Josh Hammer on Charlie Kirk's Assassination and the Conservative Civil War Tearing America Apart

Tell me about what's going on though in America and what looks like a civil war. >> What a lot of folks see [music] as civil war or interns sign sniping and jabbing. It's really burst out into the open after Charlie Kirk's assassination. >> Charlie Kirk has been shot. >> In hindsight, it seems that Charlie Kirk really was the glue that hold the modern conservative movement together. >> Why was it that Charlie was that figure? >> She was very much deliberately managed out of the coalition. Now, did Charlie ever renounce Candace Owens? No. That's not in his nature there. Candace has accused you of fornowledge of Charlie's assassination. Is it as stupid as I think it is or is there something else to it? >> Users pointed out a very strange tweet that Josh Hammer hit send on 16 hours before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Now, what is the justification for this? How do you connect one to the other? Like like how does that possibly make sense? [music] There's this famous incident at the Hamptons and this gets brought up a lot certainly by Candice. Some reports that people are yelling at uh Charlie. what happens. How do you see things going forward? It seems still the way you describe it, this is really the commentaria level. Is this playing out at the political level? So great question. Before we get into this interview, I just wanted to say that we have noticed that more than half of our regular viewers are not subscribed. If you want to support the Winston Marshall Show, all you have to do is press subscribe. If you do that, we can have more phenomenal guests exploring the issues you want to hear about that the mainstream media won't touch. But without further ado, on with the interview. Josh Hammer, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for coming to speak with me. Um, I'm keen to talk to you about a few different things. The you've been sort of in the firing line. You've had abuse held at you from the likes of Candace Owens, who's accused you of knowledge of Charlie Kirk's assassination, and Nick Fuentes. And not only that, you have also not held and restrained yourself in responding to various people on the opposing side. You famously had a debate with Dave Smith and you said it was frantically disgusting to share a stage with him and um you also suggested that Tucker Carlson should be neutralized which we can go into those things. But before going into sort of your invol involvement in all of this and maybe you want to clarify all of these things, is this a commentariat civil war? Is this a real political civil war? What the hell's going on? >> Sure. So, we'll get to this, I'm sure, but just real quick on the Tucker thing. So, this is part of a Daily Mail Opad and and what I said in the final paragraph, Winston, was I said that the fox is in the is in the hen house and the fox should be neutralized. Now, was it the best word choice? Clearly not. As were three Daily Mail Opad editors saw this and thought nothing of it. I mean what what what I meant of course was that the influence of these pernicious ideas ought to be neutralized which which I meant by counter in the public square. But I don't want to get too deep in the weeds there. We'll we'll get back to that. >> Well, no. It is worth addressing though that because I would say I wouldn't use the word neutralized because I think that is a euphemism for kill and then in this current climate where that's what's going on in America. I I think that bit edgy. >> It was a mistake. I it was this what happens Wednesday when you write opeds at at 10 p.m. at night. It's it's not a good excuse. I mean, this is a public square and I I should have thought twice about how that word would be interpreted or misinterpreted as the case may be. Not my first rodeo either, by the way. I I I had one tweet six years ago that was up for literally an hour and it was a fairly anodine tweet, but I an hour later I saw how all the white supremacists were misinterpreting it. I quickly deleted. So, I I should have known better. >> What was that tweet? So this tweet was it was in response to the European Union announced that they they were boycotting all goods either from all of Israel or from Judea and Samaria. I can't remember exactly what the context was and and I quote tweeted and my comment was Jew hatred is inherent in the European DNA. By which I literally was just talking about 2,000 years of brutal anti-semitism on the European continent. Some folks saw this and said, "Oh my god, Josh Hammer thinks that white Europeans literally have like in their gene code like an anti-semitism gene." And I'm like, I'm so I I I I I should have learned my lesson. That tweet was literally up for 1 hour. I kid you not one hour before I delete it. And Fuentes in that crowd still brings it up today. So I should have known better there. But I just want to clarify. As you know, Charlie Kirk and I were friends. I I lost a friend to political violence. I've been the target of political violence. Actually, they recently arrested someone outside Houston, Texas for talking online about making death threats against me, Carol Marquitz of the New York Post, Seth Dylan of the Babylon B, and uh Laura Loomer. So, I I condemn this with every fiber of my being. And the word choice was poor, but hopefully hopefully >> you put it down to maybe being trigger happy on X and just firing away without thinking too much about it. Is that what I'm kind of understanding? Or is it something else? the neutralize. >> Neutralize or the last the tweet about Europeans having anti-semitism? >> Look, I mean, it's kind of my personality. I I I >> You don't actually believe that Europeans have anti-mitism? >> Oh my god. No, of course not. >> But we just It's a way of saying there's a long tradition of anti-semitism in Europe. Is that what you mean? >> Exactly. It's a proverbial symbolic way of saying that there are is a long and tragic history of antise-semitism in Europe, which in many ways has gotten better since Vatican 265 and whatn not there. It's kind of undeniable and tragic reality of the European continent. Right. So >> Britain is maybe somewhat of an exception. Although we have also have a horrible history of anti-semitism, just not on the scale of of the continent, >> especially two months ago, we had um two Jews killed in Manchester, >> right, >> by Jihad Al- Shami, the synagogue there. So we're not without anti-semitism, but we were the ones who stood up to the Nazis. And we have got since Cromwell allowed the Jews was a was a huge phlose. Actually, there's there's a very long tradition actually of Anglo Phylois. I'm actually very much an Anglo file myself. I don't know if you knew that. I I I I'm I'm an admirer of the English common law. I'm a lawyer background. I love the English common law. There's there's truly rich intellect behind this. I'm an admirer of Edmond Burke a lot. I mean, Britain has brought so much to the world. It's actually what really pains me to see what's currently happened to this amazing country. But anyway, I I apologize. I've digressed. >> I appreciate you saying that because that's buttering me up. [laughter] >> Um yeah. So, um, tell me about what's going on though in in America and this your your view on this what looks like a civil war. >> So, [sighs and gasps] it's hard to know where to start right now. I I think the easiest thing to observe is that what a lot of folks see as a civil war or intern sniping and jabbing, it's really burst out into the open after Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the very first, I think, important thing to note. >> In hindsight, it seems that Charlie Kirk really was the glue that holds the modern conservative movement together. I'm not sure many people appreciate that at the time, but he at the tender age of 31, he really did have that role. And now we find ourselves in this very precarious situation there. So, fundamentally, I think when you have there are a few different camps. You have the old school anti-Trump. >> Sorry, before we get to the camps, how do you think Charlie was doing that? Why was it that Charlie was that figure? Well, he was a he was an extraordinarily impressive person, right? I mean, I he was he he he was a young person who was able to command respect from everyone who interacted with him. Charlie was very very good at discerning where to draw the line and where to not draw the line. And his his conferences were were big tents within the folds of sanity, reason, and common sense. That's kind of the key caveat there. They were not total, you know, ubiquitous tense because you have to decide ultimately whether you're conserving something. I mean, that's once upon a time what it meant to be a conservative, right? That you were in it to conserve something. And the very nature of conserving and preserving, conservation and preservation entails making boundaries because it's kind of an irony that if you seek to conserve everything, you actually are not conserving anything at all. Right? So Charlie, I think, was very keen at exactly that, but in his in the >> and that wasn't necessarily clear. um that he was doing it, but that since he's left, it's it's and it's sort of all fallen apart since. It's it was clear that he was that he was playing that role. Sick of the lies and deception from the mainstream media, regain control of your news with ground news. Let's take a quick look at how the media is reporting on Trump's order to resume nuclear weapons testing. Left-leaning democracy now around the headline, extraordinarily destabilizing decision. Trump denounced over call to immediately resume nuclear tests. While right-leaning press TV led with, "I had no choice." Trump orders US War Department to immediately resume nuclear weapons testing. Two very different narratives on the same story. We specifically partnered with Grand News because their app and website helped me and my team cut through media bias and see the full picture. There are over 645 articles published on Trump's decision, and we can access every single one through ground news, complete with source, context, lean ratings, and key breakdowns. Seeing all sides, regardless of political lean, is essential to cutting through bias and actually being informed. That's why Ground News's blind spot feed, which highlights stories under reportported by either side, is such a powerful tool. I genuinely believe in what Ground News is doing and I encourage you to check it out by scanning the QR code or visiting ground.news/winston. If you subscribe through my link, you'll get 40% off unlimited access. Ground News is subscriberfunded. And by supporting my sponsors, you are also supporting this show. Totally. And it was very easy, I think, to not truly appreciate what he was doing because he he had gotten deeply political. He was very involved in the election of Trump and Vance. I think a lot of people thought that he was kind of more of a political actor there, but he was much more than that. I mean, he was also a very smart man, like kind of a thought leader, but he was also just a a coalition builder and a coalition manager. And this was not entirely clear to a lot of people. It should be obvious day to anyone paying attention now. >> So, I I guess back to the camps then if we may. So, I on the one hand, you kind of have the old school pre206 status quo anti- crowd. the folks who were never comfortable with the whole MAGA movement in the first place who really are just trying to get us back to the 1980s. That's and that that is a small but still still vibrant contingent I think of the group. Then there were some folks like me who enthusiastically embraced MAGA and this more nationalist realist call it populist I don't really like that term but call it popul this more nationalist realist turn in American conserism away from kind of the ideological abstractions of you know free trade is is an unambiguous good for all and let let the chips fall where they may in the American heartland kind of moving away from that to kind of the real tangible concerns of the American people. I welcome that. I've devoted a lot of ink and a lot of >> yes >> recording time to trying to kind of lay out a substantive positive vision for that. So that's my camp. And then I think there are some folks in the camp who they don't like that either. They don't like the Trump movement. They don't like MAGA. They don't like the current iteration of the American right at all actually as the case may be. They actually want to burn it all down. They want to burn down MAGA. They want to burn down the Republican party. They want to burn down the conservative movement. They don't like it at all. >> So that's a a Fuentes character. >> That's Fuentes. I would argue Tucker and Candace Owens as well. And you know, if you listen, if you listen carefully, Winston, sometimes they actually give away the game. So Tucker is a very good example. So in the infamous the now infamous Tucker Fund's interview, there were a lot of lines that should give us pause. But one of the lines that gave us pause was when Tucker said to to Nick Fuentes, he said, "I hate Christian Zionists more than anyone on the face of the earth." Which first of all, that's a shocking statement, right? I mean that that then includes al-Qaeda, Boo Haram, I mean Hamas, uh I mean Black Lives Matter, Woke, I mean everything, right? >> Not Nazis, right? Um so >> but he did apologize for that and said he was speaking in the heat of the moment and as this conversation has already shown, you're one who's also in the heat of the moment said things. >> True, but but in the in a Freudian slip of sorts, I mean there's there's there's some truth. I mean, he recently said that Zionism is an attack on Western civilization. He said that BB Netanyahu is one of the leading enemies of Western civilization. Well, that's clear. And he's explicit and nonapologetic about his animosity towards Israel. He said explicitly Israel shouldn't be an ally of >> the states and so that he is unapologetic about. So the the sort of the Freudian slip of Christian Zionism seems like it's >> but but he called it a heresy, right? And I I guess >> what is Christian Zionism? We might I was going to ask this anyway, but I don't actually know I fully understand what it is. >> So I take it at face value. I think if you're a Christian who believes the state of Israel should exist, which is the literal definition of what it means to be a Zionist, then you're a Christian Zionist. And now this kind of point out, >> so it's a Christian who is a Zionist. >> Yeah, that's how I interpret it. >> There's nothing more to it. There might be some folks who are theologically dispensationalists who take a certain view of the role that the land of Israel plays whether in book of Genesis promises or in book of revelations esquetology who might think of themselves as being kind of the only Christian Zionist. Me personally I mean I'm a Jew so I can't really tell Christians how to think of what Christianity is of course but when I hear Christian Zionist I I think I take it face value. I think that you are a Christian who's a Zionist. So you could be a different kind of Protestant, a Catholic who doesn't doesn't necessarily embrace dispensationalism, but if you believe that the state of Israel has a right to exist, frankly, I think you're a Christian Zionist. >> Sorry, would you mind, forgive me, explaining what dispensationalism is? >> Well, I I'm hardly an expert in Christian theology, but dispensationalism is a is a very strong reading of of the role that the land of Israel plays both in the promises made in the book of Genesis. So, for instance, there's a famous verse that many dispensationalists like to like to quote. We actually just read in synagogue a few weeks ago uh Genesis 12:3 where God says to Abraham the patriarch that I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. So a lot of dispensationalists take that pretty literally and that you bless the children of Israel because you want to be blessed and so forth there. And then similarly they might take a very strong role of the Jews in the land of Israel in the esqueological end of times plan there the in gathering leading to to the second coming of Jesus and so forth there. That's that that's not an expert definition of disposition. It's a very kind of rough rough view there. >> But so that might be something slightly different from Christian Zionism in that there is an actual uh almost explicit preference or or bias towards promoting the state of Israel which is not the same as Christian Zionism and then as in just Christians who believe Israel has a right to exist. >> Right. So so that would maybe be what they mean when they say Christian Zionist. >> Right. So if we're being most charitable and I I have stopped being charitable to Tucker to be honest with you. But if we're being most charitable, then that we we we we could conceive of a world in which that is what he is talking about there. But let's let's just play devil's advocate for a second there and let's just say that that my broader definition is is the more universally accepted one there. Right? A Christian Zionist is someone who's a Christian and a Zionist. And just to be clear, a Zionist is a very fancy word. The left has demonized this word. It literally just means that you believe the Jews deserve their homeland. That that's that's all the word Zionism means. So if you if you are a Christian and a Zionist, well, there might not be a statistical majority of the current MAGA coalition of the Republican voting base. It's absolutely a plurality. It is a very very high percentage there. So I guess my question is if you were trying to implode, if you're trying to blow up the current MAGA coalition, what else would you do other than to launch an attack on this particular crowd? I mean, as recently as 10 years ago, Winston, I was a big supporter of Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign. I remember when when Ted Cruz launched his campaign, it was at Liberty University, a very famous evangelical university in Virginia. And he I remember his speech there. And when he had some canned line about supporting Israel, it was one of the loudest applause lines in the room. I mean, it was not that long ago that that this was this was a core attribute of of what it meant to be a Christian conservative political activist in America there. when you're trying to kind of drive right at that, >> you're you're really trying to drive drive a stake at the MAGA coalition and the American right itself. >> And and actually in March 2025, there's a Pew Research poll that found now that the Republicans have split 50/50 on Israel. Democrats, it's much worse. It's something like 71% are anti-Israel. But but to to serve your point, it is it is a dividing line now on Israel, the Republican movement. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Look, I mean, and there is a generational aspect to this. On the other hand, I I I tell people not to >> gener generational. So the younger ones, younger people are more anti. >> Oh, where is this poll, by the way? This 50-50 poll. >> Do your research poll. >> Okay. Interesting. Because I I I've I've seen other data that that that has the GOP supports closer to call it 6570 still. Is that right? Okay. >> It depends on the poll, but what we definitely know is that the younger generation is at minimum more apathetic. If you look at if you look at the polling, a lot of younger Gen Z, younger millennial Republicans tell pollsters that they they're apathetic between the Israelis and Palestinians, between the Israelis and the radical uh Islamists. They they just don't really care there. No, I I I actually will say that there is an element of that that I'm sympathetic to. I mean, for for for younger Americans who grew up in the in the atmosphere, in the context of the failed boondoggles of Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing wrong with saying that we should prioritize America and Americans over regime change wars around the world. I agree with that. I've been saying this for my entire adult lifetime actually there. So, there's nothing wrong necessarily with with with that sentiment. On the other hand, that sentiment ought to be better informed, I think, as to the nature of the two parties there. And that kind of creates a role for the education space. But there's some polling also that's not quite as dire as some of these other polls suggest. So, for instance, we mentioned Charlie already at the Turning Point USA student action summit, the one where I debated Dave Smith back in July. This is a very large conference, 3,500, 4,000 people give or take. They did a massive push poll of the whole crowd, a very young poll, as the name Student Action would imply. They did a big poll asking a lot of questions of every all the attendees there and one of them was are you pro- Israel not come a very binary yes no pro Israel yes no 73% said they were pro- Israel for what it's worth now would that number have been 90% a decade ago perhaps but that's that that's nothing to kind of >> you know to cry yourself to sleep over in there that's still that's still a decent size chunk of this very young activist audience there but >> another important stat which was published by the New York Times is that something like 35 to 40% of GOP staffers aged under 30 are grouper or griper sympathetic. Now that was a New York Times. So I mean maybe they're trying to deliberately >> so my my dear friend Rodri wrote that this this substack post that went viral making this claim. So Rod lives in Budapest, very good friend of mine for many years now. He visited DC, met with the vice presidents, met with others. Um and he he wrote this very long subset post basically saying that his suspicions were confirmed there. I mean it's kind of based on these anecdotal conversations. part of this I mean not to be a lawyer but to be a lawyer depends how we're how we're defining what it means to be a groper. Now is a groper defined narrowly as a follower of Nick Fentes. If that's the definition then 34% surely are not gropers. So there's there's just there's just no chance that this one little kid broadcasting from his basement in the Chicago suburbs has a commanding market share that not even any that that no other commentator can possibly dream of. There's just there's just no chance that that that defies all reality. Now, are 30 to 40% of younger conservative staffers somewhat nihilistic in so far as they have this kind of burn it down desire when it comes to America's political institutions. And does that kind of steer them in a slightly edgier direction? Probably. >> That's not necessarily the end of the world, by the way. There there I mean it can be. I mean, I'm more of kind of a a Burkian conservative than kind of a burn all down kind of stalinist, but but but but there's at least a a small ounce of health to the sentiment that the current system is simply not working. I would prefer, you know, top down fundamental reorganization and restructuring so forth there to literally burning it all down. But there's some truth and some merit, I think, to this sentiment of immense frustration there. So if immense frustration is what it takes to be a quote unquote groper, then I you I think a lot of people probably are gropers there, but that's not really what it actually means to be a grier. So I think there's a lot of kind of playing fast and loose with the terminology. I don't think Fundes has anywhere close to the market share that a lot of people think he has. And he's been a problem for a very long time and it's unfortunate that he's gained the clout. So you're making the case that after Charlie was killed, that's when this sort of civil war erupted. But if you look at the main players, let's say on the opposite side of you, uh, all the ones we've mentioned so far, Candace Owens, Fuentes, Coulson, Dave Smith, they were all saying these same things that they are currently saying long before Charlie was killed. So Dave Smith's been arguing against forever wars forever. Um Carlson has been doing, you know, he had Daryl Cooper on over a year ago now, um doing the argument that Churchill was the chief villain of World War II and Candace has been >> saying all these wild things now for a long time and Vuentes has also been saying this for years. So you say that Charlie was keeping it all together, but these actors were behaving as they're behaving. So why is it then that his death has changed things? So I think it burst into the open in a way that was somewhat managed or contained. So Candace and Tucker are two good examples. So Candace Owens was once Charlie's, you know, I mean like his pal. I mean they were kind of the the dynamic duo going, you know, going campus to campus kind of, you know, responding to to to liberal students and so forth there. I mean, she worked for Turning Point. She was deeply involved for a long time. O over the final year, year and a halfish of of Charlie's life, Candace was not invited to Turning Point USA. She was very much kind of kind of deliberately managed out of the coalition. Now, did Charlie ever renounce Candace Owens? No, that's not in his nature there, but he essentially kind of managed her out of the tent. Now, now, now Tucker >> Tucker, you're right. I mean I mean for at least two two and a half years now has been especially since Fox fired him he's been but really since October 7th he's been increasingly definitely going down the same ultimately very predictable and tragic rabbit hole but I'll tell you one thing that he didn't do when Charlie was alive interview Charlie Kirk's arch nemesis Nick Fuentes in a deeply fawning interview now just before Charlie was assassinated Duza wonderful defender of western civilization great Man, Desh Souza Desh agreed to debate Nick F on this and Alex Jones moderated internet debate. [snorts] Now Desh, Charlie, myself, we all have shows at the Salem podcast networks. We're all kind of colleagues in a sense. >> Charlie was livid >> at Desh for agreeing to debate Nick Fuentes. How I know that? Well, one, because Charlie told me repeatedly. Two, because Desh actually, to prove his point, posted the screenshots on X recently, for better or for worse. And Charlie actually encouraged me to tell Desh that I was very upset that Desh because in in Charlie's mind, you were platforming him. You were legitimizing him. He called him vermin. Charlie called Fenterman. L there's literally no individual who caused Charlie Kirk and his widow Erica more personal hell over the years than he was. He was like an archeneemy. I mean literally like the Joker to Batman. I mean like his absolute arch arch enemy. So for Tucker then to bring on this guy barely a month and a half after his quote unquote friend's assassination in a total puffball interview. And by the way, the New York Times, I think it was reporting that the night before the interview, Tucker, I guess at his cabin in Maine has the guy on over for dinner. Apparently Fuentes was very nervous and Tucker apparently reassured him that it'll be a very soft, friendly interview. Right. >> So I mean for for all this to happen in the aftermath of of Charlie's death, to me again that's that's that's pretty clear, I think. So, I'm not saying that that there was no drama when Charlie was alive. There absolutely was, but it was it was more managed. >> Yeah. And I suppose Charlie would Oh, sorry. I suppose Tucker's response to you would be like it's his show and he can he's the editor of his show and he can conduct the interview any which way he wants. But I would say to that he's perfectly capable of taking out a very uh tough interview as we saw with Ted Cruz, um Olman, he's he's good at doing tough interviews when he wants to. So that's why maybe there was a double standard there. Yeah. Anyway, so look, one part of this is that Candace has accused you of fornowledge of Charlie's assassination. It seemed to me looking into it that her evidence and for those listening I'm doing the quotation evidence is that you had tweeted the day before something about um uh public executions or something but for me that was I could see that as linked to the Ireina um what's her surname >> Zeritka the Ukrainian in North Carolina who was brutally murdered >> and frankly I had similar sentiments. So I'm not sure I would actually push Gandhav uh actually support public executions, but in the heat of the moment I you know I have that those feelings. That was a horrible horrible thing. That's obviously not evidence. And I even think that Fuentes criticized Candace for uh that um taking that stance. Um is it as stupid as I think it is or is there something else to it? >> Oh yeah. No, it's it's it's absolutely that stupid. So the day the day before Charlie was killed, I guess will be Tuesday, December 9th. I think it was that Tuesday there was this old tweet of Donald Trump's from the year 2013 I think that a lot of conservatives were retweeting into my social feed. I think Sean Davis the Federalist a lot of high-profile blue check conservatives were retweeting this tweet. You know Winston there's this old saying that there's a tweet for everything >> with Donald Trump and and and this was the tweet for everything of the moment. He was talking about public execution back then in 2013 for Jokar Zanev who was the Boston Marathon bomber. There was the Zara brothers uh from from Russia if memory serves and people were retweeting this clearly in the context of calling for the public execution of the murderer in Charlotte. For what it's worth, I actually do support public executions for the for the absolute wor I've been I've been arguing this since my first year of law school by the way against liberal classmates. It seems to me that if you're going to have the death penalty to me, that's that's the actual debate. I mean, the death penalty is a very tough topic. I support it. I totally get why people oppose it. That's a very difficult conversation, but it seems to me that if you're going to have it, then you might as well just do it publicly. What is the purpose of having a deterring effect? That all that ought to be one of the goals there. What's what's the purpose of doing this between behind sanitized closed doors? If if the state's going to take a life, the state ought to take a life there. >> And what extra you get from doing it publicly? Well, to me, it ought to be something of a message. I mean, again, I there's an element here of retributive justice, uh, you know, of good oldfashioned kind of eye for an eye there. And in that context, it doesn't really matter how it's done, but if there's going to be an additional deterrent effect in addition to the retributive justice point there, it seems to me that there there would be a stronger deterrent effect by doing this in public rather than trying to do with these with these lethal drug cocktails behind closed doors. To be clear, it's not going to happen. I mean, I'm not sure it's literally ever happened in the past 200 years in America. I maybe in colonial times with the Gallows, but it's been an awfully awfully long time ever since our people broke, you know, from your people basically. So, it's been it's been an awful long time. But anyway, I did I did say that in the certainly, you know, it's a passionate thing. I mean, this murder was absolutely horrific on the Charlotte, North Carolina liel. Absolutely absolutely horrific stuff there. So, Candace takes this and she says, "Oh, Josh Hammer had for knowledge." I I mean, like, h how do you connect one to the other? Like, like like how does that possibly make sense? She's totally ignoring that there were dozens and dozens of other major high-profile accounts who were retweeting this exact same date on the on the exact same day. >> So, why she picking on you? >> Well, it's it ought to be fairly obvious, I submit, which is that I I'm Jewish and I was close with Charlie. Charlie had me in the in the now infamous WhatsApp chat that Candace Owens got a copy of a screenshot to of. There was eight or nine people, >> including you. >> Including me. I This this chat was called Saving Civilization. Charlie Kirk personally started and named this channel and he did because he cared about Western civilization as the name would imply there. To him the four pillars, he described it. The four pillars of Western civilization were Judaism, Christianity, the United States and Israel. And he had this chat of Jews and Christians, a small trust circle of sorts to try to talk through these issues given the fact that we're seeing declining support among Gen Z and so forth. They're trying to talk through messaging. And literally the night before he was killed, the night before from 6:00 7:00 p.m. Eastern, I remember like was yesterday from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Eastern time, he had me and two others on for an hourong Zoom strategy session to try to talk through best strategies and tactics, but how to convey the message not just for Israel, but for the Jewish people to the anti-semmites and anti-Israel skeptics on university campuses there. And then the next day, of course, he was tragically killed. So >> the whole thing was a bit of a whirlwind there. So that story that there was that watch that group that came out >> after he was killed >> came out >> and she took the advantage of that and that's when she started going for you. >> Right. So is that correct? >> That's correct. So it's all kind of complicated. So Charlie's tragically killed on uh Wednesday September 10th memory source. So, it's about 3 weeks after that, give or take, that Candace Owens seems to have acquired a screenshot or two of this of this WhatsApp chat. How she acquired it is a story perhaps, you know, for another day. But, um, in this in this chat or in the screenshot around 3:30 to 400 p.m. on the day before, that Tuesday beforehand, Charlie is uh is complaining to us about how he just lost a major donation, about $2 million a year from one of his largest Jewish pro-Israel donors. guy who's been a very generous donor of Turning Point for a very very long time. And in the he the moment, you know, again, in this he the moment thing, Charlie says, "They're leaving me no choice but to invite Ken as his turning point and to abandon the pro-Israel cause." Now, he was very frustrated and he was upset at losing one of his largest donors. I would be upset, too, if I lost one of my largest donors. He has every right to be upset, as does the donor have every right to pull donation. I mean, if you're if you're a pro-life anti-abortion activist and you're supporting an organization that then suddenly supports abortion, you're going to pull your donation funds. It's a very natural thing to do there. So, the donor did what he thought was right. I have no opinion on that for what it's worth, but he did that for and he did that. So, that all happened 3:30 to 4 p.m. this little exchange. And then 2 hours after that, Winston is when we had our Zoom call. When we had our Zoom call about strategy for the pro-Israel message, the literally the next day started. So he was still despite that he was still pro Israel and he was all in. I mean he was asking tough questions in our in our conversation. His final message to that WhatsApp chat before he was tragically killed was thanking us for the Zoom conversation. Then I asked him I said where he speaking tomorrow cuz I actually didn't know and he said Utah Valley. And that was the last message he ever sent in that chat. So the timeline just doesn't add up this notion that he was he was turning on the Jews. Now here's what he was doing. >> Charlie was coming from a theologically spiritually sound place. See, he he really genuinely did believe that the land of Israel was promised to the Jews. He he he was a genuine Christian Zionist no matter how you define Christian. I mean whether the broad definition or or or the narrow one. Charlie Kirk absolutely was that. He also studied polls very closely and like you he saw that that there is some slipping support especially among younger conseratives and he was very very attuned to that and was very keen to develop new strategies and tactics and and so forth to try to combat that there. But the notion that he was turning on the Jews, I mean, for goodness sake, he he he wrote a beautiful letter to Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. He sent it back in May. I read it back in June or July. His staffers show it to me. It's it's it's a letter of tough love. The letter is coming from a place of friendship, but very critical, correctly, I would say, correctly critical of many of their misin of their information PR blunders. But the very first line of the letters is instructive where Charlie says to Netanyahu, he says, I'm paraphrasing, it's very close paraphrase, as a Christian, one of my greatest joys in life is befriending Jews and defending the state of Israel. That's how he opens his letter. And um again, the notion that Charlie was anything other than a friend of the Jewish people in Israel is just it's just a monstrous lie, I'm sure. >> Right. So, do you have any inclination as to how Candace got screenshots of that WhatsApp group? So Charlie's executive producer, who's now been the main host of the Charlie Kirk show, Andrew Kulvit, I've known Andrew for a very long time. Andrew has publicly admitted that these screenshots are his screenshots. What Andrew says is that in the heat of the moment, in the 24 hours afterwards where they hadn't actually caught Tyler Robinson, the the alleged murder yet, what Andrew said was someone in the government, he wouldn't tell me exactly who, but some whether it's DOJ, White House, FBI, whoever it is, >> reached out and asked for any and all possible evidence that could lead to to any lead whatsoever. And he said that it was in in that context that he shared a bunch of screenshots, including this one. And then according to Andrew telling the story, it's not clear how he thinks that that person who we leaked it to or shared it with leaked to Candace. Now, the complicating factor here is that Candace Owens actually says that she spoke with Andrew in the day or two after the murder. I'm not going to get into that because again, I've known Andrew for a long time. He has not addressed it. I don't really particularly want to speculate as as that. But his version of story is that he shared those screenshots with the government. Someone in the government then leaked it to Candace. >> Right. Yeah, I see. Um there's this famous incident at the Hamptons and this gets brought up a lot certainly by Candice. Some reports that people are yelling at uh Charlie and it's Bill Aman involved. Uh Natasha House is friend of the show. >> Um but everyone has a different idea of it. Certainly those who were not there seem to have a lot of opinions about what happened there. But you were there. >> I was there. Yes. >> What happened? >> Nothing that they're saying happened. Yeah. So, this was an impromptu conference. It was called Save the West. Again, Charlie was big on the West. He loved the idea of the West. You know, our WhatsApp chat was called Saving Civilization. This Hampton's retreat was called Save the West. He was all about that. And it was held in the Hamptons because that's where Bill Aman's summer home is. Bill Aman was the primary, if not sole funer of this conference there. He was there. He co-odderated one or two sessions, but Charlie was the main leader. Small group, 35 to 40 people. What was the purpose of the meeting? >> Well, the cynic might say that the purpose was to was for Charlie and Bill to kind of get closer for possible collaboration, funding. The the purpose thing for Charlie on on on his own terms was to bring together a an ideological pollination, a crossmix of 35 to 40 young, articulate, smart, conservative activists to kind of hash out a lot of the major issues moment and to try to kind of reach conclusions as as how to move forward. Israel was only one of four or five topics covered, by the way. The very first session of this conference was on Mammi who was about to become the mayor of New York City. Charlie was really really big on combating not just radical Islam but just Islam. He repeatedly condemned this Islam in general. He was vehement against the red green alliance of Marxist and Islamist. That was that was that was one session. There was one session on on just economics. That was the one that that Charlie and Bill Aman led together. There was one other one that came remember there and then and then kind of an AMA ask me anything. So the Israel was like literally one of only five topics that were covered. Now during the Israel topic, was there lively dialogue back and forth? Uh yes, of course. I for what it's worth, I actually did not really participate. I was there mostly to kind of just listen and to observe and to try to get a my pulse on the sentiment as to what these folks are thinking there. Some folks on the pro side were very vocal. So Seth Dylan, my good friend, you know, at Babylon, Seth was very vocal because he was probably the single most vocal person there pushing back against a lot of the more anti-Israel folks there, but there was nothing particularly egregious that was said. I mean, there was a lot of questioning of US aerial. Fine, totally fair game. A lot of questioning of of America's priorities in the world stage. Fine. That's totally fair game conversation. That's all fair game. A lot of people were very passionate about it, but there was no one there who was saying anything remotely close to what a Candace or a fundus would say. That that viewpoint was simply not in the room because Charlie, again, by definition of who Charlie was, drawing boundaries, he wouldn't have invited that that filth into the room, frankly. Now, the notion what Candace has said is that there was an altercation or what's the word she's been using? Um there was um uh I can't remember the exact word, but but but there was there was there was something there intervention. She said there was an intervention where you had Yeah. very scary sounding word. He said there was an intervention where Bill Aman, Seth Dylan, and maybe Josh Hammer, maybe. Okay. Where they all ganged up on little Charlie Kirk. By the way, Charlie's a very tall guy. He's like he was like 6'4, 6'5. The notion that anyone could like intimidate and browbeat Charlie Kirk as kind of a physiological and anatomical kind of riddle unto itself. But but but [laughter] hold that aside. And by the way, Bill Atman, this is my first time meeting him. Very nice guy. Not exactly an over-the-top forceful personality. somewhat >> Gentiel, isn't he? >> Gentiel, reserved, borderline socially awkward. The notion that he could stage an intervention with Charlie is preposterous on his face as well. >> So, I mean, I'm not sure how else to say it, but like it literally didn't happen. Like, like it simply did not happen. I was there the entire conference. Charlie did go back to get lunch or dinner with Aen, probably at his house if I had to guest there. I mean, I wasn't there, so I I I couldn't tell you what happened there, but I can certainly tell you that I observed absolutely nothing whatsoever that would come even remotely close to this. It was a lively conversation, but it was really no more than that. This it's just more grist for the conspiracy mill. It's the timeline has made it a little more complicated. I I suppose the final day of the conference, which would have been a Wednesday in early August, I was flying back to Florida and I heard that Charlie went on Megan Kelly show that day and he did and they had a long conversation where they were both kind of mutually expressing frustration that even if you're broadly supportive of Israel, if you take any critical step, then you get immediately lambasted there. To be clear, I don't put I do not put Charlie and Megan in the same category, but that's a different story. So, I think that's where Kansas is coming from. if we're being charitable, which I really don't want to be. But, uh, she's saying, okay, this conference happened, the final day of the conference, Charlie goes on Megan's show, expresses his frustration, and Charlie was frustrated about that there. I mean, he absolutely was frustrated that he didn't feel like he had enough room to criticize Israel and and and perhaps he's right about that. I mean, that very well might be a real problem there. I mean, it's entirely possible that he's right. I mean, you are allowed to criticize policies of Israel. You're allowed to criticize policies of America, Italy, Japan, Paraguay, whatever. It doesn't matter. I mean, these are countries. You you can criticize what they do, >> but Charlie's criticisms were coming from a place of tough love, from a place of of wishing for the Jewish people in Israel to prevail over their existential foes there. And I think that was part of his frustration there. But anyway, to get back to your question, Winston, there is it just didn't happen. I mean, like this notion of intervention, it's it's ludicrous and it's just kind of tin tinfoil hated fair, you know, for Candace and her followers, I guess. So, it's classic thing of conspiracy theorism. We just did a long interview about David Irving with Sir Richard Evans who was the lawyer in court um with him back in the 2000 liel case. And what these conspiracy theorists do is they take any circumstantial evidence and then throw it in their direction. And one thing he wrote that was I thought very interesting in his book is that if a waiter was thought to be stealing and he said I'm not stealing I'm just bad at maths then it would the tip would always let's say when he's taking the tip it would split equally both ways if you aggregate it over time but if it always split in his favor you would think that maybe he was in fact a thief. And that's what it seems to be with conspiracy theorists is everything leans in there for anything that's remotely circumstantial and to to boot they make up a lot of stuff. They just use it to edge their audience and to paint this giant picture. That's what that's kind of how I take it all. >> Yeah. I mean it's a similar story here with the Charlie Megan thing and then uh the >> what happened with Charlie Megan? >> Oh what you just said. >> Yeah. So that's kind of similar to the Ireina Zerutska thing, right? I mean I mean there's something that happened. I did tweet calling for a public execution of Zerutska's murderer. Charlie Kirk did go on Megan Kelly's show where they had kind of a a segment about how you can't criticize Israel and um they take that and then they kind of take it to like somewhere where clearly clearly there's a lot of nasty discourse there and this this is really one of their more pernicious things is whether it's Dave Smith whe whether it's Alex Jones Fuentes Tucker they all go to the same place mentally when it comes to this particular issue the the issue of Israel and they assume that if you are supportive of close US relation If you were supportive of Israel's wars against Hamas in general, then you must be on the payroll. You know, the Jews got you somewhere. They refused to acknowledge the possibility that maybe, just maybe, someone of good faith could actually support this as as an intrinsic matter because it's good for Western civilization. It's good against Islamism, etc., etc., etc. So, it's a classic technique. They call you Zionist shill. I get this all the time where they accuse you of getting 7,000 shekels. >> Yeah. Right. Uh, one thing I noticed is when Dave Smith was debating Coleman Hughes, it was a three and a half hour debate. Phenomenal performance by Coleman who never resorted to ad homonym unlike Dave Smith. And in his desperation, Dave Smith went against a couple of his uh principles like resorting to uh appealing to authority. Uh but he also it was if you want to talk about sort of the um fraudian slip he said it's almost like you're working for like a foreign I can't remember the exact word but I'll paraphrase it's like it's almost like you've got you've got a foreign agenda here or something like that. Who are you working for? Something like that. >> I don't know man. I mean like it's it's it does seem like you're bending over backward to cover for a foreign country. It's just a little bit strange. >> It's a classic case. So you can't possibly have a different opinion to me. must be in the pay right >> of my opponents. >> And by the way, I've actually been pushing back on my own side of this debate on this exact thing. So, I'll explain what I'll explain why that is. So, >> a lot of folks see these rising polls of younger Americans who are less pro-Israel or maybe they're more indifferent to the Palestinians or maybe even Hamas, god forbid. And a lot of folks say, "Oh my god, it's just it's just Qatar. It's just Qatari money there." And I, you know, there's some truth to I mean Qatar is the the number one funer of American higher education since 911. So there's some truth that and the you know the Muslim Brotherhood of which Qatar is a major patron. They have been waging a century long ideological campaign against the West. But to say that that that is the reason why this all happening. That's cope. I mean that's cope. I I I and it's something >> it's the same thing in reverse. >> Yeah. Right. It's it's frankly the same thing in reverse. I mean there are various reasons why some younger Americans might kind of come of age in today's context post Afghanistan and post Iraq and be very wary and skeptical of a certain type of foreign policy. Now that's not the same thing as being anti-Israel at all. I've been making this case vehemently. I I have a very realist centrist MAGA America first case for this particular bilateral relationship. But it's not it's not it's not necessarily a terribly big stretch to get from one that is to say a a a skepticism of foreign adventurism to an anti-Israel stance there. And it's really incumbent upon those of us who think that these two things are very different to explain why one does not lead to the other there. And it doesn't mean that everyone who then falls for that trap and says that A does lead to B, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily a terrible person either in and of itself. It als it also does not mean that you necessarily have kind of fallen prey to Qatari information. Maybe you have, but maybe you haven't. There. There's all sorts of other reasons why these folks are doing this, right? I mean, >> you know, let's take a look at like Matt Gates. I mean, Matt Gates, a former congressman from Florida. >> He's he's he's a show on One America News Network. I mean, he had me on in March when my book came out. He called my he had a very lengthy segment, 15 60 minutes, which a long TV segment. He he called my book a battle map to save Western Civilization. It it was quite faing actually. And then 3 months later in June, he was tweeting about Jewish supremacy in Israel. So, I mean, did he actually have a 180 degree change of heart in 3 months? No. I mean, did the Muslim Brotherhood or Qatar get him? No. He's playing It's very deeply cynical stuff. I mean, a friend told me recently that if you put Israel, >> if he if he puts Israel in his podcast episode on YouTube, he he told me he gets five times as many views. I mean, >> I mean, who knows if that's true, but like that's his anecdotal. >> And who knows where that's coming from because, >> right, Pakistani bots, who the heck knows, right? >> Exactly. Middle East and yeah could be coming from not necessarily Americans. Before I invite you over to the Substack to take Substackers's questions and I have some questions about America's relationship with Israel. In fact, I'm going to put to you some of the uh sort of accusations that the likes of Carlson and Fuentes make of American Israelis or American Jews would maybe more accurate. Um last question on this topic. How do you see things going forward? It seems still the way you describe it, this is really the commentary level. Is this playing out at the political level? So great question, barely. It's barely affected the political class at this time. It might. It it absolutely might, but you really have Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massie, right? Those are the two Republican congressmen who are kind of fully in the Tucker Carlson wing, let's call it, of this particular divide. And they, for what it's worth, they're both being vehemently opposed by Donald Trump. So Donald >> and Roger Tel's now resigning. >> He's resigning in like in January and Trump is is encouraging and going to campaign for Thomas Massiey's primary challenger in Kentucky. >> But they've had beef for ages. >> They've had beef for ages and Massiey's something of a kermagin, a contankerous figure, you might say. But >> he has been on the show and he was very polite to me. But you're referring to his uh opinions, I guess. >> No, I've actually sent him at dinner. He's he's a very nice man of person actually. But but um his political persona is quite canankerous I guess we would say. Um but yes I he and Marty Taylor Green are kind of the only two elected officials I think who kind of fall into this broader category. I I I really I would struggle to think of anyone else honestly which is pretty indicative of itself. Having said that there was another congressman, one of their House Republican colleagues. I won't name his name but I've known for many years. He he he called or texted me I can't remember which was very concerned about a year ago. He was at some local town hall event and someone came up to him afterwards and said, you know, congressman, how can you support, you know, the genocide in Gaza? This was like a Republican activist thing. So he he he said like, Josh, like look out for this. I mean, this this stuff like really is like gain traction. So at some point, I mean, if it actually does, god forbid, you know, gain enough traction among the grassroots there, you will start to see it kind of play over into the elected official set. I mean, JD Vance is kind of smack in the middle of this, right? I I I mean JD Vance I've known JD by the way for like six years now. JD is a young clearly deeply ambitious politician who I don't think has an anti-Semitic bone in his body but he is very chummy very close with Tucker Carlson and has uh you know thus far refused to kind of take an evalid stand against Fuentes and go prisoners for now. He did have a very hostile comment against Fuentes during the campaign in August 2024 but since this whole controversy burst down the open there. So, I think JD will be a very interesting case. We'll see exactly how he plays his hand over the next few months, over the next few years, frankly, for that matter, leading up to 2028. That that'll I think be a really interesting indicator as to as to where exactly the ship is going heading forward. >> Yeah, Josh, great to speak with you. I bring attention to your book, Israel and Civilization, that came out um this year. Is there anything else you would like listeners and viewers to know about? Perhaps they can follow you on social media. >> Yes, my ex is Josh Hammer. Instagram is Josh Bhammer. My show, the Josh Hammer Show, is on YouTube and everywhere you get your podcasts. And then the book also, as you just said, is Israel and civilization, the fate of the Jewish nation, the destiny of the West. >> Josh Hammer, a great pleasure. >> It's my pleasure. Winston, >> do you believe it's possible [music] to be anti-ionist without being anti-semitic? The short answer is [music] we can have intellectual academic conversation, but if you are anti-Zionist in so far as you are calling for the eradication [music] of the state of Israel and if that is the one country that seems to have a disproportionately high share of your attention, then I'm going to call you that I will call you an anti-semite. Having [music] said that, please ask Josh what his opinion is on Turning Point USA continuing their relationship with Tucker Carlson by having [music] him speak at their events. I very much do not agree with Chuck Carlson continuing to speak [music] at Turning Point USA events. I don't I don't agree with him continuing to speak. >> You don't think he should speak? >> I do not think. No, I at this point, no. I mean [music] I mean >> because you don't think his values align with the USA? >> I I don't think I have it on on good authority that there is there are an there's [music] an increasingly loud contingent of people within 21 USA who are uncomfortable with Tucker [music] continuing to speak at the conferences. Thank you for watching the Winston Marshall Show with Josh Hammer. Head over to winstonarsharshall.co.uk now for an extended conversation between me and Josh where he takes some of your questions, some of our substackers questions, as well as some questions I have about the relationship between American Israelis and Israel. That's all at winstonarshall.co.uk. Thanks for watching. Remember to press subscribe and until next time, be well.