reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks when Congress might vote on having the whistleblower appear, claiming Speaker 1 is the only member who knows the whistleblower's identity and whose staff has spoken with them, requesting the same opportunity. Speaker 1 denies knowing the whistleblower's identity and affirms their determination to protect it. Speaker 1 states that after the witnesses testify, there will be an opportunity to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.

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 video host discusses Tyler Robinson’s gag order and argues that nobody is likely to receive a phone call from Tyler Robinson. He says he reached out to Elizabeth Lane, a journalist trying to help Robinson obtain a new attorney, and she told him “absolutely not” that anyone will get a phone call with Robinson. He references Project Constitution claiming “exclusive,” and describes various sensational elements: a “tyler robinson breaks silence then hangs up fast,” a “blurry ghost on video,” a “phone call connected after seven minutes,” and an “audio only clip.” He asserts that Robinson identifies him, then faces “stone walls,” with only family or friends attempting to rally him, and that there are “attorney gag order or handlers warning him to shut the fuck up or else.” He likens the situation to Oswald “pinned in silence forever,” and expresses fear for Robinson’s wife and a lack of say in his own defense, as part of the alleged setup. The host acknowledges some agreement with others about not being able to secure a new attorney and the gag order being unprecedented, but maintains that no one will randomly get a phone call to Robinson. He speculates that Robinson and his family are involved and dismisses the situation as conspiratorial. He mentions the possibility that Robinson will not appear in a courtroom, suggesting a scenario where Robinson is harmed and removed from the case, referencing Epstein, and humorously posits Robinson might be in Israel afterward. The transcript then shifts to an excerpt from a separate segment where an attorney explains gag orders and their scope. Tyler Robinson’s latest court hearing is described as brief; Robinson did not attend in person, listening from the Utah County Jail. Lawyers focus on evidence from the crime scene, and a formal appearance was entered while rights to a preliminary hearing were not waived. Judge Tony Graff issues a gag order to prevent anyone involved from talking about the case to avoid pretrial publicity in a high-profile matter. There is discussion about “thousands of people” potentially affected, noting a large number of witnesses identified or to be identified. The court intends that as witnesses become known, the information will be conveyed to abide by the gag order. The judge emphasizes protecting Robinson’s constitutional rights and the victim’s rights. Outside the courtroom, lawyers declined comment. Robinson is expected back for an in-person hearing on October 30. The host returns to skepticism, claiming Robinson was on campus with multiple cameras, detailing alleged rapid movements and actions during the incident. He argues Robinson will not get a fair trial, predicting his death in a manner akin to “Epstein,” JFK, or MLK vibes, and suggests involvement by someone connected to Israel. He concludes that the case will end without a courtroom appearance and frames the whole narrative as a “joke.”

The speaker emphasizes the importance of jury instructions in criminal trials, noting the need for clarity and fairness. They express concern over prosecutors pushing the boundaries of due process by withholding specific information from the jury. The debate in court revolves around whether the jury should be informed about the details of the alleged crime. The speaker questions the motives of the District Attorney's office, suggesting a focus on securing convictions over ensuring justice.

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

I want to share with the people of Rhode Island what this investigation looks like, where we are today, and where we anticipate it moving forward. Last night, there were dozens of Providence police officers working in the command post to develop leads in this difficult case, both because of the campus tragedy and the challenge of developing evidence. Our prosecutors—six in total—were there, and our victim services folks were at the hospital. This is what these investigations look like: sometimes you head in one direction, then you regroup and go in another. That has happened over the last 24 hours or so. Collectively, the team developed leads in multiple areas. One lead was chased to ground, leading to the detainment of a person of interest. Those words reflect that there was some degree of evidence pointing to this individual, but that evidence needed to be corroborated and confirmed. Over the last 24 hours, leading into very recently, that evidence now points in a different direction. This means that this person of interest needs to be and should be released. It is unfortunate that this person’s name was leaked to the public, and it’s hard to put that back in the bottle. We will proceed very carefully here, because there is too much at stake for the victims of this horrific crime and their families to take chances with respect to this investigation. Going forward, our team of prosecutors will be working with the Providence Police Department as the principal leads in this investigation. Our resources will be amplified by the state police, the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, the Marshal Service, and others as we develop leads and move toward justice in this case. This could happen very quickly, but it could also take some time.

Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth. He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case. Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced. They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible. They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation. Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Judge Kaseby, I see an order you issued regarding pronouns in court. Do you require individuals to declare their pronouns? That might refer to a trial management or scheduling order. It states that when introducing oneself, one should say their name and pronouns. Those were not requirements; they were suggestions and invitations for people to identify themselves. You also directed counsel to introduce themselves with their full name and honorifics, and to do the same for their clients. Yes, that’s correct.

In the aftermath of a crime, publicity is common, but the judge ultimately decides at trial. The speaker wants a trial in Collin County so Collin County citizens can decide the case. The speaker no longer understands the situation. The individuals involved have had their personal addresses exposed and have received graphic and racist threats. Authorities are limited in what actions they can take, even if they wanted to do more.

During the State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson, the court admitted Michael Burt, Richard Novak, Prohakviche and Catherine Nestor as counsel, finding the combined experience meets Rule eight. The State stated discovery under Rule 16 must be provided to the defense within five days of a defense request, noting discovery is voluminous and the information will be exchanged efficiently. The court addressed the pretrial/publicity protection order issue, seeking clarification on the phrase 'all witnesses,' since many witnesses are yet to be identified; the court ruled that as witnesses become known, they must be informed of the order. The defense requested resetting the waiver hearing due to massive digital discovery, checking in 30 to 60 days; detention hearing timing to be decided later. The court set October 30 at 10 AM for the next hearing, in person, and stated, 'I will not put my finger on the scale of justice.'

The discussion centers on a gag order (pretrial and trial publicity) governing what prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their associated witnesses can say publicly. The speakers explain that the order prevents extrajudicial statements by anyone on the prosecution or defense teams, including witnesses, that would amount to stating a defendant is guilty, which Rule 3.6 prohibits. They note that investigators, sheriffs, and DAs are cautious in press contexts to avoid declaring guilt, instead laying out what is known and why someone was arrested, with the jury deciding guilt. The participants clarify who the order covers: “witness” includes all witnesses part of the prosecution or defense teams, and any lay witnesses whom the parties have a good faith belief will testify at hearing or trial. They identify specific individuals as potential witnesses under the order, including Erica Kirk (wife of someone associated with TPUSA), Blake Neff, Mikey McCoy, Dan Flood, and other TPUSA employees, as well as Andrew Colvin who, they note, may be outside the letter of the restriction because he did not attend the scene (though his association with TPUSA or Ms. Kirk could raise concerns). They reference a publicity notice directed at Erica Kirk and discuss that she may testify at the penalty phase or guilt phase regarding TPUSA and Charlie Kirk, which would implicate her in the order’s restrictions on extrajudicial statements. They indicate Blake Neff and others at TPUSA were identified as being at the scene or notified, suggesting their statements could violate Rule 3.6 if they declare guilt or express guilt-directed opinions. The dialogue shifts to concrete examples the speakers consider to be violations by Blake Neff. They quote several Blake Neff statements: (1) a post describing Joe Kent and Tyler Robinson, asserting guilt or certainty about the defendant’s guilt; (2) a radio show segment in which Neff discusses the case and references guilt; (3) a series of exchanges and summaries where Neff discusses the murder, the weapon, and DNA findings, with statements implying guilt. They present these as explicit violations of the gag order and Rule 3.6 as they interpret them. They also reference the broader media environment, noting that critics argue the hosts and content creators (including Candace Owens, Coach, Didi, Ryan Matta, and others on X) are being accused of tainting the jury pool, while asserting that the prosecution never contacted them to restrict comments. The speakers acknowledge the possibility that others connected to TPUSA or affiliated parties may have observed or participated in discussions around the case, and they question why such statements would be made when the order prohibits commenting on guilt. The tone underscores tensions about who is bound by the order and what constitutes a violation, especially when public narratives surrounding the case reference guilt or innocence.

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.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

The video discusses Tyler Robinson’s gag order and the possibility of someone calling him, citing Elizabeth Lane, a journalist trying to help Robinson get a new attorney. Lane says a phone call to Robinson is absolutely not possible. The video references Project Constitution claiming exclusivity and presents sensational claims: “Tyler Robinson breaks silence then hangs up fast,” a blurry “handers threatening him to stay quiet,” a seven-minute connected video call where Robinson’s face is blurred and an audio clip where he identifies the commentator and then “stone walls,” with family and friends trying to rally him and describing a “gag order or handlers warning him to shut the fuck up or else.” The video content includes a “post Kennedy hit” analogy and questions about Robinson’s defense, suggesting he won’t get a courtroom appearance and that the situation resembles a conspiracy. The video also presents a claim that Tyler Robinson’s wife has no say in his defense. Parallel to these claims, the transcript introduces a news-style segment with several speakers (Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3) about Robinson’s latest court hearing. The hearing was brief; Robinson wasn’t present, listening from the Utah County Jail. Lawyers focused on evidence from the crime scene. There is a substantial amount of discovery. Robinson’s lawyers filed a formal appearance and did not waive the right to a preliminary hearing. Judge Tony Graff issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it to avoid pretrial publicity, given the high-profile nature of the case in Utah. The judge aims to protect Robinson’s constitutional rights and the rights of the victim, and the court will rule on how to handle witnesses who have not yet been identified. The witnesses, potentially numbering in the thousands, include individuals who spoke to an audience of 2,000–3,000 students at Utah Valley University. As witnesses become known to each side, the information will be conveyed to comply with the gag order. Outside the courtroom, counsel declined to comment. A further hearing is scheduled in person for October 30. The initial speaker critiques the notion of a fair trial in Robinson’s case, asserting that Robinson was captured on numerous campus cameras during the incident, from entering the roof area to firing a shot and retreating, with a rapid sequence of movements and a subsequent drop-off of the weapon. The speaker argues that Robinson will not reach a courtroom and predicts he will be “Epstein’d” and removed, comparing the scenario to JFK and MLK assassinations and suggesting involvement by someone connected to Israel. The speaker claims that this is a “joke” and believes Tyler Robinson will die before trial, asserting that “nobody’s buying it.” The overall tone blends skepticism about a fair trial with conspiratorial accusations about the handling of Robinson’s case.

It is not unusual for a crime to generate publicity. Ultimately, a judge will decide at the time of trial. The speaker wants this to happen in Collin County and for Collin County citizens to decide this. The speaker no longer understands it. Their personal address has been exposed, and they have received graphic and racist threats. That would not be something that could be done even if desired.

The speakers discuss the need for defense counsel to have access to the video evidence in the case. They suggest a stepwise process to ensure all information reaches defense lawyers. One speaker mentions concerns about public release due to nefarious organizations and threats to witnesses. Another speaker believes that the evidence should be made available to the public to identify those involved. They mention the presence of a pipe bomber and the refusal of the DOJ to disclose undercover agents. The speakers emphasize the importance of transparency to uncover the truth.

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.

The transcript centers on a controversial set of statements made by Michael Jackson and surrounding reactions. It opens with Speaker 0 stating, “I'm shocked. Jew me, sue me, kick me, kite me. Those are the words that he told us that he would never use,” highlighting a phrase Jackson allegedly defended as not something he would say. Speaker 1 adds, “I want people to get the picture. So they shut up talking about, don't Jew me. You understand? Yep.” The implication is that the language became a focal point in discussions about Jackson, not necessarily a verdict about his character, with Speaker 1 suggesting that people should stop saying “don’t Jew me” and that “Michael Jackson is a to be convicted of this child molestation because he said don’t you me in a storm,” though the phrasing is ambiguous in the transcription. Speaker 2 notes that “this can depend on the testimony of the child accuser,” while Speaker 3 discusses the general reliability of a child’s recall, stating, “In general, the child will be able to recall and recollect with some detail the incident, and that is persuasive to a jury even if it is the only testimony that is available.” Speaker 4 asks, “Should we light the candle?” and Speaker 3 confirms, “Yeah. Let's do it.” The scene shifts to Jackson’s legal status: “Jackson gave a wave when he was released after booking. He's scheduled for arraignment in January,” per Speaker 2. Speaker 5 mentions Michael Jackson’s long residence at Trump Tower and describes how Donald Trump defended Jackson in a Larry King interview by attacking the accuser’s mother, saying she has “plenty of experience at going after people, and she goes after them viciously and violently.” The speaker adds that Jackson spent time with Trump’s children and “loved children,” asserting, “He was not a child molester.” Another voice claims, “They murdered Michael Jackson after he started talking about Jews,” acknowledging that while the speaker does not judge the content of Jackson’s statements, it is a “fact of history” that he was in Brazil to shoot the music video for “They Don’t Care About Us,” and that he angered Jewish groups by the controversial lyrics—though he later changed the song under pressure, the controversial lyrics were back when performed in Brazil. Speaker 6 reiterates Jackson’s controversial stance, saying, “There’s been another issue raised in a song you say, and some people are saying that that is antisemitic. It’s not antisemitic because I’m not a racist person. I could never be a racist. I love all races of people from Arabs to Jewish people, like I said before, to blacks. But when I say Jew me, sue me, everybody do me, kick me, kite me, don’t you black or white me, I’m talking about myself as the victim.” Finally, Speaker 3 reports, “Apparently, Michael Jackson suffered cardiac arrest this afternoon. He was rushed to UCLA Medical Center.”

Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and the speaker knows the names of those individuals, why they're being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker is bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases and cannot disclose this information. The speaker knows the names of people whose files are being suppressed for protection, which they believe is wrong. The individuals being protected are politicians and business leaders, among others.

The speaker claims to know that documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and knows the names of those individuals, why they are being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker states they are bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and cannot disclose what they know. When asked if those being protected are politicians, business leaders, or both, the speaker responds that they are everything.

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

Speaker 0 raises a question about the propriety of the FBI’s approach to the case, asking if the prosecution is briefing Erica Kirk on the case against Tyler Robinson and whether she’s considered a witness. He notes she wasn’t at certain events, such as being with her husband, and questions if she’s really being briefed and if that’s right. He adds that the defense wants to ban cameras in the courtroom and asks for thoughts on that. Speaker 1 responds by recounting the presence of cameras: there were cameras all over her husband when he was murdered, cameras all over her friends and family mourning, and cameras all over her, analyzing her every move, smile, and tear. She argues they deserve to have cameras in the courtroom and to be transparent, saying there’s nothing to hide because she’s seen what the case is built on. She asserts that everyone should see what true evil is, noting this could impact a generation and generations to come.