Inside the Charlie Kirk Assassination Mystery: Former CIA Officer Breaks Down the Unanswered Questions

The murder of Charlie Kirk has ignited one of the biggest waves of modern‑day conspiracy theories. From questions about the shooter’s skill to the bizarre text messages with a transitioning partner, inconsistencies in the timeline, and the near-total blackout of new information—nothing about this case has sat comfortably with the public.

And according to former CIA officer Andrew Bustamante, the doubts aren’t irrational at all.

In a recent interview, Bustamante broke down why so much about the case simply “doesn’t add up.”

“Absolutely—there are unanswered questions.”

Bustamante didn’t hesitate.

“Oh, absolutely,” he said. “There are unanswered questions. It doesn’t fully make sense to me—and that’s why the conspiracy theories are running wild.”

But the problem, he explains, is deeper than online speculation. It’s systemic.

“There are protected areas of information the public can’t access. In today’s media landscape, people now know exactly what they don’t know. That vacuum breeds theories.”

No New Information Since September 19th — “That’s weird, man.”

According to Bustamante, the strangest detail is the silence.

“There’s been no major new information released since around September 19th. That’s weird, man.”

How can an assassination that triggered:

national days of mourning

international headlines

political uproar

…also have zero public updates?

“We still don’t know the motive. We still can’t get answers about the shooter’s partner. There’s no manhunt, no public statements, no autopsy report. Information that should be reasonable to share simply hasn’t been shared.”

And that void is fueling suspicion.

Could a 22‑Year‑Old Really Pull This Off Alone?

One of the biggest questions is whether the shooter could have executed such a precise, effective attack as a lone, untrained 22‑year‑old.

Bustamante examines the probabilities—how intelligence agencies evaluate any operation:

“Anything is possible, but what is probable?”

The known facts:

He grew up in a hunting family

He knew the campus well

He had area familiarity

He had the element of surprise

But even with those advantages, the operation—including assembling and disassembling the weapon—raises doubts.

Bustamante agrees with Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill, who recently voiced his skepticism.

“It doesn’t make sense unless he spent hours preparing—rehearsing assembly, disassembly, planning ingress and egress routes, choosing where to stash the gun. He had a plan. But is it probable he did all that alone? Not very.”

The Shot Itself Shows Amateur Skill — Not Professional Training

Interestingly, while the operation was successful, the bullet’s trajectory shows the shooter wasn’t technically skilled.

“He didn’t train for the shot distance,” Bustamante explains. “He hit a fatal location, but it’s unlikely he was aiming for that specific spot.”

A trained professional, like O’Neill, would not have misjudged the shot or failed to predict the bullet’s tumble.

The shooting was effective—but not expert.

That inconsistency raises even more questions.

Parallels With the Trump Assassination Attempt

Bustamante immediately compared the Kirk case to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump from a rooftop in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The similarities are disturbing:

Same age group

High intelligence

Good reputation in their communities

No clear motive

Minimal digital footprint

Limited public information

“The parallels are very powerful,” Bustamante said. “And the lack of transparency in both cases is humbling.”

In fact, the Trump shooter, Thomas Crooks, remains even more mysterious:

“There’s still no motive. No biography. No footprint. Nothing. That’s very, very odd.”

When Information Disappears — Intelligence Agencies Take Notice

Bustamante explains that in the intelligence world, a total lack of information about a modern young adult is nearly impossible without intentional suppression.

“When you try to assassinate the President of the United States, you should become an open book. Unless… there’s something they don’t want the public to know.”

The implication is chilling.

“We Will Never Know” — When Government Secrecy Becomes Permanent

The conversation turned toward historical parallels—JFK, RFK, and decades of sealed files.

Bustamante’s view is blunt:

“When something damages the idea of American government or exposes sensitive operational methods, we will never know. It’s not in the government’s interest to be transparent. It’s in their interest to curate what is released—and what isn’t.”

He explains that pre‑9/11 CIA operated almost without oversight, making earlier assassinations even murkier.

“Could CIA have been involved in some historical operations? I wouldn’t rule anything out for the old CIA.”

“There is no such thing as former CIA.”

Responding to the classic suspicion, Bustamante addressed the myth directly:

“There’s no such thing as ‘former CIA’—just like there’s no such thing as ‘retired military.’ If we’re needed, we will serve again.”

But he clarified:

“That doesn’t mean I’m controlled by CIA now. In fact, they are not my friend. They send me letters telling me to stop appearing on camera.”

His recent book Shadow Cell was blocked for years, with the CIA trying to classify the entire manuscript.

They only relented after he threatened a First Amendment lawsuit.

Where Does This Leave the Charlie Kirk Case?

Bustamante’s conclusion is not comforting:

There are major unanswered questions

The timeline has suspicious gaps

Key individuals disappeared

No meaningful evidence has been released

The shooter’s ability doesn’t fully match the operation

The silence from authorities is abnormal

And his professional judgment?

“It’s possible the shooter acted alone.
But it’s not probable.”