In the recording, the mother of two can be heard discussing with her staff the success of a TPUSA event and the strong sales of associated merchandise. She then appeared to dismiss her husband’s death during the discussion while emphasizing harmony between staff.
Feels like acceptance came first, if not prior.
Ok but imagine charlie kirk is your husband and he dies. You’d be happy, too.
He would do the same if she died too
Two shit peas in a shit pod.
It’s not this audio that exposed her as a psychopath, it’s every singe public appearance she’s made since his death. Without skipping a beat she capitalized on her husband’s assassination immediately after it happened. Organizing events, “fundraisers”, podcasts, hook ups with the vice president, twitter beef with other grifters doing the same, etc, etc.
I’m never going to tell anyone how to grieve but you can’t convince me someone this excited about her husband’s public execution is grieving
Honestly, how am I supposed to see anyone who willingly married Charlie Kirk as anything but a vile human being. She could be dressed in all black until her dying day having taken a vow of silence in the wake of his passing, and her reputation would still deserve the Eva Braun treatment in my book. Her husband was a horrible person and any honoring of his death is the honoring of a piece of garbage. I cannot determine how another person is feeling, but I don’t care how the wife of Charlie Kirk is feeling because I already know all the relevant facts about her. She’s the wife of Charlie Kirk and that’s enough.
Shitbag man has shitbag wife. More at 11.
I’m getting you fired. That was literally my favorite racist podcaster.
A recording just reaffirms that she is a true psychopath, rather than through heresay
I would be a mess. They would milk my tears like you wouldn’t believe however i kinda get it at the same time. Imagine being with him.
Wow well I guess marrying a Mossad honey pot is a bad idea
Quick someone save Kash Patel!
…actually nah it’s fine.
I couldn’t find anything about her links to Mossad online. Source?
Sounds like we might have a motive for Charlie’s death.
I’m no conspiracy theorist but there is apparently a cia training video out there with Erika Kirk in it…she was just his handler y’all
Though at this point that actually sounds plausible, it’s still rather conspiratorial at the least.
Having said that, yeah it wouldn’t surprise me
What we VAN all agree on is that this bitch is one cold narcissistic psychopath. It’s almost enough to feel sorry for Charlie. Almost… But not.
Indeed we van
Conservatives completely lack empathy, but she seems to completely lack all emotions.
Giggling about her husband’s death is a sign of emotion.
That could have been the “cha-ching” of the grift
Is greed an émotion?
It is the way I do it. Absolutely giddy with greed.
Greed itself might not be, but that what makes you go “cha-ching” when profiting from greed totally is.
To be fair, I giggled at his death too
Her giggling about her husband kirking the bucket is the most relatable thing she has ever done.
Oh look, stereotypically evil person, …turns out to be stereotypically evil.
Her stare is enough. Even it gave Candace Owens the creeps. Nicki went silent after calling Vance the assassin.
People grieve their own way. Being excited about how much money you are going to make from the memorial for your dead husband is not a normal reaction. It could be a mental retreat as a coping mechanism. It really could be. However, the way conservative identities act when they aren’t in mourning, highly suggests this isn’t a coping mechanism, just naked exploitation of other peoples sympathy.
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about this. People grieve in their own way. Some people throw themselves into work to avoid thinking about tragedy. Some people get drunk or high. Some people perform grief in an outlandish, over-the-top way because they want to be the main character.
We don’t know if maybe she was happy and excited at this moment, and then once she was off the conference call the reality hit her again and she was sobbing uncontrollably.
But, here’s the thing. Most people don’t try to monetize the death of a loved one, and as a result they’re not in the spotlight during their period of grief. Most people step back from the world and grieve in private, where there aren’t as many people judging them for how well or poorly they’re dealing with the loss of a loved one.
Erika Kirk brought this spotlight on herself by trying to monetize the death of her husband. And if people’s harsh criticism of what she’s doing means that the next person doesn’t try to monetize the death of a loved one, that’s probably a good thing.
Even if you want to put aside the emotions and odd priorities, there was the but where she was impatiently saying “he’s dead. Move on”
Ok, and?
the way conservative identities act when they aren’t in mourning,
Conservatives are the same people as you all are. Don’t pretend that they are not.
Her kids are going to need a lot of therapy.
Cmon We all knew she was fucked up sociopath.
Exactly…nothing surprising here.
A good magahat never lets a tragedy and grief get in the way of turning a profit. I too am impressed by the profits made…
Her husband getting a hole through the neck was the event of the century for her too?
Looks like I have something in common with Erika Kuck.
I think Trump’s death has ‘event of the century’ locked in for me — but hey, at least there’s proof she’s a fucking ghoul.
My theory, Charlie wasn’t always great to her and she is happy he is gone but not willing to admit that his misogyny actually hurt her at times.
That’s a very charitable interpretation.
or maybe maybe she 's glad to be the new boss of her husband empire and nothing to do with how she was treated. Also charlie said multiple time that she had worse opinion than him, notably on women role and feminity.
But then she runs right to ‘JD Vance’. She’s a grifter
… Because women are pure and would never ever be selfish or duplicitous. Unlike all men. amiright?
I never meant to imply that in my comment.
I believe you. Now, in re-reading it, can you see any implicit bias in the statement? That is what i was being sarcastic about.
It was not an attack on you, though it’s easy to read that into text without any physical cues. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the media.
Dumb comment, she’s obviously a nasty person, doesn’t mean he wasn’t abusive, given his politics the chances are high enough
I was not commenting on her,or on kirk, though I have my opinions. I was bringing attention to the gender bias that by default, women are assumed to be “good” in the face of evidence to the contrary. Worse she’s not accountable for the behavior because a man might have been abusing her.
She might have very good reasons and intentions. She might be putting up a brave and strong show to shift focus on a cause she truly embraces.
The point is we don’t know, but we have a demeanor that implies something might be askance and the comment didn’t address the behavior. It fell on favorable assumptions about the gender that (I feel) would not have been applicable to a man in the same scenario. Basically, a subtle logical fallacy that warps judgment subtly.
You sound kinda sexist, to frame women in a certain way and trying to blame them as worst than men.
If you really think about what I wrote, you’d see the mirror image is actually what I was pointing out. It seems kind of sexist to assume honorable intentions because she is a woman and mother.
I noticed you immediately implied I was mysoganist, though. There was not benefit of the doubt there, was there?
You also flat out accused me of stating women were worse than men, when all I called out was the framing that women are better than men.
I suppose this is where I should label you a mysandrist, but I know nothing about you and I would be attacking your character for disagreeing with me, wouldn’t I? I call out that hypocrisy in others so it would be rich of me to practice it, wouldn’t it?
My comment was a response to the implicit bias that since she is a woman, there must be some other reason than any unaltruistic impulses. Like, for example, a man who is no longer here to defend himself is the cause of the behavior due to abuse. See? It’s his fault.
Would the same statement be applied to a man? Based on what I’ve seen, he’d have received no such “benefit of the doubt”, and fatherhood would not enter the discussion because “men aren’t nurturing” (which is bullshit).
Psycho bitch.
Great songs!
