Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing: The Final Day Part 1

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country, fighting for the future. 00:00:10 Speaker 2: Of our republic. 00:00:11 Speaker 1: My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. 00:00:14 Speaker 3: If the most. 00:00:15 Speaker 1: Important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 4: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 1: I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 2: Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. 00:00:49 Speaker 5: Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 1: Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. 00:01:17 Speaker 4: Today is the final day of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing. I guess I should say we hope, because every step of this process has been as elongated as it could possibly be, it feels. We're approaching the one-year mark of Charlie's death. Tyler Robinson, the defendant, the accused, formally has not actually been even charged yet. We've had a year of proceedings just to decide whether this case has enough evidence to proceed to trial. We had an entire week of preliminary hearing in July where we had testimony presented and video presented and DNA evidence presented. It felt a lot like a trial, but it was actually only a preliminary hearing. And then at the end of it, Judge Graff overseeing the case said, We now need to wait two months. You'll get to make closing arguments then, and then I will rule. Well, we've reached the day set for those closing arguments. We'll be going to that hearing as soon as it is visible to the media, open to the public. For the time being, my understanding is the hearing either has started or is about to start. They'll be hashing out a defense motion related to what specific evidence is able to be viewed by the public. Hopefully that will only go about 45 minutes to an hour, and then we'll be able to get inside the courtroom. But until then, we will be talking about, I'd say, I think, Danny, we should talk about what's happened in the last two months. So we remember, if you haven't been following every maneuver of this case, back in July, we had a week of preliminary hearings that was primarily the prosecution making its probable cause case. So we got a lot of evidence that we'd heard about but had not seen yet was finally presented to the public. We saw surveillance footage from uvu which showed the suspect who we believe was tyler robinson walking around campus uh multiple times uh in different outfits in one of them the person appears to be limping in a strange way like they have something hidden under their clothes that is believed to be the rifle we saw footage of them on the rooftop uh going into position and then fleeing the scene after the fatal shot we saw discussion of dna evidence we saw Testimony, and most compellingly, we saw testimony from Lance Twiggs. So that all happened. Since then, we've been waiting on these final arguments. And one of the things that happened about three weeks ago was we got a filing from the defense that was in text form, their final briefing of the case they are making prior to the bind over hearing. And what we highlighted and is worth highlighting is both what they talk about and what they didn't talk about. Because this It was a 41-page filing, and in this 41-page filing, they never really debunked any of the core claims from the prosecution that Tyler Robinson engaged in the shooting. Instead, it was entirely focused on trying to undercut the case for the death penalty. As we've discussed, in Utah, actually in every state, to get the death penalty in a murder case, you need aggravating factors. You can't just have it as the default penalty for first degree murder. So they need aggravations such as many people were in danger, that children were in danger, that there was a political or like a hate based motive for the crime. And so they offered evidence for that. And the defense did try to push back on that. They tried to argue quite literally in this 41 page filing, they argued that The defendant was basically a good shot that he hit his intended target, and so therefore he was not putting other people's lives recklessly in danger at UVU. That was part of their 41-page filing. But what that filing did do is it did admit that it was a rifle shot that killed Charlie at UVU. It was not an exploding microphone. They did not introduce any of these other theories whatsoever. And they also argued, for example, there's one of the secondary charges against Tyler Robinson is that he was engaging in witness tampering, that he was telling Lance Twiggs not to talk to police. And there, as a result, the defense offers all this evidence that actually the defendant was just offering genuine good advice, like that he was just looking out for his friends, his boyfriend's well-being. 00:05:53 Speaker 6: So. 00:05:54 Speaker 4: That happened in the meantime since then. There's 41 pages in this, and only a single page dealt with what we would say is conventional guilt or innocence. They argued for it being impermissible hearsay that they'd introduced all of the Lance Twiggs footage without having Lance Twiggs personally there, but the court had already ruled on that. That's the only argument they made in 41 pages, Danny, about actual guilt or innocence. 00:06:19 Speaker 6: Yeah, and we also learned that they... have over a 1 million communications from discord and other messages that they recovered. 00:06:27 Speaker 4: That just happened. 00:06:28 Speaker 7: Yes. 00:06:28 Speaker 4: I'm glad you brought that up. We got a defense 12 page discovery status report just this week. Uh, Andrea Burkhart, who has been really chronicling this case. She uploaded that. If you check Andrea Burkhart sub stack, you can read it yourself. Uh, yeah, more than a million discord messages and more than 25,000 location records, uh, From CSLI, I believe that's his cell phone ping. So they basically have every cell phone ping ever made by Tyler Robinson's phone, so they can track every place he was going. Now, what prosecutors claim, and what I suspect evidence will show, is that Tyler Robinson, who lived in southwest Utah in St. George, that he made this journey all the way up to Orem, Utah... on that day that he was in the vicinity of the campus. I'm not sure how precisely they can pinpoint it, but they'll certainly be able to show, I suspect, that he was in that city when the shooting occurred and then that he journeys home. And we had testimony at the trial at the preliminary hearing of Lance Twiggs confirming that he left mysteriously to go somewhere on the day that the shooting occurred. In fact, I think we have This queued up, so let's remind people of some of the stuff that we saw. Let's play clip six. 00:07:48 Speaker 8: Let's jump to September 10th. 00:07:51 Speaker 7: Did he spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th? 00:07:58 Speaker 5: Yeah, he did. 00:08:00 Speaker 1: Yes. 00:08:01 Speaker 3: Do you know when he left the apartment on September 10th? 00:08:03 Speaker 8: I don't know an exact time. I just know he left early. I heard him leaving, and he just said he had a. 00:08:12 Speaker 8: Long drive to work that day so he was leaving early. 00:08:15 Speaker 3: So early any guess as to what. 00:08:21 Speaker 5: When that was? 00:08:22 Speaker 8: I don't know I would have thought it was 5am because that's when like an early work day was for him but it was probably more like 4. 00:08:32 Speaker 4: So now they've sent all the cell phone records that will we hope we believe will confirm that account of when he left his home, where he journeyed up. It's all about tons of different pieces coming together and I guess the upside of Utah's very cumbersome process compared to, it seems, other states. We've talked to prosecutors who've said in some other states we would have gotten an arraignment the following day. We would hopefully be in trial right now. Here, it's taken us a year to get through this entire process. We may not get a trial. Andrea said if we get a trial, it might not be until 2020 28, possibly. So we might get another year of delays after this. And we know that that slow process, I think, has driven a lot of the weirder theories about this. I know that it's... I think, Danny, would you agree, there's a lot of nervous energy that people, they want to see justice in the case. It's going so slowly. It goes slower than we feel it should. And so people fill in that void with... Lots of wild speculation. 00:09:43 Speaker 6: Lots of theories on their own and what's good about at least these briefs that have come out is it kind of quells and puts away a lot of these theories like with the cell phone data. Why the people that have made these theories didn't think that they would ever have cell phone data to prove them wrong it's kind of absurd to begin with um so people have just been running wild with whatever they want with really with no critical thinking um i said the other day we're in a critical thinking depression right now it seems that everybody's just so on edge especially with this case but about really everything going on um that they're just deciding to make up whatever they want we. 00:10:17 Speaker 4: Are hoping that that after some testimony today, some final arguments, we will get a decision from Judge Graff on bind over. That is the legal term, whether this will proceed to trial. But for more expertise on this, because I am not a lawyer and Danny is not a lawyer, we made different choices in our lives. We're joined by a legal expert who's helped us a lot throughout this case. That is Jay Town. He's a former prosecutor from Alabama. And he joins us now. Jay, are you there? 00:10:45 Speaker 3: I am here. You made better choices is what you meant to say, right? You didn't make different choices. That's okay. 00:10:52 Speaker 4: Well, if you say so. You're the one who took the plunge. Jay, thank you for joining us. Thank you for being flexible because we got a lot of last minute swerves in this hearing schedule. But Jay, let's just sketch it out for our viewers. I was asking you what you expected to see today. So I know Judge Graff, he's allotted two hours each for the prosecution and the defense to make their closing arguments. This is not a trial. It feels like a trial in so many ways, but it's not. What should we expect to see today from each side? 00:11:27 Speaker 7: Well, I don't believe that the prosecution should use more than 20 minutes. 00:11:32 Speaker 3: I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. It speaks for itself. If you have to really argue at this point that there. 00:11:39 Speaker 7: Is probable cause for So better than a coin toss chance that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, then you've lost already. You don't have any faith in your case. I mean, I'm not involved in the case whatsoever. I've talked about it more on your program than I have anywhere else. And I can tell you, I can list 20 or 25 pieces. 00:12:01 Speaker 3: Of evidence that are very damning. 00:12:03 Speaker 7: Independently and then certainly when taken together against Tyler Robinson to include the multitude of confessions from Tyler Robinson that he admitted he killed Charlie Kirk. 00:12:14 Speaker 3: So I don't think there's any question for the judge and the prosecution should stand up and sit down. 00:12:21 Speaker 7: There is no reason to put on a show. Now, the defense is going to do the exact opposite. They're going to go into every nit-noid. Somebody said they saw a dog one day, and now they're saying they saw a puppy. And that's their job, and that's fine, and that's the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to counsel and provide a vigorous defense. 00:12:43 Speaker 3: I'm fine with all of that. But this should never have taken a year. 00:12:48 Speaker 7: The state of Utah made a mistake by not going to a grand jury and indicting. They allowed this circus to play out. They've allowed the jury pool for the actual trial that will take place to be infected with the tinfoil hat crowd that does exist and is out there and has millions of people putting eyeballs on it. And that was just, I think, a mistake by Utah prosecutors in this particular case. And I'm not being critical of them. I mean, that's probably the way they do it in every homicide case. And they just didn't think any different. But as a career homicide prosecutor, I can tell you, I want to get to trial. 00:13:25 Speaker 3: I don't want to spend a year on a prelim and put the Kirk family through this for a year just to say, well, trial's next August, right? 00:13:33 Speaker 7: I mean, I think Erica would be devastated by that. She wants, just like I do and so many others, want justice for Charlie. And justice delays, justice denied. 00:13:41 Speaker 3: Let's get to it. 00:13:43 Speaker 4: Yeah, Jay, it feels to me that if we were to take a policy prescription from this high-profile case and a few other ones. It actually should be a priority. We should maybe reform our system to encourage cases to go more briskly from arrest to indictment to trial to verdict. That, as you say, if the process is dragging out, you're introducing more room for weird theories to come in, for stuff to go awry. And I guess at this point you might even say, witnesses, like important witnesses might die or become incapacitated. There's so many ways that a case can go wrong when it goes on and on and on like this. You've been a professional in this sphere. It feels to me like things have been just getting longer across the board in the court system. Is that the case from your experience? Does it take longer to complete a trial than it once did as a general matter across the states? 00:14:44 Speaker 7: I think so, because delay is always the best tactic when you're yielding. Right. 00:14:48 Speaker 3: Like you said, memories fade. People die. Maybe those people get scuffed up with a charge. 00:14:53 Speaker 7: And so they're not, you know, the veracity of their testimony isn't as heavy as it once was prior to a grand jury. 00:15:01 Speaker 3: Indictment or in this case, a probable cause hearing. 00:15:04 Speaker 7: And that's sort of the hope is that I mean, the state's evidence will not get better after the arrest. 00:15:12 Speaker 3: Typically, not much better. But the defense is defense. does get better oftentimes. 00:15:18 Speaker 7: And I've had capital murder cases where I wanted, I sought to put people on death row for capital punishment for murder. And those cases, one of them went five years before we got to a trial. It was absolute absurdity to the point where we actually changed the law here in the state of Alabama. 00:15:37 Speaker 3: So allowing this preliminary phase to go on for a year, is absurd. And who knows when he's going to rule? He might take his sweet time and rule sometime around Thanksgiving. I mean, we don't know that he's. 00:15:49 Speaker 7: Going to rule today or any. 00:15:51 Speaker 3: Time this week. 00:15:53 Speaker 7: It's just that the hearing and the preliminary phase will be over with, and then a trial will be scheduled. Well, there's a whole other batch of rights that Tyler Robinson has at that point, other experts that have to come in and aid with his defense. And, you know, we need six months for them to complete their report. And then the state needs six months for their expert to evaluate the report and create their own. And this thing goes on and on. So this judge is, in my view, a disservice to the Kirk family and to Charlie by letting this prelim circus get way out of control for way too long. 00:16:29 Speaker 4: We've got to miss my house here. Danny has a question he wants to ask. 00:16:32 Speaker 6: Jay, we see that the defense is really going to argue on capital punishment here and the death penalty. So how strong is the state's case for the great risk of death to another person theory? And if the judge does reject that theory, what changes about the death penalty in this case? 00:16:50 Speaker 7: Yeah, well, I mean, if the judge rejects it, then life without parole is the sentence, the max sentence that Tyler Robinson would face. You know, this isn't the most obvious death penalty case that I've ever seen. However, I do think that's a jury decision. And I do think that a great many other people were put in harm's way by the shot that ultimately killed Charlie. It's not whether or not it hurt somebody else. That's not the standards. Whether it could have, it certainly could have. So I think a jury gets to decide whether or not other people were, you know, in harm's way as the aggravator for death. And I don't think this judge has any business taking the death penalty off the table. It's a much higher standard to convince a jury of that than it is probable cause. Let the state meet its burden with a jury. And if they don't, then he spends some term of years or the rest of his life in prison. And that's our justice system. But it's justice nonetheless. It's just being denied. 00:17:47 Speaker 3: And delayed right now. 00:17:49 Speaker 4: Delayed is certainly the word for it. But we're hopeful we'll take one major step towards justice being completed today. And Jay, thank you for your help throughout this. Maybe we'll get back to you later today. We'll see. Thank you for being available as always. And we appreciate you coming on. 00:18:07 Speaker 3: You got. 00:18:10 Speaker 7: It. 00:18:10 Speaker 2: I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face, and that's health insurance. There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith-based alternative to health insurance. And this is real stuff. Folks like you've got to listen in with CHM. You're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need because they're not insurance. You get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. If you want to see massive savings in your healthcare budget, CHM has four low-cost programs for every stage of life, starting at just $ 115 a month. Plus, you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith. Start today by visiting chministries.org and use promo code CHARLIE for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's chministries.org and use promo code CHARLIE. 00:19:25 Speaker 4: We have a Turning Point Frontlines reporter is on the scene in Utah. I believe we have him right now. Taylor Hansen, is Taylor there right now? 00:19:37 Speaker 3: I'm here, Blake. 00:19:38 Speaker 5: Thanks for having me. 00:19:39 Speaker 4: Hello, Taylor. Thank you for calling in. I guess describe the scene for us. What does it look like there? 00:19:46 Speaker 5: It looks very similar to the prior preliminary hearings that we had covered. It's a fairly slow start to the day. You had Catherine Nestor, Robinson's defense attorney, get here about 30 minutes before they actually opened anything up. Robinson arrives in the Bearcat security truck right around, I'd say, two and a half hours prior to the actual hearing. Andrew Colvette is, of course, here on scene with Charlie's parents. It's looking very similar to what we've already seen. You had, I would say, multiple people camp out overnight, just like we had seen prior. They were kind of more in the Candace camp, her social media posters and things along those lines. But I'd say virtually the exact same scene we've seen time and time again. I've spoken to multiple people out here on the grounds. They all, or I'd say about 95% of them, if I had to give a rough number, do believe that we'll be seeing a decision get made, and ultimately the case will go to trial. But the judge graph technically does not have to issue an official ruling as of today. 00:20:50 Speaker 4: All right, yeah, and as we mentioned, there are a few of the weird theory supporters there. Several of them were posting about it last night. They apparently lined up 20 hours in advance, which... shows commitment to the bid, at least. Did you interact at all or see those people? Are there other supporters of Tyler Robinson there? How numerous do you think that those people are overall? 00:21:15 Speaker 5: I would say about half the people, roughly, that actually went in to attend the public hearing today are in support of Robinson or believe that he didn't do it in some shape, form, or capacity. You had You know, the usual two, you have Brandy and Billy sitting out front. They're kind of the more outspoken ones. I believe I saw Diligent Denizen as well, which he is, you know, the number one propaganda poster on Twitter right now. So there is a decent amount of them out here, but you also have students from UVU in attendance, you know, people involved with the Turning Point chapters here supporting Erica and Charlie. 00:21:50 Speaker 4: Are there any, besides the ones who went into the hearing itself, are there any others there participating Is there any scene people waving signs, people chanting stuff, people trolling everyone? Do we have any Antifa types? I'm just trying to get a picture of the overall scene. 00:22:05 Speaker 5: Yeah, no, everybody that is on kind of the other side of the aisle believing that Robinson did not do it or supporting Robinson, they're actually all inside the hearing at this moment in time. We don't have anybody just kind of lingering outside. No Antifa types, no left-wing types holding signs of any sorts. The only people you have lingering outside right now are media and some UVU students. 00:22:27 Speaker 6: And, Taylor, do you know how many people from the public are in the hearing today? 00:22:32 Speaker 5: I want to say 10. 00:22:33 Speaker 4: All right. And how many people are outside overall, not just the ones who, mercifully, not that many supporting Tyler? 00:22:41 Speaker 5: I would say you probably have about three supporters of Charlie Kirk outside, and that's about it. Everybody else is in. 00:22:45 Speaker 3: The media right now. 00:22:47 Speaker 4: Okay, all right. So not a gigantic scene. I think in July we had more of that. It was a multi-day event. I imagine the actual trial will have a bigger event. Have you talked much to people around the Orem area, how it feels seeing this case play out and it becoming such a long-running discussion point due to how long the trial is and how much discussion it's inspired online? 00:23:13 Speaker 5: Yeah, so I actually live fairly close to this area, so I've spoken to a decent amount of people that are local to the area, and they pretty much all just have said the same thing when I talk to them about it. It feels surreal that this trial is taking place in the state of Utah. That's kind of when I get the most out of when I have conversations with Utahns is they just can't believe that Charlie was killed in the first place, but the fact that he was killed in the state of Utah out of anywhere that he could be murdered. And that's kind of mind-boggling to them, every Utah resident that I've spoken to, because it's Utah. Nobody really expected it. But on top of that, most of them, they all believe that justice will be served, so that's a benefit. But they don't want it in their community, but it's just kind of been thrust upon them, if that makes sense. 00:24:00 Speaker 4: How about the UVU students? We've had the chapter leader of that school on the show before, but if there's others who are from The school, have they talked at all about the experience of being, I guess, being the turning point chapter that Charlie had his last event at? I know that's probably something that must loom over all of them to some extent. 00:24:23 Speaker 5: Oh, yeah, it's huge for them. I mean, not even just them, but every student at UVU. And, you know, you can talk to a left-wing student on the campus or a right-wing student on the campus, and for the most part, they're going to be in large agreement of this should have never happened and this is a horrible thing and it's going to be a stain. you know, on our college campus for essentially the rest of American history. So they're for the most part, everyone's kind of on the same page in regards to that, but you do have a lot of students that, you know, witnessed it at UVU that are now directly involved with turning point chapters, whether it's on UVU or a different campus. So it seems like overall it's led more people to turning. 00:25:01 Speaker 3: Point in a way. 00:25:02 Speaker 4: That's good to hear. Have I, Has there been any discussion? We know the memorial is happening. It's going to be happening at that facility that's either on UVU or near it in a week. Have people talked about attending that, having plans for it? Are they planning their own memorials? Do you know anything or can speak to that? 00:25:23 Speaker 5: Yeah, I spoke to one of the UVU reps today outside of the preliminary hearing. And at first they had floated this idea of hosting on the one-year anniversary on the 10th. the UVU Memorial. And at first, UVU had been in agreement with it, been coordinating with the Turning Point chapters, and they all of a sudden just stopped responding to them and kind of ghosting them. So there was plans made just in case it was canceled for basically an alternate venue. But it seems that they have things sorted with UVU and that they will be hosting that event on campus like expected. 00:25:58 Speaker 4: That's good. That's good. I mean, that's... I think ultimately we just... I would say we know it's tough for UVU. They're a school. They don't want to be forever identified by what a person who wasn't even really a student there heinously did, but we want to be able to honor Charlie. Charlie literally gave his life to speak to students, to engage with students, and let's be frank, this is probably the most infamous incident that will ever happen in Orem, Utah, or UVU's history. And we want to commemorate that. And so thank you, Taylor, for your work on the scene, covering the scene. Do you have any other thoughts, Danny? 00:26:42 Speaker 6: I mean, we do have a picture of some UVU students, 166, that are outside the courtroom. If we want to throw to that real quick. So is that about all you're seeing right now is just a couple students and that's about it? 00:26:55 Speaker 5: Yeah, just a couple students from UVU or the surrounding areas just out here to support Erica and Charlie. 00:27:01 Speaker 7: Yeah. 00:27:02 Speaker 4: Did you see any in the lead-up before they opened the doors? Was there any, I guess, discussion, confrontation between the people who are Tyler Robinson supporters and anyone else? 00:27:15 Speaker 5: No, I hadn't seen any confrontations of any sort between the two. Um, neither really were there any, you know, the original week of preliminary hearings where you did kind of have more of an audience on both sides in attendance. They just kind of tend to stay in their own lane is what I've noticed is they don't really talk to anybody. And if they do, they'll be friendly to you and not to actually tell you why they're explicitly there, but there hasn't been any issues as of yet. 00:27:41 Speaker 4: Honestly, that, that surprises me a little because so many of these people are very, they're very confrontational, very aggressive, very performative on X. Uh, I mean, certainly one of those guys who's there yesterday was posting, like, can't wait to see you, Miss Francois. They're posting a lot of menacing stuff online. So I suppose it's a relief that they are less confrontational in real life in person. That might speak to, honestly, it's what we've discussed, that the modern. 00:28:11 Speaker 4: It is the fact that this is online. 00:28:13 Speaker 6: I think that makes it easier. 00:28:15 Speaker 4: You can hide behind your screen. It also just makes it very easy to dehumanize someone at a distance. It's like, they're not a real person when you're just harassing a person on X. We've seen this with so many of the personnel at turning point when they go after our, our camera guys or our security guys or Charlie's team. Uh, it's very easy to do that. And I think the willingness to really pick a fight and be cruel, it does go down when it's all in person. And, That's a relief, I suppose, but it does speak to the nature of modern conspiracy theory culture, if you will. Taylor, if you have any final thoughts, we've got a couple minutes left, and then we'll probably move on back to just summarizing the evidence as we wait for this hearing to actually be open to the public. 00:29:03 Speaker 5: You know, I guess I'll just add a point to what you had just stated about their behavior is– I've always found it really interesting. My six-plus years of reporting, this is usually how it tends to go, is the people that are most vocal online are the loudest. When you actually are around them in person, they're never actually going to say anything. They'll agree with you. It'll act like they're on your side or have the same opinions that you have. So I'd say it definitely is a benefit, but it speaks to the volume of their character and their beliefs, or if they actually even do believe the things that they post, is you know, Twitter specifically has turned into a monetization fight back and forth endlessly. You get paid to post. It doesn't matter what you post, but you're getting paid as long as someone engages with it. And that's kind of what you see here on the ground is you see all these, you know, Twitter super soldiers that want to pose as reporters, but they've never actually reported on anything in their whole life. And then, you know, the minute you try to talk to them about differing opinions, they'll turn tail and run away or they'll just run away before they. 00:30:03 Speaker 3: Even see you. 00:30:04 Speaker 5: So these aren't the, you know, the mightiest soldiers, I'll tell you that much. They definitely are just here to, I imagine we'll see posts from them later on saying that, you know, it was a huge win for Tyler Robinson somehow. But they are not serious people, nor should they be taken any serious. 00:30:21 Speaker 6: All right. 00:30:21 Speaker 4: Well, well, Taylor, thank you for covering the scene there. Thank you for describing it for our viewers who cannot be there. And thank you for all the work you and everyone else has done. We are very committed. We know a huge purpose of this show is to make sure everyone can see the process play out of getting justice in this case. So thank you for joining again, Taylor. 00:30:46 Speaker 5: Thanks for having me on, Blake. Have a great day. 00:30:50 Speaker 4: We're joined now by a friend of the show, Jack Posobiec. Jack, are you there? Hey, what's up, guys? What's up, Blake? What's up, Danny? Howdy, Jack. Thank you for joining. I think that's probably the best place to go. Jack, we've just been talking. We were talking with Taylor Hansen at the courthouse. He was describing the situation, which is relatively mild. He said there were about five or six supporters of Tyler Robinson at the scene. They all got into the actual hearing, into the gallery, which is closed off right now. But he said there weren't dramatic confrontations. Nobody was shouting anything. We talked to J-Town. He said he expects the prosecution to be as brief as possible because the case is strong. And if you're talking forever, you're just signaling that the case is weak. So why don't we just take a step back and remind our viewers what is the full scope of different evidence that has already been brought forth, even though we haven't gone to trial yet, even though we've really only had a preliminary probable cause hearing. 00:31:48 Speaker 9: Well, and, you know, I actually caught some of your conversation with Taylor there. And, of course, I attended the opening, you know, the original initial part of the preliminary hearings. And for the week that I was there, it was very similar to what he described, not confrontational. Yes, there were people on both sides who got into the courtroom from the public as well as both Charlie's family and Tyler Robinson's family in attendance. And what's significant, I think, too, though, is you ask that question about what are people locally talking about. And when I spent the week out there just going to restaurants or I got a haircut when I was out there and different things like that and were talking to locals, and a lot of them, they were actually asking that they couldn't believe that the trial hadn't concluded yet. They actually thought that the trial had taken place had concluded, was over, they didn't realize how seemingly laborious and lengthy the process is to go from a crime being committed to the hearing and then. 00:32:54 Speaker 4: Eventually to the trial. 00:32:56 Speaker 9: Most people, of course, get their sense of these things from TV shows and podcasts, and that's just not how. 00:33:03 Speaker 4: The real world works. 00:33:04 Speaker 9: But what was interesting is most of the people that I talked to were genuinely sympathetic to Charlie, couldn't believe that something like that would happen, wouldn't believe that it happened there. And they said, oh, I, you know, most of the people were saying, oh, I thought they found that guy guilty already. 00:33:22 Speaker 4: The comparison just occurred to me. We've talked to Tyler. Charlie talked about this as well. When we were doing Get Out the Vote, that we run into the routine problem that individuals who are registered Republicans, they think they voted because they voted in the primary. They think they voted. because they attended this rally or filled out this survey. They think they voted because they voted in the last election and their mind blurs it. And it seems like this as well, that there's been so much process. There's been these hearings. They've seen this evidence. So surely the trial has already happened. But in fact, we might be a year out from this trial. But Jack, I think this is a good opportunity for us to just, because this was such a drawn out preliminary hearing, we can remind people The sheer scope of how much evidence has been in this case, people make fun of the fact that they use the word overwhelming, but I've genuinely found myself thinking, has there been a case that has more different types of evidence introduced into it pointing towards the defendant's guilt? And Jack, I'm not sure I really easily can. I think basically every type of evidence that could be offered in a murder case of this nature has already appeared in the pretrial, correct? Yeah, that's right. 00:34:37 Speaker 9: And part of that, of course, was the nature of the crime itself, right? This took place at a massive public event in a massive public space. 00:34:45 Speaker 4: This wasn't, you know, in a back alley. 00:34:47 Speaker 9: This wasn't something that took place in an office or a parking lot or something like that. And it was designed by the killer to be public. It was designed to get that maximum media attention. 00:35:01 Speaker 4: So we should. 00:35:02 Speaker 9: Actually expect in the 21st century, with the technology that we have, with cameras like we have now, with cell phones and everything else, that we should start seeing more of this level of evidence, again, in these cases and in these situations. I think back to President Trump's assassination attempt at Butler, where there were all sorts of videos that were coming out of Thomas Matthew Crooks almost immediately, similar as well with Cole Thomas Allen at the Washington Correspondents Dinner, where he ran in firing at Secret Service. 00:35:35 Speaker 4: And so Ryan Routh as well. 00:35:36 Speaker 9: You had videos, including some police cameras, which caught his car driving away and things like that. So it partially is because of the way that technology is moving that we do have more ubiquitous cameras up and are able to catch people better and recreate their moments. I'll always go back to, you know, the Kyle Rittenhouse case a couple of years ago, which that took place in 2020. But when the case happened in 2021, I remember that There was so much cell phone footage of that event that you could actually follow each individual, both Kyle Rittenhouse as well as the assailants through almost the entire evening. If you just pulled together live streams from either either supporters or different like citizen journalists who were there, people like Brendan Gutenschwager, people like, you know. 00:36:24 Speaker 4: Just just the other folks from Twitter. 00:36:26 Speaker 9: Drew Hernandez was there. that were documenting the entire thing. And it was incredible to think that, you know, in the past, we would have to go on witness recollections or have to go in the Michael Brown case. I remember the autopsy was the only real evidence we had of where the people were standing because there was no video. And that was just about a decade ago. So the technology is moving very quickly, as you say. And in fact, our justice system is really rapidly catching up to that because we don't have videos like we do now of some of the most high-profile assassinations that took place in our history, but now we do. 00:37:02 Speaker 4: Yeah, we're very fortunate because I think the nature of Charlie's death means the conspiracy theories would be inevitable. I think these arguments would have happened no matter what. And imagine if it was the case, for example, that the only evidence we had was maybe one photo of Tyler Robinson somewhere on campus, or if it was just the footage from the top of the building because people have nitpick those endlessly but it's worth reminding people everything fits together so we have many videos from the campus up this individual walking around in multiple changes about that we have footage of this car which is clear enough to say this is this resembles the car that is registered to Tyler Robinson we have DNA on the screwdriver we have DNA on the rifle we have the engravings on the rounds which are paired with the machine that Tyler Robinson owns. We have text messages. We have cell phone data. We have testimony from his roommate. All of this is fitting together. We have confessions from him himself. We have confessions. All of it is fitting together. So if you can nitpick one thing, I don't think you can nitpick all of it. And I think we're blessed in that regard. 00:38:12 Speaker 2: Before he ever stepped onto a debate stage or behind a microphone, Charlie understood something really important. that if you want to lead, you first have to learn. Charlie believed that ideas shape character, conviction, and courage. That's why he spent years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He would rave about these courses all the time. These free online courses are taught by Hillsdale College professors and draw from the same great books and enduring ideas studied on Hillsdale's campus. Hillsdale's newest free online course is The Iliad, where Professor Stephen Smith guides students through Homer's great epic of honor, courage, friendship, leadership, and the pursuit of true greatness. For nearly 3,000 years, The Iliad has shaped the Western imagination. It tells the story of Achilles as he confronts injustice, rage, grief, responsibility, and the terrible costs of war. But Homer's epic is more than a story of ancient battles. It raises enduring questions about courage, duty, leadership, sacrifice, and self-command. Achilles is the greatest warrior among the Greeks, but Homer asked whether strength alone is enough to make a man truly great. In this new free online course, you'll follow Achilles through the defining trials of his life and discover why one of the greatest works of Western literature still speaks to the permanent questions of human life. Charlie understood. that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage. You can enroll today completely free and take this class or their 40 plus other free online courses. Just visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today. That's charlieforhillsdale.com. Learn deeply, think clearly, lead boldly, and carry it forward just like Charlie. 00:39:57 Speaker 4: Well, we were discussing before the hearing started, Danny, what a Kafka-esque legal, very glacial process this was. And I think we just got an astounding display of that. So just what happened in the last hour, Danny? 00:40:13 Speaker 6: Nothing. Absolutely nothing happened. 00:40:14 Speaker 4: Absolutely nothing. That is correct. 00:40:16 Speaker 2: So. 00:40:17 Speaker 4: We had an hour of closed-door deliberation over a motion from the defense, but then it really was remarkable. Judge Graff is very, I think the most kind term is methodical with his handling. I think you noticed what he'll tend to do on any subject is he'll describe at length what the defense's claim is, what the prosecution's counter is, before issuing his own ruling on it. And so that's what a lot of last hour was, was defense argues that the following would be prejudicial to the defendant if media is able to see this, if there is this or that media circus around it, but then here's this Supreme Court precedent, here's this Utah Constitution part that go against this, and you would do all this setup to then say defense's motion is thereby denied. And so there was a lot of song and dance for a lot of denied motions, but I do think one thing that was very interesting, there was some back and forth, which if you were paying attention to the hearing, you may have noticed. There was back and forth about whether to redact the name of a website in their discussion. That originally there had been a website named, and then the defense wanted to remove the name of the website. And then that ended up being denied, so it was voiced. And we were wondering what it was. The website turned out to be PolyMarket. There was reference to the fact that on Polymarket, which is one of these betting websites, prediction markets as they call them, there is a market for will Tyler Robinson be, I think we can even check what's up there right now. I think there's one for will he be convicted. Let's just check. I mean, what's live right now? Tyler Robinson convicted of homicide. And that's a market that exists right now. And it's only, right now it's listed as 43% chance. But it appears it's because, ah, yes. So it's 43%, but it's because the market is whether he will be convicted of criminal homicide by July 31st of 2027. In other words. 00:42:34 Speaker 6: We might not even have the trial by then. 00:42:36 Speaker 4: We might not have the trial by then. It's practically a guess, I suspect. as to whether there will be a very accelerated trial or he might plead guilty as well. And they mention this, and you can actually, if you open this market, guys, maybe you guys want to check on this, you can see it fluctuate over the course of the weeks. It goes up above 55, as high as almost 60%, drops down. Right now, as we said, it's 43%. And the defense brought up that there's almost, it's contributing to a circus-like atmosphere around the case, that people are, betting money on whether Tyler Robinson will be convicted. And it gets me thinking about the bigger picture of whether these markets are potentially harmful because we just want justice for Charlie in this case. But you can imagine what if someone on the prosecution team decided they wanted to, you know, they could make a bet on this. Someone on the defense team could make money off of this. Someone in a jury could make money off of this. 00:43:37 Speaker 6: That's the biggest concern. 00:43:38 Speaker 4: That's a massive concern because one juror, one juror, and this is a market with $ 316, 000 volume, so non-negligible amount of money in this, one person anywhere in the case can gum up the entire process, can throw a case in order to make money. And we've never really had a possibility like that before. And it's very dark how I think this case, it's become... almost a test run for so many things that were unprecedented. So it's the first big criminal trial it feels in the prediction market era where that's possible to happen. It's the first big criminal trial, the first big, frankly, conspiracy theory in the AI era where people can get fooled by AI deep fakes. We saw that, for example, with the Tyler Robinson footage that people would post an AI enhanced image of the security footage and then go, this doesn't look anything like Tyler Robinson. Well, yeah, it's an AI generated image effectively. And so it's filling in details that aren't actually there. And so that's what I found myself thinking about. Cause as we mentioned, basically nothing happened. Uh, so what we are looking towards, uh, after lunch, they'll come back and there was supposed to be about 45 minutes of prosecution argument. I'm not sure if we're going to be able to get, uh, Jay, back in, I invited him, but I was texting with him during the hearing because he'd said they shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes. But then the prosecution said. 00:45:13 Speaker 6: Like everything, it's going to take about four times as long. 00:45:15 Speaker 5: As it should. 00:45:16 Speaker 4: They're going to make it take— yeah, but he said they anticipated 45 minutes, and then we promptly got 20, 25 minutes of back and forth over whether they can show an image— That's of the shooting and all of that. 00:45:28 Speaker 6: And I believe when they come back from lunch, they're going to be arguing that again. They're still arguing. It might be another hour before we even get. 00:45:35 Speaker 4: To the 40 minutes. So I asked Jay and he said, I asked, you know, why aren't they going for just 20 minutes? And he says, it takes a set of balls to do only 20 minutes when you are given two hours. It is hard for lawyers to not want to talk and be more convincing. It's something we've been trained to do, and so to sit down early is something that our minds and our bodies resist. So he says 45 minutes is a reasonable amount of time. He thinks it should be less, but that's the nature of lawyers. He also did say the judge loves to see himself talk on television. 00:46:12 Speaker 6: The judge did say he would make his decision today. 00:46:14 Speaker 4: He did. He did. He said we'll get about... 45 minutes for the prosecution. Then the defense will go. They said, I think an hour and a half is how long they expect to go. So double that just to be safe. 00:46:24 Speaker 6: And then is the judge also is going to break before his decision? 00:46:27 Speaker 4: He said he expected about a one hour break and then he does anticipate issuing his ruling, but it is already noon mountain time. I think they're coming back at one. Yep. And so are they going to, will they get those actual parts done in three hours? So they're out by four. They can come back at five. He can issue his ruling. Are we going to get some extended time? How much capacity does he have to extend it into the mid or late evening? I don't know all of the rules on that, but he did at least, Judge Graff did voice his commitment to issuing a ruling today. I think that is what we care about most. So if it drags out for an extra half hour or hour here and there, I'm fine with that as long as we finally get that ruling because that is what we've been waiting for for a year at this point. Is there anything else you noticed in that very uneventful one hour. 00:47:18 Speaker 6: No, it's a whole lot of just lawyers like to hear themselves talk. 00:47:22 Speaker 4: They do. And it really, it really shows you, especially the nature of a case this high profile. It's a capital case, how they are objecting to everything. I think another part that was very memorable, uh, the judge mentioned the defense objected to the number of like possible cameras that they could have in the courtroom with the note that The tripods, the sound of them opening or jangling about, it would be distracting to the court and to the proceedings. I've never heard an objection of that nature before in court. And the judge, he treated it seriously. He actually did say he is capping the amount. I think he vetoed a request for a second photographer. He said Salt Lake Tribune gets their photographer. There's going to be one camera, one photographer, And I think that's all there's going to be. And so he effectively ruled a bit in their favor on that one. But the fact that they're objecting to the sound of a tripod, they're objecting to the publication of the name of a website and had to get overruled on that. It really shows why this case has been taking as long as it has, because every single thing is subject to a possible objection. And this judge does like to litigate those that like, even if he does rule in the prosecution's favor, ultimately. 00:48:44 Speaker 7: Yeah. 00:48:44 Speaker 6: That's about, I mean, nothing else really happened at all. So we'll see after this lunch, um, when they start arguing the evidence again. And then from there we go into their actual arguments, which will be 40 minutes for the prosecution. So double that, double that. So about probably an hour and a half for the prosecution and two to two and a half hours for the defense. And then an hour before, recess for the judge to decide, and then hopefully he comes back and makes his decision. 00:49:12 Speaker 4: Hopefully, hopefully. I'm trying to see if we can get Jay even briefly here to talk about what we saw. Uh, otherwise, uh, we can go for a few more minutes here. If you have any questions, email them in and we can try to answer those. Uh, I also thought now it could be a good chance. We'll, we'll go over this at the end of today when I think it's pretty likely that after all this song and dance, we will get the bind over ruling, but, I want to look ahead to what happens after we, if this does go to trial, what sort of stuff we can look towards. Non-zero chance. I think it's very low, but maybe 1% or 2%. In theory, we could get an arraignment. If it goes to trial, we could get an arraignment pretty soon. I don't think we'll get it today. We are hopeful we might get that if proceedings were quick. They could do the arraignment right here. Seems like that would be delayed. That is the point where we would enter a plea, I believe, of guilty or not guilty. If you were to plead guilty, we would go to a penalty phase. But even that actually is a very elaborate process. You need to create an entire jury. Even though there's no trial, you create a jury just for the penalty phase. They would have to be selected for whether they're open to imposing the death penalty. And you would need unanimity to impose that in this case. You'd need all 12 jurors to say that they want that. And another thing, and this raised my eyebrow a bit, You need 10 out of 12 jurors just to impose life without parole. So three holdouts in a jury of 12 could block a life without parole sentence in this case. And I will say, as someone who I think the evidence is very strong against Tyler Robinson, and I think the nature of this crime is so heinous, if we were to fall short of even that, I think it would be a severe indictment of our justice system as it currently stands. And it's kind of crazy. We're looking at other news, too, and the only other news going on today is another court case, which is the Lindsay Clancy case is deadlocked. And so that's just another example of, I think, what we're all thinking about is we have a jury system. It's an important facet of our Anglo-Saxon common law going back centuries, but it does have, it has the strength and the weak point that it is not a It's not a tool of the powerful. It is a tool of ordinary people. And we see in that Lindsay Clancy case, a woman who's very clearly guilty, but you insert 12 normal people and you can mess it up and you can get people who say, actually, I emphatically will not convict this woman. So that case, they are apparently deadlocked. We'll see if they're even able to reach a verdict. And we have to worry, could that happen in this case? And we just have to hope not. 00:52:03 Speaker 2: Midterm elections are coming up and control of Congress is on the line. If there's one thing financial markets hate, it's uncertainty. And uncertainty is exactly what the next few months are going to bring. In 2024, if it taught us anything, it's that uncertainty breeds volatility. Between now and November could be one of the most volatile stretches for the stock market and the economy. So you owe it to yourself to have a plan. Here's the good part. There's a simple way to protect what you've built, and that's gold. physical gold, and silver, let you hedge against that volatility. And there's no better partner for it than Noble Gold Investments. For over a decade, Noble Gold has helped everyday Americans protect their wealth with precious metals. They make it simple, they make it easy, and they make it safe. You can trust them. Give them a call, 877-646-5347. 00:52:49 Speaker 4: That's 877-646-5347. 00:52:49 Speaker 2: Or visit them online at noblegoldinvestments.com slash Kirk. and find out how to protect yourself, your wealth, and your family. NobleGoldInvestments.com slash Kirk. Election Day is coming. Don't let it arrive without a plan. And here's the best part. To celebrate America's 250th, just mention The Charlie Kirk Show when you call Noble Gold, and they'll send you a free 10-ounce silver bar when you open a new qualified account. Mention The Charlie Kirk Show. That's all you got to do, and they'll do the rest. 00:53:25 Speaker 4: Jay, welcome back. You're the professional... What did you make of that most uneventful hour? 00:53:34 Speaker 7: It sort of falls in line with the last 12 months, right? I mean, there's a lot of bloviating, a lot of talk, a lot of sort of hearings and motions. 00:53:47 Speaker 3: And this judge loves to see himself on television. 00:53:49 Speaker 7: But at the same time, I was proud the prosecution took 40, 45 minutes. 00:53:55 Speaker 3: It's really hard. Folks need to understand as lawyers that you know, it is, we've been trained to argue. And when you give me two hours, our body, our. 00:54:04 Speaker 7: Mind resists any attempt to take an hour and 59 minutes only. And so to go 40, 45, it really takes some real intestinal fortitude to do 20 minutes and sit down. 00:54:16 Speaker 3: So I thought that was a good job. 00:54:19 Speaker 7: But I, you know, this judge is prolonging what to, I mean, look, I'm a career prosecutor. 00:54:26 Speaker 3: I've been in the prosecution business or the law enforcement business for 30 years. 00:54:30 Speaker 7: I was a United States attorney appointed by the President of the United States. I don't know what else this judge needs to see or hear. And in allowing these ridiculous records just to be built, they're going to be built again at the trial. 00:54:44 Speaker 3: That's where it matters anyway. Nothing really matters. 00:54:46 Speaker 7: At the preliminary hearing stage if he's then convicted by a jury during a perfect trial. It's just sort of absurd. but hopefully we get a ruling from this judge very quickly. If not today, that would be great. But at the pace this judge, the breakneck pace this judge has gone at, I just don't see that happening. There'll be some written order sometime after the long weekend the judge enjoys, probably starting tomorrow. 00:55:11 Speaker 4: He did say he hopes to take a recess and then do it, but then we promptly got 20, 25 minutes of back and forth over whether this specific piece of evidence will be shown. I'm very worried you'll be correct We were discussing at the start of this recess something that really stood out to me, and it's not something that I feel has ever been a part of a major criminal trial before. They talked about the fact that there is a polymarket betting market on this case. Will Tyler Robinson be convicted of homicide? We were checking it, and it's will he be convicted by the end of next July? So it's 43%. You're basically betting on two things, the outcome of the case and the speed of the case. Has anything like this ever existed in criminal justice in the United States before? And how worried should we be about it? When we debate whether sports gambling is good, should we just have a ban on having a betting market on a criminal justice proceeding like this? Something feels very worrisome to me that any person, a judge, a prosecutor, a defense lawyer, a member of the jury, any one of them could use this market as a way to profiteer. 00:56:24 Speaker 3: Or a cousin, or a friend, or a former roommate, right? I mean, it's. 00:56:31 Speaker 7: Exponential, the number of people that could be influenced, especially if I find myself on that jury, and it's a June trial, and. 00:56:41 Speaker 3: I'm the load holdout. 00:56:43 Speaker 5: Right. 00:56:43 Speaker 6: I hang. 00:56:44 Speaker 3: I'm the I'm the one that won't vote. 00:56:45 Speaker 6: No. 00:56:46 Speaker 3: Well, guess what? 00:56:47 Speaker 7: I just won whatever money. And I didn't bet on Cal Shee or on Polly Market. Some other person did. And, you know, they're they live in Michigan, not in Utah. So, you know, how could investigators ever get to that? It is absolutely should be against the law to bet on a public trial. 00:57:07 Speaker 3: Absolutely. 00:57:08 Speaker 7: And I just think there's our justice system. cannot afford any fingers on. 00:57:16 Speaker 3: The scale from anyone. And to induce people, especially financially, to do so is already illegal. And so they need to extend that to the. 00:57:28 Speaker 7: I mean, it would be illegal if a juror conspired with somebody to put money on Polymarket, got on the jury, and then hung up just so they could win the bet. 00:57:37 Speaker 3: That's already illegal. 00:57:39 Speaker 7: But there shouldn't be any polymarket on any type of trial or court case anywhere in the United. 00:57:46 Speaker 3: States of America. 00:57:47 Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not so much that it creates new possibilities for illegality. As you say, it's almost certainly already a crime to do those things, but it makes it so much easier, so much more straightforward to do. And so if we have a good takeaway from this sort of thing, I don't really think any public good is served by having gambling markets on whether Tyler Robinson is convicted or a lot of, or any criminal trial, as you say. 00:58:16 Speaker 6: Jay, is there any way during jury selection, if you're the prosecution, to kind of filter some of that out, or is it basically impossible? 00:58:23 Speaker 7: Well, it's in the first person, it's very possible, right? Have you ever wagered on Polymarket or Cal Sheet or any of these other uh, websites. Um, and, um, you know, they say, no, I haven't, but my wife has, or, you know, do you know of anybody who has would be my next question. And then you're, then you're now you're into a lie. 00:58:46 Speaker 3: Right. 00:58:46 Speaker 7: Um, but, uh, you know, you could also see after voir dire, Hey man, I made the jury. 00:58:52 Speaker 3: Um, didn't you, you. 00:58:53 Speaker 7: Should start a polymarket account and, and let's, let's figure out what we want to bet on here. 00:58:58 Speaker 3: Cause I can control the world, the universe of these bets. that's just frightening. 00:59:04 Speaker 7: And it's so unnecessary to even take that risk. 00:59:07 Speaker 3: Someone's freedom, right? 00:59:09 Speaker 7: Most importantly, and I say that knowing Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk, but. 00:59:14 Speaker 3: His freedom is at stake. 00:59:16 Speaker 7: And so we don't ever want to compromise a system that takes someone's freedom, in fact, their life possibly away. And there's also the victim's family. They deserve a fair trial. They deserve a speedy trial. They don't need one compromised by these wagering sites. So I just, this is something that if Congress could do something about this, this would be a great thing to bring up to them. 00:59:41 Speaker 3: And this should be a layup. 00:59:43 Speaker 6: And on Polymarket, it shows you the total amount of money bet on each specific thing. So let's say during the trial, when this if it goes to trial, if it has a lot more publicity and this is going on and we see a sudden spike in how much the total market is, could that be used for an appeal down the line or anything as a reason of it could have been influenced because suddenly so much more money came into the market out of nowhere? 01:00:08 Speaker 3: It could, but that would have to be one more step, right? 01:00:12 Speaker 7: I mean, look, if you have The evidence that is, you know, all of a sudden the DNA evidence and all the confessions and, you know, he told his mother, his mother testifies against him. 01:00:24 Speaker 3: The market's going to go up that he's going to get convicted. 01:00:27 Speaker 7: More people are going to are going to bet at that point that, yeah, this guy's toast. But if it goes the other way, then I would be looking into people that place those large wagers and see if they knew anybody in and around the trial. And that could serve as an appellate issue, I think, for sure. 01:00:48 Speaker 4: We're basically a half hour out from hopefully finally getting the final arguments in this preliminary hearing. Do you have any predictions about what we'll see? Apparently, the prosecution is planning to take 45 minutes, then the defense will go, then there will be a prosecution wrap-up, it sounds like. what are they going to fill that time with? Is it going to be a methodical reciting of all the evidence? Will they fixate on specific ones? What do you think we're likely to hear? 01:01:17 Speaker 3: Well, if I was doing it, I would fixate just on the evidence, right? And there's a mountain up. 01:01:22 Speaker 7: Let the defense say whatever they're going to say. 01:01:25 Speaker 3: They're going to attack the death penalty. 01:01:26 Speaker 7: They're going to attack the the elements of putting other people in danger, political speech, things like that. 01:01:33 Speaker 3: It was a religious thing. It wasn't a political thing. 01:01:35 Speaker 7: Well, you know, I mean, they're going to say whatever a defense lawyer, a good defense lawyer should say. 01:01:40 Speaker 3: But so I think that you meet the elements with the facts. 01:01:43 Speaker 7: And so when I prosecuted a case, you know, a statute says person did X, person did Y, person intended to. 01:01:50 Speaker 3: Do Z, therefore they're guilty. And so. 01:01:55 Speaker 7: I think that at the same time, you just put two facts next to each element and you move on to the next charge. 01:02:03 Speaker 3: And hopefully that's all the prosecution does. 01:02:05 Speaker 7: Hopefully they don't need the whole 45 minutes, but I'm glad they're keeping it limited to that. 01:02:08 Speaker 3: Amount of time. 01:02:10 Speaker 6: The only other thing that came up that I feel like could become relevant during the trials, they said witnesses were being threatened. We saw this that were in the preliminary hearings in the past. How do you foresee that changing the trial in the future? Or how would the judge rule on that or go about protecting witnesses? 01:02:30 Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, look, it might even come down to having to offer them, you know, physical protection, police protection. 01:02:36 Speaker 3: Herein lies the. 01:02:38 Speaker 7: Woeful judgment of allowing this to continue for a year so that circus tents can be set up in Utah and the tinfoil hat crowd can continue on with their conspiracies that all of these witnesses are just liars. 01:02:52 Speaker 3: All of these witnesses. 01:02:54 Speaker 7: Are part of the federal government and some conspiracy with Israel or whatever it is, right? Whatever ridiculous tinfoil hat conspiracy they're coming up with. 01:03:04 Speaker 3: And people take it seriously. 01:03:06 Speaker 7: They trust the people that are saying it, mostly online, and they might want to take action. And this doesn't help the system at large because witnesses don't want to come forward. 01:03:18 Speaker 3: If my life is going. 01:03:19 Speaker 7: To be threatened, You know, because I did the right thing and I came forward because I saw, you know, a thing, a guy at the place. I don't want to be a part of it because I don't want to die. I don't want someone to burn my house down or key my car or so. 01:03:33 Speaker 3: Much as harass me in the mall. 01:03:36 Speaker 7: And so this is why these things should move and progress quickly instead of, you know, taking a year to get past a preliminary hearing. Gentlemen, this is better than a coin toss. Tyler Robinson did it. That is all that is being decided. 01:03:52 Speaker 4: We've moaned a lot. We've said, okay, we've said we should maybe change the laws to ban these prediction markets around a homicide case. We've moaned a lot about how long this has taken. For practical purposes, because we always want to look for practical takeaways to things, you're a legislator in Utah. What could you do to make it so these cases... are resolved in months rather than half decades. 01:04:18 Speaker 7: You could put speedy trial laws in place where preliminary hearings have to be set within a certain period of time. They obviously could be continued, but for cause and by the defense and one time, by the prosecution one time. But that takes you into five months. That's not unreasonable. If you need expert testimony and things like that, well, you better start cracking once you get your client together. 01:04:42 Speaker 3: Again, it's preliminary hearings. 01:04:44 Speaker 7: I've done thousands of preliminary hearings. I can tell you that, you know what, it was one witness, right? I have the arresting officer comes in, reads the police report, reads the medical examiner report, and that's the end of the prelim. 01:04:57 Speaker 3: You don't have 48 witnesses come in. It's absurd. 01:05:00 Speaker 7: This is a mini trial with a much lower standard. There's no reason to do that. Now you have all these witnesses on record. with sworn statements that if they said in the prelim, I saw a small dog, and they say in the trial they saw a puppy, then the defense could try to create reasonable doubt out of that. 01:05:18 Speaker 3: That's absurd. That's why you just have. 01:05:21 Speaker 7: One witness come on and read a bunch of hearsay, because the hearsay wouldn't be admissible in court. You call the witness that said it, that the investigator read their statement or the interview. And we're seeing this in the Clancy trial as well. 01:05:37 Speaker 3: It just it's under prosecuted and overthought. 01:05:41 Speaker 6: Now, is Judge Graff, you think, worried about an appeal, a potential appeal? And that's why he's going so slow. He's trying to cover every basis. Or what would be his reasoning for trying to make this so slow and laborious? 01:05:54 Speaker 7: Yeah, I can't think of one, because if there's a trial and he's convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, it's that record that is appealed. 01:06:00 Speaker 3: Right. 01:06:01 Speaker 7: I mean, the preliminary hearing is meaningless because it's such a low standard. Once it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's what happened in that trial that matters. That's where there's a sentence. That's where there's a punishment. So, you know, there's no reason for this to have gone at this pace whatsoever. And I'm sorry, guys, I have to run. 01:06:19 Speaker 3: But I got to tell you, that's all right. Covering this. 01:06:22 Speaker 2: No. 01:06:23 Speaker 7: And I just want to say anybody with a functioning limbic system would bound this over for trial. But also America's hearts are still broken coming up on the one year anniversary of Charlie's murder. 01:06:35 Speaker 3: And thank you guys for continuing to shine a light on this. 01:06:38 Speaker 4: Of course. Thank you so much for joining us, Jay. This won't be the last time we talk with you. So take care and we'll see you soon. 01:06:47 Speaker 3: Thanks, guys. 01:06:48 Speaker 4: All right. Well, I don't know that we have too much more to say at this point. We may take a lunch break ourselves. I think that's the second time I've heard Jay use limbic system as his idiom. That's definitely one. a choice phrase of his but it refers to your mental structures deep in your brain and we're hoping we get the right ruling later this afternoon. 01:07:11 Speaker 6: Or tonight at this rate maybe tomorrow. 01:07:14 Speaker 4: Hopefully tonight hopefully not after Labor Day that's what he was speculating on the judge has said he wants to rule today please spare us from dragging this out further Judge Graff we want to get this moving towards a trial it's been a year Let's just hope for God's mercy on all of us, I should say. I want to check if we got any email questions. 01:07:37 Speaker 6: Yeah, we got one from Declan that says, if this does go to trial, will Tyler get a plea, and when can we expect the trial to start? I'm so done with waiting. 01:07:45 Speaker 4: Well, you know, that Polly market that we wished was banned probably gives us a good indication. It seems they think there's a 43% chance he gets convicted, which... I'd say that's taking a bit of the chance that he were to plead guilty. So he would plea. If this is bound over, he would plea quite soon. There would be an arraignment. He would enter a plea. Then there's the preparatory phase. Andrea Burkhart, she said she anticipates like a year plus long wait. She was saying early 28. The market seems to think there's a decent chance we get it earlier than that. Maybe there'd be a six month wait and then we'd get it next spring. We don't know for sure, but we would get a plea pretty soon if this goes forward. It could be guilty. It could be not guilty. If it's guilty, you go straight to the penalty phase, which will still take ages because you have to create the jury. The jury still has to hear a lot of testimony, in fact, as to the aggravating factors, the mental state of the perpetrator, all of that. So pretty long process throughout. Another thing that actually comes into play, we don't know if Judge Graff will oversee the trial or not. That seems the most likely one. But there's been petitions for change of venue because they say it's caused too much of a circus in the Provo area, so they would move it to another county in Utah. I don't feel like that would be terribly useful or desirable and people I've talked to don't think it will happen we could move it to a different judge even within the county again Andrea seemed to think that was unlikely but these are all possibilities that come into play there's so many ways that this can be dragged out longer and longer but speaking of dragging out things longer and longer, anything else we want to say here? 01:09:25 Speaker 6: We just saw another comment from Kyrie said, the polymarket stuff is horrifying. The love of money is the root of all evil. Betting on the outcome of a trial should not be permitted. 01:09:36 Speaker 4: I think this is a real takeaway from this, and I'm someone who's, we like to look at those betting markets because they can cut through a lot of BS, but when there's so much room for corruption in this, the fact that Our criminal justice system requires so many honest, good faith actors throughout and making it so much easier to engage in corruption by your friend bets on the outcome of this and you just tell them, hey, I'm going to throw it this way or that. Hugely dangerous. I think I don't see what the value. 01:10:11 Speaker 6: And that's in addition to all the threats against the potential jurors in the future that will come that could influence the outcome of stuff, whether they're also threatened like witnesses have been to do or not do something. 01:10:24 Speaker 4: In sports, athletes get threatened all the time because people who are addicts to this blame a pro athlete. Oh, you made me lose money on this. Now imagine that gambler addict psychosis in our criminal justice system. Absolute poison. If there's one takeaway I have from today so far, let's just ban that. Federal level, but state level too. Utah legislatures, Please go make it a criminal offense to bet on one of these markets in your state or even to have it hosted on one of your websites. I think we just need to say absolutely not. 01:10:55 Speaker 6: Yeah. 01:10:56 Speaker 4: But beyond that, I think we're ready for our own mini lunch break. I think he said they'll be coming back at one their time. So that is about 20 minutes from now. We will hopefully finally hear the prosecution make its final argument, then the defense. Then we'll get another hour long break. We might come back for a bit of that. And then we'll get the decision and we'll wrap it all up. Thank you to everyone who's been tuning in today, who's been following this, who wants to see justice done for Charlie. We deeply appreciate it. And we will be back in a few hours. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.