Josh Hammer's Suspicious Public Execution Tweet 16 Hours Before Charlie Kirk's Assassination Sparks Investigation
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Brandi and Billie Expose Timeline Inconsistencies and Israeli Connection Theories in Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation
59:30
Dave Smith and Nick Fuentes Reveal the Truth About Charlie Kirk's Final Stance on Israel
30:01
Dave Smith and Max Blumenthal Dissect FBI Investigation Into Charlie Kirk Assassination and Tyler Robinson Case
26:32
Josh Hammer's Suspicious Public Execution Tweet 16 Hours Before Charlie Kirk's Assassination Sparks Investigation
Candace Owens exposes troubling details about Charlie Kirk's final 48 hours, including text messages showing he was leaving the pro-Israel cause and a bizarre tweet from his friend Josh Hammer calling for public executions just 16 hours before Kirk's death. After weeks of Hammer insisting Kirk died devoted to Israel, leaked messages reveal Hammer was part of a group chat where Kirk explicitly stated he had "no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause" following a contentious meeting in the Hamptons with Zionist associates. The revelation contradicts months of claims by Hammer and other close associates who accused Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson of lying about Kirk's shifting views on Israel. Now questions mount about Hammer's timeline, his suspicious tweets, and why he stayed silent while smearing those telling the truth about Kirk's final stance.
On September 9th, just 16 hours before Charlie Kirk's assassination, Josh Hammer retweeted a 2013 Donald Trump post calling for public executions, adding only the word "based." The timing of this tweet has sparked intense scrutiny, particularly given what has since been revealed about Kirk's final hours and Hammer's knowledge of his friend's changing views on Israel.
Twitter users discovered this cryptic retweet after Candace Owens released evidence that Hammer had been part of a group chat where Kirk explicitly stated he was being forced to leave the pro-Israel cause. For weeks following Kirk's death, Hammer had aggressively denied any such shift in Kirk's position, accusing Owens, Tucker Carlson, and others of "lying through their teeth" and attempting to "hijack Charlie Kirk's legacy."
Hammer's Defense and Timeline Analysis
Zionist public relations operative Yashar Ali attempted to explain Hammer's tweet by claiming it referenced the horrific murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina. However, Candace Owens' investigation reveals significant timeline problems with this explanation. Zarutska was murdered on August 22nd, her perpetrator was arrested the same day, and the footage trended on X on September 5th—four days before Hammer's tweet.
A detailed examination of Hammer's September 9th tweets shows no other reference to capital punishment or the death penalty. That day, Hammer tweeted nine times about various topics including Israel bombing Qatar, criticism of Tucker Carlson (twice), Saudi Arabia, and promoting his own media appearances. The public execution tweet appeared at 9:09 PM Eastern time after a three-hour break during which Hammer reportedly had a Zoom call with Kirk.
The Hamptons Meeting and Kirk's Turn
According to Candace Owens' reporting, Charlie Kirk attended a meeting in the Hamptons where Seth Dillon and Josh Hammer confronted him about his shifting views on Israel. Seth Dillon was described as the more vocal of the two in pressing Kirk during this confrontation. Both were upset about what they perceived as Kirk's defiance against the state of Israel.
Following this meeting, Kirk sent a message to a group chat that included Hammer and at least seven other individuals, stating he had "no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause." This message was sent approximately 44-48 hours before his assassination. Yet Hammer and others in that chat remained silent as Owens was publicly attacked for suggesting Kirk's views had changed.
The Final Conversation and Book Promotion
Josh Hammer has repeatedly emphasized that he spoke with Charlie Kirk less than 24 hours before his death. In his very first tweet after news of Kirk's assassination broke, Hammer mentioned that Kirk had joked about plugging Hammer's book "Israel and Civilization" on his upcoming college tour. In a subsequent interview on JTV, the global Jewish channel, Hammer claimed Kirk's literal last words to him were about promoting this book.
According to Hammer's account, he, Rabbi Wolicki, and some of Kirk's producers had a Zoom call with Kirk to help him prepare talking points for anticipated hostile questions about Israel during his campus tour. Hammer stated that Kirk planned to simply plug Hammer's book when Israel questions came up because the book reflected how Kirk felt.
Critics have found this narrative suspicious given the timeline. If Kirk had told his close associates 44-48 hours earlier that he was leaving the pro-Israel cause, why would he then seek pro-Israel debate tips from Hammer and Rabbi Wolicki? The contradiction has raised questions about the veracity of Hammer's account or what actually transpired during that final conversation.
Pattern of Deception and Silence
For weeks after Kirk's death, Josh Hammer launched what Candace Owens describes as an obsessive campaign to discredit anyone suggesting Kirk had changed his position on Israel. He repeatedly tweeted variations of the same message: "There is a repulsive op right now to hijack Charlie Kirk's legacy" and "Tucker, Candace, and other bad faith actors are lying through their teeth about Charlie and Israel."
Hammer called Owens and others "grifters" trying to "posthumously rewrite and hijack the legacy of the great Charlie Kirk to further their patently evil ends." He remained silent about the group chat message where Kirk explicitly stated his position was changing, even as he had intimate knowledge of this shift through both the Hamptons meeting and the text conversation.
At least three other individuals have been identified as part of that group chat: Rabbi Wolicki, Rob McCoy, and Andrew Kolvet. Four others remain unnamed. All received Kirk's message about leaving the pro-Israel cause, yet their silence allowed a false narrative to persist for months.
Tucker Carlson's Memorial Speech Proves Prophetic
At Charlie Kirk's memorial service, Tucker Carlson delivered a speech that now appears remarkably prescient. He compared Kirk's situation to Jesus Christ, describing people in power who "become obsessed with making him stop" when someone starts "telling the truth about people." Carlson painted a picture of men "sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us" before one suggests "why don't we just kill him? That'll shut him up."
Carlson emphasized that "it doesn't work that way" and that "everything is inverted." The speech took on new meaning once the text messages were revealed, showing that Kirk's Zionist associates had indeed been upset with him for his "defiance against the state of Israel" and had confronted him about it shortly before his death.
Questions About the Debate Preparation Call
The claim that Charlie Kirk needed debate preparation help from Josh Hammer and Rabbi Wolicki has struck many as implausible. Kirk was widely recognized as one of the most skilled debaters in conservative politics, even being caricatured in a South Park episode for his debate prowess. He had spent years successfully debating hostile college students on topics including Israel.
The notion that Kirk would suddenly need talking points from Hammer—particularly after telling his associates he was leaving the pro-Israel cause—has raised suspicions about what actually occurred during that final Zoom call. Some have speculated it may have been another confrontation rather than a friendly strategy session, though no evidence has emerged to confirm this theory.
The $2 Million Donation and Candace Owens Invitation
According to reporting, the pushback Kirk received regarding his Israel position included the pulling of a $2 million donation to Turning Point USA. Rather than attempting to ease tensions or balance perspectives through debate, Kirk reportedly responded by planning to invite Candace Owens to participate in his organization—a move that would have further antagonized those upset with his shifting stance.
This detail adds context to why Zionist associates would have been particularly alarmed about Kirk's trajectory. Instead of capitulating to pressure or seeking compromise, Kirk appeared to be moving further in the direction that concerned them, potentially bringing in Owens who had already been vocal in questioning aspects of the Israel narrative.
Turning Point USA Confirms the Messages
After initial denials and claims that the leaked screenshots were "Qatari photoshops" or fabrications, Turning Point USA ultimately confirmed the authenticity of Kirk's messages about leaving the pro-Israel cause. This confirmation came after Candace Owens dared those with knowledge to continue lying, suggesting she had ironclad evidence and corroboration.
The confirmation left those who had spent weeks attacking Owens, Carlson, and others with significant credibility damage. Josh Hammer had been particularly aggressive in his denials, repeatedly calling them liars and grifters. The revelation that he had personal knowledge contradicting his public statements has severely damaged his reputation among those following the story.
The Bigger Picture and Legacy Questions
The controversy surrounding Charlie Kirk's final hours has evolved into a broader conversation about truth, loyalty, and the weaponization of someone's legacy after death. Tucker Carlson's memorial speech about truth rising again, even when people attempt to kill it, has resonated with those who see the gradual revelation of Kirk's actual final positions as vindication.
Questions remain about the other four unidentified members of the group chat, what they knew, when they knew it, and why they remained silent. The role of various Zionist organizations and associates in Kirk's life during his final weeks continues to be examined by independent investigators and commentators.
Regardless of one's position on Israel, the case has highlighted how narratives can be controlled and manipulated after someone's death, and how those closest to a public figure may have incentives to shape legacy in ways that serve their own political or ideological interests rather than reflecting the truth of someone's final beliefs and statements.
