A woman that asks no questions about her husband's assassination is as guilty as the assassin.
Candace Owens recently interviewed a military veteran who claimed he is “95–99% certain” he saw Erika Kirk, TPUSA security chief Brian Harpole, and Arizona Congressman Mark Amodei attending a high-level secret military meeting at Fort Huachuca, Arizona the day before Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
The witness describes being detained and interrogated for hours after stumbling into what he believes was a sensitive Joint Task Force gathering connected to intelligence, drones, and psychological operations.
Jimmy frames the vet’s report as further proof supporting Owens’ broader allegation that federal agencies and powerful insiders were deeply involved in both the assassination and its cover-up.
Based on what’s publicly verifiable so far, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah in September 2025, and prosecutors have charged Tyler Robinson, 22, with aggravated murder and have pursued the case as a targeted political killing, including seeking the death penalty and describing evidence such as alleged messages and investigative findings.
Beyond that established case record, the Fort Huachuca story quoted as an uncorroborated allegation: Candace Owens published an interview with a person identified only as a military veteran claiming he was “95–99% certain” he saw Erika Kirk, TPUSA security chief Brian Harpole, and Rep. Mark Amodei at a supposed “high-level” meeting at Fort Huachuca the day before the assassination, and the narrative then expands into claims of detention/interrogation and a broader federal “cover-up.”
At this time, major credible reporting does not confirm the witness’s identities/claims, the described “secret meeting” details, or any proven link between those allegations and the killing; Reuters has reported that questions remain about planning and motive, but its coverage centers on the charged suspect and the investigative process, not verified evidence of a multi-actor conspiracy.
Finally, the statement “a woman that asks no questions about her husband’s assassination is as guilty as the assassin” is a moral assertion, not a factual standard; guilt is determined by evidence and due process, and nothing in the confirmed reporting establishes legal culpability based on whether a spouse publicly questions the official narrative.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Comments
Post a Comment