reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The judge cleared the entire courtroom due to a security concern. Information is limited, but the situation has escalated.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone is willing to take in refugees, but most people decline due to lack of space or rental restrictions. One person says they would consider it if they had more room. Speaker 1 mentions having a small house and not being able to accommodate a refugee. Another person says they would be willing if they had the space. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking where the refugees should go since no one is able to take them in.

Stop! This has gone too far. I have a duty to be in this room, representing 200,000 people from Northwest Georgia who elected me to be here today.

The hearing addressed the October 14 audio recording and the October 24 transcript. The portion covering these items would be closed so the court could determine which parts of the recording should remain sealed. All members of the public and press were excused, and the hearing would not be broadcast while the court heard arguments on what should be sealed. After the argument, the parties, the public, and the media would be invited back to resume transmission, and the hearing would proceed with three remaining matters: the motion for limited intervention, followed by the state’s motion to amend or clarify the publicity order; these two portions would be open to the public and press. A brief recess would follow and the judge would issue rulings on all three matters. During the closed hearing, Richard Novak, representing Mister Robinson, requested that Mister Robinson’s immediate family—his father, mother, and brother—be allowed to stay in the courtroom for the closed portion. The state and the judge discussed the request. The judge expressed concern about discussing court security measures in an open public setting and stated that the issue of who may be present in closed sessions could be sensitive. Richard Novak argued that the family members have a unique relationship with Mister Robinson and would comply with any disclosure orders, but acknowledged that the court ultimately had discretion over who may attend. The judge ruled that the family members would be excluded from the closed session, citing the nature and sensitivity of the discussions and the need to treat all parties and the public equally, while noting the family relationship. The court thanked Novak for the request and proceeded to the closed session.

The Attorney General wants to speak. People clap. They express their support for justice. They mention different states. They pray for the Attorney General. They ask for protection and blessings. They mention the Secret Service and the FBI. They want to be recognized. They mention expenses and ask people to send them for reimbursement.

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.

In political trials, Jewish lawyers have often defended those abandoned by others. The speaker, a lawyer, was trained by a Jewish fan. Many Jewish members of the community are involved in their struggle and hold top positions.

Speaker 0 describes being unable to move from the hotel lobby to the elevator shaft as people press $700 bills at him, saying, 'I know you're that lawyer, and you're rolling with the truckers. Give them this money.' He adds that there are 'tens of thousands of dollars of cash,' and that 'all of that has been spent in the last few days at gas stops.'

Many people are present. The speaker asks the audience to raise their hands based on how many people they know. They want to send a clear message to Bonnie Henry.

Speaker 0 discusses “Bill Gates on trial,” asserting disbelief at the reality of the situation unless present in the courtroom, and notes that two connected legal cases are taking place in the Netherlands involving Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Baller, former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, who is described as the current secretary general of NATO, and other senior government officials. Speaker 1 claims they can prove “without any doubt” that the official narrative of COVID-19 is fake, and notes the rapid developments in the case. They also reference the Epstein files, stating that there is a “very evil elite” led by bankers, described as harmful to the world and its people. Speaker 0 relays remarks from lawyer Peter Stassen in court, who purportedly said on the Global Elite Network that there exists a globally organized malicious elite at the top of which are some families who own central banks worldwide. He asserts Epstein “plays an important role in this network” and that Epstein is “the bankers’ agent.” According to these remarks, Epstein is shaping a transhuman agenda driven largely by the desire to eradicate much of the world’s population. Speaker 0 further describes a “satanic system,” in which bankers, secret services, media, Hollywood figures, government officials, universities, and many scientists are corruptly connected to this network and serve a transhuman, described as satanic, mind-bending system. On COVID and genocide, the statement is that “we are witnessing the largest genocide of the world’s population ever.” Speaker 1 adds emphasis with the word “This,” underscoring the claim that the narrative and events described are connected to the broader allegations. Speaker 0 concludes that the trial is “beyond the courtroom,” defining it as a test for the judiciary and posing the question of whether justice will reveal what it can still become.

The speaker discusses the strength of the prosecution and defense teams, contingent on Trump allowing the defense team to operate effectively. The jury sent a note, followed by a request to have legal instructions reread by the judge. This process of rereading the instructions took eighty minutes.

The speaker discusses the strength of both the prosecution and defense teams, contingent on Trump allowing the defense team to operate effectively. The jury sent out a note, and while preparing a response, a second note arrived. This second note requested the judge to reread the legal instructions, a process that took eighty minutes.

It's April 30, and I saw that yesterday the Department of Justice is suing New Jersey over the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which restricts when law enforcement officers, including federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, can have masks on. This stood out to me because this is exactly what Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said was going to happen. Remember this clip? “The love of God and all that is good. Can you differentiate between the fact that we don't make laws that control the federal government? My God, what are we doing here? I'm not a lawyer. I was an English teacher and I comprehend that. My fifth grade middle school English students would understand it. I am coming to you not from a point of ideology because I know in the minority party, we already lost that argument. You guys are way, way out in the ether with that. I'm not even hoping to win the ideology. I'm hoping to win the logical argument to say, why do we keep passing laws that are gonna end up in court, we lose, and the taxpayer gets shafted over and over and over? You cannot vote yes for a law that controls local, county, state. Oh, oops. And federal. No. Federal's gotta come off for this to count. The only reason why you're passing it is to affect federal agents. Hello? Lights on. No one's home. I'm not an attorney. I need a freaking honorary degree after going through this for four hours yesterday saying, what? Don't a roomful of lawyers understand? Ludicrous. Oh my goodness.” What does that mean for us as taxpayers? I did see in New Jersey Spotlight News they reported that New Jersey's attorney general's office had spent over $53,000,000 in one year on outside private lawyers alone, on top of their in-house staff costs. Now for my question that came next, maybe somebody else would have a better source for this, but I just asked Rock about how much something like this would cost as a lawsuit. The initial response in motion practice is somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000 because that's mostly in-house attorneys. The discovery and hearings is $100,000 to $300,000 if it gets contentious. It says the common range for litigation is another $250,000 to $800,000. And then appeals, if New Jersey loses appeals, could range anywhere from $150,000 to $400,000. So that brings us in a range from $300,000 to $1,200,000 over this case. No matter where we stand on the issue, we should know how much it's going to cost us.

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.

Let's look. You know, they there were four porta potties out there for us today. Four. No. It's still dry. Four of them. Four porta potties. Now what is that? You know, there's there's 50,000 people out there and four fucking porta potties. Four porta potties. We're not the porta potty, please. I know that. But the point is that it was intentional. It was intentionally programmed to make it difficult for us. That hostility can't be direct

The judge limited testimony to avoid confusion, but the speaker finds it odd as expert battles are common. They mention a case with many expert witnesses. Another speaker agrees, noting they were not allowed to testify on certain matters. They criticize the judge for allowing one witness to make legal conclusions while restricting others.

Senator Alex Padilla states that a half dozen violent criminals are being rotated. Someone states there is no recording allowed out here per the FBI. Another person says that you can record.

They're banging on the door, and we finally got into the room. A few people are with us, but the noise from the banging and yelling is really annoying. I don't see the hold-up; the alarms are off.

Speaker 0: Fighting. No. The police have just crossed it. They back there, girl. Wait. I know. I know that you're ready.

I see him right there. What's happening? Look, there he is. We have media and media officers.

There were many Hindus present at the temple in DC. The temple was full, with some people even outside. The speaker proudly claims ownership of the temple.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

There's an hour wait for voting, and I'm advising everyone to stay in line. If you have time, make sure to get in line by 8 o'clock. They can't stop you from voting.

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.

What's going on? Can't get in? It's full. How long have you waited? Since 10 AM. It's total chaos here. People are frustrated with the lack of crowd control. Some have been waiting since 7 AM and still can't get in. The doors were supposed to open at 1 PM but were delayed by two hours. There's a lot of disorganization, and people are unhappy with the management. Where are the police? There's only one officer here, and no National Guard. It's pandemonium, and nobody knows what's happening. People are trying to get in or out, but it’s a mess.