Loading summary
Transcript112 lines
- [00:04]
A
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.
- [00:47]
B
Use me.
- [00:48]
A
Buckle up everybody. Here we go. The Charlie Kirk show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.
- [01:09]
C
All right, guys, Jack Posobic. We are live another edition of Thought Crime Thursday. We've got breaking news hard and fast in the Tyler Robinson trial. We're on with Blake Knapp. What's up, Blake?
- [01:23]
B
Howdy, howdy. Good to see you, Jack.
- [01:24]
C
You as well. And Cliff. How are you, Cliff?
- [01:27]
D
Doing great. Thanks for having me, gents.
- [01:29]
C
All right, guys. So the judge is currently ruling on Kate on information regarding and and motions regarding whether or not cameras will be allowed in the courtroom for Tyler Robinson, who is the accused murderer of our friend. And I've been seeing a lot of information that Judge Graff made a ruling regarding Charlie's regarding cameras in the courtroom. However, people need to understand that the ruling that just came down and I see this going viral online even as we speak, that was only about court cameras in the courtroom today as pertains to this specific hearing and possibly pre trial hearings in general. There's also mention, and I've got this from a reporter that that graft wrote, excuse me, stated that we've set aside the 30th of January and that might be the one want to say to argue our anticipated motion that's coming about keeping court cameras in the courtroom. I want to weigh in as well. It will be on January 30th. So on January is the one that they're making that ruling for. They're not making a ruling yet as of this time for the entire courtroom trial. Blake, Matthew, the mountainous. Is this understanding as well?
- [02:47]
B
Yeah, yeah, that seems right. It's. It went out in a few places that they'd already ruled, but that's not surprising. Kind of everything about this case seems to take forever, which we complained about on the show today. And I promptly got an email from another person who works in other murder trials. And she said it's just always like this. She said she's seen absolute open and shut gang banger shooting cases take two years to resolve. And so that sadly might be like this even for something as basic as getting cameras into the courtroom, which we're all hoping for. I think besides that, I guess the main thing we've gotten out of this because people need something to feast on is we do have really our first in a courtroom video footage of Tyler Robinson. We have people analyzing his facial expressions because there's not too much to analyze otherwise at this point. Whether his, whether the look on his face in profile, which we're showing right now, is. Is he smiling? Is he laughing? A lot of people have had that interpretation. I'll admit. I've only gotten a chance to look at it a few times. I'm not sure I see laughing. You can see a sort of grin a few times. But I could, I could understand if someone said it was otherwise.
- [04:01]
C
And by the way, guys, I'm going to share in the chat right now. I just got the, the otter note with the full transcript. So if you guys want to get it in. But yeah, so. Oh, excuse me. The Media Access actually January 30th is now moved because the, the hearing is still going on. So they now move back to February 3rd. So, Blake, to your point, there we go. They're just moving it out again. They're moving it out. They're moving out. I would say, though, if you have, does anyone have that picture of Charlie or, excuse me, Charlie, of Tyler Robinson. This, you know, where it's kind of zoomed in. It's like a zoomed in picture of him. And, and Blake, you know, to your point, I'll send in the chat. I didn't necessarily see him laughing in this video, but there's one spot where that, I mean, that's just definitely a smile. And you know, there are times where Brian Etten out of News Nation, who does a lot of this reporting, he said that, you know, sometimes it can be a, a tactic by defense teams to say try to look more human, try to smile, try to humanize yourself with the jury or any potential jurors who might be watching. So, so act normal. And yet when you, when you see this specific image of him smiling and you see sort of the way that he's acting. I mean, to me, he looks very smug. He looks very smug. He seems. He's. It's a grin. It's a grin. It's a smirk that you see in these images, and we're going to get that up and show you guys in just a second. But this is. I'm just gonna say it, guys. This was very. It's hard to watch. All right? I'm just gonna say right now, it's really hard for me to watch and see this guy yucking it up with his lawyers there at the table and grinning and certainly not looking remorseful, certainly not looking as though he's sad that we're in the proceedings for the death of a. Of a good man, the death of a father, the death of a husband. He's just, you know, very nonchalant and, you know, having a good time hanging out, like he doesn't have a care in the world. And, you know, I don't know the strategy or what, but I got very upset watching this earlier today, and I. Yeah, I can't even really say publicly what I want. Cliff, I don't know. What do you think? What were your thoughts when you saw this. This video?
- [06:29]
D
Well, I think this was a big moment for everybody, at least for me. I mean, I texted Tyler about this when I first saw the image of him grinning.
- [06:36]
C
I think I did the same thing. The same exact thing.
- [06:39]
D
In a weird way, I think all of us are dealing with this in different ways, and it still comes in waves, and sometimes it still doesn't feel real. This was a moment right when he. Seeing him, like, as an actual person, I'm not. My calling him that. He's nice. Not worthy of being called a human being. It's a piece of garbage. But it really just made this thing real again. And I think it was a moment, you know, to see him not just as, you know, hey, this prisoner who we saw briefly in. In the, you know, the prison garb, but now to be in a dress shirt and a tie, to have people surrounding him, defending him. You know, it's a justice system. It's going to play its way out. But it was tough to watch. And let me just say this to everybody out there, these trials are going to take time, okay? It's going to be frustrating. There's going to be so much that they have to prove that he is a person, that he was there, that there is a campus. The campus exists in Utah. There are so many. I want to call them preliminary things, but things that, for Most normal folks, if you've never been into a criminal trial, if you've never seen one, there are so many mundane things that the prosecutors are going to have to prove that are real things. And to us, it's so obvious. But in the court of law, you have to prove those things. And so I do think we should be prepared for this to be a long, drawn out battle. But as Erica said, why not be transparent? So that is the win that we're looking for. We're hoping that this is all going to be on camera, not to glamorize him, but let the people see what this monster did and let's have an open trial so that there's full transparency. I agree with Eric on that.
- [08:14]
B
Yeah, I really think it's. It's one of those things where there's a lot of, I think a lot of the issues we've encountered with what people say about this, it comes from the psychic overload, that people have such strong feelings about Charlie and about what happened to him. They need to engage with it. They need something to react to. And instead of having an unfolding trial with facts, instead of having all the truly actually quite lurid information about Tyler Robinson and his, his private life, I think that could be satiating a lot of them. But it's taking a long time because these court proceedings take so long and so they're getting diverted into other things. I think it's a, it's a big argument in favor of we should, as a country, spend more on our justice system, have more prosecutors, more judges, whatever it takes to have faster hearings, faster trials, faster turnaround on this sort of thing, because this is a modern development. You used to be able to do serious trials with serious evidence and serious proceedings within the last hundred years without nearly as much delay for this sort of thing. There have been attempted assassins of presidents who are tried, convicted in a fair trial, and in their cases executed within a two, three month time window. You don't necessarily even need this to be that fast, but feels very disappointing to me that anyone in a high profile murder case is taking half a year before you're even getting to jury selection.
- [09:48]
D
Yeah. And it's going to continue to drag out, and that's why I'm saying that. Blake, I agree with you, but I think it's our job to kind of set the expectation with viewers of the show and people that love Charlie. This is not going to be a four month thing. Right. This is going to take a long time. There's going to be jury selection there's going to be tons of, of these just things that from an outside perspective, you're going to say, well, who really cares about that? Why are they able to drag it out? But that's part of the strategy. And sometimes it's for the defense, sometimes it's for the prosecutors, you know, to, to kind of get the, the jury mad at the other side or to be frustrated. But I think, you know, the other thing is selecting a jury in this case, you know, to have a jury that's not tampered or people that haven't seen this. I mean, this is unprecedented, right? Charlie was everywhere. I think it's, it's hard to find someone, especially now with the news coverage, that doesn't know who Charlie Kirk is. And so you're going to have a heck of a jury selection to try to figure out, you know, and some of these rulings are going to be crucial on who the judge lets in, who the judge says, you know, has some sort of bias. And I think that's going to be a key part, you know, to what the prosecution has to do is to making sure that this isn't some issue that goes to a mistrial later because one of the jurors says that, oh, they weren't familiar with it or they don't know who Charlie is, or they haven't seen any of these reports. I mean, this isn't O.J. like, we're, we're in an age now where everyone has access to social media, everyone has access to content. So that, to me, is going to be a very, very interesting part of this process.
- [11:19]
E
This is Lane Schoenberger, chief investment officer and founding partner of Y Refi. It has been an honor and a privilege to partner with Turning Point. And for Charlie to endorse us, his endorsement means the world to us. And we look forward to continuing our partnership with Turning Point for years to come. Now hear Charlie, in his own words, tell you about why Refi.
- [11:39]
A
I'm going to tell you guys about yrefi.com that is yrefy.com why refi is incredible. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. Why refi is refinancing distress or defaulted private student loans. You can finally take control of your student loan situation with a plan that works for your monthly budget. Go to yrefi.com that is whyrefi.com do you have a co borrower? Why Refi can get them released from the loan. You can skip a payment up to 12 times without penalty. It may not Be available in all 50 states. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com let's face it, if you have distress or default to student loans, it can be overwhelming because of privacy. Loan debt so many people feel stuck. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com Private student loan debt relief why refi.com.
- [12:28]
C
So one thing that I'm getting from, from a friend of mine who was watching this and does some work in the, in the true crime, you know, kind of like follow through so says that Erica was officially made the victim in this. And something that a lot of people have pointed out that could come up in terms of some of the firestorm the media that's already going on is the Utah witness intimidation law. And I'll put that out right now. So this is something, by the way, this is something that comes up in a number of these cases when people have become, have followed them so closely, but then become so, shall I say, so so targeted at witnesses and victims. So here's what it says under Utah law, person committing witness slandering or intimidation if they attempt to improperly influence the testimony of someone they know that might testify to prevent someone from testifying, threaten, harass or retaliate against someone because of their role, engage in conduct intending to make a witness fearful, silent, or less cooperative with the justice process. Utah specifically criminalizes threats, harassment, public accusations intended to discredit public pressure. Can public pressure campaigns that could chill testimony, retaliatory conduct towards victims or victim advocates or designated representatives, public statements, even online can use the definition that the intent is to affect testimony or cooperation. And so this is, this is something that has come up in a number of these cases where, you know, you have this huge community that gets involved. But people have to remember that they are active cases. And in fact, there are laws on the books that govern anyone who can get involved in anyone you know, that is, that is getting involved in these cases. And, and that's serious. That's a very serious thing. And these laws have been on the books for a long time. Blake, walk us through why we have laws like this.
- [14:36]
B
I mean, we have laws like this because those are the things that people do to escape culpability for crimes. We and also frankly, a part of it is also there a way like our glorious Supreme Court has made it difficult to execute people, unfortunately. And so one of the ways they've gone about it is they've said you have to have some aggravating factors before we will allow a heinous perpetrator to face appropriate punishment for their crimes. And so you definitely see facets of that throughout the indictment of Tyler Robinson, where they threw in that charge for doing something in the presence of a minor. And I think the witness intimidation stuff comes into that, because when you're doing stuff against witnesses, that's another thing that's considered a valid aggravating factor in cases. And so you get those in play. They're clearly. They structured the indictment in a way to make sure a court couldn't swoop in later and say there were no aggravating factors. So you can't try to bring the death penalty in this case.
- [15:47]
C
I just want to clear up something, guys, because I have this. So the. The official term is. And, you know, you know, Maya Culpa, if I use the wrong term, she is recognized as the designated victim representative. So she's been officially recognized as a designated victim representative. And so that means she has a right to attend the trial. But as such, a lot of these witness intimidation laws could potentially, if the. If the judge decides to cover the designated victim representative as well, which means they cover Erica and. I mean, Blake, to your point, there's a basic reason we don't want people intimidating victims in a trial. Because we want actual justice. Well, for the same reason, we want actual justice. So that's why these laws on witness intimidation also cover victim representative intimidation as well.
- [16:37]
B
Yeah.
- [16:37]
D
And if I'm. If I'm understanding this correctly, why I think this opens up a can of worms in a good way is because now all of a sudden, you know, look, defamation, all of us know, you know, some of the vile things we've seen and some of these horrific things that people say about us or anybody that's involved with Charlie or New Charlie, you know, the standard for defamation is pretty much impossible in the United States. I mean, for public figures, it is pretty much something where to be successful in a defamation case against a public figure. It's just very rare. But now I'm hearing this, and I'm thinking to myself, and, you know, now it makes it, I think, much more doable that if Erica or the state wanted to go after somebody that is literally threatening her in a way or. Or defaming her in a way that could intimidate her as a potential witness or as a, you know, the. The. The victim representative. Am I. Am I saying that correctly? Does that open the door where it's much more liable for somebody to go after somebody that now has that label? Because with defamation, it's Pretty much impossible.
- [17:37]
C
Yeah, it can be. It's, it's, it's ultimately up to the judge. It's ultimately up to prosecutors in this case. But yes, it does give her an official standing with the court and in the trial. So what it means. And this has come up in other cases where, in other parts of the country where people have been harassed, intimidated, and then taking it up with the court and they, they've gone back and found rulings on their behalf and said, look, you can't interfere with someone who directly involved with a trial like this. It is what they view as a form of witness intimidation jury and actually tampering with a jury trial. And by the way, you know, just from a personal perspective, I want everyone to comment on this trial. If you disagree. If you think, if you're one of these people who is. I've been calling them the Robin Simps. So the Tyler Robinson, who actually support Tyler Robinson and they think that he's completely innocent and think that there's no way he could have done it and think this. I want the Robinson to be out there. I'm not calling for them to be arrested or charged or anything like that. And I think they have a perfectly fine First Amendment right to be wrong with the Robinson people asking questions. You perfectly have a right to ask questions in this country. All the First Amendment that said people should be aware that these laws are on the book. And that's just why I'm reading that. Because very simply, I'm just reading here, victims have rights. It's really simple. There's a bill of rights for victims and it includes the victim to not be. The freedom to not be publicly harassed and to abuse, protection from accusations, mobilization of followers to harass or attack. And so this means that in a sense, and I'm reading this, Erica is now officially tied to the prosecution, and the prosecution can take actions to protect her. And that's, that's just something to. That is going to be another, another feature of this case, I believe, going forward.
- [19:33]
B
It's possible. I feel like that would be. What you're alluding to, would be a stretch, but I guess I would probably appreciate it.
- [19:40]
C
It's not a stretch. It's the law.
- [19:42]
B
Yeah, I mean, it's the law, but it would be. There's laws and then it's. How do you use those laws? I would be, I would be very pleasantly surprised if we saw, if we saw it used in that way.
- [19:54]
C
I mean, I don't know. I'm just, I have no idea if it Would or it wouldn't. But we have seen people face face charges for victim intimidation before another time in other states.
- [20:04]
B
We have, we have. I'd have to read more on like what they specifically did in those cases though.
- [20:09]
C
Well, again, we're just talking about the liability. So this, the, the fact that she is now the official designation means that there are certain laws that apply to Erica that prior to this did not.
- [20:20]
D
And if I had to ask you guys, how long, how long do you guys think that this lasts? I mean, what, what's a re. I mean, is that we talking about a year and a half? Are we talking about, you know, three months? Like what's the prediction?
- [20:31]
B
I mean if you really want to know if it's a capital case, if he gets the death penalty, he could, this could be a 30 year thing. You've seen how often they love to drag these things out. Even without that, it's a, it's a great cause of the left to get people who have life in prison out on parole somehow. Especially if it is life without parole. We're given that promise all of the time and it doesn't pan out. You see these things, they love to commute sentences. Nasty. There are just people out there who love criminals. They love letting criminals get out. They love letting people who've committed heinous crimes roam free in society again. So I feel rather, unfortunately, I just can't truly imagine this being over, over for tragically many years. They'll find some way to perpetuate this case far beyond what it should be.
- [21:23]
D
Do we have any intel on how he's funding his defense? I mean, does he come from any money? Like is this, are these public defenders?
- [21:31]
C
So it's a, it comes from a public pot of money. And so he's given a public pot of money that was granted to him. This is also under, governed by Utah law. I could, I could pull up in a second exactly about his legal team. But yes, it does come from a public pot of money. And there they did give him act because it's a capital case. They are then giving him access to a higher amount of funds. They would if, then, if it were a, you know, if they were just a misdemeanor case, a felony case, but because the capital murder case, they are giving him access to far more funds. Because of course, this is why the state wants this. Because they don't want, let's say he's convicted. They don't want him to be able to come back around on the appeal and say, oh, I had ineffective, you know, ineffective counsel or something like that. Got it. But yes, it is. It's taxpayer funded. And we'll say to people.
- [22:24]
F
This Christmas, you got to give the gift of food security to your friends and family with an amazing deal from our friends at my Patriot Supply. It's called buy one gift to Christmas special. And you guys have got to check it out all month long. When you buy an emergency food kit, you'll get two more food kits free. For free to give as gifts. That's right. Get a four week emergency food supply for yourself and they'll throw in two one week food kits absolutely free. The one week kits make perfect gifts for anyone on your list who's into preparedness or anyone who needs a little nudge in that direction. These days. It just makes sense to have some food stored away for emergencies. And with this buy one gift two Christmas deal, you're not only getting yourself prepared, you're also getting unique and meaningful Christmas gifts for your friends or family. And they're free. So head over to mypatriotsupply.com Kirk and grab yours today. This offer is only around for the holiday season.
- [23:13]
A
Just go to my patriotsupply.com Kirk and join millions of Americans who are preparing today@my patriotsupply.com Kirk that is my patriotsupply.com Kirk.
- [23:26]
C
Well, here's something else I want to add, by the way. So his parents, we are told on reporters who are in the courtroom, including Danny's Nation, that his parents did attend the trial as well as one of his brothers. And sounds like his mother was very emotional. It sounds like he was, he was crying while she was waiting for. There was a portion of this that was held behind closed doors while they were sort of making arguments regarding the cameras. And Brian Etten mentioned that his mother was all, at one point they asked for the family to stay in the courtroom, but then the judge actually asked them to leave the courtroom during the, during the trial phase or during that argument phase. And he said the mother was outside in the courtroom, out of the courtroom, just crying. And look, I keep saying over and over, you know, for people who have been telling me that, oh, Tyler Robinson, the plants, you know, this isn't, this isn't real. Well, it's sort of like guys, his, his parents were the ones who, who turned him in and if they thought their son was, was innocent, that it was falsely accused, you know, they have all the opportunity in the world to speak to media. The eyes of the world are on them today. Not one of them Walked up the media and said, my son is innocent. Lee Harvey Oswald famously referred to himself as a patsy. And you just don't see anyone from the family coming out and saying that. That they believe he didn't do it, they believe he was innocent. Just hasn't happened. And it certainly didn't happen today. They had the opportunity to do so. They did not. And look, we see these images of Tyler Robinson, these sick images of him. I've just found a new image, by the way. I'm going to send it as well. Just this sick image of him grinning. It's very, well, very clear that he's grinning and, you know, caught in forte that he just looks weird, too.
- [25:19]
B
I guess that's not. That's not the best.
- [25:20]
D
Oh, there it is.
- [25:21]
C
There it is. Yeah, there it is. He. He really sitting there grinning while Charlie's family is gonna go through Christmas with our big dad. He's sitting there.
- [25:29]
D
Can we not talk about how he looks like Beto o'? Rourke? Has nobody made that comparison yet?
- [25:36]
B
He does. Wow. He does.
- [25:39]
D
In that album. I. I saw.
- [25:41]
C
No.
- [25:41]
D
I don't know. First time I saw that. Jack, you made a good point. I want to elaborate on it. That ruling was interesting when they said, hey, we need to clear out. We're going to make some decisions about cameras, and we're going to have some debate on this. And I don't want the public in here. And they obviously, you know, the defense said, hey, we want to request the family can stay. And the judge did not go with them. Right, the judge went with the prosecutors. But I find that to be very, very interesting because a lot of times you'll see judges start to go one direction, and if early on they're going the direction of, hey, we're gonna, you know, be with the defense, that becomes a problem if you're obviously rooting for the prosecutors. And so I think some of these early decisions can kind of show what type of temperament the judge is going to have. And for the judge to say that Tyler Robinson's family does not get special treatment, they are not allowed to stay in the courtroom, that all members of the public have to leave, I think that's a big win. And I don't think we should. We should glance over that. That was a big ruling from the judge today.
- [26:42]
C
And so one other piece for people to understand is that. Is that. So people are asking, will Erica testify? And so likely, I mean, it's certainly possible that anyone can call witnesses, but it's more likely that as a victim, representative that she will be giving a statement. Not during the trial phase, but there's two phases to a death penalty trial and a death penalty trial in most states, including the state of, you know, state of Utah, that they, the victim doesn't testify until. So there's a conviction. Then there's another phase, which is the conviction testimony brought in. And that's when you hear what's. What are called victim impact statements. And those victim impact statements are the ones that come in there. I'm told that we have a donation.
- [27:30]
B
Yeah, well, we have, we have Kate in again. He's, he's. He's a frequent donor. So thank you again, Kade. He says, hey, friends, hope you are well today and thank you very much, Kate. And we have a second one, but it's a lighter topic, so I would like. I don't want to hit it until we're ready to move on to the next one because I don't want to taint this very serious topic with it. But we are aware of your earlier one. Who was that from? From B. Jordan. We'll be reading off yours in a sec here. But do we have anything else we want to hit on this? On this, I have one last.
- [28:02]
D
One last question. Do we think that he testifies Ronaldson?
- [28:06]
B
I mean, technically, we don't even know if he has. He hasn't entered a plea yet, correct?
- [28:11]
C
Not a formal plea, no.
- [28:12]
B
Yeah, Guilty, for all we know.
- [28:14]
D
Yeah, he could.
- [28:16]
C
So as far as we know. Yes, he easily could just. He could plead guilty. And I'm looking at the chat. Yeah. In the chat. Just, just most people that I'm are just appalled the same way that I am, to see him smiling, to see him grinning, laughing it up. Go ahead, man, laugh it up. Go ahead. Keep laughing it up. Laugh it up as much as you want. Please continue to do so.
- [28:40]
B
Namar Ston asked, can they have cameras in the courtroom or not? They have not ruled on that for a trial. He ruled that they could have cameras in the courtroom today for today's hearing, but we do not have a ruling on the overall trial. We likely won't have that for many weeks. That is the cursed reality we live in. We all want to see this move more quickly, but that is the situation we have right now. If both, if both of the sides.
- [29:09]
C
The hearing is until February 3rd. So, yeah, we've got two months before we even get a next hearing on that.
- [29:16]
B
Just. Yeah, it's, it's. It's as stressful for us as it is for everyone else. I can assure You.
- [29:23]
D
Yeah. And, Blake, I actually, when you said 30 years, I kind of hit me in the gut. But you're right. I mean, this thing could be a very, very long process.
- [29:31]
B
I mean, it's truly horrible. I was. I once read in. In the 70s, there was a serial killer in Houston. And several of them, in fact, it was a group operation, so one of them died and the other went to prison for life. And due to some glorious quirk of the judicial system, that person is eligible for parole. And so they. They literally were a group that abducted children and murdered them. And every couple years, the parents of one of their last victims have to go to the court to present their arguments for why the person who murdered their child should not be out on the streets again. And this is. Well, just. This will continue as long as they are alive and well. Blake, I just think about what a tragedy that is for. For a person who, like their entire life was a waste. They used it to destroy other people's lives, and we preserve them. For some reason, I don't understand it. I don't understand why we moved away from justice as a principle that our state can wield. But that is what we have, and it leads to a lot of re. Traumatization of people like those parents, like Erica Kirk, like. Like a lot of people.
- [30:44]
C
Well, Blake, are you familiar with that case? And Cliff, you might know this because it's Philadelphia. Of Mumia Abu Jamal Fry.
- [30:50]
B
Mumia, no.
- [30:51]
D
Kill me in.
- [30:53]
C
Yeah. So, Mumia, this is a guy who. Think about this. He killed a police officer. Black Panthers who shot a police officer in cold blood before I was born in 1980. Killed him in 1981. That he sentenced to death in 1982. And years, and years and years go by. 20 years go by. He's still alive. He's still on death row. He's filing appeals, Filing appeals. The widow of the police officer who is so young, Maureen Faulkner, the wife of Danny Faulkner, you know, widow of Danny Faulkner, is. Is begging over and over for this justice to be done on this. And then eventually, 30 years after the murder, because things have become so woke in the city of Philadelphia that in 2011, the prosecution simply agrees to change his sentence to life without parole. So he gets life without parole. He's in gen pop, and this is what they can do there now. He became sort of a quasi celebrity. You have. We have, like, Rage against the Machine and all these people coming in for him. And so, Blake, to your point, this is a big problem when we wait so long to execute murderers and that emotions fade, memories fade, people move on to other things and different narratives can get in. In this case they waited so long that the case was actually taken away, the sentence was actually taken away. And now we just have life in.
- [32:20]
B
Prison and there's a shortage of justice like it people. I think there is a psychic feeling across America that they think there's a lack of justice for things that have gone wrong. You often hear that in reference to Covid that lockdowns were obviously a catastrophic decision. A ton of people suffered a lot and then nobody ever was really held accountable financially, criminally, socially, even for what they did. Like at a minimum, someone responsible for something that bad should feel a little ashamed to go outside. And that never happened. And I do feel that's one of the important arguments in favor of capital punishment. There should be a high profile way, something that goes on semi regularly. If you're in a society with crimes that reminds you people who do grave works of evil will be ripped out of society like the cancers that they are. And I don't think it's a surprise that when you have a society afraid to execute the worst malefactors, you have a society that is increasingly detached from any principle of right and wrong whatsoever.
- [33:28]
A
Look, I know there are a lot of choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service. There are new ones popping up all the time. But the truth is there's only one that boldly stands in the gap for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for. And that is Patriot Mobile.
- [33:43]
F
For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines fighting for our God given rights of freedom while also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to to all three of the main networks. Don't just take my word for it. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've made the switch and are now supporting causes they believe in simply by switching to Patriot Mobile. It's easier than it's ever been. Activate in minutes from the comfort of your own home. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. Patriot Mobile's all US based support team is standing by to take care of you, Charlie and Glenn over at Patriot Mobile. Dear, dear friends. So I'll give the last word to Charlie.
- [34:17]
A
Call, call 972 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com Charlie. Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com charlie or call 972 Patriot and make the switch today.
- [34:31]
D
Yeah, look, I mean I spent a lot of time, I mean Trump's first term, the first step act, right. A lot of people on the right, criminal justice reform, we were all about it. But here's the big difference. We were talking nonviolent. And this is where I think a lot of people on the left have kind of lost it. Not just with defund the police, but it becomes that any law in the books, you know, we need to have sympathy for those because the justice system is flawed and it's just not true. Right. Obviously the justice system can be flawed, but this idea of like soft on crime across the board, it's kind of this vicious. Like they're just all in on that. And to me, like you said, when you have these things that are very, very much not what I would call nonviolent, these horrific crimes, I think it should be the opposite. Like you said, we should make an example of these people. And I took. Look, I spent a lot of time being against the death penalty, probably 10 years. And to be frank with you guys, this was probably the moment where I realized when something hit close to home with somebody that we knew that, you know, it's, it's easy to theorize about that and to say, well, you know, I don't trust the government to kill somebody, but in certain circumstances it is very justified. And obviously I believe this is one of those.
- [35:40]
B
We have got a question from gibberish Nation asks, can the feds go back and charge Robinson with causing Charlie to lose his federal rights by murder and thereby seek the death penalty if it is not obtained through the state court? I suppose the most important question is, is that, do you guys know, is that a capital offense? Deprivation of civil rights in that matter, that would be an important question. Obviously we have capital.
- [36:04]
C
You would, you would. You would have to charge him with a form of terrorism, I believe would be a capital offense.
- [36:10]
B
Yeah, that would be my guess.
- [36:12]
C
Or some.
- [36:13]
B
I'm sure that has entered their mind as a way terrorism. Maybe they could get some sort of federal murder charge. They're always creative with those. If they cross, if they, if they cross federal property to do it or something like that, I wouldn't be surprised if that's on the table. But part of that is, that's one of the things about it taking so long. Are you going to suddenly come in and charge him if this verdict is finally reached a year from now, a year and a half from now? That is something I'm not sure of. I'm sure they would make a show of it, but again, by the time that would be done, you might be in a new presidential administration, might be a Democrat.
- [36:50]
D
And let's be careful what we wish for. Obviously we want justice for Charlie, but you don't want to get in the habit of the federal government coming in and finding some law or something that they can. I mean what's John Stossel's book Three Felonies a Day. Right. If the government wants to.
- [37:05]
B
If the.
- [37:06]
D
Government wants to come after you, they can. So I, I do want justice here, but let's just get the win here in Utah and not try to find a way the federal government can come in and try to. Yeah, the answer to the question is yes. Of course if the feds wanted to do it, they could try to do it. It'd be unprecedented, but they could try to do it. I, I don't think we want to be in the position where the federal government, God willing, it's not J.D. vance after 28. I don't want them backdating things and coming after us for random acts that they deem as some sort of federal offense.
- [37:36]
C
No, but you can, I mean you certainly can add that Derek Chauvin got federal charges added to his state charges. So I mean this, this wouldn't be the first time that there were, there were two sets of cases and I'm not saying it's prudent necessarily do so, but certainly just in a basic answer to the question, yes, the federal government can do that and certainly have the right to be that they did.
- [38:00]
B
All right. It looks like, it looks like I just want to say because they did donate and we always try to read those. I said I'd do it when we got change topics but the chat is super locked into this topic. So I think we're staying zeroed in on the Robinson saga but I wanted to call this so B. Jordan 24563 donated $20 and said appreciate the show guys. We appreciate you Jordan. Hoping the Sharon Moore situation might come up this week. For those who don't know, the coach of Michigan football got caught. I believe impregnating an undergraduate not advised that would be an amazing topic. But we have a more serious topic that is very close to our hearts that does deserve our full attention this week. But I agree it is a very fun story and again, thank you for your support. Thank you for tuning in. But yeah, on this one, yeah, you're right. Turning point we have to stay focused for Charlie. We have to watch this case. We anyone else? Someone's just a chad89 says Antifa being a terrorist organization could be Enough for a federal charge, I guess you would have to find you. You would have to be able to prove that he even considered himself acting on as an agent of Antifa. So that would be something where if we have a very thorough look at his discord messages, any chat groups he was in, you might be able to find that. But if he's not, if he, if he never uses Antifa to describe himself, if he's not in contact, that could be tough. It's always there are things that can bring you down. So I don't. I guess I would encourage us to view this trial as by far our best shot to get the accountability we want for Robinson. And we would only consider alternatives if that's just not going to come to pass. That. That's my thought.
- [39:43]
C
Yeah. And also as an example, the Maggione case, depending on where you take this, you know, you got to make sure you have a judge that actually and upholding the law. So Liioni was charged under federal terrorism and the judge in that case, this liberal judge, actually threw it out. So he threw out the terrorism charge because he said that, well, this isn't terrorism. That when Mani murdered the healthcare CEO and the judge as a said that it wasn't terrorism because it was only murdering one person and that his actions weren't intended to cause harm or intimidation to others, despite the fact that he just like Tyler Robinson, wrote political slogans on his bullet, had a manifesto, had all the intent in the world to spark what he called justice for, you know, his probably issues in the health care system, inequality in the health care system. And yet the judge said, and the judge actually in part of his ruling in that. Because in the New York this may have been a stage, so I may have to double check myself. But I remember it was the terrorism charge and I thought I'm talking about it. But he said that the rate the statute was written was that it affected harm to civilians. And under the statute, he ruled that healthcare workers don't count as civilians because that only means the public at large. I mean, it was the most twisted ruling and the most twisted reading of the statute that I've ever seen. And I'm like, this guy must obviously be a liberal to say that, oh well, if you work for a healthcare company, you're not a civilian. It's like, yeah, that's exactly how all marchers think.
- [41:22]
D
Yeah. One point I'll make. I mean, you know, I've seen a lot of these different cases where the law can say, you know, the sky is Blue. But if a judge says, hey, you know, today it's red. It's like it really. Once again, there are flaws in the justice system. And some of these judges and some of the rulings, it can be as clear as day to all of us. And, you know, I mean, these judges are elected, right? Or they're appointed by somebody that we elected. And that system's supposed to work, but sometimes it's just broken and it stinks and you got to power through it.
- [41:51]
C
And so I've been asked, say what. What is the psychology of a Robin Simp? And I'll ask you guys this. So do you guys know so Robin Simper. So Robin Simper is who. And not just ask questions about the public narrative. Let's you. You ask questions. You want to ask questions about evidence? Ask questions about the FBI. Fine, go ahead. First Amendment, right. But there are people that are full on Tyler Robin Simper who are just like, this guy didn't do it. I don't believe the parents. I don't believe any of it. You know, he needs to get off. We need to work to get him off. That makes you a Robin Simper.
- [42:24]
E
This is Lane Schoenberger, chief investment officer and founding partner of Y Refi. It has been an honor and a privilege to partner with Turning Point and for Charlie to endorse us. His endorsement means the world to us. And we look forward to continuing our partnership with Turning Point for years to come. Now hear Charlie in his own words tell you about why Refi.
- [42:44]
A
I'm going to tell you guys about yrefi.com that is yrefy.com why refi is incredible. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. Why refi is refinancing distress or defaulted private student loans. You can finally take control of your student loan situation with a plan that works for your monthly budget. Go to yrefi.com that is whyrefi.com do you have a co borrower? Why Refi can get them released from the loan. You can skip a payment up to 12 times without penalty. It may not be available in all 50 states. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com let's face it, if you have distress or default to student loans, it can be overwhelming because of privacy. Loan debt. So many people feel stuck. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com Private student loan debt relief. Why refi.com.
- [43:33]
C
And are you guys familiar with the term pro burgers? Have you guys ever heard this? Pro Burgers.
- [43:39]
B
Pro burgers. I only eat amateur burgers, Jack.
- [43:42]
C
Yeah, yeah, so have you. But do you guys remember Brian Coburger? As in the murderer up in Idaho of those sorority girls?
- [43:50]
B
Oh, oh, the guy who looks like Richard Hanania crossed with Josh Hawley, and.
- [43:56]
C
It kind of looked a little bit like. Like Tyler Robinson, because Yagan, who doesn't lie. So the. The pro burgers are a subset of the true crime community where they completely believe that Brian Coburger is innocent, that he was set up, that someone else did that. And they have formed. It's kind of a mini cult. They have this parasocial relationship with a variety of people who leave the pro burger culture. And it's basically like a fandom cult of him. They have shrine, they have song. They have, like, edits of Ryan Kohberger. Obviously you see this a lot with Luigi DiMaggioni, who are great. And you see. You even see people taking trips to go and visit the places associated with Bryan Kohberger because they believe so strongly in his. In his innocence. But it's beyond. It's so far beyond. Just, you know, oh, I think this guy didn't do it. It's literally become their identity because I don't know if it's like you don't have meaning at home or you're disconnected and disassociated with life. It is female coded. That to say it's just true. It's. It is very female coded where, yeah, they will completely allow this to subsume their identity.
- [45:14]
B
Well, what's funny is I have to imagine really deep down they would not want him to be innocent because clearly their actual thought is that he did do it. They just. This is weird to say. They think it's hot, I guess, like he's this dark killer person. Like, I don't think they would find this guy terribly interesting if he wasn't a murderer.
- [45:33]
C
Hybristophilia.
- [45:35]
B
What's that?
- [45:36]
C
Hypophilia. Hypophilia is a Hybristo. I'm sorry if my. My audio is being messed up again. So hybristophilia is a paraphilia. It's a type of sexual attraction for people who commit serious crimes. You saw this with the. The columbine shooters. You see this with a variety of fillers. You saw this with the Boston Bombers, where people who are. I believe it was. Oh, gosh, there are certain. Ted Bundy got married while he was still in jail. And, you know, they. They believe that they are super attracted sexually to Bad boys, criminals, deviants. And they want those typical risky, you know, risky relationships. And so they're attracted to criminals. So, yeah. Ted Bundy. I'm, I wouldn't surprise me if there were people who were attracted to Jeffrey Dahmer. It's, it's absolutely a certain paraphilia that's out there and it's this desire for intense, risky relationship.
- [46:34]
B
Yeah. Jeffrey Dahmer get letters in jail. Just saying like, please, please eat me, Jeffrey, please.
- [46:40]
D
Yeah. And this is, this is why you see, I mean, a lot of the true crime documentaries, it's kind of wild to me how many of these serial killers have so many lovers, Right. That they're exchanging letters with. I mean, it directly comes from like you said that, that weird desire to be with the bad boys, if you will.
- [46:55]
B
You even get funnier version, funny subversions of that. Like didn't Martin, Martin Shkreli had that journalist fall in love with him while he was in jail. And I think she did, she leave her, she like left her boyfriend or even left her husband over it. And this was a purely non physical relationship. He was in prison the whole time and then he got out and I think they, they quite promptly broke up once he was out of prison.
- [47:18]
D
Weird, weird.
- [47:19]
C
Martin Shkreli. Exactly. But Martin Shkreli do nothing wrong.
- [47:22]
D
So Jack's part of the cult.
- [47:24]
B
I love it.
- [47:27]
C
No, Martin Shkreli was not a murderer. Martin Shkreli was a pharma bro.
- [47:31]
D
Okay, got it, got it.
- [47:32]
B
Yeah, it's a little like his, his crime. It felt odd. I just felt like it wasn't spectacular enough to get a woman swooning for you over it, but she was really into it. And then he, man, I haven't heard about that guy since he kind of tried to get Baron Trump into that crypto thing, but I guess that's getting a little off topic.
- [47:50]
C
He's, he's on Twitter. I see, I see him there every once in a while. He does like, spaces and stuff and guys, just do me a favor. Throw that picture of Tyler Robinson up again from the court today. Please do that. Much as it pains with all of us, just do it. Because I, I, there is something I want to say when we look at this picture is not the behavior of a patsy. Guys, this is not the behavior. This is not the way it would look. This is not the way that a person would comfort themselves if they were thinking, oh, I was set up. Oh, I shouldn't be here. Oh, you got to, you got to get me out. I was Falsely accused. This guy doesn't look upset at all. I didn't see in a single one of these images or videos any image of him actually looking upset. It's not there. He's happy, he's grinning, he's smug. He's smug about what he did. And look, you know, say what you want about me, I don't really care. Honestly, I've never cared. People call me all sorts of things, but this guy. This guy's sitting there looking fun. He's sitting there looking smudging, as simple as that.
- [48:52]
D
The other thing that bothers me is the longer that this case goes, it's just going to continuously be more attention. I mean, obviously, I want attention to honor Charlie, but it's just going to be more fodder for all the trolls, right? Every time that this is live, every time it's out there, every time there's something new and this grin, obviously, you know, the first time we're seeing him, it should make us all burn inside. And I'm sure the people that, you know, praise him and the people that celebrated the death of Charlie, you know, they love seeing that, right? This gives them something else to share, something else to celebrate, and they're just pieces of garbage. I'm going to continue to say that.
- [49:25]
C
Absolute and utter pieces of garbage. Garbage. Blake, did you say you had something?
- [49:30]
B
Yeah, well, we have. We have a good. We have a nice message. We have this one from Kyrie McAllen. Another. I see her in the chat all the time. Kyrie donated to ten and says, please give us who Love Charlie, his family, the Charlie Kirk show team, and all the teams of Turning Point some practical ways that we can share the arrows, as Ali Stuckey says, that are being directed at all of you. You know, I think the best way is know. Know the details of this case. Read the indictment. Charging documents are online. The. The evidence against them is online. And you can also go read search a guy named Turkey Tom. There's a video you can look up called, I believe it is the man who Killed Charlie Kirk. Obviously, he's presumed innocent, but that is the title of the video. Let me make sure I have that exactly right. Okay. It is titled the man who Killed Charlie Kirk. And there's also a. If you prefer reading, there's a substack post that you can find by the same person. And what it gets into is it gets into the. The evidence about his personal life, his relationship with his boyfriend. The evidence, you know, that the stuff people have said is weird, such as him calling his Boyfriend, my love. In their messages, the guy saying that is in fact how they talk to each other. If you guys want to help share the arrows, learn those facts. Because the most common thing you see is you see the Robin Simps, as they're calling them, who are going to just say, oh, he's a patsy. Oh, there's no evidence for this. Oh, I think it's all fake. In truth, I think they're saying this because this is a drawn out process and not enough of it is on tv basically for them to feel like it's real. But it is real. The evidence in this case, we believe, is quite strong. If we thought it was fake, if we thought they had the wrong guy, we would obviously be freaking out because we care deeply that the correct person be brought to justice for this. So the best way you can share those arrows is know those facts. So if it comes up in passing, you're able to say, oh, man, did you hear about this? Did you hear about the stuff that they were into? Did you hear about this nesting? Because it really is a bizarre case. You could make a fascinating. There will be fascinating true crime documentaries about all of this one day because it is lurid, it is incredibly upsetting to see the life, the lives that these people were leading and to think that this allowed a person to go and to just go and randomly strike down a person as great as Charlie. So maybe you have your own thoughts, Cliff, but that's my thought on how to share the load.
- [52:16]
D
Yeah, I mean, of course, referring to, you know, the public perception, what's happening in the trial. But I also want to say, what would Charlie want us to do? To share the arrows is to go do the work. Right. Obviously, I'm not always going to pitch that we got to be out chasing ballots, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't get out there, you know, get involved, find a way to advance our cause. When it comes to the political scene, when it comes to the ideology of trying to reach new people, that's the way to share it. Right? I'm not saying you have to ignore the trial. Obviously we're all going to follow along. We're rooting for justice for Charlie, but at the same time, we have to double down. We have to go out there. Turning Point has to survive. Turning Point has to thrive in terms of not just campus, but all the Turning Point action, all the efforts, the things that we're doing, that's what this is all about. And when I think about what Charlie would be Telling me right now, it would be, yes, honor him, follow the trial. But at the end of the day, we cannot get distracted. And what I mean by that is not that we're going to not give him the homage that he deserves, but he would want us to do the work. And so for all of you out there that have done certain things, whether it was 2024 or before 2026 is coming up, and that's a huge opportunity for us to get involved and to truly make a difference when it comes to figuring out ways to do the work as Charlie would want us to do.
- [53:35]
B
Exactly. Exactly. Like, in the end, a lot of the nastiest stuff that said, it's said because it wants to. It wants to hurt the mission. It's people, people on the left who promoted. Oh, actually a MAGA guy did this. They say that for ideologically motivated reasons. And people from other aspects do it. They want to ultimately, for whatever thing is going through their head, they want to tear down the things that Charlie fought for, the things that Charlie died for. And so, along with what I suggested, Cliff is absolutely right.
- [54:08]
D
Do the work.
- [54:08]
B
You want to be engaged. If you're in Indiana, they. We've been talking about that. They just had that vote on their redistricting map, and it failed. It failed not because of Democrats, it failed because of Republicans. And so we've been saying Turning Point action will be taking action on that if you're in that state. That is an easy way to get involved with something right now that is relevant. But I know other people are saying they want to find out other facts. Some people mentioned Paramount Tactical. I was just looking at their videos the other day. They have great videos just talking about the details of the case, how we can know what happened or why. Some things people are saying about the bullet, for example, there's been a lot of claims, oh, this bullet could not possibly have been what killed Charlie. And there's some great Paramount Tacticals. One, there's other gun experts who've dived into that. And believe me, you'll hear from more. You'll hear more from us on that in just a matter of a few days. But we have, I think, one more message here, and then we'll close it out because we have this hard out here. EB Dim the ninth. EB Dim the ninth.
- [55:09]
A
May.
- [55:10]
B
I'll go with that. Ebdim the ninth. Be blessed in the Lord. Brother Blake and crew, thank you so much for that. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for this, and we'll see you next week Amfest. I believe we're doing Thought crime on stage at amfest next week. We encourage you to tune into that and tune in to every other part of amfest. Until then and until always, keep committing thought crime.
- [55:41]
C
For more on many of these stories.
- [55:43]
B
And news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.