Joe Kent EXPOSED by Journalist Over Charlie Kirk Claims

[00:00] Journalist Michael Shelonburgger, a very

[00:03] good, reputable journalist, revealed

[00:05] yesterday in a shocking report that

[00:08] former national counterterrorism

[00:10] director Joe Kent, who resigned his

[00:13] position in the Trump administration

[00:14] last week, says that he would be willing

[00:18] to testify in the Charlie Kirk

[00:20] assassination trial about a potential

[00:23] foreign nexus. And if that testimony

[00:27] helps the defense,

[00:29] then Joe Kent says, "So be it." Sounds

[00:33] shocking to even process those words.

[00:35] Shelonburgger interviewed Joe Kent on

[00:38] and off the record about what evidence

[00:42] Kent can provide for the claims that he

[00:44] made on Tucker Carlson's show about this

[00:46] potential foreign nexus in the Charlie

[00:48] Kirk assassination. that Kent claims he

[00:51] was told by the Department of Justice

[00:53] and the FBI to stop investigating. So,

[00:57] I'd like to start the show today by just

[01:00] taking a moment to go back in time to

[01:03] what Joe Kent said specifically on

[01:06] Tucker Carlson's show before we get to

[01:08] Shelonburgger's report because I don't

[01:10] want Kent's words to be misconstrued or

[01:12] misqued. I want to be very precise in

[01:15] what we're analyzing today. So, this is

[01:17] what Joe Kent actually said to Tucker

[01:20] Carlson. Take a listen.

[01:22] >> Very loudly.

[01:23] >> He was single-minded

[01:24] >> and he walked off and he went, I

[01:25] believe, into the Oval. Um, so when one

[01:28] of President Trump's closest advisers

[01:29] who is vocally advocating for us to not

[01:33] go to war with Iran and for us to

[01:35] rethink at least our relationship with

[01:37] the Israelis. Um, and then he's suddenly

[01:40] publicly assassinated and we're not

[01:43] allowed to ask any questions about that.

[01:46] It's a data point. It's a data point

[01:47] that we need to look into.

[01:48] >> What do you mean um when you say we're

[01:50] not allowed to ask any questions about

[01:51] that?

[01:52] >> We we've we've been told that this

[01:54] individual uh Robinson is a lone gunman

[01:57] and maybe he is. Um but the

[02:00] investigation that that I was a part of,

[02:02] the National Counterterrorism Center was

[02:03] a part of. We were stopped from

[02:04] continuing to investigate and the FBI

[02:06] will say that that they stopped that

[02:08] because they wanted to have every turn

[02:11] everything over to the Utah state

[02:12] authorities. Everything's going to

[02:13] trial. It's very very sensitive. But

[02:15] there was still a lot for us to look

[02:16] into that I I I can't really get into.

[02:18] But there was still linkage for us to

[02:21] investigate that we needed to run down.

[02:23] And I'm not making any conclusions. I'm

[02:24] not saying like I don't think you are

[02:25] because, you know, because of this this

[02:27] happened. I'm not I'm not saying that at

[02:28] all. I'm just saying there's unanswered

[02:29] questions. We know the pressure because

[02:31] of the text messages text messages that

[02:33] have been made public that Charlie was

[02:35] under a lot of pressure from a lot of

[02:37] pro-Israel donors. And again, we know

[02:39] Charlie was advocating to President

[02:40] Trump against this war with Iran. And we

[02:44] knew at the end of the 12-day war, at

[02:45] the end of Midnight Hammer, that the

[02:46] Israelis were going to come back and ask

[02:47] us to go back to war again.

[02:50] >> Right.

[02:50] >> So, we have a lot of data points between

[02:52] Butler, the assassination attempts

[02:53] against President Trump, the breaches of

[02:55] his security, what happened to Charlie

[02:56] Kirk. C.

[02:57] >> Can I just ask you to pause on the

[02:58] Charlie Kirk just Yeah.

[03:00] >> Because it it upsets me to hear what

[03:02] you're saying to be reminded that he was

[03:04] murdered. Uh but also to hear you

[03:07] confirm what was reported in the media

[03:09] several months ago that your office had

[03:11] been blocked from investigating his

[03:14] murder. That does not make sense to me.

[03:16] I don't understand why you would ever

[03:19] turn down

[03:20] >> help in an investigation from a US

[03:23] agency with a lot of experience

[03:26] >> in gathering intelligence on things.

[03:27] That's your job. the the FBI will say

[03:29] and the DOJ will say that because it's

[03:32] an ongoing case, it's a Utah State case

[03:34] that back off. They've got it. They've

[03:36] got a smoking case. They've got the the

[03:38] fingerprints on the gun and and they've

[03:40] got the case.

[03:40] >> But the FBI was involved in the case.

[03:41] >> The FBI was involved. The FBI's uh

[03:44] basically said that they're deferring to

[03:46] Utah because it's now

[03:47] >> But they they've established a precedent

[03:49] for federal investigation of this crime.

[03:51] >> Yeah. And the the National

[03:52] Counterterrorism C Center's mandate is

[03:54] to investigate any any foreign ties to

[03:56] see if there's potentially any foreign

[03:57] ties. If we don't find any foreign ties,

[03:59] we back off.

[04:00] >> What I'm saying without getting into too

[04:02] much detail is there was more for us to

[04:03] investigate.

[04:04] >> There was You believe there was reason

[04:07] to investigate foreign ties to Charlie

[04:08] Kirk's murder and were told by the FBI,

[04:11] DOJ.

[04:12] >> FBI and DOJ. Yeah.

[04:13] >> No, you're not allowed to investigate

[04:14] that.

[04:15] >> Stop. It's It's done. They cut basically

[04:17] cut off our access to to be able to get

[04:18] into that information. Um, and look, I I

[04:21] didn't even say necessarily I believe

[04:23] there's 100% foreign ties. There were

[04:25] data points that we needed to

[04:26] investigate. I mean, I think anybody

[04:28] who's even, you know, looked at any kind

[04:29] of police investigation, you get a 100

[04:32] leads, you run them down, and 99 don't

[04:33] mean anything. We still had a lot more

[04:35] leads to run down that pertain to some

[04:37] kind of a foreign nexus that we we were

[04:39] stopped from investigating. And, you

[04:42] know,

[04:42] >> that just strikes me as uh inconceivable

[04:45] that that could happen.

[04:47] >> Okay. So, those are Joe Kent's precise

[04:51] words. And as I said, I want to be very

[04:53] precise here. I don't want um you know,

[04:56] it's very easy to have false memories

[04:57] and to to think people say things more

[04:59] concretely than they actually say. Joe

[05:01] Kent was very specific when he said that

[05:04] he's not drawing any conclusions about a

[05:06] foreign nexus. There were leads that he

[05:08] wanted to run down about potential

[05:10] foreign nexus. And it's I want to be

[05:11] fair to Joe Kent. I don't agree with how

[05:13] he resigned his position. Um, and I

[05:16] think that he needs to provide evidence

[05:17] of the claims in his resignation letter.

[05:18] We covered that at length earlier this

[05:20] week and late last week. But I want to

[05:22] be fair to Joe Kent. Um, and I want to

[05:24] quote him accurately. Um, two points

[05:27] from that video that I want to drill

[05:30] down on. The first point is a comment

[05:32] that Tucker Carlson made when he said

[05:33] it's inconceivable that the National

[05:35] Counterterrorism Center would be told to

[05:37] stop investigating or running down leads

[05:40] by the Department of Justice and the

[05:41] FBI. I want to address that. And I also

[05:44] want to address um what Joe Kent

[05:47] describes as data points. There were

[05:49] data points he said that still needed to

[05:51] be run down. And we're going to get to

[05:53] that. We have to we have to build into

[05:54] this today because there's a there's a

[05:56] lot of new information that's being um

[05:59] discovered each day as we as we look

[06:02] into both of these things. Joe Kent's

[06:04] resignation, the military operation in

[06:06] Iran, and Charlie Kirk's assassination.

[06:08] So, let's start here by reading Michael

[06:11] Shelonburgger's report on Substack. This

[06:13] was written by Shelonburgger after he

[06:16] had a sitdown interview with Joe Kent.

[06:18] He talked to him on the record. He also

[06:20] talked to him off the record, so he's

[06:22] probably privy to a little bit more

[06:23] information than Kent shared publicly.

[06:25] This is what Shelonburgger wrote. He

[06:27] said the former director of the National

[06:29] Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, says

[06:31] that the FBI did not properly

[06:33] investigate the assassination last fall

[06:35] of conservative leader Charlie Kirk. The

[06:38] FBI was pretty forceful in saying we

[06:40] couldn't investigate further. He Kent

[06:43] told public. That's Shelonburgger's

[06:44] operation. I saw no action being taken.

[06:47] Tyler Robinson confessed to killing Kirk

[06:49] in a text message and a note to his

[06:51] transidentified romantic partner. his

[06:53] defense team may now be able to use

[06:56] Kent's allegations that the government

[06:58] is suppressing evidence and did not do a

[07:00] proper investigation to their advantage.

[07:03] Kent said he knew that he might be

[07:05] called as a witness before he made this

[07:07] statement about a foreign nexus may have

[07:10] been involved in Kirk's assassination. I

[07:12] was definitely warned of that over and

[07:13] over again, said Kent. If I end up

[07:15] having to play that role, then I'll do

[07:17] it. It's not something I'm seeking. When

[07:20] pressed that his testimony could help

[07:22] the Robinson defense, Kent said, quote,

[07:25] "Then honestly, so be it. If it gets us

[07:27] to the truth, that's obviously the risk

[07:30] I'm taking." Neither Robinson's

[07:32] attorneys nor the prosecuting attorney

[07:33] responded to requests for comments from

[07:36] public. Again, public is Michael

[07:37] Shelonburgger's operation. A law

[07:40] enforcement official told the New York

[07:41] Post that Kent, quote, "had no authority

[07:43] to probe Kirk's death. He wasn't blocked

[07:46] from investigating shit." The official

[07:48] said he was blocked from accessing files

[07:51] he had no role or statutory authority to

[07:54] access. Kent said that the FBI's

[07:56] behavior suggested a wider effort.

[07:58] Obviously, if I was wrong, said Kent,

[08:00] then they would have let us run down all

[08:01] these leads and they'd be like, well,

[08:02] there's nothing there, man. It was just

[08:04] a crazy furry. Had we not been so

[08:06] forcefully blocked from running down

[08:08] leads, I would 100% be right there with

[08:10] you. But the more that we found, the

[08:11] more aggressively that we are blocked.

[08:14] In response to the question of whether

[08:15] there's evidence that Robinson had

[08:17] accompllices, Kent replied, "There's not

[08:20] from my vantage point. Nothing specific

[08:22] on the state of Israel." When asked if

[08:24] he had evidence of Israeli cutouts or

[08:26] gobetweens, Kent said, "It would be

[08:28] speculating for me to say yes." So, no,

[08:31] nothing specific on that. But Kent went

[08:34] on to describe things that he found

[08:35] suspicious. The stakes are high. Israel

[08:37] really, really wanted this war. They

[08:38] believe it's existential. Kent expressed

[08:41] skepticism that Robinson shot Kirk

[08:43] without accompllices. The lone gunman

[08:44] part always struck me as a bit odd. Kent

[08:46] said, "I've been in combat and I've done

[08:48] a lot of shooting." The shot that

[08:49] Robinson took, if that was indeed how

[08:51] Charlie was killed, I don't think that's

[08:53] an easy shot. And Robinson, I know

[08:55] videos of him messing around with guns,

[08:56] but he didn't seem very familiar with

[08:58] that gun from the stuff that I've read

[09:00] that the FBI still has under lock and

[09:02] key. Robinson's romantic partner,

[09:03] Shelonburgger writes, was a

[09:05] transidentified man. And Robinson said

[09:07] in text messages that he killed Kirk

[09:08] because he quote enough of his hatred.

[09:11] Under the Brady rule, Shelonburgger

[09:13] writes, which the Supreme Court

[09:14] established in 1963, prosecutors are

[09:17] legally required to turn over any

[09:19] evidence that might prove the

[09:20] defendants's innocence or reduce their

[09:22] sentence. Kent statements potentially

[09:24] offer an alternative suspect theory to

[09:27] argue to a jury that Robinson is a

[09:28] scapegoat and that police and

[09:30] prosecutors had tunnel vision, zeroing

[09:32] in on their client immediately and

[09:34] ignoring all other evidence. "I'm not

[09:36] casting doubt on whether Tyler Robinson

[09:37] is innocent or guilty," said Kent. I'm

[09:39] saying we were not allowed to examine

[09:41] any foreign links to the assassination

[09:42] of Charlie Kirk. Okay, so that's the

[09:45] full written report from Michael

[09:46] Shelonburgger when he interviewed Joe

[09:48] Kent. This is obviously the on thereord

[09:50] portion of that interview. And there's a

[09:52] couple things to note about this

[09:53] interview, too, as we as we begin to

[09:54] unpack all of this. Um, the first thing

[09:57] to note is Joe Kent's assessment of

[10:00] Tyler Robinson's capability with a

[10:03] firearm doesn't match what uh we know

[10:06] about Tyler Robinson. We know that Tyler

[10:08] Robinson liked to fish and liked to

[10:11] hunt. Um, we know that he comes from a

[10:14] family with a history of firearms. The

[10:16] rifle comes from his grandfather, which

[10:18] of course is not direct evidence that

[10:19] Tyler is himself skilled with a rifle.

[10:22] But we also have a coworker, a former

[10:24] coworker of Tyler Robinson who said that

[10:26] Tyler once bragged to him about being

[10:28] skilled with a rifle. So, this this

[10:31] allegation from Joe Kent doesn't match

[10:34] the evidence that's publicly available.

[10:36] And I know some people, you know, have

[10:38] already said to me in the live chat,

[10:39] well, Joe Kent has access to classified

[10:41] information that you don't have, Liz.

[10:44] Um, well, yes, of course he did. As

[10:46] director of the National

[10:47] Counterterrorism Center, he certainly

[10:48] did have he certainly had access to

[10:50] information, classified information that

[10:52] I don't have access to. But that's

[10:54] actually the problem here. If he has

[10:56] access to information that contradicts

[10:58] what's publicly known, then he should

[11:00] tell us what that evidence is. Um,

[11:03] because listen, and we'll get into this.

[11:04] I don't want to get ahead of myself

[11:06] here. If there is evidence of a foreign

[11:08] nexus in the Charlie Kirk assassination,

[11:10] why wouldn't I be open to that? Why

[11:12] wouldn't anybody be open to that? It's

[11:14] not like it's not like I came, and I'll

[11:16] speak for myself here, although I think

[11:17] this is true for many people. Um I did

[11:20] not come to the table with a

[11:22] preconceived outcome or a preconceived

[11:25] villain. I'm open to any possibility um

[11:28] of a large or small conspiracy, a lone

[11:31] shooter, um a group of people who

[11:33] plotted this. I mean, heck, we'll get

[11:36] into my beliefs about even the US

[11:38] government and the US government's

[11:39] capacity to uh assassinate political

[11:42] figures they don't like here in a couple

[11:44] of minutes. Um, but I just want to

[11:46] establish right now without getting

[11:47] ahead of myself that I don't come to

[11:50] this I I I don't come to the table to

[11:53] analyze the Charlie Kirk assassination

[11:54] and who might be guilty, might not be

[11:56] guilty, who might be involved or might

[11:58] not be involved with any kind of

[11:59] preconceived notions. I'm open to

[12:01] wherever the evidence leads us, but the

[12:04] key word the key word in that sentence

[12:06] is evidence. So if Joe Kent is is making

[12:10] an allegation that contradicts what's

[12:12] publicly available, that and yes, he had

[12:14] access to information that maybe I don't

[12:16] have access to, he should show us what

[12:19] that evidence is. It would be in the I

[12:21] mean, it's in the interest of not

[12:22] justice for Charlie Kirk. It's in the

[12:24] interest of a government working on

[12:26] behalf of the American people and not

[12:28] against us. But again, I don't want to

[12:30] get too I don't want to get too ahead of

[12:32] myself. So, this this interview for

[12:35] Michael Shelonburgger with Joe Kent, it

[12:37] is being uh mis mis I don't want to say

[12:41] misqued, but misqued a little bit. Um

[12:44] misqued in the sense that there are some

[12:46] people saying that Joe Kent wants to

[12:47] testify for the defense of Tyler

[12:50] Robinson. And that's not exactly what he

[12:53] said. Um, he said he would be willing

[12:55] to, which you know, you can you can

[12:58] speculate about Joe Kent's motives all

[13:00] you want. I know we've done that on this

[13:02] show in the past couple of days, but um

[13:05] the key here, the key here to me, and I

[13:08] think to you as well, is evidence. This

[13:11] was this has always been my um this has

[13:14] always been since last week my criticism

[13:17] of Joe Kent. Not that he resigned, not

[13:19] that he's against the Iran war, but when

[13:21] for the reasons he gave for being

[13:23] against the Iran war, he needs to

[13:25] provide evidence of that. Not just

[13:27] because I don't want to take anybody's

[13:28] word for it, but because if his

[13:30] allegations are true, they're enormous.

[13:32] The implications and consequences are

[13:34] severe and significant and we the people

[13:37] deserve to have evidence of that if our

[13:38] government is abusing us. Um, so I want

[13:41] to show you next a video of Andrew

[13:43] Kovette who was Charlie Kirk's executive

[13:45] producer on the Charlie Kirk show. now

[13:47] co-hosts the show with Blake Nef and

[13:50] Kvette is the individual who took the

[13:52] screenshots of the group uh chat in

[13:55] which Charlie Kirk had um been talking

[13:58] about the Israelis and Kvette gave those

[14:02] screenshots to Joe Kent in the days

[14:04] following Charlie's assassination and

[14:06] then there's questions about what Joe

[14:08] Kent did with those text messages.

[14:10] Kvette says Joe Kent encouraged him to

[14:14] uh Joe Kent encouraged Kvette to release

[14:16] those text messages, those screenshots

[14:18] publicly. Kvette declined to do so. And

[14:21] then after he declined and after he

[14:23] Kvette had given those screenshots to

[14:25] Joe Kent, suddenly someone leaked those

[14:28] text messages to Candace Owens and they

[14:30] became public. Of course, the

[14:32] speculation is, was Joe Kent the person

[14:35] who leaked those screenshots to Candace

[14:37] Owens? And it certainly seems like a

[14:39] very a very plausible theory, but

[14:41] Kovette had a point too about why he

[14:43] gave those text messages in which

[14:45] Charlie was talking about Israel um to

[14:48] Joe Kent in the first place. And I think

[14:50] that this is a point that needs to be

[14:54] that we need to intake

[14:57] um better. We need to be a little

[14:59] circumspect about this. We need to

[15:02] just take a moment quietly and say, "Oh,

[15:05] that's right. This point uh we don't

[15:09] make this point enough." And Kovette did

[15:11] make this point. He made it very

[15:12] articulately. So, I want us to I want us

[15:14] to take a listen to this. Take a look.

[15:15] >> And I just want to make a point here. I

[15:18] am for asking questions. This is why I

[15:20] shared the group chat with Joe Kent in

[15:22] the first place. I'm not afraid of the

[15:24] answer to those questions. If Israel had

[15:27] a hand in killing Charlie, I want to

[15:29] know. I wanted to know. What I am

[15:32] telling you is that we've had six months

[15:34] plus since that time to track down all

[15:36] those leads. None of which have been

[15:38] corroborated. None of which have

[15:39] actionable evidence behind. None of

[15:41] which have been presented in any way,

[15:43] shape or form to suggest there was there

[15:46] was uh probable that there's any

[15:48] evidence overwhelming evidence very

[15:50] rapidly accumulated zero evidence.

[15:52] That's my point.

[15:53] >> Currently facing trial.

[15:54] >> Yeah, I am willing to ask the hard

[15:56] questions. We want the truth. But when

[15:58] there's no evidence and there's no facts

[16:01] that would back up those questions, then

[16:03] you have to say, "Okay, moving on." All

[16:05] right. You couldn't corroborate it.

[16:07] Okay. So, I'm not anti- asking

[16:09] questions. I'm not anti-conspiracy

[16:10] theories. I'm I'm open to it all. Okay.

[16:13] But you have to have facts. And the

[16:15] recklessness with which these

[16:17] accusations are being thrown out now has

[16:19] real world implications. And I just it's

[16:22] this brain rot, Michael, that's driving

[16:24] me insane. Being on the other side of

[16:25] it, I will never look at a conspiracy

[16:27] theory the same way having been on this

[16:29] side of it because people make jumps to

[16:32] conclu they jump to conclusions. They

[16:34] connect disperate pieces of evidence and

[16:36] they connect them in ways that don't

[16:37] make any sense.

[16:39] >> Okay. So, the point that Kvette makes

[16:41] there um is a point that I think a lot

[16:44] of people are hesitant to make, which is

[16:47] and I I completely agree with Kvette on

[16:49] this. I was and remain even open to the

[16:54] idea that there could have been a

[16:56] foreign nexus to the Charlie Kirk

[16:58] assassination. Why wouldn't I be open to

[17:00] that if the evidence showed that? I

[17:02] remain open to almost any possibility of

[17:06] who could have committed that murder,

[17:09] who could have taken part in planning

[17:11] that murder, who could have had

[17:12] fornowledge of that murder. There were a

[17:14] lot of people that wanted Charlie Kirk

[17:16] dead. And I think it's a point that

[17:18] hasn't been made enough that

[17:22] we don't I don't sit here, again, I'm

[17:23] not going to speak for other people. I

[17:24] don't sit here and say that,

[17:29] oh, Israel wasn't involved or the French

[17:31] weren't involved or the Egyptian planes

[17:33] weren't involved. I don't say that

[17:35] because I had some preconceived idea

[17:38] that I wanted to come to the defense of

[17:39] these countries.

[17:42] Not at all.

[17:43] I say that because I want to let the

[17:46] evidence build the case. And so again,

[17:49] worth repeating what Kulvette said. Um I

[17:52] I was at the time, especially in the

[17:55] days following Charlie's assassination,

[17:56] open to almost any possibility of what

[17:58] happened, including a foreign nexus. The

[18:01] problem, and this goes back to the

[18:02] original problem of what Joe Kent uh of

[18:04] Joe Kent's comments on Tucker Carlson,

[18:07] is you have to show us the proof. You

[18:09] have to show us the evidence.