reSee.it - Related Video Feed

One speaker recounts that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu, describing Netanyahu as a destructive force and saying he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza, and that Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute wars for the benefit of his country, which he called shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, a view he resented. He also notes that he didn’t hate Netanyahu. After that speech, there was a sharp backlash against Charlie Kirk and, to a lesser extent, the speaker, with Kirk having about $100 million in donors and being heavily dependent on them because his project was nonprofit. They went after him and tormented him, while a small, very intense group offended by the speech tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Speaker 1 questions the letter's truth; Speaker 2 confirms, "Yeah. I mean, it's it's real." They reference Nick Fuentes claiming Israel killed Charlie and mention "the call, like, Israel called him and told him to to to." Speaker 2 summarizes Charlie's Israel stance as nuanced: "he wanted people who controlled The Holy Land to be civilized people" and "didn't want it to be in the hands of Islam," preferring "a civilized group ... friendly to the West" over hostile Muslim nations. He was frustrated at being unable to criticize Israel without being labeled an anti Semitic, and had vehement disagreements about how the war was prosecuted and messaged; he wanted it to be over and saw more freedom to criticize America than Israel. "Even Tucker Carlson" noted Charlie Kirk's anti Semitic labeling; "BB's comments" were odd; he hosted critics like Dave Smith and recognized that "young people were much more Israeli skeptic," arguing that silencing debate would be a "huge disservice to the conservative movement."

I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death. He basically made it all about him and redirected the grief toward support for his project. "Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all." "BB's defenders, on the Internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact." "what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel. He loved going there." "He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." "He was resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country." "Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie; he had $100,000,000 worth of donors." "Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point Conference in December." "They put out a flyer basically saying that I was going to be at this event giving a speech."

Asked about the last meeting with Charlie, it wasn't 'about, like, this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' with Charlie asking questions and 'then saying, Okay, I think I'm going to approach this issue this way and this is going to be my position on it.' They discussed 'USA to Israel,' and 'I'm opposed to USA to Israel. I want it to be drawn down,' noting Netanyahu's stance. They talked through 'why is Israel actually an American interest?' 'Why is it in America's interest to support Israel?' Charlie was a listener, and 'the open marketplace of ideas' was a core fundamental. He believed in that, which is why he annoyed people by platforming Tucker Carlson and others, because for Charlie, 'the idea that you're supposed to silence any opinion was anathema.' 'Do I think he went too far with it? Well, yes.'

I was shocked and sickened by the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death, basically made it all about him and his country, redirecting the grief toward support for his projects. Charlie Kirk did not hate Jews. "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews." He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he felt that B. Netanyahu was a very destructive force; "he was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States, and he resented it." After that speech, there was an intense attack on Charlie; "He had $100,000,000 worth of donors." Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point conference in December. The American Jewish Committee called Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and "dangerous." He was not an anti Semite. He was the opposite, and he was a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace. Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage, because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. This is a trend.

The senator advocates for regime change in Iran via a popular uprising, clarifying he does not support military force for this purpose. He identifies as a "non-interventionist hawk," prioritizing U.S. national security interests in foreign policy decisions. The discussion shifts to U.S. foreign policy failures in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, with the senator opposing intervention in those countries. He considers the collapse of the Soviet Union a successful regime change. The senator defends military aid to Israel as beneficial to U.S. security, citing intelligence sharing and a commonality of enemies. He acknowledges that allies spy on each other. He denies that APAC, the American Israeli Political Action Committee, is a foreign lobby. The senator believes Iran is actively trying to murder Donald Trump and has hired hitmen. He supports Israel taking out Iran's military leadership and nuclear capacity. He opposed the Iraq war and military intervention in Syria, but believes Iran is different because it poses a threat to the U.S. The senator blames Biden's weakness for the war in Ukraine. He says that Nord Stream 2 sanctions legislation that he authored prevented a war. He voted for the initial tranche of funding for the Ukraine war, but voted against subsequent funding streams.

Speaker 0 says Charlie bridged foreign policy gaps due to "genuine affection for Israel," and he privately expressed that he "love Israel." He argued, "we should not have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," and that view made him approachable because "this person doesn't hate me. It doesn't need to get existential. It's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." He urged continuing in "the spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with." Speaker 1 notes Charlie was "a hardliner on immigration" who "wanted us to control our borders as much as possible" and who "wanted us to ramp up the deportations." He recalls Charlie asking, "why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more?" He adds, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can." He concludes, "I think that made him such an effective operator."

Charlie was trying to navigate this to keep the Nick Fuentes, neo Nazi, groyper stuff at bay while meeting Gen Z on their terms and guiding them toward a better place without the outmoded rhetoric and talking points of the 1970s, 1980s boomers. He aimed to "hold the line, to keep the Fuentes, Ruiper stuff decidedly on the fringe, very much out of the tent, at the movement." Charlie saw himself as a coalition leader of really MAGA, of the American right there, and sought a middle-ground foreign policy between Ron Paul isolationism and George W. Bush neoconservatism. Ali is probably why he gravitated towards my book and the Trump doctrine—conservative realist nationalist middle ground between the two poles. Think that's kind of why Charlie and I kind of saw eye to eye to eye analysis towards the end of his life. I think Tucker Carlson is a malicious anti Semite. I think he is the most dangerous anti Semite in the history of The United States.

"the war on terror had been a net loss for The United States, and it caused incalculable damage, not just economic and physical damage, but spiritual damage to The United States. It was it was bad. We got nothing out of it. We were only hurt." He recalls a backstage conversation before a July speech, railing against "the effort by the neocons in The United States to draw us in to another forever war with Iran," noting that Iraq had been entered "at the behest of those same foreign policy strategists, and it didn't work." He resisted mentioning it publicly at first, but was urged to "Go all the way. Do it." He then did. He mentions Epstein: "Epstein clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence, but the only one you're not allowed to talk about is Israeli intelligence." I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death.

Speaker 0 introduces the scene and prepares to expose the crowd’s current view of the person being addressed. Speaker 1 asserts that someone is being fed wrong information, likening the situation to Grima Wormtongue. He says half of the people he grew up with in this movement are not on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team, insisting they are not neocons or war hawks. He emphasizes America first over MAGA and states that America first is what MAGA was supposed to be, and that the addressed person is merely the vessel for it. Speaker 2 acknowledges serious flaws in the addressed figure, including insider trading, and expresses relief that the speaker is differentiating themselves. They say they do not want to be associated with the addressed person, describing him as a “sinking, burning ship” who was not loyal to his original mission or to America. They claim he has become a “creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” with enemies now serving as courtiers who lie and flatter him to hear what he wants. They state they are not among those people. Speaker 3 argues that the addressed person should not be in office any longer, advocating for the twenty-fifth amendment, saying he is not loyal to this country or to anybody except for “that little country in the Middle East.” They suggest the last president to tell that country no was JFK, and compare the addressed person’s actions to those of JFK’s era, asking how he can call others losers when he loses to Netanyahu “every single day” and questioning when he last told them no. Speaker 0 notes that Brigitte Macron is said to be more beautiful than Candace Owens, remarking that the claim is widely circulated online and across the political spectrum. They remark that the message was a “basket of deplorables” moment and that even on Truth Social, the addressed person’s platform, people have turned against him. They reference several responses: a call to step back and reassess who is whispering in the addressed person’s ear and to return to America first; a claim that MAGA left them; accusations that the person is insane and should resign or face the twenty-fifth; charges of mental and emotional unfitness for POTUS; descriptions of the person as childish; and a suggestion that truth has triggered him among his strongest supporters. The aggregate social-media reactions cited include: someone criticizing him for siding with Iran and Israel, claims of “you are going against everyone that fought for him to win,” and statements that “Take a look at this tweet about Charlie,” where people suggested Charlie would be on a harmful list if he hadn’t been killed. The underlying implication is that there is no truth or loyalty within the addressed person. Overall, the dialogue frames a divide between factions who believe in core America-first principles, criticisms of loyalty and allegiance, concerns about influence and corruption, and a climate of hostile public reaction and rumor.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Charlie's approach. They note his genuine affection for Israel, and his private belief: "I love I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," which helped him bridge foreign-policy gaps because "this person doesn't hate me" and "it's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." They caution against outsiders claiming to represent his cause. Charlie is described as a hardliner on immigration—"why aren't the deportations higher?"—yet he remained a constructive voice, saying, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys," and using pressure to push for good outcomes rather than divisiveness. He worried about turning Iran strikes into a "regime change war," supported Israel, and, while backing strikes on a nuclear facility, insisted "no more" and "this can't become a bigger thing." He "never bent. He never became better" and kept integrity to the very end.

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all. "Bibi is despised by many people, in Israel." There are "huge divisions within the Israeli government," and "parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently." "his attempt to hijack Charlie's memory and use it for his own political ends, particularly because what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel, loved going there." He "did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and to people around him many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." He was "appalled by what was happening in Gaza," and he "resented Netanyahu using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States."

Charlie Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. "I like them more than I like Hamas." He added, "I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti Semite, because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti American." "But why do I have more freedom to do that and not criticize, you know, a foreign government?" He felt his bona fides in that respect were unassailable and that he should have the freedom to say, "hey. It's time to end the war." On Tucker, "we took some pushback. We lost some donors." It's not necessarily Jewish donors. A clip described: "I don't appreciate being morally blackmailed." Was Charlie offered $150,000,000 from Israel? "As far as I know, no." "We would have said no. We only took American money." During the pandemic, he refused to do mass layoffs that everybody else in the country was doing, "Said no to the stimulus check." "Deal with them. Get rid of them."

He did not like B. B. Netanyahu. He felt that B. B. Netanyahu was a very destructive force and was appalled by what was happening in Gaza. He was resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States. He resented it and didn't hate Netanyahu. "There's no question that BB's defenders, on the internet will call me a liar or a kook. But that's a fact." "Enough text messages exist that I think it can probably be verified in pretty short order." Shortly after that speech, there was "a very intense attack on Charlie" and "I have no donors." He had "$100,000,000" worth of donors. "They went after him and tormented him ... until the day he died."

Charlie was loyal to people with whom he had shared history. He would never say an ill word about Candace and refused moral blackmail. He stayed loyal to old donors and Turning Point colleagues, avoided airing dirty laundry, and, though he disagreed with Candace and Tucker on the Israel issue, he recognized Tucker’s value and invited him to events. He could not be controlled or bought, and when faced with threats to cut large donations, he reacted with defiance: “screw me. No. Screw you.” He loved Israel and the Holy Land, and, amid a surge of anti-Israel sentiment on the right, he tried to chart a path forward for sympathizers. He wrote to Bibi: “You are losing the PR war. You need to change how you do your PR. You need to change your messaging to the American right,” suggesting a more passive relationship and opposing Islamic migration. He vented privately when accused of antisemitism, but publicly avoided such disclosures.

Speaker recounts meeting with Charlie: it wasn’t about 'this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' as Charlie asked questions and began forming positions. He would 'approach this issue this way' and decide his stance on topics like 'USA to Israel,' which speaker opposed, wanting it drawn down; Netanyahu has said he wants it drawn down. Charlie would articulate his position more quickly than the speaker. They discussed why is Israel actually an American America's interest to support Israel and explored approaches to justify it, not just those favored by Israelis or the Israeli government, but ways to help Charlie feel comfortable with a position. Charlie is a 'listener' who believes in the 'open marketplace of ideas'—his existential core—and he platformed Tucker Carlson; silencing any opinion was 'anathema' to him because of truth seeking. 'For all of us, our best traits we often have to a fault.'

I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran. Don't do that. That turns everybody off. You don't help your own cause by doing that, and it's also literally untrue. The spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with, and don't make it, you know, as small bore as that. Charlie was a hardliner on immigration. He wanted us to control our borders as much as possible. He wanted us to ramp up the deportations. Why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more? I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can. I think that made him such an effective operator. And I would talk to Charlie.

As he was preparing for his campus tour, he decided that he wanted to have a meeting. Josh Hammer was on the call. I was on the call and a couple of Charlie's staff to talk through Israel issues. He was he was really grappling with these issues. I remember right after October 7, I was a little concerned about some of the things he was saying afterwards, and I wasn't so emotional. But I realized Charlie was looking at a lot of the Israel America stuff through the America first lens. The fact that he was meeting with you to refine his talking points, I assumed there was a lot of pushback. When when, you know, that reporter asked me what the mood of the meeting was, and I said it was combative. There's also within him a very faithful, bible believing evangelical Christian.

"I like them more than I like Hamas. I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti Semite, because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti American." "It's time to end the war." "It's time to stop the killing." "it's not a whole lot of Jewish donors." "We only took American money." "There was money sent to us, like, practically in multiple instances where they're trying to cram it down our bank account, and we said no. We canceled, like, money wires and things." "No handouts from the government." "During the pandemic, he refused to do mass layoffs ... said no to the stimulus check." "I don't appreciate being morally blackmailed." "Was Charlie offered $150,000,000 from Israel? As far as I know, no."

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?

There's a range of views on Israel—from those who hit Israel who are not anti-Semites to others with 'religious reasons for wanting to blow up Israel'—'those are all threats' and questions arise, 'Why attack people who are pretty reasonable... Why denounce them as dangerous antisemites?' He said, 'Israel was losing the PR war, that they had lost Democrats and independents and were starting to lose the Republican Party in America, and it was time to wrap it up.' At Turning Point with Charlie, they discussed Epstein and Pam Bondi; 'Israel, yeah, would make sense to me.' After two years defending Israel, 'some weird crowd' labeled them 'she's an anti Semite,' and they cried, 'eff these people because it's a lie.' Charlie 'had said nothing, like, nothing' and was smeared; '31,' a youth voice, 'under 30 is against Israel.' 'I'm on their side.' 'I know you want your hostages back, but it this cannot go on until you have every hostage.' 'You've had a two year long leash.'

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.

Charlie was loyal to people he had shared history with; he would say, "We're friends." He would never say an ill word about Candace, and if pressed to attack Tucker, he would be defiant because he didn't wanna be morally blackmailed. He remained loyal to donors and Turning Point staff and would not air any dirty laundry. He did disagree with Candace on the Israel issue and with Tucker on Israel, but "Tucker was a useful voice in the conservative movement on many things," and he invited him to events. "You could not buy him he was not bought and paid for." He loved Israel and cared about the holy Land, aware of anti-Israel sentiment on the right. He wrote to Bibi: "You are losing the PR war," signaling PR changes, including American support and opposing Islamic migration. He vented to pro-Israel peers and kept it to avoid betraying friends.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a group text shared by Kent Owens; the text grab is authentic and, though private, was released to show public frustrations and pursue justice for Charlie. They say they wanted no stone unturned in the first 33 hours of the investigation. As Turning Point USA spokesman, they caution that public statements could affect an ongoing case. Charlie's Israel views are described as nuanced and public: he cared about Israel, read a 700-page history, wanted the Gaza war to end, did not want American troops or Palestinian refugees, saw Hamas as the aggressor, and noted antisemitism rising. A Megyn Kelly clip is cited: "I love Israel. I want Israel to win." Charlie remained defiant, refusing to be cowed into deplatforming Tucker, upholding "free speech be our north star."