Replies

Sure—in the show she used a lot of innuendo to suggest that Erika Kirk and backers of Turning Point were involved in child trafficking.

She danced around a lot—but that was the bottom line.

I watched the video, and I don't recall any point at which she accused Erika Kirk of child trafficking. She did document Erika's surprising ties to the military and international organizations, but didn't say anything about her being a child trafficker. You say she "danced around it", so I get the impression you never saw Candace accuse Erika of that either. You may be conflating two different topics contained in the video.

To my mind, if only half of what Candace is documenting is true about Turning Point USA and its financiers, then it still makes TPUSA and the people surrounding it highly suspect for a variety of things.

Candace’s approach is to put part of one white board with pins and string and pictures of people...

and then move to the next wall and its white board and put up some more pins and string and pictures of people...

The whole point of the exercise is to link everything together.

She does not tie everything together.

She leaves it hanging there.

Innuendo.

Hints.

Maybes.

That is sleazy—leaves it to the audience to draw their own conclusion—when she has teed it up for them.

Then she can say—See I didn’t accuse Erika of child trafficking.

My answer—lady—then what was this video about exactly?

I would love to see a “Better Call Saul” junkyard dog libel plaintiff attorney rip into her in court. I bet a jury would tie the strings all together and say Candace is guilty of libel.