Joe Kent, who recently left his position as the director of the federal National Counterterrorism Center, says there’s still a case against alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson, but he’s also suggested he thinks others could be involved — claims the FBI and others reject.
“I just want to get to the truth,” he told Daily Caller editor-in-chief Amber Duke. “I’m not defending Tyler Robinson,” but “it does appear that there are more leads that we need to run down. To include the foreign nexus.”
As he’s made the rounds on podcasts and cable news, social media has filled with questions about the fallout — could a former high-ranking government official’s testimony actually affect the capital murder case currently underway in Utah?
A legal expert told the Deseret News it would not, noting that social media speculation can misrepresent the legal realities at play.
Kent left his position in the Trump administration over claims that Iran was not an imminent threat to the U.S., but was drawn into the war, and blamed Israel in a conversation with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
Kent also claimed on Carlson’s show that when his team tried to investigate the death of Kirk, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation barred them from doing so. He again tried to blame foreign actors.
But Benjamin Williamson, assistant director for public affairs at the FBI, said Kent’s former position gave him zero authority to investigate Kirk’s death.
“This is like me saying I was ‘blocked’ from playing receiver for the Commanders — it’s an issue of having no business or frankly ability doing something, not an issue of access,” he posted on social media. “Furthermore, (the) FBI actually made an early exception and allowed NCTC to assess intelligence reports, and International Terrorism returned zero connections. None. Joe Kent kept making things up anyway.”
Later in his interview with Duke, Kent said he knew his comments could lead to him testifying in the ongoing case against Robinson in Utah.
Williamson said Kent “reeks of being desperate for attention and the baseless conspiracy theories he’s spreading about the admin, particularly Charlie’s murder, could very well make it more difficult to get justice for our friend,” Williamson said.
When Kent’s interview with journalist Michael Shellenberger was published last Tuesday, Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show” said that Kent’s move from federal official to possible trial “witness” crossed a line.
“The level of betrayal that I currently feel is dramatic and extreme,” Kolvet said. “For any fair-minded person, this is crackpot conspiracy, garbage, brain rot stuff, and now it’s gotten really serious. This isn’t podcaster junk. This isn’t like social media conspiracy nonsense. This is an actual government official who’s now going to be called to testify on behalf of the defense, and that is a bridge too far that has a line in the sand that we must hold, because this could negatively impact the trial of the assassin of my friend.”
Could it affect the case?
As a former prosecutor and now a defense attorney in Utah, Greg Skordas told the Deseret News all Kent’s comments do is “muddy” the case up without helping either party.
He also said the case won’t be affected by Kent’s comments, despite public concern.
“I think the defense is going to look at it and say this could be helpful, because it muddies the waters,” he said, but “at the end of the day, this case is still the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson.”
What matters, he said, is who the state can prove pulled the trigger on the gun that assassinated Kirk. But he also mentioned that he doesn’t see Kent’s comments affecting a federal case against Robinson, either.
“If the Feds want to charge that case, they’ll look at it the same way and say, ‘Who pulled the trigger, and what evidence do we have that it was this particular individual?’” Skordas said.
“Why he did it, or who was behind it, or who may have influenced him, could come up in another proceeding, but in terms of the state of Utah, or the United States of America versus Tyler Robinson, that’s not really important in deciding whether or not he’s guilty of this crime.”