He told me privately that there was very little that he disagreed with. And if you go listen to what I said on that show, I was going pretty hard. I I do think there is some evidence that Charlie was struggling with this topic, thinking about this topic, finding some common ground with the very harsh critics of Israel. Dave Smith just revealed the truth about Charlie Kirk's final days as it pertains to his attitude toward Israel. He answers whether he thinks Charlie was shifting on that issue and actually read some of his personal texts from Charlie that shed some light from this time frame. So, let's get his take on this. Please like the video and subscribe to the channel. >> So, Candace is Candace does this episode last night and first off, it was uh it was it was incredible, I thought. So she is talking about which is a whole different almost element of uh I don't know of a theory here where like if you narrow this down a little bit right like I'm saying I don't see any evidence pointing in the direction that Israel did this however a separate question which you can connect to that if you want to. I just want to be clear that I'm not connecting to that because I don't see the a reason to or a clear piece of evidence to. But there are the claims being made Benjamin Netanyahu himself trying to milk Charlie Kirk's death. And now there are other claims being made about what the state what Charlie Kirk's state of mind was about Israel during that time. And that in itself is an interesting question. and Candace in this episode, she did at one point call on me and Tucker Carlson to uh to come forward with whatever information we have. Uh she was saying we were both at this last event. So like what was it like? What was his state of mind? What were the things being said? >> And to be clear, Tucker Carlson just largely did that. He didn't read out, you know, messages verbatim, but he told his part of a story that Candace Owens shared about the recent Turning Point USA event, the pressures he was dealing with for having Tucker speak at that event. By the time this episode is out, I've probably already released that video. But Tucker says that, you know, he approached Charlie and said, you know, I'm potentially gonna discuss Epstein and his associations with Israel and just talk about Israel in general and the US-Israeli relationship, but maybe I won't do that. And Charlie Kirk looked him in the eye and said, "Do it. Go full boore. Tell the truth. Whatever you think." So that's interesting. Um, but we will see what is to come from the rest of this. Tucker's comments largely corroborated that Greyzone article in the unnamed source by the way that talked about Charlie Kirk feeling pressures and switching his sensibilities on Israel to an extent and not exactly liking Netanyahu very much. And so I thought that was kind of interesting. And I'm thinking and so I I thought maybe the best I could do here as a response to the audience being upset about the last episode is like I'll just come clean with everything I know, including like some [ __ ] text messages between me and and Charlie Kirk, which I figured there were there were a couple that I thought were kind of relative. after listening to the Candace uh episode, I thought about it and I was like almost like trying to replay in my mind like what, you know, like what exactly was said when we were hanging out in that green room because we did hang out for quite a bit before the debate. And the truth is there was nothing nothing I could say tangibly about that encounter like demonstrated that Charlie was changing his mind about Israel or something like that. He was very friendly the entire time. I was me and so I was, you know, like I at first what happened was first I went in there and it was just me and Charlie and his uh his guy. I'm blanking on his name right now. I apologize, but he's the guy who's like on his uh podcast. Um, so it was them two and then Josh Hammer came in and it was like all of us for a little bit. Uh, and then Charlie's buddy left and it was just me, Charlie and Josh for a little bit. And so the at the beginning before Josh Hammer came in, we did talk about Israel a little bit and I started I was needling Charlie, you know, like I tend to do in those situations like you know cuz he was already talking about uh, you know, we started talking about issues right away. He was saying like, but everything he was saying was kind of like what you would think Charlie Kirk would be saying in that situation. He was saying things like um he goes, "Look, I'm with you. I'm against the Forever Wars and I can't stand the McCain's and the Cheney and all those guys." And then I was going, "Yeah, Charlie, but like you know, right?" Like like I was just like Charlie was a well- read guy enough that I would just be like, "But you already know who the neocons are married at the hip to, right? Like what was that all about? Or don't you know that they're basically just the American lood party? Like you know that, right? >> There's no greater truth than that. That is so true. The Bill Crystals of the world, the Dick Cheney, the Mitch McConnell's, the John McCain's, they're all that way. That's what they are. They're Israel first. And that's the neocon mentality, too. It's indistinguishable from the Zionist mentality. And yeah, I it is interesting to see Dave say that this was an event that was in mid July. And then after that, we do know from various tweets, including a long lengthy video Charlie posted on June 29th, he doubled down on propaganda coming out of Israel about starvation in Gaza, saying there's no starvation in Gaza, that he doesn't want to be lied to, and a lot of people are lying, saying that Israel is starving children in Gaza. They totally are. The GHF shows that. Whistleblower Anthony Aguilar has shown that. But I digress. I won't get into that. But he did double down on a lot of propaganda after this. Even if he was privately, I guess, mulling or, you know, shifting his opinion on it to some extent. >> And it was Charlie Kirk. He would just kind of disarm you with his kindness. Like he would kind of laugh and then he kind like he'd look around with a big smile and he'd go, "I get your point. I get your point." And then he'd pivot to like he'd be like, you know, I just really like as a Christian, I had really spiritual experiences when I went to Israel and stood in the exact place where Jesus performed miracles and all this and I really value the holy sites being protected and the bond between, you know, the Jewish people like Jesus was a Jew and but and like all the and I was like, okay, I get all of that, but like also we could do that without genociding our neighbors, right? Probably. and like and >> yeah, it's a big leap from appreciating that and thinking that to oh yeah, no, we should support Israel in terms of whatever they're doing in genocide. We shouldn't ask questions. We should look the other direction. We shouldn't make excuses. We should downplay it. We should say that's somehow America first. There's a big leap between what Dave said and that absolutely. So, >> like he'd kind of laugh and say, "Now, if I'm being completely honest, I got the impression that Charlie really kind of knew I was right." That's, if I'm being completely honest, that's how I felt. But I got nothing tangible I could point to to justify that feeling. All I could tell you is that in the room, I kind of felt like he knows I got a really good point here, but he's kind of not in a position where he can admit it. That's certainly isn't with those donors, with people like Bill Aman and Seth Dylan and the multibillion dollar donors to Turning Point USA that apparently were breathing down his neck pretty heavily to the point that in this Max Blumenthal article, it said that the conservative youth leader was not only alienated by the hostile nature of the interactions, but frightened from the backlash he got from hosting this event where Dave debated Josh Hammer. and Tucker Carlson got up there not only heavily, you know, not even suggesting saying that, you know, Epstein probably worked for Israel in some regard and saying it's not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel and we should think that whole mentality is stupid that that would be what you would ascribe to criticisms of Israel. So, yeah, that's how I felt. But that is purely just a vibe I got. There was nothing he said that actually backed up that that was his feeling. And then when Josh Hammer came in, I don't even remember. I I remember at one point we he was like interested in talking to me about like how I he was like uh how I'm good on borders and abortion and most libertarians are bad on that. And then we got into a whole conversation about how libertarian first principles lead you to not being for open borders. And it was just like other stuff that wasn't that topic. It was kind of like a thing where Charlie had been saying and I think I talked about this the week we we did a podcast with like my thoughts on the event right after the event, but I you know once Josh Hammer came in the room, Charlie had been stressing the whole time how he really wanted a good faith exchange of ideas and he didn't want this to devolve into name calling or be anything and that he really wanted to have a good, you know, honest exchange between me and Josh. And so we I I said yes and Josh said the same thing. Josh said absolutely yes. And so then we all just the three of us had a very pleasant conversation and we ended up talking about other topics. And I think part of that was just like to keep it light and friendly in the green room like we're about to go out there and debate this topic so let's just talk about immigration where we all agree for a little bit before we go out there. Then as I pointed out before Josh Hammer goes out and by the end of his closing by the end of his opening statement he said he was disgusted to be on the stage with me. And I had pointed out like what a snake behavior that was because literally we had just had like a 40minute pleasant conversation like we were all being friends. >> Well, that doesn't tell you anything about Josh Hammer. Man, that's pretty crazy. That's pretty horrendous and that's pretty dishonest. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a neocon Zionist shill like Josh Hammer. And you know, take a look at that reception that Dave Smith got versus Josh Hammer and Dave Smith getting more pops, more applause in a young conservative organization. This was the talk of politics for a while. Glenn Greenwald covered this. Many people covered this event and how it's significant because of younger conservatives, you know, coming out more adversarial toward Israel than generations, you know, older than them. that being a significant sea change in American politics, I have no doubt that the pressures were coming down from the donors both before and after this. >> Then he got out there and said he was disgusted to be in my presence or whatever. Anyway, then I wiped the floor with Josh Hammer and that's how the the thing ended. So, I didn't really have anything, you know, when Candace was like, "Give, you know, come forward with whatever information you have." I was just, as I was thinking about it, I was like, "I don't really have anything there." But then I did think to myself, I was like, "Oh, you know, like me and Charlie Kirk have texted a fair amount of times over the years." Like, "Let me go back and just see what we said." Exact. Because I remember he had gone out of his way to like text nice stuff. And I said this publicly before, too, that that was our relationship essentially that he he just started reaching out to me. I had done his podcast a time or two, I believe, and um he would just text me like nice things before and then he invited me to that that Turning Point event. So, I will say first of all, very weird feeling going back through the text messages of someone when they just died. Just there's something about that that's kind of surreal and not a nice feeling. >> Yeah, that's got to be weird. It's got to be weird reviewing your text with a friend that just got offed shot through the throat. I mean, yeah, crazy feeling. I'm glad Dave did it and he's gonna share it though. But I did that and then I did find a couple text messages that I think are kind of relevant to this part of the conversation. I just want to make it clear. I'm not stoking anything that says Israel did it, but just if we're having the conversation about where was Charlie's state of mind and how did he feel about Israel. These are I think kind of relevant. And um let me just start by saying this cuz I was a little torn about whether or not I should I should read these. Um I've never done that before. I've never read private text messages or released you know like when people do that sometimes when they're arguing with someone like they'll release screenshots of DMs or something like that. I never have done that in my life or >> Yeah. I think that is horrible behavior. It's really really low and vile behavior to do that to divulge things that the other party expected would be, you know, between one person and another, not intended for the public, unless the other party agrees to it. If the other party agrees to it, I believe that that's right. It's tough in a death situation, you know, but yeah, I think that looking back at this and seeing this pertinent information pertaining to Israel and what's been said about Charlie and his sensibilities about it, it's not immoral to release it, but typically it would be if the party's still living and they didn't expect you to do that. I don't think so. And I don't like that. I think like that's you know like things that are said privately should stay private but just like in this case in this case it does seem like this is like I don't know it's like the biggest political assassination of our lifetimes and this is a huge debate over where his state of mind was and I do think that a lot of the [ __ ] Zionists are kind of lying when they act like no Charlie was just the biggest like he was just Ben Shapiro and nothing else was going on in his head that >> yeah that's not true I mean as much as I dislike Charlie and a lot of the things he said, especially about Gaza and especially about the Israeli government. He wasn't Ben Shapiro. He wasn't Mark Levvin. He wasn't Douglas Murray. He was somewhere in between the Dave Smith of the world and the Ben Shapiro of the world. Certainly. So, I'm not a big fan of his foreign policy as it pertained to Israel. much more in line with Dave Smith and what Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate and Jeff Saxs and John Mirshimer think about it. But he wasn't Ben Shapiro. Let's just be honest about that when we're talking about it. Doesn't seem to be quite right. Now, I've talked about this quite a bit that I thought the big dynamic going on here was that he still needed these kids. He still needed his young activists and they were abandoning Israel. But, you know, I actually forgot about exactly what he said in a couple of these things. So, I'll read them. Just to be fully transparent, you guys can make of it what you will. I think I already know what a lot of you are going to make of it, but this is real. And um they're going to say Israel did it no matter what. No other scenarios are imaginable. The shooter they apprehended could not have been the shooter. It was some unnamed shooter that I'm not going to name. It's just not what they're saying. Which on face value, I can't blame them for all the duplicity and lies we've gotten from the FBI. But to jump from there's inconsistencies with the Fed narrative, which there is, to Israel absolutely did it, I think's a little irresponsible. We talked about that, too. But I'm more with Dave on that. But at the same time, if you say that nothing changed in Charlie's mind as he talked about these issues, it clearly did. just watched the episode with Megan Kelly, him expressing frustrations that he had with people calling his character into question because he had minor criticisms with Israel. I mean, the rest of the episode was balanced out with your, you know, typical Hasbro propaganda, but that part of it is true. >> The this is this is what was said to me. So, um, here, let me, cuz I took a couple screenshots of these, but let me just actually read up through them, cuz these are the ones that I thought were relevant. I mean, there's there's some other texts here where it's just, you know, I mean, he he texted me saying he really loved uh my testimony on Tucker Carlson about praying to God in the hospital when my my daughter was born and stuff, but this just doesn't uh seem as relevant. But this these two texts I thought were pretty relevant. So this one is um from Sunday, April 13th at 8:01 p.m. Uh he texts me, "Listen to you on Rogan." This is like a a day or two after the Douglas Murray debate. Uh so I debated Douglas Murray on the Joe Rogan uh experience. Um, and it was a big show at the time. It was a big show. I guess Candace Owens changed the definition of big show at this point. In hindsight, a teeny little show. >> Yeah. What he's referring to is Candace's last episodes have had huge live audiences, sometimes more than 300,000. Her first tribute to Charlie was over a million viewers of a live podcast on YouTube. I've never seen anything like that. And then her last few episodes have been over 200 every time I've seen it. one time it went over 300. So, he's absolutely right about that, man. All eyes are on Candace. Good for her. I love her coverage of this most of the stories. Not the biggest fan of the Mcronone story. Don't really care either way on that, but you know, her handling of the Epstein files in Israel and this story has been awesome. Um, but uh, so this is this was a Charlie Kirk unprompted texted me about the Douglas Murray debate. Now, just like kind of keeping in mind, and I won't full I'll fully disclaim here. Charlie Kirk's a really nice guy. You could chalk a lot of this up to him being nice, but the Douglas Murray debate with me, you know, like I'm not overstating it. This was like a big thing. This may have been the biggest high-profile debate on Israel. >> I'd buy that. This was the talk of politics in the US for the next few days. Tons of memes about it. You've never been to the crossings. Everyone knows that reference that saw this very legendary debate for not exactly being a debate mostly being, you know, an attempt to skirt a debate by Murray for the almost the entire part. Appeals to authority. Dave ripped him to shreds. The comment section really kind of bolsters that argument. By the way, it's not just me, but people weren't buying Douglas Murray's just attempt to dismiss even having a debate by saying, "Hey, Dave's not an expert. These guys aren't experts. You know, Dave's friends are idiots and you know, but I'm not going to debate Dave. It was full of that. >> And this is this is what Charlie Kirk wrote to me Sunday, April 13th at 8:01 p.m. Listen to you on Rogan. You did well despite me being more on the pro-Israel side. Very little I disagree with what you said. One point when Douglas was going on about you using arguments from authority, it's a ridiculous claim. You were using original source quotes to prove their motives, all capital and motives, not their analysis of geopolitics, etc. Two totally different things. You were right on that point 100%. Keep up the good work. Hope to cross paths at some point soon. I'm sorry. Hope to cross paths at some point. And I wrote back, "Thanks, Charlie. I really appreciate that." Now again, I'm not saying anyone should make any more of this than there is there, but like this is Charlie Kirk. I he told me privately that there was very little that he disagreed with. And if you go listen to what I said on that show, I was going pretty hard. And so the I will say like, you know, Cand's calling on me to like release what I know. That is one. And I think that's not completely insignificant. Like I think that does at least demonstrate that this wasn't Ben Shapiro. >> Yeah. He prefaced it saying I'm more pro-Israel, but hey, you got this right. And this is Douglas Murray. This is like the chief neocon guy that they defer to for, you know, big arguments about this. He wrote a book called Neoconerism, why we need it. He's a hardcore Zionist. He's been to Israel many times on a propaganda tour where, you know, they don't take you to Gaza, of course. They take you to areas far removed where they don't shut down people's electricity. They don't have blockades against goods that come in and out of the areas they take Douglas Murray to. They don't drop bombs over houses that he's in and just say it was Hamas no matter what. So, yeah, it is significant. This is kind of a classic Charlie Kirk response from what we've seen from him where he weighs both sides of where the conservative movement is on this, but gives Dave credit in this moment. Ben Shapiro was not sending me this text message. Let's just say that, you know, I mean, I'm I don't want anyone to make too much of this. I'm just kind of putting the information out there. I guess we've already established you're going to make of it what you will. This is this is public, right? So, you can see this, but he sent it to me. So, he quote tweeted uh me a post that I had about the murder of uh those two um uh Israeli embassy staff members. If you remember that, Rob, you remember that story? There were they got murdered in uh in DC or something like that. Um and I I just had a post about like, you know, how wrong political violence is and how anyone who thinks you're helping the poor Palestinians by murdering some embassy workers, you're not. And then uh Charlie had a a long quote tweet to that which this is public. Um if you you want to find it, it starts with their names which were Sarah Mgrim and Euron uh Lechinsky. And he says they were two beautiful young people with their whole lives ahead of them. Talks about how the murder was senseless and evil and horrifying. It's a little bizarre to read that in the context of today, but um but then he had a um a whole section of the post where he said, "I must push back against one thing. All over X. I see claims that some people have quote blood on their hands. By the way, this is just a really interesting tweet. Um, I haven't read this till right now. I I didn't click on it. It was, but he sent me it in our text thread. But this is Charlie Kirk, by the way, talking about this stuff. Pretty relevant to today. He said, "I must push back against one thing. All over X, I see claims that some people have quote blood on their hands simply because they've made tweets attacking Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel government, or the war in Gaza." No. and and then he goes off on a whole thing. You can look up the tweet if you want to say it, but he's he's making the point that it was horrible what happened to them, but it's also messed up to like blame anybody who was criticizing Israel for now being responsible for them doing this. So, he sent me that tweet and I responded back uh as he sent me I he sent me this at noon on May 22nd and I responded back at 12:01. Uh I said I was literally reading it as you texted and I said, "Thank you. I really appreciate that. We need cooler heads to prevail here. It's a very dangerous situation. >> Amen. And as far as that goes, Charlie Kirk's right. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to do to say that people that critiqued Israel or US policy toward Israel, US aid to Israel, were guilty of these vile murders. Of course, he's right about that, you know, but he defended Israel a lot, too. So, he was a mixed bag on these things, and you're seeing that. but this is relevant in this context as well. >> And he said uh he said totally and then he said we should do a podcast in person and have a fun light-hearted contrasting conversation on Israel. I bet we actually agree on most of it truly. I will uh and then he said I will not scold you for not being. So he made a neverbe joke. >> Good stuff. I don't think that he believed most of what Dave believes about Israel. I'm just gonna say that. But you can see, you know, he's trying to extend olive branches to critics of Israel. Dave was his friend. And Dave's a colloquial guy. He's a good guy. I consider him a friend, too. I'm not super close to Dave, but I do know him. You know, I've met him in person quite a few times. We've messaged online quite a few times. I respect him immensely. He's dropped my name in his podcast a few times, which by the way seemed surreal to me when he did that and I was a much smaller channel at that time, but you know, you can see Charlie Kirk venturing to both sides of the conservative movement at this time. Maybe that indicates he was wrestling with this issue. But I think that equally likely is the fact that he had to balance the dynamic between being the bridge between the wealthy donors to his organization and the activists, the young activist base that overwhelmingly is not as pro-Israel as their parents, if at all. There's like 25% of them are as, you know, avid Zionists as, you know, previous generations from some polls I've seen. >> And then I said, "I'm gonna need that in writing." And then he said, "Screenshot it." And um okay, I didn't actually plan on screenshotting that or reading that aloud ever at any point. So, look, that's all I have. That's all that I actually know about any of this. The the truth is that I all of the kind of stuff that Candace is talking about, all of this coming to a head, the pressure being put on Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk doing that interview with Megan Kelly, talking about the pressure, all this stuff about like the the meeting with Aman and and all these guys. This all happens after that and I just never I never talked to Charlie again. Um, which I really, you know, regret in hindsight, but that happens a lot when we lose people. Um, but I just hadn't I hadn't talked to him. It hasn't been that long. this was only, you know, in the last couple of months. Um, so I don't I can't speak to any of that, but I did feel like it was worth pointing that out that again, this doesn't prove anything at all. Uh, it is Charlie was a really nice guy. I know this from just having met him, you know, the one time in person and then other times like over the computer. >> Wouldn't know if No, sorry. wouldn't know it if you've been paying attention to the uh legacy media, but that is a lot of the accounts people say. You know, a lot of people on the left would not have that conception, but people that were close to him really thought he was a nice guy. And that's not abnormal. People close to anyone would think you're a nice guy. But, you know, Jank U loved him. I think Bill Maher respected him. There were figures on the left that actually really liked him. And maybe it's not even proper to say Bill Maher on the left, but he kind of is and kind of isn't. I never know what to say about him. He has a take that I'm impressed with it sometimes, and it seems like a more right-wing take, and then he says like the most left-wing thing imaginable, but there are people from across the spectrum that respected him. And so maybe he was just trying to be nice and extend an olive branch and kind of keep like a a dialogue going there. I mean, this is Charlie Kirk and that is kind of what he was all about is keeping dialogue going and even when he was inviting me on his podcast, which okay, so by the way, the story there is that never ended up happening. But so then essentially what happened was he goes, "Why don't you come on my podcast?" The invite I just read you. I was like, "Absolutely. Let's do it." Then he was like, "Oh, do you want to do a debate at this big event that we're having coming up here?" And then I was like, "Okay, cool. So we'll do that." And then he was like, "Okay, we'll do we'll kill two birds with one stone and we'll do the debate and me and you will do a podcast." That was the original plan. And then like I couldn't come in till the last day of the conference. We were out in Denver that weekend and I had to fly from Denver straight down there. And it was there wasn't enough time to do both, I guess, or something like that. So like the podcast didn't end up happen. But so but so even when he was inviting me on that podcast, he's saying like we disagree, you know what I mean? But he's also going, "I think you'd be surprised by how much we agree." And on the Douglas Murray podcast, he's saying, "I think I, you know, I actually agreed with much of what you had to say." >> I mean, watching the full Megan Kelly podcast and watching what he said in his July 29th 12minute video or so that's on his Twitter timeline right now, I don't really believe that to the extent that he's portraying it. But he wanted to keep a close relationship with Dave. He clearly respected Dave. There was some overlap with Dave. You know, take for that what you will. >> So anyway, that's my response to Candace. That's all I got. I don't have any other uh useful information that's relevant to here, but at least the little bit I have I think does it does indicate that like yeah there there was certainly Charlie was at the very least at least what he's saying here is that he was listening to obviously he was listening to what I had to say obviously he had been listening to what Candace had to say obviously had been listening to what Tucker had to say and he probably was feeling like you A lot of that does make sense. That doesn't mean he agrees with it fully, but I would offer that to say there I I do think there is some evidence that Charlie was struggling with this topic, thinking about this topic, finding some common ground with the very harsh critics of Israel and was at the very least like it's not the case that this guy was just a pure loyal supporter who wasn't questioning the thing at all. I will say that much. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment based on what I've seen. I think the dynamic with him was unique compared to other conservative influencers like Candace and like Tucker that don't have, you know, a wealthy donor base and are, you know, leading a bunch of young activists to collect signatures, push Republican candidates, push Republican issues at a local level, etc. It is totally explainable that he would weigh the sensibilities of both and come where come down somewhere in the middle. Not to say that that didn't reflect what he thought about it, but he was probably pulled in multiple directions here by persuasive people on both sides. You know, you you guys know from watching this, I have a very rigid anti-Israel opinion. And I wouldn't even say it's anti-Israel. It's pro-American because it's not tying the US to the hip of Israel in any regard. And what can I say? After Netanyah or after Kirk's death, Netanyahu has just been propagandizing this as if Charlie Kirk is Ben Shapiro. He was, you know, the most ardent pro-Israel person ever in the world. And he was relatively pro- Israel, but he wasn't Mark Levin. He wasn't Ben Shapiro. And if you look at Blumenthal's article here that he released based on the allegations and claims of a very close source, an unnamed source that was very close friends with Charlie. He said that in the weeks leading up to his assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader regarding him as a bully. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the personnel decisions of the president and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adlesen to keep the White House firmly under its thumb. Well, in a way, I want to applaud Charlie for recognizing this. I wish it was sooner. It's just Trump's been long controlled by the Israel lobby long before this was the case. And you know, if he finally recognized that toward the end of his life, more power to him. We don't always come to these conclusions right away. None of us is born a uh critic of Israel. Certainly not. And very few of us are born a dissident of any kind. We have to learn this the hard way. Maybe he was learning the hard way. Who knows? We don't fully know. We do have corroborating sources between this and what Candace has said and what Tucker has said and now what Davis said. generally match some of the similar themes that we got from this Greyzone article. It makes me doubt it less and less more and more every day. Not that I doubted it. I think that Max Blumenthal is heroic. He's one of the best journalists of our time. The article was great. I actually like the article much more than Dave. I didn't agree with all of Dave's criticisms of it, which I talked about in that video. But, you know, Charlie was in a rock and a hard place in some ways leading this organization. And I say that knowing that he was very successful, very prosperous, very wealthy, very sharp, very good debater, well practiced at it. I wouldn't agree with him on everything. I would debate him probably friendly. I bet he'd like me. I bet I'd like him if he was around. Won't get to know now, unfortunately. I never met him. A lot of people loved him. A lot of people can't stand him. He was a polarizing figure, and you've seen the worst and best parts of humanity after his death because of it. But what can I say? That's Dave's account. The other testimony we've seen is interesting, too. But what do you guys think? Let me know down below. Was Charlie really shifting his opinion on Israel toward the end of his life? Was it just pressure from the donors? Was it just the dynamic he had leading this unique organization with two different viewpoints? Let me know in the comments down below. Please like the video, subscribe to the channel. Also, subscribe to Dave Smith. Love Dave. Good friend of mine, great podcast buddy. Keep it up. And please consider becoming a YouTube member. If you click the join button below, you can become a channel supporter, channel member. I'll tip my hat to you and thanks for that. I'll really appreciate it. And in return for that, I'll give you the gift of being able to access all my videos before they go live to the general public on my channel. And until I see you guys next time, no more war, no more debt, no more inflation, and no more empire. Peace out, guys. Catch in the next one.
