Golly Brandy!! @BrandyZadrozny Is this really the quality of propaganda attacks and “Hatchet Jobs” in America these days? You had better get yourself off to hatchet job finishing school. That effort would not even get a placement in my loo - if I were Candace. @RealCandaceO A D- at best. It’s quite embarrassing. —— As usual, the truth, is where the greatest writing and audiences are to be found and both Charlie and Candace understood and understand that. That is why they are popular and why their platforms expand. One point of truth. And this may help you understand the dynamic of what is occurring, Candace could never be described as Charlie’s “SideKick”. Charlie and Candace were intellectual equals- at the very least. Very often he learned from her. And sometimes he evolved his philosophy from her observations and thoughts. (And she of course his ) This was all part of the dynamic and fun they had together. In fact when they first came to the UK, it is a fact the the British powers in politics were as a matter of record far more interested in meeting Candace than Charlie. Her Brand in Dec 2018 was already bigger here and Internationally than Charlie’s. The speed of increase of her Twitter X following shows that too. Charlie at that time was relatively unknown internationally. As their hosts at the time it was actually slightly embarrassing. It is fair to say that Candace was the power, at that point, that created a lot of the momentum - with her intellect. It is she that the media really wanted to speak with when they arrived here in London and it was interesting Candace is the one ( not Charlie ) that was awarded personality of the year in 2018 by one of the top political journalists of the Sunday Times. I don’t mention this to take away anything from Charlie. He was very gracious about it at the time. He had recognised Candace and he absolutely loved it when she rose fast and he used all his power to back her up. And for the purpose of accuracy everyone that they met with us loved them both. She had her role he had his. It was like watching a great winning doubles team at Wimbledon Tennis 🎾 tournament. Charlie serving and Candace at the net volleying. Then they would switch it up and Charlie would hit a smash volley- it was intoxicating and highly entertaining and captivating. Charlie was great with donors and she was the intellectual driver that brought her life and energy to the game. It was that combination of hard work, intellect, renewed hope and spiritual capacity that donors found irresistible. So Candace a “sidekick”? Not on your Nelly. I realise that is it is extremely hard for non-creative types (who generally have a sort of permanent dull mental solidity) to conceive of the true inception point of the massive creation that was Turning Point. But creation it was. Once recognised by Charlie, Candace took the Turning Point Purpose to a whole new level with him. But you would probably have had to have been there and witnessed this moments personally and to know who provided their energy and power in the moment to fully understand how and why it happened. I hope this helps. I’m afraid I don’t know who runs the best Hatchet Job finishing school these days, (so I can’t help with that). It used to be the British Tabloid Gutter Press. But to be fair, they have rather lost the plot too. I think it has something to do with the fact that most of the journalists got three or four COVID jabs. It seems to have rather lowered the standard of journalism across the boards. Odd side effect, but there we go. They could not get enough of them.

I think the point here is that the so called “overwhelming” theory - if false - could result in another innocent young man’s unnecessary execution (or unnecessary human sacrifice). A boys immediate life is on the line. As I understand it ( correct me if I am wrong ) you support the “overwhelming” version of events. As do others. So defend that idea on their behalf for all to see.

Dear Charlie, @charliespiering I hope you are well. I have spoken to a donor who was at the event in Aspen, and they have no recollection at all of what you have reported. I spoke to them again today in light of your article, and they reiterated this once more. They are quite certain. They also said that afterwards, following the main filmed Aspen meeting that you reported on, there was a smaller private meeting with Charlie where this subject was raised again, and that there was no mention of the version that you present. I knew Charlie Kirk well, and I know Candace well. This point of truth matters. It will affect Turning Point going forward and conservative politics more broadly. It can affect the presidency and future presidencies. The logical and rational thing to do is simply to release the raw video footage publicly, with any donors who do not wish to be seen blacked out and, if truly necessary, their voices altered if they are keen to retain privacy. You have stated that the Turning Point cameras were rolling, as have others. No one would be more pleased to see that what you are saying is true than Candace, ourselves, and all those who love Charlie and his family. It would give thousands of people great relief. No one wanted, or wants, to believe that untruths or half truths could or would be told on such a subject, or that the deceptions that have been suggested may have occurred. Certainly not us. Several people who have been donors, including the individuals with whom I spoke this afternoon, whom we personally introduced to Charlie as TP donors, are now saying that because of this, and other inconsistencies in what has been said, they will no longer participate in political donations across the conservative spectrum. They are that frustrated by it. These are usually calm, reasoned people. This was reiterated again today when we spoke. Such are the consequences of mishandling communications with donors. They do not like it. Of course, I do not know what happened at the event, as I was not present. I am simply reporting what I was told previously and again today by this person, who was there with another donor. I am not implying that what you have written in your article is either true or false. I am not suggesting that anyone is being untruthful. But the idea that the article you wrote will somehow put all of this to bed is naïve beyond expectation. Whoever is making this dog’s dinner of Turning Point’s PR should be fired. Our personal purpose in all this is solely the preservation of Charlie’s legacy and to help, if we can — and I believe we can — to allow those whom Charlie truly loved to find a route through to sanity and peace via truth and transparency. My elderly mother (88) is a great fan of the Daily Mail. I cannot, in all honesty, profess the same, but I do try to help. I can also extrapolate the consequences to journalistic reputation were one to find oneself on the wrong side of an issue engaging such a vast number of truth seeking Americans, and even a few Brits and Europeans. We live in a new media world, after all. I have advised our good friends at TPUSA that honest and open communication works best with Candace, even when she is in full truth seeking mode. I would continue to suggest to all parties concerned that this is the best, and probably the only, workable approach. Frankly, I do not know how we place ourselves in a position where we can be of assistance, but duty and noblesse oblige compel us to try to help resolve this if we can. It is now 43 days since Candace’s first public request for the film to be made available. What on earth does anyone have to lose by airing it? Thank you for taking an interest in the subject, though. The truth is important. And you have helped us all see more. I hope this helps you. Kind regards, John @RealCandaceO @Nero