NOT SO FAST THERE SKIPPY @RealCandaceO I just did a cursory review of this "UVU PAID FOR REVIEW" UVU HAS A MAJOR PROBLEM. THE policy that was IN FORCE when Charlie Kirk was killed. UVU Policy 425 says the UNIVERSITY department handling the event was responsible for informing organizers of its procedures and “ENSURING ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET PRIOR TO USE OF THE SPACE.” Read that again SKIPPY. It gets worse. This was a political event. Under UVU's own 2025 policy, that placed it within the “major event” framework. Major events were required to undergo review for HEALTH AND SAFETY concerns, and outdoor major events were specifically required to undergo a SAFETY ASSESSMENT. THAT IS UVU OWN DOCUMENT SKIPPY. Who controlled approval? UVU. Who could impose safety conditions? UVU. Who could deny the request or require a modified event? UVU. Who expressly reserved the authority to CANCEL an event because of a significant safety threat? UVU. And now UVU's own commissioned independent review says: “Because the event was held on UVU’s campus, UVU should have retained decision-making authority over key security-related issues.” EXACTLY. You cannot say, “TPUSA wanted the courtyard, so we let them have it,” and then turn around after a man is assassinated and complain that TPUSA's preference created a security problem. That ain't how it works If the location was unsafe, THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER APPROVED IT. If required procedures weren't completed, DON'T LET THE EVENT PROCEED. If the security assessment wasn't adequate, FIX IT BEFORE OPENING THE EVENT. TPUSA even warned UVU's police chief about rooftop access and offered to put one of THEIR OWN security people there. The alleged response? “I got you covered.” Most normal people would assume that would be all ROOFTOPS that people could access. The independent review itself found UVU lacked a formal security assessment, written event action plan, documented line-of-sight assessment and adequate pre-event security coordination. TPUSA's conduct can be examined too. But “TPUSA didn't follow our protocols” is not an answer to the glaring question: WHY DID THE UNIVERSITY ALLOW A MAJOR POLITICAL EVENT TO PROCEED IF ITS OWN REQUIRED SAFETY PROCESS HAD NOT BEEN completed? UVU KNEW ROOFTOPS HAD LINE OF SIGHT. That should have been addressed first and foremost. No, you fools have this backwards, even a slanted review is BIG PROBLEMS for UVU. Perhaps this is WHY things from UVU are being leaked to @RealCandaceO possible quid pro quo? Not going to do you any Good Candace, YOU ARE COOKED.

BUB, nice spin, ain’t gonna work. TPUSA is cooked, you know it, Cancer Stick knows it. DONE. Next.