This was from some post on T_D:
since we're propping up official narratives, I guess we should share how much info quickly came out that busted these after the event last year:
there were some substacks that tried to "expose" erika (search "erika kirk exposed substack"), I don't think this was the one but it has some of the same vibe: https://phantompain1984.substack.com/p/erika-kirk-and-the-ritualistic-assassination
Among things that were mentioned was that Erika associated with a nonprofit in Romania that people questioned if it had trafficked kids. Some strange networking connections were suggested with Erika's circle (and Candace too tbh). The linked article suggests Erika was proven to say some things that were incorrect.
Now as far as the actual event last year went, there were a lot of weird anomalies like the security making strange hand gestures before Kirk was shot, I think weren't they denied extra security that day for some reason, and wasn't there a video that showed some guy seemingly shooting a small handgun from the front to the left of the stage? Others speculated the microphone might have been rigged, on Charlie.
I [think it's] probably wise to be both skeptical of Erika and Candace respectively (Erika as promoting a false mainstream narrative, Candace as promoting a false "alternative" narrative)
Thanks for coming to the TED talk
Discuss?
edit: someone shared this vid which seems to argue for the rigged microphone view - https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bnav7JxYsGa9
