Why did Joe Kent pretend during the interview with Megan Kelly that he had nothing to do with the screenshots?
Why did Andrew Kolvet stay quiet all this time and only come clean when accused point blanc?
If Andrew was indeed hoping that Joe Kent was going to use the screenshot to investigate Charlie's Death, why was he not incensed when he saw those screenshots leaked to Candace to instead create the entire conspiracy theory?
I think it does not take 200 IQ to figure out that Andrew Kolvet had already been turned as well.
Added: A little context for those fortunate folks for whom none of this nonsense rings a bell:
After Charlie Kirk's death Candace was pushing forth a lot of theories basd on "insider sources"
One of the theory involved that Israel killed him because he was turning against them
She suddenly managed to obtain the screenshot where Charlie expresses frustration about jewish donors pulling out.
This screenshot was used to cement in all the Candies' minds that Charlie was indeed killed by Israel
Later when Joe Kent resigned and went on some show (I think Megan Kelly) he talked about how the "screenshots that were made public showed such and such", acting as if he had no idea how they were made public
Andrew Kolvet was one of the guys on the Charlie Kirk's group chat, along with Rabbi Pesach Wolicki (who was supposedly Charlie's Rabbi).
In this recent view on Erin Molan show Rabbi Pesach told that Andrew Kolvat had told them all that he had sent the screenshot to someone in the government to help with investigation, and he implied that the "someone in the government" had to be Joe Kent since both Charlie and Andrew used to meet Joe Kent.
Now its finally confirmed that it was indeed Andrew who leaked those specific screenshots to Joe Kent.
As Andrew explains - Joe saw the texts and declined to get involved, (reminder that "they are going to kill me" does not exactly point a finger at anyone, so not smoking gun. Joe then suggested that Andrew make them public. Which allegedly, Andrew declined to do. So that is appropriate, in terms of revealing all the names in the chat - also stated by him. However, he then skips to Candace magically appearing the texts, rather fast. Hold up.
Joe Kent did not pretend anything. He didn't have anything to do with the texts, except that the information went past him. Whatever. Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun (except he did suggest Andrew publish them himself - hardly information that is relevant, while explaining oneself).
So not exactly fitting the Joe Kent 'leaking' story. More like, bouncing.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
I know peeps are gunna chime in and say Candace is lying. But I don't think so.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
Factually wrong. When she published them she said its from a trusted source. The next episode - timestamped link she said "Andrew Colvette confirmed that the text messages are real".
See how it works. Same people used as sources and confirmations to make a leak look authentic.
What does it remind you of? C'mon, be honest. We have all lived through this, but when ti was the left doing we had no problem calling them out.
Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun
Not sure what you meant by "Not really interesting" - but very relevant. Listen to the exact segment -timestamped. Actually please do listen to that segemnt, its very instructive.
The phrasing of the questions is just so incredibly amazing
"Andrew says he sent the document to someone in the government" - No pause for response.
Now note the next question. Its NOT "Was it you that Andrew sent it to?" but rather
"Did you leak it to Candace?" "No"
"Did you leak it to media?" "No"
"Did you see anyone around you leak it to media?" "I have the same access to media as you all have and I watched it happening but I dont know any specifics of anyone .. leaking ... so yeah"
Anons in the past would know exactly what this meant. Andrew sent it to Joe. Joe let someone else leak it to Candance without knowing the specifics. Megan was given the exact questions to ask so he can answer exactly like this, without technically lying.
If he was actually honest he would have said right after the first sentence "Yeah Andrew sent the screenshots to me, but I told him to make it public himself, not sure what happened after that"
So we have a Rabbi make a wild guess that Joe Kent was the leaker.
We have Andrew confirm that he, surprise surprise, did leak it to Joe Kent, but he does not know what happened after that.
Then we have Joe Kent given a very rehearsed interview, where he was given the exact questions to dodge giving the full answer.
Coincidence?
What was that we Anons used to say about coincidence?
C'mon man, we have cracked far more complex puzzled far few puzzle pieces.
Charlie was an extremely bright person who did not allow any source to shape his opinions, but rather he wanted to question everything for himself.
For this purpose, he met bunch of people - people holding opposite views even. Rabbi Wolicki was the guy he used for this purpose to question anti-Israel questions he would get and to learn things related to Israel and Jews.
He also met Joe Kent, would would tell him the other side of this question. And he would meet tons of other people who would give him their own opinions. This is why Charlie's breadth and depth in all matters was so impressive. He did what every Anon needs to do - collect info from diverse sources and use their own critical thinking to come to the final conclusion.
Point of order: 'leaked' implies an improper transfer of information. What Kolvet is saying is that he provided that information to a govt party in order to facilitate any appropriate action on the part of govt authorities.
I don't know if the conditions of the group chat would require permission from each and every member to submit the chat record to govt for the purposes of facilitating criminal investigation.
Point of order, nothing more. I have little knowledge (and little interest) about what any of these peeps are doing.
I would assume that my private messages on a private chat would not be disclosed to anyone including a govt official without a subpoena, without informing me.
I suppose the argument that it was an inappropriate transfer of information isn't without foundation, but I tend to think that 'leaking' has a specific nuance, and I'm not sure that its applicable here.
I would think it depends on the motive of Andrew. Was he actually sending every information he had for the purposes of investigation to Joe Kent? Or was he sending some info, including the screenshots knowing it was going to be used for something other than investigation?
My assertion is that if it was the latter, then it would qualify as leaking. Do you agree?
If you agree, now lets examine which of those two cases applies here. Lets say it was the former and he sent every piece of information to Joe Kent and according to him Joe Kent told him to make it public.
Pause for a second. If it was every information he had that might be useful for an investigation, would Joe Kent say "Release it to public" or would he be saying "Send it to FBI" ?
I would say that "Release it to public" is an answer appropriate only if Andrew took specific information to Joe Kent. Like the specific screenshots.
Thats factor one to suggest it was not the former.
Factor 2: Lets say you sent every piece of information you had to Joe Kent because he is a guy in government you trust. Lets say a week or two later, some of that information is now public and is used to build the whole conspiracy narrative . What would you do? Would you be outraged? Would you feel betrayed?
Or, would you chime in and confirm that indeed the screenshot is real?
Thats what Andrew did - he confirmed that the screenshot was real, giving Candace's viewers what felt like an independant verification of the screenshot.
So again it suggests that Andrew was intending to "leak" it.
This adds an extra level of complexity. The general feel I get is that Andrew portrays himself to be not subscribing to the idea that Israel killed Charlie. So why would he leak this stuff? The answer I find most plausible is that Andrew is not being honest and that his ostenible position is just for optics. He is acting as the skeptic of the narrative who provides confirmation indirectly.
Leaking information to the public ensures it won’t be buried.
Yeah but its not just one person's private info. Everyone involved should be onboard for this to be valid. And it should be done officially, by all the folks stating "This is the full information and we dont want it to be distorted, we just want it to be in public domain".
Have you ever listened to Charlie? And I mean beyond the clips people keep sharing after he passed away? Have you ever been amazed by the breadth and depth of his knowledge in every topic, including Judaism?
I would highly suggest you listen to it carefully.
To answer your question - he has a Rabbi just like he has so many other experts that he talks regularly to so he can listen to all sides of every issue and pitch the problems against each other, and find for himself the right answer for each issue.
There was ONLY one side Charlie was on...Israel. Charlie loved Israel but wasn't always in agreement with Netanyahu, especially questioning the 'stand down' order on Oct 7. As David with Saul, Charlie believed God's Justice would rain on Netanyahu, in God'sTiming. Charlie had a Rabbi... Jesus was a Rabbi, who was a teacher of Judaism. Edit: Jesus taught the core of Jewish Law, love for God and love for neighbor.
especially questioning the 'stand down' order on Oct 7
I agree with your post, but just wanted to set record straight factually: Most people watch the little clip of him asking "Was there a stand down order? We have to ask these questions", but they never watch the full video where a few minutes later he says "There are other explanations. Were there traitors under Netanyahu ? Its possible"
Doesn't change your response on the whole because I am sure he disagreed with Bibi other times, but he never implied Bibi gave the stand down order.
Then it wasnt "his" rabbi, it was an associate who he learned from for acedemic purposes. To call one "my" rabbi means he is your spiritual advisor. A rabbi for a guy like charlie would not ne directing charlie toward Christianity but put him in the position of waiting for Christ to come the first time. Thats why I asked.
Part of the issue here is that questionable narratives, lightning fast open & shut case, coupled with all the "anomalies" will inevitably lead some to ask more questions, seek more answers or even entertain conspiracy theories.
Unless you believe the lone shooter story, then all possibilities are still on the table IMO just like with JFK.
Anomalies are absolutely the issue here. But anomalies can be explained using different theories and by examining which theory makes best sense.
Specifically the anomalies we saw with Charlie's assassination is entrirely consistent with an assassination attempt intercepted by FBI, and a fake assassination staged so he could be put into witness protection.
So the real problem, I would say, is not the existence of anomalies, but rather abusing these anomalies to spin a specific narrative for the people who are gullible enough to trust the influencers and not spend time doing their own critical thinking.
an assassination attempt intercepted by FBI, and a fake assassination staged so he could be put into witness protection.>
Well that is a different theory but then my question would be "attempted by whom?" and what is he "witness" to? Where did that theory even come from?
I guess my issue isn't so much whether or not Candace etc are correct or not but more the question as to why there is so much effort to discredit or disparage any finger pointing towards Israel.
I mean if it wasn't that kid, then it could have been anyone.
Firstly, thanks for being the first person being presented this theory and actually asking smart question. I was losing hope with Anons.
would be "attempted by whom?" and what is he "witness" to?
For the past week or so, this is what I have been occupied with because the answer to this would give us so much more visibility into whats really going on.
Let me take some time and try to put whatever I have dug into something coherant, but I want to clarify one thing:
the question as to why there is so much effort to discredit or disparage any finger pointing towards Israel.
Just to be clear, I am not disparaging any finger pointing towards Israel. I know exactly what Israel is, and I know that its reckoning will be here soon, just as Q told us. But I also know that Israel is just a puppet state, whose strings have been cut and taken control by Trump. The Jews who controlled Israel, dont live in Israel. Every Anon should know this by now. And those Jews dont simply do things by themselves, they have a whole Empire behind them. Thats who Trump is fighting.
So its not the finger pointing towards Israel that concerns me, its the co-ordinate effort to make every one believe that there is nothing behind Israel when its so obvious that there is a whole structure behind it.
And I damn sure want to know why anyone would be working so hard to do a "controlled burn" of Israel.
Like, let me ask you, how long did it take you to find out about the Rothschild once you started digging into the Jews or Israel? For me, it was instantaneous. You cant dig into Israel without stumbling on to Rothschild. Do you agree?
So how many times has Candace "exposed" the Rothschilds? What about how Zionism was created? Or who created Israel?
I dont want us to fall for the oldest trick in the Jewish playbook - make people hate all Jews so that the master Jews can always keep escaping and benefiting from the fresh victimhood.
Something to think about while I share my thoughts about why and who would have wanted Charlie dead.
Funny thing, in 2020 I didn't have as much hard time trying to explain everyone that Jews are the most evil beings in the world, as in 2026 when I try to explain that Israel is just a puppet state whose masters are the one Trump is fighting with.
But yeah, for a myopic eye, everything looks like its worst. fear.
I believe they are pushing the narrative of “Israel is bad. Israel is controlling USA” so that the normies are primed and open to it when the time is come.
Potentially with Iran war, Israel will continue to keep the war going despite our attempts to leave, and then a civilian “attack” enrages Trump and our citizens so much causing us to really rebuke Israel.
Joe Kent Candace Tucker etc have way more going on then meets the eye.
Regardless I don’t beleive that Charlie was actually killed. None of that seemed physically possible based on what ballistics the fbi “confirmed”. On top of so many anomalies (do I recall correctly Charlie’s body never left any blood as he’s being ran through the premises into a vehicle”……
Charlie “dying” was likely a captured assassination attempt; the alliance/good guys would have staged it for a number of reasons. Obviously in pushed our country in the right direction in my opinion, but also, potentially there were still bad actors that’s actually believed it was legit and had gone as plan? No clue
Either way I cannot imagine Joe Kent Tucker Carlson etc not playin a part in this recent narrative.
Kent’s resignation was so egregious in my
Opinion, and it’s so on the nose saying for the first time ever by a govt official “Israel controls us!”. His posts saying the complete opposite are overwhelming; he must’ve known they’d be released and shown within hours of his comments?? No one is that dumb
Psychological war
The problem I have, is if this is a test and the citizens are failing it, the white hats have utterly failed? I just don’t buy it I have a feeling with the tech out there the WH can easily track the public sentiment and communication; potentially every privately whether that’s through NSA, space force, etc. and make their judgement without ever pushing a public facing narrative. I mean the recent video of teacher being arrested for her private Snapchat message sent to friends is incredibly intriguing. Could it be a psyop as well or seed that narrative? Idk anymore definitively what is what
I just don’t think the white hats would run these tests 10 years on just to realize “damn these normies are still so stupid!?”
If the FBI is dumb enough to arrest Joe Kent expect just about everyone in the Special Operations community to turn on the government. He has like 90% support within the community. Bad idea to piss off your operators in the middle of a war.
Why did Joe Kent pretend during the interview with Megan Kelly that he had nothing to do with the screenshots?
Why did Andrew Kolvet stay quiet all this time and only come clean when accused point blanc?
If Andrew was indeed hoping that Joe Kent was going to use the screenshot to investigate Charlie's Death, why was he not incensed when he saw those screenshots leaked to Candace to instead create the entire conspiracy theory?
I think it does not take 200 IQ to figure out that Andrew Kolvet had already been turned as well.
Added: A little context for those fortunate folks for whom none of this nonsense rings a bell:
After Charlie Kirk's death Candace was pushing forth a lot of theories basd on "insider sources"
One of the theory involved that Israel killed him because he was turning against them
She suddenly managed to obtain the screenshot where Charlie expresses frustration about jewish donors pulling out.
This screenshot was used to cement in all the Candies' minds that Charlie was indeed killed by Israel
Later when Joe Kent resigned and went on some show (I think Megan Kelly) he talked about how the "screenshots that were made public showed such and such", acting as if he had no idea how they were made public
Andrew Kolvet was one of the guys on the Charlie Kirk's group chat, along with Rabbi Pesach Wolicki (who was supposedly Charlie's Rabbi).
In this recent view on Erin Molan show Rabbi Pesach told that Andrew Kolvat had told them all that he had sent the screenshot to someone in the government to help with investigation, and he implied that the "someone in the government" had to be Joe Kent since both Charlie and Andrew used to meet Joe Kent.
Now its finally confirmed that it was indeed Andrew who leaked those specific screenshots to Joe Kent.
Taking all the stories at face value:
As Andrew explains - Joe saw the texts and declined to get involved, (reminder that "they are going to kill me" does not exactly point a finger at anyone, so not smoking gun. Joe then suggested that Andrew make them public. Which allegedly, Andrew declined to do. So that is appropriate, in terms of revealing all the names in the chat - also stated by him. However, he then skips to Candace magically appearing the texts, rather fast. Hold up.
Joe Kent did not pretend anything. He didn't have anything to do with the texts, except that the information went past him. Whatever. Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun (except he did suggest Andrew publish them himself - hardly information that is relevant, while explaining oneself).
So not exactly fitting the Joe Kent 'leaking' story. More like, bouncing.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
I know peeps are gunna chime in and say Candace is lying. But I don't think so.
Factually wrong. When she published them she said its from a trusted source. The next episode - timestamped link she said "Andrew Colvette confirmed that the text messages are real".
See how it works. Same people used as sources and confirmations to make a leak look authentic.
What does it remind you of? C'mon, be honest. We have all lived through this, but when ti was the left doing we had no problem calling them out.
Not sure what you meant by "Not really interesting" - but very relevant. Listen to the exact segment -timestamped. Actually please do listen to that segemnt, its very instructive.
The phrasing of the questions is just so incredibly amazing
"Andrew says he sent the document to someone in the government" - No pause for response.
Now note the next question. Its NOT "Was it you that Andrew sent it to?" but rather
"Did you leak it to Candace?" "No"
"Did you leak it to media?" "No"
"Did you see anyone around you leak it to media?" "I have the same access to media as you all have and I watched it happening but I dont know any specifics of anyone .. leaking ... so yeah"
Anons in the past would know exactly what this meant. Andrew sent it to Joe. Joe let someone else leak it to Candance without knowing the specifics. Megan was given the exact questions to ask so he can answer exactly like this, without technically lying.
If he was actually honest he would have said right after the first sentence "Yeah Andrew sent the screenshots to me, but I told him to make it public himself, not sure what happened after that"
So we have a Rabbi make a wild guess that Joe Kent was the leaker.
We have Andrew confirm that he, surprise surprise, did leak it to Joe Kent, but he does not know what happened after that.
Then we have Joe Kent given a very rehearsed interview, where he was given the exact questions to dodge giving the full answer.
Coincidence?
What was that we Anons used to say about coincidence?
C'mon man, we have cracked far more complex puzzled far few puzzle pieces.
Pleas elaborate. Why does every person of influence in America seem to have a jewish advisor, a rabbi no less?
It’s sounds exactly like AIPAC, jewish interests influencing the influencers. Ensuring they are informed about the mindset of their subject.
Charlie was an extremely bright person who did not allow any source to shape his opinions, but rather he wanted to question everything for himself.
For this purpose, he met bunch of people - people holding opposite views even. Rabbi Wolicki was the guy he used for this purpose to question anti-Israel questions he would get and to learn things related to Israel and Jews.
He also met Joe Kent, would would tell him the other side of this question. And he would meet tons of other people who would give him their own opinions. This is why Charlie's breadth and depth in all matters was so impressive. He did what every Anon needs to do - collect info from diverse sources and use their own critical thinking to come to the final conclusion.
That’s not my point.
Okay
Point of order: 'leaked' implies an improper transfer of information. What Kolvet is saying is that he provided that information to a govt party in order to facilitate any appropriate action on the part of govt authorities.
I don't know if the conditions of the group chat would require permission from each and every member to submit the chat record to govt for the purposes of facilitating criminal investigation.
Point of order, nothing more. I have little knowledge (and little interest) about what any of these peeps are doing.
I would assume that my private messages on a private chat would not be disclosed to anyone including a govt official without a subpoena, without informing me.
That would be an improper transfer of information
I suppose the argument that it was an inappropriate transfer of information isn't without foundation, but I tend to think that 'leaking' has a specific nuance, and I'm not sure that its applicable here.
I would think it depends on the motive of Andrew. Was he actually sending every information he had for the purposes of investigation to Joe Kent? Or was he sending some info, including the screenshots knowing it was going to be used for something other than investigation?
My assertion is that if it was the latter, then it would qualify as leaking. Do you agree?
If you agree, now lets examine which of those two cases applies here. Lets say it was the former and he sent every piece of information to Joe Kent and according to him Joe Kent told him to make it public.
Pause for a second. If it was every information he had that might be useful for an investigation, would Joe Kent say "Release it to public" or would he be saying "Send it to FBI" ?
I would say that "Release it to public" is an answer appropriate only if Andrew took specific information to Joe Kent. Like the specific screenshots.
Thats factor one to suggest it was not the former.
Factor 2: Lets say you sent every piece of information you had to Joe Kent because he is a guy in government you trust. Lets say a week or two later, some of that information is now public and is used to build the whole conspiracy narrative . What would you do? Would you be outraged? Would you feel betrayed?
Or, would you chime in and confirm that indeed the screenshot is real?
Thats what Andrew did - he confirmed that the screenshot was real, giving Candace's viewers what felt like an independant verification of the screenshot.
So again it suggests that Andrew was intending to "leak" it.
This adds an extra level of complexity. The general feel I get is that Andrew portrays himself to be not subscribing to the idea that Israel killed Charlie. So why would he leak this stuff? The answer I find most plausible is that Andrew is not being honest and that his ostenible position is just for optics. He is acting as the skeptic of the narrative who provides confirmation indirectly.
Yes, I agree.
Also, I think that in the context of the argument you present here, 'leaking' is probably appropriate.
Not if post event it demonstrated a fear of safety and you believed that most government agencies were corrupted to the core.
Leaking information to the public ensures it won’t be buried.
Yeah but its not just one person's private info. Everyone involved should be onboard for this to be valid. And it should be done officially, by all the folks stating "This is the full information and we dont want it to be distorted, we just want it to be in public domain".
Thats not what happened.
If it’s pertinent to a potential criminal act and you have no faith in “justice”, I believe it is acceptable behaviour.
The chat was pretty innocuous in any case, other than the fear of being murdered.
Shared. That's a better word for it. Under duress? Who knows... could be willingly. Could even be purposely.
Solid work.
u/#StayFocused
I dont know about all that but, Why on Gods green earth would charlie have a Rabbi?
Have you ever listened to Charlie? And I mean beyond the clips people keep sharing after he passed away? Have you ever been amazed by the breadth and depth of his knowledge in every topic, including Judaism?
Here is a masterpiece
I would highly suggest you listen to it carefully.
To answer your question - he has a Rabbi just like he has so many other experts that he talks regularly to so he can listen to all sides of every issue and pitch the problems against each other, and find for himself the right answer for each issue.
(The present tense is not a mistake)
There was ONLY one side Charlie was on...Israel. Charlie loved Israel but wasn't always in agreement with Netanyahu, especially questioning the 'stand down' order on Oct 7. As David with Saul, Charlie believed God's Justice would rain on Netanyahu, in God'sTiming. Charlie had a Rabbi... Jesus was a Rabbi, who was a teacher of Judaism. Edit: Jesus taught the core of Jewish Law, love for God and love for neighbor.
I agree with your post, but just wanted to set record straight factually: Most people watch the little clip of him asking "Was there a stand down order? We have to ask these questions", but they never watch the full video where a few minutes later he says "There are other explanations. Were there traitors under Netanyahu ? Its possible"
Doesn't change your response on the whole because I am sure he disagreed with Bibi other times, but he never implied Bibi gave the stand down order.
Then it wasnt "his" rabbi, it was an associate who he learned from for acedemic purposes. To call one "my" rabbi means he is your spiritual advisor. A rabbi for a guy like charlie would not ne directing charlie toward Christianity but put him in the position of waiting for Christ to come the first time. Thats why I asked.
Part of the issue here is that questionable narratives, lightning fast open & shut case, coupled with all the "anomalies" will inevitably lead some to ask more questions, seek more answers or even entertain conspiracy theories.
Unless you believe the lone shooter story, then all possibilities are still on the table IMO just like with JFK.
Anomalies are absolutely the issue here. But anomalies can be explained using different theories and by examining which theory makes best sense.
Specifically the anomalies we saw with Charlie's assassination is entrirely consistent with an assassination attempt intercepted by FBI, and a fake assassination staged so he could be put into witness protection.
So the real problem, I would say, is not the existence of anomalies, but rather abusing these anomalies to spin a specific narrative for the people who are gullible enough to trust the influencers and not spend time doing their own critical thinking.
Well that is a different theory but then my question would be "attempted by whom?" and what is he "witness" to? Where did that theory even come from?
I guess my issue isn't so much whether or not Candace etc are correct or not but more the question as to why there is so much effort to discredit or disparage any finger pointing towards Israel.
I mean if it wasn't that kid, then it could have been anyone.
Firstly, thanks for being the first person being presented this theory and actually asking smart question. I was losing hope with Anons.
For the past week or so, this is what I have been occupied with because the answer to this would give us so much more visibility into whats really going on.
Let me take some time and try to put whatever I have dug into something coherant, but I want to clarify one thing:
Just to be clear, I am not disparaging any finger pointing towards Israel. I know exactly what Israel is, and I know that its reckoning will be here soon, just as Q told us. But I also know that Israel is just a puppet state, whose strings have been cut and taken control by Trump. The Jews who controlled Israel, dont live in Israel. Every Anon should know this by now. And those Jews dont simply do things by themselves, they have a whole Empire behind them. Thats who Trump is fighting.
So its not the finger pointing towards Israel that concerns me, its the co-ordinate effort to make every one believe that there is nothing behind Israel when its so obvious that there is a whole structure behind it.
And I damn sure want to know why anyone would be working so hard to do a "controlled burn" of Israel.
Like, let me ask you, how long did it take you to find out about the Rothschild once you started digging into the Jews or Israel? For me, it was instantaneous. You cant dig into Israel without stumbling on to Rothschild. Do you agree?
So how many times has Candace "exposed" the Rothschilds? What about how Zionism was created? Or who created Israel?
I dont want us to fall for the oldest trick in the Jewish playbook - make people hate all Jews so that the master Jews can always keep escaping and benefiting from the fresh victimhood.
Something to think about while I share my thoughts about why and who would have wanted Charlie dead.
To be honest I try not to attribute any bad acts to a particular group.
For example, Biden's actions weren't representative of all Americans or all Christians.
You don't find answers if you don't ask questions. Some answers lead to more questions.
When one side says this and the other says that, then it is up to the fact finder (i.e. me or you) to look at the evidence and form an opinion.
The way I see things is that people still have questions.
Why do you read like an apologist arguing for his religion right now? What is this?
Funny thing, in 2020 I didn't have as much hard time trying to explain everyone that Jews are the most evil beings in the world, as in 2026 when I try to explain that Israel is just a puppet state whose masters are the one Trump is fighting with.
But yeah, for a myopic eye, everything looks like its worst. fear.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re going for in this thread 😂
For sure, it wont make sense if you look at anything black and white.
Interesting theory.
I believe they are pushing the narrative of “Israel is bad. Israel is controlling USA” so that the normies are primed and open to it when the time is come.
Potentially with Iran war, Israel will continue to keep the war going despite our attempts to leave, and then a civilian “attack” enrages Trump and our citizens so much causing us to really rebuke Israel.
Joe Kent Candace Tucker etc have way more going on then meets the eye.
Tucker surely. He is also priming us for "US should step aside and let China take the world leadership".
Regardless I don’t beleive that Charlie was actually killed. None of that seemed physically possible based on what ballistics the fbi “confirmed”. On top of so many anomalies (do I recall correctly Charlie’s body never left any blood as he’s being ran through the premises into a vehicle”……
Charlie “dying” was likely a captured assassination attempt; the alliance/good guys would have staged it for a number of reasons. Obviously in pushed our country in the right direction in my opinion, but also, potentially there were still bad actors that’s actually believed it was legit and had gone as plan? No clue
Either way I cannot imagine Joe Kent Tucker Carlson etc not playin a part in this recent narrative.
Kent’s resignation was so egregious in my Opinion, and it’s so on the nose saying for the first time ever by a govt official “Israel controls us!”. His posts saying the complete opposite are overwhelming; he must’ve known they’d be released and shown within hours of his comments?? No one is that dumb Psychological war
The problem I have, is if this is a test and the citizens are failing it, the white hats have utterly failed? I just don’t buy it I have a feeling with the tech out there the WH can easily track the public sentiment and communication; potentially every privately whether that’s through NSA, space force, etc. and make their judgement without ever pushing a public facing narrative. I mean the recent video of teacher being arrested for her private Snapchat message sent to friends is incredibly intriguing. Could it be a psyop as well or seed that narrative? Idk anymore definitively what is what
I just don’t think the white hats would run these tests 10 years on just to realize “damn these normies are still so stupid!?”
Am I the only one who has zero interest in what comes off like an MTV producers Real World drama story arc?
Sadly its having real world effect on MAGA folks. Otherwise it would be as uninteresting as any reality tv show.
Way too true fren. Thanks for this thread, finally getting to the bottom of the candacebro effect.
If the FBI is dumb enough to arrest Joe Kent expect just about everyone in the Special Operations community to turn on the government. He has like 90% support within the community. Bad idea to piss off your operators in the middle of a war.
Kek.
Trash human.