00:00:29.300Well, the case is officially on. As we predicted, as we expected, the state of Utah has cleared its relatively low bar on presenting enough probative evidence using their reliable hearsay standard to bring Tyler Robinson to trial.
00:00:46.720And judging by the almost automatic neocon response, it's going to be a long few years of Pentagon propaganda.
00:00:55.420They will keep attempting this optical illusion to convince us not to believe our own eyes or our own ears, expecting people not to understand legalities.
00:01:06.140yesterday on X. I don't think I've ever done this, by the way, but I did actually
00:01:09.880have to slap down my former colleague, Matt Walsh, when he perpetuated one of the more
00:01:14.680disingenuous narratives out there. Because I just want to be frank here. I cannot when it comes to
00:01:22.020this case. Okay, I cannot, I will not when it comes to this case. Pick any other legal case
00:01:28.040to serve the people the slop regarding, but not the Charlie Kirk one. Just come honestly,
00:01:33.800engage in debate honestly. We're going to discuss all of that in a moment. Also, as we have been
00:01:38.200insisting to you guys for a long time now, Tyler Robinson officially entered his plea of not guilty
00:01:44.500to the charges, which, by the way, that runs counter to the extraordinary claims made by the
00:01:49.780Department of War propagandists that Tyler's dad turned him in because Tyler confessed to his crime.
00:01:55.880That is what they told you repeatedly, and that he came home and said that he had done it.
00:02:01.920We repeatedly told you that that was not true.
00:02:04.240There's no shred of truth to that at all.
00:02:06.480Tyler told his father that he was not guilty.
00:05:23.040The evidence shows that on September 11th, 2025, defendant sent a text message to Lance Twiggs stating, if any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent.
00:05:36.520Defendant argues that count six must be stricken as a matter of law.
00:05:40.620He contends that this message was merely advising a loved one to exercise constitutional rights, to remain silent and seek counsel, which cannot standing alone constitute a criminal offense.
00:05:56.980Defendant therefore argues that the record does not support the required obstructive intent.
00:06:02.040The court considers this a meaningful distinction because the words, ask for a lawyer and stay silent, viewed in isolation, describe a lawful advice concerning constitutional rights and do not themselves establish criminal intent.
00:06:19.320Standing alone, advising another person to request counsel or remain silent is lawful and does not establish witness tampering.
00:06:27.980The state relies, however, on the context of the communication, including defendants' earlier alleged instruction to delete this exchange.
00:06:39.180Viewed together in the light most favorable to the state, those communications permit a reasonable inference that defendant intended to cause twigs to withhold information from investigators.
00:06:50.040The court does not determine at this stage whether that inference is ultimately more persuasive than defendant's lawful advice explanation, and it does not treat the exercise of legal rights or advice concerning those rights as criminal conduct standing alone.
00:07:06.920Although defendant's lawful advice interpretation remains a reasonable competing interpretation, the surrounding communications permit the state's proposed inferences as well.
00:07:18.920Because the court may not choose between reasonable competing inferences at this preliminary stage, probable cause supports count six.
00:07:30.860That is so wild to me that he's basically acknowledging that count six. Yeah, this is constitutional by itself, but I'm looking at count five and I'm not going to make a decision here. I'm basically going to roll that into count five. Well, that's a separate that's a totally separate charge.
00:07:48.700How are you not going to drop count six and basically say, I'm only going to allow the fifth charge to stand?
00:07:55.520Now, I get that people want to pretend that this is some team sport where you either root for your team to win.
00:08:01.240Yeah, Tyler Robinson, hang him. We want him to die.
00:08:04.820It's like one side, which is totally crazy, guilty before proven innocence, I guess.
00:08:09.820But you really have to think about the unconstitutional precedent that is being set here, right?
00:08:14.960that should alarm you. That to me is unacceptable that any judge would not just immediately
00:08:19.200flat out dismiss that charge on its face. I find that to be the only thing that was surprising
00:08:24.260and alarming. Anyway, the bigger news here is that Tyler Robinson has finally entered his plea
00:08:30.560and it is not exactly what the Orbit of Pentagon influencers have been telling you. Take a listen.
00:08:37.840Does Mr. Robinson wish to enter into pleas today? Yes, Your Honor. We'll proceed with the arraignment.
00:08:43.720All right. And what please does he wish to enter into the record?
00:08:49.920At this point, we would waive reading of the indictment. I'm sorry. Waive reading of the information and interplease of not guilty on Mr. Robinson's behalf to all counts.
00:09:02.600not guilty on all counts okay um how could that be like i said you were told by so many pentagon
00:09:11.780influencers at different time that tyler robinson was guilty i mean there was even the story they
00:09:16.160just magically dropped it that is his father was just so brave and took him to the police station
00:09:21.860because he knew his son was guilty we told you that is not true bill ackman was going to give
00:09:26.160him a million dollars they just sort of dropped that narrative entirely because there was no truth
00:09:29.600and no substance to what they were saying.
00:13:47.160So the core security team was actually not with Charlie Kirk in Salt Lake City.
00:13:52.760They arrived independent of Charlie Kirk, and they had been there since 9, 9.30 a.m. in the morning while Charlie was doing that restaurantology event out in Salt Lake City.
00:14:03.020Now, to the right of them, we have back-to-back Yukon Denali.
00:14:07.480You, of course, know that that one of the front is going to be the one that Charlie Kirk shows up in and that Charlie Kirk is going to depart in after he is hit with an explosive.
00:14:19.020And we know that he shows up with Mikey McCoy in that vehicle.
00:14:24.740And we also know that the person driving it, we only have a first name for this guy, but his name is Christopher.
00:14:33.260OK, we're going to talk more about this Chris guy.
00:14:36.960in a second. And then we have behind that vehicle, the mysterious, and I'm saying mysterious because
00:14:45.780Blake Neff made it mysterious by pretending he didn't know what he did, who he was with.
00:14:51.240This is the vehicle that just Danny McCoy is driving. And he has not, sorry, Danny Phillip,
00:14:58.340Danny Phillip is driving. And he has, Danny Phillip does not have Mikey McCoy sitting shotgun.
00:24:05.900We all jumped into this car that we didn't come into.
00:24:07.900We drove off. And then what luck that your bag, Chris, you don't have to worry about trying to find out how to get to the hospital. But Chris, your bag is on the ground for you. I think, again, I will say not 100 percent certain that it's his bag. But given the fact that Mikey McCoy showed up with the bag and has it on his back and process of elimination here, I think that's going to be the security person's bag.
00:24:35.160But again, this is all just luck that Danny and Mikey fortunately met.
00:24:40.300For some reason, Blake is really weird about mentioning Danny as a part of the story.
00:24:43.820When he tells the story and he says, which we're going to hear in a little bit, everything that happened, he just mysteriously keeps leaving Danny Philip out of everything.
00:24:51.700He always develops Danny Philip amnesia in particular.
00:24:57.140Every time he's just like, well, no, this is what happened.
00:25:03.260Blake is already up ahead. Did he forget that? Maybe he did. We know how Blake is. He doesn't
00:25:10.920remember what they were doing in Salt Lake City. He didn't remember how they had arrived. He didn't
00:25:14.760remember what hotel he had stayed in. Convenient amnesia. But like I said, a little powwow happens.
00:25:23.400So many things could have gone wrong. I would expect some scramble to find the keys,
00:25:28.360but gratefully there was none. It went on like a choreographed dance,
00:25:31.440a vehicle which we know was locked upon arrival, was magically unlocked with presumably the keys inside of it.
00:25:41.320And I also want to remember, I want to remind you guys that early on I told you that I had a solid source that was involved in the planning of this event.
00:25:49.360a very solid source who said that one of the only demands that were made from security,
00:25:58.980far from them saying that they were worried about rooftops or securing the area,
00:26:02.420one of the only demands that was made from security was they wanted to make sure
00:26:06.580that Charlie's vehicle had a clean exit.
00:26:09.560And I would like to just comment on the absurdity of the security team blocking themselves in.
00:26:15.840again that just demonstrates incompetence you're the security you should not be
00:26:22.260locked in your vehicle should be able to get out just as easily as charlie's vehicle can get out
00:26:28.140but you blocked yourself in why you clearly had the ability to not do that given the fact that
00:26:35.160we had that silver car on the right hand side it could have flipped with you you could have
00:26:38.620had that one blocked in why would you block your own vehicles in doesn't make sense to me
00:26:45.840Also, going back to that vehicle diagram, I want to draw your attention to the positioning of Danny Phillip and Blake Neff's car there, the Denali on the right-hand side closest to the screen.
00:27:00.520It is a wonder to me because I learned from some sources with direct knowledge that they did not take these cars to the hospital.
00:27:08.900that's actually really odd for me to reflect on because i remember blake sort of recounting the
00:27:17.140story and telling us that mikey became a general directing a battle so that he could figure out
00:27:22.600how everyone was getting to the hospital among other things you have three security vehicles
00:27:28.600that are left all of them actually are are left behind you have the keys did you offer to say hey
00:27:36.440why don't we just drive to the hospital?
00:39:45.460So if I'm just sitting here making these arguments
00:39:48.120And in the long run, like I said at the top of the show, lies have an expiration date.
00:39:53.800Yesterday, I see a bunch of people all tweeting the same thing, that Tyler Robinson's lawyer is arguing that political assassinations are OK.
00:40:04.020So that right off the bat annoys me because it's just it's the tone of drama.
00:40:11.900And when it's coming from someone who I know has common sense, it annoys me more.
00:40:15.580And I'm just going to show you, and this is one of many examples, Matt Walsh's tweet that annoyed me. He says, we have a lawyer justifying political assassination in one court case and another lawyer justifying the mass murder of children in another very dark times in America.
00:40:30.980That first sentence I'd like to address. I've not been following Lindsay Clancy Clayson made that clear from the very beginning. We have a lawyer justifying political assassination in one court case. And he shares this video, which was clearly sent out for a bunch of people to share and to try to delude the public into believing that that is what was happening, that a lawyer would just be up there being like, yo, your honor, political assassinations are fine.
00:42:17.400I would argue that Matt Walsh did not think that when he sent it because I know him.
00:42:22.300And I feel like the common sense would have come on board that someone's just not out here saying political assassinations are hip. And he framed it that way exclusively. But what they're all referring to is this clip. And I'm going to contextualize it for you because it's important for you to sort of brace yourself on what is coming up next as we get into this case.
00:42:43.200You're going to keep seeing this mandate go out where things are going to be taken out of context and it's supposed to outrage you when in reality it is not a reflection of what's truly going on.
00:42:53.120So this is Tyler Robinson's lawyer, Richard Novak.
00:42:56.400I'm going to let you listen to his words and then I'm going to properly contextualize them.
00:43:01.500It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people.
00:43:10.580He spoke hatefully of people who don't have traditional, norm-conforming gender identities.
00:43:21.940He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual.
00:43:26.800He spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships out of marriage.
00:43:31.320And 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. Robinson.
00:43:48.440But that doesn't mean that those personal choices by Mr. Twiggs and by Mr. Robinson equate with the hate that at least Mr. Robinson says he had toward Mr. Kirk.
00:44:07.480So we don't know what that is. We don't know. There's a gap between what it is that Mr. Kirk said and stood for, the phrase in the statute is political expression, and what it is that Mr. Robinson felt about him.
00:44:25.780And it's a significant gap because what it allows the state to do is to make it up.
00:44:32.400Oh, it must be about this relationship.
00:45:00.160You shouldn't be going through lawsuits.
00:45:01.540You shouldn't be going through murder cases every day of your life where some of this
00:45:05.260just becomes like par for the course as it has in my life because I just say the truth
00:45:10.580and say what I mean on my podcast and people come after me for it, okay?
00:45:14.660So what he is doing here and what I've explained to you, and you totally obviously are capable
00:45:19.180of understanding what's happening in the courtroom once someone does explain it to
00:45:21.880is the job of the defense in this at this phase when you talk about a probable cause hearing
00:45:28.280is not to make any arguments they're not talking about their client's guilt or whether their
00:45:34.080client sent the text message that is for the actual trial they are engaging in the state's
00:45:39.720arguments because the state is saying here is what we say is enough to move forward and you
00:45:44.580are then going and saying and i know i'm going to sound i'm going to keep repeating this you are
00:45:48.660then going as the defense and you are saying, hey, state, we should not even have to waste our time
00:45:54.660having to respond to this filing because look at the law in the books, just like I gave you that
00:46:01.520example of charge six. Look at the law in the books. That's constitutional. Even if we accepted
00:46:06.000that all of this was true and he sent this text, we're not accepting it. But even if we engaged in
00:46:10.640your arguments and accepted that Tyler Robinson sent a message to his lover, Lance, and said,
00:46:16.860don't speak to anybody and lawyer up, that would be constitutional. So just throw it out.
00:46:22.100We're not even going to tell you whether or not he sent the message. That's how this works. Okay.
00:46:26.380So the lawyer in this case is doing just that. And what annoys me about this is they've gone
00:46:32.040over this ad nauseum. So you should hear his language and instantly know as I do what he's
00:46:37.360referring to. The lawyer is citing the state's argument. What they are arguing is against the
00:46:44.560states they are asking for sentencing enhancements. So they want Tyler Robinson's
00:46:50.180sentence to be enhanced. The state argued for that all throughout their filings,
00:46:54.460because if the prosecution can demonstrate that Charlie was targeted for political or religious
00:47:01.640beliefs, they can seek longer sentences under the law. Sentence enhancements. So what they are
00:47:07.580arguing is he was targeted for his political statements and his religious beliefs. And so
00:47:13.400what the prosecutors did was they argued, they argued that they could meet that standard on the
00:47:18.060basis of the text message. Some hate just can't be negotiated. That was one of the alleged Tyler
00:47:25.040Robinson communications, right? And then they then extrapolated from that, that he must have
00:47:30.720been referring to Charlie Kirk's statements, that Charlie Kirk, he assumed, had made hateful
00:47:36.980statements against the LGBTQ community, which Charlie made those statements because he's a
00:47:43.280Christian man. He is a hetero Christian man who believes that marriage is between a man and a
00:47:48.880woman. He's also a political leader. So that shows that he was targeted for his political beliefs
00:47:53.640against gay marriage. The prosecution is the one that is arguing that Charlie's statements
00:48:00.220were perceived as hateful to Tyler Robinson, who they are arguing is a member of the LGBTQ
00:48:07.600community. Again, these are the prosecution's arguments. So Tyler's lawyer here is saying,
00:48:13.280Even if we accepted your argument that Charlie did make hateful statements that were deemed hateful to the LGBTQ community, you have still failed to demonstrate that the message which you claim was sent by Tyler Robinson is in reference to those statements.
00:48:30.120In fact, you haven't even spelled out which statements from Charlie are even hateful.
00:48:35.020You didn't list any statements in your filings that Charlie said that we could then infer.
00:48:49.160So it's supposed to be reliable hearsay.
00:48:50.740And he's saying this is not reliable hearsay.
00:48:52.960And you can read that if you want me to do your homework
00:48:55.740and serve a bros in the filing that was dropped on August 11th.
00:49:00.320Among many other, it was also stated in the preliminary hearing
00:49:03.700when they talked about Pastor Englehart's statement,
00:49:07.020which was written in order to receive that enhancement on page 32.
00:49:11.800You can literally copy my homework. I just don't. It's so frustrating that people don't do their research. We can pull this up on page 32. And this was pertaining to the filing on political motivation.
00:49:24.800If you look at that fourth paragraph down, it says, ironically, it is the state that argues that because Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs are two men who love each other and or it speculates because Mr. Twiggs and not Mr. Robinson was at least intermittently identifying as a female to his close friends.
00:49:44.440Again, they're accepting the state's arguments that Lance Twigs is trans, that they are in this loving relationship.
00:49:52.420They're saying, even if, okay, intermittently identifying as female to his close friends, it is Mr. Kirk's views on these topics, which are the quote unquote hatred that Mr. Robinson was referring to.
00:50:04.320And then they go on to say these circumstances are not sufficient to establish even by probable cause, which if any political expression of Mr. Kirk motivated Mr. Robinson to select Mr. Kirk for an act of violence.
00:50:16.060There is no evidence of specific political expressions of Mr. Kirk, which if any, Mr. Robinson may have been aware of or focused on.
00:50:25.020So it's the exact opposite of what they are telling you.
00:50:29.220It's the state's arguments, not his arguments. And he's saying they fall flat of the probable cause Utah 1102 rule hearsay standard because they're inferring upon an inference upon an inference, which is not actually allowed.
00:50:42.460This, again, like I'm saying, the reason why I'm harping on this and I wanted to explain my frustration with this is because I deeply care about this case and we've dedicated so many hours to reading the filings, rewatching the hearings.
00:50:54.520And so when people just come and they do the thing where, well, I cover news topics every day.