reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker rejects the claim that 'Israel was behind Charlie Kirk's assassination,' calling it 'ridiculous' and noting Kirk 'was supported by pro Israel Jewish patrons until the day that he died' while he 'defended the administration's cover up of the Epstein files' and 'defended the administration's bombing of Iran.' He says Kirk remained in support for Israel. He says Netanyahu offered money, which Kirk refused, and claims Bill Ackman hosted an event with 'Israeli mouthpieces' Seth Dillon and Josh Hammer; Kirk reportedly refused a trip to Israel. When the FBI could not locate the alleged gunman, Ackman offered a '$1,000,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Charlie Kirk's assassin,' to be paid to 'the alleged killer's father' Tyler Robinson, 'a Mormon father' who allegedly turned in his gay son dating a tranny who killed Charlie Kirk. He calls this 'a bit suspicious' and says it requires careful scrutiny.

Charlie mentioned Tucker and Candace forty eight hours earlier as they were trying to control who he's allowed to speak to. He was worried that Israel was infringing upon speech in America; "I have text messages to that effect." He was genuinely pro Israel; "there was nothing. there was not payment that was coming in." Toward the end, he was "over it towards the end because of Jewish behavior". Less than forty eight hours before he died, "Charlie announces that he has no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause because of Jewish donors and their behavior living up to these stereotypes." We never said "Israel killed Charlie Kirk." "I am uncomfortable with how many lies people that support Israel have been telling in the wake of his death."

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

Max Blumenthal and Anya Perimpil report that Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu's offer to arrange an infusion of Zionist money into Turning Point USA, America's largest conservative youth group, according to a longtime friend speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told the Grey Zone that Kirk believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he publicly questioned Israel's influence in Washington. In the weeks before his September 10 assassination, Kirk loathed the Israeli leader, calling him a "bully," the source said. He was disgusted by what he saw inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu allegedly sought to dictate the president's decisions and weaponize assets like Miriam Adelson to keep the White House under its thumb. Kirk warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel's behalf: "Charlie was the only person who did that," the source said, recalling Trump's response. By the following month, he faced a sustained private campaign of intimidation by Netanyahu's allies, described as Jewish leaders and stakeholders who "he was afraid of them."

The speaker addresses claims that Israel is involved in Charlie Kirk's death and reviews the FBI's official narrative that "it was Tyler Robinson, this 22 year old leftist with a transgender boyfriend." He discusses the circumstantial case that "Israel played some role" but admits "we don't really have the information we need" and "we can't trust the FBI." He notes "There have been some tall claims ... not fully substantiated by evidence" and points to Max Blumenthal as "the source of this idea," citing "the article with unnamed sources, anonymous sources that create this narrative that Charlie Kirk was on the verge of flipping on Israel and is effectively implying that the donors wanted him dead." He covers the Bill Ackman meeting, saying "Charlie Kirk walked away from this meeting ... feeling blackmailed, feeling afraid," yet adds "we now have receipts and testimony and names about that meeting" showing "Charlie Kirk organized the event and it was fine." "I don't trust Max Blumenthal... This guy's a left wing Jew." "And you know who's implicated in this killing? The left."

Max Blumenthal and Anya Perimpil report that Charlie Kirk refused an offer from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into Turning Point USA, according to a longtime friend who spoke on condition of anonymity. The source said Kirk believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began publicly questioning Israel's influence in Washington and sought more space to criticize him. In the weeks before his death on September 10, Kirk had come to loathe Netanyahu, regarding him as a 'bully.' He was disgusted by Netanyahu's role in the Trump administration, which allegedly sought to dictate the president's decisions and 'weaponize Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson' to keep the White House under its thumb. The friend recalled Kirk warning Trump in June against bombing Iran on Israel's behalf: 'Charlie was the only person who did that.'

Speaker claims that while the rest of the country is told to beware, be cautious of 'Trans Tifas, the radical left, the lone gunman with the impossible rifle, or the killer,' the killer 'just as I originally thought, was point blank and amongst us the entire time, but more importantly amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle.' The speaker suggests that this contrast between warnings and the perceived presence of the killer implies a narrative dynamic in which the stated threats are superseded by the reality 'amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle.' It concludes that this demonstrates 'the nefarious ways of the Mossad of Israel control the narrative.'

"It doesn't feel real." "I was not even a fan, not a friend, and actually an adversary, a foe." "We had a lot of differences, ideologically, politically, and we fought viciously." "Charlie Kirk never had a kind word to say about me in his life." "Now that he has died, I'll say some kind words about him." "In spite of that, it is undeniable that he was a towering figure in American conservatism." "He would take on almost any challengers." "And he did it all before the age of 31." "And ultimately that is why he was killed." "He was clearly a loving father, a loving husband." "He was beloved by millions of people." "God bless him." "I pray for the repose of his soul, for his family, for him."

Who killed Charlie Kirk? At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense. Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader? We don't know. But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. Rest in peace.

"They said come to Israel, meet with me. Charlie Kirk said no. Now he's dead." "Bill Ackman is a Wall Street Jewish billionaire." "after October 7, Bill Ackman shifted to the right. He put a million dollars behind Trump and became very active in Republican politics even though he's a lifelong Democrat." "When the FBI could not locate the alleged gunman on Wednesday, do you know who stepped up and offered a $1,000,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Charlie Kirk's assassin? Bill Ackman." "the $1,000,000 will be paid out to the alleged killer's father." "Tyler Robinson was allegedly turned into law enforcement by his father." "I see a bit of a conflict of interest there." "That needs to be investigated."

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

And then we're supposed to believe that he had that dramatic switch. So he went from, I'm done to, like, hey. Love you. How can I be of more service to you? And then in that exact same day, he was texting people saying they are gonna kill me. That same night before Charlie Kirk was murdered and had been telling people he thought Israel might try to kill him, his wife, Erica, begged him to wear a bulletproof vest due to death threats he'd been receiving the previous year. Given that Charlie himself thought these threats were credible enough to merit extra security and his wife thought they were credible enough to wear a bulletproof vest. And given that he'd previously singled out Israel as perhaps wanting to kill him, we, the public, should demand an immediate and full disclosure of all of these threats and a complete investigation.

Speaker asserts that 'Israel killed Charlie Kirk' and rejects influencer denials. They claim a plane 'left the airport... for forty five minutes' and then headed away, 'owned it? A big time rich Jewish donor.' Benjamin Netanyahu is described as nervous, with 'No. No. We didn't do this.' It was 'the Islamist, the extremist, just like he did nine eleven.' They add 'Guess who did nine eleven?' Benjamin Netanyahu. The shooter claim: 'the rifle was in his pants' and 'the scope back on' after; 'the gun they planted... was not the gun' and 'the scope was mounted too far back to even shoot it.' They call the shooter a 'professional shooter' hired by Israel at '140 yards.' 'Candice Owens said that on her show.' The speaker argues Kirk was waking up to these things and was afraid Israel would kill him, and they did.

Three people told me off record. Two have this in a written communication from Charlie. One, who was a Turning Point USA donor. The very day before Charlie Kirk died, he expressed that he thought he was going to be killed. He told these people, "I think they're going to kill me." He had not expressed that to me. So I am telling you this based off the testimony of three people. I hope those people come forward with that. Those conversations were off record; I honor that. But I am hoping that they will tell us who was they—Who is the they that he thought were going to kill him?

The conversation centers on a controversial, conspiratorial claim that Charlie Kirk’s death was not caused by a rifle shot but by an exploding lavalier microphone containing a shaped charge, a military-style operation allegedly planned and executed with broad involvement and cover-up elements. Key points and assertions heard in the exchange: - The speakers reject the official narrative of a lone shooter, Tyler Robinson, and insist Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone rather than a 30-06 rifle shot. They describe the supposed weapon as a Rode lavalier microphone whose battery and circuit board were propelled by an internal shaped charge, causing a neck wound and brain damage. - They argue that evidence at the scene—shrapnel, the microphone’s shattered front, a battery and circuit board ejecting from the wound, and a distinctive neck injury pattern—cannot be reconciled with a rifle entry wound. They claim blood on the scene came from Charlie Kirk’s brain, not from the heart or circulatory system, and that the blood’s appearance and pooling indicate immediate brain trauma rather than post-injury bleeding. - There is repeated emphasis on the “shirt deformation,” necklace snapping, and the presence of gas/plume around the collar as indications of a gas-expulsion event consistent with a high-energy explosion near the microphone, not a ballistic impact. - John Bray (Speaker 1) provides technical demonstrations and plans to reproduce the neck wound and shirt deformation via simulations and physical reconstructions. He discusses mapping movement with AI to show that the most intense movement centers around the microphone, and he argues that only a high-energy explosive could generate the observed energy transfer and rapid tissue response. - Bray describes reconstructing the microphone internals in CAD, evaluating the possibility of a shaped charge, and reconfiguring the microphone case to fit a charge without compromising microphone function. He mentions needing access to high-energy explosives and discusses potential sources, such as oil-and-gas fracture practices that employ shaped charges. - The discussion includes descriptions of how the battery and circuit board allegedly exited the neck wound, and how the neck wound’s rectangular shape and delayed bleeding could be explained by a blunt-force impact from a blast, with the battery briefly plugging the wound before exiting. - Bray asserts that the presence of shrapnel from the microphone in the SUV and on clothing, plus the trajectory of a magnetic clasp across the body, supports a single-source energy event around the microphone rather than a rifle shot. He claims the trajectory and timing make rifle-based explanations untenable. - The host and Bray discuss the roles of various people connected to Turning Point USA and alleged participants in a larger conspiracy. They mention Fort Huachuca and UVU as places linked to pre-event planning, and reference meetings and conversations involving high-profile figures and politicians. - There is extensive talk about the public reception and challenges to their theory, including the difficulty of reproducing the exact trauma and wound dynamics, and the claim that mainstream or official narratives suppress or ignore the “truth” they see in the evidence. - Bray mentions ongoing work to replicate the neck wound within about 30 days and notes that reproducing the full explosive event is more complex, requiring careful selection and sourcing of appropriate high-energy materials. He emphasizes that even without replicating the exact explosion, reproducing the neck wound and shirt movement would be strong evidence against the rifle narrative. - The discussion veers into related political and media insinuations, including references to Epstein, the “pedophile cabal,” and Trump as an FBI informant, which are used to reinforce a sense of systemic conspiracy and media distrust. They propose public-facing dissemination of their findings and invite support, including promoting Bray’s work and related self-sufficiency projects. - Toward the end, the speakers discuss the possibility that Tyler Robinson may have been recruited or used as a patsy, with Bray suggesting he might have been promised online notoriety or other incentives, while insisting that Robinson is not the sole killer and that the microphone theory better accounts for the observed evidence. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly woven narrative that disputes the official account of Charlie Kirk’s death, contending that a high-energy explosive integrated into a microphone caused the fatal injury and that the visible physical effects—shirt movement, neck wound, collar gas, shrapnel, and blood patterns—are inconsistent with a gunshot wound. It foregrounds technical schematics, CAD reconstructions, and AI-based motion analysis as the basis for proving the claim, while describing a broader, conspiratorial project to expose a supposed government-orchestrated cover-up.

The speaker says there is a financial stake in the company tied to Charlie Kirk’s leadership of the faith division and notes concern if Charlie ever became Catholic, though conversion was not discussed. Rob McCoy allegedly knew Charlie was done with Israel bullying. He cites a group chat two days before Kirk’s assassination, with Charlie and Rob McCoy; he says he might release a name every day this week. In the chat, Charlie writes, "just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." A second comment adds, "Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause." The speaker notes it was "forty eight hours before Charles was assassinated" and that Charlie was "very clear and he did not back down" in Hamptons meeting or thread. He questions why others haven’t vindicated these claims and suggests donor pressure may be shaping coverage toward eulogizing Charlie as never flinching in support of the Israeli cause.

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?

From a trusted source connected to three-letter agencies, the speaker says Charlie Kirk was shot in Utah today and died; 'he's dead.' They claim 'they killed him. The left killed him.' The report cites a high powered rifle, and says the reason his chest lifts is the effect of the bullet hitting him in the neck. The speaker notes Kirk was 'out there at the campuses getting millions of young people to vote for Trump,' and argues 'the left cannot allow this.' He cites 'John Podesta plan was if Trump got reelected to launch a civil war' and says this is 'live now'—they're going to try to kill Trump again. He asks for prayers for Kirk, his family, and America, 'because more is coming.' He plans to bring the source on air; the source has been accurate; he's dealing with his father's heart surgery. 'Charlie Kirk's dead, folks.'

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.

Speaker accuses Turning Point USA of hiding the truth about Charlie Kirk's death and asserts: "Forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point USA that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors." The speaker challenges TPUSA executives to issue a "very clean statement" saying "I am lying if this is not true." They ask, "Did he express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back...?" They contend, "Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel. He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel." They claim "the friends of Israel were pressuring him badly" and declare, "the truth is going to win."

I’m going to state this, and I’m going to challenge Turning Point USA executives to issue a very clean statement saying that I am lying if this is not true. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? Just forty eight hours later, a bullet to the throat. Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel. He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel. The truth is going to win.

"This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated." "There were nine people in total on this chat, including Charlie and Rob McCoy." "Rob McCoy was on this text thread." "just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." "Charlie writes, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause." "please do not invite Candace. That might feel good short term but it's not good long term."