After 73 Days, Ex-CIA CLAIMS: ‘They Professionally K*lled Charlie Kirk’ | HO”

Seventy-three days.

That’s how long it has been since conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a live event at the University of California, Berkeley — an assassination that stunned the country and triggered a coast-to-coast wave of outrage, conspiracy theories, political warfare, and national soul-searching.

The FBI says it solved the case in 33 hours.

They say the shooter — a 22-year-old student named Tyler Robinson — acted alone, using his grandfather’s old bolt-action hunting rifle.

They say the motive was simple.

They say the case is closed.

But tonight, that official narrative is collapsing under its own weight — and not because of internet rumors, not because of anonymous online detectives, not because of political influencers.

The biggest questions are now coming from the highest levels of America’s intelligence and military community.

A former CIA covert intelligence officer
A Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden
A CIA paramilitary expert living off the grid
Former counterterror analysts
Private security consultants
And multiple digital forensics specialists

…all publicly stating the same thing:

“The official story is improbable.
The shooting looks professional.
There are unanswered questions.
Something is off.”

Tonight, we break down exactly what they said and why their analysis has exploded into the biggest political mystery in years.

THE FIRST SHOCK: Ex-CIA Officer Says the Execution Looked Professional

When former CIA covert intelligence officer Andrew Bustamante sat across from Piers Morgan, he did not smile, did not hedge, did not soften his assessment.

He looked at the camera and said:

“It doesn’t make sense to me completely.
We look at everything in intelligence through a lens of probability.
And it is not really probable that he did this alone.”

Bustamante, known for his work in intelligence targeting and clandestine operations, explained the problem succinctly.

According to him, the FBI’s narrative requires Americans to believe that a 22-year-old:

With no military training
Using a decades-old bolt-action rifle
With no known background in sniper marksmanship
With no digital footprint indicating extremist ideology or premeditation
Operating alone, in broad daylight, on a major university campus

…managed to carry out a single-shot assassination with “clinical precision,” then dismantled the rifle, escaped unnoticed, left the weapon hidden in the woods, and disappeared for almost two days before being turned in by his father.

Bustamante raised his eyebrows:

“Is it possible? Yes.
Is it probable? Not really.
Not unless he spent hours rehearsing.
The execution looked too clean.”

That was the first red flag.

But it would not be the last.

“This Was an Exit Wound.” Navy SEAL Who Killed Bin Laden Raises Alarm

Then came Rob O’Neill, the Navy SEAL famous for firing the shot that killed Osama bin Laden.

When Piers Morgan asked him to analyze the footage, O’Neill’s reaction was immediate — and blunt.

“That was not an entry wound.
That was an exit wound.
So where did the bullet come from?”

He continued:

Charlie’s shirt moved sideways, not backward
The wound looked like an exit wound, not an entry wound
The shot appeared to come from right-to-left, contradicting early reports
The “body armor deflection theory” was nonsense
The angle looked “unusual for a rooftop shot”

And then the kicker:

“I’ve shot people closer than the camera was, and their shirts didn’t move like that.”

When one of America’s most elite shooters says the wound pattern doesn’t match the official story, people listen.

And millions did.

III. The Shooter’s “Digital Silence”: A CIA Red Flag

Bustamante dropped another bombshell that sent digital forensics experts scrambling.

He said:

“What strikes me is the lack of digital footprint.
For a young person today, that is very, very odd.
There is hidden information here.”

In 2024, a 22-year-old with no significant:

TikTok history
Instagram history
Reddit activity
Discord activity
Political rants
Gaming footprint
YouTube account
Text message logs

…is almost unheard of.

Even the kid who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump, Thomas Crooks, had an unusually thin digital presence — something intelligence analysts also found suspicious at the time.

Bustamante said the parallels between Robinson and Crooks were “powerful,” pointing to:

Age
Intelligence
Personality
Lack of motive
Lack of online radicalization
Hyper-precise execution

His conclusion?

“There are elements of this case that resemble targeted political attacks in other countries.”

That statement alone was enough to ignite every conspiracy forum in America.

The Shot Itself: “This Was a One-Angle Kill Zone.”

Members of Charlie Kirk’s private security detail have also spoken publicly — and their analysis adds a whole new layer of concern.

According to them, the shooter found the single viable spot on the entire campus where:

The angle was unobstructed
Wind interference was minimal
No tree branches blocked line of fire
Camera sightlines were compromised
Security had no jurisdiction

They said:

“Three meters left or ten meters right — there was no shot.”

The killer stood in the one viable window.

That is not normal improvisation.
That is reconnaissance.

Private security does not have:

Counter-snipers
Rooftop jurisdiction
Ability to secure surrounding campus terrain
Authority to clear upper floors
Military surveillance support

They protect the stage, not the skyline.

Which means:

Someone exploited a known gap.

Someone with planning.
Someone who understood the architecture.
Someone who had scouted the scene.

The Weapon: Ex–Special Forces Say the Timeline Is Impossible

Two former CIA contractors and a paramilitary weapons specialist (speaking anonymously from Panama) told podcasters that the weapon timeline was “ridiculous.”

They argue that dismantling and reassembling the rifle in the time claimed:

Requires tools
Requires training
Requires familiarity
Requires practice under stress

The Panama analyst said:

“There’s no possible way he took apart that rifle after firing, under stress, without tools.
And then reassembling it in the woods? No chance.”

He added:

“This is textbook tradecraft.
That kid didn’t learn that on YouTube.”

The “Engraved Bullets” and “Remember, It Was Only Me” Texts

This part has baffled investigators and commentators alike.

According to the FBI’s own statements:

The shooter engraved messages onto his bullets
The shooter sent texts saying “Remember, it was only me”
The shooter behaved as though he knew a narrative would be needed
The shooter left the disassembled rifle wrapped in a towel

Multiple intelligence and military experts have openly mocked these details as “too cinematic” and “implausibly theatrical.”

Bustamante put it this way:

“People don’t carve notes into bullets unless they are creating a story.”

O’Neill said:

“None of this feels organic.
It feels written.”

VII. The “Too Fast” Capture

The FBI captured Robinson in 33 hours.

Former counterterror analysts say that timeline is:

“Suspiciously fast”
“Convenient for public relations”
“Indicative of an expected suspect”
“More typical of controlled scenarios”

One analyst said:

“When the narrative forms faster than the evidence, something is wrong.”

Another put it more bluntly:

“This case was gift-wrapped.”

VIII. Similarities to the Trump Attempt

Bustamante emphasized the connection:

“This case reminds me of Thomas Crooks.”

The similarities:

Coincidence?
Or pattern?

Bustamante shook his head:

“This is not random.”

Why the Autopsy Matters — And Why Its Silence Is Deafening

Seventy-three days.

No autopsy report released.
No full forensic breakdown.
No ballistic trajectory analysis.
No independent review.

Bustamante said:

“The silence is profoundly suspicious.”

O’Neill said:

“Without the autopsy, we cannot even confirm the bullet path.”

Online analysts have repeatedly argued the same thing:

If the government wants conspiracy theories to die,
releasing the autopsy would kill them instantly.

So why hasn’t it been released?

The Political Fallout: “America Is Closer to Civil War Than You Think”

Even apolitical commentators are rattled.

Joe Rogan said:

“Charlie Kirk gets shot and people celebrate.
Where are we on the civil war scale?
I think we just jumped from a five to a seven.”

Bill Maher warned:

“He was shot under a banner that said ‘Prove Me Wrong.’
Too many people think the way to prove you wrong is to eliminate you.”

When comedians, centrists, and podcast hosts begin using phrases like “civil war scale,” the country is in trouble.

The One Scenario the Experts Agree On

Bustamante.
O’Neill.
The Panama analyst.
The security team.
Digital forensics experts.
Multiple intelligence commentators.

They all converge on one assessment:

This shooting has indicators of professional involvement.

Not a random attack.
Not an impulsive shooting.
Not a lone wolf scenario.

A premeditated, well-executed, high-skill kill shot that required:

Training
Planning
Reconnaissance
Terrain familiarity
Escape routes
Understanding of security gaps

As Bustamante said:

“If he really did act alone, then we are dealing with an outlier of historic proportions.”

But he added:

“It is more probable that someone trained him, supported him, or worked with him.”

XII. So What Really Happened?

Here is where the experts stand after 73 days:

The shooter’s timeline is implausible.
The wound trajectory is inconsistent with the official story.
The rooftop angle required scouting.
The shot quality suggests training.
The rifle disassembly is nearly impossible for a novice.
The digital silence is a CIA red flag.
The capture timeline is suspiciously fast.
Key evidence remains withheld.

And most importantly:

Multiple ex-intelligence and military operatives now say the shooting resembles a professional hit.

That does not mean a conspiracy is proven.
It does not mean the government is involved.
It does not mean there were multiple shooters.

What it does mean is this:

The official story has holes big enough for professionals to notice — and they are not staying silent.

XIII. The Final Question No One Can Ignore

If Tyler Robinson really acted alone…

Why are the world’s top experts saying the opposite?

If the case is closed…

Why does the evidence not match the narrative?

If the FBI wants people to stop speculating…

Why hasn’t the autopsy been released?

If the public is supposed to trust the official story…

Why does every new detail raise more questions?

The silence is becoming the story.
And the story is gaining momentum.
Not from conspiracy theorists —
but from America’s most elite intelligence personnel.

The country wants answers.

And tonight, after 73 days, the question grows louder:

Did they professionally kill Charlie Kirk?

America is waiting.