Original subtitles

getting a little more interesting,

maybe a bit darker than we had anticipated

because just 16 hours before Charlie Kirk was

assassinated, he mysteriously retweeted a...

[BLANK_AUDIO]

All right, you guys, happy Wednesday. Sorry we're running late

today. I'm starting homeschooling,

so still getting adjusted to the new schedule. Where should we

begin? Okay, well, Josh Hammer,

because that's certainly getting a little

more interesting, maybe a bit darker than we had

anticipated because just 16 hours before Charlie Kirk was

assassinated, he mysteriously retweeted

a 2013 tweet from Donald Trump calling for public executions.

Now, I have tried, and I don't feel

that there is any way that I can

confidently explain to you guys why he tweeted that,

least of all in the context of him having

already admitted that he and a rabbi in Israel

had a long talk with Charlie the night before he died,

something he was very proud of.

Also, Dinesh D'Souza has jumped into the mix.

Welcome, Dinesh D'Souza. He is joining every

commentator who hates Candace Owens. That's nice that he has

entered the foray. He's got some

things to say to me. We're going to discuss

it because it's weird. And I'm also going to

explain to you why, more formally at least, why I decided to

activate an effective kill switch.

I want you guys to pay attention because this is really

important. Welcome back to Candace.

[MUSIC]

Hoisted by his own petard. That's an expression, obviously,

that we use a lot. And I have this

thing where I always have to go back and research and figure

out why we use common expressions

because nobody actually thinks about those things anymore.

Well, this one is pretty obvious. It

refers to when soldiers would use a petard,

essentially a bucket-shaped explosive device

packed with gunpowder, effectively a bomb,

to blow up the gates and wall fortifications

of their enemies. They'd light the fuse and

sometimes they would be hoisted by their own

bombs. And that's exactly what is happening

right now to Josh Hammer for weeks after the

assassination of Charlie Kirk. Josh Hammer

obsessively and shamelessly accused people

of lying, people of grifting, people of attempting to destroy

Charlie Kirk's legacy. Charlie Kirk

was his friend, he claimed rather

maniacally. Charlie never once flinched on the topic of

Israel. He died just loving Israel. It was like, are you

kidding me? That's all he cared about.

Check out just some of these tweets, by the way. This is a

collage we just don't have all day here

to gather crazy Josh Hammer tweets, but you get

the idea. There is a repulsive op right now to

hijack Charlie Kirk's legacy. There is a repulsive op right now

desecrating Charlie's memory by

trying to posthumously convert him to "griparism." I can't

believe there's something known as

"griparism." I was given access to this letter a few months ago

and I read it at that time. Tucker,

Candace, and other bad faith actors are lying through their

teeth about Charlie and Israel.

Candace Owens and other grifters, you get that back up for a

quick second. Candace Owens and

other grifters are trying to posthumously rewrite and hijack

the legacy of the great Charlie Kirk

to further their patently evil ends. There has been a repulsive

op, op, op. The reality is simple.

Charlie was a bridge. It's weird that he keeps repeating that

sentence. Like I said, maniacal,

obsessed. And of course, in the comfort of his own derangement

and with the full support of the press

and the silence of Charlie's other "friends," Josh was really

acting the part of a true Pharisee.

He was certain that the truth would not rise again. He was so

confident that he had killed it

and that he could himself hijack the legacy of Charlie Kirk.

Except the truth did kind of rise

again. It kind of always does rise again. And the world now

knows that Josh Hammer had personal

intimate knowledge that Charlie's views were

changing. He lied about the Hamptons meeting.

I've told you the truth from day one. Seth Dillon and Josh were

personally upset with Charlie's

defiance against the state of Israel. Seth Dillon was the more

vocal of the two parties and the

Hamptons, as I said, in terms of actually

pressing Charlie. But both of them were upset

about the way that they saw his viewpoints

shifting. And Tucker was therefore correct at

Charlie Kirk's memorial. It was definitely the correct analogy

when he spoke about these sorts

of individuals who plot and lie and think that they are going

to be successful in, well, murdering

the truth in the story of Jesus Christ. Take a listen.

Charlie would have loved this, not just

because he loved large groups of people, but because

ultimately he was a Christian evangelist. And it actually

reminds me of my favorite story ever.

So it's about 2000 years ago in Jerusalem and Jesus shows up

and he starts talking about the

people in power. And he starts doing the worst thing that you

can do, which is telling the truth

about people and they hate it and they just go bonkers. They

hate it and they become obsessed

with making him stop. This guy's got to stop

talking. We've got to shut this guy up. And I

can just sort of picture the scene in a lamplit room with a

bunch of guys sitting around eating

hummus, thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the

truth about us? We must make him stop

talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea and I

could just hear him say, I've got an

idea. Why don't we just kill him?

That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem.

It doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that

way. Everything is inverted and the beatitudes

tell it, I think the most crisp leave. Everything is sort of

the opposite of what you think it's

going to be. That is a fact and it will always be the opposite

of what we think it's going to be

when you are attacking people who are telling

the truth. And the truth is that it is now an

established fact, like I said, that Josh Hammer knew that

Charlie Kirk's perspectives on Israel

were changing. And since that announcement, Twitter users

pointed out a very strange tweet

that Josh Hammer hit send on 16 hours before

Charlie Kirk was assassinated. For no apparent

reason at all, he retweeted something that President Donald

Trump had sent a full 12 years ago

about public executions. Here it is. Here is

that retweet Trump wrote on April 19th, 2013,

"Should be public execution for all to see. You will end this

bull fast." And Josh Hammer just

replies and says, "Baste." You can see we are in Central time,

so that's about 9.05 p.m. Eastern

time. Now, what is the justification for this? There might be

one I tried in earnest to at first

rationalize it, right? What could have been

going on that Josh Hammer decided to dig through

the 2013 Twitter archives and retweet someone calling for a

public execution? Well, I'll let

one of the many Zionist PR agents explain it first. Yashar Ali,

who, like I said, is quite literally

paid to do PR for Zionists. I know this personally on the right

and on the left, tried to explain it

away by kind of lying, I would say. He tried to claim

definitively that Josh was referring

to the criminal who horrifically murdered the Ukrainian

refugee, Irina Zorutska, in North

Carolina. That was obviously a big story in the beginning of

September. Yashar Ali wrote this.

Last night, Candace Owens quote tweeted, "Notorious neo-Nazi

Sam Parker, who pointed out that Josh

Hammer, who is Jewish and was a friend of Charlie Kirk's,

elevated a Trump tweet from 2013 the day

before, which called for public executions." Candace, of

course, would like people to believe

that Josh's quote tweet is suspicious in the

context of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

But Josh was just sharing what many

conservatives were sharing and stating the day before,

that's because they were talking about

the horrific murder of Irina Zorutska.

This is where I say that no civilized

nation uses the death penalty, in parentheses,

referring to his own thoughts. Now, another

user then jumped on that and tried to establish

a non-fact that the footage of Irina's murder was released on

that day, on the night. That's why

Josh tweeted that. All of this is factually

untrue. Irina was murdered on August 22nd.

Her perpetrator was arrested that same day

and the footage was released and trended on X on

September 5th. Josh himself sent multiple tweets regarding the

homicide, as everyone did, because

like I said, it was trending. And when he was asked

specifically about punishments, criminality,

perhaps that her perpetrator should face,

Josh at no point that I could determine,

whether he was on the news, whether he

was on his own show or anywhere else,

did he speak about the death penalty or a

public execution? Instead, as you will see,

and we will show you Josh in his own words,

he spoke about the double standards surrounding

the media coverage of her murder and really the topic of

criminality more broadly and safety in

America. Take a listen to what Josh said. You

know, Gabrielle, I'm a lawyer by training. I

remember my first year of law school back in 2013 when I was

taking criminal law. This is kind of

the beginning of kind of the last kind of foray into so-called

criminal justice reform. And even

back then, there's a lot of chatter among my more liberal

classmates about how, you know, incarceration

and prisons and lock people up. You know, how all of this is

just racist. It's kind of like,

it is an old kind of symbol of a white patriarchal,

colonialist, imperial society there. And how the

ultimate goal is basically to defund the prisons. And then, you

know, if some people are going to

commit some violent crimes, you know, essentially let the chips

fall where they may. Well, you know,

this is letting the chips fall where they may. But most

American people have not lost their minds.

Most American people stand where Donald Trump stand, which is

that they want basic, basic safety.

And I don't disagree that we all want basic safety. I just

don't hear him. And like I said,

I've looked for it ever even calling for the death penalty in

those days that were leading up. So I

decided to do what I always do rather than say what he

definitely meant or what he didn't mean.

I decided to just create a micro timeline of Josh Hammer's

tweets. And it gets pretty interesting

on September 9th, the day before Charlie Kirk's assassination.

This is what Josh Hammer tweeted.

He tweeted a total of nine times on September 9th. And you can

gather what was going on that day

from his tweets. He wakes up at 730 a six or

rather pushes the first tweet at 730 a six,

736 a.m. And he tweets about a viral Phillies crowd scandal.

This is an Eastern standard time,

by the way. Right after that, he tweets a

link, the one that I just showed you to his media

appearance about arenas, a root scum where he does not call for

the death penalty or anything close

to the death penalty. 923 a.m. He tweets against Tucker Carlson

because he has to do that at least

twice a day. Or I don't feel like he can get

on with his day. 929 a.m. He tweets in favor of

Israel and throws shade at Trump and Qatar. And all of this is

related to what went on on September

9th, which is that Israel bombed Qatar for no

reason violating international law, which they

tend to do a lot. But he, of course, was in favor of what they

were doing. And so he throws shade at

Trump and Trump's relationship with Qatar because I guess it

would be OK for them to violate

international law if Trump wasn't friends with Qatar or

something. 1133 a.m. He tweets against

Saudi Arabia because they came out and

made a statement against what Israel had done.

So he tweets against Saudi Arabia and then at

three o'clock p.m., he tweets against Tucker

Carlson for telling the truth about Israel and 9 11. Again, he

has to do that a couple of times

a day. It's part of his ritual. 558 p.m. He

tweets about the Hebrew Bible being the basis

of Western civilization alongside a speech that he had given to

link out again, promoting himself.

559 p.m. He tweets a promotion of his media appearance

regarding a Supreme Court decision.

And then there's this three hour break. It

puts his phone down. Maybe, maybe, maybe this is a

three hour break where he speaks to Charlie Kirk. I don't know,

but I know that he speaks to Charlie

Kirk at night. And then at 909 p.m., again, we're talking

Easter and Josh Hammer tweets in favor of

public execution. And there's no context that is provided. So

anybody telling you he for sure meant

this or he for sure didn't mean this is a liar. We cannot know

that. We cannot know Josh Hammer's

thoughts. A couple of things that I want to point out. Josh is

not saying in that tweet that he's

calling for the death penalty. People calling for the death

penalty, debating the death penalty

is a very common political debate. It's a very common political

talking point. It is absolutely

not a typical or a regular political talking point or debate

regarding public executions. We don't

talk about that often. It's an exceedingly

specific ask, right? Usually reserved to a visceral

response to something that you have seen. And in the moment,

right, Matt Walsh, actually, we're

prepping the show, I said, I will guarantee you that when that

footage got dropped, which is on

September 5th, four days earlier, Matt Walsh

would have tweeted this person should be publicly

executed. And by the way, he did. He didn't. He said we can't

keep living like this. The only

solution is ruthless punishment, public execution for violent

criminals, long prison sentences,

hard labor. This guy had multiple previous

arrests. He should have already been serving 30

years in the labor camp. This is the only way as our ancestors

knew. We've tried compassion and

restorative justice. And this is the result. It

was inevitable. So Matt Walsh then went on his

show and further explained that already contextualized tweet.

And he explained how men have a

visceral response when you see somebody being victimized, a

woman being victimized in that way

that arena was. So we decided for good measure that we should

check to see if maybe it was something

regular that Josh Hammer also spoke about, which is public

executions. And I can tell you that it

is not something that Josh Hammer regularly tweets about or

discusses the first time that he tweeted

about a public execution was back in 2013. And he said it in

reference, I'm sorry, in 2022. And he

said it in reference to the Boston Marathon bombing terrorist

attack. I'm sorry, the Evolte shooter,

the Evolte shooter is apparently dead. But just as with the

Buffalo shooter, this level of pure evil

would have been another ideal time for a

public execution. So to be clear, that makes sense,

right? He is in the moment and he is saying I'm having a

visceral reaction to the idea of another

school being shot out, being having another school shooting.

And for that reason, I am saying that

this would have been an appropriate scenario for a public

execution. Motions are running high.

You are visceral. And you're learning things

you're seeing and you're learning those things

in the moment. As I said, that would make sense in its context.

I also want to remind you that Josh

Hammer is a lawyer by training. He was at one point the editor

at large of the Daily Wire. And he is

currently the senior editor at large at Newsweek's. Plus he

hosts his own show. My point that I'm

making here is he knows how to communicate. Okay, this is not

some random guy on Twitter who doesn't

know that if you haven't tweeted all day about something, you

can't just throw out tweets about

public executions without contextualize them, right? He

certainly understands you don't just send out

a standalone tweet at nine o'clock p.m. And everyone's just

gonna go, what are you referring

to? He knows the public is not going to comprehend what he

means outside of him providing some further

context. And I will also add here that it is

not particularly helpful that Josh Hammer as an

individual is obsessively angry. He is an incredibly angry

little man. You can read through his tweets.

He has openly expressed bigoted and prejudiced opinions against

white people. Okay, he does not

view himself to be a white person. He views himself to be a

separate race Jewish. That is a fact. And

it wasn't a long time ago. We don't have to go back to 2013 to

hear his ideas on that. Here was a tweet

from him in 2019 that he then erased

regarding white people. Here's what he said.

Jew hatred is inherent in the European DNA.

Okay, just like it's inherent. You're just

inherent. If you're white, you're inherently guilty. You're

inherently an anti-Semite. You're

born this way. It's just in your DNA. It's quite incredible

that he said that. And in response,

we were told that he meant it metaphorically,

which kind of metaphor metaphor. Can you run

that tweet again? And just I do know a little bit about

metaphors and similes and I'm not feeling

Jew hatred is inherent in European DNA. How's that for a

metaphor, guys, for you? Because I thought

metaphor might be fire hair to describe somebody who's red

headed. Oh, no, it's not literally fire.

It's fire, fire red. No, I don't think a metaphor would be

saying explicitly and literally that

hating Jews is inherent inside of white people. I think it's

amazing that he's even allowed. There's

just no consequence. It's like, "Well, at a large in Newsweek,

what are you going to do? It's fine.

You can hate white people. We all know that. It's fine. Totally

fine." Anyways, that's what he thinks

about you guys, full stop. And people are maybe perhaps because

of that, because of how he regularly

treats people and how he regularly attacks people and how

vicious he is, are not feeling particularly

charitable towards him, especially having been exposed as

somebody who lied so audaciously and

boldly and repeatedly and unnecessarily about the pressure that

Charlie was under, pressure which

Josh Hammer was a part of applying in the weeks and then in the

hours leading up to Charlie Kirk's

death. It saddens me that Charlie was stressed and Charlie was

worried and that the very people that

were stressing him out and making him have that sense of

anxiety and worry, then you'll eulogize

him and lied about all that. Why lie? That's the part that the

public does not understand. How can

we then trust a person that lies in that way? The natural thing

is for us to then wonder, "What else

is Josh lying about? Would we trust if Josh came out and said

that tweet was definitely about

Arena?" Other people polled Trump tweets. Some did, polled that

very tweet and called for a public

execution. "Would you trust Josh if he came out and said, "I

know I didn't contextualize it and

I know all day I was tweeting about Israel," but that one was

about Arena. Don't forget he proudly

went around and he promoted to everyone that

would listen, but he spoke to Charlie the night

before he died. Probably in that three hour

window, he bragged that he and Rabbi Walicki

had a Zoom call with Charlie. Why? Because they said Charlie

wanted them to help him with his

talking points about Israel. Now, I have to say Charlie was one

of the most skilled debaters ever,

like literally ever, any person that I have

seen actually debating on stage. I learned

my debate cues from Charlie Kirk, so it is very new to me to

think that they scheduled this call

because he was in need of tips on debating

from a rabbi over in Israel and Josh Hammer.

But let's be real, I have no proof to the

contrary because I wasn't on the Zoom call.

And Josh made it clear multiple times

that in his last conversation with Charlie,

Charlie above anything else was really interested in Josh's

book. So much so that in his literal

first tweet after news broke that Charlie had in fact died,

Josh manages to bring up his book.

I'm not kidding. Here's his tweet. He writes this, "I am

speechless, devastated, and heartbroken.

We spoke less than 24 hours ago. Charlie joked how he was going

to plug my book on this very tour.

He was a unique force, a generational leader. Pray for

Charlie's beautiful wife and their

young children. Rest in peace, warrior." And as you saw

yesterday, Josh never forgets to plug his

book. He never once forgot to plug his book. A few days after

Charlie's death, he went on JTV,

which is on the Global Jewish Channel to discuss that call,

that last call with Charlie further

with a host named Ali. And here

is what Josh says about his book.

We actually did speak for the last time, less than 24 hours

before the assassination happened.

We had a Zoom call, a friend of mine, him, a couple of his

producers. It was a small call.

We were literally talking above all about the anti-Israel

questions that he expected to receive

on this campus tour. And we're kind of talking him through

talking points and strategy and how

to deal with these expected hostile questions. And you held on

my book, Israel and Civilization,

Ali. The last words I think Charlie spoke to me were, he

literally said, "Josh, when the Israel

question comes up, I'm just going to plug your

book, Israel and Civilization, because I think

that what you write in the book basically is how I feel as

well." And that ends up being the last

time that we spoke. Well, you heard him. It's like Charlie's

final wish is for you to buy Josh

Hammer's book. I mean, he's like, "Hey," he literally says,

"The last thing he said to me actually was

like, I'm just going to plug your book." What he wanted to do

on this tour was just to plug Josh

Hammer's book. And it's so sad that he never had the

opportunity to plug Josh Hammer's book. Now,

let's keep with this interview because he's going to be asked

more specifically about certain

characters in the movement that are trying to

"hijack Charlie's legacy" by telling the truth.

And remarkably, he is going to work, I swear, he's going to

work in his book again. Take a listen.

Precisely, as you mentioned, there have been people who, like

Ian Carroll, and it pains me to

mention her name, Candace Owens, because I know how close she

was and maybe still what it is to

Charlie. But at the end of the day, she's chosen to hijack his

death right now, to blame it on

Israel. I mean, it's just so disturbing. But then you have the

people who are sort of a bit more

in the middle. Maybe I wouldn't even say

in the middle, but they're teetering a bit,

the Megyn Kelly's, the Michael Knowles

and others kind of in this in between.

What do you think is going on there with them?

Yeah, look, I mean, we can talk about every

commentator one by one, but I think it's kind

of easier to make a few kind of generalizations, right? I think

a lot of folks are kind of just

trying to take their commentary to where they

see the perceived momentum, especially among the

younger generation there. But so I think a

lot of it is trying to kind of, you know,

stick your finger in the wind and try to see, you know, where

Gen Z is. And also really, I mean,

above all, see, kind of just where the Twitter algorithms are

right now. I mean, it's very hard

to look at someone like let's take Matt Gaetz. Okay. Matt Gaetz

was a former Republican congressman

from Florida. Now he hosts a show on One America News. Matt

Gaetz and I were very friendly for a

while. Okay, he had me on his show back in March when my book

came out. Ollie, he referred to my

book as a battle map to save Western civilization. It was an

extraordinarily kind segment. He was

asking very intelligent questions. He clearly had read the

book. He was engaging with the material

in it there. And a few months later, you know, he's talking

about Jewish supremacy, you know,

a term that has kind of like Durst, Sturmer

origins, and he's had all and all sorts of

horrible guests. I mean, does someone like

that, like actually flip that quickly based on

literally from March to June or July? No, of

course. I mean, it defies common sense. It defies

reality. That's obviously not what's happening there. I think

it's just profound cynicism. It's

trying to kind of just play for clicks, play for money, and

trying to kind of generate some viral

clips to appease a small but very vocal and very online

segments of the American right and of the

American internet user base there. I just

love that he doesn't even blink as he goes from

promoting his book again to then accusing people of wanting

money. It's just incredible as he's

completely grifting off of Charlie's death by

trying to promote his book as like Charlie's

Last Wish. It's really amazing. Also, why does

Michael Knowles randomly catch a stray? Like,

what's Michael Knowles been up to that he's like now on their

list? Michael Knowles, Megyn Kelly,

they're listing them. That's coming next. Okay, inevitably, it

comes inward. And I just want to

be clear in case what he's saying is not

registering to you correctly. So white men,

to the extent that you are willing to get

out there and work to serve really his book,

sell his book, to serve his interests, which are very clearly

Israel, you're cool. No one's going to

call you into semi. Everything can be cool. To the extent that

you, I don't know, maybe don't want to

do that. You will be ruined. Matt Gaetz, what was he thinking?

It's crazy. Like what on earth was

Matt Gaetz thinking it was great when he was out there,

pitching Josh Hammers book and now he can't

be saved. But then this work gets important. Josh Hammer gets

even more specific, addressing the

question if Charlie was beginning to crack on his support for

Israel. Let's not forget we already

know the answer to this is yes. So looking at this hindsight,

2020 really is something. Take a listen.

If he is what, or if he was going in the direction that Candace

Owens and others say he was going in,

you know, very, very simple point. Would he have had on me and

our friend Rabbi Pesach Wilicki

literally the night before his death to spend an entire hour

talking about how to respond to

anti-Israel talking points? I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

It literally simply does not make

sense. His heart was absolutely in the right place. Again, he

was trying to navigate kind of some very

choppy waters. Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

It really doesn't make sense. Charlie was just

on the phone looking for talking points, trying to navigate

some choppy waters with how he was going

to address these kids that had some questions

about Israel. He didn't, he was unflinching,

but he gratefully had Josh Hammers book and wanted to go

through it and make sure that he

remembered everything. Now, this is probably also a great time

referring to that little conference

call they had, whatever was a Zoom call to tell you that that

Rabbi, Rabbi Wilicki was also on the

now infamous text chain. So this means that both of those

individuals knew exactly where Charlie was

at on the topic of Israel and how he felt leading up to that

moment of his death. And again, like I

said, two weeks before that in the Hamptons, they knew where he

was at Tucker Carlson told you the

truth on his stance on Bibi Netanyahu. Nobody wants to address

or answer the question of whether or not

when Bibi Netanyahu invited him to Israel. What

the context was of that? Do you think that guy

who's fighting a 140,000 front war because he keeps picking

fights and pretending he's a victim

really just has time to pick up the phone and shoot the breeze

with Charlie Kirk, whose number,

according to the released letter he didn't

even have in May. So what's he calling him about?

They obviously weren't close if he didn't have his number.

Okay. So what's he calling Charlie

about? Why is he inviting Charlie to Israel two weeks before he

dies? Right? Nobody will address

that. Charlie said no. He did. He said no. He

didn't flinch. He wasn't even flinching. He was

just busy and couldn't make it out to Israel or something. Now

I will say that regarding Rabbi

Walecki, I think he has more of a conscience and soul than Josh

Hammer. I haven't seen him promoting

his book. He doesn't lie as audaciously and as repeatedly and

tweets nearly as neurotically as

Josh Hammer does. But I want you to listen to what he had to

say when asked whether or not Charlie

was turning on Israel. Give us our hindsight 2020. Rabbi

Walecki. The wild conspiracy theories on

social media claiming that Israel and the

Mossad are behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk

because he was turning on Israel. Now you spoke to him just

hours before his death. Did you feel

that that was the case? That he was in fact turning on Israel?

Okay. Lidar, I was in touch with Charlie

on an almost daily basis for months and he certainly had some

disagreements with Israeli policy

and he criticized Israel where he felt appropriate. He

sometimes believed things like a lot of people

do that are out there in the media and that was really the

substance of our relationship was

checking on things and finding out the truth.

But that doesn't mean that he was immune to the

negative sentiments that were out there and

there were a lot of people around him in the

America First Movement who were actively working on him to try

to get him to turn on Israel. But

the real answer to your question is the meeting that I had with

him and the entire purpose of the

meeting called by Charlie. Charlie called

this meeting and it was on our schedule for weeks

was that he was going out on a campus tour.

Utah was the first stop on his new campus tour

and what a lot of people in Israel do not realize or in the

pro-Israel community do not realize

is that between 40 and 50 percent of all of the questions and

challenges that he would get on

these campus tours were usually about Israel because the

campuses of course have a lot of

anti-Israel sentiment and Charlie was known as a supporter of

Israel. So he ended up being in a

position where he was defending Israel all the time and it

drove him crazy because he wanted to

talk about America but he was defending Israel all the time. So

in preparation for this new campus

tour he called a meeting of a few people that he trusted to

talk about Israel issues and to

anticipate the questions that he would be getting the

challenges that he would be getting on this

campus tour and to make sure that he had the

truth and that he could formulate answers that

he was comfortable with. If Charlie had turned on Israel why

would he even bother with a meeting

like that? Why would he call a meeting with a

few pro-Israel friends of his to talk through

Israel issues to make sure that his facts were

straight and his talking points were straight

so that he could defend Israel better. If he was turning on

Israel he would have had Candace Owens

and Tucker Carlson in the meeting planning to throw Israel

under the bus. The entire premise

of the meeting refutes that that theory. How are you feeling

about that? Now that you know that

Charlie actually mentioned both Tucker and

Candace 48 hours earlier as they were trying

to do what they always do which is control who he's allowed to

speak to control who I was allowed

to speak to back when I was within the Zionist movement and

waking up and realizing something

was dangerously wrong when they started to try to control my

voice. It's unbelievable. It's really

unbelievable to reflect on that. Now I will say again Rabbi