calling my shot now: Charlie was killed by a Mossad sniper as a sacrifice to pull attention away from the Epstein birthday book stuff, and to rile up the right wing base for further violence against the left
my very very circumstantial evidence: one very accurate single shot from a confident shooter from 200 yards away, someone who clearly knew their weapon and knew how to make a clean getaway, either alone or with help. Netanyahu’s tweets regarding the shooting, which took place in the early morning hours in Palestine time, around 1-3am (my math is wrong on this one). Up until a few weeks ago, Chuck wanted the Epstein files released. He walked this one back but it might not have been enough to save him.
come back to me in 20 years when this all comes to light and tell me I was right.
I’m not wholly convinced by this, but if this was the case Kirk makes a sensible target.
He’s always at massive events with little serious security, it ties into Israeli fears of violence on campuses, his a high profile pundit but not really an ‘activist’ in any kind of essential role for the MAGA/international fascist project.
But most of all, while still being a pro-Israel ghoul, he’s been pissing off Israeli hardliners the last month or so. He stated that some of the crackdowns on any anti-Israel sentiment go too far and risk his sacred ‘free speech’. He was entertaining the idea publicly that Epstein was being run by Mossad. He’s been on Megan Kelly’s show and others to talk about how the Israeli hardliners on the right are going too far in attacking him, pushing people like him away, saying they’re overly paranoid etc. Apart from getting some ultra-hardcore-zionist backlash on social media for that there’s been a couple of critical articles of him in places like The Times of Israel in recent months too.
So if Israel or someone associated with it we’re going to pick an ‘ally’ to use for something like that, he’d be a good choice.
his a high profile pundit but not really an ‘activist’ in any kind of essential role for the MAGA
I disagree on this. He was basically the biggest “independent” media voice among those that are tied to MAGA at the hip, hence the famous “I trust my friends in the government [Trump’s White House]” for why he was swearing off the Epstein stuff.
I think the violence on campuses thing is also a stretch here, but otherwise I agree. Nonetheless, I think Shapiro is a better target in every respect other than being the Israel hardliner of the online left, including being Jewish so the attack could be spun as “antisemitism,” so I think if it was on the initiative of the White House and not Mossad, he’s a much better target.
Not to rain on your theory, but your math is indeed wrong.
Europe is at minimum 5 hours ahead of the US in Portugal, 6 in central Europe and then 7 in Palestine. Utah is 2 hours away from the East Coast. Charlie got shot at around noon Utah time making that, like 9pm local time for Netanyahu, prime posting hours.
I’m trying not to conspire, but wow was this a great way to wipe the headlines clean of all talk about Israel bombing Qatar - it seemed like Israel was getting more flak from the bourgeois media for that than attacking Iran
Kinda but not really. Charlie Kirk was the kind of grifter who doesn’t believe in much of anything, he will say whatever benefits him the most at any given moment. Right-wing audiences generally aren’t happy with how Trump is handling the Epstein stuff, and there’s a noticeable rift in right-wing influencers between those who tow the government line no matter what (Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Tim Pool) and those who say what their audience wants to hear (Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens). Outside of Epstein, this is also very noticeable when it comes to Israel.
Kirk got yelled at by his audience when he first tried to defend Trump from the latest Epstein news so he caved a little until, if I recall correctly, he got a direct phone call from Trump himself and fell back in line. I don’t think his personal beliefs factored in anywhere. There are right-wing influencers who genuinely believe what they say, but Kirk wasn’t one of them.
Ah yeah I was hoping it would add to the conspiracy if he was somewhat firm about pressing trump and turned hard after getting a (spooky) phone call/meeting and then they take him out anyway to send a message to the rest of the trumpfluencers
Yeah, I really don’t think the US government was behind this in any way. Kirk was a young and popular propagandist who was willing to say whatever the Trump admin or his fascist patrons wanted him to. He had a huge audience and was frequently hosting major conservative conferences. His death is imo a genuine loss for the American right wing, especially the brand of Christian nationalism he represented. If I was the Trump admin and wanted to kill a right-wing figure to rile up the base or whatever, I would pick a more expendable target.
Mossad? They’re rabid lunatics and capable of anything. I still don’t think they actually did it, but it’s not impossible. The US government? No way.
It’s worth considering, but security personnel do sometimes have hand signals as normal operating procedure for a litany of reasons, like not cluttering comms, not creating undesired noise (he was right next to Kirk who was speaking in public and taking questions), not competing with ambient noise, and being understood over distance without needing to again cause one of the aforementioned problems. Most security people are going to be formerly military or police, where such signals are commonly used (or at least taught, in the case of cops). It’s also part of the “operate” aesthetic that those piggies love.
While it narratively looks right to have a dude signal for the attack right next to the target, like Judas betraying Jesus by kissing him, I don’t think there’s really all that much reason for there to be signals down to a “fire now” from someone right next to Kirk when the event is highly public, has many uncontrolled cameras on it, Kirk mostly isn’t really moving during the presentation anyway (he was sitting down), and we don’t have reason to think that exact moment is an especially good time compared to 30 seconds earlier or later, plus the dude was not trying to conceal the gestures at all. It would be absurd for someone to blatantly produce a hand gesture that was covertly to tell the shooter to fire when he was so close to Kirk and therefore sure to be caught on camera like he was.
Overall, I think it’s extremely unlikely, though again it’s a question worth asking. I agree with the other commenter that being startled isn’t a strike against the theory, but there are too many other factors against it.
Having the sniper wait for a visual cue allows them to abort the mission at the last moment if they desire, without cluttering audio comms as you said.
And maybe they were waiting until he mentioned gun violence. Although I admit the only thing that would accomplish would be irony. It’s probably just an ironic coincidence.
That is true, but I don’t think it refutes anything that I said, because I never disagreed about the fact that it could be useful to give a signal aside from the fact that the timing does not need to be that precise in this case.
Unless by “last moment” you seriously mean a window of less than 5 seconds, it just makes much more sense to have him not be right there next to Kirk. He could still be far closer than the sniper without being like 6 feet away, and then he could much more easily avoid notice.
And waiting until he mentioned gun violence just isn’t compelling as a theory. Like yeah, I can’t disprove you, but that seems like such a goofy thing to stake the mission on and do we even know that he was specifically going to talk about gun violence at the event? Or was it just because of the direction of conversation he happened to go in? How much of a benefit does that really give versus revealing that this wasn’t a lone wolf because a plant somehow infiltrated Kirk’s security outfit? And again, that could have been done at a much greater distance with no loss in efficacy beside the delay of literally a few seconds of the sniper looking between plant and target.
Realistically, I don’t think there’s much that such a plant could accomplish that couldn’t be done by the sniper a) looking through the scope and b) being tapped into their comms, which presents a comparatively negligible risk even if you’ve got a guy on the inside to facilitate b. Again, Kirk’s plan was just to sit there and talk for an extended period of time, this doesn’t require Ocean’s 11 heist tactics, and being immediately caught like this guy was, if he was guilty (I am sure he isn’t), is such a huge risk for causing the whole operation to backfire as the conspiracy is uncovered.
Yeah, I guess so. If they were on the “stage” (behind the barriers) with Kirk then private security makes more sense. I was assuming they were mixed into the general audience when I first saw the video.
I’d be interested to see more angles just to confirm how close they were. It would be neat if a journalist could interview them too (not even out of suspicion, just in a “tell us what it was like” way) and confirm that they worked for Kirk. If they immediately fled to Tel Aviv then that would be cause for suspicion lol (unlikely).
wow that is some super suspicious shit. is that just a common thing security guys do? The one in the black shirt was still doing signals at the moment of the shot. he was startled when it happened but I guess anyone would be even if they were prepared for it.
lol yeah they’re definitely gonna put an assassination co-conspirator right next to him, on camera, so that he can tell someone to shoot Charlie Kirk, which is necessary because…?
calling my shot now: Charlie was killed by a Mossad sniper as a sacrifice to pull attention away from the Epstein birthday book stuff, and to rile up the right wing base for further violence against the left
my very very circumstantial evidence: one very accurate single shot from a confident shooter from 200 yards away, someone who clearly knew their weapon and knew how to make a clean getaway, either alone or with help. Netanyahu’s tweets regarding the shooting,
which took place in the early morning hours in Palestine time, around 1-3am(my math is wrong on this one). Up until a few weeks ago, Chuck wanted the Epstein files released. He walked this one back but it might not have been enough to save him.come back to me in 20 years when this all comes to light and tell me I was right.
I’m not wholly convinced by this, but if this was the case Kirk makes a sensible target.
He’s always at massive events with little serious security, it ties into Israeli fears of violence on campuses, his a high profile pundit but not really an ‘activist’ in any kind of essential role for the MAGA/international fascist project.
But most of all, while still being a pro-Israel ghoul, he’s been pissing off Israeli hardliners the last month or so. He stated that some of the crackdowns on any anti-Israel sentiment go too far and risk his sacred ‘free speech’. He was entertaining the idea publicly that Epstein was being run by Mossad. He’s been on Megan Kelly’s show and others to talk about how the Israeli hardliners on the right are going too far in attacking him, pushing people like him away, saying they’re overly paranoid etc. Apart from getting some ultra-hardcore-zionist backlash on social media for that there’s been a couple of critical articles of him in places like The Times of Israel in recent months too.
So if Israel or someone associated with it we’re going to pick an ‘ally’ to use for something like that, he’d be a good choice.
I think they’ll pin this on a fall guy that fits their narrative.
I disagree on this. He was basically the biggest “independent” media voice among those that are tied to MAGA at the hip, hence the famous “I trust my friends in the government [Trump’s White House]” for why he was swearing off the Epstein stuff.
I think the violence on campuses thing is also a stretch here, but otherwise I agree. Nonetheless, I think Shapiro is a better target in every respect other than being the Israel hardliner of the online left, including being Jewish so the attack could be spun as “antisemitism,” so I think if it was on the initiative of the White House and not Mossad, he’s a much better target.
Not to rain on your theory, but your math is indeed wrong.
Europe is at minimum 5 hours ahead of the US in Portugal, 6 in central Europe and then 7 in Palestine. Utah is 2 hours away from the East Coast. Charlie got shot at around noon Utah time making that, like 9pm local time for Netanyahu, prime posting hours.
damn
I’m trying not to conspire, but wow was this a great way to wipe the headlines clean of all talk about Israel bombing Qatar - it seemed like Israel was getting more flak from the bourgeois media for that than attacking Iran
We also have Trump’s
attempted assassin going on trial today.
And
wants to be the next 
.
Is it true that Kirk was originally Trump-skeptical during the latest round of Epstein stuff before saying “actually I trust the government”?
Kinda but not really. Charlie Kirk was the kind of grifter who doesn’t believe in much of anything, he will say whatever benefits him the most at any given moment. Right-wing audiences generally aren’t happy with how Trump is handling the Epstein stuff, and there’s a noticeable rift in right-wing influencers between those who tow the government line no matter what (Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Tim Pool) and those who say what their audience wants to hear (Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens). Outside of Epstein, this is also very noticeable when it comes to Israel.
Kirk got yelled at by his audience when he first tried to defend Trump from the latest Epstein news so he caved a little until, if I recall correctly, he got a direct phone call from Trump himself and fell back in line. I don’t think his personal beliefs factored in anywhere. There are right-wing influencers who genuinely believe what they say, but Kirk wasn’t one of them.
minor correction
It’s toe the line—very common mistake!
good to know
Ah yeah I was hoping it would add to the conspiracy if he was somewhat firm about pressing trump and turned hard after getting a (spooky) phone call/meeting and then they take him out anyway to send a message to the rest of the trumpfluencers
What you said tracks though
Yeah, I really don’t think the US government was behind this in any way. Kirk was a young and popular propagandist who was willing to say whatever the Trump admin or his fascist patrons wanted him to. He had a huge audience and was frequently hosting major conservative conferences. His death is imo a genuine loss for the American right wing, especially the brand of Christian nationalism he represented. If I was the Trump admin and wanted to kill a right-wing figure to rile up the base or whatever, I would pick a more expendable target.
Mossad? They’re rabid lunatics and capable of anything. I still don’t think they actually did it, but it’s not impossible. The US government? No way.
[CW: Blood] Are these candid hand gestures?
It’s worth considering, but security personnel do sometimes have hand signals as normal operating procedure for a litany of reasons, like not cluttering comms, not creating undesired noise (he was right next to Kirk who was speaking in public and taking questions), not competing with ambient noise, and being understood over distance without needing to again cause one of the aforementioned problems. Most security people are going to be formerly military or police, where such signals are commonly used (or at least taught, in the case of cops). It’s also part of the “operate” aesthetic that those piggies love.
While it narratively looks right to have a dude signal for the attack right next to the target, like Judas betraying Jesus by kissing him, I don’t think there’s really all that much reason for there to be signals down to a “fire now” from someone right next to Kirk when the event is highly public, has many uncontrolled cameras on it, Kirk mostly isn’t really moving during the presentation anyway (he was sitting down), and we don’t have reason to think that exact moment is an especially good time compared to 30 seconds earlier or later, plus the dude was not trying to conceal the gestures at all. It would be absurd for someone to blatantly produce a hand gesture that was covertly to tell the shooter to fire when he was so close to Kirk and therefore sure to be caught on camera like he was.
Overall, I think it’s extremely unlikely, though again it’s a question worth asking. I agree with the other commenter that being startled isn’t a strike against the theory, but there are too many other factors against it.
Having the sniper wait for a visual cue allows them to abort the mission at the last moment if they desire, without cluttering audio comms as you said.
And maybe they were waiting until he mentioned gun violence.
Although I admit the only thing that would accomplish would be irony. It’s probably just an ironic coincidence.
That is true, but I don’t think it refutes anything that I said, because I never disagreed about the fact that it could be useful to give a signal aside from the fact that the timing does not need to be that precise in this case.
Unless by “last moment” you seriously mean a window of less than 5 seconds, it just makes much more sense to have him not be right there next to Kirk. He could still be far closer than the sniper without being like 6 feet away, and then he could much more easily avoid notice.
And waiting until he mentioned gun violence just isn’t compelling as a theory. Like yeah, I can’t disprove you, but that seems like such a goofy thing to stake the mission on and do we even know that he was specifically going to talk about gun violence at the event? Or was it just because of the direction of conversation he happened to go in? How much of a benefit does that really give versus revealing that this wasn’t a lone wolf because a plant somehow infiltrated Kirk’s security outfit? And again, that could have been done at a much greater distance with no loss in efficacy beside the delay of literally a few seconds of the sniper looking between plant and target.
Realistically, I don’t think there’s much that such a plant could accomplish that couldn’t be done by the sniper a) looking through the scope and b) being tapped into their comms, which presents a comparatively negligible risk even if you’ve got a guy on the inside to facilitate b. Again, Kirk’s plan was just to sit there and talk for an extended period of time, this doesn’t require Ocean’s 11 heist tactics, and being immediately caught like this guy was, if he was guilty (I am sure he isn’t), is such a huge risk for causing the whole operation to backfire as the conspiracy is uncovered.
Yeah, I guess so. If they were on the “stage” (behind the barriers) with Kirk then private security makes more sense. I was assuming they were mixed into the general audience when I first saw the video.
I’d be interested to see more angles just to confirm how close they were. It would be neat if a journalist could interview them too (not even out of suspicion, just in a “tell us what it was like” way) and confirm that they worked for Kirk. If they immediately fled to Tel Aviv then that would be cause for suspicion lol (unlikely).
It wouldn’t be hard to plant the question but I agree
wow that is some super suspicious shit. is that just a common thing security guys do? The one in the black shirt was still doing signals at the moment of the shot. he was startled when it happened but I guess anyone would be even if they were prepared for it.
lol yeah they’re definitely gonna put an assassination co-conspirator right next to him, on camera, so that he can tell someone to shoot Charlie Kirk, which is necessary because…?
I thought they were in the crowd at first, but thanks for the feedback all the same. It’s why I post questions on Hexbear.
@hexbottimer remind me 20 years