the why is a way to obscure everything no real proof just her making claims with nothing to back them up......this is a pattern with her on key issues. she will do real reporting and then insert a claim that has no real Baisis. these claims will have real info that's accurate, but she will make a claim that the evidence being used is can bring people to multiple conclusions that conflict with each other or she will make a claim that has no way of being checked out... into all of this will be inserted a piece of propaganda that an intelligence service wants to be planted that will be ran with by others that only replay claims seen on social media.
Most people looking into Charlie's death are focusing on how he was killed. Candace appears to be one of the few asking "Why?"
the why is a way to obscure everything no real proof just her making claims with nothing to back them up......this is a pattern with her on key issues. she will do real reporting and then insert a claim that has no real Baisis. these claims will have real info that's accurate, but she will make a claim that the evidence being used is can bring people to multiple conclusions that conflict with each other or she will make a claim that has no way of being checked out... into all of this will be inserted a piece of propaganda that an intelligence service wants to be planted that will be ran with by others that only replay claims seen on social media.
I mean, she was pretty clear here.
Confirm or deny my claims, if you deny them I will drop contradictory evidence.
Doesn’t really fit what you’re laying out here, though I do appreciate your perspective.
She never drops the evidence, is what he’s suggesting.
I get that, but are her challenges ever met? Asking sincerely.