Candace Owens responds after Erika Kirk interview.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (83)
sorted by:
Let me ask you this question because all i hear are innuendos, but no one says it out loud. What exactly do you think her role was in the assassination? What’s the single best proof you can provide for that?
Playing devils advocate, I would say she wasn't there because she knew it was going to happen and didn't want to be there when it did happen. (I know, that sounds retarded).
Yes, valid point, and completely consistent with the FBI having realised there was an assassination being plotted against him and decided to make it a sting operation.
I think what people are missing is - just because something doesn't add up, does not mean there is only one answer to the puzzle. Which is exactly what people like Candace are capitalizing on - leading their followers to think only in one way and not expand their thinking.
Where did I insinuate that she had a role? I’ll wait. My issue is that a lot of things don’t add up that day, and she is attacking the one person asking questions - about the assassination of her husband and the father of her children. She herself isn’t asking any questions, it’s all fine and dandy for her. To me, that’s very suspect, and I’d like to know more about all of it.
Hope that clears something up for you.
This is exactly what I was expecting. You cant even articulate what is it she is supposed to have done, but you have allowed the narratives to create so much animosity towards her that you judge everything she does as if there is an ulterior motive, while not being able to atleast say what it is.
Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of arguments i have on reddit regarding folks who fall for MSM narratives and have developed animosity towards Trump but without ever being able to articulate exactly what he did wrong.
Yes, and there are multiple explanations that can explain the things that don't add up. Like, if this was a sting operation / witness protection operation.
And this is entirely consistent with the same scenario. Infact, in this scenario, "asking questions" might. actually put them in even more danger. And that is exactly what Candace might be doing, wittingly or unwittingly, possibly because her husband might be her handler.
You are assuming that a person needs to behave in a certain way but thats like not being able to look at the whole chessboard and assuming the players have to be making certain specific moves.
She has no obligation to tell you or anyone else what she knows. Period.
Yes. I was worried I might have missed something important that Candace dropped, but you confirmed that its all just narrative spun around the face that things didn't add up that day, but without considering all scenarios.
Thanks, I needed that confirmation so I dont have to waste any more time on Candace.
I appreciate that you took the time to write this all up so I will respond.
First off, you’re off base with your claim that I can’t articulate what she’s done. I didn’t make any claim at all. Instead, I am criticizing the fact that she is attacking the only person trying to get to the bottom of the assassination of HER husband, and the fact that she isn’t questioning anything is very shady, because that official story is trash.
The explanation of it being a “sting operation” is junk, I don’t buy it even a little. You’re free to believe what you want.
I never said Erika is obligated to say anything, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t want questions answered. We do.
I guess everything that happened between 2016 to 2025 was a Q military operation EXCEPT for Charlie's assassination. Got it.
Yes you are. Just make sure what you believe is consistent with everything else you believe. Thats all any of us can hope to do.
Stew Peters has done the best breakdown on the Erika Kirk rabbit hole. She is shady AF.