A ‘Foreign Nexus’ in Charlie Kirk Assassination?! | Ep 243

0:00President Barack Obama. Virginia, we are counting on you. Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to raid the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. But you can stop them by voting yes by April 21st. Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let voters decide not politicians. Vote yes by April 21st. Paid for by Virginians for fair elections. All right, it's 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

1:04would 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

2:07Tucker Carlson. Take a listen. Very lovely. 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 a lone 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's 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. I'm not making any

3:11conclusions. I'm not saying that I don't think you are. 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. Right. So we have a lot of data points between Butler, the assassination attempts against President Trump, the breaches of his security would happen 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

4:14on 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. Yeah, the FBI was involved. The FBI 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 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 we're told by the FBI, DOJ. FBI DOJ, yeah. No, you're not allowed to investigate that. Stop. It's done. They basically cut off our access 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

5:17of 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, you know, 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. There were 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

6:17drill 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, we have to build into this today because there's 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

7:21the 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 is attorneys nor the prosecuting attorney responded to requests

8:21for 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-betweens, 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

9:25believe 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, Shellenberger writes, was a trans-identified man, and Robinson said in text messages that he killed Kirk because he, quote, had enough of his hatred. Under the Brady rule, Shellenberger 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

10:27were not allowed to examine any foreign links to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Okay, so that's the full written report from Michael Shellenberger when he interviewed Joe Kent. This is obviously the on-the-record portion of that interview. And there's a couple things to note about this interview, too, 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. But we also have a former coworker of Tyler Robinson who said that Tyler wants bragged to him about being skilled with a rifle. So this allegation from Joe Kent doesn't match the evidence that's publicly available. And I know some people have already said to me in the live chat, well, Joe Kent has access to

11:28classified information that you don't have Liz. Well, yes, of course, he did. As director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he certainly did have 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 it's not like I came. 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

12:29political 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 this, 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, then 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, this interview from Michael Schellenberger with Joe Kant, it is being mis, mis, I don't want to say misquoted, but misquoted a little bit, misquoted in the sense that

13:32there 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 Colvette, who was Charlie Kirk's executive producer on the Charlie Kirk show. He now

14:34co-hosts the show with Blake Neff, and Colvette is the individual who took the screenshots of the group chat in which Charlie Kirk had been talking about the Israelis. And Colvette 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. Colvette says Joe Kent encouraged him to, Joe Kent encouraged Colvette to release those text messages, those screenshots publicly. Colvette declined to do so. And then after he declined, and after he, Colvette 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 Colvette had a point to about why he gave those text messages in which Charlie was talking about Israel to Joe Kent in the first place.

15:37And 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 Colvette did make this point. He made a very particularly, so I want us to take a listen to this. Take a look. And I just want to make a point here. I am for 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 at very

16:38rapidly zero evidence. That's my point 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, okay, moving on. All right. You couldn't corroborate it. Okay. So I'm not anti asking questions. I'm not anti conspiracy theories. I'm I'm open to it all. Okay. But you have to have facts and 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. I will never look at a conspiracy theory the same way having been on this side of it because people make jumps to conclude. They jumped to conclusions. They connect disparate pieces of evidence and they connect them in ways that don't make any sense. Okay. 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

17:41idea 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

18:44almost 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.

19:48And 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 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. And Shellenberger explains how this impacted Joe Kent's ability to engage in further investigation. Take a look at this.

20:55I did directly ask him repeatedly that, you know, given that his agency is an intelligence gathering, a really intelligent 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 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 have some point to 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

21:55Director 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 the intelligence community abuse those powers to create the russia gate hoax, you know, the russia gate. And it's not just that. I mean, we can go through, you know, that 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, they 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,

22:58but 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 interact into some 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 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

23:58making 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 a list? 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. 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. That's what was truly at stake here, which Joe Kent, you have to admit,

24:58did 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 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

25:59that 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 has 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,

27:05to 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,

28:10are 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

29:14responded. Take a look. So two questions for you, Michael. So first of all, I just wanted 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.

30:16Listen, if Joe Kent made this podcast tour went on this, this media tour 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 media tour 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 irrational. 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

31:21says 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. That, you know, I think everybody knows that the reaction from the Trump administration of 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 Ken is suggesting here. And so, you know, if there's just really not, there's just 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, sort of, there are a couple points maybe in the interview sort of agreed that you don't need anybody else. I mean, Tyler Robinson,

32:28you know, 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 don't, 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, you know, just, you know, 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 before the other thing to note is what Joe Ken defines as a data point. When he was on Tucker Carlson in that clip, we played at the beginning of the show. He said, Charlie Kirk's express frustration with some of his pro-Israel donors or some of the pro-Israel lobby here in the United States, that that Joe Ken 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

33:31for so many years that that would be what indicative of a foreign nexus. That is, that is not in and of itself indicative of anything except that Charlie Kirk didn't like the 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. But if that's what Joe Ken 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.

34:32We 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. But 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 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 entertain the possibility that that was actually what happened versus latching on to the not just the theory of a foreign nexus but this this this believing that there was a foreign nexus with certitude despite the fact that the evidence isn't informing that

35:36view. 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 it's one of the most significant political assassinations in American history and so it kind of goes just a guy that had a maybe a furry fetish and a transidentified boyfriend. I think for a lot of people that might feel like not big enough or something or significant enough and I would say it is big enough. The what's I mean Charlie Kirk's whole legacy is tied up with him

36:39not going along with the idea that he needed to agree with a belief that you could change your sex or that man could become one. I think that might be the most insightful point that Schellenberger made. No, that wasn't information that that he collected from Joe Kent but that's accurate that Charlie Kirk one of his one of his most important legacies was pushing back on the radical trans ideology and he knew he knew he's he had known for years that the radical violent trans activists wanted to kill him and 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 you know 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 genocide.

37:45They're so marginalized they're going to be genocided by the oppressors these you know white Christian cisgender males and if they don't do something about it dot dot dot what's going to happen and so you take these these 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 and 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 and 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

38:45later in the show about the Jews being a threat so let's back up here again for just a moment because I want 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

39:49Tyler 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 ought six bullet I know it's very controversial had ricocheted off Charlie's spine down into his body and recent court documents and 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 ought six 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 predetermined enemy Israel and yet when they make this allegation they provide zero proof

40:54foreign 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 foreign 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 a a portion of the responses that I got yesterday um 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 this crap is essentially the collective response and so I want to I want to address this directly because and I asked these questions 100%

41:54in good faith very sincerely um 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

42:57that 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 so here's my question to you what are the allegations of this foreign nexus playing a role in Charlie's assassination based on like what's the basis of that is it is is the basis of it the maroon shirts at UVU the Egyptian planes Fort Watchuka we

44:06already established early in the episode that Joe Kent has not provided any detail or speculation the only data point 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 what is the basis of 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

45:09to it if you show me evidence of it what are you saying that Tyler is guilty but controlled by a foreign power or the US military or the US 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

46:21network 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

47:22but 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 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 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

48:27have 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 Blase TV.com and subscribe today you can use code Liz to save $20 on your annual subscription that's Blase TV.com slash our Blase TV.com promo code Liz to save $20 okay so the post on Instagram yesterday I posted the the X post also on Instagram there are some comments that I'd like to read before we 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

49:30if if you're ultimate goal is pursuing justice and you are pursuing true 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 uh 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 and they 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 um so I don't know what exactly you are alleging

50:33when you say if you're being paid to pretend you believe it um 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 the 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 um 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 there are outstanding

51:33questions 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 it 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 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 um is based on something feeling strange or a question that's unanswered I will not dogmatically take that position um 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 um okay

52:40you stay says pretty sure Joe Kent has seen classified information that you haven't maybe pump 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 otherwise he would be pretty poor at the role um and we the American people shouldn't feel that safe with him having been in that role if he hasn't seen classified information um 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 uh and face the consequences of it that's what a patriot would do however he hasn't done that which of course um not only makes people skeptical but seems to be a move that an opportunist would make not someone who actually has hard evidence uh 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 uh on this Instagram post and my question back to you would simply be what in that

53:46post 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 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 what in that post specifically um is incorrect that's I think one of the most important questions when people say like oh we just don't feel this well what is incorrect what what is 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 uh 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 um what questions are we not allowed to ask

54:50I 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 um 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 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 um 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 um but he also let the truth be his guide so that's how I would respond um to that yes y'all versus what

55:55evidence where is the evidence well did you read my post um I listed in bullet point form all of the pieces of evidence and again I'm open to this evidence if there's 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 uh his fingerprints on the rifle and his DNA on the cloth was fabricated if so how and by whom um I just want to know if you're if you 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 quiet last comment here on

57:01Instagram 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 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 authorities so that's not the FBI that's not the Department of Justice that's not cash patrol 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

58:03course 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 you 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 do you have another suspect that that you have evidence that points to their guilt if so why are you hiding this the American public deserve to know but I 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

59:04happy to engage with that okay on that note please subscribe to the show as you know we do this on a daily basis we we 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