When wealthy people recognize a particular person is beginning to shift the needle in regards to his political commentary they wish to offer large sums of money not because they are benevolent. If one takes the money then he is expected to relinquish his point of view on a particular political subject that threatens his benefactor.
He is not to oppose nor can he ever come off the reservation by reversing course. If now opposed he becomes persona non grata and in all likelihood, a threat to the livelihood of his benefactor.
Would it have been best that the person return the money in order to speak freely and unabated once his position had changed?

Charlie Kirk was pro Israel all the way but, he started to see things that caused him to make a query. He didn't realize he was supposed to use his ken to see things differently and notice anomalies. This would only serve to further discussion which in Charlie's mind would be a good thing.

I have no idea who was behind the wanton slaughter of Mr. Kirk but it is looking more like the "mystery man" wants the public to accept the official narrative.

Do any of you believe the official story as it relates to Pat Tillman? Did he truly die from friendly fire or was he killed because he began to question the need for United States involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Pat Tillman, a good man who went to war for the right reason. Did the Bush administration who used Tillman to promote the war now see him as a threat to their "Project for A New American Century" because he now had eyes that could see?