Why did Joe Kent pretend during the interview with Megan Kelly that he had nothing to do with the screenshots?
Why did Andrew Kolvet stay quiet all this time and only come clean when accused point blanc?
If Andrew was indeed hoping that Joe Kent was going to use the screenshot to investigate Charlie's Death, why was he not incensed when he saw those screenshots leaked to Candace to instead create the entire conspiracy theory?
I think it does not take 200 IQ to figure out that Andrew Kolvet had already been turned as well.
Added: A little context for those fortunate folks for whom none of this nonsense rings a bell:
After Charlie Kirk's death Candace was pushing forth a lot of theories basd on "insider sources"
One of the theory involved that Israel killed him because he was turning against them
She suddenly managed to obtain the screenshot where Charlie expresses frustration about jewish donors pulling out.
This screenshot was used to cement in all the Candies' minds that Charlie was indeed killed by Israel
Later when Joe Kent resigned and went on some show (I think Megan Kelly) he talked about how the "screenshots that were made public showed such and such", acting as if he had no idea how they were made public
Andrew Kolvet was one of the guys on the Charlie Kirk's group chat, along with Rabbi Pesach Wolicki (who was supposedly Charlie's Rabbi).
In this recent view on Erin Molan show Rabbi Pesach told that Andrew Kolvat had told them all that he had sent the screenshot to someone in the government to help with investigation, and he implied that the "someone in the government" had to be Joe Kent since both Charlie and Andrew used to meet Joe Kent.
Now its finally confirmed that it was indeed Andrew who leaked those specific screenshots to Joe Kent.
As Andrew explains - Joe saw the texts and declined to get involved, (reminder that "they are going to kill me" does not exactly point a finger at anyone, so not smoking gun. Joe then suggested that Andrew make them public. Which allegedly, Andrew declined to do. So that is appropriate, in terms of revealing all the names in the chat - also stated by him. However, he then skips to Candace magically appearing the texts, rather fast. Hold up.
Joe Kent did not pretend anything. He didn't have anything to do with the texts, except that the information went past him. Whatever. Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun (except he did suggest Andrew publish them himself - hardly information that is relevant, while explaining oneself).
So not exactly fitting the Joe Kent 'leaking' story. More like, bouncing.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
I know peeps are gunna chime in and say Candace is lying. But I don't think so.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
Factually wrong. When she published them she said its from a trusted source. The next episode - timestamped link she said "Andrew Colvette confirmed that the text messages are real".
See how it works. Same people used as sources and confirmations to make a leak look authentic.
What does it remind you of? C'mon, be honest. We have all lived through this, but when ti was the left doing we had no problem calling them out.
Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun
Not sure what you meant by "Not really interesting" - but very relevant. Listen to the exact segment -timestamped. Actually please do listen to that segemnt, its very instructive.
The phrasing of the questions is just so incredibly amazing
"Andrew says he sent the document to someone in the government" - No pause for response.
Now note the next question. Its NOT "Was it you that Andrew sent it to?" but rather
"Did you leak it to Candace?" "No"
"Did you leak it to media?" "No"
"Did you see anyone around you leak it to media?" "I have the same access to media as you all have and I watched it happening but I dont know any specifics of anyone .. leaking ... so yeah"
Anons in the past would know exactly what this meant. Andrew sent it to Joe. Joe let someone else leak it to Candance without knowing the specifics. Megan was given the exact questions to ask so he can answer exactly like this, without technically lying.
If he was actually honest he would have said right after the first sentence "Yeah Andrew sent the screenshots to me, but I told him to make it public himself, not sure what happened after that"
So we have a Rabbi make a wild guess that Joe Kent was the leaker.
We have Andrew confirm that he, surprise surprise, did leak it to Joe Kent, but he does not know what happened after that.
Then we have Joe Kent given a very rehearsed interview, where he was given the exact questions to dodge giving the full answer.
Coincidence?
What was that we Anons used to say about coincidence?
C'mon man, we have cracked far more complex puzzled far few puzzle pieces.
Charlie was an extremely bright person who did not allow any source to shape his opinions, but rather he wanted to question everything for himself.
For this purpose, he met bunch of people - people holding opposite views even. Rabbi Wolicki was the guy he used for this purpose to question anti-Israel questions he would get and to learn things related to Israel and Jews.
He also met Joe Kent, would would tell him the other side of this question. And he would meet tons of other people who would give him their own opinions. This is why Charlie's breadth and depth in all matters was so impressive. He did what every Anon needs to do - collect info from diverse sources and use their own critical thinking to come to the final conclusion.
Point of order: 'leaked' implies an improper transfer of information. What Kolvet is saying is that he provided that information to a govt party in order to facilitate any appropriate action on the part of govt authorities.
I don't know if the conditions of the group chat would require permission from each and every member to submit the chat record to govt for the purposes of facilitating criminal investigation.
Point of order, nothing more. I have little knowledge (and little interest) about what any of these peeps are doing.
I would assume that my private messages on a private chat would not be disclosed to anyone including a govt official without a subpoena, without informing me.
I suppose the argument that it was an inappropriate transfer of information isn't without foundation, but I tend to think that 'leaking' has a specific nuance, and I'm not sure that its applicable here.
I would think it depends on the motive of Andrew. Was he actually sending every information he had for the purposes of investigation to Joe Kent? Or was he sending some info, including the screenshots knowing it was going to be used for something other than investigation?
My assertion is that if it was the latter, then it would qualify as leaking. Do you agree?
If you agree, now lets examine which of those two cases applies here. Lets say it was the former and he sent every piece of information to Joe Kent and according to him Joe Kent told him to make it public.
Pause for a second. If it was every information he had that might be useful for an investigation, would Joe Kent say "Release it to public" or would he be saying "Send it to FBI" ?
I would say that "Release it to public" is an answer appropriate only if Andrew took specific information to Joe Kent. Like the specific screenshots.
Thats factor one to suggest it was not the former.
Factor 2: Lets say you sent every piece of information you had to Joe Kent because he is a guy in government you trust. Lets say a week or two later, some of that information is now public and is used to build the whole conspiracy narrative . What would you do? Would you be outraged? Would you feel betrayed?
Or, would you chime in and confirm that indeed the screenshot is real?
Thats what Andrew did - he confirmed that the screenshot was real, giving Candace's viewers what felt like an independant verification of the screenshot.
So again it suggests that Andrew was intending to "leak" it.
This adds an extra level of complexity. The general feel I get is that Andrew portrays himself to be not subscribing to the idea that Israel killed Charlie. So why would he leak this stuff? The answer I find most plausible is that Andrew is not being honest and that his ostenible position is just for optics. He is acting as the skeptic of the narrative who provides confirmation indirectly.
Leaking information to the public ensures it won’t be buried.
Yeah but its not just one person's private info. Everyone involved should be onboard for this to be valid. And it should be done officially, by all the folks stating "This is the full information and we dont want it to be distorted, we just want it to be in public domain".
Why did Joe Kent pretend during the interview with Megan Kelly that he had nothing to do with the screenshots?
Why did Andrew Kolvet stay quiet all this time and only come clean when accused point blanc?
If Andrew was indeed hoping that Joe Kent was going to use the screenshot to investigate Charlie's Death, why was he not incensed when he saw those screenshots leaked to Candace to instead create the entire conspiracy theory?
I think it does not take 200 IQ to figure out that Andrew Kolvet had already been turned as well.
Added: A little context for those fortunate folks for whom none of this nonsense rings a bell:
After Charlie Kirk's death Candace was pushing forth a lot of theories basd on "insider sources"
One of the theory involved that Israel killed him because he was turning against them
She suddenly managed to obtain the screenshot where Charlie expresses frustration about jewish donors pulling out.
This screenshot was used to cement in all the Candies' minds that Charlie was indeed killed by Israel
Later when Joe Kent resigned and went on some show (I think Megan Kelly) he talked about how the "screenshots that were made public showed such and such", acting as if he had no idea how they were made public
Andrew Kolvet was one of the guys on the Charlie Kirk's group chat, along with Rabbi Pesach Wolicki (who was supposedly Charlie's Rabbi).
In this recent view on Erin Molan show Rabbi Pesach told that Andrew Kolvat had told them all that he had sent the screenshot to someone in the government to help with investigation, and he implied that the "someone in the government" had to be Joe Kent since both Charlie and Andrew used to meet Joe Kent.
Now its finally confirmed that it was indeed Andrew who leaked those specific screenshots to Joe Kent.
Taking all the stories at face value:
As Andrew explains - Joe saw the texts and declined to get involved, (reminder that "they are going to kill me" does not exactly point a finger at anyone, so not smoking gun. Joe then suggested that Andrew make them public. Which allegedly, Andrew declined to do. So that is appropriate, in terms of revealing all the names in the chat - also stated by him. However, he then skips to Candace magically appearing the texts, rather fast. Hold up.
Joe Kent did not pretend anything. He didn't have anything to do with the texts, except that the information went past him. Whatever. Not really interesting to sit there and say "I am familiar with the texts, but I didn't do anything with the information, because it wasn't a smoking gun (except he did suggest Andrew publish them himself - hardly information that is relevant, while explaining oneself).
So not exactly fitting the Joe Kent 'leaking' story. More like, bouncing.
Candace said that it was Andrew who shared the texts with her - said that when she published them.
I know peeps are gunna chime in and say Candace is lying. But I don't think so.
Factually wrong. When she published them she said its from a trusted source. The next episode - timestamped link she said "Andrew Colvette confirmed that the text messages are real".
See how it works. Same people used as sources and confirmations to make a leak look authentic.
What does it remind you of? C'mon, be honest. We have all lived through this, but when ti was the left doing we had no problem calling them out.
Not sure what you meant by "Not really interesting" - but very relevant. Listen to the exact segment -timestamped. Actually please do listen to that segemnt, its very instructive.
The phrasing of the questions is just so incredibly amazing
"Andrew says he sent the document to someone in the government" - No pause for response.
Now note the next question. Its NOT "Was it you that Andrew sent it to?" but rather
"Did you leak it to Candace?" "No"
"Did you leak it to media?" "No"
"Did you see anyone around you leak it to media?" "I have the same access to media as you all have and I watched it happening but I dont know any specifics of anyone .. leaking ... so yeah"
Anons in the past would know exactly what this meant. Andrew sent it to Joe. Joe let someone else leak it to Candance without knowing the specifics. Megan was given the exact questions to ask so he can answer exactly like this, without technically lying.
If he was actually honest he would have said right after the first sentence "Yeah Andrew sent the screenshots to me, but I told him to make it public himself, not sure what happened after that"
So we have a Rabbi make a wild guess that Joe Kent was the leaker.
We have Andrew confirm that he, surprise surprise, did leak it to Joe Kent, but he does not know what happened after that.
Then we have Joe Kent given a very rehearsed interview, where he was given the exact questions to dodge giving the full answer.
Coincidence?
What was that we Anons used to say about coincidence?
C'mon man, we have cracked far more complex puzzled far few puzzle pieces.
Pleas elaborate. Why does every person of influence in America seem to have a jewish advisor, a rabbi no less?
It’s sounds exactly like AIPAC, jewish interests influencing the influencers. Ensuring they are informed about the mindset of their subject.
Charlie was an extremely bright person who did not allow any source to shape his opinions, but rather he wanted to question everything for himself.
For this purpose, he met bunch of people - people holding opposite views even. Rabbi Wolicki was the guy he used for this purpose to question anti-Israel questions he would get and to learn things related to Israel and Jews.
He also met Joe Kent, would would tell him the other side of this question. And he would meet tons of other people who would give him their own opinions. This is why Charlie's breadth and depth in all matters was so impressive. He did what every Anon needs to do - collect info from diverse sources and use their own critical thinking to come to the final conclusion.
That’s not my point.
Okay
Point of order: 'leaked' implies an improper transfer of information. What Kolvet is saying is that he provided that information to a govt party in order to facilitate any appropriate action on the part of govt authorities.
I don't know if the conditions of the group chat would require permission from each and every member to submit the chat record to govt for the purposes of facilitating criminal investigation.
Point of order, nothing more. I have little knowledge (and little interest) about what any of these peeps are doing.
I would assume that my private messages on a private chat would not be disclosed to anyone including a govt official without a subpoena, without informing me.
That would be an improper transfer of information
I suppose the argument that it was an inappropriate transfer of information isn't without foundation, but I tend to think that 'leaking' has a specific nuance, and I'm not sure that its applicable here.
I would think it depends on the motive of Andrew. Was he actually sending every information he had for the purposes of investigation to Joe Kent? Or was he sending some info, including the screenshots knowing it was going to be used for something other than investigation?
My assertion is that if it was the latter, then it would qualify as leaking. Do you agree?
If you agree, now lets examine which of those two cases applies here. Lets say it was the former and he sent every piece of information to Joe Kent and according to him Joe Kent told him to make it public.
Pause for a second. If it was every information he had that might be useful for an investigation, would Joe Kent say "Release it to public" or would he be saying "Send it to FBI" ?
I would say that "Release it to public" is an answer appropriate only if Andrew took specific information to Joe Kent. Like the specific screenshots.
Thats factor one to suggest it was not the former.
Factor 2: Lets say you sent every piece of information you had to Joe Kent because he is a guy in government you trust. Lets say a week or two later, some of that information is now public and is used to build the whole conspiracy narrative . What would you do? Would you be outraged? Would you feel betrayed?
Or, would you chime in and confirm that indeed the screenshot is real?
Thats what Andrew did - he confirmed that the screenshot was real, giving Candace's viewers what felt like an independant verification of the screenshot.
So again it suggests that Andrew was intending to "leak" it.
This adds an extra level of complexity. The general feel I get is that Andrew portrays himself to be not subscribing to the idea that Israel killed Charlie. So why would he leak this stuff? The answer I find most plausible is that Andrew is not being honest and that his ostenible position is just for optics. He is acting as the skeptic of the narrative who provides confirmation indirectly.
Not if post event it demonstrated a fear of safety and you believed that most government agencies were corrupted to the core.
Leaking information to the public ensures it won’t be buried.
Yeah but its not just one person's private info. Everyone involved should be onboard for this to be valid. And it should be done officially, by all the folks stating "This is the full information and we dont want it to be distorted, we just want it to be in public domain".
Thats not what happened.
Shared. That's a better word for it. Under duress? Who knows... could be willingly. Could even be purposely.
Solid work.
u/#StayFocused