I usually don’t go after people like Andrew Bustamante (@EverydaySpy). My stance

She is attractive enough. According to who? That is an opinion that is based solely on subjective data. Attractive enough for what? Attractive enough for a reality TV show? Attractive enough to be on the cover of a magazine? Attractive enough for a low-level modeling gig? What is attractive enough? She had every tool in her position to sell this organically. What tools are needed? Is there a list somewhere? Can it be measured? Can it be counted? She didn't have emotion. The entire story of what happened could have helped her sell this fully, the assumption being she was trying to sell something at all. Was she actually selling? Was there a price tag and a pitch and a sign-up form and an order sheet? Or was this person viewing this circumstance, this event, through a lens of, oh, she's trying to influence me. She's trying to get me to sponsor her. She's trying to get me to donate. She really would have been the last person on earth to be a suspect. According to who? You can see Candace is building an argument based off of one fucking source. And that one source is shitty, which reflects poorly on Candace. So why did Candace stake so much of this statement on this piece of shit personal assessment? This violates all the rules of journalistic professionalism. And then to end this with, if not for the FBI's terrible mistakes, TPUSA's lies and her very fake performance. All of those are a personal opinion of the performance, the execution of somebody else's official duties. Why did she do that? Could it be confirmation bias? Absolutely. It could be, it could be a bias in Candace's own point of view. Right. But either way,