reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker mentioned that the defense attorney was upset about having to listen to a defense motion in court. The judge had to ask the attorney to calm down as he was losing control. The speaker believes that the unveiling of evidence, including details about the Mar a Lago raid and an operations order, has angered those involved in the case. They feel that Judge Cannon is exposing the corruption and misconduct in the investigation from the beginning.

The speakers discuss the issue of communication with witnesses and whether there should be any restrictions on it. Speaker 0 argues that there should be no prohibition on such communication, as it falls under the First Amendment. Speaker 1 disagrees and suggests that restrictions should be based on evidence showing a likelihood of influence. Speaker 0 points out that the district court concluded that the communication in question was an attempt to influence a witness and could affect their testimony. Speaker 1 argues that such restrictions should only apply if there is evidence of actual influence. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 standing by their previous responses.

There is a substantial amount of discovery in this case; it is voluminous to say the least. The discussion touches on several intertwined aspects of pretrial proceedings and the management of information in a high-profile matter. Speaker 1 notes that his lawyers entered their formal appearance and declined to waive the right to a preliminary hearing. In connection with these procedural steps, Judge Tony Graff issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it. The purpose of the gag order is to avoid pretrial publicity, which is already a significant problem given the case’s massive media exposure involving a high-profile figure such as Charlie Kirk. The judge’s objective, as stated, is to ensure a fairer trial for Robinson by limiting external commentary and potentially prejudicial publicity. The discussion then turns to the scope and identification of witnesses. There is a request for clarification regarding the phrase “all witnesses,” as there are a number of witnesses who have not yet been identified but would likely be used in the state’s case. This issue arose in the context of a large audience—specifically, an event in front of two to three thousand students at Utah Valley University—where the incident or relevant proceedings took place. The parties are in the process of identifying those witnesses, and those individuals are presently unknown. Speaker 2 responds by outlining how the court will handle this as the witnesses become known. The court will require that as each witness becomes known to either side, the information will be conveyed in a way that complies with the gag order. It is acknowledged that there may be many witnesses, and it is not expected that all witness identifications and related disclosures can be completed upfront before the process begins. The approach is to disclose witness information progressively as it becomes available, while maintaining compliance with the order. Speaker 1 reiterates that the judge wants to ensure the protection of Robinson’s constitutional rights as well as the rights of the victim. The exchange underscores a balance between managing a large, potentially unwieldy roster of witnesses and upholding the defendants’ and victims’ legal protections. The discussion closes with a brief, incomplete note from Counselor, indicating ongoing considerations and procedural safeguards as the case progresses.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker acknowledges the challenge of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and facing criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

Trusting experts is not a feature of science or democracy. In legal cases, both sides present experts who can be convincing. Experts have their own biases and ambitions, so it's not reliable to trust them blindly. Trusting experts is more common in religion and totalitarianism.

In the video, the speaker discusses the testimony of an accounting expert, Professor Bartov, who was used by both Leticia James's team and the OAG's team in the past. The speaker highlights that despite his expertise, the opposing side objected to his testimony because it didn't support their claims. Professor Bartov stated that there was no fraud, the financial statements of President Trump were understated, and there was no evidence of concealment. The speaker also emphasizes that President Trump's financial statements provided detailed information about his properties, indicating transparency. The speaker expresses concern about the attorney general's involvement in private companies and asserts that the case lacks merit.

The judge questioned if $175 million would be available in cash, even if its value changed. The speaker found it absurd, as the money was in a secure account. The judge's lack of understanding was frustrating, leading to a disappointing experience in court. Later, the speaker attended a criminal hearing, which was also deemed disgraceful. Translation: The judge's lack of understanding about cash and secure accounts led to a frustrating court experience for the speaker. The subsequent criminal hearing was also disappointing.

I am disappointed in how Turning Point is handling freedom of speech, especially in relation to Charlie Kirk’s approach, which I used to respect for valuing freedom of speech and engaging with people you disagree with. In this event, the people who went before me in the Q&A were part of the event themselves and were designated those spots in line for the Q&A. At least three out of four of them, and possibly the fourth, were designated spots for people who know they support the administration. They also knew the time was limited. They end the Q&A before the first person who opposes the administration, and possibly before the first person who isn’t part of the event themselves. This is in addition to the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question but didn’t have time. I don’t blame them for ending the Q&A because they were running out of time; Caroline Levitt is nine months pregnant now, so I understand the timing. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first? The concern is that spots were designated to attendees who are aligned with the administration, reducing opportunities for dissenting or non-aligned voices, and that this occurred in a setting where there is limited time for questions.

An accounting expert testified that there was no fraud in President Trump's financial statements. He stated that the statements were undervalued and that Trump had nothing to hide. The expert criticized the attorney general for investigating a private company and violating constitutional rights. Despite a gag order, the expert plans to testify on Monday. The speaker expressed frustration with the trial, calling it election interference and garbage claims. They believe the outcome was predetermined and that there is no case. The speaker hopes this serves as a lesson to other attorneys general and district attorneys trying to make a name for themselves.

The speaker was asked about winning the union vote despite gun enthusiasts in the union. They denied taking away guns but were interrupted. The speaker clarified they did not say that, and the conversation became heated.

The speaker argues that recent changes in the defendant's testimony make certain evidence more relevant and admissible. The judge questions the speaker's decision to include evidence previously ruled out, emphasizing the importance of respecting court rulings. The speaker explains their interpretation of the judge's previous rulings, highlighting a specific instance where evidence was excluded. The judge expresses frustration at the speaker's actions, emphasizing the need to follow court decisions. Translation: The speaker believes new testimony from the defendant makes evidence more relevant, but the judge questions their decision to include previously excluded evidence. The judge stresses the importance of respecting court rulings and following decisions made during the trial.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

The speaker states that someone is not allowing them to speak and is seemingly unaware of rise rates in the courtroom. This person keeps asking what's going on and reiterates that the department has broad discretion and is moving to the system.

Speaker discussed frustration with Judge Cannon during hearings related to special counsel Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump. Prosecutor David Harbach got visibly upset, pounding on podium and clapping hands in anger. Judge had to ask him to calm down. The special counsel team is upset that evidence is being unveiled, revealing details about the Mar a Lago raid. They are angry at Judge Cannon for making this information public, showing the investigation's corruption. One of the prosecutors usually keeps a cooler head.

Speaker 0 asks why Paul Irving, who had the authority, didn't give the okay. Speaker 1 explains that he testified at the Senate hearing in 2021 and disagreed with Speaker 1's recollection. Speaker 1 turned over his phone records and fought to testify. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 wasn't allowed to testify since he was the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. Speaker 1 explains that initially, the hearing was only for current employees, excluding the top 3 people in security. Speaker 1 called someone on the rules committee to request testifying and promised to show up in person. Speaker 0 highlights the denial of Speaker 1's request for national guardsmen, which was a pivotal moment.

The speaker expresses their belief that the case went well and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court was fraudulent and made references to valuable assets without knowledge of the numbers involved. The speaker criticizes the length of the proceedings and highlights the outside world's problems. They assert that the case is a scam and should never have been brought. The speaker mentions a star witness who admitted to lying and lacks credibility. They believe everything they did was right and express frustration at being sued while other issues persist. The speaker concludes by stating that the case is a disgrace and should never have been brought.

A left-wing New York judge is preventing the 45th president of the United States from speaking in court. The president's attorney, Alina Haba, explains that the judge interrupts him when he tries to explain the complexities of real estate. The judge's actions are seen as biased and unfair, hindering the president's ability to defend himself. Haba believes there should be consequences for violating judicial ethics and calls for a mistrial. The situation is damaging the reputation of the New York legal system and is seen as a clown show. The president's knowledge of real estate could have provided valuable insights if the judge had allowed him to speak.

There are 20-25 lawyers who want to be in court, but there are space limitations.

The speaker discusses a left-wing judge in New York who is not allowing the 45th president of the United States to speak in court. The speaker believes that the judge has an agenda and is biased against Donald Trump. They argue that Trump is knowledgeable about real estate and is trying to explain the science and economics of it in court. The judge is accused of cutting him off and not allowing him to finish his paragraphs. The speaker criticizes the judge's behavior and calls for someone to speak out against it. They also mention a law clerk with left-wing affiliations and express the need for an impartial judicial system. The speaker believes there should be a mistrial and accountability for violating judicial ethics. They conclude by stating that the New York legal system looks like a clown show and that Trump has had a significant impact on real estate in New York.

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

The transcript captures a courtroom-style exchange centered on a Keene, New Hampshire ticket case, framed by a post-video commentary praising a pro se participant’s questioning technique. The sequence begins with Speaker 1 highlighting the individual (referred to as a sovereign or un-barred claimant) who challenges the proceedings and observes that the judge is defensive rather than authoritative, urging viewers to note the voices and questions. Key moments and claims: - The conversation opens with a question about whether the corporation that issued the ticket is within New Hampshire. An objection is raised (Speaker 2) arguing that the speaker cannot offer a legal opinion, and Speaker 0 notes the lack of bar credentials of the person being questioned. - The questioning continues with practical inquiries: how many tickets per hour are written by the witness (the meter maid), and what the witness’s hourly pay is for appearing (Speaker 4 answers $25/hour). This is framed by Speaker 1 as a potential conflict of interest, since the witness is being paid to testify, implying non-standard status for a public defender-style cross-examination. - The witness is asked if they are a cop or deputized; they respond no. This prompts Speaker 1 to declare that the witness is not law enforcement but is testifying for the city, raising questions about legal liability for the court, the executive branch, and the judiciary. - The questioning probes the identity of the complaining party (Steve Keene) and whether there is a victim. The witness cannot identify a victim, and when asked if there is an injured party, the witness responds unclear or nonresponsive. The judge and DA appear unsettled by this line of questioning. - The examiner asks whether there is a victim in the matter and, if so, who it is; the witness responds that there is not clear information. The examiner criticizes the witness for not being an attorney or paralegal and proceeds with questions about the nature of the city as a municipality and as a corporation. - The prosecutor objects to several lines of questioning as improper for a lay witness, while the judge sustains some objections. The examiner emphasizes that the city of Keene is a municipality and questions ownership of the parking space by the city, to which the witness responds that the city owns the space but cannot explain how ownership was established. - A pivotal moment occurs when the examiner asks whether the city of Keene owns the parking space and if the corporation is within New Hampshire. The witness again defers or cannot answer certain legal questions, prompting further objections and the assertion that a part of the video may have been cut to exclude the portion where the examiner argued about the municipality’s corporate status. - The exchange continues with questions about evidence, such as whether there is footage of the meter blinking or other corroborating proof, and whether the witness possesses any evidence beyond the claim that the meter was blinking. The witness admits lacking direct evidence beyond the claim itself. - The cross-examination culminates with a motion to strike the witness as incompetent, which the judge overrules on the basis of expertise; the dialogue notes that the questioning challenges the prosecution and court officers and that the city may be a corporation, a point that appears to influence the subsequent resolution. - In the closing portion, the vehicle cross-examination continues, and the judge grants the motion to dismiss, concluding that the motion to dismiss is granted with thanks. Overall, the transcript documents a high-impact, assertive cross-examination by a pro se participant that challenges the witness’s qualifications, the status of the city as a corporation, the existence of a victim, and the sufficiency of the evidence, ultimately leading to a dismissal of the case.

The speaker states a mistrial is appropriate due to the prosecutor's actions. They express confusion, questioning if the prosecutor is being disingenuous or purposefully hiding information. The speaker avoids directly accusing the prosecutor but suggests their experience should prevent repeated instances of withholding information. They find it hard to believe the behavior isn't intentional, unless the prosecutor is disorganized and assembling the case haphazardly during the trial. The speaker apologizes but says the case presentation is making things difficult. A recess is called, and a ruling will be given upon return.