Dave Smith Exposes Discrepancies in Josh Hammer‘s Account of Charlie Kirk‘s Position on Israel
Conservative commentator Dave Smith has publicly challenged statements made by Josh Hammer regarding Charlie Kirk’s views on Israel, alleging Hammer misrepresented Kirk’s private communications. The controversy stems from a period following the October 7th attacks and the subsequent loss of a mutual acquaintance, during which Kirk’s potential shift in support for Israel became a point of contention.
According to Smith, Candace Owens initially reported that Kirk was reconsidering his support for Israel after Prime Minister Netanyahu quoted a letter from Kirk expressing steadfast support. In response, Hammer and others publicly refuted Owens’ claim, asserting Kirk’s unwavering loyalty to Israel and citing the aforementioned letter as proof.
Though, Smith presented evidence contradicting Hammer’s assertions. “We now know, and it’s been confirmed, that Josh Hammer was lying through his teeth when he said that,” Smith stated. He revealed that hammer was a participant in a group chat where Kirk explicitly stated he might “have no choice but to abandon support for Israel.”
Smith emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating, “I’m not trying to exaggerate what we have here, but I’m also not trying to downplay it.” He highlighted the fact that Hammer’s public denials occurred “during an active murder investigation,” raising questions about his motivations.
While acknowledging that Hammer’s statements did not constitute perjury as he was not under oath,Smith pointed out the ethical implications of publicly lying about facts he possessed,particularly given the context of a personal loss and an ongoing investigation. “You got some questions to answer, man. You really gotta answer some questions. You were active, you were lying through your teeth publicly during an active murder investigation,” Smith asserted.
Smith’s analysis has garnered attention online, with figures like clint Russell, Max Blumenthal, and Candace Owens expressing support for his arguments. The incident has sparked a debate about openness and the potential for narrative control within conservative political circles, particularly concerning the sensitive topic of U.S. support for Israel.
