The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Part 1: Israel
So the FBI Director Kash Patel lied to Congress about Jeffrey Epstein today, again:
As the Community Note points out, his statement is just factually incorrect. It’s a lie, plain and simple.
With that as a backdrop, it look like the text exchange cited in the document charging Tyler Robinson with the murder of Charlie Kirk is also a lie:
On top of the numerous issues pointed out above. The two that stood out to me were:
- The exchange got the furry meme wrong, typing “uwu” instead of “OwO”, a meme he liked so much that he engraved it on a bullet.
- Based on his leaked Discord chats, Tyler does not capitalize the first lettet of new sentences.
Apparently this is a common writing style for Gen Z kids, but a subtlety a Gen X FBI agent forging a text exchange might not be familiar with:
It seems that no one on the left or right believe this text exchange is real:
So now with the stage set, lets take a look at the theory that Israel had Charlie Kirk murdered.
- - - - - - - - - -
A major jumping off point for the conspiracy was this Harrison Smith tweet on August 13th stating Charlie believed Israel would have him killed if he turned on them:
While it should be noted that Harrison is a host at Infowars, it is possible he has some contacts withing the Conservative influencer sphere. And Charlie's friends within that circle spoke up following his death.
Candace Owens said that Charlie had been falling out of love with Israel because they were trying to control who he could speak to and donors were threating him over speaking to people like Tucker Carlson and Matt Gaetz.
Tucker Carlson confirmed donors were threating Charlie over Tucker's appearances and that they tormented him until the day he died. He also stated that Charlie hated Netanyahu, his war on Gaza and that he had asked Tucker to highlight Epstein's connections to the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, at a TPUSA event that July:
This was confirmed by Matt Gaetz:
And Roger Stone as well, who believes questions around Charlie's murder remains unresolved:
It appears Charlie refused to bow to the pressure, Marjorie Taylor Greene shared text messages showing Charlie had invited her for a debate on the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC. He made clear in those messages he would not be taking the pro-AIPAC side.
Candace Owens discussed a "intervention" in the Hamptons with billionaire pro-Israel donor Bill Ackman where Charlie was threatened. Charlie had been rethinking his stance on Israel, Netanyahu reached out personally and Charlie was offered "a ton of money" to stay in line, which he declined.
Bill Ackman confirmed that the meeting with Charlie took place on August 4th and 5th, but denied the accusations of threats and blackmail.
This seems unlikely however, given that just a few weeks prior, Charlie had an interview with Tucker where he questioned Bill's finances and how he came to be worth $12 billion:
And it's worth listening to Charlie, in his own words, on August 6th, one day after the alleged intervention, threats, and blackmail took place:
“Personality types like you, myself and Tucker. The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character in to question, which is not isolated. It would be one thing if it was one text or two texts, it is dozens of texts. Then we start to say ‘hold the boat here’.
And to be fair some of my really good Jewish friends are like ‘that’s not all of us’. But these are leaders, right? These are stakeholders. […] I feel the connection to Israel, but at the same time simultaneously, when the hostile reaction is that Megyn and Charlie are now enemies?”
And then on September 9th, one day before his death, Charlie spoke to Ben Shapiro, telling him you can still be MAGA and anti-Israel.
“Bibi said quote - and I don’t like that he said this - “you can’t be MAGA if you’re anti-Israel”. I don’t like it for a couple reasons. […] I think you can have disagreements on Israel and still be MAGA, obviously.”
Which may be considered relatively mild compared to his other statement saying we shouldn't trust what the media is saying about Israel and suggesting they are engaged in ethnic cleansing:
“Maybe we should also ask the question: is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question. Maybe we shouldn’t believe everything the media says because I know I’ve been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last several years. So Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse."
And this wasn't the first time he stated that Israel's goal was to ethnically cleanse Gaza. He said the same thing shortly after October 7th, in addition to floating the possibility that Netanyahu's government had issued a stand down order allowing the attack, and thus the justification for the war in Gaza, to take place:
“So I’ve been to Israel many times, the whole country is a fortress. When I first heard this story, I still had the same gut instinct that I did initially, I find this very hard to believe. I’ve been to that Gaza border, you can not go 10 feet without running in to a 19-year old with an AR-15, or an automatic machine gun, that is an IDF soldier. The whole country is surveilled and so let me just kinda go through this.
We don’t talk about Israeli politics very often and most Americans don’t know this. The last nine months Israel was on the brink of civil war, it’s not an exaggeration. This judicial stuff, there were hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu is basically redefining the Israeli constitution, that’s not an exaggeration, right? He said the judicial branch has too much power, there were protests planned this week against Netanyahu where they anticipated tens of thousands of people to take to the streets. That’s all gone. Netanyahu now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead.
I’m not, I’m not willing to say, to go so far to say that Netanyahu knew or there was intelligence here, but I think some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours, I don’t believe it. Israel’s the size of New Jersey. When I took a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border, it’s 45 minutes, six hours, they’re livestreaming the killing of Jews. Did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate, non-conspiracy question.
[…] Or maybe they might have gotten a tip, they might have gotten whispers, but no one thought it would be 1,200 Jews dead. Because here’s the essence of it […] Bibi and the hard right government now has a mandate, I gotta be careful the way I say this, they’re going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza.”
The other factor that sparked off this conspiracy theory was the initial suspect, a Jewish man living in Utah named George Zinn. He weirdly screamed “shoot me” multiple times while being arrested, and then repeatedly fell to the to the ground as he was being taken away. It almost seemed like he was trying to create as much of a spectacle, and waste as much of the officers time as possible, so the shooter could get away:
Zinn was a known quantity in Utah politics. He was generally seen as a harmless gadfly who would show up at every political meeting that took place and sit in the back, listening. He would also get caught trespassing. That does fit the profile of an old cook, it could also fit the profile of an intelligence asset:
One other thing of note is that Charlie wasn't just being attacked in private meetings and text messages, but publicly through Israeli organizations and news sites in July for saying that Jeffrey Epstein had ties to The Mossad:
This came one day after Trump called Charlie, and told him to stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein:
My personal hunch is that Trump confirmed to Charlie on July 14th that Epstein was a Mossad agent during their conversation to avoid discussing his own relationship with Epstein. “It’s not for me. Bibi wanted me to ask…” and such.
That may have been a step too far for Charlie. He was following his donors demands and defending the genocide in Gaza, but now they want him to run cover for state-sponsored child rape as well? It that’s the case, it may have set off a series of events through August and September that lead to Charlie finally getting fed up with Israel and possibly, his eventual assassination.
- - - - - - - - - -
As for the shooter, at this point I would say it most likely was Tyler Robinson. I base this on the story written by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. He spoke to Tyler’s friends and gained access to Tyler’s Discord, where he confessed to being the shooter:
You can find various conspiracies on social media discussing the possibility of a second shooter, but I’m going to stick to the information I can verify myself or that’s coming from an independent journalist I'm familiar with who has proven themselves to be reliable, like Ken.
Ken was the first journalist to confirm the government’s account that Tyler was dating his roommate, who was trans. This was during a period when many on the left did not trust that part of the government's story. Alternatively Ken does disputes the government’s narrative that Tyler was political:
A near decade of discord messages come up with a single reference to Trump and Biden, both just generic updates on the news with no partisan bias:
His friends state he was pro second amendment but also pro LGBT rights, though most of all he was a gamer who liked guns, being outdoors and wasn’t really in to politics.
According to the government, Tyler’s family believed he was becoming increasingly political, but even if they are quoting the family accurately, Tyler’s friends say his family didn’t really know him.
In the charging document, the government alleges that Tyler told his family that Charlie Kirk was “full of hatred”, but that contradicts their initial story. Governor Cox said in an earlier press conference that Tyler had asked his family about Charlie Kirk, and it was the family member who told Tyler that Charlie was “full of hatred”.
The latter would check out for a Mormon family of conservatives in Utah. It’s a different breed of Republican. More Mitt Romney than Donald Trump.
So why would the Tyler be the one to commit the murder? My best guess, if the conspiracy is to be believed, was because he was in love.
Paying out of pocket to transition can cost upwards of six-figures. Both of them being in their early twenties, there’s a gold chance Tyler’s partner was on their parent’s insurance, and given that this is Utah, their parents might have refused to be involved.
But let’s say there was a person, perhaps George Zinn, who could solve that problem for Tyler:
"Just take care of this one person [a man who may at any moment reveal that the President of the United States confirmed to him that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent] and there will be $100,000 deposited in your bank account."
In this light, the non-political Tyler asking his family about Charlie Kirk makes sense. If he had received the offer, he may have been questioning whether to go through with it. The family member telling him Charlie was “full of hatred” was the permission he needed.
Hiring someone with a trans partner as the assassin has the added benefit of feeding in to the confirmation bias for a lot of Trump supporters. They wanted trans people to be involved. The government says they were and no one else is involved. Case closed. Nothing else to see here.
Tyler might have explained what led him to shoot Charlie in his confession note, though we’ll never know for sure, because the FBI, State and local police can't keep their story straight on the status of the note, or if there even was a note in the first place.
According to the FBI and Kash Patel, there was a confession note, but it was destroyed, though they did find "forensic evidence" of it and were able to find out what it said through their "aggressive interview posture". The State's charging document on the other hand says that there was a confession note, and they know that because police "found" a picture of the note. The police tell a different story, in their Affidavit of Probable Cause, where they they out all the evidence they gathered against Tyler, including speaking to his roommate and searching his home, there was no mention of a confession note. Either because it didn't exist, because it wasn't a confession, or because it said something they didn't want to put in the public record.
The FBI and the State claim that Tyler’s roommate destroyed the confession, though that contradicts everything they’ve previously told us. Their current narrative is that the roommate was horrified, cooperated with investigators, but also destroyed evidence, for which they have not been charged with a crime.
These aren't the only inconsistencies. The police laid out all the evidence they found in the text messages between Tyler and his partner, they do not however state that they found a straightforward confession, a motive or an explanation for his actions. The charging document on the other hand gives us the nonsensical, AI screenplay sounding line: "some hate can't be negotiated out".
There are two possible possible explanations here: One is that the FBI is run by hacks who are trying to manufacture political narratives on the fly in order to win the 24-hour news cycle, potentially damaging their own case and letting Tyler go free in the process. The other is that they're actively engaging in a cover up.
So just to speculate, lets say that note said something the FBI did not want to be made public. Telling his roommate the transition would be paid for, he just had to do a favor for a particular American ally.
It’s notable that the FBI never caught Tyler. He turned himself in at the urging of his family. And now that he’s in custody, we’re told he’s not cooperating or saying anything.
Meanwhile, it appears the FBI are deliberately botching the prosecutors case. Introducing fake evidence is a sure fire way to get a mistrial. Perhaps they want Tyler to go free for his service to a grateful American ally. Or perhaps they know Tyler’s case will never make it to trial, and he’ll end up being Jeffrey Epstiened in short order.
- - - - - - - - - -
At his TPUSA speech in July, Tucker Carlson said that every person in the D.C. thinks that Epstein was running a blackmail scheme on behalf of the Mossad.
Given that many already believe this to be the case, why was it considered so dangerous when Charlie started to say it? There are many critics of Israel's decisions and policies, what made Charlie so important that billionaires had to threaten him and the Prime Minister of Israel felt the need to bribe him?
And what was the end-goal of Epstein's blackmail operation? It has to be more than just military aid, that amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget, and has been going long before Epstein met Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the wealthy and prominent Mossad agent Robert Maxwell. What was so important about the operation that it required targets to be blackmailed with, not just an affair or financial documents, but the abuse of children?
I'll try my best to answer those questions in my next post: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Part 2: Epstein Economics and TPUSA
Comments
Post a Comment