00:00:00.000Trump is pushing the restart button when it comes to talks with Iran.
00:00:03.800He writes on social media that Iran asked to continue talks and that the U.S. has agreed to do so,
00:00:09.280but then also said that Washington has informed Tehran that the ceasefire is over.
00:00:14.380A diplomat tells CNN that Qatari negotiators are in Iran pushing to de-escalate the situation.
00:00:19.600A top U.S. official says the U.S. is deliberately striking and then pausing to allow gaps for diplomacy to restart.
00:00:26.500All this unfolding, as sources tell CNN that Israel learned of an Iranian plot to kill the president.
00:00:31.920Trump posted, or rather told the New York Post today,
00:00:34.520that he's left instructions for the U.S. to respond with overwhelming military force if Tehran were to succeed.
00:00:41.360Well, right now it seems like a lot of back-channeling is what's going on.
00:00:44.240Qatari negotiators have gone over to Iran.
00:00:46.840This is a trip that they coordinated with the United States,
00:00:49.300and they are meeting with Iranian officials to try and get things back on track.
00:00:53.300They want to de-escalate the situation and really set the table for bringing back those U.S.-Iran negotiations.
00:01:00.120On top of that, we have a new statement from the Pakistani prime minister saying that he talked to the Iranian president today.
00:01:06.780He's stressing all sides de-escalate currently.
00:01:10.100But it does sound like there are a lot of different forces working here trying to reopen those channels of communication.
00:01:16.300And President Trump, of course, as you showed earlier, posted on TrueSocial that while these talks are ongoing only because Tehran asked, he says, he says that in no uncertain terms, he's stated to them that the ceasefire is over.
00:01:31.280Well, this does open the door to a number of questions, because one of the things you have to keep in mind here is that there are certain terms of the ceasefire that both sides were abiding by.
00:01:39.080For example, one of them was that Iran was meant to try and assist ships, or at least not actively attack them, commercial vessels that were going through the Strait of Hormuz.
00:01:49.100If the ceasefire is over, does that mean we're going to see more attacks on ships?
00:01:53.200Obviously, the U.S., in return, was going to remove the naval blockade and lift sanctions.
00:01:59.580We've seen them already reimpose sanctions, and then again, just moments ago, they imposed another round of sanctions,
00:02:05.520this time on what they called a financial facilitator who controls global assets for
00:02:11.920the leader of Iran. So we, the United States, seem to no longer be abiding by the rules of
00:02:18.500the ceasefire. But what does that mean for the actual danger in the Strait of Hormuz? That is
00:02:23.140something we haven't gotten to the bottom of yet. And Kristen, in light of all of this,
00:02:27.060we're also learning about new fortifications being added to the White House. What are you seeing?
00:02:31.620Yeah, what I'm seeing is directly behind me, it might look like this is the White House,
00:02:36.480but it's actually a giant tarp that is hanging down, which I know we've reported on,
00:02:41.500that is a direct replica of what the White House looks like.
00:02:45.980They actually did quite a good job, I mean, unless you're looking closely.
00:02:49.040And this is blocking off what they're doing behind it, which is restoring columns,
00:02:52.440but also fortifying the main entrance, adding an extra level of security.
00:02:56.920So we talked to sources who said, yes, most of President Trump's projects at the White House are done because he likes the aesthetics.
00:03:03.700This one is also being done because they need more security.
00:03:07.280Of course, as you noted, this comes on this off of the reporting that we have that Israeli intelligence alerted President Trump to a fresh Iranian assassination plot.
00:03:17.740We obviously saw him changing planes and taking extra precautions around this information.
00:03:22.600The desire to change the birthright citizenship rule within our Constitution is gaining traction among some voters that Donald Trump might have changed people's minds on it.
00:03:35.040He did try to demand that Congress do something about it. That would be a heavy lift as well.
00:03:40.520But you see this going anywhere in Congress with Republicans?
00:03:43.240Yeah, I mean, look, it's not a short term prospect, but as you pointed out over time, the unthinkable can definitely become thinkable because we're having this conversation in the second term of Donald Trump's presidency.
00:03:56.300Right. And, you know, look at how long it took for Republicans to achieve the goal of a Supreme Court that would roll back Roe versus Wade.
00:04:05.980It took, you know, decades of organizing and influencing the Supreme Court.
00:04:09.320Now, they're starting out far ahead. I must say, Katie, on this one, the ruling was much more was much closer than people expected it to be in birthright citizenship.
00:04:19.700Right. I think that up until the last few years and the already Trump transformation of the Supreme Court, we might have expected a 9-0 ruling or, you know, 8-1 ruling, 8-2 or 7-2 ruling, something very overwhelming.
00:04:34.780That's not what happened here. So, you know, in some sense, people like Trump and those in his administration who support this, they're only one Supreme Court vote away from changing the outcome of birthright citizenship.
00:04:49.540So I think you're right to point out it's not necessarily going away in a longer term sense, although for right now, the Supreme Court is obviously not going to revisit a ruling that it has just spent so much time and effort to issue in this term.
00:05:02.840that's not going to happen in the short term. How problematic is it going to be if Donald Trump
00:05:06.700decides to tap people like the figures who he has already tapped, 2020 election deniers, people like
00:05:13.540Kurt Olson, again, one original 2020 election denier, who has now taken on the imprimatur of
00:05:22.600the state in an official capacity at the Justice Department? What does that mean for our elections
00:05:29.880and the way the EAC works with states going forward.
00:05:34.500Well, you're right that this brazen move is part of a concerted campaign by the administration
00:05:39.940to undermine the elections. And it's worth remembering just how extraordinary that is.
00:05:44.840That has not ever happened before in American history, that the federal government would act
00:05:50.060this way toward the states and toward elections. The EAC, as Secretary Fontes says, doesn't have
00:05:56.740that much power to do things without any commissioners um and uh it will not be able
00:06:02.780to do much and while it is theoretically possible that he could nominate two republicans and two
00:06:09.040democrats would be where he would find them uh and the senate would then need to act it's pretty
00:06:15.620unlikely that those seats will be filled by election day the one thing to remember and it's
00:06:20.380an encouraging thing he is flailing at this point he has this strategy and each move that he has
00:06:27.500made has been blocked in large measure by people voters citizens states going to court and other
00:06:35.040things the steps he has tried to take up until now with the eac he had an executive order last
00:06:41.460year purporting order the eac to do all this stuff that has been blocked nationwide by the federal
00:06:47.140courts. So he is right now 0 and 11 when it comes to court rulings and the election is getting
00:06:53.000closer. And I do think that if we all do what we need to do, we can have free and fair elections
00:06:57.840this year. The key thing is that voters need to make a plan to vote and vote early if they can
00:07:03.820and and not get scared off by all this noise and nonsense. Despite having all levers of power at
00:07:10.580his disposal right now and finding nothing, no vast conspiracy theory, not winning anything in
00:07:16.640the courts. There is this news this week from the Arizona Mirror, a DOJ letter threatening
00:07:21.720Arizona election officials with prosecution. As Fontes calls it intimidation. I'll read a quick
00:07:26.440excerpt. The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State's
00:07:31.260office threatening to prosecute election officials who knowingly count the ballots of non-citizens
00:07:36.400or keep them on voter rolls. A near-identical letter was sent to more than a dozen other states
00:07:41.860on Tuesday, ranging from Democrat-led Michigan to deep-bred states like Georgia and Tennessee.
00:07:48.420Secretary, I'm wondering how you received this message, whether you think it is sort of implicitly
00:07:55.600a sign that the administration recognizes that they're not going to be able to fulfill this 2020
00:08:02.020conspiracy theory and are instead pivoting to these one-off prosecutions and trying to make
00:08:10.640sort of as many individual arrests as possible, get some scalps, show them to the boss and
00:08:16.720potentially hang on to their jobs and their positions of power? Or do you think that this
00:08:22.600is strictly an intimidation mechanism? There's nothing implicit about this was an explicit
00:08:30.220threat to elections officials across the United States of America. But here's the other thing
00:08:34.820about it. And I heard the word desperate come up a couple of times. Here's how desperate these
00:08:39.700attempts to stop us from doing our jobs on behalf of voters are. That same letter was sent to North
00:08:44.580Dakota and North Carolina, a Republican and a Democratic secretary of state. They don't have
00:08:49.720anything to do with elections at all whatsoever. They don't do voter registration. They don't do
00:08:54.300ballots, nothing. And so what we have here is this flailing administration really pulling out all
00:09:03.300the stops here. And, you know, it's comical and really kind of laughable because in it,
00:09:10.600they basically said, even you as the chief election officer might be subject to criminal
00:09:15.360prosecution. Guess what, guys? The statutes that you mentioned in your letter don't apply to me
00:09:20.460because I don't do voter registration. The counties in Arizona do. And I sent them a letter
00:09:26.440when they first wanted my voter rolls and explained to them exactly how voter registration works. I
00:09:31.900pointed to the elections procedures manual in Arizona, gave them everything they would have
00:09:35.940needed to become familiar with how Arizona's elections work. This is a desperate attempt by
00:09:41.260the Department of Justice. And we've got a really dangerous pattern building here.
00:09:46.880The slaughter decision was about the FTC. This decision is about the EAC, the firing of
00:09:52.280independent parts of our government. Take a step back and look at all of the other independent
00:09:58.340agencies that we have that impact business, education, the law, medicine, technology,
00:10:05.720all of the other sectors of our society. This is really bad for business. If you're investing in
00:10:11.960America, do you want to invest in this uncertainty? Do you want to invest in not knowing exactly who's
00:10:18.060going to be doing what and the potential upheaval every single time we get a new executive? This is
00:10:25.120just bad governance when you look at the bigger picture and and i don't think that this is uh
00:10:31.500what's going to make our next 250 years as amazing as the last 250 have been i think this hurts us
00:10:39.700as a a nation that can govern itself well and be the stable guiding force that the world needs
00:10:46.580right now and so we are being weakened by this administration certainly in where our elections
00:10:53.200are concerned, as you ever were talking.
00:11:05.940We just had a little systems crash here at the end,
00:18:03.620Help you refinance this massive debt we got.
00:18:06.34088, they got the third, the second or third reconciliation, I forget it, I lose count,
00:18:12.400it's $350 billion. We've already run in the first nine minutes, first nine months,
00:18:19.700I'll get to this tomorrow. The first nine months, $1.4 trillion deficit. Who said that? Oh gosh,
00:18:26.320I think War Room said that. Back when we first did the CR last year, they kicked the can down
00:18:32.060the road. We're $1.4 trillion and we're going to be $2 trillion come September 30th. Who's paying
00:18:38.240for that in the higher interest rates? Citizens of these United States. So how about this? They
00:18:45.760have $100 billion throughout the world. And listen, yes, they've worked hard. It's kind of
00:18:49.520their money. Tough break. We got two barrier battle groups and kids from all over the country,
00:18:56.060young men and women in those battle groups. One of them is 200 days to see. Come on, man.
00:19:00.580the top 50 is ours i don't care if they starve i want them to starve you know why when they start0.99
00:19:06.460starving all of a sudden the ayatollah and the mullahs and all this crap they put out you know0.99
00:19:12.480islam's so great hey see if islam's so great when your belly's empty if we're going to be at war0.99
00:19:18.740let's go to war let's stop dragging it out and we don't have to bomb them back to the stone age1.00
00:19:24.740starve them cut off all access and tell anybody in the world is going to double deal us and cut
00:19:30.360around and try to trade with them you're going to get the same treatment Scott Besson today talk to
00:19:35.740the president and take down their currency the same thing you did in January let's get them out
00:19:40.260in the streets the Persian people are usually trying to have a middle class 92 million folks0.86
00:19:47.140dude this is a big big country it's like the surface of the moon it's huge it's massive okay0.58
00:19:54.000massive been around a long time taking on you know all coming fighting for Greece forever Rome
00:20:00.300forever stared down the british now it's the american they threw us out look i understand
00:20:08.360it's horrible what they're going through but no offense their parents and their grandparents and0.66
00:20:12.420some of them threw us out 47 years you had it you had a shot the shah was trying to bring you into
00:20:17.600the west you didn't like it you didn't want it okay i got that i understand it you haven't didn't0.69
00:20:23.140want it with greece you didn't want it with rome i i got it i got it get your own deal but you're0.99
00:20:28.520going to suck on your own deal. Embrace your own deal. Embrace the suck. Let's bring them to their0.98
00:20:36.580knees economically. Bring them to their knees economically, and let's hear all the tough talk.
00:20:43.480I'll get to you in a second. Turns out the Wall Street Journal's got the whole thing about the
00:20:47.660plane and doubling the plane because Israeli intelligence got Pompeo out there. It's so
00:20:51.800amazing. The exquisite intelligence about they're trying to assassinate the president.
00:20:57.300And, of course, in the Wall Street Journal article, they said the intelligence was not deemed by many, by most, to be credible and looked at, and I think I'm quoting, looked at as another effort to continue the United States as a combatant.
00:22:49.980no i there's an as as the prosecutor said i'm going to quote his words there is an overwhelming
00:22:56.420amount of evidence it is devastating that's what the prosecutor said in court today why did he say
00:23:01.640that because despite the bar being so low just probable cause they spent five days introducing
00:23:08.340every kind of evidence you can imagine from ballistics to forensics to dna to finally hang
00:23:14.660Hang on. Hang on one second. On Wall Street, we call that talking your book. He's supposed to say
00:23:21.440that. His whole career, if he doesn't get past this wicked, career over, right? So he's going
00:23:27.980to tell me that it's overwhelming evidence. And Wall Street is called talking your book. Isn't
00:23:32.280he just talking his book, ma'am? No, he's talking about the last five days, because that's the
00:23:38.120difference. Prosecutors can't just get into court and argue. Neither can defense attorneys. They
00:23:42.320have to have evidence. They have to solidify everything they claim to have done by being
00:23:47.480able to cite to evidence. And Steve, that's what they did this week. I do expect it to be a bind
00:23:52.340over. But one thing that I think is going to be interesting is now that we know the judge set a
00:23:57.780briefing schedule and a September 1st date to actually make that decision, what we're going
00:24:02.760to see in that briefing and what we're going to hear in oral argument on September 1st is going
00:24:07.460to be both sides arguing what they think about what came out at prelim. And that's where I think
00:24:12.400the defense is going to have to show their hand a little bit more. They're going to have to
00:24:16.900articulate where they feel the evidence is lacking. That's a preview for the trial. The
00:24:22.400trial is going to be markedly different in every way from the prelim. I mean, think about it. Lance
00:24:27.860Twiggs is going to have to be on the stand. Hang on a second. Explain to people what do you mean by
00:24:34.740that. They just sat through five days. And I think most people that are new to this
00:24:38.580thought it was pretty, you know, you got into a lot of detail. And in fact, you kind of argue
00:24:43.320back and forth. So how is a trial going to be technically different than what the audience
00:24:48.640just sat through? What the audience just sat through is just a teaser of the type of evidence
00:24:55.460that's going to be admitted at trial. Each one of those areas that they heard during the last five
00:25:00.240days, the bullets, the gun, the scene, the video footage, the testimony from the lover roommate,
00:25:07.240all of that is going to be expanded into a much larger trial. It's going to be a battle of the
00:25:12.200experts, no doubt, with each and every piece of forensic evidence. You heard a little bit of that
00:25:17.700today when it came to the ballistics. You're going to hear it with respect to the DNA.
00:25:22.520You're going to hear the identification issues. How do you see who's on the video? How do you
00:25:27.480connect all the dots, linking it to Tyler Robinson. And one of the most significant ways
00:25:32.940where it will be different is you're not going to be able to use hearsay. So as I was saying,
00:25:37.520you're actually, think about this, Steve, you're actually going to have the roommate, Lance Twiggs,
00:25:43.180in person, on the witness stand, subject to cross-examination, not just the softball questions
00:25:49.220you saw in the Zoom interview, but subject to full cross-examination, as with everybody else.
00:25:55.020So that's one of the ways it's going to be different, not to even mention the way in which we're going to have to deal with a jury pool, given the fact that there will probably be cameras in the courtroom yet again.
00:26:07.280Is, um, is Twiggs, is Lance Twiggs, does he have immunity to, to testify here?
00:26:14.740I mean, does he have any threat at all of prosecution, either as a co-conspirator or as an accomplice, ma'am?
00:26:20.760Only if he perjures himself. That's probably why you saw that stiff and stilted interview of him in a suit being just so measured. So he has use immunity, meaning he will have immunity from prosecution based on what he says when he's on the stand, but only if he tells the truth.
00:26:39.400And that is tough. That's one of the reasons he has to be so careful in answering those questions.
00:26:45.560But remember what he does. He ties together a lot of other pieces of evidence.
00:26:50.940So the defense is going to have an opportunity to test every bit of the evidence you saw at prelim in a much more formalistic and extended manner than they did this week.
00:27:01.780The judge kept reminding both sides it's a probable cause hearing, but he won't be reminding them of that at trial because that burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:27:11.520Can you hang on for one second? I want to continue this conversation. Obviously, it was very controversial this week for many parties, so I want to make sure we drill down on this.
00:28:42.320Everyone's focused on how the conflict in the Middle East is raising oil prices, but
00:28:46.100there's another grim reality to this contention. Oil isn't the only resource being constrained.
00:28:52.900About one third of global fertilizer trade happens through this region. And with spring
00:28:58.440planting season on top of us, American farmers are sounding the alarm with some saying they can't
00:29:03.820afford to plant their fields. When one piece of the supply chain gets hit this hard, you know what
00:29:09.380comes next. Higher fruit prices, reduced availability, maybe even panic buying. That's
00:29:15.280why having an emergency food supply at home makes so much sense. And that's where our friends at
00:29:21.900MyPatriotSupply come in right now at preparewithbannon.com. That is preparewithbannon.com.
00:29:29.120We've set up an entire just site for the War Room Posse. You go to preparewithbannon.com. That's
00:29:36.860all one word, preparewithbannon.com. You get a three-month emergency food supply. They'll include
00:29:43.020a free mega protein upgrade an incredible $200 bonus you don't want to miss it's a simple way
00:29:50.640to protect your family from whatever comes next go to preparewithbannon.com that is preparewithbannon.com
00:29:59.460to get your emergency food supply today that's preparewithbannon.com do it today go check it out
00:30:07.120War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann.
00:30:11.820I hate to ask you to speculate, but I'm going to ask you to speculate.
00:30:17.540Given what you've seen in this preliminary, and you said at the beginning this was overwhelming,
00:30:23.380do you believe the defense will sit there and go,
00:30:26.140if we got the furry lover that's going to serve this guy up and he's got immunity,
00:30:30.740maybe we just try to cut a deal and save this kid's life?
00:30:33.080Or do you think they're going to think, hey, particularly in Salt Lake or in Utah,
00:30:41.800which is not the Utah I think that most people think it is because it's some wild hombres out there.
00:30:46.640When we were out there, we were kind of shocked.
00:30:48.880Do you think they'll think, hey, we can get one or two jurors.
00:30:51.000All he needs is one, and we can get one or two jurors.
00:30:53.580So do you think they're going to think to try to cop a plea to get him off the firing squad
00:30:57.840and into life that maybe he gets some parole later?
00:31:00.500Or do they take the bet, given what you've seen and what you see these strategic moves, that they feel they can get one person to go along with them, at least for a mistrial, ma'am?
00:31:14.900I think they think it's a safer bet to try to save his life.
00:31:18.300So that would be probably what they're going to be aiming for.
00:31:22.980The prosecution may not have any incentive to think about a plea deal that would take the death penalty off the table.
00:31:29.040Now, we also know that because of the prosecutor's, his sentiment about his own case. You know, the jury says prove it. But he may be thinking, I've shown so much at prelim, maybe the defense is going to recognize I have no incentive to offer that.
00:31:42.220Because the Kirk family is so, is very much on board with bringing justice for Charlie. So I can't imagine they would be interested in any kind of a plea deal. And that decision is one of the most collaborative decisions that any prosecutor makes as to whether or not to offer any kind of deal, especially in a cap of work.
00:32:01.580Just for our audience, they would bring in the widow, they would bring in Erica, they would bring in the family, they would talk to her before they offered some deal to see if she was comfortable with that, or at least not opposed to it.
00:32:16.300Absolutely. You know, prosecution today, and especially in a case like this, will involve the victim and the victim's family.
00:32:23.020remember that's but she said at the funeral she said the celebration of life that she forgave him
00:32:29.080would forgiving we're forgiving him take death penalty i mean i don't know how to interpret it
00:32:34.440but when she she said there i forgive my kill you know my husband's killer and it kind of shocked
00:32:40.720most people but it seemed like they had some support in that vast audience and it was like
00:32:45.18040 or 50 60 000 people another 40 spread at other venues i think it was 100 000 people alive
00:32:51.080she said she i believe she said the time i forgive the killer would that uh would that deem would
00:32:59.320that deem would that be harder i mean would that mean that she would be opposed to the death penalty
00:33:03.660if the prosecutor came to her no she also said she wanted full justice for charlie and was
00:33:08.900cooperating to the full extent of the law and you know she's very gracious and she's christian just
00:33:14.080like the rest of us that understand the value of forgiveness but there's also consequences for
00:33:19.080these actions. And that is one of the reasons, if what we believe of all of the rest of her
00:33:24.280statements, that she's completely cooperating with the prosecution. And there doesn't seem
00:33:28.800to be any incentive. You know, occasionally you'll have a case, Steve, where it would be
00:33:32.560overly traumatizing for certain types of witnesses to take the stand. We see that a lot in cases
00:33:37.840involving domestic violence, child abuse. This is not one of those cases where there would be
00:33:43.340that incentive. If anything, her presence every day at the prelim shows that she has that interest
00:33:48.900in seeing this through for full justice for Charlie.
00:33:52.360The defense has to recognize that as well,
00:34:17.240prosecution of defense that you're sitting there thinking that they're thinking we might have blown
00:34:21.860that any foundational element on either side do you think they didn't that that either the parties
00:34:28.580did not pull off appropriately or adequately i guess i should say i don't but but i like your
00:34:34.240question because it did give me some idea as to one of the biggest questions some of the biggest
00:34:39.040questions in the trial and one of them is will the defendant testify you know there are lots of
00:34:43.860cases where defendants have terrible criminal records, there was no way they would live through
00:34:48.320that on the stand. This isn't one of those cases. So that has to be one of the biggest questions
00:34:53.240the defense is asking. On the prosecution side, they're probably trying to figure out
00:34:57.860what additional experts should they get? Should they, because they know a little bit about what
00:35:02.960the defense is going to say to poke holes in all the types of the evidence. And then on the defense
00:35:07.800side, the second question is, is there any kind of mental issues that won't be defenses to the case,
00:35:12.860but could potentially be a mitigant in terms of what they're going to argue
00:35:17.280that he shouldn't get the death penalty, because a jury's going to be deciding that as well.
00:35:24.000What is the standard for the, you know, besides finding him guilty and giving him life without
00:35:29.120parole in prison in Utah, what would be the standard for the jury to say,
00:35:33.560you're going to, you've got to face the firing squad?
00:35:37.220Reasonable doubt is the standard at both the guilt phase and the penalty phase.
00:35:41.300The penalty phase is more about weighing aggravants and mitigants.
00:35:45.460And, Steve, that includes all aspects of the case, everything from the defendant's behavior when he was arrested to the way in which he cased the scene beforehand, the extent to which he went to try to get that rifle back, the statements he made, and everything else that will come out during the course of a trial.
00:36:02.020Sometimes in a death phase, you get additional evidence, and that's going to be important for this jury.
00:36:07.140And it's also interesting you said firing squad because I did a little research into how exactly would he be executed.
00:36:13.540And apparently it's the default method right now in Utah.
00:36:18.400I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I read it was lethal injection.
00:36:22.540And only in cases where you don't have access to that, it'll be the firing squad.
00:36:26.480I also saw a lot of people talking about why method might matter in a case this significant.
00:36:32.300But the defense is going to pull out all the stops to make sure they do everything they can to investigate whether they could take that off the table before we get to trial.
00:36:42.240In the next six weeks, these briefing papers are going to go back and forth.
00:36:46.460What should the audience be looking for?
00:36:48.000What are the key things that are going to be brief?
00:36:51.320And then what decisions on September 1st he's going to hear some arguments, but what decisions does he have to make?
00:36:58.080The decision he has to make is whether every charge and every allegation has been proven, not by even a preponderance, but whether there's probable cause.
00:37:07.960But the fact that the defense asked to be able to do this lets me know that they have a variety of things they're going to argue in challenging the strength of the prosecution's evidence.
00:37:18.200That's where I see it as a little bit of a tip-off as to what they're going to be looking at for trial, what they're going to argue.
00:37:24.740I don't expect it's not going to be a bind over, but I do expect we're going to see a lot of their thought process and where they think the holes are in the case.
00:37:32.700They weren't afraid to show their hand to that extent during the probable cause hearing.
00:37:37.580The last two witnesses were basically grilled over whether or not their findings should be legitimate, should be reliable.
00:37:46.980And so we're probably going to see a lot more of that when we get to September 1st.
00:37:51.700Now, while we won't necessarily get to read everything beforehand, although I don't know whether they're going to be public or not, we'll get to hear the highlights and extended oral argument on September the 1st, followed, of course, by the judge's ruling.
00:38:07.380Obviously, Real America's Voice will have the first team out there and we will cover that in detail.
00:38:12.280Just one note for the audience to think about.
00:38:15.260If this goes to trial, it seems like it's going to go to trial.
00:38:18.140If it goes to trial, whatever the date is, will people get, will the basic public get more access to the autopsy, to ballistics, to actual videos of the assassination itself?
00:38:32.640Or was this limited in what people were able to see?
00:38:35.320Will they have much more access to information at the trial?
00:38:40.900Yes, this was limited in what the public is allowed to see.
00:38:44.300Part of the reason for that, Steve, is the judge and no side wants this to happen.
00:38:49.100Nobody wants to see so much evidence out there right now that it taints the ability for the defendant to get a fair trial.
00:38:55.160It compromises the integrity of a conviction.
00:38:58.160So when we get to trial and those jurors are impaneled, then they'll be able to consider far more evidence and far more extensive evidence on everything, including the autopsy, the ballistic evidence, the video footage, the fatal shots.
00:39:13.420I mean, all of that is going to come in at trial because you don't have the same consideration of tainting a potential jury pool.
00:39:21.620So the answer is yes, in every aspect of the case.
00:39:24.760Of course, there's people that, you know, let's be blunt, are just not buying this direction.
00:39:30.720Whatever their motivations are, whatever, they're just not.
00:39:33.800In the trial, given what they've set up today in this preliminary, will the defense have the opportunity?
00:39:40.000People are talking about microphones, other things that might have shot and killed Charlie.
00:39:45.020Will they have the option and range to start to bring that up or the judges shut it down since it was they didn't take it on here in the preliminary?
00:39:53.100Are all those options to discuss various other things and other people that could have done this?
00:39:59.820Is that open for the defense or would the judges say, no, I'm ruling that out.
00:40:04.180You just got to stick to what was presented.
00:40:05.720A judge is likely to rule that out unless the defense is able to introduce some credible, relevant, admissible evidence that any of those theories hold water.
00:40:17.140And you saw how hard it was to get even a single piece of evidence in at the probable cause hearing.
00:40:22.380Think about how much more difficult that's going to be when you're in a proceeding where the burden of proof is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:40:28.980And they're not going to get jury instructions that are going to support any theory of the defense that there's no evidence to support.
00:40:35.080So I always tell everyone, please just watch the court proceedings and you'll get more of an idea as to what you do have that's admissible.
00:40:44.300Would the defense have to present that here?
00:40:47.620Should they have done that on Tuesday or whatever, if they have all these different theories out there of the microphone and other other options?
00:40:55.820I don't even know what they are, but they're voluminous.
00:40:59.680Was that the time to do it, to try to get it in then and have the judge rule on it?
00:41:04.100And if you miss that, then when you go to trial, he's going to say, hey, look, you had a shot, but you didn't do it.
00:41:08.760Where do we stand with that miscibility and making foundational arguments about that?
00:41:13.800No, the defense has no burden at either hearing.
00:41:17.460They had no obligation to present any sort of alternative theories at a probable cause hearing.
00:41:22.320And they have no obligation to present a defense at trial.
00:41:25.000And oftentimes they don't. This won't be one of those cases.
00:41:27.260They will have a robust defense at trial.
00:41:31.320There's no sense of losing an opportunity to present a defense simply because it didn't come up.
00:41:36.300But what I'm saying, I'm just I'm focused on the microphone because over the last couple of days, that's that's gotten, you know, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's gotten traction buzz in certain communities.
00:41:47.220will they have the opportunity at trial to start to put forward that, hey, there were other people
00:41:55.420here that had the incentive, there are other people here that had the access, there's other
00:41:59.440people that were closer, there's other people and they can show their ballistics, but they can
00:42:02.860take the microphone theory and run with it? Or is that automatically shut down?
00:42:08.260I wouldn't say anything is automatically shut down if there's evidence to support it.
00:42:13.400It will be the subject of no doubt motions in liminy because there's no sandbagging at trial.
00:42:20.120Both sides will be briefing very thoroughly what they will and won't want to introduce.
00:42:24.900And even the scope of the questions during cross-examination, because Steve, it could come up there as well.
00:42:29.720In other words, sometimes if they had enough to go on a good faith basis, these things exist.