Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing: The Judge's Decision

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. 00:00:05 Speaker 2: I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most 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. Sign up and become an activist. 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. 00:00:45 Speaker 1: Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 3: Lord, use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 4: Buckle up, everybody. 00:00:49 Speaker 5: Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 2: 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 6: All right, we're now in, I think, the final recess of the day, about one hour, while Judge Graff, he says he has 24 pages of notes to. 00:01:29 Speaker 6: Compile, take in. He says he genuinely wanted to hear what both sides had to say in their oral arguments before rendering his final decision, but he does say that decision will be coming today, and so he's dismissed for a final recess. He's going to assess all that. We will reconvene, and he will issue his bind over ruling. Now, things that could happen, I think overwhelmingly likely he's going to agree to bind over for trial. Open questions, though, are will he throw out any of the lower charges? They took a lot of aim at witness tampering, at the endangerment of minors, or committing violence in front of minors, I should say, and especially the defense took aim at the enhancers that they used to make Tyler Robinson eligible for the death penalty. So he could, in theory, issue a ruling striking those down right here, If he doesn't do that, then we would proceed to bind over and having an arraignment. I don't think it's likely we'll enter a plea today. I think he'll probably schedule that for someday in the near future. But that remains to be seen. I wanted to because we had a donation message right before we went back to the hearing earlier from an Indian conservative that said, Tyler deserves the death penalty. I still remember the day Charlie was shot. It still sticks with me. I want to see him face the consequences of his actions. So thank you for your support. Thank you for following us on this tragic, painful journey. But we have an hour to talk about here. We're going to see Andrew was in the chambers throughout this afternoon. So we're hoping that he'll get his phone back during this extended recess, maybe be able to join us because we want to talk more about what I think is by far the most viral, the most attention-getting moment of this hearing, which is what we were talking about during the last recess, the kind of out-of-nowhere bit where the defense team, it doesn't even seem to help their client, but the defense team just starts saying, Charlie Kirk was a hateful person, it is true that he was hateful, and I'm not even sure what they were setting up for it. 00:03:50 Speaker 4: We should replay. 00:03:52 Speaker 4: That clip, what's the number for it? 00:03:54 Speaker 1: Clip nine. 00:03:55 Speaker 8: There is no evidence of Mr. Robinson having heard or seen anything specific from Mr. Kirk or having expressed anything about Mr. Kirk until the statement which basically says some hatred can't be negotiated out. 00:04:15 Speaker 3: So what is it? 00:04:17 Speaker 4: Is it political expression? 00:04:19 Speaker 1: Which political expression? It is. 00:04:26 Speaker 3: True that Mr. 00:04:27 Speaker 8: Kirk spoke hatefully. 00:04:30 Speaker 1: Of certain groups of people. 00:04:33 Speaker 8: He spoke hatefully of people who don't have traditional norm-conforming gender identities. He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual. He spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships out of marriage. And yes, it is true that the evidence from Mr. Twiggs is that he identified in a non-gender conforming way to his friends and that he was in a romantic relationship with Mr. 00:05:09 Speaker 1: Robinson. 00:05:10 Speaker 8: But that doesn't mean that those personal choices by Mr. Twiggs and by Mr. Robinson equate with the hate relationship that at least Mr. Robinson says he had toward Mr. Kirk. So we don't know what that is. 00:05:31 Speaker 4: A completely outlandish thing. Obviously outlandish. 00:05:35 Speaker 6: But we decided to go and dig up some clips from Charlie's actual debates. And we found one that I think speaks greatly to the real nature of how Charlie debated on stuff like the trans issue. 00:05:51 Speaker 4: So we found this one. Do you remember what campus this was at, Danny? 00:05:53 Speaker 9: I think this was Washington State. 00:05:55 Speaker 6: Okay, so Washington State, and there was a, I believe, a female-to-male transgender person came up and began speaking to Charlie, and this was the actual exchange. So keep in mind that the defense attorney, Richard Novak, said that Charlie, it's a fact, it is true that he was hateful towards people. 00:06:11 Speaker 4: He spoke hatefully. Let's play clip 13. 00:06:15 Speaker 10: I just want to say I'm a transgender male. What age should kids be able to get things like hormone therapy? Because I don't know. 00:06:23 Speaker 4: What's true, what's not. 00:06:24 Speaker 2: Tell me, are you comfortable telling me your story? 00:06:26 Speaker 10: I've known that since like third grade, and I'm currently 19, almost 20. I've known basically since then, I didn't start going by like a different name until seventh and eighth grade. 00:06:40 Speaker 1: I just. 00:06:41 Speaker 10: don't know like with the whole medical stuff, like what's true, what's not, what's helpful, because I've heard so many different opinions. 00:06:47 Speaker 2: First of all, thank you so much for that. 00:06:49 Speaker 4: Yeah, of course. 00:06:50 Speaker 2: So I'm going to have an opinion that very few people will ever tell you, which is I want you to be very cautious putting drugs into your system in the pursuit of changing your body. I instead encourage you to work on what's going on in your brain first. I think what you need first and foremost is just a diagnosis. Just someone that is going to listen to what you've gone through, listen to what else is going on. My prayer for you, and again, very few will say this, I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born. I know that you might not feel that way, but I think that is something that you can achieve. I think that with the right team and the right people, you don't have to wage war on your body. You can learn to love your body. 00:07:34 Speaker 4: That's what Charlie actually had to say. That's who he's saying is hateful. 00:07:36 Speaker 6: And that's what they were describing as hateful. And that's at least in the most fringe, extreme thing, which is actual transgenderism. He also said Charlie was hateful towards people who had sex outside of marriage. And I don't have any idea what that's in reference to. I only ever remember Charlie being pretty... mild. He basically expressed that almost as just, he basically would just say your relationships and marriage will be better if you don't do that. 00:08:02 Speaker 4: That's what I always remember him saying. Hateful. What is this guy quality counting as hate? 00:08:09 Speaker 9: Um, just he's counting disagreement as hate. 00:08:11 Speaker 4: Yes. 00:08:12 Speaker 6: And disagree, I guess. And so very outlandish. And I was very glad the, uh, the prosecution pushed back on that. I believe that they were, uh, I'm very glad they did it, and I'll be very interested once we are able to speak to Andrew. How did that go over in the courtroom? Were the people there who were there for Tyler Robinson, were they snickering when that happened? I can't wait to learn more about that. But Andrew hasn't been able to rejoin us yet. I don't know that he has his phone back. So for now, I believe we have... Is Joe Bob calling in? I know he's been watching the events today. We're still testing with him. 00:08:52 Speaker 4: We do have clip 14 is. 00:08:54 Speaker 9: The prosecution calling out the defense. 00:08:57 Speaker 6: All right, we'll play that while we wait for that to come in. And so let's set this up. 00:09:02 Speaker 4: Let's play clip 14. 00:09:04 Speaker 6: This is the defense or the prosecution putting back. 00:09:09 Speaker 7: State takes great exception with Mr. Novak attributing all of this hate to Mr. Kirk during his argument today. None of that was presented during the preliminary hearing. that he is hateful towards this group or hateful towards that group. He had an opinion that he would express on politics and religion. That doesn't make it hate. But the fact that Mr. Novak even considered it as hate makes the case for the state. In his client's own words, he hated what Mr. Kirk stood for. On the shell casing that was found in the. 30- 06, the defendant's gun, grandpa's gun, the murder weapon, quote, hey fascist catch, close quote. He's calling him a fascist. And of course, in the text, which has been talked about twice already today, States Exhibit 16.1, when the defendant texted Mr. Twiggs, quote, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. He hated Charlie Kirk. He hated what he stood for. 00:10:24 Speaker 6: So very glad they pushed back on that. All right, so now we do have Joe Bob with us. Joe Bob, you were also following the day's proceedings. What do you make of what we just witnessed, which is the defense team? We're debating this. We're trying to figure out what the strategy is because I don't see how it's useful for Tyler Robinson, the defendant, For his attorneys to be saying, by the way, Charlie Kirk really was a hateful person who said all this hateful stuff. 00:10:55 Speaker 5: I yeah, I can't put my I don't know what that is either. Like, I don't quite understand. You know, I kind of remember back to earlier in the day when they were kind of talking about what the schedule was going to look like. And the prosecutor said, hey, we're going to take this much time, you know, give or take a little bit. And then the defense said, oh, we're going to take about an hour. What are you going to talk about in the hour? And apparently that was it. That was a lot of it, because I don't know how that one. helped anything he was saying and two i actually think it hurt more like you saw the prosecution there uh literally just there say yeah this this kind of in a roundabout way kind of helps the case that we're trying to make that tyler robinson and apparently this attorney yeah thought again their their own subjective opinion what charlie was saying was hateful obviously it wasn't charlie was very cordial with everybody across the political spectrum but then to to make that as I don't even know if that was an argument. I'm not entirely sure what they were trying to do there. But in any regard, I think it was it was good that the prosecution then said this. This kind of helps illuminate what we're trying to the picture we're trying to paint, that there was a motive there and that Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs hated the type of rhetoric, regardless of whether or not you think it was hateful. I obviously don't think it was. And nobody who watched or watched Charlie said, in full context, thought it was, but they did. 00:12:23 Speaker 4: I don't know. 00:12:24 Speaker 5: I don't know if that's a great answer. I'm confused as it just, like, most people I'm talking to seem to be with what was the point of any of that. 00:12:34 Speaker 7: Yep. 00:12:35 Speaker 9: My only thinking on it was that they basically said that as a distraction, so people are focusing on that instead of, like, the actual case or what's going on. 00:12:45 Speaker 6: Maybe, but they're only trying to... This is the preliminary hearing. They're only trying to... They have to appeal to the judge. The judge is the one who makes this ruling. And does Judge Graff like hearing that sort of thing? 00:12:58 Speaker 9: I couldn't make out what the point of that would be other than to somehow potentially make the focus turn to that where now everybody's talking about that. 00:13:10 Speaker 10: I don't know. 00:13:10 Speaker 6: It's so genuinely strange because we all agree Tyler Robinson has the right to a defense. He has the right to a vigorous defense. He has the right to have them object to every single thing. We were talking earlier, Joe, Bob, how at one point they objected to the sound that camera tripods might make while being rattled around to argue if you have too many cameras, it will cause distraction and undercut his portrayal. 00:13:33 Speaker 4: He has the right to all of that. 00:13:34 Speaker 6: He has the right for them to make the most fringe objections imaginable. But twice in the proceedings so far, this incident here and then at the end of the preliminary hearing last July... We've had a defense attorney go off on this bizarre tangent in the case, in this case saying, by the way, Charlie was hateful and hated all these people, and then last July saying, Erica Kirk, she throws herself into this case, she acts like the prosecutors are just her personal attorneys, and just really blasting the literal widow of the murder victim in this case. 00:14:12 Speaker 4: And it really just. 00:14:16 Speaker 4: I genuinely can't figure it out. 00:14:18 Speaker 9: Unless they themselves have mass disdain for Charlie. I don't understand why they would be throwing that in there for really no reason at all. 00:14:25 Speaker 4: It might be. 00:14:25 Speaker 6: We've talked about, Andrew's mentioned this, that these attorneys, they've been associated with pretty high-profile defense litigation in the past. These are not just randoms. They are not just career defense attorneys in this county. They are people brought in for this high-profile case. maybe they are just radical ideologues. And that is one of the things that makes them decide they want to commit their lives to this case for the next year. 00:14:52 Speaker 5: You know, I wonder, and again, layman looking in at this is, is more of a commentator as opposed to like, you know, an actual attorney, but is there any, is there any reason why they want to delay more? I mean, the, the goal that judge Braff had said in the morning was, Hey, we're going to come to a conclusion today, or I'm going to come to a conclusion today. But given the fact that they, they took as long as they did and, And again, in the length of time that they took, detoured to just kind of weird, subjective opinions about Charlie. Is there any advantage to them delaying this anymore? And if so, what happens then? Again, I don't know. I'm speaking not as an attorney, but as a guy who's been watching this intently and trying to figure out, yeah, I don't know. I don't know. That doesn't necessarily help the conversation, but I seriously don't know what any advantage was gained from that. 00:15:46 Speaker 4: It's all just baffling. I mean, it might just be the case. 00:15:49 Speaker 6: We have one of our commenters just says, it's because the attorneys do not have moral law. They may just be not guided by the rules of morality. Gosh, it really is, it's just disheartening because most of today was basically kind of boring. It took two hours of litigating camera tripods and all of that. And then the prosecution is presenting their stuff in a very workmanlike manner. And then the defense, okay, they're fussing over witness tampering and all of that and we don't know necessarily all of the uh all of the precedents that they're citing and how strong is their legal case we're not even sure but then this just comes out of nowhere and reminds you that we are dealing with some very grave evil and a lot of evil is fixated on this case that's why so much fixated on charlie uh if you joe bob if you got the chance during the prosecution's presentation did you think That was a breath of fresh air in terms of we finally shorn of tons of endless interruptions for objections and litigating over can the camera. 00:17:00 Speaker 4: Show this particular screenshot. 00:17:02 Speaker 6: We did get the prosecution finally just took 40 minutes where their attorney is speaking and basically lays out here is why it is extremely obvious that Tyler Robinson is the person who killed Charlie. 00:17:14 Speaker 4: Do you think they did a good job at that? 00:17:16 Speaker 5: No, I do think they did. I think it was very sober in the approach of it, and I think obviously that was the intent of it. I think, you know, back to your earlier point when you're talking about the back and forth of all of the, hey, we have a standing objection, we have this. You know, there's a part of me that does think that's... Annoying is probably not the correct term to use here, but it's kind of like, all right, let's let's let's actually get to what we're here to discuss. But at the same time, there's an appreciation for Judge Braff in trying to make sure that everything is as concrete and solid as possible, including allowing the defense. to issue all of these objections and say, yeah, this and that, and then rankling over that. And I think that's hopefully going to go a long way to sure up the validity of the conclusions that are going to be come to not only in the pretrial, but in the trial itself. Um, as far as the prosecution goes, yeah, it's, it's such an odd thing to say. I think, I think they did a good job, but they did, they, they did a thorough, uh, decisive job at laying out everything. I think they needed to lay out, um, to make, make the case. And also to, um, you know, all of the evidence they have kind of makes that as like, well, it's, uh, they just laid out the evidence as it was and they did it in a good job. They did it in a good fashion. And, you know, I, I, I don't know. It's tough to not get a little bit worked up listening to all of this. And I, I know I'm preaching to the choir on that. But the, the overwhelming amount of evidence that the state has, even hearing that laid out, it, it, it just, it, It strikes an emotional chord, even though obviously the goal is justice. There's there's that that that small thing, that intangible thing inside me that just it's it's tough to hear. And again, I know that everybody listening that was close to Charlie and knew Charlie and loved Charlie is feeling the same thing. But it's just it feels like it's worth saying, given kind of how this is playing out. 00:19:32 Speaker 6: And I think it's worth noting also, since we are talking about the prosecution versus the defense, these defense guys are highly experienced. Prosecutors mostly are just the career prosecutors of that area. So they are going up against highly experienced heavy hitters. They're in what will be by far... the most famous case of their careers. And we're glad that they're being methodical. We're glad that they're being deliberate. The word overwhelming was in fact used during today's. It's been one of those words that's been thrown back and forth. But it really is the word you want to apply to the evidence in this case. When I've been debating this with people online, I sometimes like to ask them, is there another murder case that you can name that ended in conviction where you think the evidence was actually. 00:20:25 Speaker 4: More wide, more far-reaching. 00:20:28 Speaker 6: More all-encompassing than in this case, short of the person literally being caught in the act? uh, you know, or like being caught at the scene because we have the combination of weapon. 00:20:39 Speaker 4: We have confession. 00:20:41 Speaker 6: We have video footage. We have testimony from the roommate. We have phone ping. I don't know that any, any murder committed before the year 2000 could have more evidence than we have in this case because of all the additional technology we have for checking this and confession, multiple types of confession times. 00:20:59 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:21:00 Speaker 6: And it's really worth it for this to be trotted out because there have been people, whether they're just filling the void of uncertainty in this case because it's taken so long, or if they're people who are just motivated by their own obsessions, there are a lot of people who want to undercut this narrative. They wanted to act like there's a ton of uncertainty. And I think today was a welcome reminder to No, there is not really any uncertainty in this case. The sheer scale of evidence available is, well, that's the word people go to. It is overwhelming and it stands out. Joe Bob, I'm sure you'll agree. The defense spoke for an hour and a half. Did they ever contest footage that showed Tyler Robinson? Did they ever contest that Did they ever suggest there was any alibi for where his location was that day? Did they ever suggest that that rifle was not actually one owned by the Robinson family? 00:22:00 Speaker 4: I don't think they ever did. 00:22:03 Speaker 5: No, I don't. I don't think they've contested really any of that stuff at any point. And they yeah. What the defense said, in my opinion, just just watching it was really just again, it seemed like a delay. I'm not I'm not an attorney. I'm not in litigation really ever in terms of being. watching it and seeing it play out. But as a layman, as a commentator, it just kind of looked like, hey, we're going to try and, you know, kind of stall for time because we're not, they're not trying to really do anything. Again, argumentatively speaking, other than slander Charlie's approach to discussions, which again, I thought was horrible and disgusting. And I do, I am curious too, Blake, you brought up earlier, like whether or not this is some sort of tactic or like a deeper game being played by the defense or if they're just like pure ideologues and and if they are pure ideologues like what does that mean going forward like what does that mean in the trial and not to try and dissect that way too early but if that is the case and it ends up being that they just have this ideological perspective and that leads them to believe all of the stuff that they were saying. I'm not sure the specific attorney speaking his name because it's in everybody's back of their head. But what does that mean going forward if that is the case, that there isn't really any tactical strategy, there isn't any real reason for that other than just hate-driven ideology? And I'm sure that's going to be a discussion that we'll have going forward until the actual trial, if that happens to be the case. I'm not entirely sure how we would know that specifically, short of just asking the guy, but given that that's not going to happen, it's going to be an open question, I think, for a long time in my head, just as we watch the defense and kind of the different tactics that they try and use, not only now, but obviously in the trial as well. 00:24:09 Speaker 6: My gut feeling is, even though it confuses us, there must be a strategic purpose to this. 00:24:14 Speaker 4: This is. 00:24:16 Speaker 6: an elite team as far as defense attorneys go in capital cases. They've been involved in other infamous cases. I know we're going to have Jack Sobacon again in just a minute here, and I know he has a theory about this, that everything they do, however outlandish, it's designed for a strategic purpose. And it might be in this case, yeah, it looks horrible to us, but we're not on the jury. The only thing that matters is who are going to be the 12 people on a jury that has to decide is Tyler Robinson guilty or Should Tyler Robinson. 00:24:47 Speaker 4: Get the death penalty? 00:24:49 Speaker 6: And you need unanimity for both of those things. So if you're laying out the seed by saying Charlie Kirk was hateful, you're planting a seed for someone who might say, you know what? I'm going to take a stand against hate, and I'm just not going to vote for a conviction on this under any circumstances. Or I'm sympathetic to Tyler Robinson. That person was a hater. I don't think someone should get the death penalty for killing him. I think they're likely... They could be laying the groundwork for that sort of thing. But Joe Bob, I know that you didn't have infinite time, so I'm very glad that you took the time to join us. If you have any final thoughts. 00:25:28 Speaker 4: Now, speak your piece. 00:25:30 Speaker 5: No, I appreciate you having me. I think I've mentioned this a number of times across many platforms. There's so many emotional directions being pulled Um, one, you know, obviously we want justice, um, but also just the, the pain that this stuff invokes. It's, it's, it's kind of a, it's a, today's a good reminder that of all of the evidence that is out there, overwhelming evidence. And also it is a painful reminder of the reality that we're in. And it's just those two emotions back and forth, uh, in dealing with it. And I'm, I can't see a future where those go away. 00:26:08 Speaker 1: All right. 00:26:09 Speaker 6: Well, thank you again, Joe, Bob. Um, Thanks for following us on this journey. If anyone's got questions, send them in. We're filling the time until Judge Graff comes back. 00:26:19 Speaker 4: Issues is ruling. 00:26:20 Speaker 6: We'll probably talk even more after that. We're doing the full marathon today. But Joe Bob, thanks for joining us. 00:26:26 Speaker 5: All right. 00:26:26 Speaker 6: I think we're going to be having a poster join us in a sec. Let me know if he's available. We might also be able to get. 00:26:33 Speaker 4: We got him. Oh, he's not ready yet. Not yet. OK, well, we'll get there in a second. 00:26:39 Speaker 9: We're still waiting on Andrew. Who is there to call in, potentially? 00:26:44 Speaker 4: He's probably still. 00:26:46 Speaker 6: We might be getting him after the entire hearing is over with, and we'll definitely want to talk to him about all of that. 00:26:53 Speaker 4: Let's see if there's any questions coming in. We got an email. 00:27:06 Speaker 6: Someone says they dated a Canadian for a while. Well, that's unrelated, but dating a Canadian is better than. 00:27:12 Speaker 4: Dating a furry, I suppose. 00:27:14 Speaker 9: Yeah, I guess you're right. Not much difference, though. 00:27:19 Speaker 6: Dennis says, I hope when the judge comes back, he has listened to the state's arguments. Robinson's defense is weak, and we know he is guilty. I think we all know that. I know we've had a lot of frustration with Judge Graff because he's been moving slowly on things, but As we've all pointed out, I think by far the number one priority for Judge Graff and all the prosecutors in this case is don't commit some avoidable error that will cause this to be a mistrial later, that will cause some appeals court judge, some left-wing appeals court judge, to just go flick this away and say, oh, that conviction's thrown out, that sentence is thrown out. We know a lot of the left celebrates Charlie's death. And yeah, they might not do it now, but he's the sort of guy who 10 years from now, 15 years from now, he could be a cause celeb. They could say, we should let this guy out early. He deserves an early release. And we don't want to give them any grounds for that. I'm told Jack is able to. 00:28:16 Speaker 4: Rejoin with us. Jack, we were saying you have a theory. 00:28:21 Speaker 6: What's your theory for what Richard Novak was doing when he went out there in front of the court and trashed Charlie Kirk as a hater. 00:28:33 Speaker 11: If you think wireless companies are all the same, you might need to take a look at our friends over at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile isn't just different because of its mission, it's actually built to outperform the other carriers. They offer premium, priority, nationwide service on any of the three major U.S. networks, helping you get the best possible coverage wherever life takes you. With Patriot Mobile, You can even have two separate networks on a single device, eliminating the need to carry multiple phones and giving you peace of mind you just can't get with other carriers. Need internet on the go? Patriot Mobile Wi-Fi hotspots connect to multiple networks to keep you connected while traveling or working remotely. They also offer international roaming and enterprise solutions for businesses that need dependable connectivity and U.S.-based customer support. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade now. Switch from your home or office. It just takes a few minutes. And when you call Patriot Mobile, you'll talk to real people right here in the United States. Superior coverage, superior product, superior customer support. That's Patriot Mobile. Go to PatriotMobile.com slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT. Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. Well, I do, and of course we've been chatting and texting a little here back and forth, and I just have to say that, you know, it goes without saying that. 00:29:56 Speaker 12: It's incredibly admirable to see both you and Danny being up here, being willing to go through all of this and do what you're doing because this isn't an academic. 00:30:10 Speaker 3: Debate to you guys. 00:30:11 Speaker 12: You guys were both standing right there. So these questions of if his aim was off or if he had jerked the trigger or something, you guys very well may not have made it back that day if– these things happen. So this isn't like some dry courtroom debate. And I just wanted to say how much I appreciate it. And I think everybody appreciates you guys doing what you're doing, even in the face of obviously what's a very emotional, very emotional discussion. 00:30:38 Speaker 3: And it's not the same as any other case, obviously. 00:30:41 Speaker 4: Well, thank you. 00:30:43 Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it just has to be said. 00:30:46 Speaker 12: And in addition, look, Richard Novak, he's a very very capable lawyer. 00:30:53 Speaker 3: He's very, very smart. He's not going to do something. 00:30:57 Speaker 12: Without a, he's a chess player, right? He's not going to do something without strategy. He's not going to walk up there and make a gaffe on an open mic. He is not going to walk out and, you know, commit an oops. He always does things with effect. And if you look up his background, what is he known for? He's specifically known for fighting against the death penalty and being involved in cases where a high profile client, Michael Byrd as well, for example, has been charged with something that where the death penalty could apply. And what I think is going on here is that all of this actually has to do with the death penalty and has to do with that phase in the trial, because for folks who don't realize this, there's actually two phases to a death penalty trial, three phases, because, you know, of course, the trial itself hasn't actually started the formal trial. First is guilty or not guilty. And I think that the judges, the judge, the lawyers, the legal teams on both sides kind of realize that we're going to pass that bar. That's why you hear things like them referring to this was Tyler's text message or this was that. They very casually kind of admit that he sent the text and they're kind of making the same point about the targets as well, that they were in fact his targets. But what I think that he's doing here is that he knows that his audience isn't necessarily the judge right now. His audience is that future jury. And I think what we might be getting is a look at the cards of what he's going to say, what the defense team is going to say when we do get to that sentencing phase, that it's going to be a question of, well, is this a mitigating factor? Is it a mitigating factor because Tyler Robinson was in love with twigs and Charlie Kirk was a hater of, of homosexuals, of, what did he say, non-gender conforming, non-strict heterosexuals, I think was the phrase he specifically used, and that they have to reach forward through time to that one juror who might be on the box, or maybe in the future to some appellate judge, or even up to the Supreme Court by saying that they actually do want to make this about trans issues. They just know that they can't really yet, they've been waiting, that's why they waited right up all the way until this very final moment of the preliminary hearing to drop this bombshell. Because they do want to bring up trans issues, and they want to be able to use it, not to get him off of a conviction or out of criminal culpability, like, of course, is going on with the Lindsay Clancy situation in postpartum. They want to use it as a mitigating factor to try to get Tyler Robinson out of the death penalty. 00:33:45 Speaker 4: All right. 00:33:45 Speaker 6: We haven't gotten a chance to talk to Will Chamberlain yet today, so we're having him try to join up Jack, and I'm told for technical reasons, Danny, you and I need to talk. Jack, you can't talk while they're having him join up, so hopefully he's going to call in. We'll have all of you guys in together in a second. What do you think of Jack's theory? Do you think this is strategic? 00:34:07 Speaker 4: Do you think they're just pandering to that one juror? 00:34:10 Speaker 9: I mean, they could be pandering to the one juror. That might be their only solution at this point with how much evidence there is. I don't know what other, like, ways they have of going about this other than hoping that some crazy cultist gets on the jury and can somehow get him off. So, I think, Jack, you might be right. I don't know. 00:34:31 Speaker 4: All righty. 00:34:32 Speaker 6: What we've got, we've got Will as well. He's been very generous waiting throughout the day. So, Will, thanks for joining us. We're here with Danny here in the studio and then Jack's also with us. But, We're waiting for Judge Graff to issue his ruling. What's your big picture assessment of what went on today? 00:34:51 Speaker 13: Well, I actually, I mean, I wasn't watching it closely, but what I said to Jack was everything today is pro forma. The fact that he announced that he was going to issue a ruling beforehand means he wasn't going to pay much attention at all to the actual arguments that they were made in court, which is perfectly reasonable because there's been briefing. He already had the five days of actual preliminary hearing to make up his mind whether there was probable cause. So all this just goes to show that if he knew he was going to issue a ruling, then he just was letting people talk and it didn't really matter what they were going to say. And so I expect a pretty straightforward ruling that there's probable cause here and that he's going to bind over the charges and we're going to have a trial. 00:35:30 Speaker 6: If you got a chance to see this, we've just been discussing that Richard Novak, the defense attorney, he basically went and he trashed Charlie. uh, called him, said he was hateful. He said hateful things about people who weren't heterosexual, hateful things about people based on their gender identity, hateful things about this and that and all of that. And Jack's point of view is they're clearly that basically they're making the bid that they know eventually this will face a jury for conviction. This will face a jury for, is this the death penalty? And they're just planting the seeds for someone to decide, because we have our glorious jury system, that they're going to just put their personal biases into this and say, you know what? 00:36:20 Speaker 4: He's right. 00:36:21 Speaker 6: Charlie was a hater. Charlie was a bad right-wing extremist. Do I really feel that bad that he got murdered? Do you think that's what's going on here? 00:36:30 Speaker 13: I think that's very plausible. I mean, I think that if you're, you know, if you're realizing, I mean, obviously, I guess this was all, if this is public, right? I mean, they had cameras in the courtroom and And if you're giving one of these speeches, effectively, you're wasting your time if you're speaking to the judge, right? If the judge already said he's going to announce a ruling, then you're speaking to a guy who's made up his mind and isn't going to change his mind based on whatever you say. And you've also had the opportunity to say substantively, legally, whatever you wanted to say in your briefing. So he's going to be particularly annoyed if you're trying to make new substantive legal points in oral argument that you didn't put in your brief. So I think the way that they look at it is they're not speaking to the judge. They're speaking to the public and potential jurors. And so that sort of frames how you would think about what their message is here, what they're trying to communicate. And in this case, it would be, you know, maybe he had it coming. So they wouldn't say that so explicitly, obviously, but maybe that's the sort of underlying message. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that, more sort of subtle slander of Charlie coming from the defense team. trying to capture and hope that maybe one of the jurors is going to fight for a mistrial or more based on the fact that they sympathize with Tyler Robinson's actions. 00:37:41 Speaker 6: Jack, I think this inevitably gets us thinking about a distinctive feature of our system, that we have this Anglo-Saxon 12-person jury trial. You need unanimity to convict. You need unanimity to impose the death penalty. It's a long tradition. I think all of us would be sad to see it go, but when you do see this kind of strategic pandering, or when we see the other famous trial going on right now, the Lindsay Clancy case, people were watching for a verdict there all day. Judge sent them home again. They're apparently deadlocked. Seems quite plausible we will get a mistrial in that case. Jack, how should we feel about our jury system as we see these two cases unfolding? Is this just The nature of it, is there some sort of change that's been brought about because of social media and mass media? 00:38:33 Speaker 4: Floor is yours. 00:38:36 Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting. 00:38:39 Speaker 12: Poland is kind of all over social media lately, and I was reading a book in my spare time, because why not, about legal practice in Poland. And Poland, like most of continental Europe, does not use the jury system, does not use the same jury system that we do. They have a system that's much closer to, at this stage, in what they call the first instance of a trial, it goes to a judge or sometimes a judge with members of the public who are appointed as lay judges, like. 00:39:13 Speaker 3: One or two. 00:39:14 Speaker 12: They do not have this 12-person jury trial. So it's really just something. I remember when my wife and I were watching The Derek Chauvin trial, Tanya Tay was saying, wow, I've never realized that America had trials like this. 00:39:28 Speaker 3: It's not what we do in America. 00:39:30 Speaker 7: Europe. 00:39:31 Speaker 3: And, you know, it really goes. 00:39:33 Speaker 12: To show you that the way things have changed in America, where by and the idea was that a jury would have, you know, good faith, would be operating in good faith. But of course, where do we pull our juries from these days, we pull them from The voter rolls, which we know are a complete joke in many of these jurisdictions. I'm not talking about Provo. I'm just saying in general in America, we know there's huge problems. That's why the SAVE Act was such a fight, and the Senate wouldn't pass it. We also have mass migration in this country, mass migration of people who have come with wholly different ideas of how things should be. We also have multiculturalism, and unfortunately multiculturalism which is something that Lee Kuan Yew actually spoke about, is terrible when it comes to juries. Because, for example, one of those multi-cultures that you could talk about, for example, is. 00:40:25 Speaker 3: The LGBTQ community. 00:40:28 Speaker 12: And so if you're a member of that community and you find yourself on the jury, then perhaps, just perhaps, the reason that Novak said what he just said over there is that because you might think that, in fact, I am a member of a community that Charlie Kirk was against. If Charlie Kirk was against my community, then I should be for the person who was against Charlie Kirk. And so this is where that system kind of breaks down, because if you have a multicultural system, you are going to see those types of culture clashes inside the jury box. Of course, we're seeing that with Lindsey Clancy right now, and most famously with OJ Simpson back, was it 92 or 93, when that decision came out. And you had jurors, by the way, after the OJ case saying that They unequivocally thought that O.J. was guilty, but they voted not guilty because they were mad about Rodney King or things like that. And this is obviously a complete short circuit of the way the system is supposed to work, which is, of course, weighing the facts and evidence and then coming back with a good faith response. You know, the reasonableness standard, which is applied to so many of these statutes, as Will is very familiar with, you know, it kind of flies out the window if you can't agree on what's reasonable and what's not. 00:41:46 Speaker 3: And unfortunately, that's what we're seeing now in society. 00:41:49 Speaker 12: And yes, obviously, social media, TikTok, Instagram, all of these things are adding to these major, major fissures in our society. 00:41:57 Speaker 1: All right. 00:41:58 Speaker 6: Will, what do you feel about the future of our jury system as a as we sweat the outcome of this case and the other infamous cases going on in the U.S. 00:42:09 Speaker 4: At this moment. 00:42:10 Speaker 13: Yeah, no, I posted something about this today that, you know, that you could see a world where this gets so bad that eventually a right-wing movement takes power, takes aim at the jury trial and says the jury trial doesn't work for us anymore. It's leading to far too many acquittals of people who've committed extraordinarily serious crimes when the evidence is overwhelming. And I mean, you bring up Lee Kuan Yew, right? I'd recommend everybody, if you have the time, it's a lot, but Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography, in particular, the first part of his autobiography, where he talks about his early life coming into power, Lee Kuan Yew was a criminal defense lawyer. And, you know, in while the English were in charge, he managed to, he defended a guy who he thought, and he said was totally guilty. But he appealed to the tribal prejudices of the ethnic prejudices of the jury in front of him. And managed to persuade them to let him off. And after that, that act of having gotten this criminal off of a very serious charge made him permanently very skeptical of juries. And so that's why Singapore has bench trials, even though it's an English common law country and many other English common law countries still retain trial by jury, which is ultimately an English tradition. So if we're going to turn, this is, I think, one of the better arguments against mass immigration is that our system, as Jack said, was built... Not on multiculturalism. It was not. And it was built on this sort of common cultural continuity. And without that, the jury trial system breaks down because you need a common understanding of values, a common understanding of justice. You know, we're the weird ones. And I think Jack talked about this earlier today on his show as well, which was, you know, in other societies, it would be extremely strange for the parents of Tyler Robinson to have turned Tyler Robinson in. That would have been seen as weird and disloyal to your family. in the West we have a particular appreciation for individualism and impartial justice, uh, and a rejection of nepotism that is not present in every part of the world. And the more you import people from parts of the world where the moral fabric, you know, essentially the moral sentiment of people runs towards protecting your being loyal to your clan rather than impartial justice, the more and more the jury system will break down over time. 00:44:27 Speaker 6: Yeah. I, uh, I mean, an example that also happened within the last year, the Henry Novak case in the UK, where a guy stabbed someone to death in the street, and what immediately happens? His brother helps cover for him, his mother helps cover for him, his entire community comes together to help him cover up, try to escape justice for this crime, and we were fortunate that this failed and he was convicted anyway, but We may see more and more cases like that, that I feel the entire nature of jury trials relies on a jury being a community of not just shared values, but the sense that everyone is part of the same community. When any criminal trial can start having this aspect of, is the defendant in my tribe or in a different tribe? As a key part of it, you're going to end up in cases where it's very... It's far more difficult than it should be to get the right verdict in a case, whether it's in the Clancy case, where it suddenly is a battle of the sexes incident, or if it's in racial stuff, this person's part of my group, and so I will just not trust any indictment against such a person, or even politics. One of the things we've discussed is, is it going to matter in this case that it's at least being tried in Orem, Utah, which is a red Trump county? And it's also filled with Mormons who are pretty law-abiding, straight-arrow individuals. Whereas, what if Charlie got shot in Boulder, Colorado? What if Charlie got shot in the Bay Area, somewhere really blue? We'd have to worry a lot more that just someone says, I want to get on that trial. I want to get on that jury and make sure that the person who killed Charlie gets away with it. 00:46:20 Speaker 12: And Blake, just to bolster your point, by the way, we've already seen Luigi Maggioni, who's on video committing murder in New York City. And there the judges have already taken the death penalty off the table even before it's gone to trial. 00:46:34 Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly. 00:46:35 Speaker 6: And I mean, luckily, I believe he did. He ended up pleading guilty in that case, I believe. 00:46:41 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:46:41 Speaker 4: So that fortunately pled. 00:46:44 Speaker 12: It will remind me if I'm wrong, but I think he pled on the federal, but he still has the state. 00:46:50 Speaker 5: It's one of the two. 00:46:51 Speaker 13: I think the basic strategic decision there was they thought they managed to knock out the death penalty in that case by ruling of the judge, and then they decided to plead guilty there in order to avoid to make double jeopardy come into play for the other case where I guess the death penalty was still a live option. So that was their strategic mindset. I wonder, though, you know. 00:47:13 Speaker 12: I did have it right. He pled guilty on the federal side after they had knocked the where actually I believe they didn't have the death penalty even on the federal side. And then so he still got the state case, but they were going to push for this double jeopardy trap and say, you know, he's already pled out. 00:47:37 Speaker 6: We don't need to go too far down that rabbit hole. Just to remind everyone, we're waiting probably about 10 minutes out from Judge Graff's ruling. We'll, of course, carry that live and then come back and we'll have Andrew join us and so on. We're getting a few emails. Mick asks, this is, I think, unlikely, but maybe you guys have thoughts on this. Is it possible that Mr. Novak's comment was used so that the defense team would have later grounds for appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel? As in, was the lawyer making an argument so bad, deliberately, so that Tyler. 00:48:14 Speaker 4: Can later claim my lawyers were inept? 00:48:16 Speaker 3: I don't think. 00:48:17 Speaker 7: I. 00:48:19 Speaker 3: As crazy as it sounds in public, I think it's strategic. 00:48:23 Speaker 4: I really do. 00:48:24 Speaker 12: I think that Novak is a very, very capable defense lawyer. He's got a huge background in terms of this. Obviously, anyone can claim that later. Brian Koberger, for example, after pleading guilty, is now claiming that to try to get his guilty plea overturned. 00:48:42 Speaker 3: We'll see if that happens or not. 00:48:43 Speaker 12: But just personally having viewed and met Mr. 00:48:49 Speaker 3: Novak and having. 00:48:51 Speaker 12: Viewed him up close and personal for a week like I did originally, it really doesn't seem like something that he would just do off the cuff like that. I think that he's probably got a strategy in mind. 00:49:02 Speaker 13: Yeah, I wouldn't say ineffective assistance of counsel would even make sense at this point in the trial. You've already made all your arguments in your briefing and it's a judge decision, so it's not the kind of thing where you're failing to object to some important piece of evidence that's been admitted. Like it's just, it's so, it's so liberal. at this point that i don't think that would ever be a strategy moreover a strategy like that wouldn't is not the kind of thing any lawyer himself wants to engage in uh because it doesn't really get you out of anything it means you just go back to trial again and it's not like even if you know, Tyler Robinson eventually on appeal were to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel motion. That doesn't mean he goes free. That means he gets a new trial and we're back exactly where we started. And he's, and he's, he's not going to be free pending bond. Like there's no, they're not, they're not going to bond him out after that. He's still the guy who murdered Charlie Kirk. 00:49:49 Speaker 4: Yeah. 00:49:51 Speaker 6: I mean, it's just, I think we're all, we're all wildly speculating because it was just such a demented thing. 00:49:58 Speaker 4: It felt like it came very out of nowhere. 00:50:01 Speaker 9: Out of nowhere. It didn't help his case really at all. 00:50:03 Speaker 4: It doesn't immediately help. 00:50:05 Speaker 3: And so here's, here's, here's one other, I'll ask Will this. 00:50:09 Speaker 12: One other possibility is that, so if I remember correctly, it's one of the aggravating factors is the political targeting. 00:50:15 Speaker 3: Is that correct? 00:50:16 Speaker 1: Yes. 00:50:18 Speaker 4: Or at least it's a secondary one. It's a secondary possibility, at least for sure. 00:50:22 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:50:22 Speaker 12: Secondary after, um, uh, after the aggravating factor of, um, you know, potentially targeting others, which includes, of course, both of you guys. And, Will, I guess my question is, you know, could he be making this argument that, you know, hate speech is not considered political, that it is, in fact, you know, that doesn't qualify because it wasn't a, you know, a hard Republican versus Democrat kind of thing? 00:50:53 Speaker 13: I don't think that's going to be particularly germane. If I remember correctly, I think I reviewed the statute on the sort of political aspect of it, and it was all about the sort of identity of who you shot, whether they were like an office holder of some sort, you know, a senator or a congressman, a state legislator, a sheriff. 00:51:09 Speaker 12: Or perhaps a prominent political activist. 00:51:12 Speaker 13: A prominent political activist does make it have political valence, but the statute kind of enumerated specific categories of people who would qualify as victims. being targeting them would qualify as aggravated murder. And I don't think, I think the only way to get there with Charlie was based on his like board membership on one of the like, you know, blue ribbon commissions that the executive branch has that he was a member of. Like, I think it was like the board of directors of the air force Academy or something like that. 00:51:35 Speaker 3: He was, yeah, he was, he was the air force Academy. 00:51:37 Speaker 12: And in fact, he was, if I remember correctly, Blake, you, you, and you got, you guys would probably know, but I think he was planning to visit there, uh, not long after this Utah stop. 00:51:46 Speaker 4: I believe that's correct. 00:51:47 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:51:48 Speaker 2: Right. 00:51:48 Speaker 13: So I think I don't I guess my broader point is the sort of going for this interesting, if anything, you know, you'd be ramping up the political valence here by bringing up the sort of what Charlie had done if this were a live issue. So I think that actually would be a strange strategy for the defense. If I think they're they're only doing this sort of thing because they're pretty confident that there isn't a live issue on the political side or maybe they think it's just it's a reach and. You know, that's my suspicion. I don't think they're trying to sort of undermine that particular aggravating factor on the death penalty. I think that's a little, that would be a little far afield. 00:52:25 Speaker 1: No, I know. 00:52:25 Speaker 3: That's just one. Well, basically, this is what made. 00:52:31 Speaker 12: Me think about it is because it's one of those things when you talk to the left where they'll say that's not a political issue. They'll say that's not because they don't believe anything in progressivism is politics. They say, because they're true believers. They actually believe that for example, that a trans kid is actually a trans kid, that they're born that way. 00:52:51 Speaker 3: There's nothing they can do to change it. And they have to. 00:52:56 Speaker 12: Undergo these, again, this is their view, not mine, but they have to undergo surgeries and hormone replacement and all the rest because this will conform with their affirmed view. And of course, this is something that the defense lawyer brought up right there when he was talking about twigs. 00:53:13 Speaker 3: I noticed that he did talk about it in the past tense. I don't know if I'm reading too much into. 00:53:17 Speaker 12: That, but I know there was some speculation as to whether or not Twiggs is still affirming to that other gender, the fluidity. 00:53:26 Speaker 4: He looked a little less affirmative in his testimony. Is that the right word? Less affirmative? 00:53:34 Speaker 3: Yeah, he flowed back. He flowed in the reverse direction, perhaps. 00:53:39 Speaker 12: I don't know. 00:53:41 Speaker 3: But yeah, it's just something where you know that progressives always say this. They say that's not political. That's just moral. 00:53:47 Speaker 12: That's just being a darn good person and not being a darn bad person. 00:53:53 Speaker 4: Exactly, exactly. 00:53:55 Speaker 6: I think we're about five minutes out from Judge Graff reconvening the court. 00:54:01 Speaker 4: Will, you first. 00:54:02 Speaker 6: Just any final thoughts about this before we close? Let's hope we're closing soon. phase one of what has already been a quite exhausting journey. 00:54:14 Speaker 13: Yeah, I think it really is remarkable how long this takes, and it kind of makes me appreciate the federal system a little bit. In a sense, we get the benefit of a public preliminary hearing, so we are in this unique circumstance where all these crazy conspiracy theories about Kirk's death, and so it's nice to be able to have all this evidence laid out in public much earlier than it would have been otherwise, but at the same time, it does make the overall process much more grueling in federal court, for example. You know, what would have happened here is very simply, like, by the time we even had this announced, there would have been a grand jury indictment, and we would have already been well into the pretrial process at this point. Now we're just about to start it, which is kind of crazy. 00:54:52 Speaker 6: I know I said we're summing up, but actually there's something I totally should have asked both of you guys earlier. We were discussing earlier today with J-Town. It came up at the start of today's hearing, back and forth. The defense was bringing up that there is a polymarket account on whether Tyler Robinson will be convicted by the end of July next year. And they said it introduces bias because it can go up or down and that can suggest it can impute guilt to him. But we were just thinking all the other ways that could interfere with the case that a juror, a defense attorney, a prosecutor, a judge, it could induce ways to introduce corruption. It makes it, it makes it easier to be corrupt. So we were saying, should we ban this? Should we ban markets for criminal cases? 00:55:36 Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, I could potentially see– I'm personally on the very. 00:55:42 Speaker 3: Social conservative side on a lot of these questions. I think a lot of. 00:55:46 Speaker 12: This public and prolific digital gambling is very bad and very corrosive to all of society, as a matter of fact. But I was going to say that when Will Chamberlain was on Human Events Daily earlier today, we spoke at length. 00:56:01 Speaker 3: About this very question. 00:56:03 Speaker 12: I talked about the case when it was the Green Beret who had put money on whether or not Maduro would be raided and arrested. And then, of course, he got in big, big trouble for that. Although I do say he. 00:56:16 Speaker 3: Didn't actually leak that. He just put money on it. But yes, he had insider knowledge. 00:56:20 Speaker 12: Or Trump's, I think, teleprompter operator got in trouble recently. 00:56:26 Speaker 3: He had to pay some fine. 00:56:27 Speaker 12: And at the same time, though, and I'll throw it to Will because I know we talked about this earlier, but You know, whether or not you have jury tampering, if there is a juror who is perhaps trying to manipulate the case or simply manipulate their own standing on Polymarket by placing bets, by placing different, you know, different options on Polymarket or Kashi or any of these things by their own standing in the case, you're going to get caught. OK, jury tampering is not something new. It's actually something quite old in our system. And you're definitely going to get caught because the judge and the bailiffs can go in there and say, hey, give us your phone. Or they can issue subpoenas for your phone or issue a subpoena to make you to make you speak to them. And if you don't, you're going to get booted or potentially even worse because you are sworn in as a juror. So that means you have to swear to not do such things as this. And if you do so, it's a crime. 00:57:25 Speaker 4: Well, what do you make of the of the polymarket question? 00:57:28 Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean, there's a good argument to ban it. I think, though, that the judge has a lot of tools to deal with it. As Jack said, you can deal with a post hoc where you're sort of subpoenaing people and demanding their phones, right? Obviously, that word will probably get around because this person behaving uniquely weirdly in the jury room will get around. There's also things you can do pre-trial, which is like, you know, while you're swearing them in or doing voir dire, you can actually, my suspicion is a judge could easily just make them attest under oath and, you know, ask them questions like, do you have a Polymarket or Calshi account? If you do, please specify what that account, your account information to make it particularly easy to catch you in the future if this ever really becomes a problem. But yeah, I mean, you know, it's a speculative argument from the defense. There's the courts have an enormous number of tools to actually make sure that people behave in court and don't break the law, don't do things corruptly. I think people underestimate that, you know, often I remember I've counseled clients at the time in the past about, you know, they've suggested, well, why don't we just defy this court order? And I have to explain, like, trust me, you don't even want to start down that road. The court has enormous coercive power when it wants to force you to comply with its orders. And in this case, you know, being a juror, like if it wants to use the coercive power it has to force you to behave, it will. 00:58:45 Speaker 4: All right. 00:58:46 Speaker 6: Well, I think we're now really just a few minutes out from the court coming back. 00:58:51 Speaker 4: So I have to duck out. I apologize. Thank you very much for joining us, Will. I'm sure we'll see you in the near future. 00:58:59 Speaker 6: Thank you for coming on. 00:59:01 Speaker 4: Jack, you as well. Thank you. 00:59:04 Speaker 6: I think we'll want to be getting back to our stations to see this verdict. And then when it's done, we'll be getting out here again. 00:59:10 Speaker 4: We'll definitely talk to Andrew who was in the room all day. So Jack, thanks for joining us. 00:59:17 Speaker 12: Blake, if I have real quick final word on, on the, the, um, the viral clip that we're talking about is my gosh. Um, really sounds like the defense lawyer there is saying that this certainly was a big part of the motive for Tyler Robinson. And I know there have been a lot of questions as to who the shooter was and what the motive was. And it seems like Tyler Robinson's defense lawyer is giving it a lot of attention right there. 00:59:43 Speaker 6: Well, he certainly didn't give any attention at all to any alibi, any debunking of the core parts of the case, as we've pointed out. And if there was a strong argument there, I think they would have tried to spare their client. 00:59:57 Speaker 4: A year in jail. 00:59:59 Speaker 1: Just saying. 01:00:00 Speaker 4: Exactly. 01:00:01 Speaker 6: So thank you again, Jack, for joining us. And we're going to keep our vigil, watching the court. I believe he'll be back any minute now. 01:00:09 Speaker 4: So stay tuned. We'll be back with all of you as soon as this hearing is over. 01:00:15 Speaker 11: I had the honor of a lifetime to call Charlie a friend. And what I remember most wasn't just what people saw on stage. 01:00:23 Speaker 1: It was. 01:00:25 Speaker 11: what was behind the scenes. That was an unwavering commitment to his faith, his love for his family, and his genuine desire to encourage others to live with courage and conviction. Charlie believed that following Christ wasn't something you compartmentalize. He didn't put it in a box. He lived it out loud. It shaped how he lived, how he served, how he treated people every single day. Charlie Kirk, American Martyr, captures that heart. This documentary isn't just simply about remembering Charlie. It's an invitation to for each of us to ask what kind of legacy we're building and whether we're willing to stand firm in our own faith when it's tested. I hope that you'll watch it with your family and have those conversations together. Go to angel.com slash Kirk. That's angel.com slash Kirk. Become an Angel Guild member. Watch Charlie Kirk, American Martyr, and help bring more stories of faith, courage, and conviction to audiences around the world. 01:01:21 Speaker 4: All right, welcome back. It was as we feared. It was a marathon day. 01:01:25 Speaker 6: It took until they started at about 10 a.m. local time, and they ended only at 6.30 p.m. 01:01:33 Speaker 4: Local time. There were how many? Three total recesses throughout the day. 01:01:38 Speaker 6: Took quite a while. So thank you to everyone who's been enduring this with us. In the end, though, we got mostly the result we wanted. We got Judge Graff. 01:01:50 Speaker 3: He took. 01:01:52 Speaker 6: a half hour to read the whole thing, but he issued his ruling binding over Tyler Robinson on all charges. That includes aggravated murder, which means that Tyler Robinson remains eligible for the death penalty pending, of course, a trial verdict. 01:02:11 Speaker 4: We also got a plea from Mr. Robinson. 01:02:14 Speaker 6: He entered pleas of not guilty on all charges. And then finally, at the end, we had discussion of when they will have their pretrial conference, where they will likely set a future trial date. The prosecution said, let's just do this within two weeks. The defense said, we would like at least a month, and then they revealed, actually, I guess it turns out we can't do this until October 23rd. Nearly two months away. Hopefully, that date will hold, and when they confer... We will actually get a trial date. We don't know when that will be, of course, but it does fit our pattern of everything about this taking as long as possible. But we did at least avoid any travesty where if the judge decided to wait and release his ruling over the holiday or after the holiday, we didn't get any bonus delay just so that we could have a plea be entered by Mr. 01:03:12 Speaker 4: Robinson. 01:03:13 Speaker 6: We have gotten over the hump of the pre- trial, the pre-indictment period. We have an indicted defendant, Tyler Robinson, for the murder of Charlie Kirk. Now, they're still cycling out of the courtroom right now, but Andrew was there all day. 01:03:31 Speaker 4: Hopefully he will get his phone back and call into us. 01:03:36 Speaker 6: What did you think of that, Danny, other than the fact that it was, like everything else in this trial, very long? 01:03:42 Speaker 9: Yeah, very long. It The ending of scheduling the next hearing seemed like the judge was bending the knee to the defense there. I don't understand if one of the lawyers can't make it, why that's our problem and why that means we have to push it out a month more. If you can't make it for your own client, that's your problem, not ours. That is just baffling to me why we have to push it out even longer. So I don't understand that. He also didn't commit to that October date as even setting that. the court date. We don't even know if he will set the court date at that day. 01:04:15 Speaker 4: A discussion, and then they'll need final arguments. 01:04:17 Speaker 10: Yeah. 01:04:17 Speaker 9: Another nine hour day of discussion. Then nothing happens. Um, yeah, I mean, this is at some point here, they got to speed it up. I don't, it really was exhausting. 01:04:27 Speaker 6: We were, had that, we, we joked with each other as we were listening to the judge, read it, that really, he probably could have just released the text of it and saved everyone a half hour of time of just very ponderous reading. But nevertheless, he did deign to read the whole thing. So for those who missed it, we may as well show the moment we were semi-waiting for. This is Judge Graff reaching his decision on whether to let count one, aggravated murder, be bound over. 01:04:59 Speaker 4: Let's play it. Play 15. 01:05:00 Speaker 14: The court's determination does not rest on crowd size alone or an assumption assumed probability of wind, ricochet, overpenetration, or bullet deflection. It rests on the evidence concerning the location and manner of the shot, the documented position of several individuals in and around the canopy area, defendant's opportunity to observe those circumstances, and the preliminary hearing requirement that reasonable inferences be drawn in the state's favor. Whether the state can prove the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt remains for trial. Count one is bound over for trial. 01:05:43 Speaker 6: So that's what we needed. All the other counts, they're there. Maybe they play some role in their ability to aggravate it. It's an aggravating factor that kids were there. It's an aggravating factor if he was engaged in a witness tampering. All of those play a role in the bigger thing. But the most important bit was, is aggravated murder still there as a charge? 01:06:04 Speaker 4: And he ruled that it was. He talked at length about that. 01:06:07 Speaker 6: There was a lot of discussion of How many people were near Charlie when. 01:06:13 Speaker 4: The shooting happened? How close were they? 01:06:15 Speaker 6: And he says, yeah, there's other court cases that talk about people firing multiple shots, how specifically close people need to be. But those are only their guideposts. They aren't absolute limits to what it is. And it's as the prosecution said, there's not that many cases of assassination like this in general. 01:06:35 Speaker 4: And so every instance is sort of its own case. 01:06:39 Speaker 6: And so we got all of those defense arguments, but the judge said that. 01:06:44 Speaker 4: Is up for a jury. That is up for a trial to determine it. And he pushed ahead. 01:06:50 Speaker 6: And so we are finally, like we said, at the end of phase one of the process, we think back, we had how many, we had a few digital only hearings. We had a few in-person hearings back in the spring and, We had stuff that was in May, and then that got delayed until July. And then the July hearing went for a week, and then he decided, let's do the closing arguments two months from now instead of right now. Finally done with that. Finally have the decision. Now we can look ahead to an actual trial, which is what. 01:07:23 Speaker 4: All of us want. 01:07:23 Speaker 9: Well, we still don't know when the trial is. 01:07:25 Speaker 4: We don't know when that is. 01:07:26 Speaker 9: We can't even look ahead to an actual trial because we don't know. 01:07:27 Speaker 4: We're now looking ahead to late October. 01:07:31 Speaker 9: Just for a hearing. 01:07:31 Speaker 4: Just for them to have the pretrial conference, which hopefully will be. 01:07:36 Speaker 6: where that day they set the trial, and will that be, I think it'll be, my guess is, we'll see what we saw here, which the prosecution will say, we're happy to do this four months from now, and the defense will say, we're going to need a year, and the judge will, somehow it'll end up that we'll do it a year and a half later. They'll just combine the two amounts that they have, and there we'll go. 01:07:58 Speaker 9: Yeah, we just went from a negotiation of two weeks to six. 01:08:02 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:08:02 Speaker 9: It was two weeks. 01:08:04 Speaker 6: One wanted two weeks. The other wanted four weeks. And so, naturally, we got seven weeks. So that's the way some of the stuff has been going. And nevertheless, as long as we got the outcome that we've been looking for, I think we can accept some delays. I will accept any amount of delay as long as we get actual justice in this case. I think we can all agree. 01:08:27 Speaker 9: We have a statement from. 01:08:29 Speaker 6: Yes, let's read that, actually, as we wait. We're still hoping, hopefully we'll get someone who is at the scene to join us. But yes, Erica, this was posted on X shortly after Judge Graff's ruling on this. Statement on behalf of the Kirk family. Today's decision, which comes nearly one year since Charlie was taken from us, marks an important step in our family's pursuit of justice for him. Every step in this process carries the weight of all that Charlie's murder has taken. from his family, especially his children who will grow up without their father. We are grateful to all who have continued to pray for us, support us, and stand with us through a year of unimaginable grief. As the next phase of the judicial process begins, our family remains united in our. 01:09:16 Speaker 4: Love for. 01:09:18 Speaker 6: And our prayer for a transparent and timely process. I think the word timely is carried a lot there. This is, I mean, this is stressful for us. It's stressful for Turning Point and the show team, but it's especially stressful for Erica and her family. They want to know that Charlie's killer is held accountable, that justice is found for that. And I think the longer this goes on, it means more days where they have to travel to Utah. It means more people pushing insane stuff on the internet, more personal attacks on her and other members of their family. And it just means more uncertainty, more of that worry, as we were discussing with Jack and Will Chamberlain, more worry that the defense is going to successfully plant these seeds where they're attacking Charlie, where they're leaving the way open for some sort of jury nullification. 01:10:16 Speaker 10: Yep. 01:10:17 Speaker 4: Rogue juror intervention. It's more stuff that can go wrong the longer. 01:10:21 Speaker 6: The process drags out, stretches out. There's just more complications that come into play. So I think it's very understandable that they want a timely process. They want, I don't want to say move on, but they want this to reach a resolution. 01:10:37 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:10:38 Speaker 9: We want justice for Charlie. 01:10:41 Speaker 4: Anything else? 01:10:41 Speaker 9: I'm seeing people asking why he pled not guilty. I mean, if we're not taking death penalty off the table, there's really no reason for him not to plead not guilty at that point. So it's pretty cut and dry. 01:10:54 Speaker 6: If you go game theory, I suppose, there's no incentives for it that the main reason anyone pleads guilty is to get a lower sentence. Usually you'll see that because the prosecution, they want to save time and they say, we'll take death penalty off the table if you plead guilty. It seems prosecutors have not offered that so far. 01:11:12 Speaker 1: So.... 01:11:14 Speaker 4: No incentive, especially. 01:11:15 Speaker 6: You can change to a guilty plea basically at any time, so they can hold out. 01:11:20 Speaker 4: They can try to drag this process out, among other things. They can try to. 01:11:24 Speaker 6: They can throw more of their Hail Mary motions to try to get various pieces of evidence struck. 01:11:30 Speaker 4: We'll continue to see that. They'll try to. 01:11:32 Speaker 6: They'll do a new attack on the testimony from Lance Twiggs. They'll try to get any of the location data from the phone disqualified. They've already made a bunch of attacks on... the DNA evidence. And some of it appears, as far as I can tell, to just be, well, they say it's one in eight octillion chance that it's not that. So they're saying there's a chance. That was basically part of their argument, that it doesn't prove it. It just shows likelihood. And we're going to just see more of that the longer this process drags on. We're still waiting to see if we can get Andrew. Does anyone have any questions? If you do, send them questions or comments. You can email us, freedom at charliekirk.com. or I'm scanning the Rumble chat right now. 01:12:15 Speaker 4: I may as well check the YouTube channel as well. 01:12:17 Speaker 9: I think Andrew just left the courtroom, so hopefully he'll be calling in shortly. 01:12:21 Speaker 4: Hopefully. 01:12:21 Speaker 6: Hopefully we'll be able to get that. But, man, what an exhausting day, Danny. I mean, we came in. 01:12:28 Speaker 9: Yeah, since 9 a.m. 01:12:29 Speaker 6: We were speculating, oh, maybe this will just all get done by noon. 01:12:33 Speaker 9: How naive of us. 01:12:34 Speaker 4: How naive. 01:12:35 Speaker 6: We had J-Town said they'll only go 20 minutes to the prosecution. They'll probably use all their time with the defense. 01:12:41 Speaker 4: So we thought, okay, fine. Two hours and ten minutes? Get this done by lunch? Have the ruling when we get back from lunch? Oh, how naive we were. 01:12:48 Speaker 9: Yeah, instead we didn't even get arguments until after the launch. 01:12:51 Speaker 6: It makes you wonder, how long will the actual trial go? It's what's making me wonder, where they can go absolutely all out for every single witness, every single bit of DNA, video. They can do their maximal objections on every single aspect of it. And you wonder, are we going to get a trial that goes on for three weeks, a month longer? I've never seen anything like it, but there aren't that many cases like this. 01:13:18 Speaker 9: I mean, I keep wondering how much money is the taxpayers of Provo, they're going to have to foot the bill for these lawyers. Because the taxpayers of Provo are the ones that are paying the defense lawyers. First, it was supposed to be a million dollars. Now they're saying it's going to end up being around $ 10 million. 01:13:31 Speaker 4: $ 10 million? 01:13:32 Speaker 9: According to New York Post, $ 10 million the local taxpayers of Utah are paying for the defense team. So if this keeps going, they're going to be paying... Probably more than that. So they should be just as furious. It's their money, and this trial just keeps getting pushed further and further down the line. 01:13:49 Speaker 4: Unreal, unreal. Let's see. We've got a few people emailing in. 01:13:59 Speaker 6: Again, the big highlight today, other than the decision from Judge Graff, was. 01:14:04 Speaker 4: Richard Novak just lobbed that attack. at Charlie, called him a hater. 01:14:11 Speaker 6: Lucas emailed in and he said, could Novak just been trying to get a rise out of Erica or anyone else pro-Charlie in the courtroom to cause a disturbance, potentially creating a cause for mistrial? I think that's unlikely. I think it's the most likely thing is what Jack speculated on when he was with us, which is planting the seeds well in advance to start tearing down the character of Charlie for the reason of you create that space for one juror who decides, ooh, Charlie seemed like a mean guy. He seemed like an extremist. We know who the real Charlie was, but a lot of people didn't know him that well. They just know he was a guy who debated people on campus, and they might try to exploit that ignorance from a lot of people to make someone's brain fill in the blanks and go, oh, this is probably some big fire brand who was constantly saying stuff to rile people up. Maybe he got what was coming to him. 01:15:12 Speaker 4: And it's disgusting. 01:15:14 Speaker 9: I mean, the defense was basically trying to plant those seeds already. 01:15:17 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we saw the evidence of that. 01:15:24 Speaker 9: Yeah, jury nullification scares me too. In addition to poly markets, all the things we talked about earlier today. We've covered it on the show. just in general, but the jury notification, how these leftists will try to purposely get on a jury and vote not guilty. And they're literally trained to do this. We've covered it. And so you have to worry about a leftist getting on and just purposely voting not guilty because they hate Charlie. Great. 01:15:51 Speaker 6: We got an email from Mick who says, it's easy to forget. This is not the only case these lawyers or this court are dealing with, and that's why we must make a conscious effort at the state and federal level to speed up trials. 01:16:03 Speaker 4: I agree. 01:16:03 Speaker 6: I think about what I've taken from this process, meaningful takeaways. We were discussing maybe we should ban these prediction markets about these criminal cases because that's introducing bad incentives. But if I had another takeaway from this, I might just say we should be spending a few billion dollars extra on our court system to just have more courthouses, more judges, more bailiffs, more people involved. And then the only reason to do this is have more cases. We're building a wider pipe so that you can force more justice through the pipe system because it seems ever since COVID happened, I think everything's slowed down in America. Every criminal justice proceeding is just, it's that glacial pace and. 01:16:50 Speaker 4: It's what's making people feel frustrated with the system. 01:16:54 Speaker 11: 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. 01:17:14 Speaker 4: He would rave about these courses all the time. 01:17:16 Speaker 11: 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. 01:18:39 Speaker 4: All right. I am being told we finally have Andrew. Andrew was there for all of eight plus hours of the hearing today. He was in the room for all the stuff we've been discussing. Andrew, welcome to the program. First things first. What happened? What was going on there with Richard? Richard Novak, he went up there and he began calling Charlie out. A hater said he hated people who were not straight, hated people who were different gender identities, just lashed out. It caught us all off guard here. 01:19:16 Speaker 6: And that was by far the most standout part of the hearing today, even probably even more so than Judge Graff's ruling. 01:19:23 Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it was, you know, it's interesting because when you get into the courtroom, you know, Judge Graff gives you everybody in, you know, In the courtroom, instructions not to shake your head, not to nod, basically just sit there and be still. And it was the one moment today where when that came out of Novak's mouth that we just– nobody could help themselves. It was just a complete reaction of just disgust, disbelief. I mean, we just simply couldn't fathom that this guy would basically spit on– Charlie's grave like that, right. You know, on national television, everybody's watching all over and to just have the utter disregard for not only the victim in this case, but his widow that's sitting in the courtroom. I, I, I, Paul doesn't even come close to what I was thinking, but then I quickly, uh, realized that he's making the state's case for him for, for them. he's basically saying, well, we have no idea that, that, you know, Tyler Robbins would even consider Charlie Kirk or didn't know anything about it, but yeah, you know, that, that, that he's hateful, but yeah, he is, he was hateful. So it was, it was like, it was almost like this masked off moment where you're seeing the quality of the man or something. I mean, what he truly believes, what truly motivates this attorney, it was, it's just, I don't want to speculate what's, what's his motives were for saying that. But I mean, I think his words speak for itself and it was absolutely shocking. And then, and, but I can tell you the, the just everybody was applauding and so grateful for Jeff Nyman when he went up there and he said just so succinctly that, you know, believing in traditional values, espousing your political beliefs is not hate shooting an innocent man with who is exercising his rights and his political expression. That is hate. And he just said it so succinctly that it was just, I think, a really powerful moment. And I know for all of us who were with the Kirk side there, we were quietly just so relieved to hear somebody speak something sensible. And yeah, we're grateful for Jeff's wisdom in that moment. It was much needed. 01:21:52 Speaker 6: Yeah, we've been debating it out here. As you said, we also hit that realization. It feels like they're making the prosecution's case. What could the motivation be? We had Jack on. We were discussing one potential motive could be they're just planting. 01:22:06 Speaker 4: These little seeds in the ground for way out. 01:22:09 Speaker 6: When we finally get to a jury trial, they want to lay the groundwork where you could have one holdout juror who decides Charlie, not a very likable guy, was an extremist, maybe had it coming. And they're going to make it. They might vote to acquit. They might vote to withhold the death penalty, especially. That's what we were speculating on about it. But again, you were in the room that day. We were, since you're not aware, we were just watching it. We basically had a camera that was just permanently fixed on the back of the head of whoever was talking at any time. We didn't hear or see really anything else in the room. Were there any moments throughout the day besides... Mr. Novak's bizarre tangent that got a strong reaction from the peanut gallery. And especially we know there were several people who are overtly Tyler Robinson supporters. 01:23:03 Speaker 4: They waited out front. 01:23:05 Speaker 6: Did his side digression get any reaction from them a certain way or did anything else get a reaction from them? 01:23:12 Speaker 1: No, I mean, you know, people in that courtroom are pretty, uh, I would say reserved in general. Obviously the other big moment was, you know, hearing that, you know, the state's asking for two weeks to come back together at the end there. And then the defense is saying, how about 30 days? And then to see judge graph go, how about October 23rd? And there was kind of another moment of just, I think frustration, you know, and you could feel it within the, Those of us that were watching inside, it was like, wait, I could have seen two weeks, four weeks, let's spit the baby and do it in three weeks. Or, hey, let's do a virtual in three weeks and we'll do it in between both times. No, none of that. He didn't go for any of that. It was like, oh, I have this opening in the courtroom apparently for October 23rd. So, you know, that was extraordinarily frustrating. And once again, Jeff Nyman was sort of the voice of reason saying, okay, but if you're going to push it this far, we need a trial date set when we do that. So I can't, again, presumed to understand what's inside the mind of Judge Graff, but that moment was another head-scratcher. I will tell you, early on when they were debating this EMC, which is the electronic media, I guess, kind of back and forth, could you have cameras or whatever, and the representative for the news media came up and said a few words, and then Nestor, the defense attorney, came up And basically just lambasted him, said, you know, I don't know what the hell he's talking about, basically. And when she walked back, I mean, she shot daggers at that media representative. I mean, just the stare was something I noticed early on. And it was really, really noticeable for me. And, you know, and there's just kind of a lot of this body language from Novak, from Mr. Burt, that just seems kind of exasperated, kind of, you know, they're putting a lot of that out there, I will say, that kind of energy, which I was not aware of when I was just watching it on television. But when you're in the room, you can feel their emotions that they're putting out there. They do, I would say, a passable job of remaining professional, but you just can feel it oozing off of them, the contempt that they have sometimes for an argument or for something the state says, and vice versa. The state is, I think you can feel the energy from them that this case, there's such a mountain of evidence against Tyler Robinson being the one that pulled the trigger that they are equally as flummoxed that they're trying to scrape together some sort of defense. You can feel them kind of going like, you got to be kidding me half the time, right? And so you kind of, you perceive that energy off of them and the way they sit up from their Their chair and the stand up on their chair and the way they approach the podium, like these are things that I wasn't perceiving online or watching over television that you could feel. I mean, they feel very confident about their case. You can feel it in the way that they present it, the way that they talk about it and the way they counter the defense's argument. 01:26:35 Speaker 2: So. 01:26:36 Speaker 1: You know, I genuinely kind of was sitting there going, I can't imagine being the defense and trying to come up with some semblance of a defense for this guy. I just, you know, they have a really tough job. I think we have to all acknowledge, like, you know, they're looking at technicalities. They're looking at, you know, maybe a slight of a constitutional issue. right here or there. They're trying to piece together some sort of way to get these aggravating factors off. And that's really what I've learned about these guys is that they're all crusaders against death penalty cases. This is why lawyers like this travel around the country and they take high profile cases like this because they disagree ideologically or politically with the death penalty in general. And so they're there just to kind of figure out how to get him off death row. 01:27:25 Speaker 8: Yeah. 01:27:26 Speaker 9: Andrew, did it surprise you that they spent more time trying to dismiss the witness tampering charges than they did actually the murder charge itself? 01:27:34 Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it didn't. It didn't really surprise me because, again, what I know about these these lawyers, these defense lawyers is they I mean, I you know, again, I don't know. I haven't talked to him. But when I'm just kind of reading between the lines here, it feels like, hey, we're conceding a lot here today. But we don't think this should be aggravating. I mean, they seem to be throwing the best use of their time, the most minutes, the most ink, all about trying to dismiss these aggravating factors or at least to weaken the state's position. But again, the evidence is– I mean, what do you say about some hate just can't be negotiated out? And to my knowledge, they haven't even contested the veracity of the confessions or the Discord chats or the text messages. They haven't contested any of that. But that's where this most damning evidence for Tyler Robinson exists is in these text messages and in these Discord chats. And then, you know, candidly about the expressions that he– put on the the bullet casings right i mean these are things that that provide a lot of evidence that charlie was targeted because of his political expression and it was this was a politically motivated assassination so i i don't know again how they're going to try and weasel their way out of those those things because the evidence is hard it hasn't been contested it's So we know it's premeditated as well. So all of these things, I don't, I, again, I don't, I don't know how they're going to get out of it. They're really talented lawyers and they're going to use every trick in the book. We can see that. But, um, yeah, I don't know where they go from here. 01:29:14 Speaker 9: And what was the body language of the judge when they went after Charlie like that, or just when they've been really nasty in general? 01:29:23 Speaker 1: You know, I didn't, I didn't perceive any change in the judge judge's body language. In that moment, but candidly, I just couldn't believe what I was hearing that I think I turned to my right and then to my left and I was looking around. And I remember I shot a look over to the media where the media is sitting in the jury box. And you could even tell that they realized something big had just happened, something sort of newsworthy. And they were kind of moving around their bodies, moving around. And so I actually kind of didn't look at Judge Graff, but I remember being sort of wondering, is he going to say, hey, that's out of line? Or, you know, like, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV like Blake does. So I didn't I don't know if if that lawyer stepped out of line or broke some sort of protocol or if the judge could have brought him to heel a little bit in that moment. But that was the next thing I was looking for. And he didn't. And so I was really glad when we got back from break that the state said we take great exception to you describing Charlie's political views as hateful. Because in that moment, I mean, Henry Novak exposed himself as somebody that is obviously of a liberal persuasion. that does not agree with traditional values or Christian morality. So the bias was dripping off of him. I was glad the state countered. I was glad that Jeff did. But I really don't know what the judge did. 01:30:51 Speaker 9: Yeah, we're also glad that Jeff countered because we didn't know from our point of view if Jeff went and talked to the state and that's what made them go up or if they actually did this on their own. So in those breaks, what was happening during those breaks? 01:31:06 Speaker 1: You know, if Jeff, if Jeff talked to him, I didn't see it. You know, they kind of shuttle us back into these holding rooms and, you know, the only one that's kind of able to maneuver about is Jeff. So it's totally, it's possible, but you know, he certainly didn't communicate that to me if he did, but I think it was kind of the biggie on the eye chart. This was an obvious call. Like as soon as he said, you know, Charlie said hateful things and all this stuff. I mean, everybody's jaw dropped and, and, I can see that the state was already queuing in on that. And I think the state made the obvious connection that the rest of us did that, hey, this guy's making our case for us, even if he's being a jerk. And, you know, I think that they came in prepared to sort of address that. Utah is a conservative state, but this is the conservative part of Utah where we're at, where this courthouse is. I would venture to guess probably 10 to 15 points more to the right in an election than Salt Lake City, for example, or even the suburbs of Salt Lake City, because we're well to the south of Salt Lake City. you know, locals kind of talk about Salt Lake as being that liberal, that liberal hellhole, even here, even though Salt Lake's probably relatively moderate for most big cities, but where we're at is pretty conservative. So I can only imagine that the prosecution kind of keyed in on that all on their own. 01:32:34 Speaker 6: It was an exhausting day. I had to imagine it was even more exhausting for you guys. Big picture, Andrew, you've been through all this with us, just How does it feel? We've completed phase one. It's taken 51 weeks for us to get to this point of we have an actual indictment. 01:32:56 Speaker 4: We have a criminal charge. We will be going to a trial. 01:33:01 Speaker 6: We don't know when that will be yet, unfortunately, but we've at least gotten over the. 01:33:07 Speaker 4: First phase, as it were. 01:33:08 Speaker 1: Yeah, so I will say a couple things being in the courtroom. One... I mean, when you first walk in there, the first thing that I sort of noticed was just, there's Tyler Robinson sitting there and he's like ghost white. Uh, when I first sat down, he was like looking at his, one of his lawyers and he kind of had a smirk and they were kind of, I think it was Novak actually. And they were kind of smirking, laughing back and forth. And that really bothered me. Actually. I, I, uh, I was like the first thing I noticed it was just, weird being like in the room with him. And it bothered me a lot. And I was instantly filled with kind of a lot of rage. And that's the thing. I don't think people watching online fully understand when you're in the courtroom, it's way more emotional. Like you're, you can feel the energy of the room. You, it's just so much more palpable. It's, I don't know how to explain that any better. It's just so much more real. Like, and, seeing him there, it's like, it all comes flooding back. It all feels very real. It's like the weight of it feels very real. The formalities of it feel, make it feel very real. And, um, you know, the other thing that really kind of, and I felt so terrible for Erica because, you know, when he's reading that like huge long ruling at the end, which by the way, it just took forever and all the like legal references and like, I mean, it's, it was you know I get that they have to record it for the record but it's like man it just took it takes a long time but they keep saying like and you know the assassination of Charlie or when he killed him or when he was pronounced dead or like and every time they say that it's like a dagger man it just hurts when you're hearing it in person and then you know you just know that Eric is sitting there listening to it time and time again and it's just extraordinarily unfair like to us I mean you know I don't want to even put myself in the same realm as what Erica's going through but you know Charlie was my dear friend too and to hear it every time it's just hard and it's very human you know like just kind of you know we all have jobs we all have things to do but when you're in there you're just like you're just at mercy to the moment and it just sucks to hear them say it so many times in one day trying to be still and it's tough it. 01:35:43 Speaker 4: Is it is uh. 01:35:45 Speaker 6: To loop you into another discussion point that we had going throughout the day you were there early on they had we spent that hour long back and forth over whether to redact a name of a website or not in the discussion in the course proceedings and the website name that they were talking about was polymarket they argued that There's a market out there for will Tyler Robinson be convicted by next July, it turns out. So it's actually only at 43 percent precisely because this case is expected to go on for so long. 01:36:17 Speaker 4: And that caused a lot of discussion here about. 01:36:20 Speaker 6: The potential for making corrupt behavior easier, that you could have a juror. a defense attorney, a prosecutor, a judge, any number of people, they can see that market and there's potential to manipulate it or to try to manipulate it in. 01:36:38 Speaker 4: Any number of ways. 01:36:39 Speaker 6: You could have the defense go and buy shares that he's not guilty and then some juror looks at that and goes, oh, the people think the case is mixed or whatever. We were just throwing that out there. Do you think that we've never had to really consider something like this before? This feels like the first really high-profile case for us. Should we ban this stuff? 01:36:59 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. We absolutely need to ban predictive markets from criminal proceedings. I mean, I'm not alleging Judge Graff of this at all. Let me be expressly clear. But say somebody like Judge Graff was in a position, and he's looking at the prediction markets, and it's saying, we'll be convicted by such and such a date. Well, he easily could, you know, change the dates. and he could push the proceedings back. I mean, we saw that at the end today, where he's kind of like looking at the calendar, and, you know, he could just pick a different date. I mean, that's a small way to be corrupt. But, you know, who knows who could benefit from that? I absolutely am calling on our Congress to pass a law immediately as first opportunity, banning prediction markets from any of these, like, criminal proceedings, And then working out from there, I'm sure there's a dozen other use cases in which it would be helpful to the country and for our institutions to ban this crap because it can be gamed. It can be manipulated. It could be the tool of corrupt magistrates in this case or jurors even to game it for their ends and corrupt ends. And I think it needs to be handled soon. 01:38:13 Speaker 6: Well, 100%, 100% where we've been discussing throughout the day because there's been so many breaks. So what our takeaways are, and I feel that's a big one. I can't really see what the value-add is at all for society to have betting markets on a murder trial. And similarly, I feel the duration that this has taken, where these guys are saying, yeah, well, I've got another case, so you want two weeks, we want four weeks, let's compromise at seven weeks before we have a discussion of when the next trial would be. I think Good argument to be made. Let's blow a few billion dollars on our criminal justice thing. Build some extra courtrooms. Hire a few extra judges. Hire extra lawyers. 01:38:56 Speaker 4: Prosecutors. Get more going through the system. 01:39:00 Speaker 6: The next time we have a case like this, we should be able to have a verdict. We should be getting the verdict at this point. We should be getting a sentence at this point. We should not be getting an indictment. 01:39:11 Speaker 4: 51 weeks after Charlie died. 01:39:14 Speaker 1: No, and here's the thing. It was almost like you could see Kathy Nestor's wheels turning in her head when they're talking about when to schedule the next hearing to come up with a court date. She's like, well, we might have to litigate this, and we might file this motion, and we might challenge this. And it's like, dear God. I mean, they... I mean, these people are professionals, right? They get paid lots of money. You know, these are not public defenders. Let's remind everybody of that. There's this rumor going around. These guys are just like public defenders. No, these are high caliber, high profile, very experienced criminal defendant lawyers. And they are. absolutely very skilled at prolonging this stuff and throwing wrenches into the gears. And yes, Tyler Robinson deserves a fair trial. Absolutely. He deserves that as an American, like we all do if we're accused of something. However, the gaming of the system is completely run amok. This judge and judges in general should turn down more of this crap on appeal because it's getting gamed. And so he's having to constantly say, play out in his mind how they're going to potentially game the system to overturn this on appeal. And so he's, you know, in some ways I feel for the judge because he's constantly having to say, I have to have the appearance of fairness in everything I do, give them plenty of time, or else this thing's going to be overturned on appeal. In the meantime, as you guys know, we get this void, this vacuum that gets filled by people that are bad actors, bad faith actors, conspiracists, And, you know, they use this time to then drift off the system, come up with, you know, YouTube content or whatever. And it's all it's none of it is fair to Erica. None of it is fair to Turning Point. None of it's fair to our pursuit of justice for Charlie. 01:41:03 Speaker 9: Well, Andrew, what we were talking about earlier is they aren't public defenders, but they are being paid by the taxpayers of Utah. And that's something that gets overlooked. It's going to be over 10 million. 01:41:13 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:41:13 Speaker 9: These taxpayers are footing the bill for this. 01:41:17 Speaker 1: That's such a great point. They're incentivized to drag this out financially. 01:41:20 Speaker 9: It was supposed to be $ 1 million at first, and now it's up to. 01:41:24 Speaker 4: $ 10 million. 01:41:25 Speaker 1: This is going to cost Utah over $ 10 million just to provide an event for Tyler Robinson. That's obscene. Here's my point. He does the most heinous act, probably, politically, in Utah history. I don't want to go back all the way to the Mormons. I'm sure some bad stuff happened, but my point is, And then, you know, as a, you know, a reward for the state of Utah and their taxpayers, they're now on the hook for $ 10 million to just pay for this guy's defense. So, yeah, expedited trials limit some of this game playing and the, you know, the intentional. throwing wrenches into the gears of the judicial process. I mean, there's so many reforms that could be made, guys. By the way, here's one for you that nobody talks about. These people that have made a profession of harassing Erica Kirk or me or Blake or Turning Point, like, the fact that they can just sit there in the courtroom because they waited, you know, however many hours to get these tickets, like, why is it not on a lottery system? Why don't they have some other system where the worst actors... are able to get seats in a courtroom and then harass us further on the way out because we made a face or we shook our head or whatever they're going to say. So that's another thing that occurs to me. But yeah. 01:42:43 Speaker 6: Although one of them is actually complaining that you guys ignored him too much that day, which I think. 01:42:51 Speaker 4: Who's that? I won't even name him because I don't want to give him more attention. Fair enough. 01:42:57 Speaker 6: Yeah. I think it just speaks to how, what a lot of these people's real motivation is. 01:43:03 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:43:03 Speaker 9: Narcissism. 01:43:04 Speaker 6: We're here for justice, but we're mad. 01:43:08 Speaker 1: Yeah. Just. No, no, they're not good faith actors. They've proven themselves to be among the lowest of the low. And yeah, I've got zero attention for them. I've got zero compassion. I've got zero goodwill to try and understand where they're coming from, frankly, because, you know, Listen, I can understand people having questions. Okay, fine. Have some questions. Okay, you challenged the official narrative. Okay. To turn any of that into the character assassination smear campaign against Erica Kirk that they've done and that they seem to find joy in, some sick satisfaction in. That's when it turns into an evil thing. And because of that, I mean, as a matter of fact, I think any of these people that are engaging in this, like, just disgusting behavior, frankly, shouldn't be allowed in that courtroom to harass further. We know their motivation. But, you know, I digress. I don't always get my way. But, you know, thinking out loud here. 01:44:05 Speaker 9: Well, I don't know if you saw that TPSA Frontlines did catch a big group of high school and college students turning point chapter students supporting outside the courtroom. Did you guys see any of that on your way out? 01:44:17 Speaker 1: Yeah, we saw a bunch of them holding signs. I mean, I kind of kept my head down. You know, candidly, it was like the one moment where I was like, I just need to get straight in the car. And, you know, I think the security was pretty, you know, had the appropriate sense of urgency in that moment. But, yeah, we kind of just headed out. But I did catch out of the corner of my eye the sign supporting Erica, which was awesome. And I think I saw Caleb Joket or something out there. I don't know if my eyes were playing tricks on me. But he was the chapter president, obviously, of UVU when Charlie was killed. But great guy. And that was really sweet to see. So I was glad to see that the good guys had a showing and came out and supported Erica and justice for Charlie. So God bless them for that. 01:45:06 Speaker 4: All right, well, we've been going. 01:45:07 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:45:09 Speaker 4: It's been a long day. It's been a long day for everyone who's been following this trial. Nine hours of testimony. 01:45:17 Speaker 1: Well, thank you guys for holding it down. 01:45:18 Speaker 4: Of course, of course. 01:45:20 Speaker 6: But before we let the audience go, Andrew, any final thoughts on the day and looking ahead? 01:45:29 Speaker 1: No, I just, you know, I would just say, being in there makes me, it, it kind of ripped my heart out for Erica in a totally new way. Obviously I feel like I've been so concerned about her and just this whole process and, you know, but she's strong and I kind of always just, you know, Erica's strong and all stuff being in that courtroom is a whole nother deal, man. It's a whole, it's like, it's just in your face and, you know, Tyler Robinson's right in front of you. So just to the audience, just pray for Erica, pray for turning point. Just, cover everybody in prayers. We need it. And, um, it really makes a difference. It really does. And knowing people are praying for us is, uh, it's, it's like, it's like, I can't explain it to people. I feel like my whole Christian life, people be like, I'm praying for you. And it kind of like rolled off me. I'm telling you when somebody says they're praying for us, it means so much and it really hits hard. And so, um, yeah, that's, that's what I'd say. Just pray for Erica. 01:46:26 Speaker 4: Pray for Erica. I think, I think that's a good piece of advice to end on. Pray for Erica. Pray for justice. 01:46:34 Speaker 6: Be glad that today we saw the wheel of justice grinds very, very slowly, but it does grind very, very fine, as a friend of mine reminded me today. And so thanks for joining us, Andrew. Thanks for co-piloting today, Danny. Thanks to everyone who followed this, who's followed every day of the hearing. We'll be doing the normal show again tomorrow. Obviously, tune in next week. We've got a lot of stuff to remember. Charlie on the one-year anniversary and to keep pushing his mission forward because we're focused on the trial today, but a lot of stuff is still going on. The mission of Turning Point USA continues, the mission of faith revival, the mission of national values, the conservative values that made America so great. All of that continues as well. So honoring Charlie continues. Getting justice for Charlie continues. But the work of saving this country continues as well. And we're grateful to everyone who's been inspired by Charlie, who's joined us in this movement. Thank you to everyone who joined us today. And anything else, Danny? 01:47:48 Speaker 1: No. 01:47:48 Speaker 9: Justice for Charlie. We'll see you guys tomorrow. 01:47:50 Speaker 4: Justice for Charlie. We'll see all of you very soon. 01:47:52 Speaker 3: We'll see you tomorrow. 01:47:57 Speaker 9: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.