Political assassinations come with official narratives delivered fast, institutional pressure to accept them faster, and a designated chorus of respectable voices whose job is to make skepticism feel indecent. Ask too many questions, and you are dishonoring the dead. Notice too many loose threads, and you are a conspiracy crank. Grieve correctly, trust the process, and move on. And if you won’t, expect to be called names by the people with the most to lose from the answers.
Andrew Kolvet is fed up. Also, Blake Neff is fed up. Those are the co-hosts for the Charlie Kirk Show, sans Charlie Kirk. The whole institutional machinery of what remains of Turning Point USA is very, very fed up with people asking questions about who killed Charlie Kirk and why. They’ve called the questioners cranks, conspiracy garbage, brain rot, crackpots, and betrayers of a dead man’s memory. Those are pretty harsh things to call some of Charlie’s closest friends and most faithful supporters, and they’ve gone on the air visibly angry, shaking with moral indignation, demanding that the public accept the official account, trust the process, and move on.
No.
No, we are not moving on, and not because we think Tyler Robinson didn’t pull the trigger. The physical evidence tying Robinson to the scene is substantial, and I’m not here to relitigate it unless some new evidence presents itself. Without a trial or public disclosure, you’re lucky I’m even taking that at face value - because I’m not obligated to believe an official narrative, no matter who the official is - but I have so far. The reason I’m not moving on because a small army of documented facts, unresolved silences, and institutional behaviors surround this case that any fair-minded person is entitled to notice, and I refuse to be shamed into pretending otherwise.
The era of “shut up or you’re a conspiracy theorist” ended roughly around the time the FBI lied to us about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the CDC lied to us about masks, the intelligence community lied to us about the origins of COVID-19, and the Justice Department lied to us about whether Epstein killed himself. I’ve had enough practice at this. I know what institutional misdirection smells like. And this case smells.
IF YOU PREFER TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, CLICK HERE
SO ABOUT THAT TRUMP DOJ
Before I get to the specific fishiness in this particular murder, let’s establish the operating premise. We are being asked to trust the same federal law enforcement apparatus that has been caught lying to us so many times that the list of offenses is longer than this article. The FBI ran a four-year operation to destroy a sitting president based on a document they knew was fabricated. The same Justice Department that is now telling us Tyler Robinson is a lone gunman with grandpa’s rifle and a political grudge ALSO told us, with a straight face, that they released all the Epstein documents.
I know that for some conservatives, the problems with America’s intelligence agencies and DOJ go away the moment a Republican takes office, but this DOJ hasn’t been candid about either of the two men who tried to shoot Donald Trump in 2024, with both cases producing more questions than answers and the Thomas Crooks case closed permanently when he was shot dead by a counter-sniper and DNA washed off the roof before crime scene investigators were able to arrive. It’s the DOJ that hasn’t given us straight answers about the classified UAP briefings that members of Congress have been screaming about for two years. The pattern isn’t one lie here, and one lie there. The pattern is a federal law enforcement culture that treats the American public as adversarial and as anything but their employers. It’s not that I think skepticism about Charlie’s investigation is warranted, per se, but at least, it’s understandable. When you’ve been lied to as many times as the American public has been lied to, it’s unwarranted to demand our trust. It’s unrealistic to believe we’ll give it.
Neither will we pretend that “Trump is president now so the FBI is fixed” is a coherent argument for shutting up and going away. Conservatives spent 30 years building an impressive list of reasons to distrust federal institutions, and reform doesn’t magically happen because of who appoints the director. They reform - if they reform at all - over decades of culture change. I mean, I think that’s how intel agencies reform. We’ve never seen that, so I’m guessing.
WHY PEOPLE ARE SKEPTICAL
I just wanted to take some time in this article and remind the I2I audience why people are skeptical of the investigation, and the events surrounding Charlie’s death, to clarify that those getting screamed over the telescreen for refusing to close the book in their mind’s eye, aren’t being the awful, horrible, wicked people that they are alleged to be.
For starters, in the weeks leading up to his murder, Charlie himself told people he was afraid he might be killed for breaking with Israel’s donor class. Charlie wasn’t joking. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a First 48, or if you’ve ever listened to any True Crime drama, but when somebody says before their murder, “I think so-and-so might kill me,” so-and-so will rise to the top of the subjects list so fast that if they were underwater, they’d need an iron lung. And this isn’t some unreliable claim from anonymous internet accounts on 4-Chan or r/tinfoilhat on Reddit. Before he died, Charlie told people in his circle that he feared retaliation from Israeli interests if he took a public stand against them.
It was on August 6 that Kirk told Megyn Kelley that he was afraid of retaliation. It was on August 13 that Harrison Smith of Info Wars posted a tweet referencing Kirk’s fear that his position on Israel would get him killed.
FLASHBACK: Years ago, Ergun Caner tweeted a photo of a VHS cassette from a 1980s film he claimed to have found cleaning his garage, and knowing nothing but that he was a habitual liar, we ran a reverse image search, and discovered he swiped the photograph from the Internet. It made absolutely no sense why any human being would lie about such a thing, with absolutely nothing to gain from it, other than he had a deep heart problem and just liked to lie a lot. Ergun Caner aside, usually, people have a reason for lying.
So when Kolvet insisted recently that Charlie “never mentioned one time about the Jews, okay? Never once” (in terms of feeling threatened by Israel) it was nakedly dishonest. Smith posted his documentation before Charlie was dead. Charlie eluded to this on Kelley’s program before he was dead. Why lie about that? As much as we would like to believe one of Charlie’s close friends when he claims Charlie never mentioned fearing for his life regarding Israel, it is not a fact. It is provably wrong, and it makes us wonder why one of Charlie’s friends is obviously lying about that. Lies make us skeptical because lies are rarely without a reason (unless you’re Ergun Caner).
Charlie’s private texts sent 48 hours before his assassination confirm exactly what his friends said about his state of mind. “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. I’m thinking of inviting Candace,” he wrote in his WhatsApp group. Let’s stop for a minute and notice the connection in his thought process. Charlie didn’t mention inviting Candace in spite of her opposition to Israel. He thought about inviting Candace because of her opposition to Israel. That’s the only logical conclusion for jumping from angry Jewish donors to Candace, in the same breath. So, unless Charlie was thinking of inviting her because he wanted opposing views represented, this means his opinion on Israel wasn’t too far off from Candace’s.
Charlie said, “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.” These aren’t the musings of a man who had casually wandered away from the Israel lobby. These are the words of a man under active financial siege, writing his exit from a donor relationship, days before he was shot. Further, these texts - sent on September 9 - were sent to the very same friends and colleagues who lampooned him in a strong-armed intervention at the infamous “Hamptons Weekend” on August 4-5. These texts were Charlie’s “coming out party” as an Israel objector to the very same Israel-First influencers who ambushed him at the Hamptons a month before. This took courage. They fought him on it (more on that in a second), and then he boldly texted them his decision to plow ahead. Everyone receiving those texts, knowing their context, would fully expect a more public coming-out in the near future, likely in an article, an interview, or some other public way.
In May 2025, four months before his death, Kirk had written a seven-page letter to Benjamin Netanyahu, warning him that Israel was “losing support even in conservative circles” and that “this should be a 5-alarm fire.” He told Netanyahu that on his campus tours, half the questions he received were about Israel and “they’re all negative.” He told the Prime Minister of Israel that Israel needed a “communications intervention” and that American conservatives were growing resentful of the perception that America was being dragged into wars for Israeli interests. In prime scumbaggery, Netanyahu never responded to Charlie’s letter, but subsequently waved it on live television after the assassination as proof that Kirk loved Israel, probably hoping to God that its contents would never be released because, after all, dead men tell no tales.
Eight days after Charlie Kirk was shot dead, Netanyahu recorded a video statement and opened it by firing the big guns - the biggest gun Israelis have. No, not the nukes from Dimona, whose uranium they stole from a Pennsylvania laboratory. He invoked Nazis, Israel’s favorite weapon. Netanyahu, waging a seven-front war and busy conducting assassination operations across the Middle East, took the time to go on social media and deny that he had anything to do with Charlie’s assassination. Comparing skeptics to Nazis, Netanyahu said, “Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, said that the bigger the lie, the faster it will spread. Well, somebody’s fabricated a monstrous big lie: that Israel had something to do with Charlie Kirk’s horrific murder. This is insane. It is false. It is outrageous.”
The thing is, those rumors weren’t really circulating yet. Sure, somebody probably said it. After all, Israel assassinates a ton of people, but those rumors weren’t trending until after that insanely out-of-place denial. That’s when Netanyahu held up Kirk’s May 2 letter on camera and read from it selectively, citing the opening line about Kirk’s “greatest joy as a Christian” being advocacy for Israel. He did not read the seven pages of criticism that followed. He did not mention that Kirk had described Israel’s PR approach as “malpractice.” He did not mention that Kirk had written “I’m trying to convey to you that Israel is losing support even in conservative circles. This should be a 5-alarm fire.”
Netanyahu presented two sentences of a seven-page letter as though they were nothing but a love letter from a not-so-secret admirer, and then declared that anyone suggesting Charlie’s views on Israel had been evolving was trafficking in Goebbels-level lies. He then attributed the conspiracy theories to either “obsession” or, remarkably, “Qatari funding.” Sidenote: They’ve been pushing the Qatari thing hard (Qatar is probably America’s best ally in the Middle East, and Israel exists to get nations mad at each other).
Candace Owens called out Netanyahu three days later for misrepresenting Charlie’s letter. We have no idea how Candace got that letter, but somehow she knew its contents. She was right, and confirmed right, when someone anonymously gave a copy of the letter to Fox News. It probably wasn’t someone in Netanyahu’s office, which means it was likely Charlie himself. So like it or not, Candace knows a thing or two, which makes her a credible witness when opining on Charlie Kirk. So, when people make her out to be a complete fraud, making stuff up, being right on something of that magnitude earns credibility, whether or not you think she lacks credibility in other areas.
Netanyahu, in a case of “I think thou doest protesteth too much,” actually denied involvement three times between the assassination and the funeral, and Former Mossad Director, Yossi Cohen, separately went on television to say “absolutely not, we had nothing to do with it.”
Hours after Kirk was shot, before a suspect had been named, before the body was cold, Netanyahu posted his tribute calling Kirk “a lion-hearted friend of Israel” who “fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization.” He was among the first world leaders to post a tribute - ahead of most American officials. It kinda makes you surprised he wasn’t watching from the roof of a Utah university building with binoculars, filming and cheering, like the two Mossad agents on 9/11.
THE HAMPTON WEEKEND AND THE LIES THAT FOLLOWED
One month before Kirk died, a group of pro-Israel influencers and donors gathered at a Hamptons retreat organized by billionaire Bill Ackman. The event, which attendees confirmed took place, featured sustained pressure on Kirk over his evolving views on Israel. Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee was there. Josh Hammer of Newsweek was there. Multiple pro-Israel figures were there. In the days immediately following Kirk’s assassination, both Dillon and Hammer published statements dismissing the entire event as a pleasant summer discussion. Hammer - who’ve written about several times at NXR and once at I2I, and is an Israeli operative for the David Horowitz Institute - wrote in a nationally published column that there was “no intervention - not from Ackman, not from Seth Dillon, not from anyone else,” describing the conversations as “spirited and robust but hardly rancorous” and claiming Kirk “only doubled down on his opposition to Islam and suggested that Israel is a natural ally.” This was a lie, and a bald-faced one, at that.
Then, Seth Dillon testified under oath at Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission and his story changed. Under oath, he admitted there was a “heated and at times spirited debate.” But his September 16 tweet said, “If there were private meetings that took place, I wasn’t in them. If there were angry confrontations, threats, or coercion, I didn’t witness or hear about any of it.” That was September 16, six days after Charlie died. Under oath, it became “heated.” That was another bald-faced lie.
And then there is Rob McCoy. Kirk’s personal pastor and co-chair of TPUSA Faith flew to Jerusalem two months after the assassination to host a memorial explicitly designed as “a public affirmation of the shared values that had defined his work,” which is another way of saying, “A propaganda attempt masquerading as a memorial.” McCoy stood in front of Israeli officials, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs, and a room full of American Christians to describe Kirk as a champion of Israel, emphasizing his Sabbath observance and his love for the Jewish state. McCoy was a close friend and confidant of Kirk’s, and yet, he said that “Charlie never wavered from his support for Israel.” That was yet another bald-faced lie. McCoy knew what Kirk had been saying privately. McCoy knew about the donor pressure, the texts, the fears, the Megyn Kelly interview where Kirk described being called an antisemite. He flew to Israel and lied about the honoree at his own memorial. The dead man couldn’t correct the record.
That stunt - Charlie’s own personal pastor and alleged friend - lying about him at his own memorial, which was obviously, from the beginning, nothing but a propaganda event, has left a bigger stink in my nose than anything. It is downright unholy to do such a thing, and when I see Charlie surrounded by back-stabbing Judas Priests like that, then it’s not far-fetched to believe this is a Julius Caesar-type situation. The event was nothing but Israeli state-sponsored public diplomacy, done for the cameras, to fly out a close associate of Kirk’s, and put words into the mouth of a corpse that contradicted the living, breathing man, in front of a crowd of Israelis who didn’t even know Charlie, dragged in like extras on an infomercial set, to manipulate Americans watching.
Going the extra half-step to say that it was done to obfuscate the Israeli government’s role in his assassination isn’t even a big half-step. It’s a scoot. I’m not saying they assassinated him. I’m saying that between Netanyahu’s letter stunt and McCoy’s outright betrayal of his friend, actual words haven’t yet been invented to capture the level of slime-crafting, low-lifery sleazitude to do that. It’s pure dirtitude and verminly sludgemanship. Those are the type of men who’d put a knife into someone’s back.
ANDREW KOLVET IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE
This is the contradiction at the heart of everything Kolvet and Neff have said since the meltdown, and it exposes the entire “stop asking questions” campaign for what it is.
In the immediate aftermath of the assassination - before Robinson’s fingerprints were on the rifle, before the texts were public, in those raw first hours after Charlie Kirk was shot dead - Andrew Kolvet, the man who now screams “crackpot, conspiracy, garbage, brain rot stuff” at anyone who asks about the Israel angle, took a screenshot of Kirk’s private WhatsApp messages about Jewish donors and gave them to the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. His stated it was “in the spirit of looking at every lead, turning over every stone.”
You don’t hand the Israeli donor texts specifically to the NCTC director if you have zero suspicion the Israel/donor angle is worth running down. You hand those texts to a counterterrorism director because some part of your brain is registering that your friend just wrote about powerful people threatening him and you want someone with intelligence resources to look at it. Kolvet’s current position - that anyone asking about the Israel angle is a crackpot - is a direct repudiation of his own behavior in the hours after the assassination.
The kicker is that the man Kolvet trusted enough to hand those texts to - Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center- is now the man saying the FBI was ordered to stop investigating the foreign nexus, that there were individuals with prior knowledge of the assassination, and that the lone-shooter narrative has unresolved leads. And now, Kolvet is on the radio screaming about conspiracy theorists, when might have been the first.
THE NCTC DIRECTOR SAYS KASH PATEL TOLD HIM TO STOP
Joe Kent served eleven combat tours in the Middle East. He has a Bronze Star. He was appointed by Trump to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, whose explicit mandate is to investigate potential foreign involvement in domestic incidents. After Kirk’s assassination, Kent’s team opened a foreign nexus investigation. Kent personally examined FBI files related to the case, which alarmed Kash Patel. The resulting standoff was significant enough to require a White House meeting attended by Patel, Vice President Vance, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and senior DOJ officials, all convened to shut down a counterterrorism investigation into the murder of one man. What this means is that shutting down the Kirk murder investigation was a matter of national security and solicited a meeting at 600 Pennsylvania Ave. That’s weird, right?
Kent resigned over the Iran war in March 2026 and went public within 48 hours. He told Tucker Carlson and then the Daily Caller that Kash Patel personally ordered him to stop. “The FBI restricted our ability to investigate,” Kent said. Asked specifically if the order came from Patel, he answered: “It did, yeah.” The FBI’s stated justification was that continuing the investigation risked making Kent’s team callable as defense witnesses. And? What’s the problem with that? What are the implications?
The FBI’s response to all of this has been to open a leak investigation against Kent. The leak, allegedly, is Charlie’s texts, allegedly given to him by Kolvet. I say “allegedly” because there’s nothing to suggest he did. Obviously, anyone on that string of text messages could’ve done so. It’s an obvious, shameful attempt to mark a man who might become a problem, and John Kiriakou is here to remind us it wouldn’t be the first time.
If you appreciate my work, please grab a premium subscription to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article). This is how I provide for my family, so I sure appreciate it. Act now, and get a HUGE 30% Discount.
If you don’t do subscriptions, consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking this link to give at Buy Me Coffee.
