ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ
OUR MAIN PHOTO: An artistic rendition of the proposed meeting
Candace Owens’s investigation, the contentious Israel-related meetings, and the questions that remain unanswered.
By Nick Stamatakis
Candace Owens’s investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination is most compelling when viewed as a timeline, because her argument depends less on a single piece of evidence than on the extraordinary sequence of events in Kirk’s final weeks.
By spring 2025, Kirk’s relationship with Israel had become increasingly complicated. He remained publicly supportive of Israel, but warned that Israel was rapidly losing support among younger conservatives and complained that criticism of Israeli policy was too often treated as antisemitism or disloyalty.
The turning point came in early August, when Kirk attended a private gathering in Bridgehampton involving financier Bill Ackman and other strongly pro-Israel figures. Owens and others later described it as an “intervention” in which Kirk was pressured to host critics of Israel, particularly Tucker Carlson. Ackman and other attendees deny that threats, blackmail, or coercion occurred.
What is not disputed is that immediately afterward Kirk publicly complained about intense pressure from some supporters of Israel, saying that even limited criticism could bring attacks on his character and accusations of antisemitism. Megyn Kelly later said Kirk himself had referred to the gathering as an intervention.
Around this period, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally spoke with Kirk and invited him to Israel. Bibi, according to credible accounts, offered “to take Turning Point to the next level”, meaning, of course, endless financial support. Netanyahu later confirmed that conversation. Owens interprets the contact as another part of an escalating pressure campaign, although the complete contents of their conversations have never been publicly released.
By early September, the dispute had become financial. A major donor reportedly withdrew roughly $2 million after Kirk refused to distance himself from Tucker Carlson.
Then came some of Owens’s strongest evidence: private messages in which Kirk complained that he was being bullied by major donors and wrote that the situation was leaving him with “no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.” Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet later confirmed that the messages Owens released were authentic.
That confirmation is significant. Whatever one thinks of Owens’s larger theory, it establishes that immediately before his death, Kirk was experiencing a serious conflict with influential supporters and donors over Israel.
Then came September 9 — the final full day of Kirk’s life.
Frank Turek, who says he was physically with Kirk, has confirmed that Kirk participated in an approximately 50-minute Zoom conversation focused on Israel. Contemporary reporting also confirms that Kirk and two producers were preparing to deal with Israel-related questions during his campus tour.
Turek described the conversation as involving “two officials in Israel” and another American supporter of Israel. His interpretation is entirely benign: Kirk wanted information that would allow him to answer difficult questions and defend Israel more effectively.
But the identities and precise affiliations of the two Israel-based participants have not been publicly established. There is consequently no basis for stating as fact that they were representatives of Netanyahu’s government, the Israeli military or Israeli intelligence.
Owens has also alleged that shortly before his death Kirk sent a warning saying words to the effect of “they’re going to kill me.” She has argued that the timing may have overlapped with these Israel-related discussions.
That allegation is potentially important but remains much less firmly established than the donor messages. The complete original message, metadata, and surrounding conversation have not been publicly released. Even if Kirk wrote those words, the critical question remains unanswered: Who did he mean by “they”?
On September 10, Kirk appeared at Utah Valley University under security conditions that later drew serious criticism. Thousands attended an outdoor event surrounded by elevated buildings, yet only six campus police officers were assigned. No metal detectors or bag checks, rooftop officers or drone surveillance, and no meaningful coordination with surrounding law enforcement. A gunman fired from a nearby rooftop and escaped the immediate scene.
Authorities eventually arrested Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man with no prior criminal history. He was not known as a violent political activist, was not affiliated with either major political party, and apparently had not voted in the 2024 presidential election.
That background makes the shorthand description of Robinson simply as a “deranged leftist” inadequate. One of the central unanswered questions is how a young man with no criminal record allegedly progressed to carrying out a planned political assassination.
At the same time, there is now substantial evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. Investigators say surveillance and vehicle evidence connect Robinson to the scene, DNA connects him to evidence associated with the rifle, and prosecutors possess messages and a purported note they interpret as admissions of responsibility.
There are nevertheless forensic questions. The damaged bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body could not be conclusively matched to the rifle attributed to Robinson. That finding was inconclusive, not an exclusion. The spent cartridge case was reportedly linked to the recovered rifle.
The motive is similarly more complicated than the original political narrative suggested. Prosecutors cite alleged messages expressing hostility toward Kirk and politically themed ammunition markings. But Robinson had no known history of political violence, leaving a major question for trial: how, when, and why did his beliefs allegedly escalate into assassination?
Owens has therefore uncovered or highlighted several legitimate areas demanding scrutiny: Kirk’s contentious early-August gathering; pressure from major pro-Israel donors; his authenticated private doubts about remaining in the pro-Israel movement; Netanyahu’s personal contact with him; the Israel-focused Zoom conversation on the final day before his murder; serious security failures at Utah Valley University; and unresolved questions surrounding motive and forensic evidence.
What Owens has not established is that Israel, Israeli intelligence, pro-Israel donors, or Turning Point insiders DIRECTLY arranged Kirk’s murder. No publicly demonstrated operational link, payment trail, communication chain, or forensic evidence currently connects any of them to the shooting. Yes, but the surrounding circumstances and particularly Charlie Kirk’s withdrawal of his support for Israel, along with what happened in the last 4 months of his life, pose questions about Israel’s involvement that need to be answered.
What can be said is that Kirk spent the final weeks of his life embroiled in an unusually intense political and financial conflict over Israel. That conflict included a contentious August gathering, the withdrawal of major donor support, direct contact with Netanyahu, Kirk’s private statement that he might leave the pro-Israel cause, and an extended Israel-related discussion on the day before his assassination.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have assembled a serious conventional murder case against Tyler Robinson.
The important unanswered questions remain: Who exactly participated in Kirk’s September 9 call? What was discussed? Did Kirk really warn that “they’re going to kill me,” and if so, whom did he mean? He allegedly did text this phrase during a meeting where Israelis or their agents participated the day before his death. Why was security at Utah Valley University so inadequate? And can prosecutors fully explain Robinson’s motive and prove the forensic and digital evidence at trial?
Those questions deserve investigation without treating either the official narrative or Candace Owens’s theory as proven in advance.
==========
Selected Sources
Jewish Telegraphic Agency — “Charlie Kirk wrote in leaked text messages before his murder” — reports that Andrew Kolvet confirmed the donor messages as authentic and discusses Kirk’s statement that donor pressure was pushing him to leave the pro-Israel cause. Read the JTA report
Semafor — “Charlie Kirk tried to manage Republicans’ divide over Israel” — reports on the Israel-focused Zoom discussion held the night before Kirk’s assassination and Kirk’s frustrations over donor and pro-Israel pressure. Read the Semafor report
The Times of Israel — Netanyahu’s account of his final contact with Kirk — confirms Netanyahu spoke with Kirk shortly before his death and personally invited him to Israel. Read The Times of Israel report
Associated Press — Investigation of security failures at Utah Valley University — documents the absence of rooftop security, drones, bag checks, and metal detectors and reports that only six campus officers were assigned to the event. Read the AP investigation
September 10, 2026, www.helleniscope.com, n.stamatakis@aol.com
DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.
