The Liz Wheeler Show - A ‘Foreign Nexus’ in Charlie Kirk Assassination?! | Ep 243

Not sure how to tackle your taxes?

Are you sweating the small print?

You may be experiencing FOMO, the fear of messing up.

The answer?

Using TurboTax on Intuit Credit Karma.

They help you get your biggest refund and then we help you do more with it, with a personalized

plan designed to help you hit your money goals.

It's time to take your taxes to the max.

We're filing today in the Credit Karma app.

All right, good afternoon and welcome to a brand new episode of The Liz Wheeler Show.

What we are talking about today is a potential foreign nexus in the Charlie Kirk assassination.

And the reason we're talking about this is because journalist Michael Schellenberger, a very

good reputable journalist, revealed yesterday in a shocking report that former national

counterterrorism director Joe Kent, who resigned his position in the Trump administration

last week, says that he would be willing to testify in the Charlie Kirk assassination

trial about a potential foreign nexus and if that testimony helps the defense, then

Joe Kent says so be it.

Sounds shocking to even process those words.

Schellenberger interviewed Joe Kent on and off the record about what evidence Kent can provide

for the claims that he made on Tucker Carlson's show about this potential foreign nexus in

the Charlie Kirk assassination that Kent claims he was told by the Department of Justice

and the FBI to stop investigating.

So I'd like to start the show today by just taking a moment to go back in time to what

Joe Kent said specifically on Tucker Carlson's show before we get to Schellenberger's report

because I don't want Kent's words to be misconstrued or misquoted.

I want to be very precise in what we're analyzing today.

So this is what Joe Kent actually said to Tucker Carlson, take a listen.

He was single-minded and he walked off and I believe into the oval.

So when one of President Trump's closest advisors who is vocally advocating for us to not

go to war with Iran and for us to rethink at least our relationship with the Israelis

and then he's suddenly publicly assassinated and we're not allowed to ask any questions

about that.

It's a data point.

It's a data point that we need to look into.

What do you mean when you say we're not allowed to ask any questions about that?

We've been told that this individual Robinson is alone gunman and maybe he is, but the

investigation that I was a part of, the National Counterterrorism Center was a part of, we

were stopped from continuing to investigate and the FBI will say that they stopped that

because they wanted to have, to turn everything over to the Utah State authorities, everything

is going to trial, it's very, very sensitive, but there were still a lot for us to look

into that I can't really get into, but there was still linkage for us to investigate

that we needed to run down and I'm not making any conclusions, I'm not saying, because

of this, this happened.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm just saying there's unanswered questions.

We know the pressure because of the text messages that have been made public that Charlie

was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro-Israel donors and again, we know Charlie was advocating

to President Trump against this war with Iran and we knew at the end of the 12-day

war at the end of midnight hammer that the Israelis were going to come back and ask us

to go back to war again.

We have a lot of data points between Butler, the assassination attempts against President

Trump, the breaches of his security, what happened to Charlie Kirk?

Can I ask you to pause on the Charlie Kirk just because it upsets me to hear what you're

saying, to be reminded that he was murdered, but also to hear you confirm what was reported

in the media several months ago that your office had been blocked from investigating his

murder.

That does not make sense to me.

I don't understand why you would ever turn down help in an investigation from a US agency

with a lot of experience in gathering intelligence on things that's your job.

The FBI will say, and the DOGJ will say that because it's an ongoing case, it's a Utah

state case, that back off they've got it, they've got a smoking case, they've got the

fingerprints on the gun, and they've got the case.

But the FBI was involved in the case.

The FBI was involved with the FBI's basically said that they're deferring to Utah because

it's now a case.

They've established a precedent for federal investigation of this crime.

Yeah.

And the National Counterterrorism Center's mandate is to investigate any, any foreign ties

to see if there's potentially any foreign ties, if we don't find any foreign ties, we

back off.

What I'm saying about getting into too much detail is there was more for us to investigate.

There was, you believe there was reason to investigate foreign ties to Charlie Kirk's murder

and were told by the FBI, DOJ.

FBI and DOJ, yeah.

No, you're not allowed to investigate that.

Stop.

It's done.

They basically cut off our access to it to be able to get into that information.

And look, I didn't even say necessarily that I believe there's 100% foreign ties.

There were data points that we needed to investigate.

I mean, I think anybody who's even looked at any kind of police investigation, you get

100 leads, you run them down and 99 don't mean anything.

We still had a lot more leads to run down that pertained to some kind of a foreign

nexus that we were stopped from investigating.

And that just strikes me as inconceivable that that could happen.

Okay.

So those are Joe Kent's precise words.

And as I said, I want to be very precise here.

I don't want, you know, it's very easy to have false memories and to think people say

things more concretely than they actually say.

Joe Kent was very specific when he said that he's not drawing any conclusions about a foreign

nexus.

And that leads that he wanted to run down about potential foreign nexus.

And it's, I want to be fair to Joe Kent.

I don't agree with how he resigned his position.

And I think that he needs to provide evidence of the claims in his resignation letter.

We covered that at length earlier this week and late last week.

But I want to be fair to Joe Kent, and I want to quote him accurately, two points from

that video that I want to drill down on.

The first point is a comment that Tucker Carlson made when he said it's inconceivable

that the National Counterterrorism Center would be told to stop investigating or running down

leads by the Department of Justice and the FBI.

I want to address that.

And I also want to address what Joe Kent describes as data points.

There were data points, he said, that still needed to be run down.

And we're going to get to that.

We have to build into this today because there's a lot of new information that's being discovered

each day as we as we look into both of these things.

Joe Kent's resignation, the military operation in Iran and Charlie Kirk's assassination.

So let's start here by reading Michael Schellenberger's report on substack.

This was written by Schellenberger after he had a sit down interview with Joe Kent.

He talked to him on the record.

He also talked to him off the record.

So he's probably privy to a little bit more information than Kent shared publicly.

This is what Schellenberger wrote.

He said the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, says that

the FBI did not properly investigate the assassination last fall of conservative leader Charlie

Kirk.

The FBI was pretty forceful in saying we couldn't investigate further.

He Kent told public that's Schellenberger's operation.

I saw no action being taken.

Tyler Robinson confessed to killing Kirk in a text message and a note to his transidentified

romantic partner.

His defense team may now be able to use Kent's allegations that the government is suppressing

evidence and did not do a proper investigation to their advantage.

Kent said he knew that he might be called as a witness before he made this statement about

a foreign nexus may have been involved in Kirk's assassination.

I was definitely warned of that over and over again, said Kent.

If I end up having to play that role, then I'll do it.

It's not something I'm seeking.

When pressed that his testimony could help the Robinson defense, Kent said, quote, then

honestly, so be it.

If it gets us to the truth, that's obviously the risk I'm taking.

Neither Robinson's attorneys nor the prosecuting attorney responded to requests for comments

from public again, public is Michael Schellenberger's operation.

A law enforcement official told the New York Post that Kent, quote, had no authority to probe

Kirk's death.

He wasn't blocked from investigating SHIT, the official said he was blocked from accessing

files.

He had no role or statutory authority to access.

Kent said that the FBI's behavior suggested a wider effort.

Obviously, if I was wrong, said Kent, then they would have let us run down all these leads

and they'd be like, well, there's nothing there, man.

It was just a crazy furry.

Had we not been so forcefully blocked from running down leads, I would 100% be right there

with you.

But the more that we found, the more aggressively that we are blocked.

In response to the question of whether there's evidence that Robinson had accomplices,

Kent replied, there's not for my vantage point.

Nothing specific on the state of Israel.

When asked if he had evidence of Israeli cutouts or go between, Kent said, it'd be speculating

for me to say, yes, so no, nothing specific on that.

But Kent went on to describe things that he found suspicious.

The stakes are high.

Israel really, really wanted this war.

They believe it's existential.

Kent expressed skepticism that Robinson shot Kirk without accomplices.

The lone gunman part always struck me as a bit odd, Kent said, I've been in combat

and I've done a lot of shooting.

The shot that Robinson took, if that was indeed how Charlie was killed, I don't think that's

an easy shot.

And Robinson, I know videos of him messing around with guns, but he didn't seem very familiar

with that gun from the stuff that I've read that the FBI still has under lock and key.

Robinson's romantic partner, Schellenberger writes, was a trans-identified man and Robinson

said in text messages that he killed Kirk because he, quote, had enough of his hatred.

What are the Brady rule, Schellenberger writes, which the Supreme Court established in 1963?

Prosecutors are legally required to turn over any evidence that might prove the defendant's

innocence or reduce their sentence.

Kent's statements potentially offer an alternative suspect theory to argue to a jury that Robinson

is a scapegoat and that police and prosecutors had tunnel vision, zeroing in on their client

immediately and ignoring all other evidence.

I'm not casting doubt on whether Tyler Robinson is innocent or guilty said Kent, I'm saying

we were not allowed to examine any foreign links to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

With its two juicy beef patties and three slices of melted cheese topped with tangy

big arch sauce, the big arch is what happens when you start making a McDonald's burger and

never stop.

The big arch, the most McDonald's McDonald's burger yet for a limited time.

Okay, so that's the full written report from Michael Schellenberger when he interviewed

Joe Kent.

This is obviously the on the record portion of that interview.

There's a couple of things to note about this interview too as we as we begin to unpack

all of this.

The first thing to note is Joe Kent's assessment of Tyler Robinson's capability with

a firearm doesn't match what we know about Tyler Robinson.

We know that Tyler Robinson liked to fish and liked to hunt.

We know that he comes from a family with a history of firearms.

The rifle comes from his grandfather, which of course is not direct evidence that Tyler

is himself skilled with a rifle.

We also have a former coworker of Tyler Robinson who said that Tyler once bragged to him

about being skilled with a rifle.

This allegation from Joe Kent doesn't match the evidence that's publicly available.

I know some people have already said to me in the live chat, well, Joe Kent has access

to classified information that you don't have, Liz.

Yes, of course, he did as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

He certainly had access to information, classified information that I don't have access to,

but that's actually the problem here.

If he has access to information that contradicts what's publicly known, then he should tell

us what that evidence is.

Because listen, and we'll get into this.

I don't want to get ahead of myself here.

If there is evidence of a foreign nexus in the Charlie Kirk assassination, why wouldn't

I be open to that?

Why wouldn't anybody be open to that?

It's not like I came, and I'll speak for myself here, although I think this is true

for many people.

I did not come to the table with a preconceived outcome or a preconceived villain.

I'm open to any possibility of a large or small conspiracy, a lone shooter, a group of people

who plotted this.

I mean, heck, we'll get into my beliefs about even the US government and the US government's

capacity to assassinate political figures they don't like here in a couple of minutes.

But I just want to establish right now, without getting ahead of myself, that I don't come

to the table to analyze the Charlie Kirk assassination and who might be guilty, might not be guilty,

who might be involved, or might not be involved with any kind of preconceived notions.

I'm open to wherever the evidence leads us.

But the keyword in that sentence is evidence.

So if Joe Kant is making an allegation that contradicts what's publicly available, and

yes, he had access to information that maybe I don't have access to, he should show us

what that evidence is.

It would be in the, I mean, it's in the interest of not just justice for Charlie Kirk, it's

in the interest of a government working on behalf of the American people and not against

us.

But again, I don't want to get to, I don't want to get to ahead of myself.

So this interview from Michael Schellenberger with Joe Kant, it is being miss, miss, I don't

want to say miss quoted, but miss quoted a little bit, miss quoted in the sense that

there are some people saying that Joe Kant wants to testify for the defense of Tyler Robinson.

And that's not exactly what he said.

He said he would be willing to, which, you know, you can, you can speculate about Joe

Kant's motives all you want.

I know we've done that on this show in the past couple of days, but the key here, the key

here to me, and I think to you as well, is evidence.

This was, this has always been my, this has always been since last week my criticism of

Joe Kent, not that he resigned, not that he's against the Iran War, but when, for the

reason he gave for being against the Iran War, he needs to provide evidence of that.

Not just because I don't want to take anybody's word for it, but because if his allegations

are true, they're enormous.

The implications and consequences are severe and significant.

And we the people deserve to have evidence of that if our government is abusing us.

So I want to show you next a video of Andrew Colvet, who was Charlie Kirk's executive producer

on the Charlie Kirk show.

He now co-host the show with Blake Neff.

And Colvet is the individual who took the screenshots of the group chat in which Charlie

Kirk had been talking about the Israelis.

And Colvet gave those screenshots to Joe Kent in the days following Charlie's assassination.

And then there's questions about what Joe Kent did with those text messages.

Colvet says, Joe Kent encouraged him to, Joe Kent encouraged Colvet to release those

text messages, those screenshots publicly, Colvet declined to do so.

And then after he declined and after he, Colvet had given those screenshots to Joe Kent,

suddenly someone leaked those text messages to Candace Owens and they became public.

Of course, the speculation is was Joe Kent, the person who leaked those screenshots to Candace

Owens.

And it certainly seems like a very plausible theory.

But Colvet had a point too about why he gave those text messages in which Charlie was

talking about Israel to Joe Kent in the first place.

And I think that this is a point that needs to be, that we need to intake better.

We need to be a little circumspect about this.

We need to just take a moment quietly and say, oh, that's right.

This point, we don't make this point enough.

And Colvet did make this point and he made a very articulately.

So I want us to take a listen to this, take a look.

And I just want to make a point here.

I, in four asking questions.

This is why I shared the group chat with Joe Kent in the first place.

I'm not afraid of the answer to those questions.

If Israel had a hand in killing Charlie, I want to know.

I wanted to know what I'm telling you is that we've had six months plus since that time

to track down all those leads, none of which have been corroborated, none of which have

actionable evidence behind, none of which have been presented in any way, shape or form

to suggest there was, there was a probable that there's any evidence that overwhelming

evidence.

Very rapidly.

Zero evidence.

That's my point.

So currently facing trial.

Yeah.

I am willing to ask the hard questions.

We want the truth.

But when there's no evidence and there's no facts that would back up those questions,

then you have to say, OK, moving on.

All right.

You couldn't corroborate it.

OK.

So I'm not anti-asking questions.

I'm not anti-conspiracy theories.

I'm open to it all.

OK.

But you have to have facts in the recklessness with which these accusations are being thrown

out.

Now has real world implications.

And I just, it's this brain rot, Michael, that's driving me insane, being on the other

side of it.

And never look at a conspiracy theory the same way having been on this side of it, because

people make jumps to conclude, they jump to conclusions, they connect disparate pieces

of evidence and they connect them in ways that don't make any sense.

OK.

So the point that Colvette makes there is a point that I think a lot of people are hesitant

to make, which is, and I completely agree with Colvette on this.

I was and remain even open to the idea that there could have been a foreign nexus to

the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Why wouldn't I be open to that if the evidence showed that?

I remain open to almost any possibility of who could have committed that murder, who

could have taken part in planning that murder, who could have had four knowledge of that

murder.

There were a lot of people that wanted Charlie Kirk dead.

And I think it's a point that hasn't been made enough that we don't, I don't sit here

again.

I'm not going to speak for other people.

I don't sit here and say that, oh, Israel wasn't involved or the French weren't involved

or the Egyptian planes weren't involved, I don't say that because I had some preconceived

idea that I wanted to come to the defense of these countries, not at all.

I say that because I want to let the evidence build the case.

And so again, worth repeating what Colvette said, I was at the time, especially in the

days following Charlie's assassination, open to almost any possibility of what happened,

including a foreign nexus.

The problem, and this goes back to the original problem of what Joe Kent, of Joe Kent's

comments on Tucker Carlson, is you have to show us the proof.

You have to show us the evidence.

And I'm going to address the idea that this evidence could be classified information.

And you know, he can't share classified information.

We'll address that in just a moment.

But if you could subscribe to this channel, youtube.com slash lose wheeler and share this

episode, I would greatly appreciate it.

So this brings us back to the Shellenberger interview of Joe, of Joe Kent.

Now there's two aspects of this interview, right?

There's the claims that Joe Kent is making and like whether or not the question of whether

or not there's evidence of those claims, that's thing number one.

And then there's the question of, was there a cover up internally within the Trump administration?

Because that's, that's essentially what Joe Kent is alleging that the Department of Justice

and the FBI told him to stop investigating these data points that were, that could have

potentially revealed a foreign nexus and he was told to stop it and he's alleging kind

of dot, dot, dot question mark, question mark, was there a cover up?

So the two things, evidence of the claims that he's making and was there a cover up.

So before we get to the classified information, before we get to that, I want to show you

a video, Shellenberger went on Charlie Kirk's show as you just saw in that, in that previous

clip, at talking to Blake Neff, talking to Andrew Colvette and he specifically addressed

this idea that Joe Kent was told to stop investigating and he explained the context of,

you know, it's not just the entire federal government, even if you are an investigative

agency, even if you have some kind of law enforcement authority, you don't necessarily have

a broad authority that allows you to do everything.

In fact, there are specific statutes on our book that limit the legal authority of certain

agencies and certain officials to certain things.

Shellenberger explains how this impacted Joe Kent's ability to engage in further investigation.

Take a look at this.

I did directly ask him repeatedly that, you know, given that his agency is an intelligence

gathering, a really an intelligence synthesizing and coordinating agencies, part of the broader

coordinating intelligence mission of the office of the director of national intelligence.

You know, he didn't have the authorities to do a law enforcement investigation.

It was FBI investigation and, you know, didn't he sort of need to trust that his colleagues

at the FBI and elsewhere or in also with the Utah police law enforcement.

At some point, you know, you can pass along a tip or an idea, but don't you at some point

have to sort of trust unless you have other evidence, you know, and I asked him if he had

other evidence, you know, some sort of corruption or conspiracy and he said he didn't.

So it kind of raises the question of, you know, what is this sort of based on because

I think it's worth pointing out to people that the restrictions on Kent's authority to

investigate the Kirk murder are not arbitrary.

It's not something that director Cash Patel, whatever you think of him, sort of invented

as a way to stymie a proper investigation.

Those restrictions on investigative power are what protect us as citizens.

It's written into our constitution.

It's part of our locking and system of government.

And I think we saw those, we saw the intelligence community abuse those powers to create the

russia gate hoax, you know, the russia gate conspiracy.

So and it's not just that.

I mean, we can go through, you know, the until it wasn't the first time the intelligence

community had abused its powers, but when you go through it.

So these, the restrictions on Kent that I think for people that maybe haven't thought

about it a lot or haven't, you know, they don't work, don't aren't familiar with the

intricacies of why these laws exist.

I think it's important context like these laws are not there to prevent a thorough investigation

or to cover up things that certainly wasn't a subjective determination by the FBI director.

It's written into laws and those laws are there, you know, first and foremost to protect

us, obviously, but obviously part of the process of protecting innocent civilians is also

to make sure that you get the guilty party and you don't go off and engage in activities

that would potentially entrap innocent people.

So okay, okay, so this is, this is where this is the spot where, and this may surprise

you where I want to address what if the information that Joe Kent had access to that has informed

all of his comments from his allegations and his resignation letter about Trump being

tricked by Netanyahu into a war with Iran, there being no evidence of Iran posing a threat

to us to these allegations that Kent made on Tucker Carlson that he was shut down from

investigating, quote unquote, data points that could have, you know, indicated potential

foreign nexus to the Charlie Kirk assassination.

What if the, what if he had access to classified information?

We know he did, of course he did.

He was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, of course he had access to classified

information.

What if these comments and allegations that he's making were because of what he saw and

that information was sensitive or classified and he's not allowed by law to reveal that

to us?

What if that's the case?

Shouldn't we just take his word for it Liz?

Shouldn't we, you know, stop and say, let's let the cards fall where they may because

he has access to information that you don't have.

This is my response to that.

If Joe Kent was limited by his statutory role and not allowed to conduct the investigation,

which I think is pretty firmly established.

I, Shellenberger explained that very clearly that this is not a decision by Cash Patel

or even Pam Bondi to say, hey, Joe, Kent, we don't want you part of our investigation

because we don't want to see what you're investigating.

That's not what happened.

There are specific laws that limit the role of certain officials to conduct certain types

of information or certain type of investigations because we have a history in our country of

the intelligence community abusing their power.

What was truly at stake here, which Joe Kent, you have to admit, did not properly explain

on Tucker Carlson.

He even seemed to deliberately mislead people to make it seem like there were just people

in the FBI or the Department of Justice who didn't want him to investigate these leads

versus versus it being a matter of the structure of our government, according to the laws

that are on our books, which we are required to follow limiting his role in this investigation.

But here's the thing.

Even if his statutory role did not allow him to conduct this investigation, which I think

we've established it did not, if Joe Kent has evidence because he's seen the classified

information behind the scenes that you haven't seen and I haven't seen of a foreign

nexus or a potential foreign nexus or data points that need to be run down to rule out

a foreign nexus, or if he has evidence that he wasn't just limited in his investigative

role because of the statutes on the book limiting his power in order to protect the people,

the vulnerable people, you and me from abuse of power by the government.

If he has evidence that there's an individual or group of individuals in the Trump administration

who arbitrarily told him to sit this one out because they didn't want to know the answers

to what he was investigating, if he has evidence of a cover-up, evidence of this foreign nexus,

even if it was based on sensitive or classified information that he is not legally allowed

to share, and this is the point that's going to surprise you, then by all means you risk

the consequences, you blow the whistle, you show the American people the evidence because

the claims you're making are so enormous, the implications are like an earth, would be

like an earthquake to our republic.

And I would argue even if that means that you're prosecuted, even if that means you face

potential jail time because you aren't legally allowed to reveal this sensitive or classified

information, if the level of corruption that you have uncovered based on your position

is as significant as Joe Kent is claiming, then I would argue it's your duty to risk the

consequences, to face those consequences, to sacrifice yourself for your country as you

are willing to do as a member of the military, and you tell the American people the evidence

and the proof, because the risk that you run if you don't present the evidence is what's

happening here today, we're skeptical of these claims.

We don't believe Joe Kent, because he's asking us to take his word for it, and why should

we do that?

What politician or government official has ever deserved for us to simply give them the

gift of blind faith?

And if you make a claim of this extent and you don't provide evidence, then people are

not going to believe you, you're the boy who cried wolf.

And if these allegations are actually true, if you have seen sensitive, classified information

or been involved in conversations that you know are indicative of a cover-up of this

extent, are you afraid of the consequences?

Do you not think the American people should know what their government is doing?

This would be one of the most heinous scandals in the history of the American government.

And what you're afraid of going to jail, rather than revealing this, you want people to

just take your word for it, even though you know the risk of asking people to take your

word for it, is that most people won't.

So no, I don't think it's a good excuse to say, well, he can't provide evidence because

it's classified.

That's even putting aside the reality that leaking has never stopped Joe Kent.

Laws against sharing government information with journalists has never stopped Joe Kent

from leaking in the past.

So let's talk about this evidence for a second.

Shellenberger talked to Joe Kent off the record as well as on the record.

And Blake Neff on the Charlie Kirk show asked Shellenberger, did Joe Kent show him any evidence?

And this is what Shellenberger responded, take a look.

So two questions for you, Michael.

So first of all, I just want to really harp on this point.

He didn't present any, did he present a single example of evidence against Tyler Robinson

that he believes may have been flawed or mistaken on one end?

And on the other end, did he give you a single concrete example of evidence in the case

that he believes that specifically that went uninvestigated by the FBI or by any other

law enforcement?

I'm afraid I can't answer all of these questions because I have to protect, but I will say

that he presented nothing on the record and hasn't presented anything on the record.

I find that to be significant.

I find that comment to be significant.

If he told, if Joe Kent told Michael Shellenberger something specific, if he provided a piece

of evidence off the record, then Joe Kent should provide it to us on the record, regardless

of the consequences.

Listen, if Joe Kent made this podcast tour, went on this, this mediator to these friendly

podcasters as a way of, and this is speculation, trying to avoid potential prosecution because

the FBI is reportedly investigating him for leaking classified information, which is

against the law.

And if speculatively, Joe Kent went on this mediator to build up public opinion in his

favor to make it more difficult for the Department of Justice to prosecute him, then do you

really think that if you provided evidence of this, the American people would not be on

your side grateful to you, thankful for you, supportive of you ready to fight for you?

If you revealed to us that the federal government was once again weaponized against us, something

is not right.

Something is ill or rational.

So Shellenberger then was asked on the Charlie Kirk show whether he has seen any evidence

of the cover-up that Kent is suggesting when Kent says that the Department of Justice

and the FBI told him to stop running down leads and they were so forceful in saying that

that's what made Kent think that it was a cover-up.

This is what Shellenberger said.

I have seen no evidence that anybody in this administration would do anything.

I mean, this is an administration that's absolutely passionate about Charlie Kirk.

I think everybody knows that the reaction from the Trump administration and the White House,

all the federal agencies was of just shock and horror and outrage.

So I just don't see how any broader conspiracy could be either carried out or covered up

in the ways that I think Joe Kent is suggesting here.

And so if there's just really not anything here that would suggest that there's a cover-up

going on that I'm seeing or that anybody else was involved in Tyler Robinson.

And I think at one point, there are a couple of points maybe in the interview agreed

that you don't need anybody else.

Tyler Robinson, it appears from the evidence has been released so far, there's ample

motive and a lot of evidence that he did it.

So I just don't see the need to add something else to it.

And again, you would think, well, maybe it's just for fun and just podcasting entertainment.

But in this case, I think the consequences could be quite serious.

The consequences are very serious.

And the other thing to note is what Joe Kent defines as a data point.

And he was on Tucker Carlson in that clip we played at the beginning of the show.

He said, Charlie Kirk's expressed frustration with some of his pro-Israel donors or some

of the pro-Israel lobby here in the United States, that Joe Kent indicated was a data point

that what, that what.

I mean, the insinuation is that that frustration that Charlie expressed privately and a little

bit publicly with the behavior of some of these people who he had worked with and who

were donors to his organization and whose cause he had shared for so many years, that

that would be what, indicative of a foreign nexus, that is not in and of itself indicative

of anything except that Charlie Kirk didn't like to behavior of these donors, these pro-Israel

donors, and that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States was and still is to a certain

extent, behaving in a way that turns off many of the people that were otherwise allied

with them.

That's what Joe Kent describes as a data point.

That's not exactly a convincing argument either that would persuade anybody in the Department

of Justice or FBI that what leads, he was running down or leads, he still wanted to run

down were of any significance because that one just isn't, that's not evidence of anything.

All that it's evidence of is what Andrew Colvette mentioned at the beginning, which was

the reason he shared those screenshots, that Colvette shared those screenshots with

Joe Kent in the days after Charlie's assassination is because we're all very open-minded people.

We will believe almost anything about any politician or almost any person in public life, certainly

countries as a whole, if there's evidence of it.

No one's sitting here with their minds closed to the potential of a foreign nexus if evidence

exists of one.

The Schellenberger also said that the nexus that exists, and he didn't use the word nexus,

I'm using it because I think that it's descriptive of what's going on here, but these theories

about foreign involvement or foreign planning of the Charlie Kirk assassination and the reality

of what the evidence shows, he points out why some people seem unwilling to even enter

and obtain the possibility that that was actually what happened versus latching on to not just

the theory of a foreign nexus, but this believing that there was a foreign nexus with

certitude despite the fact that the evidence isn't informing that view.

This is what Schellenberger says.

These restrictions on what intelligence agencies can do are really good and important and

we wouldn't want to reduce those protections.

I'm not seeing evidence of a wider conspiracy, I don't think anyone's presented evidence

of that.

I am very worried about this affecting the trial.

I think most people, when they think about what's occurred now, would share that concern,

and I think that people sometimes want to have a bigger meaning for the Charlie Kirk assassination

like it couldn't just be one guy because the assassination is just one of the most significant

political assassinations in American history, and so to kind of go as just a guy that had

a furry fetish and a transidentified boyfriend, I think for a lot of people that might feel

not big enough or something or significant enough, and I would say it is big enough.

Charlie Kirk's whole legacy is tied up with him not going along with the idea that he

needed to agree with a belief that you could change your sex or that man could become

a woman.

I think that might be the most insightful point that Sean Berger made.

No, that wasn't information that he collected from Joe Kent, but that's accurate.

That Charlie Kirk, one of his most important legacies was pushing back on the radical

trans ideology, and he knew he had known for years that the radical violent trans activists

wanted to kill him.

You and I know we've explored this hundreds of times over the past years that the transgender

ideology is not just exploitation of vulnerable youth with gender dysphoria, it's not just

about surgeons and big pharma medicating and then performing mutilation surgeries on children

for profit.

It is all of that, but it's also something bigger than that.

It's also part of this neo-Marxist revolutionary plot where these vulnerable young people

are told that they're going to be genocided.

They're so marginalized, they're going to be genocided by the oppressors, these white

Christian cisgender males.

If they don't do something about it, dot, dot, dot, what's going to happen.

You take this vulnerable population, these youth who fall prey to this, who then put on

the mantle of the transgender ideology or who are having sex with someone who has put

on the mantle of the transgender ideology, as is the case with Tyler Robinson.

If you look at this through a lens of common sense, you just ask, well, what do you think

they were going to do?

What do you think the reaction to being indoctrinated that you are about to be genocided is going

to be people's human nature, their natural instinct is preservation.

They are going to act in a way that they feel will keep themselves safe and keep themselves

potentially alive.

If you look at the impact of that indoctrination, the transgender ideology, that's why Charlie

spoke privately about the transgender ideology being threatening to him and why he didn't

speak about, you know, as Andrew Colvette said later in the show about the Jews being

a threat.

So, let's back up here again for just a moment, because I wanted to address something

that I posted on X yesterday and I received a certain response to this post and I don't

mean one response.

I mean, a collective response that I want to address.

So this is, let me read you the post quickly and then we'll get to the response.

Yesterday, I posted on X and I said literally all the evidence that we have points to Tyler

Robinson's guilt in assassinating Charlie Kerr.

Tyler Robinson, essentially, I put, he confessed to his parents, he essentially confessed

to his parents because he allowed them to convince him to turn himself in.

He did confess to his trans boyfriend, he confessed to his discord group chat and he

confessed by nature of going to the police station when he turned himself in.

Tyler Robinson's parents recognized their son in the photograph released by law enforcement.

They recognized the rifle Tyler used as one from his grandfather.

Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on the rifle and on the cloth where he rested his cheek

as he shot Charlie.

Neither Tyler Robinson nor his parents, his boyfriend or anyone who knows Tyler has denied

that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.

His own mother says Tyler was increasingly radical in his pro-trans rhetoric and specifically

talked about Charlie Kirk being, quote, hateful and again specifically spoke about Charlie's

event at UVU ahead of it.

Charlie Surgeon told Charlie's team in the immediate aftermath that the 30-06 bullet, I know

it's very controversial, had ricocheted off Charlie's spine down into his body.

And recent court documents in Charlie's murder trial also confirm that a fragment of the

bullet was examined from Charlie's body during his autopsy, which makes it look likely that

it was a frangible bullet.

A frangible bullet is a type of 30-06 round that fragments upon impact, which would explain

the no exit wound.

The idea, I posted this yesterday, that Tyler Robinson did not shoot Charlie Kirk is

delusion.

Now some people don't want Tyler Robinson to be guilty because they would rather blame

the most heinous act of political violence in our lifetime on their predetermined enemy,

Israel.

And yet when they make this allegation, they provide zero proof.

For in nexus, show us the proof.

Meanwhile, as they spin, delusional theories without evidence, a real conspiracy remains

untouched.

Radical trans groups and individuals in the days and weeks leading up to Charlie's assassination

posted online, signaling for knowledge of Charlie's murder.

What did they know?

And why do the opportunists, the loudest voices who claim to want justice for Charlie have

no interest in investigating that?

So that's what I posted yesterday.

And the collective response, or a portion of the responses that I got yesterday, was

essentially, we don't buy that, Liz.

That's not what the evidence shows.

That's not real evidence.

There is evidence of a foreign nexus and, you know, stop spinning.

Stop spinning this crap is essentially the collective response.

And so I want to address this directly.

And I asked these questions 100% in good faith, very sincerely.

I want you to help me understand.

If Tyler Robinson was not the lone shooter that day, then what is the theory?

Is the theory that Tyler Robinson did shoot Charlie, but that he was a puppet of either

the French Legionnaires or Israel?

Or is the theory that Tyler Robinson himself wasn't even on campus that day, and that the

evidence against him, whether it was the photograph, whether it's the DNA on the rifle,

whatever the evidence against him is, is totally fabricated by the feds.

What's the theory?

Again, I'm asking these questions in good faith.

I'm trying to understand the pushback here.

I said earlier in the show.

I'm going to repeat it now.

I agree with Andrew Colvette, who said yesterday, if there's evidence of a foreign nexus,

or, and this is even more significant, a US government or US military nexus, why wouldn't

I be open to that?

It wouldn't be bigotry against the French, by the way, if there was hard evidence that

the French were involved, just like it wouldn't be anti-Semitic if there was hard evidence

that Israel involved, and it wouldn't be anti-American if there was hard evidence that, say,

the CIA or the US military or whoever was involved.

Listen, you know me.

I'm even somewhat inclined to believe that governments are capable of this sort of thing,

that they do this sort of thing, because they've done it before.

For example, I think that the CIA was part of the JFK assassination.

I think the current US government, or at least the government under Joe Biden, allowed

a would-be assassin to try to murder Donald Trump.

That doesn't make me anti-American, just because I believe those terrible things about

the United States government, because there are bad, subversive actors in every government

all around the world.

But I need evidence.

Here's my question to you.

What are the allegations of this foreign nexus playing a role in Charlie's assassination

based on?

What's the basis of that?

Is the basis of it, the maroon shirts at UVU, the Egyptian planes, Fort Wachuka.

We already established early in the episode that Joe Kent has not provided any detail or

speculation.

The only data point that he mentioned was Charlie's increasing frustration.

With his pro-Israel donors and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

Is that the basis of it?

What is the basis of it?

Now I will tell you, pre-existing anti-Israel sentiment is not enough, because that's not evidence.

Charlie's frustration with some pro-Israel donors and lobbyists, behavior, is also not

enough, because that's not evidence.

And so I'm asking you, please explain.

As I said earlier, I write this in response to all the responses I received yesterday

on this post after, on the post, detailing the evidence of Tyler Robinson's guilt.

And so many of you scoffed at that.

And so I'm asking you today, what are you saying?

That Tyler isn't guilty at all?

Okay.

Well, if so, who framed him?

I'm open to it.

If you show me evidence of it.

What are you saying that Tyler is guilty, but controlled by a foreign power or the U.S.

military or the U.S. government, well, if so, who?

I'm open to it.

If there's evidence.

But show your work, please.

Show your work, please.

It does not, it cannot be said enough what Andrew Colvet said.

I commend him for saying what he said.

We're open to these ideas, but we're not going to take anybody's word for it.

You show the evidence.

And if you've seen the evidence and it's classified, then be a patriot.

You run the risk of that consequence.

The American people will have your back if you actually have evidence.

But if you don't, then what are you saying and what are you doing?

If our goal is actually justice for Charlie Kirk and simultaneously to expose the network

of radical leftist violence in our country that wants to kill you and me just as much as

they celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, if our goal is justice for Charlie and protection

for our families and our viewpoints, our religious viewpoints, our Christianity and our conservative

viewpoints and our ability to speak these things publicly without the threat of being murdered

and cold blood for it, then we have to let, we have to focus our investigation on pursuing

the truth.

And we have to follow the truth.

We have to pursue the truth by letting the pieces of truth, which are the pieces of evidence,

guide us.

Otherwise we are doing an enormous disservice, not just to Charlie and his family and

everyone who knew and loved and respected his work, but to our country.

Now, if you watch my show often, you know I talk a lot about courage.

The courage to speak the truth, the courage to stand alone if necessary.

The courage to live out your faith boldly in a culture that increasingly demands your

silence or silences you because of your faith.

I want to be very clear about something.

Christianity is under attack in our country.

It's not just our conservative viewpoints, it's not just our views on immigration or our

views on the transgender ideology, although I would argue that you cannot untie the two,

but biblical truth itself is mocked.

Traditional values are smeared.

And the corporate media pushes narratives that are not just anti-conservative, they're

openly anti-Christian.

And that's why we exist here at Blase TV.

Blase TV isn't just a streaming service, it's a mission, a faith-driven mission.

It's a company built on the belief that truth with a capital T matters, that God given

rights matter.

And that Christians have a responsibility to engage the culture rather than retreat from

it, even when it's not popular, even when you face accusations of corruption yourself

for pursuing the truth.

So when you subscribe to Blase TV, you are doing more than just watching programming

you enjoy.

You're supporting a Christian faith-based company that refuses to compromise with the

lies of the culture.

Go to BlaseTV.com and subscribe today, you can use code Liz to save $20 on your annual

subscription.

That's BlaseTV.com slash our BlaseTV.com promo code Liz to save $20.

OK, so the post on Instagram yesterday, I posted the ex-post also on Instagram, there are

some comments that I'd like to read before we conclude the show today, just to wrap things

up.

A couple of the comments from Carmen official, she writes, no one believes this, the evidence

against Charlie Kirk, I wonder if you do or if you're being paid to pretend to believe

it?

Well, this is what I mean when I say, if you have, if you pursue, if your ultimate goal

is pursuing justice and you are pursuing truth in order to achieve justice, then you're

going to face hideous accusations, even from people ostensibly on your own side.

No, I'm not being paid to pretend to believe anything.

In fact, just to take a moment to defend my own honor here, I am one of the few conservative

commentators or internet commentators of any sort, who, when I am being paid to advertise

something, 100% of the time discloses that I am paid to advertise something, there are

a lot of people who you follow online who say things because they are paid to say it.

These are people even that are otherwise generally ethical people, but it is a common practice

on the internet with quote unquote influencers to say things and be paid for it and to excuse

not disclosing that because you quote already agreed with what you're being paid to say.

I don't believe that's ethical, I would never do that.

So I don't know what exactly you are alleging when you say if you're being paid to pretend

you believe it.

I am completely open about the fact that no one can purchase my opinions, not now, not ever,

but when you pursue truth, it's not always popular.

Okay, Josh, 3284 says, can you show the angle and trajectory of the shot because the

physics does not make sense?

Well, no, Josh, I can't.

Can you?

Well, no, you can't either because the video of Tyler Robinson taking that shot has not

been released by law enforcement, not to you and not to me, not to anybody.

I imagine that law enforcement has that video because they have other video of Tyler Robinson

on that roof and that the campus was generally well videotaped.

So I imagine law enforcement has that.

I imagine I hope they have it.

I hope that they will reveal it.

I imagine they will reveal it either in the probable cause trial that's coming up or the

probable cause hearing I should say that's coming up in May or at the trial itself.

But this is the problem.

There are certainly questions that neither of us have the answer to yet.

There are outstanding questions that need answers in this investigation.

There's nothing that's 100% definitive.

And yet, a question phrase the way that you phrase your question,

can you show the angle and trajectory of the shot because the physics doesn't make sense?

Seems to indicate that you believe it would be impossible for Tyler Robinson to have shot

Charlie Kirk and yet you don't have the evidence of that to demonstrate.

Again, I'm open if there's evidence that I always say I am open to changing my mind.

If the information that informs my algorithm, if the variables change, it's going to change

the outcome, I will change my mind if the variables change.

But I will not take a position that is based on something feeling strange or a question

that's unanswered.

I will not dogmatically take that position.

You can certainly say, hey, I would be interested in this angle and trajectory.

But to say the physics does not make sense, we don't know that because you don't know

you haven't seen the video of the shot being taken yet.

I hope we do someday, but as of right now, we haven't.

Okay.

You stay, says pretty sure Joe Kent has seen classified information that you haven't maybe

pumped the brakes. Well, Joe Kent has definitely seen classified information that I haven't.

He was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

I sure hope he's seen classified information that I haven't.

Otherwise, he would be pretty poor at the role.

And we the American people shouldn't feel that safe with him having been in that role if he

hasn't seen classified information. Yes, of course, he's seen classified information.

I'm going to refer back to what I said earlier in the show.

If his classified information that he's seen is proof of the enormous claims that he made,

then he should have the courage to reveal that publicly and face the consequences of it.

That's what a patriot would do.

However, he hasn't done that, which of course not only makes people skeptical,

but seems to be a move that an opportunist would make,

not someone who actually has hard evidence.

Fly Widget says, Liz, just stop. We're not buying what you're selling.

You know, there were a lot of comments like this.

And on this Instagram post, and my question

back to you would simply be, what in that post do you think is incorrect?

Again, I'm open to it.

I'm open to, if you have evidence that disproves any of the things that we publicly know at this point,

which is what I listed in that original post, the evidence against Tyler Robinson,

if you know of evidence that something is fabricated, that there's been corruption, that there's

a cover-up, there's investigations that are ongoing, there's information.

But what is it? What in that post specifically is incorrect?

I think one of the most important questions when people say, like, oh, we just don't feel this.

Well, what is incorrect? What is their evidence to refute?

Well, what is your evidence that refutes what I said?

I'm totally open to it, but you can't just say, just stop. We're not buying it.

Without actually telling me, what are you not buying and why?

Freedom-loving Mama Bear said, disappointing you would make such a statement,

given so many questions we aren't allowed to ask.

Surely, Charlie would want all of the questions asked.

What questions are we not allowed to ask?

I am 100% supportive of asking all the questions, even the offensive ones.

I specifically think that offensive questions should be asked, because there's a reason that people

don't want them to be asked. So what questions have we not asked?

There are certainly questions we don't have the answers to yet, but what questions are we not

allowed to ask and who's preventing us from asking them? I agree. I would never put words in

Charlie Kirk's mouth. I don't like that people do that, have done that in the six months since

his death. I don't think that's respectful, because he has no capacity now to defend himself

or to correct the record. So I don't like when people say what Charlie would think of a current event.

And I'm not going to do that. So you say, surely, Charlie would want all of the questions answered.

I'm not going to speculate about what Charlie would think now, because I don't think that's a

respectful thing to do. Charlie asked questions on a daily basis in his show before his death,

and he asked even those offensive questions, but he also let the truth be his guide. So that's

how I would respond to that. Yass, Yabber says, what evidence? Where is the evidence?

Well, did you read my post? I listed in bullet point form all of the pieces of evidence.

And again, I'm open to this evidence. If there's evidence that the evidence I provided is not

correct, show me. Why wouldn't I be open to that? But when you say, where is the quote-unquote evidence,

are you insinuating that Tyler Robinson's confession was fake, that it was coerced, that he's not

really guilty, that he's being framed, if so, by whom, that the DNA evidence, his fingerprints on

the rifle and his DNA on the cloth was fabricated, if so, how and by whom I just want to know,

if you're dismissing the evidence that I provided, why? And based on what? Again, I'm open to it.

I think the government can be very corrupt, but I just don't understand the dismissal of evidence

that we have without evidence that disproves the evidence that we have, if that makes sense.

Okay, last comment here on Instagram. Jmed says, you're high. If you think Robinson is the one

that did it, they lied to us about literally everything else, but surely they're telling the truth

about this. Well, listen, if you're talking about the federal government and subversives in the

federal government, the deep state, yeah, they did lie to us about everything else, which is why we

should be skeptical of everything they say, and it's why we should demand evidence of all the claims.

Of course, we shouldn't take their word for anything, but there's a couple of points to be made.

This idea that all of the evidence against Tyler Robinson is fedslop. Well, the investigation,

just like Joe Kent was saying to Tucker Carlson, isn't actually being run by the feds. It's being

run by the Utah State Authority. So that's not the FBI. That's not the Department of Justice. That's

not Cash Petal. That's not Pam Bondy. It is the Utah State authorities. Now, state authorities

could be corrupt too. They certainly have been in the past, not quite to the extent as the history

of corruption within our federal government, but of course, you're right. The federal government and

government officials all across the board have lied to us about almost everything in the last 10

years. So we should, of course, question them. But a question is not a definitive outcome. We

should question them and demand evidence, which is exactly what I'm doing with Joe Kent. I'm saying,

hey, I'm not going to take your word for it because you're a government official. You should provide

evidence to me. I'm not just going to believe you because government officials have lied to me in

the past. I'm not going to take his word for it just because ostensibly he's on the same side of

the aisle that I'm on on the right. He's still a government official. Show me the evidence.

And again, the comment, you're high if you think Robinson is the one that did it. Well, who do

you think did it? And what's the evidence? Do you have another suspect that you have evidence

that points to their guilt? If so, why are you hiding this? The American public deserve to know,

but I see often these comments about, this is unbelievable. You're nuts if you think that Robinson

is the one that did it will disprove the evidence that points to Tyler Robinson, show where the

corruption lies and tell me what suspect you would propose instead. This alternative suspect theory

and I'm happy to engage with that. Happy to engage with that. Okay. On that note, please subscribe

to the show as, you know, we do this on a daily basis. We talk about the things that matter. We

engage in dynamic analysis or investigations of the really significant things that are unfolding

in our country from the Charlie Kirk assassination six months ago to the Joe Kent resignation and all

of the, all of everything that's followed that in the past few days. So make sure you're subscribed

at youtube.com slash Liz Wheeler and please share this episode as well. It's very easy to share it,

share it on your social media, share it with your family and friends, share it whether you agree

or disagree and make sure that you air your opinion in the comments section. Thank you for watching

today. Thank you for listening. I'm Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.