All language subtitles for nvn.0910.053

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