Talking about the Exploding Mic theory with Jon Bray

mostly on the death penalty enhancement, like the defense's response brief was mostly focused on. Actually, can I ask you a question about that? Is that, isn't the fact that Tyler Robinson shot at Charlie and then ran away right after? I mean, allegedly shot at Charlie and ran away? Isn't that like proof, all the proof you'd need that he had no intention to, like if he had an intention to hurt other people, he would have done it. Oh, that's a good point. I didn't think of that. Yeah, because the intention, that's one of the things they need to prove for an enhancement and the... Because it has to be intention, right? It can't be like he might have accidentally caused harm to someone else. Yeah, or knowingly. I'm not sure if it's intentionally or knowingly. And what was interesting, and I was kind of laughed, that the defense argued that the whole process of a legend of Tyler having to go in with the disassembled rifle, having to assemble that without zeroing in the scope again, shows such a degree of recklessness that it meets the enhancement for endagering the lives of others. You mean because he's he had to zero in? He would have had to. Yeah, and it couldn't have been done accurately. And because he was such a bad shot when he took his practice rounds, that showed a level of recklessness. I thought it was. That's interesting. But then that's it. That's the accidental aspect, right? That's the, you know, like, that's the, which is not what this is about. Like his intention, as you said, right, it's irrelevant in a way. Yeah. I see. I don't think they have to prove the intended to shoot it like a trial or a minor. He does have to improve that he intended to shoot someone in a crowd and like, right. That is a sufficient intent. Yeah, that reckless negligence wherever you want to put it. You know, there's enough intent there that they're going to meet that burden, I think. Well, for the death penalty. On that, on that count, but the. You mean because he shot at a crowd. And. Yeah, even though it was intended target was Charlie Kirk, the round could have struck someone else passing in front or like they're they don't have to show that he intended to shoot a child or they just have to prove that he intended to fire a rifle at a person in the crowd. Whether that person was a minor or not, the enhancement comes into, I think, effect. The fact that there were child, you know, endangered president at the in the crowd that could have been could have been struck. They don't have to prove the intended to shoot a child or a minor. They just have to prove that he was reckless enough to engage someone standing in a crowd. Yes, that is my understanding. I see. I see. So that does kind of meet it, doesn't it? What did everyone think of the debate? I haven't watched all of it yet, but yeah, I just I find these debates kind of odd because like, you know, like I mean if I'm having these conversations, like a lot of times I'm changing my mind like every like minute or so, you know, like, you know, given different information. I don't understand, like, a debate about something that is like unfinished or un, you know, nobody knows the outcome of the trial yet. So it's like, it's a weird thing to be debating this kind of topic. It's like different than like a political issue. You know, it's more of a, it's an ongoing investigation. So I mean, I guess, you know, there's merit. Yeah, I don't know what what did you, I, you know, it's interesting because I thought Candice was quite smart at the end with the charges that he should know the charges, but at the same time, it's a bit of a, like a, like a, like a, a, watch your moment that doesn't really, I don't know, I guess it was proving her point that she didn't care, he didn't care about the outcome. But yeah, I don't know. I didn't really get it to be honest. I like, yeah, what did you think? I was surprised. Like did he really pay all that money out of his own pocket? Yeah, good question. That's a really surprises me. I thought, I mean, he came across looking really like a jerk. I thought that was mild compared to his normal, like I'm not a big fan of Andrew, but like that was, that was pretty mild compared to how he normally handles himself into bait. And I think he was well aware of the fact that there could potentially be millions of people watching this. So he had to own himself down quite, quite whatever. But I mean, they neither them looked good in it. Like, so like her, like her, her trans, like he, she started deflecting to be like, I don't think you've proven your case or whatever, whatever the terms were of the debate. She started attacking that way too early on and it made her look stupid too. So like they were both, I don't think either of them won the debate, but like, yeah, it's just, it's a sad. Can you win? What were they trying to win? I think Andrew got what he wanted out of that. I don't know if Candace did. I don't know what, you know, I'm trying to put on myself in her mindset. But like, Andrew, like if you, if he follow up what he's, he's posted since, like his, his goal was basically to show that she didn't have supporting evidence for the claims that she made. She didn't have doing that. She didn't produce any real evidence and she kind of backtracked on some key items. But, you know, like he, he did have that, she did have that waffle mode. The two things that really stuck out to me were, I knew everyone was trying to, and I pushed back, I was in self space earlier, like the other day yesterday, I think. And like, I was pushing back on that crowd of being like, oh, look, they proved that Joe Kent was the source of the 12. I'm like, no, that's not what happened in the debate. That's not at all what happened. Like he did not attribute Joe Kent as her source. And, you know, we can have a conversation around that, but they don't want to, they don't want to hear that. And then, but she did effectively, she threw diligent under the bus by basically trying to say, he was the source of the language receipt when she was the source of the language. She, she tried to deflect like, I was just reporting on what one of my, one of my sources was basically reporting on. She was the one that originally brought that story to the story. Yeah, absolutely. If you back off, you were just trying to, yeah. Because I mean, that's, well, I'm sorry, I'll let, hey Louisiana, how are you? I don't know if you, just really quickly, like so many of the things that can't be not forward, it's like hard to, like, like we can't go further with them because there's never any real evidence or, or, or line of, cut train of custody or anything. So it's like, they almost muddy the waters in a lot of ways because we just don't know what we're dealing with, you know. Hey, sorry, do you want to weigh in on what you thought of the debate? Yeah, I don't think it was a debate at all. I think Andrew went in there with talking points. And obviously, in my opinion, I think he stands on the side of turning point in Erica. And I think that reflected in the videos that he was showing it was more or less about, uh-huh moment with her in Erica Kirk more or less like the slandering part is what I was getting from his side of it. So yeah, it was more about Erica. I think he cared, like, like, I think he usually kind of proved her wrong, right? Yeah, like, he's trying to prove her wrong. Like, you don't have this evidence, but then like, why they should have, if this was a true debate, and like, maybe they should have discussed the screwdriver or they should have discussed the towel. Or you know, they talked more about the person on the roof and like, there's multiple things this could have gone into. And if he really wanted those answers, I felt like that's where would have gone in like, she wouldn't have those answers, right? So like, that's the big thing is, so Andrew was trying to attack her. So her claim was that Erica is complicit in the death of her husband. And he was trying to attack that claim because of the ridiculously stuff. Yeah, so like, what I was saying, but what I was saying like Candice had just dropped. She just dropped a new video of the guy on the roof and like, if I'm a beyond, I don't think any of you saw that. I know he doesn't follow her. So I think if it was truly about, you know, the case itself, she would have been like, hey, you do know I found, I think she even mentioned it like I just recently dropped this new video on the roof. And you do I know I did what she was talking about, but he also didn't care to talk about it either. You see what I'm saying like, well, she deflected. She didn't want to answer any questions. She said you just got to watch my show to get all the answers and like, that's not how you, that's not how you answer questions during a debate where you're trying to actually bring the substance out. You don't be like, well, go to my show for the answers. No, some of it was like, well, if you watch my show, you would see that I X Y and Z, right? Yeah, but he doesn't. Yeah, I know it like here. He knew like he was what I'm getting out of it. He was beating her right because he had a few key notes. So like he wanted he's nailed down and like you know, it would not let off of because he wanted her to say this one. Like, no, I do not have answers. He's like, well, I don't know. Right. So I just think he it was just a shit show in general. And it is where this, you know, it's just a joke. I think for Andrew, he was very nice. He did not lose his cool. He was kind of, you know, you know, he's not to stay snorkeye, right? But not he did not go off like I thought he would have. So I think he composed himself well in comparison. Now it only is. Yeah, definitely comparison, but he is just such a. Like he's just such a jerk. I don't know like every shit like his whole like nature. But then I find Candice to be a bit like I don't know like I just remember when she was on Joe Rogan ages and age ago and they were talking about climate change and it's just like. You it's like when when people already have like like dogma, it's like really hard. And I know she came across. I thought much better and you know, then especially at the end when she was kind of walking through the charges. And I think it is important, you know that people know them and. And know the nuance otherwise something like the latest filing comes out and you know, if you're not understanding exactly what the defense is doing, then you could read it one way, you know, as opposed to like and say, oh, they're not really defending him. They've admitted he's guilty and blah, blah, blah. When that really wasn't the intention of the filing, it was to deal with the aggravated aspect, which, you know, you would know one would know if they were like up to date with exactly the nuance of the case. But yeah, I don't know. I also find it odd, you know, I watched something the other day was like Tucker Carlson talking about Erica and Candace and saying, oh yeah, I talked to Candace this morning, like an hour ago before and then I talked to Eric and hour later and, you know, I can be friends with all of them. And even if we disagree on stuff and I'm like, it just seems weird to me because that's like not a disagreement because in this case, I get it, you could be friends with multiple people that different political views and stuff. But like when one person you're talking to is accusing the other person of murder, which I know she says she's not, but I mean naming something the bride of charlie is kind of thing. She's like the bride of Chuckie. I mean, it's, you know, there, you can't deny that there is some element of, you know, I don't know, slander, you know, slander or whatever. But yeah, she's kind of spoke about it. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so like it's like if she's been doing this against Erica, basically alluding to the fact that Erica is not what she seems and she's this none, she might be complicit in her husband's murder. Like why would Erica talk to Tucker Carlson who then is friends with Candace? Like that's not just being friends with two people who disagree. That's being like if someone was accusing me of murder and the other one was like actually just chatting with them like it was nothing. I would not want to be friends with that person. But Andrew did a good job in the debate kind of highlight in that too. He's like listening like I he's like I'm not really a friends at TPU USA. I just did a debate class for them. In fact, I think Eric is retarded to some, you know, all women are retarded, whatever he said. But like, you know, he goes in and says like listen, if you're just generally honest and you want to understand where TPU is coming from, and you go to them in good faith and ask them for information, they're going to give it to you. But Candace isn't doing that. So like that's the biggest distinction that he kind of he kind of laid out in that like it was it wasn't a primary part of the debate, but he did lay that out. Like listen, if you if you were genuinely interested in not accusation authority toward, you know, generally wanting to understand what TPU USA was involvement or, you know, what information they had, they be willing to give it to you if you just talk to them like human beings instead of what Candace is doing. Yeah, no, I agree. I agree. Sorry. I think I might have told John Bray, he just said is it time already. So I think I got the time I might have gotten the time zone wrong, but we can do it at. Yeah, I'll just say you can come on whenever we can chat a little bit more about this because obviously this debate is kind of fresh and everyone's mind. And then when he comes on, he comes on. But yeah, no, I agree. Yeah, he I know that he like there are some people and I know like a guy I know Kai Schwimmer has recently become a speaker for TPU USA. Like, you know, but then it's like it's it's I don't know like TPU USA has become such a toxic brand that I don't know if I would recommend anyone like associate with it just because I think it's like. I mean, if they want to do it at a principle, then you know, like because that's how they feel then they should but like, you know, I don't know, like I just think it's at this stage of the game wouldn't do anything for anyone's reputation to including like Andrew because a minute you kind of work with TPSA, then suddenly you are seen as aligned with TPU USA and. You know, like yeah, anyway, and then I also want to say like I think you know, I hate the term fedslop like I just again, I don't like these like terms that have no nuance, but at the same time there's also like I think conspiracy slop. So I think you know, it's like being careful of both like you don't want to be, you know, like believing the fedslop, you also don't want to necessarily there's a.