Is This the Rights' Fight? Wrong Turn on Right 5: Charlie Kirk Case, Prosecutor Disqualification, and Israel Debate

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Irina Tsukerman, a New York–Connecticut human rights and national security attorney, President of Scarab Rising and Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider. They examine the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Tsukerman explains why a defence bid to disqualify Utah County prosecutors over a deputy attorney’s child at the rally turns on appearance, not proof, and why an early death-penalty notice is common leverage. They also debate Israel “friend” branding, extremist platforms, narrative drift, and media incentives in right-wing activism today.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There has been a development in the case involving the killing of Charlie Kirk. The defendant is Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man. Kirk was shot on September 10 at a Turning Point USA event on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, and prosecutors have said they plan to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.

The new issue is a defence motion seeking to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office on the grounds of an alleged conflict of interest. The defence points to the fact that an adult child (reported as 18) of a deputy county attorney attended the event where Kirk was shot and exchanged texts with their parent—who works in the Utah County Attorney’s Office—about what was happening. The child’s name is redacted in court filings.

The defence argues this connection could create an appearance of bias. It raises questions about past and future prosecutorial decision-making and asks the court to remove the office from the case. Before we get into your broader analysis, a quick clarification: if prosecutors are disqualified, the case does not end; it would continue with a different prosecuting authority or team.

Irina Tsukerman: On the first issue—the alleged conflict of interest—I understand why the defence raised it, but the details matter. The connection is not that the prosecutor was personally involved; it is that a prosecutor’s child attended the event and communicated with the parent afterward. According to the report, the child was present but was not described as a key witness with unique or dispositive evidence central to the case.

That said, when there is a plausible appearance-of-impropriety argument, it can be prudent—at least as a policy matter—to consider recusal or reassignment to avoid prolonged litigation and predictable appeals built around perceived bias. That does not mean the prosecutor is incapable of acting reasonably; it is about insulating the case from credibility attacks.

On the second issue, seeking the death penalty early in a first-degree or aggravated murder case is not unusual in high-profile matters. It is often part of prosecutorial posture and leverage from the outset, rather than evidence of improper emotional decision-making.

Political pressure and public rhetoric often surround cases like this, but that reality alone does not establish impropriety. It is simply part of the environment in which courts operate, and counsel must manage it carefully to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

That has never been an argument against charging someone with the death penalty. Whether this particular case ultimately qualifies will depend on whether the facts meet the legal definition, which is for the prospective jury to decide if the case goes to trial. Those are determinations for the fact-finders.

If there are any abuses of process, it is for the judge to address them through appropriate motions and challenges. Prosecutors are otherwise fully entitled to pursue charges they believe are legally warranted. In fact, it would be surprising if they did not seek the death penalty in a case like this.

Jacobsen: The preliminary hearing is set to begin on May 18, 2026. The shooting occurred on September 10, 2025. First question: Is this amount of time typical in a public murder case involving a prominent figure? As a side note, Israel is reportedly considering honouring Charlie Kirk at a conference focused on combating antisemitism. What are your thoughts on that?

Tsukerman: On the first issue, it depends on the specifics of the case. In general, there is a preference for a speedy trial, which exists primarily to protect the defendant’s rights. If a defendant is held without bail, prolonged pretrial detention can impose high psychological, financial, social, and reputational costs. If a defendant is ultimately found not guilty, they would understandably prefer not to have spent an extended period in confinement and legal limbo.

That said, in dire cases—particularly where evidence points toward guilt—defence counsel will often pursue every available avenue to dismiss charges, reduce charges, or delay proceedings to present their case as effectively as possible. The same dynamic applies on the prosecution’s side. Prosecutors may also seek delays to strengthen their case with additional evidence and to avoid rushing under political or public pressure.

Both sides need adequate time to prepare, including time to respond to motions to dismiss, evidentiary challenges, and other procedural filings. As a result, high-profile cases almost inevitably become longer rather than shorter. There is pressure on both sides to gather as much supporting evidence as possible, identify eyewitnesses and character witnesses, and refine their legal narratives.

If the case proceeds to trial, it ultimately becomes a structured presentation aimed at persuading a jury. Each side must be as prepared and effective as possible, which means assembling the strongest evidentiary and argumentative record available.

Regarding the potential award or honour, there has been substantial pressure to portray Charlie Kirk as a strong ally of Israel and the Jewish community. Earlier in his career, Kirk articulated pro-Israel positions and challenged certain anti-Israel or antisemitic narratives using fact-based arguments.

The early years of his activism contributed to a more respectful and constructive dialogue about Israel. In many ways, that work helped expose and debunk fallacious and conspiratorial narratives.

That said, in later years—without implying that he anticipated his death—he became increasingly influenced by the narratives of more isolationist, America-first figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. These figures played a significant role in supporting Turning Point USA, including through financial backing, political support, and the expansion and advancement of the organization.

These mentors and allies did not merely influence him for pragmatic career reasons, although the need for support and expansion clearly mattered. I also believe they influenced him psychologically. He appeared to adopt arguments that were far more critical of Israel and increasingly conspiratorial about Jews, particularly regarding claims about Jewish donors shaping political narratives and policy responses.

We saw evidence of this shift in some of the released text messages he sent to Marjorie Taylor Greene and others with whom he interacted. It was also evident in how he ran his organization, the kinds of people he engaged, and the issues he chose to emphasize. There was significant pressure on him to follow emerging trends within the MAGA movement that were explicitly anti-Israel.

At no point did he reach the level of rhetoric associated with Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens, but he was clearly trending in that direction. Whether this was primarily driven by practical considerations—such as audience capture and the need to cater to increasingly prominent segments of his base—or whether he genuinely came to believe these ideas because he was surrounded by people who reinforced them, effectively creating an echo chamber, is challenging to determine.

I reviewed his social media commentary and public statements from years before anti-Israel sentiment became more pronounced within parts of the Republican Party. Even then, it was apparent to me that he was not well-informed on many issues, did not pursue deep self-education, and tended to adopt sensationalist, conspiratorial claims fed to him from multiple directions because they were attention-grabbing. Limitations in critical-thinking skills made him particularly susceptible to these influences.

Given that pattern, it is not surprising that, with respect to Israel, these influences eventually began shaping his thinking more directly, leading him toward more conspiratorial and aggressive positions. Had he continued in that direction, we can only speculate about where it might have led.

Because he was so active in activism and social media commentary, it was nearly impossible for anyone to track every post he made consistently. As a result, many Israeli officials and supporters in Israel were likely unaware of shifts in his messaging, particularly in later years, or of changes within his organization until very late. Some continue to view him as the same friend of Israel he appeared to be early on and have been reluctant to take the implications of the released text messages or the broader trajectory of his rhetoric seriously.

Jacobsen: About the text messages and subsequent disclosures, as well as later conversations with Ben Shapiro and others, what do we actually mean by “friend of Israel”? Are we talking about support for the state itself, rather than automatic endorsement of any particular political leader? I think that distinction is central for many people.

Tsukerman: At a minimum, it seems to mean supporting Israel’s right to exist and its right to defend itself, as well as pushing back against conspiratorial, exaggerated narratives—particularly those coming from extremist groups. I do not think there was an expectation that he would necessarily be a strong supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu, for example. However, he increasingly began to conflate Netanyahu with Israel as a country. That conflation appears to have been driven by narratives that blurred Israel’s internal political decisions with broader questions of legitimacy.

There was also a growing conflation of American Jews with Israel and Israeli government policy, alongside stereotypes about “Jewish donors” who were, in reality, primarily American Jewish donors rather than Israeli ones. That slippage matters.

The problem was not that he became more critical of Israeli policies. I myself have become more critical of Israeli policies over time, particularly as Netanyahu extended his influence beyond traditional foreign policy into areas such as media narratives and institutional norms. Criticism of policy is not the issue.

The issue is that he began to fall for the very same narratives he initially set out to challenge. That is what I find most troubling, and it is something many of his early supporters either did not fully recognize or chose to overlook.

For a time, Kirk functioned as a contrast to Tucker Carlson. Carlson largely avoided debate, while Kirk embraced it, even when his views on Israel became more critical. However, the nature of those debates gradually became problematic. Many of his events began centring on foundational questions about Israel’s relationship with the United States, Israel’s right to exist, and Israel’s right to defend itself. These were no longer one issue among many—such as abortion, gun control, or free speech—but increasingly became focal points.

To use an analogy, this is like holding debates in a contemporary, human-rights-oriented, largely egalitarian society and starting from the premise of whether women should have the right to vote. Specific questions are settled foundations, not open propositions.

The same applies to statehood. Debating whether Israel should exist at all is not equivalent to debating specific policies. I have encountered similar rhetorical moves when people praise China while ignoring, for example, the historical annexation of Tibet. These conversations often rely on deliberate omissions and selective ignorance.

What follows from that kind of discourse is a challenge to legitimacy itself, rather than a substantive policy debate. That is the core problem. It mirrors debates over women’s rights, in which the legitimacy of equality itself is treated as negotiable rather than a settled moral and legal premise.

What is even more striking is that, while the United States has relationships with many different countries, Israel was effectively the only one whose legitimacy and right to self-defence were being debated. No one asked whether Kyrgyzstan should exist as a state. There was no discussion of the general tension between the right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of existing states. There was no examination of Russia’s backing of separatist movements in multiple countries.

There was also no sustained discussion about whether other U.S. allies are overly dependent on U.S. foreign assistance—Egypt, for example, which has been a major recipient of USAID while increasingly receiving substantial funding from China. There were no serious debates about whether continued U.S. funding is appropriate when a country is moving closer to U.S. adversaries. None of these issues were meaningfully raised as foreign policy questions.

Instead, the focus remained narrowly on Israel—its conflict with Gaza, its legitimacy, and whether the United States was excessively supportive. Other questions, such as whether Russia should exist in its current form, whether parts of it should be separated, whether Iran should exist in its current form, or whether China’s territorial integrity should be questioned, were not treated in the same way. Israel became a constant theme.

It is legitimate to ask questions about foreign policy relationships in general, but when only one country is consistently singled out, that becomes a fixation rather than a balanced debate. This was not a discussion of assorted U.S. foreign policy relationships. It was a recurring focus on Israel alone.

Equally concerning was the consistent decision to elevate the most extreme anti-Israel voices rather than mainstream critics of specific Israeli policies or of Netanyahu’s government. It is one thing to bring in scholars with differing visions of Israeli democracy or approaches to conflict resolution with the Palestinians. It is another to repeatedly platform figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Tucker Carlson as representative voices.

When those figures are treated as central interlocutors, serious questions arise. Why platform the most extreme positions rather than more mainstream perspectives? Why allow the Overton window of what is considered debatable to shift toward extremist framing?

For that reason, I am conflicted about the idea of honouring him posthumously as a straightforward supporter of Israel and the Jewish community. Had Israel chosen to recognize him earlier in his life, when he was at the height of his pro-Israel influence, that might have been more justifiable. However, when examining the totality of his political and activist legacy, he cannot be described in unambiguous or straightforward terms.

The individuals he later supported, the narratives promoted by his organization, and some of his own public statements made him, at best, a conflicted figure by the end of his life. That does not mean he never offered intelligent advice to Israel on public relations or outreach. However, I am not convinced that his later work meaningfully countered antisemitic stereotypes. In some cases, it may have reinforced them, whether intentionally or not.

Jacobsen: Thank you, as always. Take care.

Tsukerman: Bye.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.