Open Questions on Charlie Kirk's Murder

Could the FBI do a worse job?

Unless you live under a rock, you’ve heard by now that Charlie Kirk was assassinated last week at Utah Valley University in Orem. Charlie was, by all accounts, one of the most influential figures on the American right. He was the founder of Turning Point USA, which can reasonably claim a substantial portion of the credit for Trump’s election in 2024, particularly for its success among young people. He was famous for his “Prove Me Wrong” events, where he set up a tent in a public space and encouraged people to attempt to disprove his position on any subject by engaging him in debate. He was a fountain of immeasurable charisma, and nearly everyone who knew him personally has since had nothing but praise not only for his work, but for his demeanor and character.

The assassination was particularly gruesome because it was caught on film by an attendee who was very close to the stage, filming Charlie head-on. Out of nowhere, he appears to be jolted by something and a percussive shockwave ripples his clothes. Almost instantly, his carotid artery (we can assume) shoots a fountain of red blood all over his white shirt and he slumps back and to his left, then falls out of his chair. The rest is history. When I saw that video, reports were that he was still in critical condition in the hospital, but I never had any doubt he was gone. You just don’t survive that. This was the first time since Martin Luther King that such a charismatic political leader was shot and killed. In 1968, the photos were mostly gray and grainy and you had to find a television or newspaper to even see what little was publicly available; much of it was never released. Charlie’s assassination was the first time in history that it happened in high definition, uncensored, and with a screen in every adult’s pocket.

Since then, I’ve detected a stark impact on almost everyone I’ve spoken to. It’s been brought up to me, unprompted, over a dozen times. Generally this is done with a somber tone while discussing something entirely unrelated to Charlie or even politics. People who I know personally and who were, as recently as September 9^th, generally unmoved by political discourse, are suddenly awakened to something that they cannot quite articulate. There’s a deep and palpable sense that something is profoundly wrong with the American political environment. Charlie Kirk’s politics would have been center-right and entirely unremarkable in the first decades of the 2000s. If anything, he’d have been an outlier on the right during that era for his non-interventionist tendencies – a Ron Paul type. Now, the overton window has shifted so far that a huge portion of the American political left considers his positions as only a hair’s breadth away from Mussolini or Franco. Then, after his death came a deluge of people across the ideological aisle mercilessly dancing on his grave. For days, the onslaught of cackling, unhinged liberal women jeering the grotesque murder of a young father and husband for the crime of wrongthink was unavoidable to anyone with an X account. Many of them even wished a similarly macabre fate on his parents, wife and children.

The name of the organization he founded may have been both branding and prophecy. The irony of his assassination is that it, and the multitudes who cheered after, may have ultimately sparked a turning point for the United States. Most Americans are only mildly political, but what political opinions they do have probably overlap fairly substantially with Charlie’s. Many of them are proud of their faith like he was. They see themselves, their sons, their brothers or their friends in him. They believe in many of the same things he used his platform to espouse, and they grew up believing that free speech is the cornerstone of the American project. Now, they feel themselves confronted with a nebulous enemy whose tendency to violence betrays the knowledge that its ideas cannot stand on their merits. Since there’s no logical way to argue that a dude can actually be a woman, maybe he’ll just shoot you for not bending the knee to his idolatrous pastel flag. He may even wish the same fate on your family. Wading through this fog of chaos, the aforementioned mildly political Americans will now be eager to vote for an even heavier hand who will pledge to restore order. If that does not succeed, eventually they’ll take matters into their own hands. Never forget that Hitler rose to power during the crushing economic collapse of the Weimar Republic.

Freedom requires order to function. Proper order requires justice to maintain. Justice, in this case, would mean catching those responsible and prosecuting them for their crimes. A young man by the name of Tyler Robinson is in custody, but to date (09/15/2025) authorities report he is not cooperating and a motive is unclear. What is clear is that, from the jump, the FBI has done a poor job handling this case and an even poorer job answering the most obvious questions. The suspect managed to escape the crime scene, and it was over 24 hours before he was captured. Even then, his whereabouts and identity weren’t discovered by FBI investigators until a family member turned him in. Kash Patel gave a self-fellating speech praising the bureau’s work, but in reality there are a multitude of curious, unanswered questions that will almost certainly leave all interested people doubting the official story regardless of who is charged. A true sense of justice will likely escape the American public unless these are answered.

To start, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, a man named George Zinn was detained by police for yelling “I shot him, now shoot me!” As it turns out, George Zinn was featured in a 9/11 remembrance video sponsored by the Major Brent Taylor Foundation in Weber County, Utah, discussing how he was at ground zero on 09/11/2001 and saw the twin towers struck. He was also arrested in 2013 for threatening to bomb the finish line of the Salt Lake City Marathon a week after the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the one in Boston. What motive might George Zinn have had for attempting to distract authorities at the scene? How does Zinn keep popping up at the sites of such historically significant tragedies? And given his prior arrest for terrorism, might he have had a role to play in a coordinated effort to assassinate Charlie?

Immediately after the shooting, video surfaced of a man cheering and smiling enthusiastically. This would be unusual enough, but to compound suspicion, he appears to turn around and face the precise direction the alleged shooter was perched during his celebration. He also does all of this only seconds after the shooting, when the entire crowd is ducked down. If he was operating off the same information as any other event-goer, he could not have known whether or not this shooter was intending to target others. Yet he was comfortable and confident enough to stand straight up, above all the crouched members of the audience, and draw maximum attention to himself. What, if anything, did this man know? Why did he appear so enthusiastic about such a grim scene? To me, this reeks of the high-fivers from 09/11.

Only a few minutes after Charlie had been driven away in a suburban by his security team, a man is observed entering the tent where he was shot, walking all over the crime scene, and removing a camera that appeared to have a direct shot of Charlie and the crowd. Who was this man? Why was he removing the camera? Was the camera capturing footage before or when Charlie was shot? If so, what does the footage show? Who has the footage? Why has it not been released to the public?

The following day, CCTV stills and grainy security videos begin to surface from the FBI’s investigation. Reuters announced that investigators had found the murder weapon - a Mauser .30-06 bolt action rifle. Interestingly enough, though, that is a big ass gun. As a thought experiment, imagine the challenge, but make it easier: you must effectively conceal a large-frame revolver (a .460 or .500 S&W magnum for example, not a scoped .30-06) while walking through a whole neighborhood, up five flights of stairs and across the roof of a giant building. Then, fire your weapon, conceal it again, run back across the roof, jump off it, and run away from the spot where you fired. At no point may you drop your weapon, print it clearly, or otherwise reveal it to any person or any security camera in the hyper-crowded setting you’re navigating. You will also only be wearing a t-shirt - no jacket or hoodie. I’d be willing to bet that most people would fail miserably at this task. Yet, this is precisely what the FBI claims Tyler Robinson did. In the still photos released from the university’s parking garage, his cell phone is clearly printing in his right front pocket; no angle, however, reveals anything approximating the silhouette of a .30-06 hunting rifle. In the grainy security video (available at the prior link), he appears to be carrying something in his hand, but it isn’t clear what the object is. Also curious is the fact that the released security footage begins after the shooter has left his perch. Moments earlier, an event attendee had captured video of someone laying on the roof of a building facing Charlie’s tent. The man narrating the video mentions seeing the person run to his location, but makes no mention of seeing a gun. Assuming the FBI has the story correct, how did the shooter manage to get the rifle onto the roof without being detected or caught on camera? If he concealed it under his clothing, how was he able to run and eventually jump fifteen feet to the ground? Where is the footage from the same security camera that would have captured him setting up at his perch and firing his weapon?

In the days leading up to the assassination, several small-scale social media accounts were posting cryptic messages about Charlie Kirk coming to UVU to speak, the most famous of them being someone using the handle “@NajraGalvz.” After the shooting, the account handle was changed, the posts were protected and the photos were removed.

This account does not appear to belong to Tyler Robinson. Who’s account is it? What did he or she know, and how? Why was the account scrubbed, and who scrubbed it? Has the FBI made contact with the account holder? If they have, what do they know? How many others also had prior knowledge of the event?

After authorities had taken the suspect into custody, it was identified that he lived with another man named Lance Twiggs, who was allegedly “transitioning” to living as a woman. The New York Post sent a pair of correspondents to their apartment complex to investigate, where a neighbor informed them that, in recent weeks, several people with out-of-state plates who “did not give off a good vibe” had been in and out of the home. Has the FBI asked for descriptions of these visitors? What states were they from? What was meant by the neighbor’s “vibe” comment? Did anyone at the complex have security cameras that would have captured vehicles or people who came for these visits?

Perhaps most bizarrely in all of this, a close friend of Kirk’s allegedly told Harrison H. Smith of InfoWars that Charlie was worried that Israel would kill him if he publicly disavowed his support, which Harrison reported nearly a month before the shooting:

This was later confirmed further by Max Blumenthal of the Grayzone, who was told by a different source close to Kirk that Charlie had recently come to loathe Benjamin Netanyahu and his elite network of influential Zionist allies in the United States, many of whom were financiers of TPUSA. As his attitude towards Israeli influence in American politics began to shift, Charlie had reportedly become fearful of the consequences of opposing their influence over American policy. Charlie himself alluded to this, telling Megyn Kelly in August that he was less free to criticize the Israeli government “than actual Israelis.” Only a week before this interview was recorded, it was confirmed by Max Blumenthal that uber-Zionist and billionaire Bill Ackman had attempted to stage a hostile “intervention” with Kirk by using other conservative, pro-Israel influencers in the Hamptons. Ackman himself confirmed as much in a vaguely-worded response to a similar accusation by Candace Owens on X. If Charlie, perhaps the highest-profile political influencer on the right, personally expressed fear over the consequences of his shifting views on Israel, a foreign government with a history of high-profile political assassinations and who has proclaimed publicly that the world is a global screenplay in which they direct, act, and produce, it stands to reason that an FBI interested in justice would do more than nothing to see if this could be a lead worthy of investigation. It may amount to nothing at all.

I have no opinion yet on exactly who killed Charlie Kirk, who else could have been involved, what the motives were, how the murder was orchestrated or what the FBI knows or doesn’t know. What I absolutely believe, however, is that the federal government is not delivering the transparency that this case deserves. We are not getting the full story, and the FBI has not proved their competence in chasing down the important leads. There are significant holes in the official narrative, and the bureau has a long history of abject failure. I’m no journalist and will not be the one to track down answers to these questions, but the perception of justice by the American public depends fully on them being answered. Charlie’s murder has the potential to further ensconce American political divisions, and deepen the sense of chaos and disorder felt by the population at scale. In this climate, tyranny finds fertile ground. Freedom demands order, and order demands justice, and one way or the other the American populace will demand answers to the obvious questions surrounding Kirk’s death.

- Warren Post