure who did that. Thanks for posting and thanks for being here, fren.
I bet she doesn't know the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.
I reckon she does. So there.
Even Life, the Universe, and Everything??