Tyler Robinson Defense Speaks! Do They Say Enough? - Ep 159

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, guys. Welcome in. Welcome in. Welcome in. I was enjoying the, um, theme music a little too much there. Uh, for those of you who always watch the replays, you have no idea what I'm talking about because that theme music gets trimmed out about an hour or so after we go, guys, welcome in. Welcome in. Welcome in. We got a big show today because nobody knows what the hell's going on. And by nobody, I mean Fetzloppers, they have no clue how to read legal documents. They don't know what they mean. Uh, everybody's rushing to X to try to figure out the Tyler Robinson's attorney's really admit that he did everything. No, guys, no, we'll cover that. We'll cover it all, um, in just a little bit. I apologize for the matinee edition, but it's really convenient on a Wednesday. It allows the Baptist to get to church in the night. So guys, churches on me tonight, guys, um, we're going to roll through the documents. We've got a lot to cover today. This is going to be a big show. Um, by way of schedule tomorrow, we'll probably go around four or five PM God's time, central day, like time, uh, because Candace is already announced she will not be doing a show tomorrow on account of preparing her studio for smoke boy to arrive on Friday. If he does, in fact, arrive, um, I've got commentary on that a little bit. I want to, I want to do a few minutes on that, uh, probably the last I'll say about it before Friday, but unless something else happens, unless something else happens, but I do want to go through the filing is somewhat in detail, not lined by line, but somewhat in detail. Um, I want to show you, um, what the fed slappers are saying about it because they are making idiots out of themselves, even some of them purported lawyers from Canada, the little diminutive Viva Fry, uh, the little small fry. He is, he's, he's commenting on it like he's some sort of Utahan legal expert and he apparently is not. He is not at all. Um, and then we're going to check in on our buddy, Frank, this Frank, this snake, uh, Frank, this snake, Tertik, Tertik. He is a lunatic. He has a pamphlet out on how to help stand this spouses. We'll look at that a little bit. Also, JD Vance has a new book out. Where is it for sale? Where can you get it? Well, it might surprise you. It might really, really surprise you. I mean, like, a lot. So we'll cover that as well. Uh, and we've got a few other things on the back end. We might have time to get to, I'm not sure if we will or not, but let me, let me sort of back up real quickly, uh, by way of sort of an opening. Let me, let me, let me, it's going to be a quasi opening today. Let me sort of give you an idea of how the criminal justice system works in the United States because if you are a fed slopper, you apparently have no idea. Um, if you are foreign, I doubt you have much of an idea. And even many here in America are confused and baffled by it because we get used to watching NYPD Blue and CSI and, you know, everything's done in an hour. You, you have a, it opens with a dead body. Uh, and then within the hour, they've reached a jury verdict. And that's just not the way it works in real life. In real life, these things take time. Uh, there's several steps along the way. There are a lot of boring hearings. Um, I declined the offer to participate in a lot of blow by blow commentary. And those commentaries did very well during the preliminary hearing. They did very, very well. But I declined the offer to, um, to be on there with them because eight hours of covering relatively frankly, boring legal maneuvering around the courtroom and introduction of evidence is not exactly very exciting to me, particularly at the preliminary stage. I just figured I'd come on at the end of the day. And if anything decent happened, we'd summarize it at the end of the day. And that's that's how we handle the preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing is not closed. Believe it or not. There was five days, but it's not over. Uh, part of the judges schedule on this preliminary hearing is that he gave each side an opportunity to provide a written summation. And we got these states written summation last week yesterday. We got the defenses written summation. And we'll cover it a little bit today. And then they'll even have an oral summation. They'll come into court on September 1st, I believe, and they'll give an oral summation and then the judge will rule one way or the other sometime on or after September 1st. That's just part of this. This is not the trial. This is not to determine, uh, what evidence goes in front of the jury. This is not an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing will determine whether a particular piece of evidence goes in front of the jury. There might be a suppression hearing, whether a piece of evidence cannot go in front of a jury. Those things take place afterwards. Then you'll have motions in limiting. And then sometimes those go to hearings. And that will be determined what can and can't be said, what can and can't be introduced, what can and can't be hinted at or, you know, some of them are pretty complex. And so we'll have those along the way. We'll have 702 hearings in all likelihood. And that's when the state will name an expert, the defense will name an expert on a given topic, and then we'll have a hearing on whether or not that person is in fact an expert. And what are the sort of bounds of their expertise? What are they allowed to, what are they allowed to discuss? By the time we get to trial, most of these issues will be hashed out. What we had, uh, July, what 10th is or so a couple of weeks ago. And what we're getting our filings on last week and yesterday is the preliminary hearing. This is just a gatekeeping step. It's a little anachronistic for being honest. Um, it almost always passes. But all the state has to do, and I'll pull up the the case law in just a minute kind of outlining the state's burden. But all the state has to do is meet a very minimal standard. And that standard is reasonable. Is this reasonable to send to a jury? Is there a reasonable belief that this crime may have been committed in the way the prosecutors say is the person standing trial? Um, is there a reasonable belief that he could have done it such that a jury would need to then weigh evidence. A jury would weigh evidence. That's where you're going to bring in things like alibis. That's where you're going to bring in things like, um, you got the wrong guy, you know, I wasn't made officer. You got the wrong guy. Uh, that's where you'd bring in things like, hey, the, the gun, uh, has dust in the barrel. It can't be fired. What we have at the preliminary stage is the prosecution is basically the architect of the preliminary hearing. Um, in a lot of states, the defense may not even be there. Uh, they may do this all behind a closed door in something called a grand jury where it's just a prosecutor. There's not even a judge, believe it or not. The judge only gets involved in a grand jury if there's an issue. But it's just a prosecutor and it's just the grand jurors and they get together and they decide together as a group. And, and I've been in front of a grand jury before. I was called as a witness in front of two different grand juries. Um, when you're called in front of a grand jury, it's a little different because there is no judge there. And the grand jurors start raising their hand in the middle of it. And they're like, yes, number 17, go ahead and they start firing questions at you. It's a very interesting stage. Some grand juries are very active, some are less active. And you told they've chosen to go the preliminary hearing route. It basically substitutes for the grand jury in a preliminary hearing. There is a judge present, but the function is largely the same. Did the prosecution meet its very minimal burden? It's reasonable belief that something might have happened the way we're telling you it happened. In other words, the prosecution's theory and the Tyler Robinson cases that Tyler Robinson climbed on top of the Losi center roof on September 10th pulled out a 30 out six, fired a single round and killed Charlie Kurt. Nothing else really matters. There were some other charges tampering with witnesses and some aggravating factors. We'll talk about those today, but the meat and bones of the case is that that limited set of facts. It's not an element of the crime, whether or not he walked onto campus and went through the parking garage. So it doesn't really matter whether you argue that that was or was not Tyler Robinson. It's not an element of the crime to be in the stairwell. So it's not, it's not something that you're going to spend a lot of time arguing that he wasn't in the stairwell. It's not an element of the crime to send text messages. Now it could be, it could further the illumination of one of the elements of the crime if there were things incriminating in those text messages, but sending a text message in and of itself is not an element of the crime. You can commit murder without sending text messages. You can commit murder without being in the stairwell. You can commit murder without being in the parking garage. And so as we look at this, it's important to frame it properly. It's important to frame it properly. And I'm going to do it by contrast and direct examination on this. I'm going to look at the filing itself and then I'm going to contrast with what the fed slopers are saying about it because I think they're intentionally misleading you. Not all of them. Some of them are going along to get along or they think they're being smart, but they're actually stupid. They don't understand what they're saying. So let's dive into this thing. Let's let's jump feet first into this thing. But before we get there, before we get there, I want to show you sort of the operating law in Utah relative to the standards we're dealing with here. There's patient. I've got to give you a head of time. We're going to come back and look at this after the case as well. This is a case in Utah called Utah versus Corey Virgin. Utah versus Virgin. You will see this sighted all over the place. I am not a Utah lawyer. I tell you right now, I'm not a Utah lawyer. I very well could misunderstand some aspects of Utah law. Don't take this as definitive. Tyler Robinson's team will not be watching this and preparing based on anything I say. But based on my research, this is a very good case for us to look at. Oh, I forgot every time I did. Oh, don't email that email account. All right. I want to roll through some of this because paragraph 21 to 25 here. Sort of really Really give us a good idea of what we're dealing with. When you send something to trial, when the judge gets something in the preliminary hearing stage and he decides, yes, I want to send this to trial. In Utah, they call it a bind-over. We are binding it over to trial. Meaning, I is the magistrate. I is the judge sitting at the preliminary hearing who's known as the magistrate. I am going to send this for jury consideration. We will now start the process. He will have to enter a plea at this point. Are you guilty or not guilty? You know, Tyler Robinson still has not entered a plea, whether he's guilty or not guilty. Then we can start the discovery phase. Then we can have discovery disputes. If the prosecution and the defense aren't getting along on discovery, they can file motions and they can bring it before me as the judge. And I will determine how we're going to proceed on that particular issue. So the bind-over standard, the standard the judge is following is any kind of principle fact finding that has to be done. That's left to the jury. Principle fact finding is left to the jury. Meaning, I is the judge. I'm not going to sit here in way evidence. But they do have some discretion. They do have some discretion, limited discretion. They may decline bind-over if the prosecution fails to present sufficiently credible evidence on at least one element of the crime. We'll look at these elements. I have all the crimes. We'll look at the elements and we'll figure out whether they met that burden. The key word that elevates the role between that of just being a rubber stamp is whether the prosecution's case is reasonable, reasonable. We keep saying probable cause, but the standard here is reasonable is the evidence reasonable to be considered. If the prosecution is not carried its burden, that means they have not met the reasonable belief standard. Now, in their efforts, and it magistrates efforts, and a judge sitting as a magistrate over a preliminary hearing, if in their efforts to fair it out groundless prosecutions, they may also make limited credibility determinations, very limited credibility determinations. And I'll talk to you more about what that means. But here they're going to, at the bottom sentence of this paragraph 23, they tell you, we're going to tell you what it means. We're going to tell you what it means. We're going to describe the bounds of the judge's authority to assess credibility. Now, they may make credibility determinations and preliminary hearings on a limited basis that the probable cause standard demands reasonable belief rather than belief strongly suggests that magistrates must assess the credibility, but again, it's a limited assessment. Essentially, they may only disregard or discredit evidence that is wholly lacking and incapable of creating a reasonable inference regarding a portion of the prosecutor's claim. In appropriate, it's not proper. If judge graph was sitting there, and he's weighing evidence, weighing credible evidence, he's sitting in an improper manner. So if the prosecution says these text messages are real, and the defense comes up and says he never sent those text messages. You can't prove he sent those text messages. Here's evidence, he didn't send it. The judge is prohibited from weighing that evidence. It's not proper, it's not proper. If the, if the prosecution says that's Tyler Robinson in the stairwell. And the, and the, and the defense comes up and says, well, that's not Tyler Robinson in the stairwell. That guy has a point of your nose, and he's got a wider chin. That's not proper. He's not here to weigh the evidence. That's the jury's responsibility to weigh the evidence to determine if that's Tyler Robinson in the stairwell, if that's Tyler Robinson on the roof. If that 30 out six had been fired, his job, judge graphs job is to determine whether there's any credibility whatsoever in the fact that Tyler Robinson was in the stairwell or on the roof or fired a 30 out six. That's it. That's it. Once he finds it's credible, it's over. You move on to the next issue. Magistrates must leave all weighing of credible evidence to the trial of fact and must view evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. And this right here, this line must view evidence and light most favorable to the prosecution. I'm going to come back to that time and time again today because one of the things the Fed sloppers are doing over and over and over is, they're saying that Tyler Robinson's lawyers have admitted to this or admitted to that. They admitted he sent the text messages, case over. They admitted he was on the roof, case over. They admitted he had a gun down his jeans, case over. Not true, not true at all. What they're doing is allowing the standard to be the standard. The prosecution says that he had a gun in his pants so we have to assume he had a gun in his pants. So for the purpose of our argument, we're going to say he had a gun in his pants. And then we are going to argue whether or not that is sufficient to send it to trial. That's not an admission he had a gun in his pants. It is viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution. That is a, that is the standard in Utah. It's a standard nearly everywhere. And here's the money line. This is your money paragraph here. In some we hold any time in a Supreme Court of a state says we hold or the highest appellate court of a state says we hold, then that is the rule in the state. A trial court is not at liberty to disregard we hold. Once they say we hold only the highest appellate court in the land or a federal court can tell them that they can't hold that. That a trial court must do something different. So when we see a Utah Supreme Court decision that says, in some we hold, that's it. You have to follow it. Judge graph is bound by this. He would be in violation of his judicial role if he was to ignore this. The magistrate's ability, judge graph's ability to make credibility determinations is not limited only to disregarding testimony that cannot possibly be true. Rather, he may not prefer one piece of credible evidence over another piece of credible evidence. In other words, if it's credible, he has to view that credible evidence and light most favorable to the state. And he may not then prefer other credible evidence over that. So if the defense brings evidence that he determines also is credible, he's not allowed to consider it. He's not allowed to consider it and weigh it and determine which way he's going to go. In other words, when evidence becomes so contradictory and consistent or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecutor's claim on that evidence, magistrates need not give credence to that evidence. That is the only time he's allowed to disregard credible evidence. Only if it becomes so contradictory, so inconsistent and so unbelievable, then he can disregard it. So now that we have a little basis for how to look at this filing, we can now jump into the filing. I want to ask a few questions ahead of time because these are the types of questions I'm seeing out there from people who don't know how to read legal filings. Is it lawful to bring in new evidence, to raise alternative theories, to raise alibis that haven't been introduced by the state? Well, lawful, sure, fruitful, no, no, it's not fruitful. If you do that, the judge is not going to be permitted by law to consider it. If he finds the evidence the state has presented credible, he then is not able to consider it. He is precluded by so the Supreme Court of Utah from considering it at all. So what's the point of this filing? Is the point of this filing to explain why the evidence presented doesn't meet the burden? Yeah, that's the point. Let's look at everything they've introduced. Let's assume it's all true and then we make an argument. Even if everything they're saying is true, this count must be stricken, this count must be stricken, this count must be stricken. And they do argue in some that all of it must be stricken. By arguing that every charge and every element of every count was not met, the burden was not met on all those. What the defense is saying is we don't believe Tyler Robinson did this. Therefore any fed slapper who comes along on X or on the podcast or anywhere else and tells anyone else that the state, I mean, that the defense has agreed that Tyler Robinson did anything relative to committing a crime is being dishonest. They're misreading it at the very least, but then all likelihood they're being dishonest. So what can the court reasonably infer? Well, it can reasonably infer certain things from the evidence. For example, we had Tyler Robinson identified as the guy in the stairwell. I don't agree with that identification. I think the identification is weak and I think a jury will look at it very suspectably. Nevertheless, he was identified by Lance Twiggs as the guy in the stairwell. It's reasonable to infer that he then might be the guy on the roof because the state. well leads to the roof. Well, if you're going to make that reasonable inference, that's fine. But you can't make an inference based on an inference, for example. If we believe that's him on the roof, we then can't make an inference that he put a gun together. There's no reason to infer that. That would be an inference based on an inference. You have to infer that he's on the roof. Now you have to infer that he's doing something on the roof and inference based on inference. So you can't infer based on an inference, but you can infer based on credible evidence. When people are fundamentally misreading this, fundamentally misreading this. So let me pull up a copy of the filing. Now we'll put it on the screen here for all to see momentarily. And I want to run through some of my notes. I made notes as I read this. One of the first things you should do, let me pull it up first, one of the first things you should do when you're ever confronted with a filing like this. Don't start reading at the top. Don't just scroll down and start reading. Okay, we got a bunch of authorities. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, where are we? Where are we? Let's get to the intro. Here we go. Now let's start reading. No, that's not how you read these. That's not how you read these. Instead, you scroll all the way to the bottom. Scroll all the way to the bottom. This will give you the road map. Go to the bottom and look at the conclusion. We're scroll, uh, conclusion. There we go. Now we have a road map for how to read this thing. You read the conclusion first. In relying largely on hearsay, deemed reliable by rule, the state has failed to prove by probable cause has failed to prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of each of the charged evidence. Right there is them saying that is the defense saying we can see nothing. We can see nothing. We do not concede that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. We don't concede the Tyler Robinson. Did anything illegal sent text messages confessed to anything? They told Lance twigs not to comply. New there were 14 year olds in the crowd. We concede nothing. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know how to read illegal filing or they're fundamentally a dishonest actor. I think there's a little bit of both in this to be honest with you. I think there's a little bit of both in here so they concede absolutely nothing. For this reason, along the court must decline bind over not bind over on particular charges bind over on everything. Now then they're going to go with their strongest argument. The state has not provided the court with sufficient evidence as a matter of law to satisfy the sole aggravator in the information. Okay, so we know they're going to spend a long time talking about the aggravator charge. That's the charge that elevates this to the death penalty. Under controlling constitutional law and Utah Supreme Court interpretation, the court cannot find based on the state's evidence that the circumstances presented a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk and himself and that the shooter knew of this high probability of the death of another. In other words, they did not meet this burden. Even if you find that he did meet, they state did meet the burden on preventing presenting enough credible evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, we do not believe they met this aggravator burden. Finally, this is your next strongest argument. The court should decline bind over on aggravators count six and seven and we'll talk about what those counts are in just a minute. So understand that you're being lied to. If you're talking to anyone, if you're reading anything that says that the state conceded Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, that person is either an idiot or a liar. There's no third option. They're either, well, idiot. They're uninformed. They're ignorant or they're a liar. If you're hearing it from a lawyer, they're a liar because they know how to read these documents. If you're hearing it from some fed slapper, they might just be a paid operative running with talking points from a group chat, the group of 92, the group of 40 or some other group chat. That would be a reasonable interpretation. Now, so let's go to the introduction. Now, one more thing I'll say about this real quickly. If you get a thousand lawyers to all try this case, we're all going to try it differently. If you get a thousand lawyers to write this brief, we're all going to write it differently. It's just a matter of opinion. I mean, you have the four gospels and they were all written differently. How many angels were present at the resurrection? Well, depends on who you read. Who got to the tomb first? It depends on who you read. What was said? It depends on which gospel you read. There are differences in those stories. That's the foundational, fundamental story of Christianity, and it differs based on who wrote it. Don't take my word for it. Go look it up. You'll see what I'm talking about. That's not to say it's not true. Just like this thing, this case, just because I might have written this brief differently, just because some other lawyer might have written this brief differently, does not mean that they got it wrong. It just means that every single lawyer approaches every single case with his trillions of experiences that made up who he or she is in their life, and they chose to lead with a certain strategy. They chose to pursue a certain strategy. Maybe I would have chosen a different strategy. That doesn't make my strategy right and their strategy wrong. It just makes them different. Now, maybe one strategy would be better. I don't know. I don't know. You had four different lawyers on this. Four experienced lawyers working on this. I think you can see in the filing the different things they write differently. They absolutely write differently. Let me pull it back up. I want to roll through some of this because a lot of people are reading from the top. They don't read the conclusion first. They're concluding that the only thing the defense is arguing, I keep calling it the state. The only thing that the defense is arguing is that the aggravator doesn't apply because right here we read the first paragraph. On September 16th, they charged Tyler Robinson, the state had over 10 months to investigate, and the state's presentation of its as an evidence as to this alleged circumstance and aggravation at the preliminary hearing, holy fails to carry burden of proof. They think, oh, they must only be talking about the aggravating factors. They must have forgotten everything else. Well, they didn't. They didn't. It's actually in this intro as well. They talk about all of it or not intro in the argument itself. Right there. The state has failed to prove by prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of the charged evidence. The court must decline to bind over on all charges. They are not admitting Tyler Robinson did anything that day. Keep that in mind. You have to keep that in mind as you read this. So what are they talking about? What is the intro talking about? Well, they talk about the thing they raise time and time again. This is all based on hearsay that's not been assessed for reliability in Utah. That's fine. Okay. Well, if it's law and Utah, why do they keep bringing it up? Because a federal court may disagree. Or maybe the Utah Supreme Court will decide this is the time that they disagree and they change the law in Utah. Just because the judge is required to follow Utah law as unciated by the Supreme Court does not mean that the litigants themselves cannot argue in good faith for a change of that law. That happens all the time. That's how laws get changed in the first place. Somebody raises the issue to trial court. The trial judge says, I'm not allowed to do anything about it. I'm compelled to follow the law here. And then the Supreme Court comes along and changes the law. That happened to me in a case famously. The state Supreme Court of Florida changed the law in order to convict a or in order to throw out a dismissal on a case I was working on. We got the case dismissed at the trial court level on a criminal case because the law did not speak on his crime. It goes up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, well, we're going to change the law. We'll allow the law now to encompass your client. Okay. Well, thanks. Appreciate that. That happens though. That happens. And the only reason the Supreme Court changed the law is because the state argued that it should. But the trial judge said, I have no choice. I have to dismiss this case. Just like the trial judge here is going to say, I have no choice. I have to send this to trial. But on appeal, if Tyler Robinson is convicted on appeal, it'll go up and the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to weigh in on this. If not, the federal courts will have an opportunity to weigh in on this. This is particularly true as it relates to the evidence cited by the state to establish identity. In other words, how do we know that's Tyler Robinson? How do we know that's Tyler Robinson? It largely came from Lance Twigs. He was the guy who identified him. It largely came from Lance Twigs text messages. Those text messages were never authenticated. But they are necessarily hearsay. They're presented to the court for the truth of the matter asserted that they are the text messages. And they were never authenticated and so they're arguing here saying, Hey, by the way, you should change the law here in Utah. This isn't right. He's talking about his texts, talking about the discord messages, talking about, talking about the identification of Tyler Robinson from you, uh, the security footage. Again, that footage itself was never authenticated. It was just officer bag boy looking at it, officer whole looking at it saying, yeah, it kind of looks like Tyler. I mean, he's wearing a maroon shirt, isn't he? Ain't everybody in a maroon shirt? Tyler Robinson. And that what we learned from the media. I think this is interesting too, uh, and I want to pull up this document in a second. But the state would not permit Lance twigs to be called as a witness in person. A witness, the court would not allow Mr Robinson to seek a subpoena from another state to testify at a preliminary hearing. The statement of Lance twigs came in, you'll recall as a zoom call, a very strange looking zoom call. And we looked at that zoom call and said, man, you looks like he's saying words at times that his mouth isn't moving. Looks like sometimes his mouth is moving and no words are coming out. Has this been edited? How do we know this is what they say it is? Well, they never authenticated it. And they never brought him in to testify. Here's the judge ordering that he will not be called in to testify. The defense applied to compel him to come testify. The state said, no, we do not want Lance twigs. Even though Lance twigs is the whole sum of the case, even though we cannot possibly convict Tyler Robinson without Lance twigs, we find Lance twigs such a lousy witness that we don't want him anywhere near this case at this stage. We're afraid he'll blow it up for us. That's the only explanation I have. They hid Lance twigs from us and judge graph went along with it. This was his order. It's a long order. It was thought out. And here's what he said, the preliminary hearing is limited to determining probable cause. It's not a discovery device. The state can rely on this hearsay. And the enforcement of the subpoena is not warranted on the present record. I don't know why he didn't put a period at the end of that sentence, but I'm not judge graph. Now, Emma. Emma. The defendant has failed to identify specific anticipated testimony that's reasonably likely to negate probable cause, which is ludicrous in my opinion. How do you know what he's going to say? And let's you ask him as distinguished for an anticipated impeachment that would merely create competing credibility, inferences, oh, we've lost my document. I'll pull it back up. So the judge did not want Lance twigs in court, nor did the state want Lance twigs in court. That ought to tell you how confident they are in their case. That ought to tell you right there that the case is pretty lousy if we're being honest. It has to be pretty lousy. Now let's go back to the filing. Now that we're through the initial part of the argument, let's go through the finding here. Now, one of the things you'll notice is that the court, I mean, the defense spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the aggravating factor. They spend almost no time talking about anything else, but they spend a lot of time talking about the aggravation. In fact, it goes from page two right here, all the way to page two, all the way to, where does it go? Top of page 27. It goes from two to the top of page 27. This is all talking about the aggravation, whether or not Tyler Robinson should be put to death as opposed to just life in prison, or just penalized for the murder itself. Is this a death penalty case? This is all going towards the aggravation. We'll talk about some of this stuff here, but I just want to show you how much time they spent on the aggravation. You've got to go all the way to the top of page 27. You might ask yourself, why didn't they spend this much time talking about everything else? Well, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Am I saying they did a bad job? No. No, I'm not saying they did a bad job. I'm saying their strategy differ from a strategy I might have employed, because they led with and really only discussed the aggravation. They wanted to know did he knowingly create a great risk of death to a person other than Charlie Kirk and they wanted to know if there was any kind of reliable hearsay about Charlie Kirk's political or religious positions. Those were where they spent the bulk of it. And if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Even though I might have tried the case differently, even though I might have filed this differently, even though a lot of other lawyers probably would have written other words in different orders, they're trying to create a record of appeal so that they can get the death penalty taken off the table. Get the death penalty off the table. You get a little more wiggle room, a little more wiggle room. Maybe the defendant testifies when he otherwise would not have testified. Maybe we bring in different arguments, different witnesses. We've got to figure out right now, are we facing a death penalty case? Or is this just a regular murder case? So you have section one, they're talking about the aggravator relative to the other people being around. Section two, they're talking about telling Lance twigs to remain silent as for a lawyer. Is that rise to the level of aggravation on interfering with the witness? Section three, is there a knowledge of a child under the age of 14 being present for the commission of a murder? And then the victim targeting enhancement. Do we know whether or not he killed him because of religion? Is there credible evidence to believe he killed him because of religion or political beliefs rather than just being a psychopath, being a crazy murderer? Those believe it or not, that matters. We colloquially refer to those things as hate crimes, right? Republicans aren't supposed to like hate crimes, but this whole case really rests on hate crimes, really, really less on hate crimes. So let's roll through some of these specifics in here, let's go back up and roll through some of these specifics that they keep referring to on X and on other places to determine whether or not we agree that these are the types of things that are the defense admitting anything. Let's roll down to our first highlight here. Beginning at 12, 15, 20. We have surveillance that begins at 12, 15, 20. Then then the videos jumped to 12, 22, 12 when a figure is seen running west across the Losis Center roof, I raised this issue, they're raising it sort of what the hell happened in those seven minutes that they don't want us to see. What was the alleged Tyler Robinson doing? What was the figure on the roof doing in those seven minutes? There's a murder trial, this is a capital offense. You guys supposedly are super confident in your case. If you're super confident in your case, then you're not trying to sandbag this and you're not trying to frame Tyler Robinson, then just show us the footage, it's seven minutes. You had five full days for this preliminary hearing. What would another seven minutes have done? And I'll say this, let me say this, ask to the missing evidence. That evidence better all be presented at trial. If this goes to trial, that evidence better all be there. It should all be released in full, in total. No evidence should be missing from this case. Every single piece of video footage from that day, from their surveillance cameras, better be provided to the defense and it better be available to see the light of day should the defense want to see it. It's not the only camera, the computer science building camera. And there better not be a missing second in there that the defense, that the prosecution failed to hand over. And if it is, they better show us all the camera broke. Oh, yeah, the camera broke, really? Like it did with Epstein. The camera broke. It just broke. Yeah, it was broken that day guys, sorry, but only for a little, was it broken for seven minutes or do you have that footage? If you have that footage, release the footage, show the footage. What was he doing up there? Was he assembling a rifle? Was he talking on the phone? Was he ordering a pizza? Did he have lunch? Did he eat a bowl of spaghetti? We don't know. Did somebody else come up there and talk to him? Did he pick up a phone and call someone? Did he text anyone? Did he put in a listening device so we could hear what was going on at the tent? We have no idea what happened in those seven minutes, and I think it's important. Further, because we can't identify the guy running, you can't identify him. I mean, it's just a blob. They even call them the figure here, the figure, not the side. aspect, not the shooter, the figure. Because we cannot identify the figure scene running west across the Lose Center roof, that seven minutes becomes really critical. Because how do we know it's the same person? We're just supposed to take your word for it. We see a figure emerge at 12 15 20. And then it goes away. And then the video stops and all the sudden we see a figure running and we're just supposed to assume it's the same figure. I'd like to see that he never left the camera. What if he walked up? What if, what if, what if, just, what if, what if the figure that we see walk up to the roof at 12 15 20 walks up to the roof and then leaves and then walks back down the stairs and then walks back up there? How do you know it's the same figure? Could be two figures. The point is we don't know. We don't know. Now could the judge look at that and say, well, that's a lack of credibility? Yes. Actually, he could. The judge could look at it and say, I'm not going to consider that footage because you didn't show me all of it. All of it wasn't made available to me. How am I supposed to know? It's the same. You're just telling me it is. Does that rise to the level of a lack of credibility? I honestly don't know when you told whether that would hold or not because the state said it's the same guy. Maybe that they're, he's required to go with that. I'm not, I'm not exactly sure. I don't particularly like that. Now let's go to, is this Tyler Robinson? Cause I keep reading everywhere on X that they confess this is Tyler Robinson, seen all over these cameras. Stapes exhibit 12 1 and 4 contained video of an individual. This state's witnesses identified as Mr Robinson. So right there, they're not conceding its Tyler Robinson on campus. They're not conceding that's Tyler Robinson on campus. Instead, what they're saying is the state has identified him as Tyler Robinson. And we understand judge for the purpose of his hearing. You're probably compelled to go with the state's position that that is. In fact, Tyler Robinson, but we don't concede it, your honor. He was identified based on unauthenticated footage and hearsay. Then we got down here, a vehicle is seen matching Mr Robinson's on campus. Judge, we don't even concede that's his car on campus. We concede that it's a car. And we can see that it looks a lot like Tyler Robinson's, but we're not conceding. It's even Tyler Robinson's car on campus. And again, an individual state witness identified as Mr Robinson returning to his vehicle. So all these appearances you see on campus, they're not conceding that's Tyler Robinson. I've seen over and over. And I'll show you examples of it in a minute from X where people are like, they told they said it was Robinson. They admit it's him. No, they don't. But once you, once you make the claim that this is all these identifications are based on a state witness identifying him or a vehicle matching or another state witness identifying him, you don't have to keep saying it every single time. Now you can refer to him as Mr Robinson for the rest of the pleading. Why? Because you have to evaluate. Go back to the law. I showed you you have to evaluate this evidence in the light most favorable to the state. They're claiming it's Mr Robinson. Therefore, we can talk as if it is for the purposes of this pleading that is not us conceding it's him. This paragraph right here in the middle of page 14 is them saying we're not conceding it's him. Here's another one, the individual identified as Mr Robinson has seen returning to campus in different clothing and walking with a limb. Class, are they saying that's Mr Robinson? No. So if they refer to him later as Robinson, are they saying, are they changing their mind in the middle of the filing? They decided all of a sudden, you know what? We are going to concede as Robinson. No. They even have a footnote here. The state did not show footage of the individual identified as Mr Robinson's movements in and around campus during their hearing only the footage from the parking structures. He's identified as Mr Robinson. But we know, Judge, you're compelled by the Utah Supreme Court to assume now because they've identified him as Mr Robinson that it is in fact, Mr Robinson. This would be a very long pleading. If every time they talked about this figure moving around campus, this figure moving on the roof, this figure walking with a limb, this figure supposedly having a gun down his pants, this figure supposedly walking through parking structures, this figure supposedly getting in the prone position. This would be a very long pleading far beyond the 35 page limit that the judge kept them to. If every single time they referenced that figure, they had to write out this long narrative about how they contested at him. Judge, we're going to talk about a figure. Again, the figure we're talking about the state has identified it as Tyler Robinson. We can test that. They, you know, unauthenticated. It's here. Say, you can't do that and meet the 35 page burden and introduce all your arguments. And again, I say, anyone who claims to be a lawyer who is telling you that they are confessing that this was, in fact, Tyler Robinson is lying to your face, anyone who's not a lawyer. So if Andrew Colvette or Jack Pasobick or Blake Neff or any of these hangers on any of those people, tell you that this is, in fact, Tyler Robinson and his defense team is admitting it's Tyler Robinson. Any of those people, well, they might just be stupid. It's possible. Very, it's frankly probable. Frankly, it's probably very likely. They're just, they're just not very bright. They saw something and they're like, yeah, that sounds right. Let's get them. But lawyers should know better. No lawyer should be telling you they've admitted anything. They've specifically time and time again. According to Agent Hall, the individual he identifies as Mr. Robinson is seen walking in a parking structure. This is them saying time and time again, we cannot identify this guy as Robinson. We're not conceding that it's Robinson. We're just telling you that they're referring to him as Robinson. It's irritating. Wait till I pull up these ex posts after I've gone through this. You won't believe these people saying the things they're saying. All right, let's scroll down and look at these text messages. We got new text messages. In these new text messages, like we had these already, if police ask you any questions, ask for lawyers. They silent. My lawyer should be Doug Terry. I'll see if he can reach out to you and make sure the police follow the right procedures, proper warns and stuff. But be polite and respectful. Of course, now some of that's actually new. This last part is actually new. This is Tyler Robinson taking on the role of a lawyer, advising Lance twigs of his rights. But bam, bam, bam, bam. Are you at, is this the defense admitting these were Tyler Robinson's text messages? No, no, that's not what they're admitting. I can't be any more clear about this guys. This is not none of this is an admission that any of this was Tyler Robinson or any of this is accurate. They've already said these were unauthenticated. They've already said that they shouldn't be admitted. But they have to argue that even if your honor finds that these are in fact credible and you are going to consider them and even if, even if we take all of this evidence as, as, as accurate, they still don't meet their burden. That's it. So when they say Mr. Robinson's advice to Mr. twigs was as followed, they're not conceding that Mr. Robinson wrote those text messages to Mr. twigs. What they're saying is even if he did, all he's telling him to do is to make sure the police follow the right procedures. Well, that's not interfering with, this is the defense argument. That's not interfering with a witness. Make sure they have proper warrants and stuff. Okay. Well, as that's not necessarily interference, the police should have the proper warrants and stuff. Be polite and respectful, of course. Well, that's not interference. That's good advice for everybody. He says to Mr. twigs again, but bear, bear, bear, bear. They keep saying he, they keep referring to Tyler Robinson. Are you sure they're not admitting that's Tyler Robinson? Yes, I'm confident. I'm absolutely confident. They're not admitting that. None of this is going to be in front of a jury. None of these pleadings will make it in front of a jury. They will have the opportunity to go after the authentication. They'll have the opportunity to explain, should they decide to strategically, that he didn't author any of these, these aren't his text messages. But for the sake of this pleading, because they're in evidence, we have to operate as if they are Tyler Robinson and then we have to articulate why we don't believe they meet the standard, even if they're true. He says to Mr. twigs, I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. We hope to keep things sort of quiet here. I only hope they let you visit. And then we have an ellipses, meaning Lance Twix said something, I'm going to miss you too. Please be good for me. Is he good girling Lance Twix? Are you going to be a good puppy? He's not good girling. He's good for you. Are you going to be a good furry? Be good for me. Be a good boy. Luna, Luna. Sorry, I didn't get back to the serious stuff here. Now try not to get too off-base again. If you need anything at all, both of my parents are willing to help you, please go to them. Leave the room alone. You cannot be anymore. Don't interfere with evidence than that. The feds will search it top to bottom for certain, then work with my family to sort it out what goes where and such. In other words, don't go into my room and hide evidence. Don't go into my room and hide evidence. Don't go into my room and try to start changing things around. Don't remove anything. Just leave it alone. The feds will come in. They'll get anything they need. And then after it's done, it'll be torn apart. And you can work my parents on how to put things back together. In response to Mr. Twig's question, is there any way you don't go to prison? Mr. Robinson responded. I highly doubt it. I will update you as much as I can if you need a place to stay. I'm sure my family would have you in my old room. It's a little weird to me because why would Lance Twig's need a place to stay? He's staying in his own house. Tyler was actually Lance's roommate, not the other way around. It's not like they're losing the place because Tyler got arrested. Lance is still very much not arrested. You're all I worry about love. Don't talk to an immediate please. Don't take any interviews or make comments. I will always love you too. I will write to you as often as possible. If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. In other words, you have a right to remain silent. Anything you say canna will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. That's all he's doing is reading him as Miranda writes. Make sure the police follow the right procedure. Proper warns and stuff be polite and respectful, of course. We've already read that one. These statements by Mr. Robinson. Oh, they're admitting Baron that they're statements by Tyler Robinson. Again, no, they are not. Baron, you're being repetitive. I know because people are stupid. People are stupid. It's a shame that they're stupid, but they're stupid. And I have to correct them time and time again. What they're saying here is even if that's true, it's just altruistic advice. All he's doing is telling him if he did indeed author those, which we contest. He's just telling him he has fifth amendment rights asked for a lawyer and to stay silent. This is not an attempt to impede a proceeding. Therefore, count six must be stricken. Now, is that going to fly? I doubt it. I doubt it. I think he'll let a jury decide that. But that's where they went with that argument. So let's go look at what people are saying about this. Now that we've gotten a, oh, let me go back to this real quick. Let me go back to what a judge may consider. Now that we've gone through this. I'll do it much quicker this time, but I think it's important now that we've gone through this to look at the standard. Let's just roll down here to the last two paragraphs that we covered before. So what may the judge consider? He may make credibility determinations on a limited basis. The probable cost standard demands reasonable belief rather than mere belief. So he must make some sort of reasonable determination relative to credibility. He may only disregard or discredit evidence that is wholly lacking and incapable of creating a reasonable inference regarding a portion of the prosecutor's claim. So go back and look at those text messages. Go back and look at those identifications. Go back and look at the evidence that was discussed in their pleading. The judge is going to look at that and they have testimony from Lance Twigs and Bagboy and they have testimony from Hall that they think it's Tyler Robinson. They have testimony from Lance Twigs that he thinks the text messages came from Tyler Robinson. And so he's going to be limited to that. He's going to have to assume for the sake of his hearing that that's what happened. And if that's what happened, then he's going to say, if he believes based on that, that it's, it's, it raises the, it reaches the bar of reasonable belief, then he's going to have to send it to a jury. He has no choice. He has no choice. He's bound. And it's inappropriate for him to weigh credible but conflicting evidence. But bear, bear, bear. Why didn't they raise any of your conspiracy theories? Why didn't they go into Candace's shows and show clips? Well, that's why they're not the judges not permitted to consider any of that. So why would they do it? They didn't raise the, the exploding microphone. Correct. Yeah, they didn't. They didn't raise the necklace was a, yeah, you're right. They didn't raise a gun from a different location. Indeed, they did not. They did not. They didn't say it wasn't Tyler Robinson. You're right. They didn't. Yeah, because it doesn't matter. The judge wouldn't be allowed to consider it. That would be considered credible and conflicting evidence. And he's not allowed to weigh that. He would have to go with the state's version. So if he has to go with the state's version anyway and the state puts up a version, then we just have to argue that that version they put up didn't meet it didn't meet the burden. That's the nature of the preliminary hearing. That's all that's being discussed here. That's all that's being determined. So are Tyler's lawyers sandbagging him? Are they part of the, of the scheme to convict Tyler? Well, we don't know. I don't think so. I think they've done an okay job to date. I genuinely do. Other lawyers have tried this differently today. Sure. Sure. Might they filed other pleadings? Probably. Probably. Would they have raised different arguments? Perhaps. But is the lack of doing that evidence? Strong evidence or even an inference that they're actually working with the government to convict Tyler Robinson. I don't think so. I don't think you can jump to that conclusion. I think that would be improper. It would be as improper as the people who are all over X saying that Tyler Robinson's attorney's admitted this and admitted that and I'll go through some of those in a minute again. But as the standard says here, you have to view the facts in light. Most favorable to the prosecution. That's that line right here. This top blue blob. The bottom line right there. Must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. His ability to make credibility determination is not limited to only disregarding testimony that can't possibly be true. You can only though consider alternatives or disregard evidence when it becomes so contradictory, so inconsistent, so unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base beliefs on an element of the prosecutor's claim of that evidence. And that's what they're arguing. That's what they're arguing considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. We don't believe it meets the burden. We don't believe the prosecution has met their burdens in this trial. I don't believe judge graph will agree with them. I think the judge will send this trial. That is not evidence that judge graph thinks Tyler Robinson did it. It's not evidence that Tyler Robinson's lawyers are admitting he did anything. It's not evidence that Tyler Robinson's lawyers are in on it and somehow working against Tyler Robinson. All of those things may be true. We can't know from these pleadings and I don't believe they're true. I don't I genuinely, as I said here right now, I do not believe Tyler Robinson's lawyers are working against him. I'm subject to change on that. I could be convinced otherwise. But as I said here today, I'm not convinced. I think they did a fair job on that pleading. I think they did a fair job. So here are some of my issues. When people are complaining or claiming that the prosecution has conceded the authenticity of the texts or conceded the identification of Tyler Robinson or conceded that Tyler Robbins or the Charlie Kirk was even shot or that he was shot from the low sea center roof or that he was shot with a 30 out of six. When people are claiming that the defense conceded that Tyler Robinson was on campus at all or that he intended to kill Charlie Kirk, I think it would have been nice for the defense to throw in sort of an all encompassing judge. We disagree with all this by the way. You understand that right? We don't think any of that's true. We understand the legal standard requires this and so we're going to argue it as if that's the case. It would have been nice to see a throw away line like that. It's not required. required, but it would have been nice to see. Maybe they'll throw that in at the oral summation on September 1st. Maybe they'll show up and the first things out of their mouth will be just want to clarify a few things, Judge, in light of the way these pleadings were covered. We're not conceding anything. We don't know how Charlie Kirk died. We don't know whether Tyler Robinson was even on campus. We're not conceding any of that. But for the sake of this argument, we're going to argue in the light most favorable to the state. So please accept everything we say in that light. Maybe they'll give us a line like that. I don't know. They don't have to. They don't have to. And the reason is because they're not trying it for you. They're not filing these pleadings for you. They're not filing these pleadings for me. They're not filing these pleadings for TPSA. They're not filing these pleadings for anybody. They're filing these pleadings for Tyler Robinson and for Judge Graf and for the state of Utah. And they know the standard. They all know what has to be said. They all know what the burden is. They all know that all this evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the defendant. So let's go through some of these absolutely ridiculous claims. Oh, first, I give you a quick update here. Did I know this? When we do a matinee show, this is always a concern. So I'm going to alleviate this concern right out of the gate. We have an update from the principal, ladies and gentlemen. We have an update from the principal. Okay, officially bumping my show today because I'm realizing it would be a total mistake for me to do my show on this recent defense filing when we are less than two days away from the great debate. I of course have a lot to say about it as always, but forcing myself to stay mom on it until me and Andrew come face to face on Friday. Please appreciate how difficult it is for me to exercise this level of restraint as the usual suspects put on the typical 4K HD theater. So the principal has opted out of doing a show today. That way, anything she says on her show, Andrew can't go prepare for as he gets ready for his debate. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. But I know as we do our matinee shows, people sometimes wonder when she's going to set a time. Is it going to be while we're still on the air? Are we going to have to hurry and get out of here? Take heart, ladies and gentlemen. None of that is going to be the case. I want to go first to Viva, tiny Viva, diminutive Viva. I want to go to Viva. I want to show you how now he claims to be a lawyer granted. He's not a lawyer in the United States. So I'm going to give him a pass and just say he's ignorant and not a liar. I am making my way through the Tyler Robinson defense filing. This motion is from the defense. He bolded that, ladies and gentlemen, case we didn't know. It is not from the prosecution. It cannot be written off as fed slop. Unless I am misreading or missing something, it seems even the defense is not denying the authenticity of the text messages. Well, we covered that. We covered that. Others who need not be named have been vigorously denying and puning the authenticity of those text messages. Well, I have been, I mean, you can name me. I've been impugning and denying. And I will say right now they've not been authenticated as we sit here today. They've not been authenticated. Nevertheless, they have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution for the purposes of that pleading. Correct. The defense in fact appears to be admitting the authenticity of those text messages. That's nonsense. That's nonsense. Again, he's a lawyer, but he's a Canadian lawyer. And I don't know what kind of lawyers they are up there. I don't know if they're real or not. Like they, the police force, whereas ridiculous outfits, I don't know. Do their lawyers? I mean, it's Canada. Canada's fine. I like you people up there. But they drink a lot of syrup. They prefer blue beer, libats blue. They watch a lot of hockey. You know, I mean, maybe they don't watch a lot of American courtroom drama. Maybe they don't understand American courtroom procedure. So I'm not, I'm not calling him a liar, even though I said lawyers would be liars if they took this tact. They're merely denying the legal consequences that flow from those text messages. Yeah, that's correct. That's correct. That is the role in this pleading. Even the defense is not denying the authenticity of the text message. I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. Yeah, because this is not the time to make it. They're just arguing it doesn't translate to any threat or intended harm to other individuals. That's, that's fully correct for the purposes of this pleading. That is the standard. Viva. Surely you understand standards. I hope you covered that in Canadian law school. And the other statements were altruistic, not made dinner free with the state investigation or proceeding. If anyone disagrees with my analysis understanding, please feel free to let me know in the replies. I'm not going to let you know in the replies. They did say alleged, but apparently Viva read past that. So that's, that's the Veevster. That's one person. What about Hebrew Colvet? What is Hebrew Colvet's take on this? He has an interesting take. He is also not a lawyer. He is probably the worst PR person in the history of mankind. If you've watched TPSA circle to drain here in the last 11 months, you'll understand. No. Oh, he's got the word new in there, guys. That means pay attention to me. I'm Andrew Colvet. And response to the state's motion for public cause Tyler Robinson defense argues this shouldn't be a death penalty case because Tyler Robinson didn't kill and tend to kill any one other than Charlie. The apparent defense strategy here isn't to prove that Tyler Robinson didn't kill Charlie Kirk, but that he didn't intend to kill anyone else and that therefore this should not be a death penalty case. I'm not sure exactly who he's quoting here. Robinson's lawyers argued the state has failed to establish probable cause. The shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk in himself unreal. Well yeah, because that's what's happening here. That's the that's the standard. And then he says that about sums it up in response to this is looking like the defense attorneys are pretty much admitting Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, but don't want him to receive the death penalty. Well, that's how you took it, Michelle Chenoweth, but are you a criminal defense attorney? Do you understand the standards? Are you licensed in Utah? That about sums it up. By the way, on page 22, the defense admits it's Robinson in the stairwell again. No, they don't. No, they don't, but he quotes that evidence shows Mr. Robinson walking up downstairs. This is what I'm talking about. This is why I felt like it was so important to do the show today because I'm seeing nonsense like this and it cannot stand uncontested. What about cake sniff? What about big cake sniff? He has an opinion as well. That is informed and ignorant, uninformed and ignorant, but I would expect nothing less from one of the worst human beings I've ever encountered. Candace is having her latest blow up because the defense is new 41 page filing in the Tyler Robinson case uses exactly none of the wild claims she spent the last 11 months pushing cake. This is not the time or place. Even if they raised all of it and the judge believed all of it, he would be not permitted to consider it. Blake is not a lawyer. I'm not even sure what Blake is. He was a producer, whatever that is. He's a rabid racist, but that's a different story for a different day. Rather than make the case that Robinson is not guilty, the filing focuses almost exclusively on trying to spare him the death penalty. Yeah, we covered that. Only one page contesting the actual murder evidence filing admits Charlie was killed by a rifle shop from the Lofsy Center. Yeah, because that's the evidence that that's the claim the state made. That's the evidence they put forward and you're required to believe it for the purpose of this pleading. Filing never argues that Robinson was not at you, the you again again. That's that's absolutely correct. Cake 100% correct. The filing admits Robinson was texting with Lance Twig. Yeah, it does. It does. It admits he was texting with Lance Twig, but bear bear bear bear. You just said that they didn't admit any of that. They didn't. But now you say in the filing admits it. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. Law is not as easy as cake sniff thinks it is. Professional lawyers, unlike dishonest podcasters, are you calling me a dishonest podcaster? Have ethical obligations that bar them from saying things they know are untrue? Well, professional lawyers also have ethical obligations that require them to follow the legal standard in a pleading. Can you can you imagine for the sake of argument? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the lawyers went rogue and they started raising all these theories and they started saying he wasn't at UVU and they started saying all this stuff and they have 35 total pages. The judge limited it to 35 and they spend all 35 pages arguing all these other things. Can you imagine the malpractice suit they would have facing them? Can you imagine the bar action? They would have facing them. Can you imagine the post trial relief that Tyler Robinson would be raising on the account of ineffective assistance of counsel? Because they would have disregarded the law in Utah, disregarded the legal standard for a preliminary hearing and raised issues a judge legally is not permitted to consider. That's essentially what what Blake is arguing they should have done. That's what they're arguing he should have done. Big beautiful Blake. That's what they're arguing. He's that's what Blake is arguing they should have done disregarded the legal standard. And provide Tyler Robinson a defense that falls far below the legal standard. Brazilian butt lift Blake. Daisy, this is no time to be funny. Then we have people we've never even heard of who are weighing in. Someone named Sarah Fields, I've never heard of this person, but I see a lot of people retweeting what she had to say. So I went and read what it was. She said, tell me if you're starting to see a pattern here from people who are ignorant of how law works breaking Tyler Robinson's defense filing is out. The entire filing is absolutely ludicrous. Thank you for using one of my favorite adjectives, providing the entire filing the thread with my summary. Tyler Robinson's defense is essentially arguing that yes, Charlie Kirk was deliberately targeted. Yes. One shot was fired directly at him and yes, Robinson allegedly admitted I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk out and I took it. But somehow the state is reaching too far with the additional charges and aggravating factors. This is a perfectly fine summary for someone who has no idea what the hell they're talking about. This is a perfectly fine summary for someone who has never tried a case who's never argued in front of a judge who's never had to look at the different standards at different stages. This is a perfectly fine understanding for for a moron. The fact that this tweet has been retweeted how many times now? 683 times. Tells you there are at least 683 people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. So that is Sarah Fields, whoever the hell she is. Then we have Gunther Eagleman, what an unfortunately named individual. Gunther Eagleman. I don't know if he's a lawyer and I think he's a let me look at his profile, what is Gunther Eagleman? He is a political commentator, an opinion and satire, maybe this is satire. Host of the double Eagleman podcast, maybe this is satire, I didn't even consider the fact that this could be satire. I was taking him in his word here, but let's look at it anyway. Gunther Eagleman. Defense is still trying to stop this from going to trial. Meanwhile, the evidence against him is overwhelming. Oh, we're back to overwhelming evidence. We're back to overwhelming evidence. Legal experts say this case is going to trial. I tend to agree with him. The death penalty is still very much on the table. I also tend to agree with him there. Defense is fighting hard to knock the capital charges down. I tend to agree with him there as well. They're going to lose. Well, yeah, I mean, you just told me the evidence is overwhelming. So I automatically discredit much of what you say. Oh, smoke boy, who's going to be arguing, presumably, who's going to be arguing this pleading with Candace Owens on Friday, smoke boy weighs in. What does smoke boy have to say? Well, let's find out. Now that the defense is, the defense filing is public and it outlines that Tyler deliberately targeted Kirk took the shot and admitted that he did it after the fact. The Tyler freedom gang are going to double down on their theory that the defense is also in on it. Well, not exactly. I mean, maybe some, but I don't think they necessarily are, and I don't think they're necessarily right when they say that. But again, notice that they just accepted all at face value. They don't do any analysis of what stage of litigation this is. What is required to be proved by the defense at any given time, they're just taking it at face value that this is exactly as they say it is now. That was smoke boy. What about undercover agent Pussobick? What does undercover agent Pussobick have to say about this? You know, he's always good for a nice theory. Maybe he's, maybe he's on our side. Well, not not not exactly Tyler Robinson defense team. The video evidence shows Mr. Robinson walking up and down the stairs at UV with a gate impaired by something long in his pant leg page 22 of today's filing well. What did you want them to say there in their 35 limited pages? You want them every time they reference him to, to, to contest it. They've already said they didn't meet any of the burden. What about Jane Doe? You know, I've also never heard of this person, but she's getting retweeted quite a bit. No idea who this person is or whether she's credible, but I do know she's not very bright on this issue. So let's take a look at what Jane Doe, you know, has to say, Tyler and Lance texts are real. Oh, okay. So you don't know how this works either, Jane Doe, you know Tyler Robinson is defense use the text between Tyler and Lance to argue throwing out witness tampering charge and the charge alleging a violent offense was committed in the presence of a child. I argue Robinson simply advising Lance to exercise his constitutional rights. And then they show the texts and then she highlights here with those texts to place. So she doesn't have a clue how this works either. But that did not stop people from retweeting and liking this. That did not stop them. What about tiny Gary? What about itty bitty Gary? What about the guy who has to jump up to get in a chair? What does Gary have to say? We know Gary's a dishonest actor when it comes to all this stuff. So let's, let's, let's look at his dishonest take care. Tyler Robinson's own defense confirms all caps, guys, he's serious. He might be diminutive, but he's angry here. He's very serious. Tyler Robinson's own defense confirms. It was Tyler in the videos and don't even attempt to deny he had a rifle. The evidence is so overwhelming. Guys, I remain not wellmed. I am not wellmed. I don't think the, the evidence rises to wellming, certainly not overwhelming. They are relegated to arguing that a screwdriver isn't proof he carried it disassembled. Tyler's cooked. And so are you fraud pod sloppers who have deceived millions and con them out of millions of dollars. He's got to be talking about Candace there, guys, I'm kidding. She's not a pod slaver. She's not conning anybody. This is a fundamental example of a guy who thinks he's so much smarter than he is. This is a fundamental example of somebody who looks at evidence and says, you know, maybe, maybe I should be a lawyer, even though I'm a tiny little former green beret. Maybe I would be a good lawyer. What about Andrea Burkhart? She's everybody's favorite fed slapper. She likes to take the state side and everything Tyler Robinson. What does she say? She's a lawyer. She's a lawyer. She's a good one. I think she's probably a very good lawyer. I've listened to her on a lot of things. Don't always agree with her, but there's always a lawyer on the other side, right? So if that means you're a good lawyer, if you're on this side or this side, every case has a lawyer on each side, they can both be good lawyers. What does she have to say about it? Will she agree with your humble host? For those you interested might take on the Tyler Robinson defense brief, they are arguing more or less what I predicted. They would argue in light of what evidence was presented. I went through it on my day five recap show here from my perspective. There's nothing unpredictable about these arguments. The defense has done a very comprehensive legal review of the limitations of the death penalty aggravator. It is not likely to win with judge graph who will defer to probable cause being a low standard in the jury being the decide or the facts. Oh, where have you heard that before? Your humble host just spent an hour and a half talking about this, but it's exactly the kind of argument about pure legal principle that may appeal to a reviewing judge down the road. Oh, they're setting it up for appeal. Hmm. Where have you heard that, guys? Where have you heard that? Not from not from cake, snap, not from Andrew Colvet. Not from tiny Gary. Where have you heard all this before? Oh, from a lawyer. It's also not surprising the defense isn't disputing the state's evidence because they didn't raise any challenge to it at the hearing. There's no basis for them to argue the evidence is unreliable or fabricated because they didn't elicit any facts at the hearing to suggest it was. Yeah, because they're not allowed to at that stage. They don't have the evidence in their possession. They can't introduce something they don't have. This doesn't mean they're conceding authenticity or foundation or any other argument that goes to admissibility at trial. Oh, my goodness, Garber. I feel so bad for you, Gary. If you had an ounce of shame in your body, it would be overwhelming you right now. It just means there were significant factual discrepancies about the authenticity of evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from it, such as the timing of the discord messages or whether the guy in camera looked like someone totally different from Tyler. We would have expected to already hear about that during Tyler's hearing because because they go to one of the elements of the crime Tyler's identity as the perpetrator. Everything we're seeing remains consistent with what you'd expect from a defense team who realizes that the fact defenses are a long shot and focuses their resources and their credibility on the battles they think they can win, if not today, then at least over the decades long time horizon of a difficult capital case. The only thing I would change on this is that they couldn't raise any of these issues at trial. They couldn't raise any of these issues at trial because they did not get the evidence. They don't hang on. They don't have the gun in their possession. They don't have the DNA reports in their possession. They don't have the camera, all the camera footage in their possession. They don't have the cell phone authentication stuff in their possession. They don't have the GPS stuff in their possession. What the hell do you expect to be introduced to trial? You expect them to say, "No, you can come back in." You expect them to say, "No, I was just going to say the pre-lim, not the trial. Sometimes people get that technology confused." That's a good call. That's a good call. Preliminary hearing. It acts kind of like a little mini trial on these issues. But if you don't have any of the evidence in your possession and you don't have sufficient time to review the evidence you do have, they raised that argument time and time again. The judge rejected it and set the preliminary hearing and made them go forward without it and said, "You don't need it at this stage." Okay. Well, how am I going to introduce any of this stuff? How can I introduce evidence I don't have? Nobody thought to ask that question along the way. But I agree with Andrea. This is not the time or the place to raise these issues. Not the time or place to raise these issues. And so from an attorney, we get an honest response. From all the influencer hacks who are just weighing in, we get what we saw earlier. A bunch of influencer hacks, just saying stuff and not understanding the burden. And so as you go out into the wild and people are discussing this, you can say, "Hey, hey, hey, hey." They didn't concede a thing. They've conceded nothing. All this stuff will be covered in evidentiary hearings, motions in limiting and raise a trial. All of it. I expected all to be thoroughly examined at the different stages before and during trial. That's it. That's how you read a legal filing like this. You don't just make stuff up. Well, I guess if you're Jack Pasobic or tiny Gary or Jane Doe, you know, or smoke boy or Gunther Eagleman or Sarah Fields or Kakesnaf or Hebrew Colvette or little Viva, I guess you do just make stuff up. Vivas should be ashamed. He's a lawyer. He should be better than that. But I'll give him a pass because he's Canadian. Maybe in Canada, they do things differently. I'm not sure. They're still a British whatever. They still I don't know. They still have the queen on their money or the king or whatever. All right. Let me switch gears here because now we have this is a honest to God. This is a thing. You guys know Frank Turg. We got this from honest ash on X. I'll show you this real quickly. I like to give everyone credit when we find something. Here's honest ash. She's a good follow. I don't agree with everything she says. I don't know why I have to say that all the time. Sure. She's a lovely person, whatever. I get so in trouble when I quote somebody or say I found something from somebody and then I get all these text message. You know what she said. You know what she. Stop it. I'm not read everything she's ever said. But I like this. I like this because what she found was Frank Turg is going into the new business. No longer is he just apologetics, ladies and gentlemen. He made his money as an apologetics guy. He has a whole it's like Christian in action or something. It's like CIA is the name of his group. I'm not kidding. You sign up and you go to CIA. That's a Frank Turg thing. I have no idea why he chose to name it that. But he has a new program out not just on Christian apologetics. He now has 37 questions to consider. A guy. This is honest to God. This is a thing. This is the thing he has on his website. A guide to discerning Candace Owens conspiracy theories. Evidence versus speculation and clarity when relationships are strained. He's back on this thing that people are getting divorced over Candace. No emotion, no exaggeration, just clear thinking. He should have just had only one thing I would add. No emotion, no exaggeration, just clear thinking in protective lenses. That's the only thing I would add to this. I would add the protective lenses thing because Frank, if you don't and people see you, they're not going to know what's going on. They're going to be very confused. So you might as well just hit them up front and let them know you wear protective lenses for some reason. You're constantly got on shooting glasses. Why we created this guide conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk's murder have strained marriages and friendships. These 37 questions from Frank Tertik cut through speculation, gossip and personality driven claims. They apply consistent standards of evidence, motive and biblical principles about false accusations. I want you to read some of these. There's a couple of these that are so shocking that I can't believe he put it on paper. For example, what motive did any of Charlie's friends or employees at TPUSA have to even want Charlie dead? Do you want us to go through these? Frank, do you want us to identify these? Hold on. Why does God threaten to kill people who abuse widows and orphans? Frank, yes, you buried that is number 16 of 37, but that is terrifying that you're telling people God wants critics of Erica Kirk dead. That is so irresponsible. I see why you wear your shooting glasses at all times. Does Deuteronomy 19 prescribe the death penalty for those who have falsely accused someone of murder? Oh my goodness, graces. This is so insightful. These people not only want Tyler Robinson dead. I think they want other people dead. This is ridiculous. Why haven't they called Candace as an expert witness? Huh? You have to ask that question. Why is there so much evidence against Tyler Robinson? That's not a thing, Frank. That's an opinion. That's your opinion. If foreign government wanted Charlie dead, why didn't they just kill him privately with no witnesses, not in front of thousands of with cameras rolling? What, huh? Where Charlie's views more friendly to Israel or Muslim countries? What? This is craziness. This is absolutely crazy, but I will go back to 16 and 17 year real quickly. It's particularly 17. Frank, you're accusing Tyler Robinson of murder. You're saying the evidence against him is overwhelming. What if it turns out he's acquitted or he didn't do it? What if, what if good evidence comes out? He wasn't even there that day. Are you signing up for the Deuteronomy 19 punishment? How does this work? Are you, this should just be like vigilantes? Do we take you to court? I mean, what do we do here, Frank? Now let me be very clear. I don't want anyone harmed at all ever. I don't want the state putting people to death in the death penalty. I don't want vigilantes going after people. I don't want anyone contacting Frank or Erica or Andrew or Blake or anyone else. I think that's inappropriate. But I think what Frank's doing here is also very inappropriate because I think those are the types of things that could get people hurt. You're telling people, God wants people dead. A lot of people who fervently want to follow God's desires and wishes carry out his will and you're telling people that that's God's will. I think it's horribly responsible, Frank. I think you know it too. It's a whole thing. It's a whole thing. They even have a. Actually, let me pull this down just a little bit because I don't want that video rolling below it. There we go. They have a whole thing on their Facebook page here. It's a short, so the easiest way to share it is this way. How do you lovingly respond when a friend or family member becomes consumed by conspiracy theories? Frank Tertik recently joined news nations, Katie Pavlich, to discuss the preliminary hearing. The damage false accusations can cause to real people and why Christians should be committed to the truth even when speculation is trending. Do you need help reasoning with someone who's convinced they've uncovered secret knowledge? Download our free PDF with 37 conversations starting questions to help encourage thoughtful gracious and biblically grounded discussions. Download it here and share it with your friends and lovers. I think anytime you're encouraging people to discuss whether or not God wants, let's just be honest, once Candace Owens dead, I mean, that's what you're saying, right, Frank? That's what you're saying. You've accused Candace Owens of these things and now you're saying Deuteronomy 19 and God himself wants this result. You don't find that remotely problematic, you don't find that remotely problematic. I do, I do. I think, I think it's so irresponsible. Frank Tertik has become, he didn't have to be. He's become for me one of the great monsters in this entire story. Frank was a guy who, if you just watched the video of the horrific events at UVU on September 10th. Frank was a guy who looked on camera like he's just recording the festivities. He's like the one guy in my opinion up next to the tent who acts like somebody who's genuinely surprised at happened. He hits the deck. He's scrambling around. He runs off and he jumps in the back of the truck, but he had a good argument. He's Charlie's friend. He wants to be there till the end. It's very unlike Blake and Mikey McCoy, who just, you know, Mikey McCoy plugs his ears and walks off and keeps plugging his ears until way off in the distance, I'm not sure quite what that was about, but Frank's the one guy whose reactions look pretty normal. In the very initial phases, I was like this guy couldn't possibly have had anything to do with this, but the more he talks, the more bloodthirsty he becomes. The more he sounds like somebody capable of pulling or being apart something like this. Now is he? I don't know, not accusing him of it, but I am permitted to have an opinion based on all available evidence. And I listened to your changing stories, your constantly changing narratives about what was done while we did CPR. No, we didn't do CPR. Well, maybe we did at the very end. Your hard line here, this, this divine punishment that should come to Candice and others who were investigating this, I think it's, I think it's worthy of a little harder look at Frank. Is Frank who we thought he was? Or is Frank a monster starting to believe he's a monster? Starting to have good reason, Frank, to believe you're a monster. One more fun thing here. I don't even know if this is fun, it's frankly weird. You know that JD Vance wrote a book, JD Vance wrote a book. It's called communion, finding my way back to faith. Well I'm encouraged people to find their way back to faith. I think if you read the book or if you know JD Vance's story, he left his faith for a number of years. And I think when he was 35 or so sort of made his way back to church, good, we love that. Search that. People dig in deep with the community, find a faith community you love, dig in, be moral, be good, be a better person, all in favor of that. What I'm not in favor of is where we found this book. Daisy sends me a copy of this, it says, did you know JD Vance wrote a book? No, I wasn't aware. A new book. Just coming out now. No, wasn't aware. Do you know where you buy it? No. I don't. Where do you buy it? You buy it on the TPSA website, TPSA.com/communion26. That's where you buy it. I guess you donate to reserve a copy. Donate at least $75 maybe? I'm not sure. You will receive your copy of communion as a special thank you for your donation of at least $75 to turning point USA. Huh? What's your distribution policy for this book? We're going to sell it through TPSA in exchange for donations. That's a little weird big man, especially when they're coming out and endorsing you for president. Seems a little quid pro-quoish to me if I'm being honest. I don't know whether JD Vance is a good guy or a bad guy. He's frankly not been on the national scene long enough, in my opinion, to have made that determination. I know a lot of people think he's a really good guy and I know a lot of people that think he's a monster. But I know this shocked me. I know this shocked me that this is how you get his book. You go to turning point, make a donation to turning point of at least $75 and you get a copy of his book. It's very strange, very, very, very strange. Oh, you can buy it out of the places, but yeah, you can get it at turning point. You can get it at turning point. I did have one more thing to cover today, but for the sake of time, I'll do it tomorrow. We'll probably do a show earlier tomorrow. If you like the video today, go ahead and give it a like. I know you hate when I have to say that, but if I don't say it, people forget. Please, by all means. I would love it if you'd hit the like button, share the video with people you think might benefit from a scholarly discussion of of what the filings are, a discussion based in reality, legal reality and not just wild speculation or crazy gotcha comments and trying to get shares on X and all that. But somebody, you know, and frankly, someone on the other side agrees with me. Look at Andrea Burkart's post that we covered. She sort of agrees that this is not the time or place to raise those issues and it is not a concession of any of these facts. I think anybody who said that stuff on X should delete it and probably put up a, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the legal standard. I apologize for misleading people, but we know they won't. We know they won't. That would require integrity. That would require honesty. And we don't anticipate that they will be doing that. But if you've not subscribed, go ahead and subscribe. If you'd like to join me, a member, you can. We got a lot of stuff on the member side that is a lot of fun. We had a member show yesterday that I thought was pretty fun. If you have not joined the clips channel, ladies and gentlemen, if you've not joined the clips channel, you can do so. I'll show you this here. This is, let me pull that down. This is the clips channel, Baron Coleman clips. It looks a lot like the branding on this channel, but it has this yellow clips in it. You get a little yellow circle here with clips. You go there and you get these little, I don't know, some of them 5, 10, 8, 12, 15, 20 minute clips. So different segments we've done. We've got an editor that goes through and distills those down. Adds a little music bed. It has a little fun with it, some fun little editing. But yeah, so you can go through there and check those out as well. Those are easily shareable, easily shareable. What a big day. What a big day. Word to the principles take on this. So what's your take? Am I wrong? Am I right? What do we got here? What do we got here? All right. Let's roll through some of these comments. Hey, B. Would you be so kind to wish my cool autistic son Cohen, the 1.3 pound baby, a happy birthday. He'll be 13 tomorrow, no one fan from Kilgore, Texas, go max crisis, King of D. I hope he's bigger than 1.3 pounds now. You didn't say he was, but I assume he is. Happy birthday, Cohen. I hope it's a wonderful 13th birthday. Hello, everyone. Hi, Alicia. How you doing? They're talking about the shooter, not Tyler. This is probably just to prepare in the event that they don't get the verdict they want. I mean, obviously you have to set things up for appeal all every step of the way. Finally, a member, yay, loved episode last night. I thought it was a fun episode. Thanks for joining the members page. We had a lot of fun there. Member shows are a little different. We talked about the North Pole and how it wanders throughout time, how the temples around the world are set up in different location. It's fun. We talked about crustal displacement, how the elites might be preparing to end the world. That's why they're building rockets and going underground. Guys, we had a lot of fun. If you're a member, go watch it. If you're not, consider joining. The members show us cover different stuff. Cover different stuff. The Baron took your advice and asked AI for a prompt to help me diagnose a problem when I fed it the prompt back, it responded with almost 50 points. Thank you for the tip. We covered that on the member show too, not yesterday, but a couple of weeks ago. Yeah. People use an AI all wrong. Don't ask AI questions. Ask AI to write a prompt for you to answer questions. You will get a totally different answer and it'll be a lot better. Big fan of these matinee shows. I like them too. I like them as well, especially when I have something to do in the evening. Uh, one of two regarding earthquake weapon whistleblower Eric Hacker claims Raytheon has one on your favorite frozen land causing the quake in Christchurch. You're talking about Australia. Well, when you say favorite frozen land like Trump has a favorite frozen land, but it seems to be Greenland. I didn't mean Australia. I meant Antarctica. Yeah, Antarctica's weird. Uh, two of two. My hair dryer is locked and loaded. Just say the word. We're going to melt Antarctica. Like that's my life's mission. We need to melt Antarctica. I want all the ice off of Antarctica. Starting over from the ground. I want to see what's under there. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Good afternoon, Baron. Excited for you to school us on the new documents. Love your number one middle Tennessee fan. Christchurch king indeed. Number one middle Tennessee fan. Ah, Mrs. Coleman might argue with you about that. Uh, have OCI in person tonight. Love the matinee. Yeah, a lot of people do church on Wednesday. So Matinee's on Wednesday actually work out really nicely. Now, you can think daisy. This was her idea to go early today. Uh, the world wants to know what is your favorite P hub? Can I go? What is P hub? Uh, and all serious. Who is your pick for the F1 world driver champion this year? I'm rooting for Kimmy Anthony. Um, what is a, is it FUB? No, do not want that up. Oh, okay. I won't. It's, uh, oh, it's, oh, it's inappropriate. That knock it off, knock it off, whatever it means. Uh, oh, I think I just figured it out. That is inappropriate. Uh, I'm rooting for Kimmy Anthony. Now, I'm not rooting for Kimmy Anthony. I'm a Max Verstappen guy and a Fernando Alonzo guy. Those are my two favorite drivers in the history of racing sports in any, division in any level. However, neither one of them has a chance to win. Kimmy Anthony is driving like a mad man. And I'd love to see a teenager win the world driver's championship. What a setup. What a life he would live after that. That would be crazy. That'd be crazy. So I guess I'm rooting for him and he's leading. So I was sitting by the pool here in Southwest Florida and had to grab a bourbon to join the matinee show. Uh, Joey Wright is not celebrating his sobriety, but that's okay. It's okay. We allow it. But we do know there are people who can drink responsibly. Your humble host is not among them. Thoughts and prayers to smoke boy during this unexpected and difficult time. The level of cope is wild. Proverbs 122, I love a matinee. Thanks for all you do. Christ is King indeed. Thank you. I appreciate that. Very kind of you. Very kind of you. I hope Candace has her house blessed before and after Christ is King indeed. Yeah. That would be nice. That would be nice. She needs to do that. That's a good point. Maybe maybe she has a holy water mister going at all times and Andrew's just like doing this the whole time. Don't mind it, Andrew. It's supposed to be soothing. I read about it in Southern living. That's a magazine for you for what a double today. A solar clips and a matinee baron from Epsom in Okland. You had there's a solar clips today. Is that true? Yeah, there was. How about that? I didn't know that. Oh, it's over in Europe. That's why I hope you guys enjoyed it. Don't look at the sun. Don't look at all look at the sun. Emailed you my book and can send you a physical copy if preferred your North Pole video is excellent. I didn't mention the title because I won't use your platform for publicity. Thank you. I appreciate that. My research covers the pole shift, grand solar minimum and a much more. That sounds like a fun read. I'll check it out. PDF is fine. Don't worry. Don't worry about the hard copy. I'll be happy to look through the email and find it. Thank you. I'm looking forward to it, Cody. I might be claiming number one fan County Durham. Christ is King indeed County Durham. Sounds fancy. Sounds like rich people live there. We're going to County Durham, darling. I'll be weakening in County Durham. You know how we do it in County Durham. Yes, every place in Europe sounds like that. Every British person sounds like the rich, even like the poorest British person. You can look at them being homeless and you hear them talk. You're like, how are you not rich? Sound like you're rich. You should be rich. Your last member only video about Earth's crust blew my mind from Vancouver, Washington. I have always had a few earthquakes in tsunami. New fear unlocked. Yeah. Well, that the good news is you'll only be afraid of it for like a second or two. Very interesting. More like that. Yeah. We'll do more like that. I haven't really gone into my saturnian cosmology theory. Alt fed options to taking out Tyler Robinson and Jail is up to stand. Rick jury judge, no court recording transparency. Disappear Lance and delay while that's investigated. Um, yeah, yeah. I, I think you might be on something. I put on my favorite Maroon shirt to watch this. Oh, don't ever commit a crime in your favorite Maroon shirt. I hope the world is filled with more men like you could serve. When I be hold men like smoke boy, I see a wretched darkness walking amongst us. Something disturbs the human instincts when watching him. It's the smoke. It's the smoke in the, in the, in the, in the booze. Uh, more alt fed. Oh, I just read that one. Oh, blame Candace. Oh, oh, oh, more, more alt declared mistrile blame Candace. False flag attack threat to witness court. Blame Candace. Well, she's going to get blamed no matter what. No matter what goes wrong. She's going to get blamed. Uh, thank you, bear in love this community and Daisy. Crisis King indeed. I love you. Thank you. Uh, also put on my favorite Maroon shirt for this. Oh, we have multiple people wearing the favorite Maroon shirt. We got a nurse Casey. We got to get some Maroon shirts in the, uh, in the, uh, in the store. Uh, be claiming number one fan in a line. I country first super chat. You are the best. It's a very capitalized definite article there, sir. Uh, thanks for all your hard work and just for being and staying. You in this high Q outfit, Christy King indeed. Thank you. I appreciate the kind, uh, words and high praise. I started calling the fed slappers sloppy joes. I love you B, uh, Christy King, hey, they are sloppy joes. There's a fed sloppy joes. My coworker is an evolutionary biologist and I ran the member show pastor and she said, always follow what birds do when it comes to the North Pole and it's shifting. Have you noticed the birds migratory route is different as has, uh, it's shifted and the butterflies migratory route is shifted and tornado alley has shifted. It's all gone eastward. So something's changing, something's changing up there. Good call, good call, uh, be a love the show. Listen every day while it worked, you inspire me to be a better human. God bless you and fan Christy King indeed from your number one real fan in Pittsburgh. Oh, you're real number one fan. Let's just say we have number one fake fans, real number one fan in Pittsburgh. You got a, you got a couple of people out there arguing with you about that. The smoke boy looks like Fodron from Braveheart who infiltrates and then tries to remove Wallace. What do you think? Well, I have to look them up Fodron from Braveheart. I almost put in freedom because it freedom. Uh, I don't think he looks like that guy's handsome. No offense smoke boy, no, I always love a good edge of your seat. Noonish on hump day. Oh, a hump day nooner. That's on the west coast on the west coast. Those people on the left coast out there got a hump day nooner today. It happened love the Matt Nays prayers for Monday. Uh, but you have so much to look forward to hubs and my VK has turned into seven of us. Kids and grants, good memories Christy King indeed. Yeah, Monday, I discussed this on the member show yesterday. Uh, oh, it's speaking of you two made me clip out that stupid Andy Griffith piece. So I, I linked it in the description. If you, if you're watching it and all of a sudden it jumps, that's what happened. Go look in the description and you'll, you'll find the clip that I played. Um, they made me clip it out because they're retarded. Oh, I shouldn't say that bad word. They're ridiculous. Um, I'm trying to stop saying that word. I, I'm taking good advice from commenters who really got upset when I said it. So I, I learn I like, I take in feedback. I alter who I am. Um, but yeah, the, uh, on the member show, I, I discussed that Monday, I'll be taking my son to college. I will not be doing a show on Monday and, um, it's, it's, it's hitting it. It's hitting the home hard around here, it's hitting the home road around here. Uh, just a humble listener. My favorite broadcaster yesterday's, um, member, member, man episode was my favorite of all time. Well, members episode, the things keeping you up at night or what I think about daily. Now, since 5th grade, 9/11 crisis king indeed. Oh man, you just made me feel old. I was in college. I was, I was married on 9/11. I'm old, old, uh, but thank you. Thank you. Uh, just a humble listener of my favorite broadcaster. Oh, I just read that. I believe you, thank you. I might be just wanting to say I am claiming the title number one fan of new Brunswick, Canada, currently at work watching, I work in the mental health field. Oh, well, I hope you're doing good work there. A lot of people, you should have a never ending supply of business. Have you been on X, you've been on Twitter saw X smokeboy is trying to recoup his 300,000 online after debate was all his idea. I, I'm leaving that alone. I'm leaving that alone. I have strong opinions on that one, but I am leaving it alone. All right. Also, I'm not going to leave it alone. The people donating to it supposedly hate Candace, but they're donating to a fund that is replenishing money given to Candace. So in effect they're paying Candace. So if you donate to smoke boy, you're saying I want Candace kids to have piano lessons and take vacations. I just, I've got strong opinions about that. It seemed like a little bit of a scammy thing. I believe powerful elites know about the approaching event and are withholding information. My book examines this and the region's likely to be affected. Thank you for your excellent work. Thank you, Cody. Appreciate that. Can the judge question if the video he notices the time stamp jumps? How would that occur? You said he can refuse it, but can he penalize prosecution? I don't know if he can kind of sue a spontaneous sanctioned prosecutors for that. But you know, prosecutors have a duty of candor to the tribunal. That's that's a code of ethics, like every lawyer has to agree to that, candor towards the tribunal. And I think that lack candor. I do. I think if you're going to jump video around, you have to explain. In real time. Now, this is jumping seven minutes. Here's why we did it. Here's just it's happening. Don't just let it just jump and then everybody assumes it's not jumping. This is out of order. You know, we show them here, but it's actually this should have been back. You have to explain it. You can't, you can't be dishonest towards the judge. But thank you. Good question. Don't believe the jealous gammas. Oh, and Benjamin crowd funded for festival land and it's one of the best and most honest donations I've ever made. And he's hilarious. As always, thank you. We jump up Bear Tariah. Contact Heidi Ginal about Victor Marx's son was set. Was assistant to Kirk and let go on bad terms. Heidi has been on the compounds. He ran for governor of Colorado in 22 probably I'm not going to contact her, but I believe you and someone else may take you up on that edge. Dear sir, I've spent the last couple days listening to Charlie Kirk sermons and wow. How prophetic. He was brilliant and one statement struck me as he was encouraging people to get involved in politics because churches, Christians, because churches, Christians, what? And I believe you. I believe Cape Town reporting for duty, Baron, I admire your tenacity. Have my doubts whether the truth will prevail. Let's hope and pray. I always go back next to JFK just because no one was held accountable in a court of law. It doesn't mean that that hasn't been thoroughly examined and people now understand that there was a patsy and the government very likely was involved. My B, my M, my M, I've been watching you since a can of show. What is a prize come inside from watching the eclipse to see you're doing a matinee, perfect evening to a perfect day. Number one fan from Dickelberg, Norfolk, yeah, I always wonder if like the people who live in England are kind of upset that they have to refer to it as a like do you guys are like, ah, come on, it's whales, Scotland, I mean, those people, we built a wall to keep them out at one point. Hadrian's wall. Baron, what do you think about the viability of legal action taking against clock tower Salem, the slop squad for intentionally trailing the jury pool. I think that would be very poorly received in court. Baron, please, please do a live reaction. If you're watching Candice Rip smoke boy, a new one, the visual is cracking me up. I've been invited to a live react show and I don't know whether I'm going to do that or not. Stay tuned. Baron, you rule. Please watch the South Park reaction episode of the Charlie Kirk show, very telling interactions between Charlie Kirk, Andrew Colvette, Blake, Steph, Jack and Tyler B. Thanks for the recommendation. Small fry, big lie, the robust kind of lies. Jesus loves you. Thank you. Small fry pickle jar with the receipts in it, open the smoke boy, open the jar smoke boy. Come on, show us you can open the jar, show us you've been squeezing one of those things that Julie and Dory cares around everywhere. Typically, avoid politics. So if unable to participate, support those who do, that's us. We can't do what you Candice said or do, so we support y'all. We're doing what he asked. He didn't know. It would be for him. Oh, that's a really excellent point. Edge. Thank you for making it. It's a very excellent point. Hey, B, since we know there's basically no chance the judge won't send us a trial, what's the chance is the judge will let TR out on bail while awaiting the trial near zero, near zero. Harry, did you have something you wanted to say? You missed it. But thank you, very kind of. Baron, thanks for hosting this, hi, Q, outfit, I learned something new every episode, and especially during your opening statements, yet today was kind of a modified opening. You saw how long the show went anyway. It would have gotten out of control if I'd added like 15 or 20 minute opening to it. Now, was we hold, love you, my B, Christ is King indeed. I don't know what you're getting at there, but I agree. We love you too, top in less England, watching with my baby, number one, to talk about this, everyone, no one to talk about this, everyone thinks I'm a loon on baby number three, which also makes me a loon, apparently, no, no, no, you're just getting started. Keep going, more babies, more baby. I mentioned Michael Frankie case on Monday because Frank Gable was framed as a patsy by corrupt organ governments, spent 36 years in prison because of corruption and cover up. That's familiar? A la TR and Charlie Kirk, oh, I got a, I mentioned in my opening the other day, I just kind of just in breezing and passing the Central Park five. And I got a text message today from a podcast, or I've never actually interacted with before, but I've always liked and always followed and he sends this message and he says, Hey, love your show, but the Central Park five people guilty of sound. I was like, I had to look that closely into it. I know they were let out or they were exonerated, so, but I thought it was funny, I thought it was funny. Yeah, I thought that was funny. Viva is part of the tribe. Oh, is he Native American or is it a different tribe? Not Native American. Okay. Oh, Christ is King indeed. Uh, thank you, Baron, for all you are doing. Well, thank you today, do, do, do, do, do, day, D for all you're doing, good to do without you sitting in a meet and greet, crocheting in the middle of a sturgis rally, not missing any Baron. Keep it up. You're crocheting at sturgis. I've always wanted to go to sturgis. I don't even have a bike. This is common won't let me have a bike to my last kids out of the house, and that'll be age 60. So, I might have to wait until motorcycling comes in Vogue in heaven. I don't know if I want to get on a bike at 60. Uh, I used to ride all the time. I loved it. Uh, what about the footage from a stairwell after the big bang? Have we seen that? Who else was walking around there? Greetings from Croatia. Love you. No, but that would be a good, a good thing to get. A stairwell footage for like 30 minutes before and after, and see who all comes and goes. That maybe like 45 minutes, like 20, 25 minutes on either side of it. That's stairwell. That's a good call. But we'll never see it. We'll never get it, but that would be good to get. Hail King Baron. Thank you. Daisy, Queen, Principal, and everyone else on this side of the Fetslop. Hope everyone have friends and family that would care this much for them. No small fries. Thanks. Agreed. It allows the Baptist to get to church in the night when they bell tolls at 630. Pick out your windows to watch Baptist sneaking off to Bible study. Yeah, I will. I see. I see him driving around 10 and 2, baby. The Baptist don't speed the 10 and 2. I very much like to request clips of your opening statements. I would enjoy learning, learning from you on each and every one of them. Your absolute number one fan in WDM Iowa. Thank you for all you do. I'm sure that's a lovely place. It's probably corn somewhere near there. If I had to guess, if I had to guess, maybe I got a new pair of checked vans today, fresh and dressy. Do you recall seeing water bottles under Charlie's feet, Chair? Weird, right? First, you have a high taste in shoes. I actually own a pair of checked vans myself. It's a beautiful. Do I recall seeing water bottles under his feet? I do. But I also, um, that feet, that chair he was in, sat up a little bit, and his feet didn't sit flat on the ground, and I could see him putting something under his feet just to kind of make it so his feet were level, and they weren't just like dangling, you know? He's a big guy, but that was a big chair. So I don't know if I make too much out of it. He had on plastic, sold shoes and the water bottles were in plastic. I can't imagine it had any impact on what happened, but I don't know. I stopped to put my headband on to watch this. I want to be just like Candace. People are insufferable Miss Bailey. She rocks a headband for being honest, King Baron, my Liege, keep that pinky up, sir. Crisis king indeed. Did I have my pinky up when I was drinking water? I did. I did. Where was Eric up few weekends back? Oh, I did say I would tell you by the end of the week. If I say now, let me finish the comment. Crisis King is also a crisis king also off topic. I want you to know that you're laughing. voice makes my nonverbal so happy when you laugh he laughs. Oh, well, that does make me feel very good. It doesn't make me very, very good. I was told you went to Tucker's. Right about the time Tucker started getting involved in making comments. Bear on regarding my comment yesterday about the Amazon. It's from a doc on why we can't penetrate deep today. It's from a doc on why we can't a documentary on why we can't penetrate deep today. The early civilizations and indigenous are successful because they work with nature not against our machines navigation gadgets and sissy bodies are useless. Oh, that's what you meant. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. That makes sense. That makes a lot more sense. I didn't understand what you're saying. So I was like, well, they can't be impossible because they did these thriving civilizations down there. Can you give me an example of a leading in court? Like a leading question? Sure. So there's a direct examination, cross examination. On direct examination, typically you're not allowed to ask leading questions. They're exceptions. But you're typically not allowed to ask leading questions. Leading questions are questions that say the answer in the question. So for example, you're at home at 5 p.m. on Friday night. Correct? That's a leading question. Where were you Friday night? That is not a leading question. The answer isn't presumed or isn't stated in the question. You were at home. Where were you? It calls for a narrative answer. Oh, I was at home. Were you at home at 5 o'clock? Yes, I was at home at 5 o'clock. Okay. So that's that's that's the difference. I hope that explains it. If you need more examples, let me know. The truth will prevail. I truly believe this. I hope so. On this one back here. So there's a really good book. I don't know if I have it up here. It's called The Art of Cross Examination. I read it before I went to law school and I read it again after. It's really good. It has some of the greatest cross examinations in legal history at the time. It's an old book. But they're like transcribed in the book and so you can read them. The best cross examinations don't ask open-ended questions at all. In fact, it's not the witness testifying. It's the lawyer. If I want to say that you were at home at 5 o'clock and you received a phone call from the doctor and the doctor told you you had diabetes and then you got angry and you threw a frying pan across the room and you struck your dog and killed it injured it. Let's not kill the dog in this hypo. If I want to ask you those questions and I'm on direct examination, I have to ask them broadly. So where were you Friday night? I was at home. Did anyone call you? Well, yeah, I got a call from a doctor. What did the doctor tell you? The doctor told me I had diabetes. How did you react? I was angry. When you were angry, did you do anything to express your anger? Yeah, through a frying pan. Well, where did it land? Did it hit anything? Yeah, it hit a dog. What happened to the dog? The dog was injured. So that's a good direct examination. I'm drawing it out of you through near to form. Cross examination. You were at home Friday night. Yes. And you received a phone call from the doctor. Yes. And the doctor told you you had diabetes. Yes. And you got angry. I did. You got angry. So angry, you threw a frying pan. That's correct. And the frying pan hit the dog. That's right. And it injured the dog. That's correct. See the difference? Cross examination. I'm testifying as the lawyer. I'm telling you what happened. I'm just to listening a series of yeses. Direct examination. I'm asking them questions in narrative form because I'm not allowed to ask leading questions. I hope that makes sense. There, again, there are exceptions. But generally speaking, that's accurate. Truth will prevail. Oh, we already read that. And I still agree. I still want it to be true. Related Oklahoma City bombing. Look up Kenneth Trentedou who got arrested and died in Fed custody. Brother was high powered attorney would be great opening and very fed slot relevant to today. I've read that story about Kenneth Trentedou. That would be a good opening. Actually, it'd be a very good opening. Good call. He was he was obliterated. Sam Altman topic yesterday, Juan Bronco, ICC lawyer, represents Palestinian kids posted most sad hectas phone. They messed up and uploaded a ton of their contacts, including Sam Altman and Elon Musk. Oh, okay. Roger that. Baron. Next twist is that it doesn't go to trial for judge. No fed slub exposed Tyler walks TPSA makes millions off perceived injustice. Boy, I can't imagine that's going to happen, but that would be wild. Hi, Blakey. Hi, Frank. Sorry, no caps and gowns for you. No, well, they need them though. Well, they didn't graduate because they're not smart enough to low IQ. In my hotel room is Cedar Point listening to you. Cedar Point. Is that a theme park up in Ohio or Michigan? What are your thoughts on Charlie still being alive? I don't want to believe it. The behavior of his supposed friends and Erica make me wonder. I'm not a believer that Charlie's alive. I've entertained it. I've thought about it. I've there were a couple of weeks where I kind of thought there might be the case six, eight months ago. But no, I think if Charlie's alive, he is one of the worst human beings ever, and I just don't believe that about him. But to allow all this to take place, to allow Tyler Robinson to sit in in custody like that, to allow him to be potentially subjugated to the subjected to the death penalty. I don't I don't think that's Charlie. There's already a book about evil pastors like Frank Tartek, 2 Corinthians 11, 13 to 15. I will take your word for it. I'll take your word for it. My B greetings from the North East, duck finally got to catch alive. You're loved in this house. My nine-year-old loves Uncle B. Keep going max Christ is King in deed Uncle B. I'll allow it, Jeffrey. Thank you. I'll be not even one of the many maroon boys have come forward to say who they are. Just confirms they are paid IMO. Keep up the awesome work. That's a good point. I hadn't considered. You'd think there'd be a lineup of them saying I had on maroon. I wouldn't do anything wrong. I love my maroon shirt. I didn't wear one-aware gray shirt. It was 91. I was afraid to pit out. So I went with something a little darker. Guys, it's simple. Let me infer to your inferences as inferentially uninferable, inferbly misinfurred and by inferential inference, infracius. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Ginger Mama. These regular law lessons have me believing I'm a lawyer. When I give my husband updates on this case, he'll say you watched the attorney guy bear in, didn't you? I proudly yes. Yes, I did. Oh, that makes me feel better. You can say that I let Andrea Burkhart weigh in as well today. First time, long time, my bee. Candace says she's not intimidated by smoke boy and crew. Get it? Understood? However, I beg you, please, as a friend, ask her to do a pro bug bomb sweep after they leave. Crisis. I don't know about the last part. I don't think they would plan a bomb. A bug? Perhaps. Again, I think I know I've been to a house and I know how to get I know how it works and I know she could I know where the studio is and I know that she could limit where they go. But I will say this and I don't I don't think she'd care if I said this. Her husband's paranoid. They sweep the house for bugs all the time. I don't think she'd care if I said that. I mean, you know, if I spoke out of school, Candace, I really apologize. But yeah, no, I mean, I don't I don't think it would be unusual for him to sweep before and after they were there. Heidi Hoh, their neighbor, sending love from Abilene, Texas. Abilene, home of Abilene Christian University. Yeah. I know a guy who used to be the head librarian there. He's now at Kansas State. He's a great human being, by the way. I genuinely like his friendship. He's a great guy. Has anyone proven TR is even gay? You mean happy? Like Mikey McCoy? We've been told, but is there proof? I mean, what kind of proof are you looking for? Like videography? What are we looking for here? I don't I doubt it frankly. I don't think he was. Maybe in my humble opinion, the evidence in supporting info is so terrible because they did not take into consideration the TR was going to still be here. They're desperately trying to make it work. Well, it's not working. I agree. I agree with you 100% not saying you should, but it'd be very interesting to watch you debate Viva on this filing since he's taking the opposite stance. Well, but I'll you I don't have to debate him. I just told you that why he's wrong. What's he going to say? Oops. I don't understand American law. My humble host, my teenage daughter wants to be a lawyer. Any good lawyer movie recommendations so far. We've watched Philadelphia and my cousin Venny crisis king indeed. Yes, there's a book. There's a movie called one L one L watching. It's about it's it's a little dated. It's a guy going to law school back in the 70s, but it's to me pretty accurate. There's also one. Maybe it's the paper chase. I think it's called the paper chase. I think rather than watching movies about lawyering because those are usually pretty unrealistic, watch movies about law school and not clueless or whatever that movie was where she went to law school. There's a book called One L. It's very enlightening and I think they made a movie out of it and then there's a book called a paper chase But I might be thinking of the paper chase is based on one L So give me give me wrong on that. But those are the two movies. Those are two things I would consume one L and paper chase My B see why files pod with Dr. Travis Taylor airspace engineer U. S. U. A. P. T. F. Scientist on skin walk a wrench black holes deep state Nikola Tesla and Sean Ryan Interesting. What's that so Sean Ryan? Well, I got to repeat yourself. There's a lot of low IQ Joe's out there. I do repeat myself a lot It's an old radio habit and I can't get away from it and I know people criticize me all the time I see it in the comments guys trust me. I read your comments some of them and I see people all the time Why do you repeat himself all the time? Well because people are doing other stuff If you only say stuff once a lot of people miss it. How do I know that because I get a lot of follow-up questions of things I've already answered I'm not complaining, but that's why I repeat myself so much. So if you want to know I repeat myself It's because of experience. I'm kidding. I'm kidding Leave the room alone the feds Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada. How would Tyler know the feds would be involved seems even more staged? It's a local crime scene not federal That's a really good point And that got past me How did he know that Maybe well, what time did he send that because there was news coverage of the feds being on the scene pretty soon? Like Kashpatel showed up on the scene before Tyler Robinson turned himself in so giving them to the doubt But that's a good point. That's a good point It's interesting that the person who wrote the text said the feds would search his room I would think that instead of just thinking that you talk cops would do it Well, I think I just tried to address that the best I could I don't want to repeat myself Bob Bob Bob Barron. I want to be like you when I grow up I'm 47 thinking about law school, but I wonder if it's too late in the game since I'm a geriatric age Well, I'll say this when I was in law school. I went with several people who are in their 40s and 50s One guy was like in his 70s He was an excellent student by the way because he had a life of experience. He didn't you know anything to do He just studied all the time. He wasn't out at the bars on Thursday night with everybody else He was just like steady Eddie man. He came in. He was prepared Notes typed up every class. He you know making edits. He was great. He was great It's never too late. It's just You know be realistic about the cost the time commitment the opportunity cost income you're giving up while you're going and then what kind of job prospects you'll have coming out on the other side But as long as you go into it soberly. I don't I don't discourage it at all Give me examples of evidence that supports sending this to trial. I don't see any Well From a layman's perspective perhaps you don't but from a From a legal perspective, I think they probably Roughly met their burden from a barely met their burden, but I mean they showed there was a gun there They tied it to Tyler. They had testimony that Tyler was identified on campus They had testimony that Tyler had been engraving bullets They were engraved bullets in the gun They had testimony that the bullet could maybe probably closely be a match I think there's enough to send a trial. I just disagreed they should AK Blakey Feds are spinning truth defense head in the middle guilt their motion argues strictly on legal grounds Even under the state's own narrative the prosecutors failed to meet Utah statutory requirements for the death penalty. Thank you Agreed on my whole show today. I agree with you On my way to Auburn to cheer and drum for the women's soccer team as they play Clemson Then I load up a you haul and drive 28 hours to move my baby to Salt Lake City you talk college bound. He chose the you Long ago War Eagle crisis King indeed. I'm happy. You should be happy. Just it's right there in your name just happy Yeah, go root on those Auburnites Go root go root them on War Eagle Or Eagle fly down the field ever to conquer never to you or Eagle fearless true fight on your jam blue Go go go. I'm not gonna do the whole song, but I could but I could Finally cut a lot. We love you Baron and Daisy from Lancashire Uck Thanks for all your hard work and sacrifice Christ is King indeed Indeed Hunter Kozak, a new interview said he and his wife Shelby left three-day-old Nick you baby parentless into a ten probe Shelby film, but ultimately didn't release footage as she didn't jump respond to the bang Your 74 75 episodes were spot on I need to catch that it's in my queue and I keep meaning to watch it and then I get Distracted watching other things. I did a mashup of your coincidences and Erica. It's on your ex. Enjoy. Oh miss maples I'm very bad about seeing things on X if you'll email it to me. I'll have a much better chance of watching it. Thank you Watching from Sveton Love to hear your summing up with the case to the jury as if you were TR's defense lawyer at do it as an opening I don't know if the evidence is gonna be I can't do that yet. I think is the case comes closer to fruition perhaps that would be possible. I've kind of done that here and there based on What we know to date, but we don't know what all the evidence is gonna be there may be much stronger evidence, but thank you We argue motions the same way in Canada. Well then Viva has no excuse Viva you're without excuse Viva David has many weasel words in his post. He knows exactly the smear campaign he's doing and coordinating with others. Go back to North, David Twitt Twitt I did not call you a tweet. Viva And I'm not gonna dead name you Viva But I think you're wrong dead wrong I can't the defense argue the state's circuitous case is itself telling the compressed video the dead body-worn camera the missing minutes, etc They could have they chose not to for whatever reason strategically made that decision not to I would have spent a little more time on it I mean they hinted at the Missing minutes they hinted at it. They didn't really come out and say it with these, you know, maybe they will in their closing summation orally. We'll see Both Wilson's in correctly use apostrophes Fridays not Fridays PhDs not PhDs. We are the Are the plural spellings they're seeking I'm surprised they didn't learn that in school wasteful PhDs. Do they claim to have PhDs? Well, he claimed to serve in the army too I just want to confess I used to appreciate Frank Tertik a lot when I got into Christian apologetics. I thought he was brilliant But now he has been questioning if I'm really bad at seeing through people people change sometimes for the worse. I think that's Tertik Gifted ten memos. So ten of you can go watch me be crazy yesterday about the North Pole and the potential into the world that the elites are Can aspiring to create There, please consider offering perhaps Mrs. Coleman to a wingman for Candace boots on the ground a Charlie Offering wingman for what for her debate. She can handle a debate She doesn't need anyone in there. I'm sure her team will be there and if she asked I would a hundred percent go, but I'm not gonna ask Baron you can't put all Canadians in the same category as the Canadian lawyer. I am Canadian and I do not believe in the Feds lot That's because you're smart you're high Q no one accused Vivo that go max for Charlie Kirk. Thank you for your teaching. Thank you for your kind words We lost my mom unexpectedly yesterday. Oh my gosh She was only 58 Suffered from MS and gone down the past two years. She was an amazing mom and even better momma I know this isn't goodbye, but see you later because she's with Jesus, but it still hurts. Please pray especially for my kids and dad. Oh my gosh I can't imagine 58 is so young. It did not used to seem young when I was in high school 58 might as well have been 200 But now it is so young. I'm so sorry to hear that tabby. I will certainly pray for you In your family. God, I'm sorry to you then Hey, my B. Thankful. Thank you for all your details, especially in the filings scratches my nosy itch Crisis king indeed that could be the cocaine. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I would never accuse you of that Reading first Timothy this morning. I found three through five interesting good Good first Timothy's a good book Pros versus cons Jerry trial versus bench trial crisis king indeed I've tried both I've tried bench trials and I've tried jury trials They're different. They're fundamentally different because the person Waying in on the admissibility of evidence is the one considering it. So even if he excludes it, he's still heard it So that's a little different dynamic there Sometimes it works to your favor I had one particular trial at two actually we tried to a bench trial instead of a jury trial Both were acquittals well on most of the charges you got dinged on a couple of small things But the big charges that would have kept him in prison for like 30 years or more were acquitted on a bench trial We chose a bench trial the one guy Resisted did not want to do a bench trial and of course, it's a you have to waive the right to a jury on the record. So it was He did it and it worked out in his favor The other guy as soon as we pitched it to him. He's like yeah, let's do it. I don't want to face a jury People are gonna hate me And so the pros are the judge typically is not as swayed by Inflammatory facts. The downside is the judge is usually not swayed by emotional appeals either. And sometimes emotional appeals are your best friend. So, you know, it's a case by case basis. I've done them both. And, you know, give it you get, give it you get. Have I ever gotten just just creamed on a bench alone? I haven't tried very many of them. No, I don't think we've ever had a really bad result on a bench alone trial, a judge alone trial. Verse five. I believe you. I believe you. I've know you're talking about first Timothy again. I believe you today's show is long. So, I'm not having an opportunity to stop and look stuff up as I go because we'll be here a long time if we do. Evening bear and even though it's not evening, love it when you tip your hat checking in from Idaho this afternoon. Evening. Miss Millray. Crisis King Indeed. My, my parents are I'm late for class. I'm working so I'm having to listen while at work. I hope, I hope it's not impeding your ability to do a good job. Stoke for this matinee show. Super grateful for all you do, Baron. God bless you and your family and keep fighting the good fight. Crisis King indeed. I will do so. I will do so. Thank you. My B and like what? I failed a contract law first try a whole class did. Wow, that's a teacher problem, not a student problem. Second try scored an A. Here say evidence was more challenging to me. Did you fail any law classes? Make me feel better. Please. And shout out to my sister. I don't. I did pretty well in law school. I didn't like I got the top grade in two classes. And I did pretty well. I did not fail any classes. I I remember my lowest class my lowest grade ever and I'm irritated by it. It was criminal procedure two of all things. I took an extra criminal procedure because I took crimpro one and did really well. And I thought, well, that wasn't hard. Let me do crimpro two. Crimpro two is a nightmare for me for some reason. It was very difficult. And I don't know if it's the teacher or there's like a hundred people in there. And they other people seem to do well. I was taking a tough load that time. I had a federal tax class that was very full of minutia. I had a seminar class that was supposed to be easy, but we ended up reading like three books that were 800 pages each and it took all my time. And it was a professor I really liked, which is why I took the class and it turned out to be a much heavier lift than I thought. And I think I did a short shrift on the crimpro homework because I'd done so well the first time. And I think that was probably the part of the part I didn't fail it, but I didn't do as well as I expected. P.B.D. said he got calls about being the next leader of a Ron starting July 2025 while he was in the Hamptons considered for two to three months then declined. Do you think it's relevant to him moderating? Yes. Yes, I do. Frank is salting the mind such a fake Fed boy agreed, agreed. Serby, you will recall that Andrew Colvet told Canis it was supposed to be you. Frank Tertic has no qualms about making that a reality. Those are harsh words. The harsh words indeed. We need to cure Frank Tertic's allergy to the New Testament because it's important that he reads this passage and learns it by heart. First Timothy chapter 5 verses 9 through 15 a bit longer read on air. I agree, but people now have it. They can go look it up. Re-read all those text messages the other way around. All I hear is Lance Twigs telling Tyler what to do in them. I think those are his messages. I will have to do that. I'm trying to think of them. Don't touch the room. The feds will take care of it. Be polite. Listen. That's pretty close to crazy now that you mentioned it. Frank Tertic is trying to radicalize people against Canis. He better hope nothing happens to her. Another first person I'm looking at absolutely chilling. Yes, Frank is a bad guy in my opinion. At this point, he's just a bad guy. He's certainly got bad motives. And also no one found in marble Falls, Texas, since the Google's trended. Man, you've been around a long time. Anyone who believes Frank Tertic is a man of God should check themselves in for a complete psycho vow. As Jesus said more than once, you will know them by their fruits. He needs our prayers along with all fallen souls. Yeah. All of sudden and fallen short of the glory of God. That's Romans 323, ladies and gentlemen, your Catholic knows his Bible. TP is the new APAC. Change my mind. Well, they're not a pack. But they might have, they might be aligned. JD Vance. Oh, that was who called him that. Can't they rename the rapper Nicki Minaj? Didn't she call on that by mistake? Bubba Bubba Bubba Bubba Bubba Baron. Love your show. Hope you will give Candice some advice for her debate. Did you see that smoke boy has a Gibson go account that has raised over 50,000 dollars so far? Wow. So shady. Yes, all that. Please upload the PDF of the opposition motion. It's available. I mean, it's out there. I don't know where I would upload it to. Not like have a website we used it upload stuff. Chris King and D. Somebody commented under Andrew's gifts and go not to forget to bring a CK's letter to BB. If he does, I believe it will be a revision of the original. I'm praying Candice has a copy of the original. Chris King indeed prayed together for CO. That's good advice. That's a very good advice actually. Baron, watch your member show yesterday at eight kids. And yes, letting goes not easy. It will get easier. Chris King indeed. I don't know. I don't know. Gosh, I don't want to think about it right now. Baron will judge sequester the jury. No one fan long of you. Texas. God bless you. I doubt it. I doubt it. But I don't know. I don't know. It's such a hard decision to do that. Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. Chris King indeed, just a quick note. Like, sniff reminds me of Dwight from Scary Movie 2. Was he a bumbling idiot or something? Could he not control his urges? What a convenient way for JD to capture the data of his book sales. I wonder where else that data ends up. TPSA would never co-mingle funds. What? Well, number one fan from Cape Breton, Breton, Nova Scotia. Canada is considered one of the highest educated population of the world. Cannot say, you asked cannot say same. Well, I mean, what's educated? You know, a one month member, Kathleen, just checking in. There's no thank you, Kathleen. Appreciate that. B, maybe you've already covered this, but please explain how Frank can do this. Isn't he along with everyone in SUV with Charlie a witness? I'm truly confused. Chris King indeed. Cut and shoot Texas is real. Love you. I believe it's real. I've talked to now two people from cut and shoot Texas or heard in comments from two people cut and shoot Texas. Is he a, I think he's a witness. I don't think he should be out there to to clear and guilt. But the judge hadn't said anything about it. Dang it. I missed the matinee nonetheless. Much love to our humble host number one fan from the Miami Valley. Ohio crisis King indeed. Is that where Miami university is? I know it's in Ohio. They always say Miami and then in parentheses like OH like not not that Miami. Other Miami been Rothless burger Miami. Thank you, Ben. Great show. Thank you. Candice should not do the debate smoke boy will back out. I doubt he backs out at this point. The debate's happening. Edge. Thank you, sir, for educational explanation. Love you. Well, of course. Edge. I'm always here for you. On eight nine, I really thought you were going to cover why the tent was raised in relation to a possible DEW on a living CK, but you did not. Please expand on this. Thank you. I can't expand because I don't know. I'm still looking at it, but just trust me. This is in my mind that I am strongly considering there was some sort of advanced weapon reused. I'm not a doctor, but I can take a look. Dr. Wright. Oh, he's a doctor. I forgot he's a doctor. No wonder he's doing CPR in the back of the van. Have you talked to the TPSA volunteer witness? Jeb yet. He said on the podcast, he would like to clear his name with you. I have. We had a good conversation. He did a good job. The other night you mentioned wondered which platform was selling the freedom shirts. I bought one, so I know it was from the CK show store on Shopify. Can email receipt. Huntsville fan 1a. Would you email it to me? I would appreciate it. I'd love to see it. Thank you. Hi, B. Love this show. By the way, Crazy Rabbi, who Candace debated is an Iceland provoking people. Feel iffy about him being there, causing drama, blessings. Yeah, Iceland's in trouble. I know we have Icelandic fans here because we have seen their comments, but they got bad plans for Iceland. I got bad news for you guys. I don't know who they're planning to put there, but it's not going to be good for you. Do you think by all of us voicing our concern about to our safety, maybe they won't mess with him because they know we all are onto them and watching. It won't hurt, but I don't know that it'll help. Frank Turg freaks me out, considering he shares birthday with Erica Kirk, two peas in a pod. Well, which birthday? Which Erica Kirk birthday? There are two of them, remember? November 20th, November 22th? We're not sure which one it is. Her parents didn't even know. Dude is stone cold in the worst way. He was able to be more in character and believable today. Oh, because he's psychotic. Well, that's your opinion. That's your opinion. Matt and A equals pre-party. Well, except for today. Well, yeah. Yeah. Well, we were pre-gaming. We were pre-gaming and then the game got canceled. But we're still here. We're still partying. Former Candice employee Mark Herman has been to Antarctica. Look up a lot in common podcast. They interviewed him. It was fascinating. Love from Cedar Rapids. I will get a lot of Iowans here today. Christ King indeed. I've read a lot about Antarctica. 1080, 11, what's going on here? Babbababar. I traded my glittery pantsuit for a cap and gown to be here. By the way, did you get the booklet? I sent you from the officer author Jesus kept his word. I did. I did get that. Actually, I did get that. Thank you. It feels so wrong to say, but if it weren't CK's death, I would still be fooled by our government and mainstream media. But now I question everything. So grateful for people like Candice and our humble host, Christ King indeed. That's why they don't want us talking about this. Because the Charlie Kirk story unlocks so much. It unlocks so much that they really don't want us talking about this at all. And when van watching from Ireland, live your podcast. You're one of life's true gentlemen. God bless you. Well, thank you. That's very kind of you. True gentlemen. Baron, do you think there's any merit to the theory that the GoFundMe was launched to shift attention away from TPSA's involvement? Or do you think that's a stretch? I just think he's just trying to make money. I mean, I think someone else, in my opinion, someone else paid the 300,000 or maybe he paid a little bit of it. But I think someone put the money up, if I had to guess, I could guess where it came from. And now he's just crowdfunding money to keep. And that's just my guess. I don't know that to be true. I'm just guessing TPSA head advisor found dead. Who, who, I need a name, I need a name. Number one Croatian fan here. Christ King indeed, we're big in the Balkans. Huge in the Balkans. The legend spends lots of time on a white car that you turn near the gun drop off site. Can we get sharper image to prove it is a key of soul as he posits? It is. It is. Lost civilizations, Graham Hancock, lots of archeological shifting topography, curious and loves puzzles. Great, remember show yesterday, Baron and Daisy. I have read a lot of Graham Hancock. I watched a lot of Graham Hancock. I've listened to a lot of Graham Hancock. I'm a fan. Watch Tim Dylan's expert from the excerpt. Excuse me, from the book hilarious. That's that book. I do remember him reading an excerpt of it about ball worshipping. I do remember that. A simple question? Well, Miss Maple's, I'll be the judge of whether this is a simple question or not. Since the projectile obliterated, C2 and C7. C2 to C7 and came to rest just beneath the scan. What in the hell did we watch blow a hole in his neck? Oh, I don't know. That's not a simple question. I'll have a host. Thank you so much for giving him honest interpretation of the defense statement from an honest attorney. Crisis king indeed, lady. Die. I'm doing my best out here. Not the lady died. She, she got died. Thank you for that. Very kind. When, where is the debate? I definitely don't want to miss it. Thanks, fellow jury members. Friday, Candace Owens channel. Not sure what time. Not sure what time. But Friday. Thank you, Bee. Thank you, Marlena. I appreciate it. Gunther Eagleman charges $300 a post. Magical. Like he, people pay him to post stuff. That's a thing. It's weird. Does he list it as a paid post? Elders to three daughters going to university in Chicago. We live in California. I feel like a piece of my soul has been gripped for me. Grieving the end of a childhood and being so far away. Proud, but heartbroken. Crisis king indeed. Yeah, I'm thankful my son's not going very far. I'll be able to see him a lot. I don't want to put him on a plane and all that. I am thankful for that. He wanted to stay close to home and he is. But it'll be a drive. Like it's not something he would just like pop in. But it's not like airplane for. I enjoyed the members show yesterday. Hugs to you and Mrs. Coleman. I'm thankful you allowed us to see the gentle side of our humble host. Crisis king indeed. Mrs. Coleman accused me of crying on air. I did not cry. I got misty eyed. Misty eyed. There's a difference. Crying to me, the tears have to roll. There were no rolling. There's no rolling. I was not doing the Erica, no rolling. In my opinion, all are in on it, said sad. God bless you all. Yeah. Sad. Katie Boat. I've been crew yesterday's members show had me crying from crying to panic. These changes they may be doing is very scary. Keep up the fantastic work. Love from one of those countries. Oh, Australia. Australia. I see the a box there. Crisis king indeed. I didn't mean to scare you. It's supposed to be not alarmed. Focused. Focused. Your show is my guilty pleasure. Your comment is mine, Miss Evers. I had a Miss Evers that taught me English in high school. Miss Evers. Say you? She was tall. Like tall tall. Like six foot tall. She was a big girl. Not fat. Just tall. Well, no. She was tall, Miss Evers. I forgot about her. I'm glad you reminded me of. Biba. Crystal. Ray. Oh, thank you. Indeed. Indeed. Baron, do you think there's any merit to the theory that go fund me was launched to shift attention away from TPSA's involvement? I thought I answered that. I think I answered that. The defense is filing. And anyway, even 1% change your opinion of how this will proceed. Potential plea. How they plan to proceed. If you thought client innocent, would you file similar at this point? Even 1%. Yeah. Change to change me 1%. Just because I was expecting a little more aggression, I guess. But I'm a little more aggressive, maybe than they are. Go for, go the week before Sturgis, not the week of having done both. I'll never go during the rally again. Left Friday before all the fatalities this week. Fatalities. Maybe I don't want to go to Sturgis. That's why Mrs. Coleman won't let me on the bike until the kids are grown up. Baron, I'm 57 and riding my 04 Sporty in Sturgis. Wow. Look at you guys. We got a bunch of bikers in the chat. I had no idea. When you say cake snapper reminds me of a series of unfortunate events with Neil Patrick Harris. Cake Sniffer. I bet he's a cake sniffer too. Blake, do you sniff cakes? Be definitely according to Fedslop. T.R. did it him on video can seal rifle fry him actual definition or actual defense. Stay didn't prove PC court must have climbed by and over. Yes, that's correct. That's exact. That's a better summary than I gave Mr. Hancho. Better summary than I gave. Super appreciative. You're a breakdown of recent filings. Thank you, Baron. Daisy Kristen. Craitor. You're welcome. Check out the comments section of the PPD podcast with Ben Shapiro. He paid his people to bought it with positive comments. Here we voluntarily pay you to give you positive comments. What the he's easy? Um, well, how do we know he paid to bought it? I have to go look it up. Maybe is it that obvious that trust trucker, trust Tucker now with his knowledge, his lack of position publicly beyond loving C and E is so sus. Help, uh, I think he just would desperately wants this to go away like he does not want to have to wait in. I think within the, so within a firm conviction, but I don't know that to be true. I'm not talking about Amazon JD book less than $23 heart cover or ebook Christ is King indeed or you can pay $75 to the TPSA and get it. You're cool. Gary got him many 30 at six, believing Fed Slop five six, uh, that's funny. That's funny. I was watching coach this morning. That's where the tiny Gary came from. Makes me laugh how you get increasingly annoyed with your own stupid questions. I so appreciate what you do. Now and why? Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. I do get increasingly annoyed with my own stupid questions. That's a good observation. It's me though. It's me getting annoyed myself. Hey, me first. Love you. Love you too. Joshua. Second, have you ever wanted a TPSA or also being blackmailed or under pressure by them to go along with their sinister plot? Yeah. I'm not, I'm not wondering. I've assumed. I've assumed that's the case, particularly some of those that might have been late to the party. My eight-year-old daughter, going there yesterday, what's a kidnapper's favorite shoe? White vans? That's actually really funny, Ashley Galadina. That's actually really funny. Um, almost deal that next time someone comments on my vans, I'm like, well, at least I'm not wearing my kidnapper vans. I'm so like, what? I'm getting happy to favor. shoes white vans. I can't have said that yesterday George sweeps woo thank you. I did not want to be the one to say that out of school. But yeah, he's obsessive. That's good though. That's good. He's protective husband. He should be great show is always hit the like button friends. Heather told you not not your humble host. I didn't tell you. Ben, you're okay. Just okay. Oh, can't have stayed on the last podcast her husband, Austin's office week. That's for sure. Good. Uh, holy water and diffuser recommendation for Candice. Yes. Yes. And just soak the chair. So when he gets up, he's got like a wet hiding. It's okay, sir, it's holy water. Holy water. It's been blessed. Yes. Yes. I've got some at the house. I can take it over there. Does the contradicting apostles give a wait to Frank turics point that people can remember things different and not be dishonest also or the other way around. How can inconsistencies be trusted regarding the foundation of Christianity? So I'll take those in in order. Yes, actually. Um, people do remember things differently. So there's always that when you when you have multiple eyewitness testimony. Frankly, there's always that when you have single eyewitness testimony that the eyewitness might not be very reliable and not on purpose, not like they're lying. Sometimes they just get things wrong. If ten people watch the same crime, you might get ten. You're probably going to get more than one answer of exactly what happened in what order and what what they saw what they heard. So yeah, that'll happen. I don't know why we put so much weight in eyewitness testimony. It's usually pretty lousy. Um, now the inconsistencies regarding the foundation of Christianity. I mean, that's it's a mystery. It's a object of faith. You know, I think the central point is that you had a guy rise from the dead. That's supernatural. And, um, and they all basically said that that happened. Now whether or not the angel was in the tomb or out of the tomb on the rock, more than one angel, what did he say? Who got their first? Was the stone rolled away when they got there? Did it roll away while they were there? I mean, I think all those types of things are subject to just, you know, shaky memories twenty-thirty years out down the road. But that's, you know, I'm sure there's someone else that sees it totally differently. You're just getting my opinion because you asked because you asked. Hey, Baron, thanks for the matinee. So I can watch for church. But I just called it nailed it, uh, claiming number one fan spot in Northeast Alabama. Prayers for you. Go max. Uh, Fort Paine area. Fort Paine Northeast Alabama. Fort Paine, are you on sand mountain? I know my geography. Scottsboro, maybe, Jackson County. Decap County. Where are you? Uh, Baron, don't you think the feds might be dictating what the defense states, the defense could be corrupt or bought? Well, they could be. And that's certainly a possibility. I just don't know that it's evident from the filing. That was kind of my point. My B can't to say the other day. They sweeped out regularly. She also said they're moving pretty soon. Love you. B. Well, I did know that. I hadn't said that either. Yeah. Yeah. So invite them in. Invite them in sweep and move. Time to kill is a good lawyer movie. I've seen that. It's good. It's excellent. Uh, wouldn't say it's accurate in terms of how to try case, but it's interesting. Baron, I saw P. B. D's interviewing the pony boy. Benny titles called hero to villain. Biggest fan in Salt Lake City. Who's pony boy? Benny? Oh, the guy in the midget horse. Does Gary have a midget horse to how's that work? I know I used to jump up to get a chair. I saw a loan two eyes. Uh, have you seen the Gibson go from Andrew Wilson to cover the cost of the debate? The comments from donors are shockingly nasty and violent towards Candace. It also revered reads from the third person. Very strange. I have seen all that. Yeah. Got my blue holy macro sweatshirt day equals made holy macro. That's a nice sweatshirt. Nice sweatshirt. Uh, thank you for sharing. Yo, my B. I get the sinking feeling that the only reason smoke boy wants this debate. So badly as an attempt to lure the principal into a trap, the TPS A can hinge a defamation case on. I can't see the value otherwise. Thoughts? No, I think. I mean, obviously raises his profile a little bit. Well, you just reminded me of something. I think I think it raises his profile a little bit. He obviously is going to make a lot of money on this, I think. I mean, I, I, in my opinion, he did not put up the $300,000. And if he didn't put up $300,000 then what does the gifts and go to just going into his pocket, you know, he basically admitted any money over and above what he's costing. He's just going to keep. It says it right there in the gifts and go, um, description. So, bear and we need, we need need merge with your gasping reaction. I laugh every time. Thank you for being a truth fighter for Charlie Kirk, which I had your level of skill and discernment. Well, that's why you're watching. You're going to develop it. So hike you out fit. We train you up. Um, I don't know that I want my face on a sweatshirt. That's a little weird. I'm not, not wild about that. Baron, you can't just gloss over EK A being at TC's. I didn't gloss over it. I told you, I mean, that's all I know is I think I heard she was there. That's all what I would consider, um, corroborating evidence that she may have been there. So is what it is. Don't know if you've mentioned this, but I was watching Candace today and thought it was a high praise when she said she would be nervous if she had to debate you. I get so excited when y'all shout each other out. Oh, so I, she must have said it last night, I was at baseball last night. So, um, and I was, I did have it on, but I was like one year in and so I coach the second practice in the first practice, my five year old was playing. I was really intently watching him. And so I wasn't catching most of what was happening. I intended to go back and watch it today. And then we decided to do a matinee. So this morning and an early afternoon was all show prep. And so I do intend to go back tonight and watch it. But if she said that, then I'll have to see how she said it. Um, but I would be nervous debating her man. She is smart. She is just smart. And even her biggest enemies will say that she is just sharp. I be Frank Turk is twisting scriptures in the Old Testament. Is before Christ came in the flesh after Christ, everything changed in Christ, you're loved and forgiven Roman date one. There's no more condemnation in Christ. I'll let you take that up with Frank. I'm not going to settle theological debates here. But I think he's a turd. You know, that's the nicest thing I could say Frank. Don't get mad about that because I could say worse things. Are you serious? P.B.D. I stopped watching his show for being biased towards our greatest ally that podcast has gone downhill. That's a fact. Just look at the comments in his videos. I don't disagree with you. I feel like bowtas was held back at Mercedes. I agree. I think he was as well. And he felt like he was. There were lots of times he came on the radio. He's like, why are you not letting me buy? I'm clearly faster. You know, or or getting just dinged on pit strategy. So I agree. I agree with you. Bowtas is a driver. Cadillac isn't very good this year as a brand new team first, first year with the new car. I think they're good. I think he's good though. I mean, I think he's a very, very talented driver, not like a once in a generation, not max, not Seb, not, not Lewis Hamilton, but he's, he's not a Lonzo, but he's, he's good. He's good. Solid, a great qualifier, a very good qualifier. Darling Graham is going to the runoffs. Who is voting for her, putting Lindsay's sister in after he dies as equivalent to putting Erica in after Charlie. Yeah, seems to be Maggie's new move. Did you see they named a base after this guy? Like wasn't MAGA opposed to Lindsay Graham until like three months ago? Didn't didn't MAGA hate Lindsay Graham in 2016 in 2020 and 2024, frankly, he's a known warhawk. Wasn't MAGA founded on no more wars. He was constantly meddling around trying to get war started. Then we go name a base after him and then we appoint his sister and then vote for her. And then she's using her middle name as her last name because people are too fooled by the last name. They wouldn't know who darling no don't is. So they call her darling Graham, even though she's no don't. Does the court ever consider federal involvement in a case EG manufactured evidence or do they overlook that possibility? Entirely great show crisis king indeed. Courts can consider manufactured evidence. I mean, that has to be has to be a foundation to introduce it. But yeah, can you and your very lovely high Q community please say a prayer for my dad. He might have to get his leg amputated praying for a miracle. Wow, crisis king indeed. That's that's that is that is it. I will definitely pray your your username has a little medical terminology in it. I will definitely play for your dad, cardiac ICU nurse. But yeah, I will certainly. I'll go be if Tertek justifies hurting Candace. He can justify killing a popular political figure who opposes smim smell. biggest fan in Surfside, Florida. I agree. And that's how I see it. Baron Candace already revealed to Eric a visit at Tucker shortly before 910. Are you referring to a different EK Tucker visit? Charlie Christus King, you're the best. Yeah. I'm referring to a July visit. Yeah. Was it where EK was a couple of weekends ago? That's my understanding. I understand. Haven't heard your opinion on the EK look alike in the red hat at UVU. She ran in front of the camera. Charlie Kirk's right after the big bang praying for you. Christus King indeed. I've given it that woman and I'm not knocking that woman. I'm just telling you how I was able to differentiate. It's not her. It's not Erica. That woman weighed like 50 or 80 pounds more than Erica. Now I can see how you'd be confused because all you can see was her hand and her hair and she had big hands, big knuckles big you know she air has the knuckles of someone who weighs 80 pounds more than she does. And she got the long hair and that woman had that kind of long fried hair and the big knuckles. And so I can see how you would be confused. But no, I don't think it was her. My flabbers are not gassed. I don't want to know what a flabber is. Please, no pictures. But I mine aren't either. Mine aren't either. Hey, Baron. Good show. Colin said that us 90 kids who use the R word are calling things gay. I think he's onto something. Yeah. That's gay. And when I use gay, I mean happy. When I say that guy's gay, I just mean he's bubbly. Like he's just laughing. He's carefree. He's having a good time. I use it in the traditional sense like the Flintstones. You'll have a gay old time. But but Baron number one fan from southern Oregon. Charlie Kirk woke me up and I have to grieve my military service and assist in Iraq. Oh, well, Christ King indeed woke you up in a political sense. And you've had to grieve your military service from Iraq. Yeah, I mean, I get it. Thanks for sharing that. Thank you for sharing that. How the host is their remote possibility? The state wants to lose this case and hopes that it will all go away. And people like you and Kennis will just stop talking about it. Christ is King indeed remote. I mean, it's a remote. You said possible. Yeah. It's a remote. Thank you so much for all your hard work and putting these shows together. Just a thought. Do people flinch before they get shot? No, Charlie did. I miss him so much. I don't know if he flinched. He closed his eyes. I mean, I, this is where I went through the whole Charlie might still be alive. He looked like he was bracing. But he also might have been getting rid of his knees. He might have been, you know, he looked very tired in some of those pictures. Maybe he was just resting his eyes. I don't know. Maybe he was blinking hard. Maybe a dust in his eyes. I don't know. Are you aware smoke boy and his wife claimed to be devout Orthodox Christians? I've heard the rumor. Yo, blah, blah, bear on love hearing laughs between Daisy and your humble host makes us laugh. And he's spent off with both of you ideas. Hi, Daisy. We love you too. Spinoffs. Spinoffs in one of your games. Spinoffs. Um, I just hope we win another game. That's a gem more reference for you that don't follow the NFL in the 80s and 90s. Um, I don't know. I don't know what a spinoff would be. I'm out. I'm open to spinoffs. I guess my B number one fan of keynote organ. I'm better because of you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Follow up my B Miami Valley is the region surrounding the great my the great Miami River. And they're not that they just fan of it. It's probably just called the Miami River. But he thinks it's a great or she thinks it's a great river. So she's calling it the great Miami River in Southwestern Ohio, including Dayton, Hamilton, Springfield and Middletown and others. I'm near right pat lest you forget. I will never forget again Julie. I do apologize. Uh, Ben, you should watch the enraging hit piece, Brandon Strocca did against Candace today happening now on Harrison Smith's war room show. I don't think much of bringing the Strocca from being honest. Not met him. He's very unimpressive figure. I think Botos was a great choice for a new team trying to get some points on board and get established going to race in Vegas this year. That's an expensive race to go to. Good luck. I heard it's fun though. I heard it's a lot of fun. Cold colder than you think because it's late in the year and it's at night. Uh, it may raise his profile. But between the stolen Valorant Clip circulating, I believe his plan will backfire. He's a hateful man. Oh, that's your opinion. That's your opinion. I may need to sign up for Hummel host addicts anonymous. I plan to watch after my daily cleansing ritual. But I brought the jury with me. Crisis K&D, faith in or faith of in or whatever your name is. We can wait. We'll wait for you. We prefer clean listeners, not cleaning clean. But thank you. Thank you. Jesse on fire saying that a board visitor, a board advisor from TPSA has taken care of himself allegedly. I will have to follow up with him. I did not know that. If one member suffers, we all suffer together. Corinthians 12, 26. I agree. I agree. It's part of what makes this, um, this community so special. Um, it is. All right, guys. Um, let's jump out of here. Don't forget to like the show. Don't forget to subscribe. When you subscribe, there's a little down arrow and you can click that down arrow and it'll give you an option to get notifications. You can click all and you'll be notified every time we go live. And right next to that's a join button. I don't know if people know what that is. If you click join, it's a way to give a small, uh, monthly donation, but it also gives you access to all the membership, uh, shows. So a single monthly donation, you could go back and watch all the previous member episodes. And if you subscribe on a regular basis, you can watch the ongoing membership. Uh, if you join on a regular basis, you can watch the ongoing member episodes as well. And we have a lot of fun over there. Um, I do some interviews from time to time. I haven't done one in a few weeks. Maybe I'll do one or a few months, actually a couple months. Maybe I'll do one coming up pretty soon. I had a couple of people I want to interview. Who agreed to do it. Um, and we talk about other stuff, just wild, crazy stuff and a little bit a little more insight into my life. So, um, yeah. So don't, don't forget to do, uh, all those things. Like, subscribe, join if you want to. Also, don't forget. Don't forget. I know it gets, it's such a crazy world and we talk about heavy stuff here. But Jesus loves you. Jesus loves you. Always will. Always will. Coming back one day to rule the universe from right here on earth. And, um, it's gonna be great. It's gonna be great. Look forward to that day. We do look forward to that day. Uh, have a wonderful afternoon. Uh, the principal is off. So you got the whole afternoon to catch up on past episodes or do some gardening or cut the lawn. Maybe make a Mississippi pot roast in the crock pot. Whatever, whatever gets you going at the afternoon, yours. Have a wonderful evening, everybody. And we'll talk to you. Manana.