Tucker Carlson Is BACK, & Man Arrested at Warren Buffet Meeting for Talking About Epstein





Tucker Carlson posted a video on Twitter announcing that he plans to independently relaunch a new version of his show.

At the same time, Axios published an article saying that Tucker Carlson’s lawyers have accused Fox News of breach of contract and fraud.

Is this the beginning of a fiery legal battle between Tucker Carlson and Fox News? Liz Wheeler breaks down everything you need to know, and what this means for Tucker Carlson and his viewers.

Plus, Liz reveals video footage from Warren Buffet’s annual shareholder meeting that no one is talking about.

In the video, a man named Peter Flaherty takes aim at Warren Buffet’s political ideology, citing the famous investor’s ties to Bill Gates. Then, Flaherty mentions that Gates was also close to Jeffrey Epstein, and what happens next is completely bananas.

Liz sits down with Peter Flaherty himself to find out what exactly happened at Warren Buffet’s annual shareholder meeting.

Finally, Liz talks about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his allegation of a 60-year coverup by the CIA of the assassination of JFK.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. Tucker Carlson is back. He posted on Twitter and announced that he would be relaunching a version of the show We all know and love on Twitter. We’re gonna break this down because Elon Musk responded to Tucker Carlson’s announcement with a pretty interesting announcement of his own. And Axios published an article simultaneously, like within five minutes of Tucker Carlson posting his announcement on Twitter and the Axios piece says, Tucker Carlson’s lawyers have sent a letter to Fox News accusing Fox News of breach of contract and fraud, the whole thing, I mean, we heard earlier in the week that Tucker Carlson was about to go to war with Fox News. It looks like the battle has just begun. So we’re gonna break down exactly what this means. Also, also, I gotta show you a couple of videos. This is one of the most banana stories that I have seen in a long time.  

No one’s really talking about it. There are some people that are watching these videos on Twitter. They’ve got almost a million views, but there is a man who is a shareholder activist. Now a shareholder activist is somebody who goes to the annual meetings of big conglomerates and, you know, speaks, speaks to the board. And that in and of itself doesn’t sound super interesting. Right? Well, at Warren Buffett’s annual meeting for Berkshire Hathaway, this man, his name is Peter Flaherty, he goes up to the microphone and, you know, proposes that they have an independent chair so that it’s not Warren Buffet as CEO and Warren Buffet as chair. He proposes an independent chair. So that Berkshire Hathaway is disassociated from Warren Buffett’s political ideology, and he details what Warren Buffett’s political activism or ideology is saying. Warren Buffett is close to Bill Gates and Bill Gates is close to Jeffrey Epstein, and as soon as this shareholder activist says the name Jeffrey Epstein, well, we’re gonna watch the video and show you what happened, but a little spoiler alert, he’s arrested almost immediately. It’s a bananas story. We’re also gonna talk about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And his allegation that there has been a 60-year coverup of the real perpetrator, of the assassination of his uncle. JFK. He’s blaming the CIA and we’re gonna break that down as well. So let’s get to it.  

So Tucker Carlson posted on Twitter announcing that he’s gonna be back even sooner than many of us thought. I personally thought that it would be at least a couple of months before Tucker Carlson would announce what his next venture is. Because when you, when you separate from a corporation like Fox News, especially when the separation isn’t exactly friendly, when you’ve been fired and you retain a lawyer, and there’s obviously going to be a lawsuit, and there’s a contract that you want to get out of the exclusivity, if your Tucker and Fox News doesn’t want you out of the exclusivity because they want your viewership for the 2024 election, I thought, well, this litigation is gonna take a long time, and it’s gonna be a couple months before we know what Tucker going to do next. Well, apparently I was incorrect on this. Tucker Carlson posted on Twitter and announced where he is going to bring his show. Take a listen to this.  

Hey, it’s Tucker Carlson. You often hear people say The news is full of lies, but most of the time, that’s not exactly right. Much of what you see on television or read the New York Times is in fact true in the literal sense. It could pass one of the media’s own fact checks. Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it. In fact, they may have, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s not true. At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie, a lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind facts have been withheld on purpose along with proportion and perspective. You are being manipulated. How does that work? Let’s see. If I tell you that a man has been unjustly arrested for armed robbery, that is not strictly speaking a lie. He may have been framed at this point, there’s been no trial, so no one can really say, but if I don’t mention the fact that the same man has been arrested for the same crime six times before, am I really informing you?  

No, I’m not. I’m misleading you. And that’s what the news media are doing in every story that matters every day of the week, every week of the year. What’s it like to work in a system like that after more than 30 years in the middle of it? We could tell you stories. The best you can hope for in the news business at this point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can. But there are always limits, and you know that if you bump up against those limits often enough, you will be fired for it. That’s not a guess. It’s guaranteed. Every person who works in English language media understands that the rule of what you can’t say defines everything. It’s filthy, really, and it’s utterly corrupting. You can’t have a free society if people aren’t allowed to say what they think is true.  

Speech is the fundamental prerequisite for democracy. That’s why it’s enshrined in the first of our constitutional amendments. Amazingly, as of tonight, there aren’t many platforms left that allow free speech. The last big one remaining in the world. The only one is Twitter. Where we are now, Twitter has long served as the place where our national conversation incubates and develops. Twitter is not a partisan site. Everybody’s allowed here, and we think that’s a good thing. And yet, for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes for media organizations that are themselves. Finley disguises, propaganda outlets. You see it on cable news, you talk about it on Twitter. The result may feel like a debate, but actually the gatekeepers are still in charge. We think that’s a bad system. We know exactly how it works, and we’re sick of it. Starting soon, we’ll be bringing a new version of the show we’ve been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter. We’ll bring some other things too, which we’ll tell you about, but for now, we’re just grateful to be here. Free is the main right that you have. Without it, you have no others. See you soon.  

Okay, I have many, many thoughts on this. First of all, I’m just delighted that Tucker is not going to be silenced for many months. Not that I expected him to sit out for the 2024 election. I knew that he would get a lawyer. I figured he would get out of his exclusivity cont or clause of his contract because there’s no way he’s sitting out for 2024. But I’m delighted that he’s back. I’m also delighted by the idea that he is going to put his new show on Twitter. I think that this increases the value of Twitter, not just the monetary value, although it probably does increase the monetary value of Twitter. It increases the value of Twitter when it comes to political discussion and political debates. All of our tweets, all of our interaction, more people are going to take part in political discussion on Twitter if Tugger Carlson’s show is airing on Twitter.  

So that’s the first thing, just really excited. Now, perhaps you had the same thought that I had when you first saw this video. You thought, well, Tucker Carlson at Fox was making 20 million a year on his contract. He had a year and a half left on that contract, a little bit more than a year and a half. Actually, he had about $35 million left in, in the contract before it expires January of 20 25, 30 5 million. That’s a lot of money. And if he’s willing to violate the exclusivity clause in his contract to launch a show on Twitter, it must mean that he’s willing to walk away from $35 million. And if he’s willing to walk away from $35 million, it doesn’t matter who you are. That’s a difficult thing to do. Then don’t you wonder how much he’s getting paid by Twitter? That was my initial thought. I think a lot of you probably had the same initial thought because it was a little unexpected to hear from Tucker to hear him announce that he is going to launch his show on Twitter, especially after the reports that we saw.  

I think it was yesterday that we saw reports that he was quote unquote talking to Elon Musk about possible collaborations. A lot of times those, as we’ve talked about before, those anonymous sources are just people associated <laugh> with the subject of the story who want to be anonymous because, you know, they don’t want their names out there. So maybe it was Tucker Carlson, maybe it was a member of his team, who knows who it was that put that put that out there. That being said, that being said, the bigger picture here is actually not about Twitter. It’s not really about Tucker Carlson launching his own media empire. We know that’s gonna happen. It’s just a matter of, you know, what venue he’s gonna choose to do it through and who he’s going to partner with and when that’s going to happen.  

But it’s an obvious reality, it’s going to happen. The bigger takeaway from this story is actually what Fox News is or what Tucker is doing to Fox News by releasing this video on Twitter announcing that he is going to launch a new version of the show that everyone likes on Twitter in the near future. He is firing a warning shot at Fox News. He’s saying, I dare you to come after me legally, because if you come after me legally, I will have discovery. And if I have discovery, I will find evidence that you violated my contract and therefore, therefore, you will have to pay me out of my, my contract that 35 million and I will be able to launch my new show Axios, a report from Axios substantiates this. We’re gonna read just a little of that in a minute, but also a very interesting, I don’t know what’s inside Tucker Carlson’s contract.  

Obviously, I’m not his lawyer, I’m not his, I’m not his spouse. I don’t know the details of his contract. I do, I am very familiar with what standard industry contracts look like. I am very familiar with what typical Fox News contracts look like, and typically there is an exception in the exclusivity clause of a contract for social media. It’s not a hundred percent. There are some, there are some people, some personalities even on cable news who aren’t allowed to film a selfie video and upload it to their own YouTube account. There are some people who are not allowed to do that based on the terms of their contract. But there are also some people who are, or who their exclusivity to publish, say on Fox News if they work for Fox News. Let’s not be hypothetical to publish on Fox News to write articles for Fox News to appear on other shows, only on Fox News.  

The exception to that is they’re also allowed to tweet or they’re allowed to post on Facebook, or they’re allowed to post pictures on Instagram. They’re allowed to have a, a usually personal social media presence, right. Tucker Carlson appears to be challenging Fox News to come after him if he has that that carve out in his contract. Like I said, I don’t know if he does. I suspect he does because since his firing, he’s released two videos both on Twitter, both in in an informal setting on his personal social media channel. So if he has a personal social media carve out to his exclusivity clause in his contract, which I think he does, because he tweets, right? unless there’s an extra, unless there’s an extra part about videos or political commentary in videos and there may be, I don’t know, but it seems to me that Tucker Carlson is challenging Fox News to engage in litigation against him.  

First, he’s saying, come at me, bring it on. I challenge you to challenge me to stop me because I’m not going away quietly. So Axios published a report, let me bring this up. This dropped almost at the same moment that Tucker Carlson published this video, which I suspect was not a coincidence. And this is what it says. Tucker Carlson, two weeks after being ousted by Fox News, accused the network Tuesday of fraud and breach of contract and made a host of document demands that could precede legal action. The aggressive letter from his lawyers to Fox positions Carlson to argue that the non-compete provision in his contract is no longer valid, freeing him to launch his own competing show or media enterprise. The Twitter move, the announcement would seem to technically violate Carlson’s contract with Fox, but his lawyer’s letter effectively holds that Fox breached the contract first.  

So, according to Axios sources told Axios that Carlson’s lawyers sent their letter before he took to Twitter to announce his new show. Okay? His contract runs until 2020 January of 2025, and the letter from Carlson lawyer, Brian Friedman, to Fox Officials Viet Den and Irina Briganti said that Fox employees, including quote unquote rut, Rupert Murdoch himself broke promises to Carlson intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth. The lawyers accuse Fox executives, which two sources say are Murdoch of making material representations or promises to Carlson that were intentionally broken constituting fraud. Notably, the letter alleges Fox broke an agreement with Carlson not to leak his private communications to the media and not to use Carlson’s private messages to quote, take any adverse employment action against him. Multiple outlets have reported on Carlson’s redacted communications from pretrial disc discovery documents like they’re talking about the New York Times text.  

Of course, the letter also alleges Fox broke promises not to settle with Dominion voting systems in a way that would indicate wrongdoing on the part of Carlson and not to take any actions in a settlement that would harm Carlson’s reputation. Carlson was told by a member of the Fox Board that he was taken off the air as part of the Dominion settlement. This is according to two sources. According to a source familiar with Carlson’s position, his lawyers believe that the misrepresentations alleged by Carlson amount to a breach of contract because they created additional terms of Carlson’s employment that were broken by the company. Carlson, this is actually the most interesting part of the article. Axios says, Carlson is also claiming that Briganti Fox’s longtime communications and PR chief attempted to undermine, embarrass, and interfere with Carlson’s future business prospects, which he maintains would constitute another breach of his employment contract.  

Quote, make no mistake, the letter said, we intend to subpoena Ms. Briganti cell phone records and related documents, which evidence communications with her and all media, including, but not limited to the New York Times. Carlson’s lawyers added that because Carlson is considering litigation against the network to resolve these disputes, Fox News must take immediate steps to preserve all existing documents and data related to Fox’s relationship with Carlson, including correspondence between tops executives and several media outlets. I think it’s safe to say that when we heard reports earlier in the week that Tucker Carlson was preparing for war with Fox News, he was not kidding this video on Twitter, this announcement that he would be launching this show on Twitter is Tucker Carlson thumbing his nose at Fox News, challenging them to come after that, to come after him. And I don’t think that Fox News, I think Fox News has already demonstrated to us that they are unwilling to put their executives under oath and have that testimony become public.  

That’s one of the reasons that they settled with Dominion, is because they didn’t want Rupert Murdoch on the stand and they didn’t want their top talent and texts between their top talent to be made public. If Tucker Carlson is as smart as I think he is, then he recognizes that and he’s putting them in a position where if he, if he engages in litigation against them, all of those same things regard, especially things regarding him, which are important to his viewers because viewers, you and I will be able to determine for ourselves if Fox News is actually on the side of based reality or if they are working hand in glove with the Democrat and Republican establishment, which is sometimes indistinguishable. The additional element that, shall I say, complicates This is the assumption I mentioned before that, oh my goodness, I wonder how much Twitter is paying Elon Musk if he is actually willing to risk 35 million that remains on his contract.  

Well, evidently Twitter is not paying Tucker Carlson anything. Elon Musk tweeted last night and said on this platform, and he, by the way, quote tweeted Tucker Carlson’s video, he said, on this platform, unlike the one-way street of broadcast, people are able to interact, critique, and refute whatever is said. And of course, anything misleading will get community notes. I also want to be clear that we have not signed a deal of any kind whatsoever. Tucker is subject to the same rules and rewards of all content creators. Rewards means subscriptions and advertising revenue share coming soon, which is a function of how many people subscribe in the advertising views associated with the content. I hope that many others, particularly from the Left, also choose to be content creators on this platform, which also substantiates What I suspect, again, I don’t have any insider knowledge of what’s in Tucker Carlson’s contract.  

I do have an idea of what goes on in this industry that I work in, this industry that I have existed in for a decade now, and I suspect that Tucker Carlson wants Fox News to sue him, and that he’s not going to be stopped from bringing his show to Twitter. It’s gonna be fun to watch it play out. I gotta show you two of the craziest videos that I’ve seen it. They’ve gotten almost a million views on Twitter right now, but even that number seems small compared to what, what kind of attention they should be getting given what happened in these videos. So lemme give you just a little bit of a background here at the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway. That’s Warren Buffett’s operation. Every year they have a shareholder meeting, as these big conglomerates always do at their annual meeting.  

Different people, different shareholders can get up and speak, make proposals about how the company is run, how the board is operated, who is in charge of the board. So at this meeting, you have Warren Buffet on stage listening to this, it what looks like an auditorium full of people, different people coming up to the microphone. A man by the name of Peter Flaherty came up to the microphone. He is the chair of an organization called the National Legal and Policy Center, and his agenda at this meeting was proposal eight, is what he calls it. Proposal eight. And this is a quote would require hereafter the two separate people, that two separate people hold the office of the chairman and the office of the CEO. So he wants an independent chair for Berkshire Hathaway. Doesn’t want Warren Buffet to be the head of this.  

This is, this is not a new proposal. Flaherty introduced this proposal last year. It’s a very common proposal at shareholder meetings for this kind of conglomerate. None of this is, is significant per se. None of this is, is what makes this story so crazy to watch. As you will see in this video, when, when Peter Flaherty goes up to the microphone and begins to present his argument for why there should be an independent chair of Berkshire Hathaway, he makes the argument that Warren Buffet has a political ideology that is not neutral, a political ideology that tinges the entire operation and therefore the two the CEO and the chair should be separate. The reason that, or not the reason, but the explanation for Warren Buffett’s political ideology clearly, clearly was opposed by Warren Buffett himself. You can hear it in the microphone, but I wanna show you first a video of exactly what Flaherty said so that you can understand the context of this argument. And then I’m gonna show you a video of him being arrested. Yes, arrested. So first of all, take a look. This is Flaherty’s remarks at this shareholder meeting.  

I am Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. If we had an independent chair, the company would be less identified with Mr. Buffett’s political activities. He’s donated tens of billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as Bill Gates explained when the company was still together. Although the company bears our names, basically half our resources have come from Warren Buffett. If woke culture is the disease, then philanthropy is the virus. The Gates Foundation bankrolls the teaching of critical race theory around the country, including that math is inherently racist. The Gates Foundation offers a gender identity toolbox, which asserts the gender is a result of socially and culturally constructed ideas. This is a lie. Gender is not a cultural construct. It is a genetic and biological fact.  

It’s at this point that a woman comes up to him and tries to interrupt what he’s saying.  

You’re not gonna censor what I say, m’am. I’m very sorry and I’ll appeal to the chair that I’ll be allowed to continue, sir. You may continue, but you, you’re under a three minute limitation. Of course, we know how much Bill Gates cares about children. He met and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein many times. Stein the Gates Foundation had a huge influence over covid response. The Gates Foundation may be the largest single donor to the dark money machine known as Arabella. We don’t aging American cities un conducting threat.  

Okay? So let’s understand exactly what happened in that video. In that video, he was speaking at a three minute limitation for how long he could speak. About a minute and a half to two minutes into it, a woman tried to interrupt what he was saying. He was making his argument for why Warren Buffet is too political, because of Buffett’s close ties to Bill Gates and Bill Gates’ close ties to Jeffrey Epstein. These are all documented facts. This is not speculation, this is not opinion. After the woman interrupted him, he appealed to the chair and said, am I, am I allowed to continue? Why is this interruption happening? The chair allowed him to continue, and less than 30 seconds later, he was, the microphone was cut. I spoke to Peter Flaherty before this show. I spoke with him today and he said he wasn’t aware when the microphone actually was cut.  

He couldn’t tell because there were so many hisses and booze in the audience. So he didn’t know. But then I’m gonna show you this video. Then. It wasn’t just that his microphone was cut. Security quickly approached Peter Flaherty at the microphone and not only told him that he had to leave when he asked, well, why do I have to leave? I haven’t finished speaking. They arrested him. Take a look at this. I’m gonna narrate for those listening to audio, what you’re seeing here, because there’s not as much audio on this, but let’s take a look at this. Manager should not.  

You can see him being walked out by security, by police, and another security guard stops another individual. This, this is so bananas. So at this, at this shareholder meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, if you so much as mentioned Warren Buffet’s political activity of evidently that leads to almost immediate arrest. This is so bananas to me that I wanted to bring on Peter Flaherty himself to discuss exactly what went down. Are we missing something? What’s the fuller context here? How on earth does do, does presenting documented fact about Warren Buffet lead to arrest in under three minutes of time? So this is the chair of the National Legal and Policy Center himself, Peter Flaherty. Peter, thanks for joining.  

Good to see you, Liz.  

Okay, Peter, are we missing something here? Was there some rule that you violated? Was there some standard you, some line you crossed that allowed them to arrest you this quickly? Or is this as bananas as it seems?  

No, I think it’s bananas. I operated within the rules of the meeting, as you can see from those videotapes. My demeanor was appropriate for annual meetings. I’ve been a shareholder activist for 19 years. I’ve spoke before the annual meetings of practically every major corporation at one time or another. I know how to act. I know how to conduct myself, and I expect to be treated with respect when I go. And I almost uniformly am. That’s why what happened on Saturday still leaves me flabbergasted.  

So what was the charge when they arrested you? What reason did they give you?  

I’ve been arrested on a form of trespassing. It’s, um really quite absurd because my name is on the agenda. I should make clear that we had a proposal which was printed in the proxy, which was on the agenda of the meeting that shareholders voted on on April 21st. We filed a lengthy proxy memo with the S e c in support of our proposal. I published my remarks the day before the meeting, so they knew what I was gonna say. But even if they objected to what I said, or even if they didn’t like it, they had no right to stop it. And you say, what are you missing? Well, you’re not missing anything because if you put those two videos together, there’s very little gap in there. It wasn’t like 10 minutes, it was like, just seconds. My mic was dead.  

It was really unclear to me exactly at what point it went dead. But two guys moved in got very close to me, touched me, and said I had to leave. And I said, well, I’d like to finish my statement. And they said, if you don’t leave, you’ll be arrested. And I said, I’d like to finish my statement. They said, if you don’t leave right now, you’ll be arrested. And within seconds they summoned a nearby Omaha uniform policeman who, who came over, grabbed my arm and said, you’re under arrest. And hauled me outta there. Now I do wanna make one thing clear, Liz. Throughout this, the Omaha police treated me with respect. They acted professionally and courteously. So I have absolutely no problem with them. It’s the people running the meeting with whom I have a problem.  

So you published, this is a significant part of the story. I think you published your remarks, the transcript of what you were gonna say, which you read when you were at the microphone online the day before. So Berkshire Hathaway and all of the organizers of this meeting, this annual meeting, had access to what you were going to say ahead of time. Do you believe that they planned this?  

Yes. When, when I got there this year the liaison was a woman named Kathy Woom. She’s that same person who entered my space and interrupted me as I was speaking and tried to tell me to stay on topic. Well, that was the second time she’d done that. On Saturday, when we first got to the meeting, she greets us. She was a liaison and it was all very, but then she said, well you know, we want you to stay on topic and we’re gonna really enforce the three-minute limit. And I just thought it was odd. I’ve never arrived at an annual meeting and had some representative of the company tell me to stay on topic. I’ll decide what I speak about, I’ll decide what I emphasize, and I will decide what I say. It’s none of their business really. Now, I want them to, to hear me and to give it thoughtful consideration, but they’re not me. I get to speak for me, not them.  

Also, I’m not exactly sure what staying on topic means. Since you, you’re, the point that you were making was that Warren Buffett is tied to political agendas or political activism that is problematic to a lot of Americans and a lot of people associated with Berkshire Hathaway. You were, instead of just issuing that as an accusation, you were substantiating that. So are there standards for what it means to quote unquote stay on topic? Or is that, seems to me that that’s just subjective. You in your opinion, you were on top.  

Not as subjective as you can get, but I think I was 100% on topic. The point I was making is that when you have the CEO and the chairman be the same person, it subjects the company to reputational risk. Because there’s just so much power embodied in that person. If things go south for them, the whole company suffers. Now, there is no company in the United States that’s more closely identified with its leader than than Warren Buffet. He’s the embodiment of the company. Now, some people think that’s just great and it makes a lot of money fine if Buffett wants to run Berkshire Hathaway like a private company, take it private. But as long as he has public shareholders like me we have rights and we have the right to attend the annual meeting. We have the right to file shareholder proposals.  

We have the right to have them voted on, and we have a right to be treated with respect when we go to the annual meeting, which is not 100% within their purview. It’s controlled by the laws of Delaware where Berkshire is incorporated, and it’s also subject to regulation by the S E C. So what they did was totally inappropriate. I’ve been a shareholder activist for 19 years. I’ve been to dozens and dozens of meetings I’ve never seen uh, somebody who’s filed a proposal have their mic cut off much less arrested.  

I mean, it seems to me, maybe this is a very obvious statement to make, but it seems to me that it was, because you mentioned Jeffrey Epstein.  

I think you’re right. Their guard was up. They, they didn’t like what I was saying but when I, when I mentioned Epstein kind of all hell broke loose. And as you can see there, buffet became very animated. So you know it, it’s a very legitimate subject. A lot of people think that there’s been a huge cover up here, and the rich and powerful have been protected by the government and the media and whoever else. The fact that Bill Gates spent a lot of time with Jeffrey Epstein, he visited with him. He traveled with him after Epstein had been convicted of s of sex crimes, was a major story the week before in the Wall Street Journal. And that’s one of the reasons I brought it up at this meeting. It, it was something that’s, that’s very current and very pertinent to the reputation of Berkshire Hathaway.  

Yeah. And this kind of reaction from Berkshire Hathaway and from Buffett himself is not gonna do any favors, are not gonna do anything I should say, to convince people like me who think that there is a massive coverup of everything that Jeffrey Epstein did, how he earned his money, how he died. And this coverup was staged by the hands of these elites. This, this incident’s not gonna convince us that we’re wrong. It’s not gonna convince us that there’s not any there, there, but tell me what happens to you next. I mean, do you have a court date? Thi was this a arrest? Yes. Just escorted outta the building, or is this like the real deal?  

No, my court date is May 22nd. I have to go back to Omaha. But in any case, I was taken from the arena after a short period of time, I was transported to, um a jail. I got there, I was searched. Uh oh,  

You were in jail. They put you in jail.  

Yeah, I was in a jail now. I was in a big holding cell with other criminals. And it was an interesting experience. When, when I, when I was questioned and gave my statement, they put me in handcuffs. And I was charged with failure to leave, which is a form of trespassing. And, but I bailed myself out. So I spent about about three hours in custody. I did, I did miss my dinner date. But you know, I felt fortunate cuz there were folks in that jail who were not going anywhere that evening. So it, it helped me keep things in, in context, but seriously to be arrested, um for speaking on behalf of a shareholder proposal is an extreme overreaction. And we have options it, this whole situation’s being reviewed by our legal counsel, Paul Kaar now, and I can assure Berkshire and everybody else that the Wil bear response by, by the way you know, I didn’t expect to become a social media sensation.  

I just didn’t know I was at exciting. But these little video clips of me giving my speech there and then being hauled away are getting hundreds of thousands of views on on Twitter. The shorter one where I’m being hauled away will probably go over a million sometime soon. So that part of it is quite astonishing to me too. But I, but I am glad that it apparently has, has struck a nerve with people who were not at the meeting and people don’t pay attention to Berkshire Hathaway, that there was something very, very unjust and andReg uh, irregular going on here.  

Yeah, I mean, I think the reason that especially the video of your arrest has almost a million views, it’s almost shirt across that, across that line probably in just a few hours, is because people like me who ordinarily probably wouldn’t have paid attention to the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, saw this and thought, oh my goodness, this is, this is unreal. This is so bananas that he mentioned Warren Buffett’s political activity related to Bill Gates, related to Jeffrey Epstein. And like that police were sent to arrest him and escort him out. That’s totally crazy. Peter Flaherty, thank you for joining us. We’re gonna continue to follow your case. I feels absurd even to call it a case. No, it,  

It’s a, it’s a real case. It’s a criminal case and it’s a joy to see you, Liz. Thank you very much.  

Yeah, of course, of course. We’ll, we’ll keep following what you’re doing and hopefully talk to you when this has all been cleared up.  

Be happy to come back and tell you what happened.  

Okay. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I don’t know how closely you guys are following his presidential campaign. He’s challenging Joe Biden on the Democrat side. I confess that I am following it pretty closely because I cannot help like the guy, but like the guy, I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life that I can remember. Even on the local level, I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a Democrat. Even when it’s uncontested, I usually just leave it blank. If Democrats are the only option, I really like this guy. I think he’s, he’s based, even though he’s a Democrat, so not on all issues is he based, but on a lot of issues like corruption, he’s totally based. He is now saying that the CIA killed JFK, his uncle, and he’s saying this completely, openly, completely not in a bombastic way. He’s saying that there’s overwhelming evidence that the CIA murdered JFK. Listen to this.  

Who do you think really killed your uncle?  

Well, I think there’s overwhelming evidence and that the CIA was involved in this murder. I think it’s beyond a reasonable doubt at this point in terms of my uncle’s death. The evidence is overwhelming that the CIA was involved in the murder.  

Overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence. I mean, here’s the thing about, I think it was about a year ago, it was last summer. Tucker Carlson spoke to a source within the intelligence community who had seen the 2% of JFK related documents that are not released to the public. They’re still 2% that are redacted. They’re considered classified information, and we the public don’t have access to look at them. The rest of the documents have been released, but 2% have not. They remain fully redacted in the possession of the national archives at a source that actually has access to that classified information. At the National archives in the intelligence community told Tucker Carlson that he had seen what was in those documents, and that the CIA played a role in the death of a president of the United States, John F. Kennedy Jr. And we’re so used to this idea because it becomes a favorite conspiracy theory that I don’t think that that news shook us the way that it should have if people within our own government plotted to assassinate the dually elected president of the United States.  

This is obviously orders of magnitude more shocking than even the egregious things that we’ve seen, the intelligence community and the Department of Justice and the FBI and the Democrats due to President Trump or what they did to him when he was the dually elected president serving in the Oval Office. You think that’s egregious? Think about a president being assassinated and the intelligence community playing a role in this. So that news came out, made its way to Tucker Carlson last summer and now RFK Jr., running for President of the United States. Challenging. Joe Biden says that he thinks that there’s overwhelming evidence that that is the case. And not only does he say there’s overwhelming evidence, he talks about his experience as a child, right in the aftermath of the day, in fact that his uncle was shot and what his father, who was the Attorney General at the time, what his father thought about who might have killed JFK and who he talked to and challenged and accused of committing that murder or taking part in it. If you want to watch that video, if you wanna be a part of this further analysis, join us over at LizWheelerShow.com/Locals, LizWheelerShow.com/Locals. I promise you won’t wanna miss this. This is, it really is crazy stuff. It’s a crazy time to be alive in this country. Liz wheeler show.com/locals. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show. 

Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top