← The Megyn Kelly Show
The Megyn Kelly Show
Platner Allegation EXPOSES the Media, and the Tyler Robinson Defense REVEALED, with Bevan, Halperin, Aronberg, Holloway, Geragos, Eiglarsh, and Spilbor | Ep. 1354
02:28:25
Megyn Kelly is joined by Tom Bevan, co-founder of RealClearPolitics, and Mark Halperin, host of "Next Up with Mark Halperin," to discuss the explosive new abuse allegation against Graham Platner, why Democrats are now calling on him to drop out of the Maine Senate race, the political fallout ahead for the midterms, how the media buried the allegations against Graham Platner until they could no longer ignore them, questions surrounding the framing of the New York Times story earlier this month, and more. Then Dave Aronberg and Phil Holloway, hosts of "The MK True Crime Show," Mark Geragos, host of "In The Well," and Mark Eiglarsh and Jonna Spilbor, hosts of "Positively Legal," join to discuss the newly-released videos during the hearing allegedly showing Tyler Robinson before and after the Charlie Kirk assassination, why prosecutors chose to present the extensive surveillance footage, the chilling texts alleged to be between Robinson and his "trans" lover, the key issue of whether R...
Loading summary
Transcript358 lines
- [00:00]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event. This Friday, July 10th through Sunday, August 2nd, stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event. Starting this Friday, discover the Dr. Horton difference. Visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.
- [00:31]
Megyn Kelly
Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show, live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the MEGYN Kelly Show. It's day two of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing in Provo, Utah, where prosecutors are seeking to persuade a judge that there is probable cause to believe that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10th of last year. We will have the latest in just a moment. We've been watching it. It's been on for the past hour. We are streaming it on our YouTube channel for those of you who would like to follow along. YouTube.com Megan Kelly in its entirety. And we are going to be doing substantive coverage of what happened yesterday and this morning in about 20 minutes or so. I'm gonna start with a different story here on our show, but we've gotta bring you more about this item that was AM Update podcast this morning. GRAHAM platner, this whole thing is imploding. His, his campaign is imploding. He was the darling of the Democrat Party. He easily won the primary to take on Republican Susan Collins in the main Senate race. And Republicans have been very worried about this race. It's extremely tight, extremely tight. And Susan Collins is, you know, she's a stalwart. She always seems to manage to pull out these contests. They like her in Maine, cuz she's moderate and so are they, including the Republicans. But this guy's sort of an insurgent candidate. He's, he's Trumpy in the way that he's outside the mainstream. He doesn't look like the other candidates. He doesn't talk like them. He, he's more of a populist, though, a leftist populist, whereas Trump was more of a Republican populist. And he has a very, very good chance of unseating her or did until recently. I mean, he's been again, kind of like Trump, like Teflon, he surrounded or he survived the scandals like that surrounding his Nazi tattoo. He had made several controversial comments on Reddit prior to running, allegedly Sexted with. I mean, we were told about a dozen women who were not his wife that the campaign said no more than six. Okay, okay. But while he was married, and he only got married in 2023, so this is not ancient history. And generally mistreating his previous romantic partners. There was a big New York Times expose on how those romantic interludes went beyond, you know, bad romances to where one woman, Lindsey Fifield, who's a conservative, said she had been locked in a room by him. She'd been, she had her arm twisted in a way that was painful and forceful. And some other allegations that came out which were quickly dismissed by most Democrats who didn't really care. And now he's facing allegations of sexual assault from a woman he once dated. And I have to say, just having read the allegations, she's alleging that he raped her. There's really no distinction. I don't know why they're not using the R word. And she is talking about it in a way that's a little odd. You know, like when asked, did you say no? She had language like, you know, I, I used language of non consent. She's got a sort of ethereal way of addressing the issue of consent. But it seems clear if you read her full comments and then listen to her on with Jake Tapper yesterday, she, she's saying consent was not there and that that was communicated. And it's causing an avalanche of defectors now from Graham Platner. I mean, I think everyone but Bernie Sanders has abandoned him now. Just about all the people like who had endorsed him and who were standing by him. Even my old pal Crystal Ball, who I really like, she's on the opposite side of the aisle versus yours truly. But she's awesome, she's smart and we go way back. She'd been standing by Graham Platner. She really likes that populist, leftist thing. And she today said, yeah, he's got to drop out. Politico first reporting yesterday that 41 year old Maine resident Jenny Razincott is the woman alleging Platner forced her to have sex with him while they were in a relationship. But she did not want to have sex with him. He was fall down drunk. She had told him not to come over. It was one of those situations. And he, he did. He came over, he followed her around the apartment, got her into her bed in her bedroom and forced himself on her. That's what she said. She also sat down, as I mentioned with CNN yesterday, and said this to Jake Tapper. This has obviously been very Difficult for you to talk about for five years.
- [05:38]
Mark Halperin
And even when you're telling the story,
- [05:40]
Mark Garagos
you don't use the word.
- [05:43]
Megyn Kelly
So let me just be.
- [05:45]
Mark Halperin
And I apologize.
- [05:47]
Megyn Kelly
Let me be as direct as I can. Did Graham Platner rape you?
- [05:56]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
By definition? Yes, absolutely.
- [06:01]
Megyn Kelly
Because he had non consensual sex with you.
- [06:03]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Yeah.
- [06:04]
Megyn Kelly
Forced himself on you
- [06:07]
Mark Halperin
after you had
- [06:08]
Megyn Kelly
told him no and fought him off.
- [06:11]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
He violated multiple layers of consent that night by coming into my home when I asked him not to and by
- [06:19]
Megyn Kelly
advancing on me when I told him not to.
- [06:23]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
And. And furthermore, another incident that I had told him not to do and with protection. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah. By the way that my nervous system reacted to this experience. Absolutely.
- [06:38]
Megyn Kelly
Platner's calling any accusation of non consensual behavior, quote, categorically false. That's what he said when the New York Times piece hit, too. But yesterday, as this news was breaking, we got news that he was canceling campaign events. And then he released a statement about how he is contemplating his political future. The most important part of this statement is the last sentence. Listen here.
- [07:03]
Mark Garagos
Any accusation of non consensual behavior is categorically false. Over the last 10 months, I have been deeply humbled by the faith Mainers have put in me. You have welcomed me into your homes, into your places of work, into your restaurants, into your houses of worship. You have shown that a different kind of politics, one that puts the interests of people over corporations, is not just possible, but is inevitable. So regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.
- [07:49]
Megyn Kelly
Taking time to reflect on the path forward is classic language for we're out. He didn't say we're out. He may just be considering getting out. There hasn't been an announcement that he's out. But taking time to consider the path forward is not good if you're saying that as a candidate for office, you're in a lot of trouble. Now, the deadline for him actually to bail, for the Democrats to replace him as well on the ballot is July 13th. Saturday's the 11th because it's my mom's 85th birthday. And then, so, yeah, the 12th is Monday. Sorry, the 13th is Monday. And so that is the deadline by which Democrats must replace him on the ballot if they wish to replace him on the ballot. And many, as I said, prominent Democrats are calling for him to drop out right now with main seen as a key opportunity to flip a Senate seat. They see Susan Collins as vulnerable. One person who has not yet commented is Senator Bernie Sanders, who previously endorsed Platinum. He's probably the biggest power player in making Platner and his the loss of his endorsement would be devastating. Joining me now to break it all down. This, this scandal and what the the pain it's causing within the Democratic Party are two of the best. Tom Bevin, who's co founder and president of Real Clear Politics and co host of the Real Clear Politics show on Sirius XM right here on the MK Channel and our pal Mark Halperin, who is host of NextUp on the MK Media Podcast Network, which also airs on the mk channel on SiriusXM. When you sign your insurance policy for some brokers, that's the finish line handshake. They get their commission and then they're kind of done with you. You may not hear from them again until it's time for renewal, in which case, once again, they're your best friend. That's annoying. But your business runs all year and so do the gaps and the risk and things happen. And this is why I want to tell you about Super Sure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you're the owner, the CFO or the HR manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. Super sure is the super agency built just for you. It's licensed in every state for your business, insurance and employee benefits with year round support for you and your team. At supersure.com, you can access tools like Fine Print Facts, which translates your current policy into plain English so you see what's covered and what's not. Plus a business value calculator so that you can estimate what your business is worth and know what actually needs protecting. Go to supersure.com Megan One super agency, one powerful platform. All your policies in one place. Supersure.com Megan Paid for by Super Sure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Guys, welcome. What a hot mess. Mark Halperin put it in perspective for us.
- [10:41]
Tom Bevin
Well, what matters, of course, in the end besides the drama of just the main race? What this does to impact the chance that Democrats can control the Senate after the midterms. If they can't win Maine, the math becomes very difficult for them. This was their in one or two of their top pickup opportunities. In terms of Platner, I think this raises real questions to the Democratic Party about credibility and honesty and fidelity to principle. And it also Raises questions in terms of the timing of whether they actually will end up with a weaker candidate as flawed as Platner was. If you look at the people they might pick, they may be decreasing their chances of winning this seat as opposed to enhancing their chances.
- [11:22]
Megyn Kelly
What do you make of it, Tom? Because this is not only the implosion of a candidate, it's also a serious black eye for the press because the New York Times had this woman. She was in their initial piece, but not with this story. And it looks like if you're gonna be really charitable to the New York Times, she didn't tell them the full story. She's out. She's coming out now saying, I didn't tell the full story then because I wasn't ready. But they had this bird in hand and apparently weren't interested enough to coax this out of her or did coax it out of her and weren't interested in coaxing it such that they could get it in print, which as you know, is another layer for any good reporter. And now another woman, that woman, Lindsay Fifield, the conservative who was featured in the New York Times, is coming out now and ripping the Times a new one, saying, your piece wound up being a cover up. It was designed to run cover for him. It was not designed to elicit the truth. And it's no accident that you failed to and that it took Politico couple weeks later to actually print what happened to this other woman.
- [12:38]
Willie Geist
Yeah, I mean, this is one of the things, all the Graham Platner supporters are up in arms. I think the media has, has just done a hit job, you know, based on the establishment backing. Right. And then folks on the right are saying, look, you saw people like Jodi Cantor going on CNN and defending Platner in the face of that initial Times article. I mean, you have all of the, you had the media and the Democrats, they were certainly, they were willing to overlook all of these things. The tattoo, the Reddit post, the, you know, port a potty masturbation thing. I mean, all of this crazy stuff, including these allegations about him being not just sort of a bad boyfriend, but actually putting his hands on women and Ro Khanna. And everybody was willing to sort of look past that because they were able to say, look, this is a conservative woman. They can't say that anymore. And obviously now, now some, some line has been crossed here that, that even Democrats, as you mentioned, pretty much everybody except for Bernie Sanders at this point has called on Platner to get out of the race. And so I I think he is. What's interesting about what Mark just said, it's going to be fascinating to watch this play out, because if you look at the betting markets, the the odds of of Democrats winning that seat actually popped up. They might they might end up with because Platner was he had so much baggage, but he also had this enthusiasm among the sort of, you know, left wing base. And if they put somebody in that seat, if Democrats end up picking someone and putting someone in that seat who doesn't have that support, the party's gonna be split in half heading into the general election, which is not a good place to be here.
- [14:13]
Megyn Kelly
Is that Jodi Cantor? Soundbite she is she's not the woman who wrote the New York Times article on Platner, but she is responsible, she and Megan Tuohy for the New York Times MeToo coverage. They're the ones who broke all the big stories, Harvey Weinstein, et cetera. And this is Jodi Cantor talking about the Times coverage on this issue.
- [14:35]
Jodi Cantor
Well, let's talk about what they may or may not be willing to overlook. The accusations against Graham Platner are not classic MeToo accusations. They're not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships. There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not the way my colleagues reported them, were not like classic abuse allegations. They were mostly like being his boyfriend gave me a view into him and I did not like what I saw. His character was scary. He had this Nazi tattoo, et cetera. There was one allegation of crossing a line physically. But I think that means that these are pretty different accusations than, say, the ones that President Trump faced. And of course, in the Access Hollywood tape, President Trump bragged about grabbing women against their will. And so I think it speaks to the kind of confusion of the long post MeToo moment in which like, gender related accusations get bundled together. But they're actually very different, very different,
- [15:57]
Megyn Kelly
very different mark from Trump.
- [15:58]
Tom Bevin
I'm breathless listening to that. If you couple that with what I can only see as a catch and kill attempt by writing the original story, coupled with Lindsay's very well documented Twitter posts about how the Times reported this story in a way that seemingly intended to downplay the damage it would do to Graham Platner. These, these, these, there should be New York Times employees, if they pass with prologue for them, they should be out in front of 8th Avenue protesting their own paper. They should be calling for a thorough investigation of how such a thing could happen. Because this is a, this is a. By their state, by their standards, it's a massive failure to protect the rights of, of victims, accused accusers. And it's just mind boggling to me that the New York Times can operate with impunity and no accountability to what seems clear to be an attempt to, as they often do, favor one party over the other.
- [16:59]
Megyn Kelly
It was, it was a catch and kill. That's how it. I mean, the irony, right, that's the name of Ronan Farrell's book on what the National Enquirer did to protect, well, Trump and Harvey Weinstein and some others, and not just the National Enquirer, but that he talked about that practice of catching and then killing the story. You get it and then you kill it to protect the subject of it. And the New York Times seems to have clearly done this in the case of Graham Platner and under the auspices of an expose.
- [17:29]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Right.
- [17:29]
Megyn Kelly
But now we know, Tom, that the expose was very limited given what Lindsay Fifield had told them, because she's ripping them to, you know, high heavens and has been since that piece broke. And given what we now know, this Jennifer Racicot had to tell that she had this. And look, I've. I've probably interviewed more MeToo victims than Jodi Cantor and Megan Tuohy. I know these women very well. Not the ones in this story, but I. Women who have these stories. And I guarantee you the Times knew Rasakat's story. There's no way Racicat did not tell the two women who interviewed her the full story. She probably just said, I'm not ready to go there yet. Like, I only want you to print the following in the New York Times. That's my guess. She's saying publicly now, I wasn't ready to tell the full story publicly when I spoke with the Times. And I really thought they had Lindsay and they had another girl, so they didn't really need me. But my point is simply if you know in your head that this is what, what the full allegation is, your piece sounds different. You know, I mean, you, you don't go lightly on him. You, you've got somebody who says he raped me, who's just too scared to say it. So if that's the case, I'd love to hear from this Jennifer Roscott on whether she actually did tell the full story to the Times and just didn't give permission to print it, because then, then they are truly villainous. They then, then those women wrote that catch and kill, knowing that he had a credible allegation of rape against him and still in. In a way to catch and kill it. Can I just read to you, Tom? You, you mentioned this, this Lindsey Fifield remark. You did. She's. She had this devastating post on X yesterday, and I'll read it in part. She. She's mad about what they've done to her and what they're doing now. In general, I actually understand why Democrat leaders don't take our stories serious or didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June, but are now. It was by design. The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times, quote, could not corroborate my story despite talking to two of my friends. Just FYI, for the listening audience, Lindsay's story included the following three paragraphs. Mr. Platner could be rough with her, Ms. Fifield said, particularly when they were drinking, leaving her shaken and sometimes afraid. In the interviews, Ms. Fifield grappled with how to process her experiences. She was quick to note that he never hit me, never punched me. But she said he regularly grabbed her by the shoulders, sometimes hard enough to leave marks, and on one occasion yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car. During one one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom, held the door closed from the other side so she couldn't get out, telling her to remain there until she was calm. Eventually, Ms. Fifield said, she fell asleep and left the next morning. It hurt, she said. It didn't cause an injury. It didn't break my arm. So they were quick to make sure they printed Fifield's downplaying of the incident. Right. Without reporting, for example, that's kidnapping. If it's true what he, what he did to Fifield, it's kidnapping under the law. Not to mention assault, that is. It's a battery. An unwanted touching is a battery. In any event, back to Fifield's ex post. She says, okay. They were quick to print up point out that they, quote, could not corroborate my story despite talking to two of my friends. I gave them contact info for five friends they called the two, who I clarified, would not know about the abuse, but would be able to affirm our relationship, timeline, events, et cetera. They simply did not call the other three. I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house, which was about five houses down from his and waiting for me to return. By the way, that's very relevant now because this Jennifer Racicot is saying he broke into her home and was lying in wait for her. Lindsay continues. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and and I discussing it. She says, I gave the names of the other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town. In diary entries talking about it all time marked, I told them that during premarital counseling I had spoken to my ex fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror anytime he lost his temper. They said, oh no, we don't need to bother him or my priest. Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail. They are. They reassured me. As the weeks dragged on, I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim. My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that, yes, I had told them he was abusive long before he ran for Senate. Besides, they assured me my part in their reporting would be small. She wound up being the poster girl for the whole piece. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman. Jenny and I, having never met or spoken, both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control and cycles of abuse. Love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well. But tell me again how they, quote, could not corroborate. Tom, that is devastating.
- [23:00]
Willie Geist
Well, it's even more insidious than that because the difference between the two is that Lindsey Fifield was a Republican, was a conservative, and this Jenny Racicot was a liberal. I mean, she basically said, look, I agree with Graham Platner's policies, but I don't like him as a person. And so when the New York Times did that and made Lindsey the feature and focus of that story, that allowed all these Democrats and everybody else in the media to dismiss it as the Platner campaign came out and said, look, this is just a disgruntled, you know, this is a hatchet job from the right wing, the MAGA crowd, all of that. If they had reported the fact that there were also credible allegations from, from another woman who who was from the other side of the aisle. It would have been much, much harder for them to. To play that game and do it that way. And that's why I think a lot of Democrats now are looking at this and they've. That's the difference between the two cases.
- [23:52]
Tom Bevin
Megan, I went.
- [23:53]
Megyn Kelly
It's such a good point.
- [23:54]
Mark Halperin
Sorry.
- [23:55]
Tom Bevin
I went and read the New York Times story yesterday. And the whole thing is so insidious. Not just, as Lindsey points out, the things they didn't include, but just based on what they included. This is the, this is the lead they wrote. This is literally the lead of a story about accusations, as you said, of serious accusations. On Tuesday evening, after a whirlwind day in Washington, Graham Plattner, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine, rushed home. Rumors were spreading from Portland to the Potomac. It's like a feature he lead about how Platner is dealing with the accusations. I rewrote the lead just based on what they put in the piece, not the stuff that they buried. This is. Would have been my lead. Democrat Senator Graham Platner is facing allegations that he physically assaulted and held captive a former girlfriend during a volatile relationship, according to a New York Times investigation. That's the lead. And the story.
- [24:42]
Megyn Kelly
Thank you.
- [24:43]
Tom Bevin
And the story is written, is filled with quotes from, oh, other girlfriends really liked him, said he was a really nice guy. Can you imagine them inserting that in the story about Donald Trump?
- [24:54]
Phil Holloway
This is.
- [24:54]
Tom Bevin
Right. This is such a scandal, this piece. And, and, and I can see why Lindsay feels so betrayed by cooperating with them. And I question why she did. Because, because it was clear for. Based on her account of how they treated it, they were not trying to write the real story. It's just phenomenal that they tried to get away with this. And, and they would have potentially had it not been for someone else deciding that she needed to come forward.
- [25:21]
Megyn Kelly
Yeah. I mean, to. To quote one of my mom's favorite movies, Animal House. You up. You trusted us.
- [25:27]
Investigator or Court Witness
Yeah.
- [25:28]
Megyn Kelly
That's what, that's. That's what the New York Times is saying to Lindsay. Right. It's like, too bad you took a risk. You never should have done that. But it is infuriating. And in a way. I mean, not in a way. In fact, Tom, it backfired because the Democrats could have had the truth about Graham Platner. He denies it. It may or may not be true.
- [25:47]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Okay.
- [25:48]
Megyn Kelly
I must say that for the record, but they could have had this story in full about Graham Platner weeks ago in much more time, before the election to get another candidate in there, to clearly and easily get him off the ballot before that July 13 deadline. But they decided to play the game of delusion and dilution. And now here we are with less than a week to go before his name has to come off that ballot or stay on there for the general election, and he's just considering the path forward, not agreeing to step down.
- [26:21]
Willie Geist
Yeah, I mean, as if the Nazi tattoo wasn't enough, like they could have gotten rid of this guy like a year ago. Months ago. Months ago.
- [26:28]
Megyn Kelly
Right.
- [26:29]
Willie Geist
And all of the other, the Reddit posts and all that stuff. I mean, it is astonishing for, for all of the people who live in Maine that, that the Democrats decided to get behind this guy and hitch their wagon and their credibility to this guy and then stick with him through all of these things. It has been remarkable to see. And now it is a problem. They are going to pay a price for it, not just in Maine, but for all the other races. I mean, you had El Sayed endorsed him in Michigan. He's, he's now distancing himself. The only person, the most prominent Democrat who did not endorse him, interestingly, was aoc. She did not get behind this guy. And I, I find that kind of, kind of interesting. But as you said, Bernie's, Bernie's been all in, has been up there campaigning for him even after that New York Times piece came out. He hasn't said anything yet. And so look, I think he has to get out.
- [27:24]
Phil Holloway
I don't know.
- [27:24]
Willie Geist
I guess there's a slim chance that he could, he could try and ride this thing out, but it looks like pull a truck. Well, yeah, exactly.
- [27:32]
Megyn Kelly
We all thought Trump was going to drop out after the Access Hollywood tape. And he came out, double barreled it and said, f off. No locker room talk. I'm in.
- [27:41]
Willie Geist
I saw Mika Brzezinski sort of grilling Adam Wren, the Politico reporter, about now. Now, there's no, there's no police report.
- [27:49]
Phil Holloway
Right.
- [27:49]
Willie Geist
There's no, like, what documentation do you have? Like, do you have the DMs? I mean, theoretically, I don't remember her
- [27:56]
Megyn Kelly
asking any of that about the Trump accusations. Abusers.
- [27:59]
Mark Halperin
Right.
- [27:59]
Willie Geist
She definitely doesn't look like she's believing all women. But I guess theoretically he could say, look, you know, this is a he said, she said situation. I say it doesn't happen. She said it did. And he could try and go that route. But it looks like the momentum is, is swinging pretty heavily against him. It would be hard for him to, I Think to. To ride it out at this point,
- [28:17]
Tom Bevin
I think Sanders may have called for him to get out.
- [28:20]
John Spilbar
Oh, did he?
- [28:21]
Megyn Kelly
Just now?
- [28:21]
Tom Bevin
Just now. I think I'd seen reports on that.
- [28:23]
Megyn Kelly
But wait, while you check that, let's play a little of that Morning Joe exchange you just referenced. Tom Bevin. Here it is. 4B, correct me if I'm wrong.
- [28:32]
Mark Halperin
And this.
- [28:32]
Megyn Kelly
There's not a legal case playing out here for due process to see itself through. So my question to you, given the very high standards Politico has before they write something like this and publish it, what aspects of this story brought it to the level of publishable?
- [28:53]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Yeah, you're correct here, Mika.
- [28:55]
Investigator or Court Witness
There.
- [28:56]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
There is no police report in this case. We spent a lot of time talking to Jenny, you know, asking her for corroborating evidence.
- [29:05]
Megyn Kelly
Were you able to see the interactions between Graham Platner and this alleged victim? Did you actually physically see them? Did she produce them for you?
- [29:15]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
She was. She attempted to uncover them.
- [29:18]
Megyn Kelly
She was unable to, Willie.
- [29:24]
Willie Geist
She was Jenny in that New York Times piece.
- [29:27]
Megyn Kelly
She appeared in the piece a few weeks ago.
- [29:29]
Tom Bevin
So what's your sense of why she
- [29:31]
Megyn Kelly
decided she wanted to go into more detail with you at this point?
- [29:36]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Yeah, Willie, she was frustrated with how that article landed.
- [29:41]
Megyn Kelly
Yeah, you're right, Mark. I'm seeing it, too. It broke six minutes ago. Senator Bernie Sanders on the Maine U.S. senate race. Quote, I have spoken with Graham Platner about the best path forward for Maine in light of these very serious allegations. I have recommended that he step aside. So does that. Is that. Is that it, Mark, when you have Sanders actually join the chorus?
- [30:04]
Tom Bevin
Yeah, it's pretty big deal. Fellow New Englander, leader of the movement, as pointed out, just one of his major backers. So, look, Kleiner can look at the Donald Trump and Bill Clinton examples and say, if I fight and win, I go for broke and I'm a US Senator and I can survive. If I get out, I'm probably done as not just a political figure in Maine, but as a member of polite society in Maine. But no financial support, no backing of Sanders. I thought he had close to no chance to go on, as Tom said. But now I think it's. And now I think it's probably literally
- [30:39]
Megyn Kelly
no chance because we already saw that he was losing his funding. The National Democratic Senate Senatorial campaign, I think it was, or one of those formal fundraising groups already said, we're out. All the other supporters have said, we're out. As I said, even sort of the grassroots, more podcast type influencers are saying we're out. And now you have Sanders saying, we're out.
- [31:02]
Tom Bevin
I will say if you did a poll in Maine right now in the wake of the allegations, I think he'd be within five points of Collins. I did a focus group with Maine voters, and they just don't care.
- [31:13]
Megyn Kelly
No, I agree. I agree. I agree. Which is. Which is why that's on the other side of the ledger. If you're. If you're Graham Platner in deciding, what do you do here? But the only other guy they're talking about, so far at least, is this Troy Jackson, who's a former state senator in Maine. He lost the Democratic primary last month for Maine governor, and he's been floated as somebody who could succeed Platner. Reading here from the Washington examiner, he called for Platner to drop out, saying I'm the best person to replace him. However. Okay, however. Guys, here's what Progressive Victory just posted. We began asking our contacts on the ground in Maine about Troy Jackson earlier today after seeing many suggestions that he should replace Platner. In our discussions, we have received troubling information, not only about Jackson's behavior, but the behavior of many prominent Maine Democrats toward women more broadly, both as a result of the credibility of the sources and in the interest of not seeing our movement make the same mistake twice. We are choosing to share some of this now. As Maine Senate president. In a state Senate caucus meeting several years ago, Troy Jackson, in a heated disagreement, struck a female colleague with a bottle he threw at her. There are many witnesses, and it appears this is a widespread open secret within Maine politics and not an isolated incident. This information is still developing. We'll provide it more as we get it. I should note for the record, that's not been responded to by this Troy Jackson. It appears to be an allegation that was not made in any sort of official or formal setting, so we will assume he denies it for now. But the vetting thing is not going well. Tom Bevin. It's not. It didn't go well with Plat, and maybe, maybe this is the reason why. Who could forget these idiots who found Graham Platner to begin with and then were so proud of themselves did the media rounds, only to have all normies recoil in a horror that these are the people picking our political candidates. Look at these two. We paid a nice firm a whole chunk of money and got some stuff back. Some of what you've seen on the news, we got back.
- [33:20]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Other stuff we didn't.
- [33:23]
Megyn Kelly
Did the vetting process turn up the
- [33:25]
John Spilbar
Tattoo that became so controversial?
- [33:28]
Megyn Kelly
No, the Reddit posts.
- [33:31]
John Spilbar
Did that turn up in the vetting process?
- [33:39]
Megyn Kelly
The firm sent us a thing, and it had some of the post, but it didn't have all of them. And what did you think about that?
- [33:49]
Willie Geist
How did you.
- [33:50]
Megyn Kelly
How did you think your way through the fact that he had posted these things on social media? I said none of this will or should stop him from becoming a U.S. senator. Oh, my gosh.
- [34:05]
Willie Geist
They might want to ask for a refund for that oppo research firm that they hired because they didn't do a very good job.
- [34:14]
Mark Halperin
Of course.
- [34:14]
Megyn Kelly
Of course they didn't. That. Have you ever seen a bigger loser? I mean, you could just tell just the. His affect, the way he speaks is his defense of the vetting process. I don't know if he's connected with progressive victory Mark Halperin, but they seem to be doing a better job in stopping certain other possibilities in their tracks so that they don't make this mistake. I mean, I think the biggest winners today are obviously Maine Republicans and Republicans nationwide, who've gotta be feeling. This seat notwithstanding, what that betting poll showed is. Is a bit more secure for Team Red than it was two months ago.
- [34:51]
Tom Bevin
Well, you just imagine whoever the main Democrats pick, even if they somehow could pick somebody on Tuesday, if Platner gets out, it's a challenge to stand up a Senate campaign. Even if you run a gubernatorial campaign this year, standing up a federal Senate campaign, hiring everybody in the middle of the summer, fundraising, scheduling, and then going through vetting, you know, it's a crapshoot. Is it possible someone could get all that done and not have vetting issues and put his campaign up against Susan Collins, who, by the way, her and her team are killers. They're not. They're not lackadaisical. They know how hard it will be for her to win this seat no matter what because of the nature of the state. So good luck to whoever it is, and they better be clean as a whistle, because you can rest assured, their own vetters may not find stuff, but the James Blair and the Republicans will find it all.
- [35:40]
Megyn Kelly
It's really not great to replace the one who's, you know, allegedly kidnapping and assaulting and raping women with one who threw a bottle at another woman in a heated disagreement. I don't know where it hit her, but there are apparently many witnesses. Again, reports this group as an open secret. So last but not least, this is not on the subject of Graham Platner, but it is on the subject of Mitch McConnell. There is a report out today that Mitch McConnell's been hospitalized for the past few weeks and there's a woman who broke the story, who's an independent journalist. I'll try to find her name here. I had it a second ago. And she is reporting today that Mitch McConnell may be in a coma. He may be in a coma right now. And that as that news hit his wife, Elaine Chao, final former labor secretary under Trump, former flew to China to meet with the Chinese vice president. Okay. So he was found unconscious and required CPR at his Washington D.C. home following an apparent cardiac arrest. Reading here from a Daily Beast report that's based on this woman's and I think another's reporting and now this woman, her name is Desiree Townsend again. She's the one who initially reported accurately he was found unconscious at his home, is saying, yes, that she's now hearing that he is in some sort of vegetative, vegetative state and possibly no brain activity. And that she's now waiting at the hospital for when his family, quote, eventually decides to move him off of life support. He is still a sitting U.S. senator. He stepped down as Majority leader, but he's still sitting US Senator. And there's speculation, Mark Halperin, that the reason, possibly this is Steve Bannon's theory that they don't want to announce this is that he believes the senator's office is trying to avoid triggering a special election that would allow outgoing Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie to run as an independent. There's some timing issue. If this comes out about McConnell before August 3rd, about whether we can have a special election that might allow Massie to run or whether it would just go right to November in the general. And I don't know if that would, how that would affect Massie. But can we just start on the issue about McConnell and the reporting there? What do you, what do you know and what do you think?
- [38:08]
Tom Bevin
Well, they've been very, very unforthcoming about what exactly has happened. We know he's had health issues in the past. I talked to someone today who I think knows more than he was willing to tell me. But I wouldn't be surprised if Senator McConnell didn't come back to the Senate and, and all this stuff about, about who will replace him is, is going to be very much on his mind and the mind of his team. They're extremely proprietary about that seat.
- [38:34]
Megyn Kelly
I gotta say I'm sad about this. I know there are a lot of Republicans who don't like Mitch McConnell cuz he's been a Trump antagonist in more recent years. But the Mitch McConnell I know is the one who got Supreme Court justice and appellate court justice after one after the other through at a time when the Democrats were completely obstruction oriented around judges and he accomplished some heroic feats around judges that he really should be applauded and remembered for. And look, you can't have your whole legacy be defined on whether you were on the right side of Trump. You know, that's just bullshit. Like, he served honorably for decades, became a leader in Republican politics. He was a gentleman, but fought very hard when it came to judicial nominees. Forgive me for speaking of him in the past tense. There's no report that he has died. It's just, I understand he's obviously struggling right now, so. But if this does become a battle for, you know, legacy and the seat, Tom Bevin, it's not like this is going to go blue, this seat, but Thomas Massie actually potentially getting in, like what a switcheroo that would be. I mean, I don't know if Trump would feel any better about Massie than he did about McConnell.
- [39:54]
Willie Geist
No, that would be like one of those stories that, you know, Hollywood would reject because it seemed too far fetched if that's how the whole thing worked out. But I agree with you. You know, Mitch McConnell had a really interesting arc over the last few years of his career because when he was in the same, he's a master tactician. He, he was able to get the Supreme Court justices through. And you remember, like there were all these memes of him going around and like with narcos and all these things. Like he was, he was, it was like dark.
- [40:21]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Yeah.
- [40:22]
Willie Geist
Cocaine Mitch and all that fear, the turtle, all of those things. And then he subsequently, the sort of, the, the, the attitude flipped and he became among the least well liked. If you look at his favorability ratings, they went absolutely into the tank, in part driven by Republicans. And so he became one of the least liked members of the, the establishment by the MAGA base, even despite his successes and accomplishments.
- [40:48]
Megyn Kelly
Look, I, I started my primetime show at Fox News. The very first guest ever was Ted Cruz. And my first question to him was, what's it like to be the most hated man in America? I have a long track record of liking and having a friendship with the least liked people in Washington. And I don't know if this is to my credit or to my shame, but I wear, I wear it as a badge of honor. It's good to get along with people if you can, guys. Thank you both so much.
- [41:16]
Tom Bevin
Good to see you both.
- [41:16]
Megyn Kelly
Thanks, Megan. Yeah, you as well. All right, coming up next, we will have the latest on the Tyler Robinson hearing. We've been monitoring it all morning. I'm going to summarize for you the major points that came out yesterday. I can see clearly a couple of places that they're going on this. It's fascinating how much the prosecution is showing. I mean, truly. Like, my only conclusion is that they must be worried about the public PR battle and the jury pool, because they don't have to be doing all this, and yet they are. And they just released some really, like, gripping video. It was moments before air, and I was sitting there eating an apple, like, staring at it and eating my apple, not able to speak. Doug came by. I'm like, I can't talk now. We're going to show it to you and talk about its meaning next. Don't go away. Every season, change seems to come with the same realization. A closet full of clothes and absolutely nothing to wear. Haven't you been there? Between work, travel, your family commitments, and everything else, you might not have the time or, frankly, the desire to spend hours shopping. Or maybe you are like me, where I do have the desire, but I don't have the skill. Like, left in my own devices, I really don't have a lot of style. So I rely on other people to help me. And this is why I'm so excited to tell you about Daily Look. It is the number one highest rated premium personal styling service for women. With Daily look, you get your own dedicated personal stylist, a real person, not an algorithm, who curates a box based on your body shape, preferences and lifestyle. And you get the same stylist every time so she gets to know you and your preferences and what's already in your closet. You can try up to 12 premium pieces at home. Keep what you love and send back the rest with free shipping both ways. It's time to get your own personal stylist with Daily Look. Head to DailyLook.com to take your style quiz and use code Megan for 50% off your first order. But let me tell you something. With or without the 50%, you should try this because it pays for itself. You buy a couple of, like, nice outfits that, once you get home, don't look good or you never wear and you have wasted your money. And for this, the low, low price of using the folks@dailylook.com you can avoid those costs and get stuff you actually love and will wear all the time. All right, so that's dailylook.com for 50% off. And make sure you use our promo code, Megan, which will ensure you get your discount.
- [43:48]
Jona Spilbar
All right.
- [43:49]
Megyn Kelly
And then they'll know we sent you.
- [43:51]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event. This Friday, July 10th through Sunday, August 2nd. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event. Starting this Friday, discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and equal housing opportunity builder.
- [44:24]
Megyn Kelly
Now we want to get to day two of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing. And I just want to update you on what happened yesterday. Okay? And then I'll tell you what happened this morning. And then we're going to bring in our panel and we will discuss it. But our friend Jack Posobec, who has been doing great work with Turning Point in the wake of Charlie's death, as he did prior, is there at the trial and did a wonderful report online yesterday for the Post Millennial about what happened in court. We, of course, checked it ourselves, as we always do. We trust Jack and he was right about his reporting. But, you know, it's always good just since more eyes are better. And I want to tell you what, what happened, some of the highlights. Okay. And then we'll get to the stunning video that was just released. Okay. First, yesterday to testify was Officer Chris Bagley. He currently he was there because he served as a Utah Valley University officer on the day of the shooting. Now, that in and of itself is interesting because they failed, UVU police failed to keep Charlie safe and to keep that roof secure. And I was told directly by my friends at Turning Point that the reason the Turning Point security team was not patrolling the roof or doing drones taking a look at the roof is because they were told by the local cops that they were on it. And we heard the head of the security team for Charlie say that to Sean Ryan. He went on his show and said something to that effect that, that the locals had it. And this guy was the local. This is, this is the UVU officer who was there the day of the shooting. And by the way, once you know that, it makes the Nestor cross examination, she's the lawyer for Tyler Robinson of him yesterday come into more clear focus because do you remember, like, this guy was used to set up the scene to talk about the shooting, to talk about the aftermath and then what he did to find the scene of the shooting, the evidence he saw there, and so on. So he's an important witness to talk about. This is, this is the evidence we found at the scene and how it all went down. And she, it seems clear to me, was trying to diminish him by saying, you don't know your ass from your elbow. You, you, you know, ultimately she's going to argue this guy, he couldn't keep Charlie safe. He's got a lot to cover up for. He's got a lot to answer for. Should we really be putting a lot of stock in his word because he's the one who failed to secure the entire scene because she did get after him yesterday in a soundbite, we played on the lack of security on the roof and you know, did you really know that? Can't remember the specifics of it, but we listened to it yesterday. In fact, we'll just play it. Okay, here's her cross of this Guy Bagley Sat 36.
- [47:31]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
The machines you walk through a TSA in the airport where it checks to see if you're carrying any, anything metal. What we all had to go through to get in the courtroom. Were there any machines like that set up or being used on campus that day?
- [47:42]
Investigator or Court Witness
No.
- [47:44]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
And as far as you know?
- [47:45]
Jona Spilbar
No.
- [47:46]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Max, were there any drones that were flying above campus that day?
- [47:51]
Megyn Kelly
Not I know.
- [47:54]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
And did anyone ever talk to you about covering anything near or on top of or in the Low C banner building? Were you ever signed that area before the shooting?
- [48:05]
Investigator or Court Witness
No.
- [48:06]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Do you know who was?
- [48:07]
Investigator or Court Witness
I don't.
- [48:09]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
And when you got up to the roof that afternoon, was anybody around that was law enforcement?
- [48:17]
Investigator or Court Witness
No.
- [48:18]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Nobody on the roof?
- [48:19]
Investigator or Court Witness
Nope.
- [48:19]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Nobody on the stairway?
- [48:21]
Investigator or Court Witness
Nope.
- [48:22]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Nobody on the walkway?
- [48:23]
Investigator or Court Witness
Nope.
- [48:24]
Megyn Kelly
Okay.
- [48:29]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
And in the state of Utah, are, is a campus a gun free zone? Are students allowed to have guns on campus?
- [48:37]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's an open carry state. So yes.
- [48:40]
Megyn Kelly
That actually is important, by the way, that Utah is an open carry state and UVU is an open carry campus. And therefore it's fine to have. You don't need a license. So different, let me tell you from Connecticut, but you don't need a license because it's a free state to carry a gun. We have a whole thing, it's called the second Amendment. So these crazy leftists would have us get a license to have our free speech. Next. That's also an important amendment. In any event, this guy testified about being a UVU officer on the day of the shooting. He testified he, he was shown a number of images depicting the campus, the buildings and the surrounding area. Of course, the defense objected to everything, and they were overruled. He said he was securing the area above the tent that was covering Charlie. He came in to do a shift for this special event. He observed Charlie arrive on campus, do a meet and greet. He saw the several thousand people there in attendance. He heard a shot fired at 12:23pm local time, which is 2:23pm Eastern. Cannot forget that moment here experiencing ourselves. He said he saw Kirk lean to the left, going further under the tent. Then everybody started getting up and starting to run in more of a chaos kind of situation. He said he recognized the noise, his gunfire. He left his post. He began fighting against the crowd flowing against him. So I can help stop an individual that's probably shooting and he's looking for the shooter. By the time he got to the bottom of the stairs, someone said over the radio, we had a shooter in custody. As Bagley recounted the events of the shooting, Erica Kirk left the room. This was actually kind of a stunning development. I know that Erica's going to leave and Charlie's family is going to leave. His sister is there, too, not just his parents. When they get into the details of the shooting, none of them wants to take that in. God bless them. Why should they have to? But Tyler Robinson is sitting in that courtroom, and he was reportedly laughing at the beginning of the hearing, not during the testimony, but laughing. Picture it. And all the reports are that Erica burst out into tears before the hearing even got going, and Tyler Robinson is sitting there laughing. I mean, I just can't imagine this dynamic of Erica having to sit feet away from the man accused of murdering her husband, his Charlie's poor parents and sister. Same. And soon. It could be today, could be tomorrow. We haven't been told exactly when they're going to play that videotape of Luna Lance Twigs, the lover, furry trans person of the defendant, Tyler Robinson. And Tyler Robinson is going to see his transferry lover testify against him. And it'll be the first time they've seen each other, I believe, since the crime and since Robinson's arrest. And he will have to sit there and listen to this lover sell him up the river. And that will be quite a moment inside that courtroom. So Bagley went on, talked about how he began assessing whether anyone else was injured, didn't see any other injuries. He did testify that he saw an empty pistol holder that was sitting on top of the grass, but then realized that there was a rifle shot. He could see the low C building that had a direct line of sight. So he went there to see what was going on because he said he thought he heard the shot come from the East. He was later pressed on the fact that that wasn't in his report that he had heard it come from the east, but he added that yesterday and this would be in essence, what brought him to the scene of the shooting, but it would also be his excuse for why he did not pick up that holder, the empty pistol holder. And I'm sure the defense is going to make something out of the fact that there was an empty pistol holder there that may have had evidence on it, DNA, et cetera. It was never retrieved. More on that and the stunning videotape right after this break. Are you feeling sluggish, bloated? Not quite like yourself? This affects so many of us. Life constantly bombards us with silent threats. Processed foods, seed oils, artificial light, nonstop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain your energy, and weaken your immune health while you're not even paying attention. When that happens. It's not that your body's broken, it's that it might be missing the right inputs. This is why you need to know about Amra Colostrum. This thing's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health. So many of our issues start with poor gut health that can support immune health. They say it can also fuel recovery after a workout and promote whole body vitality. Doesn't that sound good? Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health. Yes. If you're having problems there, it could begin in your gut and even performance and recovery, which is why Colostrum has long been valued by some elite athletes. If you are looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, consider armra. And they have a special deal for you right now. Go to armor.commegan or enter M E G Y N to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's a R M R A dot com Megyn we're going to bring in our panel in a minute, but first I just want to continue telling you what happened yesterday and get you up to speed on where we are. I was in the midst of completing Officer Bagley's testimony. He was a UVU campus officer at the time of the Charlie shooting and was describing that he had seen an empty pistol holder that was sitting just on top of the grass. He would later testify that he lost track of it and it disappeared. I'm sure, the defense will want to make something of that. But it is relevant that Utah is an open carry state. So it's not, it's not like there was a shooting. And now I found an empty holster, and it must have come from this empty holster. It's. It's Utah, it's open carry. There's probably holsters everywhere. And in the chaos of a mass evacuation in a scary, dangerous event, it wouldn't be entirely shocking to find somebody's on the ground. Perhaps somebody even pulled their weapon to protect themselves. But if you're the defense lawyer, of course you're going to make something of that. I mean, of course I'd be arguing that's the real shooter, that it wasn't my client who had that, and it wasn't a rifle, it was a. It was a pistol. So that's where they're going. More back to Bagley. He described going over to the low C center, right? He claimed that he saw. He believed he heard the shot come from the east. That's where the LOSI center was. And that's the building on which the shooter, Tyler Robinson, the accused shooter, was accused of being when he fired these alleged shots. He said he got there and he discovered a red and black screwdriver. He was shown a photograph from the top of the LOSI center from which he said you could see the grass courtyard area and where Charlie had been speaking. He described images shown in the courtroom of gravel. So they showed the judge these images of gravel on the roof that had been disrupted, of the loci center. At the very top of the loci center, Bagley said he could observe what looks like a sniper pad. A person that has been laid in a prone position with the markings of elbows, knees and feet in the gravel in the line of sight where Charlie's tent was. After his findings on the rooftop, Bagley said he asked dispatch to look at the camera system to see if anyone was on the roof at the time of the shooting. Now he's looking for corroborative evidence to what he's seeing in the gravel and this screwdriver, which he thinks may be relevant. And he says, dispatch says there had been a man on the roof and described that he ran to the edge, dropped down, crawled, got in a prone position toward the direction of the tent. He then went to the police department in a nearby building to look at the footage himself. At that moment, I realized I had more crimes, a bigger crime scene than I needed to contain, that I needed to contain and preserve for that moment. So you can see this guy. Bagley's important. He went on to say that he went to the northeast side of the building. Outside the building. He saw impressions of the shoe print inside the grass. And also up above on the northeast side of the building. I could see on the cement where someone had scuffed there, then dropped down to the shoe imprint. He's attempting to lay down the evidence of the path that the defendant he is arguing took. Kathy Nestor Cross examined him in the way that we showed you there, zeroing in on that holster. You know what happened to it. Bagley said he did not know and that no one had taken custody of it. Then came David Hull. He is currently with the Utah Department of Public Safety. He was working as a State Bureau of Investigation Major Crimes Division investigator at the time of the shooting. And. And they need Hull to get in all the videos that they have of who they say is Tyler Robinson that day. And that's. He started that yesterday afternoon. And that's. He's still on the stand. That's what he spent this morning doing. So now we're getting up to speed to current moment. He testified that he was directed to go down to the university following the shooting. So Bagley's our guy to get us through the actual shooting. And this guy came on the scene right after for to investigate. Among the data gathered from the general public because he testified that they received multiple videos from the general public. Were through tips and social media. Okay. Were videos taken at the scene. Multiple videos collected by the team were played in the courtroom, including clips of Charlie at the beginning of the event. A video showing the moment Charlie was shot, as well as Charlie in the moments after he was shot. There was a stunning moment in which they played the judge seeing Charlie get shot. And I think I mentioned this yesterday, but he. You can't hear the audio. You can hear a little bit. You can hear the shot go off. But you can see the judge. Judge Graff reacting. He winces. You see the judge's humanity. He winces. When you can hear the shot. And you can see him struggling to contain his emotions as the SOP plays out. In fact, no, it was on AM Update. We didn't play it here. Can we play it now? Let's go ahead and play this video only on the monitors. And if there's sound associated with it, the sound to be played as well. You may proceed. The listening audience. You can see the judge at the moment of the shot. And if you listen to. If you turn the sound up, you can hear the Shot. And he jumps the way you do, like a jump scare in a movie. And then you can see him push his chair back. It's an instinctive protective mechanism, right? Like push your chair back from the screen like we all want to when we see that video. You don't want anything to do with it. You don't want to be seeing it. You don't want it to be true. And then he comes back in toward the laptop. It's all very subtle, but it's happening. And then you can see the judge kind of put his tongue to the side of his mouth. Like, you know, he's. It's stress. That's stress and anxiety manifesting in him. And he's a consummate professional. He's holding it completely together. But you can just see his humanity and a judge, a distinguished judge, trying to control it and control his emotions, because he is a human inside that robe. He has a job to do, but he's a human. He's a human being who clearly has empathy for poor Charlie and what happened to him. And that comforts me to know that. Back to David Hull again, who was with the State Bureau of Investigation, Major Crimes Division on the day of the shooting, who talked about the multiple videos. And he talked about the medical examiner who was at the scene who told him that he had pronounced Charlie dead. He testified that the Utah Medical Examiner's office conducted an autopsy late in the evening of September 10, and that the cause of death was listed in the autopsy report, he first said as a murder, the manner of death, a gunshot wound to the neck. The defense lawyer objected that the cause of death was actually listed as homicide, not murder, which is a legal distinction. Murder has to be proven in a court, and the comment was corrected. Hull said, on the night of September 11th. The next night, Thursday, we received word from Washington county that an individual in the area had reached out to law enforcement and was wanting to turn themselves in for the incident at uvu. He said the name that they were given from Washington county was Tyler Robinson. After receiving the name, they put together a workup of his driver's license and other records to get some info on him, his car and so on. After that information, they were able to use video to try to track where Tyler Robinson went and that they were able to establish that Tyler Robinson, quote, had been on campus approximately four times throughout the day. Twice before the shooting, the time of the shooting, and after the shooting. Later in the evening, into the early hours of the 11th, there was testimony about something. I think it was 12:38am that night. So he was there twice before at the time of the shooting, and then in the wee. Into the wee hours of between the 10th and the 11th. When asked if the man on the videos was in the courtroom, he was about to point out Tyler Robinson. The defense objected, which is such a bullshit objection. But in any event, ultimately he was allowed to identify that the man sitting in the courtroom as Tyler Robinson was the man who was on those videos. And he also recounted footage that was gathered from nearby neighborhoods, including ring doorbell footage showing a vehicle consistent with the one identified as belonging to Robinson parking across the street again in the early hours of September 11th. What we would learn from Hull is that Tyler Robinson was there. It reminded me, frankly, of Brian Kohlberger, who, you know, stalked the location of his crime prior to committing it, of course, was there while committing it, and then went back again after. That's what they're saying Tyler Robinson did as well. It appears clear Tyler Robinson was there repeatedly at least four times that day. They'll argue about whether he pulled the trigger, but they're setting up that he was there repeatedly. And then today we got to the videos that they found of Robinson. What.
- [63:35]
Jona Spilbar
Who.
- [63:36]
Megyn Kelly
Of who they say is Robinson. You look at these videos, you can't clearly tell it's Robinson. They're gonna have to prove that. But there's definitely video of the same guy. First in a maroon shirt and gray shorts on the campus, and later in an outfit change. And they've got video of what they say is Tyler Robinson's car. Cause now they know it's registered to him and to his mother. There was testimony by Hull to that effect. He's getting cross examined now. But I want to show you first our compilation of the video we were watching just as we came to air. And I should also tell you, there was a fight late yesterday, yesterday about whether the prosecution's compilation of all these videos where they highlighted the man who we're supposed to focus on. They blurred the faces of some people, they made it more user friendly. Was objected to by the defense. She objects to everything. She's getting fucking annoying. Objected to. And they didn't allow it in yesterday. Now today they, they laid the foundation by showing all the raw videos. And then they asked the judge if they could then introduce the compilation video, which is a shorter summary, that. That's more user friendly. She objected again and he sustained the objection. So. Well, at least we, we, the media are not going to be able to see the compilation video. So he. He can see It. But for some reason they don't want to make it easier for the media to see it. We'll do our own. Sorry to disappoint you, Ms. Nestor, but we're pretty good in the TV world of taking raw video and zeroing in. I think you're probably going to be happier with what the prosecution did, frankly, because we're under no obligation as the prosecutor is to keep it completely objective and admissible. So whatever. We did what we could in the time we had before. This just aired an hour and 20 minutes ago. But here's three minutes of what they showed the court on the videos of who they say is Tyler Robinson all over the UVU campus that day.
- [65:33]
Mark Halperin
What are we seeing here, Agent Hall?
- [65:35]
Investigator or Court Witness
That's a vehicle that's believed to belong to Mr. Robinson arriving in the parking
- [65:39]
Mark Halperin
garage on campus at what time in the morning is. Well, what time of the day?
- [65:43]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's approximately 8:30 in the morning on September 10, 2025.
- [65:48]
Mark Halperin
And. And what leads you to believe this particular vehicle belongs to Mr. Robinson?
- [65:54]
Investigator or Court Witness
Information that was provided regards to driver's license and department of motor vehicle records. The vehicle fits the description of a vehicle owned by Mr. Robinson.
- [66:05]
Mark Halperin
Is there anything unique about that vehicle that stands out to you?
- [66:08]
Investigator or Court Witness
The shape of the vehicle is very distinct, but predominantly the wheels were very distinctive on this version of the vehicle.
- [66:16]
Mark Halperin
Now what do we see?
- [66:18]
Investigator or Court Witness
The driver of the vehicle exits the vehicle and then walks on foot to exit the parking garage. It's the individual in the red T shirt and the shorts and the shoes.
- [66:34]
Mark Halperin
Do you believe you recognize who that person is?
- [66:36]
Investigator or Court Witness
Yes.
- [66:36]
Mark Halperin
Who is that?
- [66:37]
Investigator or Court Witness
I believe that's Tyler Ovenson.
- [66:40]
Mark Halperin
All right. Where does he go from there?
- [66:43]
Investigator or Court Witness
He heads out of the parking garage on foot into the campus and actually goes to the quad area of the campus. At that time, he makes contact with some representatives from TP USA by quad area. Sorry. The amphitheater is what I previously referred it to.
- [67:03]
Mark Halperin
So he goes up on campus, visits the amphitheater area, the courtyard or quad?
- [67:07]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Correct.
- [67:09]
Mark Halperin
And then what do we see here?
- [67:10]
Investigator or Court Witness
Now he returns on foot back to the same vehicle.
- [67:13]
Mark Halperin
And what time is he returning back to the vehicle?
- [67:15]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's about 9:25am.
- [67:26]
Mark Halperin
And where is this parking structure located on campus?
- [67:29]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's just off of Campus Drive. It's a short walk from the. From the amphitheater.
- [67:37]
Mark Halperin
What do we see now?
- [67:39]
Investigator or Court Witness
That's the vehicle exiting with Mr. Robinson driving the vehicle.
- [67:48]
Mark Halperin
Now what do we see?
- [67:50]
Investigator or Court Witness
This is Mr. Robinson returning to the campus on foot from the neighborhood to the northeast. You can see he's wearing the same clothing as in the previous video and he's carrying a blue backpack.
- [68:03]
Mark Halperin
Describe the clothing.
- [68:05]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's a maroon colored T shirt with gray or olive colored shorts and then Converse shoes.
- [68:17]
Mark Halperin
And what time did he return to campus? Just after 10am and does he leave the parking structure?
- [68:24]
Investigator or Court Witness
Eventually he does, yes.
- [68:27]
Mark Halperin
And during this visit, do you know where he goes after he leaves the. The parking structure?
- [68:31]
Investigator or Court Witness
Yes. We were able to track his movements on campus. He went to Chick Fil a in the Sorenson Building and purchased some food. Sat Nate food.
- [68:43]
Megyn Kelly
Okay, so that's him prior to the murder. And then they showed video of a figure on the roof of the LOSI building and video that has been publicly released. This is. There you can see a figure running on the top right of your screen. Running across. This is him post shooting, allegedly. And here now, for listening audience. It's a figure who appears to throw something down. He's on the edge of the roof. This has been made public prior to this, so you may be familiar with it. And he drops to the ground into the grass where the. Where the. The officer had said. He found a footprint and runs. So this is what Officer Bagley said he witnessed when he went to the dispatch center and said, you know, I found evidence of some guy on the roof. What do you have? And the dispatch saying, oh, yeah, no, we've got that too. So they, they found the video. All right, let's bring in our panel now and get their reactions. Dave Aronberg is here, so is Phil Holloway. They are co hosts of the MK True Crime show on the MK Media podcast network. Go and subscribe just by typing in MK True Crime in your podcast feed and it will come up. Guys, thank you for being back with me. So, Dave, just give us your impression. I've given the audience a lot here on what. On what's gone on yesterday and today. Give us your impression on what exactly is happening, what the prosecution is building, and what the defense is trying to undermine.
- [70:06]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Megan, good to be back with you. And Phil, this is the longest preliminary hearing that I've ever seen for something like this where all you have to do is establish probable cause. I mean, this should be done in hours. But I think you're right that the reason why the prosecution is just using overwhelming force here. I mean, shock and awe, is to debunk the conspiracy theories out there. Especially since the defense leaned into a ballistics report that was inconclusive. The prosecution so far has not challenged that. They've tried to, like, look Away from the inconclusive ballistics, into all the other evidence that's there, like his multiple confessions, his position on the roof, the video where he's running away. I mean, they've got a lot of evidence against this guy, and they don't need to show it, but they are, because they're aware of the gravity of this moment, how many conspiracy theories there are out there. Some of it has been pushed by the defense themselves, and they want to get ahead of it.
- [71:04]
Megyn Kelly
Phil, what do you make of my comment that this guy's giving Brian Kohlberger vibes with the multiple visits before and even going back after midnight the day, the evening of the crime, like after the crime was committed?
- [71:22]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, that's a. That's an excellent point. And, you know, to echo Dave's very well stated comments there, the prosecutor is. Is showing way more of their cards than they, in my view, than they need to, or they should. It's kind of like when you play poker, you don't show the rest of the table, you know, what you're holding in your hand by. By giving this much detail and this much evidence, you're just giving the defense the opportunity to pick it apart, you know, for trial. But that being said, what they're showing is premeditation. They're showing delay, deliberation. They're showing what they really would need to show to get the death penalty in this case. Now, this, of course, isn't the trial, and this is not the penalty phase or anything like that, but it gives us a little bit of a preview of what we're going to see when there is a trial. And if you have this much premeditation, deliberation, preparation, consciousness of guilt, the fleeing from the scene, things of that nature, all of that goes to show that this was cold, this was calculated. This is the abandoned and malignant heart that we use to describe what malice is. This was truly a malicious act. The videos themselves, I think we could do, for purposes of the prelim, we could do with less of that. But the confession that we have yet to get to, you know, that's corroborated by these videos. So I agree with Dave. To bring this all together, I think they could have done this in about an hour or two. You show the video of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, you show some of these videos for context, like we've seen, and then you get to the confession, and then you put a big bow on it and say, okay, we're getting ready for trial now, because we've established probable cause, a Crime probably was committed. Well, clearly that shows that a crime was committed and that this defendant is probably the one who committed it. That's it. That's all you need to prove. This should be over in just a matter of hours, but it's dragging on and on and on, and it gives the defense more opportunities to chip away and to prepare their defense for trial.
- [73:27]
Megyn Kelly
I just want to point out to the listening audience now we're looking at a different video that was shown of who they say is Tyler Robinson wearing a different outfit. Now, he's in the outfit that the FBI says the shooter was wearing. And he's walking funny. There's speculation that that's because he's got a long gun down his pants. He's walking kind of funny, like, with a limp. He's no longer wearing the gray shirts and shorts and the maroon T shirt. And the testimony in court is that this is after the shooting. After the shooting or before the shooting? We're trying to figure this out. Forgive me, because we grabbed this video and enhanced it, like, zoomed in just so you could see it better. But it must be. It's got to be before the shooting, because I believe this is the video from which they made the pictures that we identified Tyler Robinson. And the allegation is that after the shooting, he jumped off of the rooftop and dropped the gun down below and then buried it or hid it in the woods. So this. My deduction is it's gotta be on his way to the shooting. But the. Here's the question I have for you, Dave Ehrenberg. The prosecution needs to prove. They wanna prove that this was him, that he. He stalked his prey. You know, he. He showed up at 9, at 8:30am the morning of Charlie's appearance, that he was there for an hour. They said he. It took him. He arrived at 8:30 and he left at 9:25. And in that time, he went to the quad and he made contact with a TPA TPUSA representative. Maybe he's asking exactly when Charlie's expected. You know, who knows? That poor Turning Point rep will probably wind up being a witness and had no idea, right, who they're talking to or who they're giving information to. And then he returns. They said a little after 10am we saw the car pulling out of the garage at 9:25. A little after 10am they said he returned on foot, but they said he returned on foot with the same outfit, that maroon tee and the gray shorts and that he went to Chick Fil A at the Sorensen center on campus, and then returned back on campus, like on proper campus, no longer carrying the backpack. And I believe that's when he changed his outfit and got rid of the backpack that we need to shore up, because that was not clear to me from what I heard. But it's one thing to tell the judge and eventually the jury, Dave, that's Tyler Robinson. There he is. And it's another to prove it, right? Because if you're Nestor, she's questioning everything. She is not giving the prosecution any gimmes. It's actually annoying. But on this, she should question, right? She should say, how do you know it's Tyler Robinson? Now, on the. On the car, they've. They've got the registration. They can see the plates. And the car, the. The officer testified is registered to Tyler and his mother, and there was testimony that she bought it for him. So I guess that's halfway there, then. You gotta prove that's actually him getting out of it. So how do they do all that? If you're the prosecutor, as you have been for years, how do you do that?
- [76:30]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Step by step, Megan? First they identified his Dodge Challenger, and then, because they ran his license plate, they had driver's license details, so they know that that's his car. And then you had Agent Hull, who testified that the person in the video showed a distinctive limp, that you can see it yourself. And then you want to try to tie it to him. Once that Robinson turned himself in, they could correlate that the timeline matched the digital footprint, including the cell phone data and the specific route that was identified via the. The Google map records. So the fact that he was there on campus four times that day, that does give the Coburger vibe. Someone who's scouting it out then comes back over and over again. I just think that you just have to put all this stuff together with all the totality of the evidence to show that this is the guy. The defense is doing the right thing by asking all these questions. Although, yeah, she's getting a little annoying, but she is using this as a way to get the cards, as Phil said, from the prosecution. The prosecution is showing so much evidence, they're giving the defense a great amount of stuff that they wouldn't normally have. So this hearing can actually benefit the defense more than the prosecution because they're getting all this good info, even though they don't have twigs in person.
- [77:58]
Megyn Kelly
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Well, they're not gonna get. They're not gonna be able to talk to twigs, but, yeah, they're going to hear what he, what he has to say. I mean, to me, it's interesting because, Phil, all this stuff, like, doesn't the defense already have access to all of this?
- [78:12]
Jona Spilbar
Right.
- [78:13]
Megyn Kelly
The prosecution doesn't get surprises. They have to turn everything over to the defense. And so it's different to hear them stitch it together and to hear their narrative. But the defense should not be surprised by any of these exhibits.
- [78:26]
Phil Holloway
No, they're not surprised by the evidence or the exhibits. But here's what they don't have. Until there's a hearing, they don't have sworn testimony from these witnesses under oath. And let me explain just a minute, if I may, why that could backfire on the prosecution. Because these are witnesses that are going to come forward at trial. Okay? There's going to be a transcript of this preliminary hearing and the testimony from these witnesses. If their story is any different, if their testimony varies one iota at trial, the defense is going to whip out the printed transcript of this particular testimony. And they're going to, even if it's just innocuous, if it's something just a minor misstatement or, or something like that, they're going to try to show the jury that they said one thing during the preliminary hearing and then something else during the trial, and they're going to try to impeach them potentially with any prior inconsistent statements. The other thing that it does gives the defense sort of the opportunity to see how witnesses testify. How do they do on cross examination? What's their demeanor? How are they going to play to a jury? So this really does give the defense a lot to work with. We have a group text amongst our MK Truth Crime hosts and, and we've been talking about this case, and our friend and colleague Mark Garrett commented that this length of a preliminary hearing is good for the defense. And he's not wrong. He's absolutely right. This was a mistake to do it the way they're doing it. For this to go on for so long, they need to just get the core evidence out there. They have to prove that a crime probably was committed and that this guy probably did it, and that's it. They can do it like we were talking about just in a matter of a few hours. The other thing they could have done is they could have sent this to a grand jury for a grand jury indictment so that that would be a judicial determination of probable cause. But by doing it in this fashion, not only are they frustrating us in the media because we can't see all the evidence that the judge is seeing, but they're giving the defense lots to work with when it comes to trial preparation.
- [80:39]
Megyn Kelly
Listen to this, bill. The failure to use a grand jury and to go for a preliminary hearing where you have to lift the dress way up, has boggled the minds of a lot of lawyers, including this one. But we actually did take a deep dive into it. We had been told yesterday that it's. It's not favored in Utah. They don't use grand juries a lot. And then we did a deep dive, and here is what we found. In Utah's criminal justice system, grand jury indictments are rare. The Utah supreme court laid this out in a 2015 decision. The vast majority of felony cases are prosecuted by information, that is, by a prosecutor filing charges directly in district court. The historical role of the grand jury is now generally played by the district court itself, which holds preliminary hearings to review the state's evidence and reject unjustified prosecutions. A prosecutor wishing to prosecute by indictment must first persuade a special panel of five district judges. This is, if you want to go jury, grand jury, that there is good cause to summon a grand jury. If the panel then summons the grand jury, the prosecutor may then ask the jurors to return an indictment and charge the defendant without a preliminary hearing. But they make it intentionally difficult. For some reason, they really don't like empaneling grand juries in Utah, which is why they do the preliminary hearing. And once you've said, you know, you're gonna ask the district court to give you an indictment, the defendant has the right to demand the preliminary, preliminary hearing. And that's, you know, Bob's your uncle, you're off to the races, which is what happened here. I don't know why they don't like the grand jury, but they don't like it in Utah. That's why the prosecution is doing it this way. I want to go back to these videos, because this video that we're going to see here, we showed part of it just a moment ago of him now in a different outfit. This is the outfit that was released by the FBI as being worn by Charlie's killer. And this is the. These are the pictures. This is the video of the still shots that were used to identify who is this shooter. The FBI put it out on September 11th, saying, this is our shooter. Does anybody know who this is? And it would turn out that Tyler Robinson's own mother and father saw it and both said, oh, my God, that's our son. They both started texting him, the mother saying, where Are you? He claimed he was sick, homesick, and that he had been the day before. The father saying, send me a picture of grandpa's gun right now. Because he knew the FBI had released the picture that law enforcement had. It had recovered the gun and the father recognized it. And they were also worried because they saw the pictures of the shooter and they said, geez, that looks a lot like Tyler. You know, it's like the same way we've been looking at porch guy in the Nancy Guthrie case, saying, we don't know who the hell that is, but if you were married to that dude, you would know you, you know, when it's your family member, your spouse, your kid, your dad, you know, in a way that strangers don't. So now we're seeing the actual videotape from which these still images were. Were taken. And, and this is what was played in court. Just be as we were coming to air and we'll hear the narrative about the videotape. We showed you Tyler Robinson, allegedly in the maroon shirt and the gray shorts, parking, coming in at 8:30, leaving at 9:25. Then he came back at 10. And now here's the testimony about the video of who they say is Tyler wearing the same outfit as the shooter here.
- [84:09]
Investigator or Court Witness
The images that we have from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video, it's the same person.
- [84:21]
Mark Halperin
He's noticeably wearing different clothing.
- [84:23]
Investigator or Court Witness
He is wearing different clothing and he also is walking with gate or a limp in this video.
- [84:30]
Mark Halperin
With a gate or what?
- [84:31]
Investigator or Court Witness
Limp.
- [84:35]
Mark Halperin
Now what do we see?
- [84:37]
Investigator or Court Witness
This is Mr. Robinson coming up the stairs of the parking structure. Again, he seems to be having issues walking.
- [84:52]
Mark Halperin
And. And again we're able to track. So we're able to track Mr. Robinson when he leaves this parking structure?
- [85:01]
Investigator or Court Witness
Yes, we were able to.
- [85:02]
Mark Halperin
Okay, so when he leaves.
- [85:05]
Megyn Kelly
Okay, so then they continue. And they're. The testimony is that this is prior to the shooting. I mean, Dave, this is actually quite eerie. You know, we're sort of doing a forensic analysis of it. But what they're arguing is that he was on his way to murder our friend, who was out there asking questions. Who had kissed his wife Erica goodbye early that morning while she was still in bed. He left so early. Who couldn't sleep the night before, who had a feeling about something possibly happening, who had been under nonstop security threats, who was not well served, unfortunately, by good hearted men who were supposed to protect him that day. That day. Who didn't anticipate the rooftops notwithstanding, Butler 14 months earlier and Tyler Robinson, according to the police and the prosecution had murder on his mind and was limping because that long gun given to him by his grandpa was running down his pant leg and would be one of the reasons he would get caught because he, you know, if you believe the text messages between Tyler and his lover, Lance Twiggs, he hid it in the woods on his escape and couldn't get back to it. The cops got, got turned on to the woods too soon and so he wasn't able to get back. And maybe that's why he went back there because if memory serves, we weren't aware that they had the gun until the next day. You know, so it could be at 12:38am on the wee hours of Thursday the 11th. That's what he was doing back there, trying to clean up after himself and couldn't manage to do it.
- [86:42]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [86:42]
Phil Holloway
Megan, quick question, if I can joke. Didn't. Wasn't there some, as I recall, some of the statements that he made to Twigs were the effect that, you know, I need to go back from my rifle. As I recall, that was what the conversation was. And we're going to hear more about that, of course, when we hear from Twigs, but that will. Or at least through his statement. And then of course at trial we'll hear from Twigs and anybody else. But that I think explains why he went back. And you know, it makes sense that if you're going to sort of pre position items that you may need for an assassination, you might make multiple trips to go get your spot set up, get your sniper's den set up and then have to leave in a hurry and then go back to clean up your mess. So this all actually makes pretty good sense to me.
- [87:28]
Megyn Kelly
Yes, he is lamenting in his text exchange with Lance Twiggs how he wasn't able to get his rifle and he thought that was the only thing that could identify him. There was also testimony though. Well, Dave, I wanted to get you to respond to my other point about how eerie it is and how they're setting it up and how it's also forensic and antiseptic and yet you know exactly what these actions allegedly produced.
- [87:53]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
This had to take some real planning. You know, he had different outfits. He was limping when he had the gun on him and then later he's not. He's wearing something different later on. And then he had to try to find out how to get the gun back, even message twigs at some point about how they'll be together later on in life. So this took planning and that means premeditation and that means the death penalty. And it is quite telling that this judge had every opportunity to take the death penalty off the table because he is holding the prosecutors in contempt for speaking too much, for giving a statement to tmz, which I think is overplayed. I don't think the judge should do that, but. Okay, but instead of sanctioning the prosecution by taking the death penalty off the table, he's refusing to do that. He's leaving it open to other sanctions. And that tells you that I think that this is going to be a capital case and that it's very likely that this defendant gets the ultimate punishment.
- [88:50]
Megyn Kelly
Mm, yes. Yes. And if they prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, that's exactly what he should get. There should be absolutely no mercy for him. He had none for Charlie. Here is some of what was in that text exchange that they say is between Lance Twiggs and Tyler Robinson as he starts to panic. That. Hold on a second, that the gun has been left there. Let's see. Says, I'm stuck in Orem. I am still okay. He starts off with September 10, the day of the murder. Lance Twigs received a text message from Tyler Robinson which said, drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard. He looked under the keyboard. He found a note that stated, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. Police found a photograph of the note, I believe on Lance Twigs phone. Then the following text exchange took place. After reading the note, Lance Twigs responded. What? You're joking, right? Robinson. I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle. Still, to be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry to involve you, roommate. You weren't the one who did it, right? Robinson. I am. I'm sorry. Roommate. I thought they caught the person. Robinson. No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out. But there's one vehicle lingering. Roommate. Why, Robinson? Why did I do it? Roommate. Yeah. Robinson. I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it again. They didn't release the timestamp on this, but one might assume it's prior to 12:38am on the 11th, which is when they said he did. He is on video again. Roommate. How long have you been planning this, Robinson? A bit over a week, I believe. I can get close to it, but there's a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it. He goes on. I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back Grandpa's rifle. I don't even know if it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me. I worry about prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. How the fuck am I going. Will I explain losing it to my old man? Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. And then goes on to say, remember how I was engraving bullets? The effing messages are mostly a big meme. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. Ugh. I know.
- [91:47]
Phil Holloway
See what I mean? All we got to do is. All we got to do is. Is show the video of the assassination and then some context, and then get into that particular text message confession with all those details, and then you've got probable cause. It's like right there with a bow on it. And so I just am still scratching my head why this is going to be something that takes an entire week. I've handled prelims that take five minutes. I've handled them that take a few hours. But we certainly are not accustomed, at least not in my neck of the woods anyway, to preliminary hearings that go on for days and days and days. That would be called a trial. But this is just a bit of overkill, if you ask me. Pardon the pun, but for a preliminary hearing, this is just too much.
- [92:34]
Megyn Kelly
This has got to be for the benefit of someone other than that judge, does it not, Dave?
- [92:39]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Absolutely. That is for the public. It's for all of us. And it's trying to quell the conspiracy theories that think that foreign governments are behind them. They're showing. This guy has admitted it. There's no ties to anyone else. He did it for a clear motive. He was upset at Charlie Kirk for stuff he said he decided to play God, take matters into his own hands, and he wanted to win the affections of twigs and live happily ever after together. He thought he'd get away with it. He was already pretty much just saying, oh. His concern was not necessarily that they'd find the gun and tie it to him and he would get convicted. It was, oh, my father is gonna be upset that grandpa's gun is not back. Oh, wow. So, yeah, not good.
- [93:19]
Megyn Kelly
I mean, how do we. I don't know. Maybe I'm just being naive, but it's like, how does somebody who was relatively high functioning up to this point become so cavalier about murder? Like, oh, I've been planning it for like a week. Like a week earlier, he got the idea to murder Charlie Kirk in this. And I don't use this favorably, but you know what I mean? Spectacular fashion. And then he does it and then it's like, oh, the grandpa's rifle works great. Like, he's not by anybody else's account, some massive sociopath running around torturing animals.
- [94:02]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Phil.
- [94:02]
Megyn Kelly
Like, isn't that one of the biggest mysteries around this case and one of. One of the reasons why people have doubts about whether he, in fact, is the shooter? It's like, what. How did this guy who, according to that one video we saw of his mom shortly before he went off to college, had, I think he had gotten a scholarship. Now, he didn't last at the university to which he'd gotten the scholarship, but he was, you know, prior to this year, leading up to the shooting, he seems to have been rather high functioning. And you really do have to ask yourself, how. How did this happen?
- [94:34]
Phil Holloway
Well, in my opinion, the thing that happened to Tyler Robinson that transformed him from a relatively high functioning individual to a brazen assassin was the normalization of political violence and the violent rhetoric that we hear from so many, particularly on the left, who may take issue with anything that conservatives have to say. Look, it's no. No secret whatsoever that, you know, Charlie Kirk inspired lots of people to. To think about things and to talk about things. And what he did in life was to try to get people talking to each other so that they could have a free exchange of ideas. But. But for so many people, that's just not tenable. They want to hear something that someone else says, and if it's different from their point of view, then they believe that it's okay to commit acts of violence or to talk about violence against those people. So that, to me, is the simple explanation. I think it's the one that makes the most sense. Because to your point, Megan, there's gotta be something that. That causes someone to snap. That way. He doesn't apparently have any other psychiatric disabilities or disorders. He doesn't seem to be like a sociopath. He's not like some of the serial killers that we've seen. He's not like a co Burger type in that sense. This is all about the normalization, in my opinion, of political violence. And this is how it plays out.
- [96:07]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Megan, this is Luigi Mangione. I mean, this is the same type of thing.
- [96:12]
Megyn Kelly
I know. I was thinking of him too.
- [96:13]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
Yeah. And not only. So when you're surprised about how people can be so radicalized. Luigi Magione from Ivy League schools, no priors, and look what happens to him. And then you see today, all these ghouls who are hanging out outside the courtroom praising Luigi Mangione and worshiping him, knowing that he did this. It's not like they're saying, he didn't do it, he's innocent. No, they're saying, no, this is deserved. This is justified. In today's political climate, that line, some
- [96:39]
Megyn Kelly
hate can't be negotiated out. Just chilling. You know, it's like to. To believe that and think you have. You have the right to end someone's life because they're too hateful to be here. You know, it's like. And then to have watched the left defend this for the past 10 months, you know that Lucy Rodriguez pretending to shoot herself in the neck. She's still teaching children in Chicago that behavior wasn't too, Too extreme for them to fire her. Like, there is just a collection of people out there that finds this kind of political violence acceptable. It's so deeply disturbing. It's. I wish it were just the shooters. I wish it were, but it's not. There's a collection, like you say, those who show up at the Luigi hearings who think it's fine, of those who have celebrated Charlie's murder, who at heart think it's fine and actually applaud it, actually are in favor of it. It's sick. Dave, thank you for helping to put people like that behind bars for many, many years, Phil. Thanks to you as well, everybody. Check them out on MK True Crime, wherever you get your podcasts for free. We're going to come back with more on the hearing with Mark Garagos, Mark Iglarsch, and John Spilbar Spilboard. All three of these practice in the criminal arena have been on both sides. At least Mark Eichlarsch has. And we'll go get their take on where this is going and show you the latest that's happening inside the courtroom. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet, which you know, and now they're messing with your credit card, too. They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases much more affordable. We all love that. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more about this whole situation@guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card.
- [99:04]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national Red Tag sales event this Friday, July 10th through Sunday, August 2nd. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red Tag sales event starting this Friday. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.
- [99:36]
Megyn Kelly
Hey everyone, it's me, Megyn Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius xm. It's called the Megyn Kelly Channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megyn Kelly show, you're gonna hear from people like Marc, Hannah Halperin, link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics and many more. It's bold. No BS news only on the Megyn Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111 and on the SiriusXM app. We are back now with Mark Garagos, co host of in the well on our MK Media Podcast network, Mark Eiglarsch and Jona Spilbara, who host Positively Legal. You can find it all on our MK True Crime YouTube channel, MK True Crime. Just type that in and all these shows will come up. Jona, we were going to get your take on where things stand.
- [100:29]
Jona Spilbar
As of right now, Katherine Nestor cannot have a realistic expectation that this case is not going to be bound over for trial. So what I think she's doing, which is pretty clear from this dog and pony show she is simply setting up now testimony that will become useful when and if this case goes to trial to sort of have police officers and other witnesses tripping over their tongues based on maybe testifying differently at trial than they are now. Now, we don't want that to happen when you're prosecuting this case, but when you get down this granular and you try to get this nitty gritty with these witnesses who are gonna have a long time before this case goes to trial, who will have to review their testimony in transcripts before the case goes to trial, that's just an opportunity to chip away in front of what is really gonna matter here, and that's a jury. And that goes to the identification of Tyler Robinson, too. She's probably preserving those objections because that's an argument better made or that's evidence better laid before a jury. Do they have the right guy? That argument is gonna fall flat in front of this judge, but it may not fall flat in front of 12 strangers down the road.
- [101:46]
Megyn Kelly
You know, Eichlersh, I was asking my earlier panel, how do they prove that this is Tyler Robinson in these videos? Arriving at the campus at 8:30, leaving at 9:25, coming back a little after 10 on foot, coming in an outfit change now limping, because prosecutors are gonna argue he's got a long gun down the leg of his pants and then ultimately on that roof. And one of the things we haven't really seen anything about or heard anything about is cell phone evidence or the data from the car. You know, like we saw in Alec Murdoch. You know, we heard so much about that crime thanks to his car. Your car is spying on you these days. So what do you make of that?
- [102:33]
John Spilbar
How.
- [102:34]
Megyn Kelly
How helpful do you anticipate those other items could be?
- [102:37]
John Spilbar
Okay, so I equate the video that we're seeing now to, I don't know, like, bloodshot eyes in a DUI case. That in and of itself wouldn't necessarily prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just one piece of the puzzle. The other evidence, like the DNA and the confession, will definitely go a long way towards increasing the chances of him being confused, convicted at trial. Assuming there is one. The absence of cell phone data either is because they haven't yet put it in, or they better as hell have an explanation from one of their experts as to why for some reason they don't have it in this case, because people have come to expect it.
- [103:16]
Megyn Kelly
Well, especially because we know he was texting with Lance Twigs, I mean, allegedly, later that evening about allegedly having done it. So, I mean, if that's true, he should have had his cell phone or a laptop on him, both of which would be potentially traceable and should tell us exactly where he was and when, shouldn't they? Mark Garagos, it's very hard to hide your tracks these days.
- [103:40]
Mark Garagos
That's correct. Which is in most people who have a couple of neurons firing. If you're committing a crime, you're not going to take your phone with you or you're going to have what prosecutors love to call a burner phone with you that doesn't have a smartphone feature of some kind that's traceable. But if he planned this, the prosecutor is going to argue if they don't have cell phone evidence or if the phone is sitting in one particular spot during the time that the shooting took place, they're going to say he didn't take it with him, and that'll be the explanation for it. If they have the cell phone evidence in the data and the triangulation and the pinging off the towers and also the GPS feature, then they may just use that coming later on as kind of the coup de grace. They may have a yes, so called summary witness who will lay it all out at the end.
- [104:39]
Megyn Kelly
But I think that's coming later. I think you're right because it's not listed on the items that they anticipate introducing at this preliminary hearing, which again, they only need to convince this judge that they have probable cause to believe that Tyler Robinson committed this crime. They don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The standards of evidence are relaxed. It's just a much different proceeding than an actual jury trial would be. And the standard is different, too. Here's another video. This is a testimony that was received not long ago showing another piece of the trail we showed earlier, the video of him allegedly arriving at 8:30 and then leaving at 9:25. And now here's more testimony from this witness who's been walking us through all the videos they have allegedly of Tyler Robinson. Check it out.
- [105:26]
Mark Halperin
And what time is this?
- [105:28]
Investigator or Court Witness
It's just afternoon, about 12:15.
- [105:31]
Mark Halperin
On what day?
- [105:32]
Investigator or Court Witness
On December, sorry, December. September 10, 2025.
- [105:38]
Mark Halperin
What, what just happened or what did we just see happen?
- [105:40]
Investigator or Court Witness
The individual actually kind of rolls over the railing onto the roof of the LOSI building.
- [105:46]
Mark Halperin
All right.
- [105:51]
Investigator or Court Witness
And again in the top left corner, the individual is now seen running across the rooftop of the LOSI building to what would be the southwest corner of the building, crouching down and then crawling to the corner of the building.
- [106:09]
Mark Halperin
And, and this is at what time?
- [106:13]
Investigator or Court Witness
Around 12:23. I think the time stamp on the video is 12:22.
- [106:19]
Mark Halperin
On the 10th.
- [106:21]
Investigator or Court Witness
On September 10th? Yes.
- [106:22]
Megyn Kelly
20:24.
- [106:23]
Mark Halperin
We're clear. This is the roof of the Losi building.
- [106:25]
Investigator or Court Witness
Correct.
- [106:28]
Mark Halperin
Can you still see that individual?
- [106:31]
Investigator or Court Witness
Yes, you can. Lane prone,
- [106:34]
Megyn Kelly
that is laying prone. I mean, wait, what'd you say, Garagos?
- [106:38]
Mark Garagos
That individual? Both the questions and the answers describe the individual.
- [106:45]
Megyn Kelly
But we've seen the close up video of the individual and he's wearing the same outfit as, you know, the one that they would later say is the shooter. And please help us identify him, who they say is Tyler Robinson. I just think like there's gonna be, there's, this is how it's done, is it not? I mean, you guys tell me, but like if you're a prosecutor, you've gotta cobble together bit by bit. Tyler Robinson's car re entered the UVU campus at whatever right before 12:15. The shooting happened at 12:23. They've got him on the roof for this figure who now looks exactly like Tyler Robinson, who's returned. We've got his vehicle. Perhaps they have vehicle of him or video of him getting out of his vehicle. I'm not exactly sure whether they. I haven't seen that. I've only seen him show up in his vehicle at 8:30, leave at 9:25, that they said he came back at 10am and then he came back again. He left and then came back. It could have been on foot, but in any event, they're trying to establish that it's him. He changed his outfit. Now he's got the long gun, it's down his pants. Now we've got video of somebody who looks an awful lot like that figure who was just limping on camera, who looks exactly like him on top of a roof, lying down, lying prone. And they're going to have the moment of the shooting as well. We've shown them just today we've shown on the audience of the video of the shooter then running off the roof, jumping down. I mean, this is very unusual, Jonah, to have the entire crime on tape. Like this is kind of a prosecution dream.
- [108:10]
Jona Spilbar
Yeah, it is. Because you can't swing a dead cat without being on video these days. And this is a classic circumstantial case. And the fact that it's a capital case doesn't change that. I mean, how often do we have criminal cases where we see the person shoot the victim? You know, it does happen sometimes, but it doesn't happen always. There are plenty of other crimes where we have to piece it together because nobody is an eyewitness to the actual event that is the crime and this is going to be one of them. And again, here we, here we are in the, in the preliminary stage, literally of this case where, you know, I'm a little surprised that the prosecutor isn't holding back some. Like they should really be doing a bare bones and not allowing a five day dog and pony show for the defense to set this up the way they're doing it. I'm surprised that the prosecution is kind of playing into the defense's hand here. That way.
- [109:02]
John Spilbar
There we go. Megan, that's the point. Two things that are very unusual. One, Johnna making some metaphor about swinging a cat. I don't know what she's doing in her spare time. Sorry, I don't get that. And, and number two. And number two, in reality, in real life. And Garagos, I'm sure, would say the same. And Jonna, this would be a two hour hearing. Hearsay's admissible. Let's just get through it. Did the crime probably occur? Is it probably him? That's the lowest standard probable cause. We're done now. I was okay with it because I was like, God, there's a lot of conspiracy theorists out there. They all think he's not guilty. And then they start doing this trial. And then the feedback we're getting on social media and at my law firm where they're calling, calling my assistant, saying I'm a nut for giving legal analysis, suggesting that there might be evidence that he's guilty. People are either not watching or they don't want to hear. So what's the point? If it's not helping the public, then get through it in two hours and prove it to a jury, which is the only thing that damn matters.
- [110:06]
Megyn Kelly
But interest, you know, to the end. To the end. On Kohlberger, we had co Burger truthers. You know, the guy pleaded guilty to quadruple homicide and still we had truthers who were like, no, it wasn't him. I was like, yeah, in my experience, you just a true conspiracy theorist. And not everybody who doubts Tyler Robinson's guilt is a conspiracy theorist. Some. Some are. But a true conspiracy theorist can never be convinced out of the conspiracy. It does not matter what you show to them. So you raise an interesting point, Eiglar, that if, if this really is for conspiracy theorists in the truest sense of that term, they're wasting their time. But if it's for jury pool members who may just be Confused or have doubts. And the prosecution's convinced if they see some of this tape, they won't have them and could potentially serve once the jury's chosen. Maybe it's different.
- [111:05]
John Spilbar
You know, I mean, that's a miscarriage of justice. That shouldn't happen. The purpose should not be to poison the potential jury pool. If it's to, you know, or I
- [111:14]
Megyn Kelly
think they'd argue unpoison.
- [111:17]
John Spilbar
It shouldn't. It should have nothing to do with that. It shouldn't. It shouldn't be to influence the jury pool in any respect. That's not due process, period.
- [111:28]
Megyn Kelly
Go ahead, Garagos.
- [111:29]
Mark Garagos
Well, the interesting thing is I've evolved, if you will, on cameras in the courtroom. I now fervently believe that you should have cameras in the courtroom for trials. I think that it's vital, especially what I call super sized trials like this, you should have cameras in the courtroom. I think, and I agree with Johnna and Mark and actually Phil was also talking about it along with Dave. The prosecution could put this case on in minutes. I wouldn't even say hours. I mean, this. I used to have a friend who was a DA who used to see how many. How few questions he could ask in order to get somebody held to answer. And I think his winning one was what happened next. What happened next? Please hold the answer. But that I think the prosecution's calculation is that they want to make this appear to be a slam dunk case for whatever reason. I won't go into their motives because all this does is give the defense the ability to engage in what the defense should be doing, which is exactly what they are doing during this preliminary hearing. What I do, I'm sure what Mark and John had you presented with a series of witnesses. You're going to question, you're going to test, you're going to push, however, to also their point, the pro. This is not the trial. So it is improper to try to influence the jury pool. But from a defense standpoint, that jury pool is overwhelmingly. Already has a prejudgment rate of guilt. The one kind of niche, if you will, is kind of the. You call them the truthers. I would just call them the tinfoil hat wearers who generally, until they hear the words out of somebody's mouth, do not believe it, no matter what you.
- [113:30]
Megyn Kelly
And even then.
- [113:31]
John Spilbar
Right. AI generated, not real. Yeah.
- [113:35]
Megyn Kelly
Or just like forced into it. Under threat of what? I don't know how people say Kohlberger didn't. You know, it's like, I. I'm done. I Don't feel the need to reason with those people. You know, it's like, okay, take care, like, believe whatever the hell you want. I don't care. He's in jail. That's the important thing.
- [113:51]
Mark Garagos
It's actually, I think, to their point. I think the, I think this backfires on the prosecution in a lot of ways. Ultimately it may not make any difference, but it certainly is not moving the ball forward for them. In terms of those who believe he's guilty aren't going to come away from this having their mind up shut changed. Those who I know conspiracy, well, that's,
- [114:15]
Megyn Kelly
that's what makes me sad because, you know, like, I see some of my friends like fervently retweeting some of these segments and these videos being like, you see, and they're not showing it to their audience on X or elsewhere to show them what's happening at the hearing. To say, this is what the prosecution has, this is how they're stitching together the case, they're tweeting it to say, this disproves this piece of whatever conspiracy theory, this disproves this. It's like you are wasting your time and your breath. Like, one thing I know from 20 plus years in news is there is no disproving a conspiracy theory in the mind of a true conspiracy theorist. It's not possible. They will just continue moving the goalposts and then when you ask them to sit across from you and explain how it all went down, like, how was this person controlled by whom? How would they argue this? How, how did they get control? What is the evidence of it? How, like they can't do it. They will just get out of bounds because it's just the way the mind works. And part of the issue is we've had so many conspiracy theories come true over the past few years. You know, like we, we did find out that Covid was from a lab and it wasn't from a pangolin in some wet market. We were lied to about that. We did find out that the vaccine caused myocarditis and other issues, especially in young teenage boys, which we were fucking lied to about it. We did find out that the six foot rule of not getting close to one another was totally made up and had no basis in science. Trademarked. We did find out that Jay Bhattacharya was not some conspiracy theorist. He was a legitimate doctor who was raising real concerns about whether we should just do focused protection on the elderly and not quarantine masses. The masses across America and the globe. Like Covid in particular was a, was an experience in which conspiracy theories wound up all being true. And the real nutcases were the ones in government power lying to us. There's a real hangover from that.
- [116:30]
Jona Spilbar
Right?
- [116:31]
Megyn Kelly
And like people disbelieving official narratives, it's so true.
- [116:36]
Mark Garagos
I, as one who was litigating during that entire Covid period, I mean, I remember the restaurants, outdoor restaurants, and having to fight that fight and sue the government. And to quote Gorsuch, this idea that this case out of Boston, Jacobson US Supreme Court case, became a towering presence. The problem that Covid presented is that people who are already had mental health issues, it amplified those issues. And people who didn't have mental health issues who were trying to, trying to rationally examine stuff were basically kind of forced in or lumped in with the others. And it is unfortunate. Covid to your point, I mean that was one of the best 90 seconds summaries I've heard since listen to Corolla talk about it. That the COVID did an enormous amount of damage to the US and specifically in California where I am. California just became kind of unmoored from reality and rationality. I mean, when you think back to, to bulldozing the, the beaches or arresting a guy on a paddle board, I mean, it sounds insane now, but at the time it was, you know, you were, you were pilloried if you disagreed with it. And that, yeah, lays the foundation for now kind of this taking a circumstantial evidence case, which by the way the law says it, there are two reasonable interpretations. The one that points towards innocence, but we've lost kind of this ability collectively to believe what is reasonable or rational at a certain level.
- [118:25]
Megyn Kelly
There's a couple of other things just to add, you know, the Epstein controversy where people believe that there really was some elite cabal covering up for other elites so that they wouldn't go down. And then there was a revolt when the administration didn't want to release any more Epstein documents. But it was done and look what happened. A bunch of people went down. You know that UK official, I don't remember his name, but he fell. The UK had actually a lot more accountability on Epstein than we have over here in America. But look what happened with Bill Gates. He got humiliated. Some others got exposed. Obama's former White House counsel got exposed, like bit by bit we did learn. No, there is a cabal of people who are very connected to him and seem like dirtbags who did deserve to be exposed. And with more and more pushing, they Were. But we were all told that's a conspiracy theory, too, about Jeffrey Epstein. He's like, okay, this is like, it's just annoying. And look, the thing on Israel, like, that's underlying this whole thing. And I feel like I'm in a unique position to speak to this because it's like Charlie and I were completely aligned on Israel all along. And up to the day he was killed, where we were very, very pro Israel. But we were starting to have doubts because of their behavior in Gaza and how extended and egregious it was and just how the overkill, again, to use that same word. And we hadn't abandoned Israel as supporters, but we were becoming more critical, and we both felt a need to make room in the GOP for Israel skeptics, which is what young Republicans feel. They're very skeptical, not of Israel and the Israeli people, but of this government and its behavior. And Charlie was having doubts about Israel and was under pressure not to. Not to abandon Israel as a cause, and is in writing and on the record with me on this show and elsewhere, not appreciating. Appreciating being called an anti Semite, saying he might have to leave the Jewish cause entirely, saying he wasn't going to submit to the pressure from certain Jewish donors to not waver at all in Israel, and that he didn't appreciate that at all. Correspondence directly with Netanyahu. And so look, understandably, some people are going to say, did they have a motive here? That. I think that's a fair question. But now when we're getting into real, live court, where, as you three know better than anyone, we have to deal in evidence, this is not an okay time for who. Who might have been on Charlie's bad side, who might have been threatened by Charlie, who might have been mad at Charlie. We have to talk about evidence. At this stage, it is time to put up or shut up. And what we see is no evidence. No evidence that will lead us to believe anyone other right now than Tyler Robinson was responsible for this cause. But I understand the skeptics. I do. Because I, as Charlie's friend, want every leaf to be turned over. I've been fine with doing that all along. But, you know, this is where the rubber meets the road, right, guys? Where it's like in lots of cases, you have theories about who hated the decedent, who, besides my client, wanted him dead. How could I potentially do a head fake or, like, point direction, you know, for the jury members over there instead of at my guy? And the court won't allow you to do that unless you have a good faith basis to do it or actual evidence to justify it. You can't just do wild goose chase over here because I've got a suspicion. That's just not how it works. And then in our discussions here, it's. I think it's really important we stay fact based. What's admissible? What, what can they admit? What is his defense team actually arguing? They have a greater reason than anyone, podcaster or otherwise, to get the attention off of Tyler Robinson. And we haven't heard anything from that defense team, which does seem talented about it not being Tyler. So anyway, thoughts on it?
- [122:35]
Jona Spilbar
Meghan, Can I put. I wanna put my tinfoil hat on for a minute and I never have a tinfoil hat. But just for argument's sake, in terms of the evidence in this case and what will come forth, the one, the chum, for lack of a better word, that I think conspiracy theorists can sink their teeth into, that we know so far are the weird text messages. Why? Because they're too detailed for somebody who wants to commit a heinous crime and get away with it to be texting your, your furry lover all of the details of the grandfather's gun and the this and here's where I put it and look under your keyboard and do all that stuff when you know damn well, as a 23 year old, you know damn well that this information is gettable. Why would you almost give yourself up digitally if somebody weren't putting you up to. Now, I don't believe that is the case, but if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'm gonna be hanging my hat on those text messages because there's just too much there.
- [123:34]
Megyn Kelly
There also. So I have a dear friend who I love. She's, she's a doll and she tends to think more conspiratorially on some of these issues. And she, she keeps me abreast of what she's hearing and she thinks on this and I actually really appreciate it because it's a good window into, you know, how people who are very skeptical of the theory that Tyler Robinson did this are thinking, and she just texted me that these messages are not believable. And no one believes this is why he was taken out. It literally goes on from there. But those messages are a problem for people who want to convince us it was Tyler Robinson because they do. They sound fake. They just sound. They do. They sound fake. They sound fake. And to John, his point, guys, they do have. It's like a prosecution's dream. It's my rifle. This is where I hid it. Remember when I engraved the bullets with the following memes like it's. It's exactly what you'd write if you wanted to ensure his conviction.
- [124:38]
Mark Garagos
Well, and then layer over that somebody else was there who gets carried off and arrested, who later confesses. Layer over that there are pre existing chats that are memorialized in some fashion which look to be a conspiratorial. And you. I. I would not be so sure that in jury selection you, that a stealth juror is usually the defense's worst nightmare. But in this case, it could be just like in Luigi, the prosecution's worst nightmare. They get a juror on.
- [125:19]
Megyn Kelly
Yes.
- [125:20]
Mark Garagos
Not gonna buy anything that the prosecution is selling because it just looks too neat, too convenient and doesn't kind of answer all of the questions.
- [125:31]
John Spilbar
I have a theory.
- [125:32]
Megyn Kelly
Let me tell you.
- [125:32]
Tom Bevin
I have a theory.
- [125:34]
Megyn Kelly
I know, I know a few people who are, you know, like this one friend who's very well off, she's very successful, who I met years ago. She was QAnon. She was part of Q. Like she believed all the theories about like the pizza place and the Democrat, like all of it. And like pretty much every conspiracy theory. And I never knew that I glarsch until she had a dinner party at her house and we all went and she kind of started confiding in me. And I remember being shocked. I'm like, she. She believes every single one of them. I know a few people who are like this and they are brilliant. They are very successful. This is not like there is a very good chance a few of these will wind up in the jury pool and being considered for the actual jury here. This is something the prosecution absolutely has to be paying attention to.
- [126:28]
John Spilbar
Sure. Listen, we think we know people. We only know what they show us. And even then, you really never get down to it. My theory in this case is that these defense lawyers are doing their job, ensuring due process by challenging every piece of evidence, by making all the right objections. But Megan, and you're thinking, and many people are thinking, well, so what does this lead to? What type of successful defense is that somehow leading to? And I don't think that they even think that it's going to lead to that. They're defining winning by doing everything they can to challenge the evidence and then ultimately not possibly. But when this judge says, I'm finding probable cause, which is 100% certainty, they will then proceed to buy their, you know, their protective knee coverings, get down on their knees and beg the prosecution to consider waiving the death penalty. And that, to me, would be a victory for the defense.
- [127:29]
Jona Spilbar
Prosecution has no reason, though, to do that in this case.
- [127:32]
John Spilbar
I disagree. I disagree.
- [127:34]
Jona Spilbar
Unless Erica Kirk and Charlie's parents wanted them to.
- [127:38]
John Spilbar
It starts there. I haven't heard that. They're tremendous advocates for the death penalty. So the fact that that door is even cracked open a little bit means
- [127:47]
Megyn Kelly
that there's a possibility that the door's not cracked open. Erica Kirk has said, I don't want that on my conscience. I don't want to be involved in that.
- [127:55]
John Spilbar
Okay.
- [127:55]
Megyn Kelly
Like I'm leaving that.
- [127:57]
John Spilbar
That means it's open. Megan, in our business, unless if you have a victim saying, no, anything less than the death penalty, like the Parkland Marjory Stoneman Douglas parents, they wanted the death penalty for Nicholas Cross Cruz. That was it. There was no discussion about resolving it to a life sentence, which ultimately probably would have saved them a lot of time and energy. In this particular case, there are more generic reasons. I don't disagree with Jona and those who think that the evidence is overwhelming, they'll get the conviction. But you've got 12 jurors, all who must unanimously find that the aggravating circumstances are greater than the mitigators. And death is very different. It's very unique. It takes one Utah juror to say, yeah, I think that what he did was abhorrent, but I think he should live out his days in jail. Be worse for him. Let him rot in prison. I'm not gonna send him a death row or whatever their reasons are. And so it's not a slam dunk. It's not a guarantee. What is a guarantee is him saying, I'm guilty. I'm waiving all my appeals. I don't wanna have any more notoriety. Not that he would say that, but we're saying that to him. Good riddance. Go away. No more expense, no more time, no more energy. Guaranteed life sentence.
- [129:09]
Megyn Kelly
And then he'll probably think he's gonna do it. I don't think he's gonna. I don't think he's gonna do that
- [129:13]
John Spilbar
because his lawyer should talk.
- [129:15]
Megyn Kelly
He thinks he's got a shot. I think he's good. Pardon the punishment. And I also, you. If you read those text messages, if that's really Tyler Robinson writing, he doesn't give a about dying. He's like, if you read this, I'm either dead or I'm heading to prison for a long time. He. I think he was prepared to die that day. Go ahead. At Garagos I can see things change.
- [129:33]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
He did.
- [129:34]
Mark Garagos
The lawyers are not going to let him do it because absent agreement by doj, remember, unlike Luigi, where you have the federal backstop to the state, there is no double jeopardy. If he pleads the DoJ to a life, the DoJ can come in instantly and just use that and go. Go for broke.
- [129:56]
John Spilbar
And they would work that out, Garagos. They would all work that out. He wouldn't plead unless he knew that he's getting pass in the Fed.
- [130:02]
Mark Garagos
This Department of Justice agreed to the pass. I to me, that's. They already.
- [130:08]
Megyn Kelly
I. They won't. Don Jr. Is sitting in the front row of this preliminary hearing right now with his new bride watching every moment. He was extremely close with Charlie. There's zero chance.
- [130:20]
John Spilbar
Imagine, imagine a scenario worse than a five day preliminary hearing. Imagine five, ten years down the road after he's convicted, after he's given the death penalty, the appellate court reverses based upon something that was done in jury selection, whatever it is, and then we come back and we do it all over again. That's possible.
- [130:40]
Megyn Kelly
Cares?
- [130:41]
John Spilbar
Oh, okay, so what cares?
- [130:43]
Megyn Kelly
Like, remember the outrage when Kohlberger was allowed to plead and didn't get the death penalty, which he clearly deserved? That was utter bullshit. We can't be put in that same position. Go ahead, Garagos.
- [130:53]
Mark Garagos
I'm just going to say, remember the reason that the feds didn't not get involved and they publicly said it. It's not like I'm talking directly to somebody who's confiding in me. They said Utah's got a death penalty, unlike New York, where similar to California, the death penalty basically does not exist. We came in, in New York because of that. We didn't come in to Utah because they mean it when they say they've got a death penalty. That's the backstop. That's the, the only reason they didn't take federal jurisdiction over this.
- [131:26]
Jona Spilbar
And Megan, a win for the defense here is simply not getting a unanimous death verdict. That is a win for the defense. I don't think they know. They know they don't have a prayer of an acquittal. I don't see that happening any, at any point. But if they have one juror who can't sentence to death, that is a win. And that might be a long plea as we like to call it. And maybe that's the angle of this defense team at this point.
- [131:53]
Megyn Kelly
If I were, if I were the defense lawyer, I'd be going for jury nullification. I'd be going for Hung jury. All I need is one who thinks that Tyler Robinson was manipulated, whether it was by the CIA and an MK Ultra, which I've seen that. By Israel, who, you know, somehow swooped in and got controlled his mind or he wasn't actually the shooter because there was the exploding microphone, whatever. There's a lot of theories out there that I'm the defense lawyer, I'm 100% going for that. Like, I've got to find the one jury and I'd have to have a consultation with jury consultants. Like, what should I look for? Like. And Megan, raise your hand if you think we didn't land on the moon.
- [132:33]
John Spilbar
And you know what?
- [132:34]
Megyn Kelly
I'd be looking for jurors who are like, yeah.
- [132:36]
John Spilbar
And Megan, you know why there's typically two different lawyers on a death penalty case? Because the one who would have to argue the garbage that you just talked about the most ridiculous theories which will land him with a conviction within an hour, there'd have to be a different person then to get up there and make arguments about why he should live instead of die. Because the first lawyer explain it.
- [133:00]
Megyn Kelly
Garagos made this point yesterday and we didn't really flesh it out. Keep, keep going. Why? So describe exactly the position you'd be putting yourself in if you stood up there and your main defense was basically to like head fake over to MKUltra, the CIA, the FBI, Israel, whatever.
- [133:16]
John Spilbar
Okay. I had a death case recently. I litigated it for five years. Death, death, death. These Florida prosecutors wanted death. And quite frankly, the facts probably warranted them. It was really that bad. It wasn't until the 11th hour, ultimately, when we did motions and showed that like they're doing, they're talented lawyers, they're fighters, whatever, that maybe that greased the wheel. And ultimately we got, we wanted. But I couldn't have been the one, if we actually went to trial to then make the arguments about how he had a lack of prior record, how he had mental illness, how he said God bless you to a few people and help them across the street. Whatever you're gonna throw out there to mitigate, I shouldn't have been that same one, cuz with the same mouth that. That spewed bullshit to try to convince them that they're innocent. I can't be the one trying to save his life, go that far.
- [134:04]
Mark Garagos
I would say you're zealously defending in a guilt phase and that's what the client is entitled to, a zealous defense. And you're arguing they haven't proved their case. I'm giving you an alternative explanation. I'm telling you this. I'm telling you that if a jury rejects that, which they must in order to get to the penalty phase, they basically, there's an idea, you are the voice of the client. They've given you your. They've already given you their verdict, so to speak on your authenticity and everything else. Then to get up and say, hey, I was just kidding. Let's talk about this, that and the other thing and why you should.
- [134:47]
John Spilbar
It's.
- [134:47]
Mark Garagos
It's an impossible human situation, I think, to navigate.
- [134:51]
John Spilbar
Correct.
- [134:52]
Megyn Kelly
But wait, why is it inconsistent to say, okay, Tyler Robinson didn't do it, he didn't do it, somebody else did it. Don't believe those tapes. We can't tell who that is. This is bullshit. There's no hard proof. Somebody could have stolen that gun. That's his DNA's on it because it's his gun. Not. Not necessarily because he shot it. And then they say, we disagree. He's guilty. And then you get to the death penalty phase and you say, why is it inconsistent to say Tyler Robinson is actually a really sweet guy. He spent, you know, 22 of his 23 years being a good citizen, loving son, because university. He got. He got manipulated, you know, by the Internet. He got, you know, pulled into assassination culture. And, you know, don't hold that against him because, look, he was a boy Scout and he did all these nice
- [135:43]
John Spilbar
things because your credibility by that point is out the window. You've challenged good, decent, honorable police officers. You're trying to make X look like Y. Creating reasonable doubt could be really challenging, especially when things are so straightforward and you have to convince jurors that they're not. What you're seeing is not actually that straightforward. Someone manufactured the words that were allegedly sent to his boyfriend. And then all of a sudden, to get up there with that same mouth and then talk about actual things that he doesn't have a prior record, that he had some mental illness. And here's the expert that claims that he. Whatever you're going to put up there to mitigate, it's very hard to do it with the same voice that minutes ago they were insulted by, you know,
- [136:31]
Jona Spilbar
But, Megan, the inconsistency.
- [136:33]
Megyn Kelly
I'm just kind of laughing, picturing you iglash of. I've never seen you uncomfortable. It would be kind of funny to. To see you actually feeling uncomfortable.
- [136:40]
John Spilbar
I wouldn't show it just on the inside because of.
- [136:44]
Megyn Kelly
But you're making your case. I get it. I'm getting it. Go ahead, John.
- [136:47]
Jona Spilbar
The inconsistency is baked into the cake, right? Because when you have these death penalty cases, and I'm trying to remember, I don't know if it was Jodi Arias or one of them, and maybe even Scott Peterson Garagos, where you put up a defense because you truly believe that your client is innocent. And then in order to save their life, they have to present the mitigating evidence or it's not going to happen. You have to. You have to. The client sometimes themselves have to say, oh, yeah, I'm really sorry. After you spent days or weeks or months trying to convince a jury that they're completely innocent in order to live, they have to now kind of admit their guilt.
- [137:23]
Megyn Kelly
Is still trying to convince us that Scott Peterson is innocent. We can't use that as an example. He still thinks he's going to be home in time for Christmas. Wait, I wanted to tell you guys, something is happening in court right now that is relevant to the very discussion that we're having there. There's a debate about whether they can read the testimony of. Okay, I want to make sure it's a pastor. The prosecution wanted to read the testimony of Pastor David Engelhardt about Christian belief. The this is via the Federalist and its correspondent in. In court breckenthes from Engelhardt about Christian belief, the beliefs and goals of Turning Point USA and the religious and political beliefs of Charlie Kirk. The defense objected. This is another defense lawyer named Novak who says the state is using this testimony in a way to get the, quote, victim targeting enhancement to lay the groundwork for Robinson's reasons for targeting Kirk. Specifically, Novak argues that political expression is outside the statutory relevance needed, which is separate and distinct from a personal attribute. Do you, do you understand what he's saying? Does anybody know what that means for the special.
- [138:42]
Mark Garagos
I assume for the special Cirque. And he's saying the special circumstance that's attached to the murder which makes him death penalty eligible. And he's arguing that.
- [138:51]
Megyn Kelly
And you can't use like a personal attribute would be he's gay and he got targeted for being gay, or he's black and he got targeted for being black as opposed to he was a Christian who was religious. I think that's okay. I get it. I think that's what. What the argument is over. And then here's the quote from defense attorney Novak. I understand in today's world that there is a crossover between religion and politics. I think we can all acknowledge that. But the legislature and the information here are focused on political expression. So I'm concerned that this affidavit statement of Mr. Engelhardt goes far beyond the scope of what would be admissible if the state has it to prove that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Robinson's belief or perception concerning Mr. Kirk's political expression. This is not a case about religion, Novak said. Novak said the evidence the state needs to provide is not what Kirk believed, but rather what was in Mr. Robinson's head. So he did not want the affidavit to come in. And it looks like he has succeeded in that because the update was Judge Graff, for now, has sustained Novak's objection, meaning the state prosecutor cannot read directly from Engelhardt's testimony, quote quoting from it in open court, I fear does risk issues to the constitutional rights of the parties, said the judge. They're talking about closing the court down so that Prosecutor McBride can refer directly to the testimony. The state does not want to do so. McBride says he believes the defense is trying to shut down the openness of the proceedings so that the public cannot hear it. News media attorney. Because we also have our own lawyer in there arguing for our rights. Raymond is arguing that just because an exhibit could be inadmissible does not mean the public cannot see it. My God, there's so many layers to this.
- [140:40]
Jona Spilbar
This is.
- [140:41]
Megyn Kelly
Is crazy. But this is all about the death penalty, right? This is all about whether this. I admire this judge that would make it a death penalty.
- [140:49]
John Spilbar
Megan. I like this judge. I like this judge. Putting aside whether I'm okay with the ruling because I don't have all the facts surrounding it. I love that he's calling balls and strikes and not just appearing to be a judge who's ready to do that, pretending to do that, and then just ruling in favor of the prosecution for everything. He really does seem to want to hear from both sides. And he does seem like he cares about the rule of law. And I admire him. Not everything should come in.
- [141:16]
Tom Bevin
Well.
- [141:16]
Megyn Kelly
I have to say it's been. It's. It's been actually very telling because usually this Nestor objects to everything. The woman.
- [141:22]
John Spilbar
That's her job. That's her job.
- [141:24]
Megyn Kelly
And no, it's annoying, though. If she does this in front of a jury, they're going to hate her. Because juries don't like a nonstop. I realize she's got a life to save.
- [141:31]
John Spilbar
Yeah.
- [141:31]
Megyn Kelly
And delay works in her favor. The. She's not in front of a jury another day. He's alive.
- [141:35]
John Spilbar
It's different, but.
- [141:36]
Megyn Kelly
I know. But like I'M I'm a jury, and I hate her. I'm just saying, like, she's alienating a lot.
- [141:43]
John Spilbar
Hey, you ain't making it on, babe.
- [141:46]
Megyn Kelly
No, I'm only not making it out of this. But she. But then he says. The judge says, okay, I'll hear argument, you know, she make, and she's like, stand on my objection. She has no argument. It's like, the prosecution is like, great, let's argue it. I'll. I'm happy to argue.
- [142:02]
John Spilbar
She's doing her job. Oh, Megan. She's doing her job. So that. Not if, but when he possibly gets death, they're going to go back and say, did he have effective assistance of counsel? And, yeah, she's making all the possible legal objections. And then this is all good.
- [142:16]
Megyn Kelly
Her job be to, like, give him. Give him that defense by not doing. Not crossing every T or dotting every.
- [142:21]
Tom Bevin
I.
- [142:21]
Megyn Kelly
Like.
- [142:21]
Mark Garagos
No.
- [142:22]
Megyn Kelly
Surreptitiously blowing things so he could argue.
- [142:24]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
I.
- [142:24]
Tom Bevin
Basically.
- [142:25]
Megyn Kelly
What is it? I ac. Go ahead, Garagos.
- [142:27]
Mark Garagos
Yeah, but no, it's not. It's not our job to purposely take a dive. No.
- [142:32]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Right.
- [142:33]
Jona Spilbar
We just got to make sure.
- [142:34]
Megyn Kelly
Maybe she'll get lucky, like. Like Alec Murdoch, and they'll have a court clerk who will unduly influence the jury, and that's a good strategy.
- [142:42]
John Spilbar
Count on that.
- [142:43]
Megyn Kelly
Go ahead, John.
- [142:45]
Jona Spilbar
We. You know, let's hope that the angle here isn't to get rid of the. The thing that makes this an aggravated murder, because without that, there is no death penalty. And then the defense will have one at the end of this, what is going to be a lengthy prelim. So hopefully the prosecution has more than one ground for its aggravation in the way that it charged this case.
- [143:05]
Megyn Kelly
It's.
- [143:06]
John Spilbar
Yeah. Hey, were there kids in attendance? How old were they? Okay, there you go in that one.
- [143:11]
Jenny Razincott (Alleged Victim)
Yeah.
- [143:11]
Jona Spilbar
Well, that's. I mean, he killed them across a crowd. That should be one. So there should be other choices for the prosecution here.
- [143:20]
Megyn Kelly
Yeah. Besides whatever. Christian affiliation or one's political beliefs, which clearly is the motivation. If, you know, Tyler did this, it's in writing. But, yeah, they have on the witness list, I think, a picture of a mother with a baby in a baby stroller. So they clearly are going to try to argue that children were present at the time that this disgusting event happened. So we won't be surprised if we see that. So. All right, in sum, we think the prosecution's getting it done. They could have gotten it done in two hours. Everything beyond that is probably an attempt to manipulate the Public narrative, which I Garch, thinks is unacceptable. I think it's unpoisoning the poisoned well just to try to get us back to neutral. In the same way the prosecutor felt he had to come out to say, wait a minute. The Daily Mail report about the bullet not matching is not correct. It couldn't conclusively be matched, but it wasn't not matched either. We just couldn't tell. It was blown to such smithereens that we weren't able to say one way or another. I think he's trying to do that in his presentation here, too. Unpoison the poisoned well as opposed to poison it or put his finger on the scale for himself. So that's where it stands.
- [144:35]
John Spilbar
Well, there was more to it. Hey, wait, wait. Megan hates the defense lawyer. You didn't include that in the summation. We covered that.
- [144:42]
Megyn Kelly
Yes.
- [144:42]
John Spilbar
Megan thinks that if she.
- [144:43]
Megyn Kelly
I do. She's very annoying.
- [144:44]
Mark Garagos
Right.
- [144:44]
John Spilbar
And if she objects like that in front of jury, she'll turn them all off. Got that right.
- [144:48]
Megyn Kelly
And she says every two seconds. She's not articulate. She's not. I mean, I just not impressed with her. I don't like unimpressive.
- [144:54]
John Spilbar
I just add that to the. To the summation of what we've discussed.
- [144:58]
Megyn Kelly
Yeah. And she blew it.
- [144:59]
Legal Analyst or Lawyer
On that.
- [145:00]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
On that.
- [145:00]
Megyn Kelly
What's her. The woman who poisoned her husband. The fentanyl poisoner.
- [145:04]
Jona Spilbar
Oh, yeah.
- [145:07]
Megyn Kelly
Corey Richards. Corey Richards.
- [145:09]
Phil Holloway
Yeah.
- [145:10]
Megyn Kelly
She blew that one. That was probably. I don't know if that was winnable, but I think Garagos could have walked out with a. With an acquittal.
- [145:17]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
There we go.
- [145:17]
Megyn Kelly
But she. She couldn't defense.
- [145:20]
Mark Garagos
She's doing a more than workmanlike job. Number one. Number. It's also. It's incredibly stressful for a lawyer to be on camera performing, even though we get into it. But that adds another layer to it.
- [145:35]
Jona Spilbar
So not for us. Megan, did I ever tell you one time I had a judge chastise me for objecting too much? She actually told me to stop objecting.
- [145:45]
Megyn Kelly
I didn't listen, but I don't blame her.
- [145:47]
Jona Spilbar
Yeah, I must have annoyed her, too.
- [145:50]
Megyn Kelly
Yeah.
- [145:51]
Mark Halperin
I don't know.
- [145:51]
Megyn Kelly
I don't blame her. It's like at that point, you just have to have, like, blanket blank. I get it. You object to literally every question. Your rights are preserved for appeal. Sit down and be quiet and let the thing go forward. At one point, this judge is going to have to do that to Nestor because this cannot keep going like this. I realize, you know, delay is in her favor, but it's gotten to the point of, like, you want to. You want to give her a little. A little backhand. Okay, I gotta go, you guys. Thank you all so much for your commentary, everybody. Be sure to check out MK True Crime and subscribe to in the well with Garagos and Matt Murphy and Positively Legal, as well as our MK True Crime show, which is sort of the name brand there. Anyway, lots of True Crime offerings, and they've been all over this case this week and will continue to be as well. I gotta say, it's been kind of crazy to watch Erica have to sit through this and have to deal with all of this. And I really, really wish that the people who have doubts about Erica Kirk would just keep them quiet this week. I mean, whether you like her or you don't like her, hopefully the human inside of you can see how difficult this is for her and the family to sit in there and have to listen to this and have to be feet away from Tyler Robinson. And then soon, the videotape of the lover. And they're removing themselves for the most graphic pieces of the testimony. But they're hearing enough. This is going to be intensely upsetting. And every night, Erica goes home to Charlie's two children who have no father and still has to struggle with helping them understand what happened to him. It's just beyond human, what is being asked of the family. And I just. I beg for you to keep them in your prayers, infuse them with strength, with some sort of serenity to get through this, with the ability to keep this in perspective. You know, as Erica said from the beginning, that the real judgment is going to come from God, not from this judge, not from the eventual jury. And that's really what Tyler Robinson should be thinking about each night. That's what should disturb his sleep night after night. Answering to his maker. You know, his lawyer may be able to spare him some penalty here or possibly in his best case scenario, even a finding of guilt, though I doubt it. But Tyler Robinson and anybody else who is connected with this crime are going to have to answer to their maker eventually. And that from that they cannot be spared. None of us can. Anyway. Been thinking a lot about Charlie this week, as I know you have. It's very hard to talk about this case forensically without remembering it's Charlie talking about Charlie. You guys know that better than anybody. The listeners to this show, the viewers of this show, saw more of Charlie than virtually any other audience did besides his own. All these people out there talking about Charlie. You saw him regularly. You listened to him regularly. If you watch and listen to this show and you knew a lot about Charlie Kirk, his character, his personality, what mattered to him. And I'm sure you're feeling it, too. I'm sure you're feeling an intimate connection to this case because you do feel that connection to him. This is like, you know, the guests who come on this show are like family. They're family. Like family to me. And I'm sure you feel that as well. So keep his family in your mind and in your prayers and thank you for that. And thank you for trusting us with the coverage of it as well. We will continue to stream the entire preliminary hearing on our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.commegankelly and we'll be back tomorrow with more legal analysis and other news. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No bs, no agenda and no fear.
- [149:56]
Dr. Horton Sales Announcer
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event. This Friday, July 10th through Sunday, August 2nd. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event. Starting this Friday. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal housing opportunity builder.