Live Debate:Owens v Andrew Wilson, Hasan Piker Selling Third World

Hearing is under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed to just use hearsay. No, you did say that. Most of it was here today, actually. Yeah, it was. The overwhelming majority. Well, I mean, I'm leading now into my opinion that some scientific aspects, which they kept asserting like the Federal Rule 403 or 402. Some of those parts were quite scientific. Now, like you're backtracking quite a bit. Oh, I'm not backtracking it all. So let me help you. Where do you feel I'm backtracking? It was. It literally was done under Utah's level. Yeah, nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay. Yes, it was. Yes, that's the fact. I'm not backtracking on that. What is the thing? How many times do you have to watch a video here? It's like, yeah, constantly. I'm 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102. And the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal. It's allowed at the stage. But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard. And I agree with what I'm watching. You are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing. And all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that nature. There's a reason why they swear you in and they say, you swear yourself the truth, the whole truth. Did you write the statements? These things are not in the view. So it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from all out at the stage. OK, but it's hearsay. So it's good. But even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right? But the evidence that you're speaking about, like when you're just when you say that we're going on vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson, OK? His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me. Well, overwhelming just means to consider another option that there's been another white guy wearing converses on campus. You agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me. Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing. And that's fair because I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said, your statement on right now is that he's wearing converses. And he also, that's just crazy. But these are the evidences that I find the most convincing. Well, you said that in your Twitter. That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this. But the question I was asking was pretty direct. Right. What do you find? It's not the exhaustive ones. Who's that stuff we said in the tweet? You can tweet longer too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 here. So wait, so anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I use the word overwhelming in this one. Well, they want to know all of this information. I've said so publicly over and over and over again is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me. I feel like it's really hard to like watch it and listen to it. Like I'm just saying like it's. I don't know. I like I want to cover it live, but I'm. I'm so annoyed by it. It's I don't know. I just I don't know. I just want to cover other things. I don't know how I feel about it. I'm going to make a decision in 10 minutes. It's not going to switch this phase because to others that actually do want to talk about, but. Andrew somebody asked you a question. One of the points that you find to be the, you know, the most overwhelming and you answer. You mean from that day from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to? Do you okay? This one that you have you find to be more overwhelming? Do we have that question? Yes. I'm so on. What do you find to be more of a lot? Yeah, can we do this? Do we want to get into it or do we do? Do we want to do a quick ad break? Um, are you guys good to keep going or? I'm fine to keep going, but we can also. Yeah, quick break. Doesn't matter to me. If we're going into a different topic that maybe another 30 minutes, 40 minutes. I don't want to stop. Yeah, let's let's end it up. What you find to be more overwhelming. Yeah, yeah. So if we're I think for me, it's the confessions, the text message is. All of that is what I consider to be. From my opinion, that's the most convincing for me. Okay, we should discuss the text message confessions when we get back if you'd like to. Okay. That sounds a good idea. Folks, we're going to take a quick ad break. We will be back in three and a half minutes. Thank you. All right, you guys. Nearly two thousand years. Christians have lived continuously in a small village just outside of Jerusalem called Taipei. Oh, it's about to lie about the type of stuff. Today that Christian presence is in serious danger. One father in the West Bank put it simply. He said, quote, I don't want to leave. My family is buried here. My church is here. And Taipei, the church is more than a place of worship. It's a school medical clinic, a food distribution center and a safe gathering place for families. The church can no longer serve the community. Families begin to leave and a living Christian presence in the Holy Land begins to disappear. But you can help just $35 provides a full day of protection. Wow. For vulnerable Christian families. It's going to the it's going to Jason Jones. Wow. I support the vulnerable people projects because 93% of every donated dollar goes directly toward protecting vulnerable families and communities on the ground. If preserving a living Christian presence in the Holy Land matters to you, visit vulnerable people project dot com. What a small vulnerable people project dot com. All right, you guys. You feel like you're working hard to the never but still falling behind every month. So she get the ad revenue for the for the for the commercial. So I'm going to just I'm going to go here really quickly. I got a live stream from Paramount. Maybe a tiny bit of doubt but it sure looks like Tyler Robin. Just waiting for that commercial to go through in one second. What? Democrats believe that you as a Christian, you're a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda. That's that's Charlie Kirk's life show. Hold on one second. There are a lot of other. Let's see here. Oh, perspective. What a process was for that. So how nervous she is a little bit of that. But all the far that's rage. She's right. It's Ryan Morrill. Retweet this space. I'm just going to pull up. I want to see. She's selling vitamins or something. I'm not sure where she's selling on there. We'll go back to that in a second. I mean, I have really good stuff I wanted to share today. I don't know. I think we should do like a vote. I want. I don't know. I don't know how much prefer to get the transcript of it and feed through an AI and just see the narrative framing and then like fact check it that way because otherwise it's like frustrating because. I agree with you totally. It's like, yeah, it's she's barely. Jeremy and boring actually did a great. Interview yesterday about the about the $20 breeder thing, but it was more extensive. So it's in her house. It is in her house. This debate by the way. Me season. Here. It's not back yet. Let's see what's starting. She doesn't want anybody to know where she lives, but she hosts the debate in her house. Nice. No, I think I mean, I think Patrick, we David said he's been there before. So I think that's why it's not like an unusual thing. Um, I think. Let me pull this up hold on. She's also getting the streaming from her website from her feed. So that's another thing. Hold on. So we're still on break. Okay, so it's a little bit more than three minutes. Interesting. Um, we pulled this up hold on in seconds. Oh, way, way, way, way. Um, have you guys seen the post? I think I saw it in the group where. The guy is harassing Erica for talking about porn. And it's not even her. Yeah, no, I haven't seen that post. Okay, I'll try and find it again and DM it directly to you because it was in the group. Um, I requested a community note on it and commented that that's not even her and used one of the posts. Where everybody is correcting him and it's a porn star named Candice D or adult, whatever. Whatever they call them. It's yeah, it's not even her. You can tell by the voice. You can tell by the voice. Yeah. So I'm not in the community note program, but I can request a community note. So we got to get the taken care of ASAP. Either way, so Tucker. When crazy and last days, he's like going after Ben Shapiro because narcissists when they get called out and rightfully so they just start at home and then like 24 seven. If you notice, just like reputational stuff. So yesterday, I guess I miss this. On a Vantai American slapping shovel fed to all. We'll play this for a second. I can't play cabin in Maine about boy slop and burritos and Israeli influence operations. Elf does a body good. It's called the brain of the body. In the African town of anti-American slapping shovel fed to all of us these days. I want to do something slightly different today. I want to talk about the actual American dream, what it is, what it means, and what it most certainly. Isn't this is the Ben Shapiro show. Also, Jeremy Boring did a really interesting thing about the argument about the $20 burrito. And I did not know that Joel Barry's tweet had gotten like 12 million views where he says his wife. It's an issue with not knowing how to cook rather than the cost of burrito. He says they feed a family of eight on $20 on burritos. And I was like, this is an amazing, an amazing point. Okay, so they're not back yet from their break, which is interesting. Okay, let me see if I see they started very early too. That's another thing that I found. Yep, they're not back. Anybody knows that they're back? Let me know. I just DMed you the one that we need to request a committee note on. Okay, perfect. Let's see here. How I just became villain. Okay, so this is... Let me grab this really quickly. There's some really interesting points from Jeremy Boring's. As far as this from... Can we cover this? I had tried on what he believed the future. That's a duke and this is the... This morning, a Bureau of Labor Statistics released a July inflation report. Inflation currently since it about 3.4% is core inflation at 2.5. It's not a terrible number and these things can be revised. I didn't know Jeremy did this one, hold on. This was us on Piker and Candace Anderson's selling food will... ...show in thousands of she and Muslims gathered to observe Arbain, which follows 40 days after Ashura and closes the morning period for Hussein Ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, killed at the Battle of Karbala to 680. The video shows hundreds of women and girls, some still infants, solemnly parading through the street in the traditional black abias, the full length, loosely flowing modesty roads, common for women, living in traditional Muslim cultures. The faces of the women and girls are covered by deep green veils, symbolizing the family of Muhammad himself, and of course, black gloves, ensuring no skin is visible on any part of the body. It's a somber scene, a deeply religious scene. It's a scene straight out of the most traditional enclaves of a rock. Okay, we're back, fantastic. Only this video wasn't taken in rock or lava. I know this video was taken right here in the Kibble, U.S. of A. airborne mission had to be exact, home of Henry Ford and a plate, the highest concentration of Arab and Muslim residents of any city in America. In 2023, it became the first Arab majority city anywhere in the country. Commentator Ali Befsekhi was fonding to the video observed, quote, there are little girls and an infant wearing modesty garb in this video. If you just take the time to ask yourself why tiny children in this culture are forced to wear clothing meant to mitigate male lust, you might just see why importing Islam is a bad idea. A lot of bad ideas are being imported into America these days. In 2017, a journalist named Jafar Abdul Kareem walked the streets of Amon Jordan and asked men a simple question. What would you do if your sister left home to find a job? Quote, it wouldn't work, of course, because a woman shouldn't leave the house without a male chap around, said one. Quote, it is forbidden. It's about honor, said another. When asked by the reporter what he would do if his sister left him got a job anyway, the man's answer was chilling. Quote, I would shoot her, I would do it, I would kill her, he said. When pressed by the reporter, who gave him the right to murder his own sister, the man said, quote, my father, my uncles, and my relatives, it's not wrong, it's our honor. It's a great request. Why did this get so quiet all of a sudden holding us? Give me a second. I'm going to go to a different device, I'm going to play this live for a second here all of them. Why should I question these exactly, I'm not sure. Okay, so first let's just go over legally what the point is of appropriate hearing. The defense is not putting on, they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all. They have to address what is being presented by the state. So they're not here to then say, let me give you an explanation for these text messages. The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary hearing, I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May, they asked for an extension. That reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why actually believe their extension should have been granted because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons, or many reasons why they wanted to have an extension. But this was crucial, right? So forget just the general sense that these messages feel off. And yes, you are allowed to have an intuition, you are allowed to have a sense and just go, this is very weird. We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0 Tyler Robinson, he wanted to get away, I think the technical is just almost run head to head with themselves. Like he wanted to get away with it. So he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did down to what I didn't even remember saying, yeah, and that's also me Mr. Balanced footage, it felt a little too on the nose. I just people have common sense, he just don't text message, but then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because and burn this and get rid of the evidence. But don't worry about that, because I'm about to text you a full confession. That it felt off, I felt weird off the bat. The manner in which they were texting, we're told he's like a gamer who's using a dremel to carve expressions, catch batches, fascists. But then suddenly he's writing like a sentence. He did actually get the 500 K code correct. Yeah, I'm on a gamer so we'll say that we start to bang that you'll be way over the head. But my point being is that just first is the general sense of why people had a reaction. These messages that seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and rights, catch batches. So you see how that intuition that is I am. I just said that I said just put it, carving aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you should follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say the COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities on me to do it. I like to take a pause. That's good. That is you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition. Now, hang on. Let me respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So the first thing is, when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine in math was the science. That wasn't just intuition. That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they try to suppress it. That's true. But there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take risky mRNA vaccine. Well, that is science. It's science like this. Now, when you respond to intuition, though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually giving a different message. You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful. But it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence. Not just intuition. That's why we're parking inside. Intuition is the first step. Something feels off. Right. That was my first step with COVID. I don't like the way it's being pushed. You shouldn't require a celebrity campaign, by the way. Another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing. Why do we have so many influencers saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed like chill. Like you could say, I found some kind of compelling. I think they should go. I found some parts compelling. Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be. Don't you think that's what the buzzwords for the other for the counter industry? Everyone on the same day, I've watching this trial, which was I would say not overwhelming at all. Nobody came in medium right? No one came in like there were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect. I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmed. Well, trusting their intuition. Okay. Well, actually on that scenario, they're looking at the preliminary here and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition. But like I just getting this up since parking that aside. Parking by just a general intuition. That's not why we said messages. Then we look at the filings, which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension saying we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in discovery. Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone. Okay. And that you collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Nestor said, I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing. She said, I have any big else to my client's phone. She can't tell you as a part of the discovery request is it's not an up to say to me. Candace, I just got a text message from Candace and I say I didn't send that text message. That's what a client saying we don't know because you're not a trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his discord? Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple George could be sending text messages right now? We are married. He's has every login that I have. And remember, he's up for death sentence. So if I'm able to so reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial and when they actually have to address these points, say I did not write those messages. I was here, Blanc, my boyfriend was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my eye cloud sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has the ability to send messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when for whatever reason the FBI would not FBI combined with the FBI. It was not the prostitution's fault. They made that clear during that hearing would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from because you're saying my client was here. I want to know that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to retrieve his rifle. Hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer like just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he was home. Blanc was his boyfriend. That is a that is a crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by a time of Dr. preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. You feel convinced by them? I feel unconvinced by them. Okay. So then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages and you don't write. It has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone, even if someone was selling like a... I don't know, pot on the corner would be smarter than to write a full-sled confession. He even writes. I thought I would get away with it and I was hoping never to tell you until old age. And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and okay, but he just said he wanted to get away with it. But he's not smart enough to, I don't know, maybe not text. It's such a confession like we've never seen it. I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has started to finish written an entire... Okay, so she's never understood all these 7, 6, 4, or 9, 8 kids write their whole manifests. All these kids that have done attacks on schools and around the world and they're literally right there manifest. So the first time anybody's written it all out, what are you talking about? We just had what in San Diego, they had what in New Zealand. We've had all these over here. It's very bizarre that she's saying this. She's very dumb. Clearly. I'm here and I'm wearing my converse, you know, being a little positious here. But it was a little ridiculous. It didn't pass a sniff test for me. You have kids and you love them more than anything. I do. If it was the case that you thought that your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also wouldn't you say, wouldn't you maybe recant and say, hey, I didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually. None of this happened the way that they state is presenting it. What would have prevented the parents from testifying it? Well, two things I can answer that. And if you watch my show, I keep telling you to stop vibes. So right after the shooting happened, Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house, say, house they paid for. They went to the parents as well. Matt Robinson, an amber basically said, your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk. And, you know, we're going to watch you and they went into a federal safe house. What happens next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to, like maybe not as honest as they thought. And I didn't know all the any of that. You got to watch the show, right? No, I had a source within the Robinson family. We have a source, anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify the way you're saying right now is actually even true. You find it to be reliable here, say? No, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's a source. I'm just doing what the professor is doing. It's a cool story. It's not possible. You're giving us a cool story. You must have paid it while I'm here. You're giving us a cool story. Okay. You're saying that according to your sources, that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this. Recanted what? They have no statement from the parents. Wait, I just want to make sure that if it was the case, it was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, hey, is this you? Is what's going on here? And then he and one of his buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened. That isn't what happened though. You're just wrong on this. Okay. Maybe I'm paraphrased. So what is your, sorry, just so I'm clear, where is your evidence that the parents turned him in? Oh, no, no, I didn't say that. You did say that. I said with a share of friend. Yes. But the father did confront him. The father confronted what? Tyler Robinson. And where did you learn this? That the Tyler confronted him? Well, I mean, that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up. But yes. Well, I'm saying, but when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN? Or you saw this play out in the hearing? No, this was one of the things that I went through in fact check pre-debate. Are you talking about the charging documents? I think it was in the, it could have been in the charging documents. But I did. But I do, we can pull them up. No. And yes, there, are you disputing this? I'm not. We have that in the back to pull it up. I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents. This is where we had to figure out where this story came from because everyone was operating out of the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in. Until we got through the preliminary hearing and we understood, like I said, even for that when you are charging someone, you can use hearsay. It's all probative, right? Nothing. So they didn't have statements. It's not like Matt Robinson, even though he was interviewed that night. Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a Fed, separate rooms. Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a Fed. They did not produce statements saying, my son did this. My son, I believe my son did this. But what happened was they did interviews. But also the crucial person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this. They heard from Mike Mitchell that. So when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the, what became the charging document. After they transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office up to I think it's Salt Lake City. I think it was 4 AM in the morning. I think I got up there. He then writes the charging, what becomes the charging document. So he's basically saying, we all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got, right? We've not seen that. So I kind of come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying. I don't know how this decays the point though. Why would you be a parent? Because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are going. Why would the thing just correct? It's not correcting. The point is is that we now got the preliminary hearing. If the parents were the ones who said, I'm turning my son in because he's guilty. I'm saying they turned him in. I'm thinking about the over. You said it's in the narrative. Everybody's known as the narrative initially, which I think you agree with was that Matt Robinson, the newest kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooks, who was present there and gave a press conference. What happened was this Mike Mitchell character. Essentially, peer pressure to him and we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooks, be a press conference. And he said, they know it to you and you're going to come in piece of Lee or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about Mike Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus years, the police officers. The reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his boy scout. I don't care. The parents could write this second. And by the way, if you have the evidence. I'm the address that I'm just saying that your first point, which is that the parents did this. Yeah. We don't know that the parents. I didn't say they did. You're quoting the parents as having said. You said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was you say involved. I don't want to misquote you. Confronted him about it. Confronted him. And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true. We can fact check that. Okay. And I'm saying it's the charging dock which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said. Two things to have ready in the back. Well, is the charging dock and the other one is a video of Kathy Nester saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone. Just to be clear, they have not gone to trial yet. That was a pre-trial hearing. All the defense had to do or the prosecution. Sorry is without a reasonable doubt that they're not even without a reasonable doubt but prove that they have a preponderance of evidence of guilt. And then when trial is set, then the evidence comes out. So, yeah. It's just it's very weird how she's like, Oh, I don't know what to undercover cop was doing. I mean, I just. Yeah, Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the. You're okay with that thing not dispute. These are all things that are not even disputed. Okay, we never show it. We never get to the thing that I am disputed. Well, you were I was just repriming an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the technos just something that you felt was concrete. So it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that and she didn't even get to see your client's phone. So that's effectively again, the state saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. She will join trial. They will actually. That would make her case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages. The prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages. It's called it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point. It could be somebody else. The parents fact check that I was saying I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging dock, which was signed off by Brian Davis. It's let's see if that's correct. What are we looking at? For instance, mother explained that over the last year or so, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The charging dock. You see it. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text messages. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson applied. He planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. Yes. So this is proving my point. This is from the charging document, correct? Yes. What I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed. Amber Robinson got interviewed and Matt Robinson got interviewed. Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe, in March. Mike Mitchell and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shame that they did. Got it. Why aren't the parents disputing that? Well, first off, first off, parents are not going to ever play in court. Play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because your son could go to prison. But the fact that you're planning to somebody else who's your source? I'm not going to address that. They're planning to someone else who's your source. I think they won't go publicly to the media. This is not true. Well, what I did not say to you that I just said I have a source. So I want to be very clear and take it from somebody who is involved and permanently sued. When I have to take by lawyers advice, and there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about it. Yeah, but it's bizarre that they would utilize the source which would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, actually, that's all wrong. I am telling you that if you would nary find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media. Oh, these, this, this mother, especially when your son is parked at my head was up for death. If I thought that my kid was in any way, shape or form, going to be up, you couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she would be like, that's not true. That's ridiculous. There's no possible that never happened. These people are lying to their teeth. They'd be public whether you like it or not. Yeah, I, I'm, that's for you and your wife, but when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death. And your lawyers could be advising you that if you say anything, you could blow the case, but you'll have a source of the gag ribbon. And we're speaking opinion here. You're like, well, I wouldn't care. I violate it and I violate the judges orders and see what happened. I'm not, I'm not violating it with them. I didn't, I'm not speaking to a source, but I am saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is. We have not seen any proof that that statement that is included in this charging document. I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell. And Mike Mitchell would be a part of the statement of. Well, it's saying the parents told me this, the parents could dispute that. That's going to come down the line, right? They're going to be able to see the parents. I will say this. If the state had it on 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it, a five day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence. And I can tell you why Matt Robinson made the statement and he was a statement that he said that would be a good time to present that evidence. That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's totally fabricated. No, it's not the wrong time. Why couldn't that is completely the wrong time? Why couldn't they? Because what they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't because they can't. They did not receive that information. No, no, they just received the text messages, but in order to send off the text messages. The probative information. Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text message. They never presented the state never never put it on. They didn't the defense could easily still still have presented this. Yeah. No, they could have said they're. No, you're. No, no, no, no, no, no, in a preliminary hearing. Yeah, the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there. So they're not allowed to present anything. They're responding to the things. Are they allowed to present anything? They are allowed to say like if there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there. Would they present that in one of these hearings? No, it wouldn't be the right time. I disagree. I think. I think they. They not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my attorney, they said that's exactly. If you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, that's exactly when you would introduce that. So when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago, the appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go for the trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary. We allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right? And okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's running in prison, but whatever. The next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says we find this filing to be defective in of itself. We don't even have to defend ourselves because you the state have enough. You know the law is on the books and this filing is effective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide based on along the books. So that's why they then filed the dismissal right? So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are engaging in this is what was widely misinterpreted. Yeah, they're engaging as though as it's hypothetical. If this is hypothetical, true, they're saying all of you. I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm asking specifically is like who could shut a shut parents up who are like no way there's no possible this never happened. This is ridiculous. They would be shouting it on CNN. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They would be losing their minds and you're like, no, the gag order would be enough to keep them quiet. Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet. I think that that's quite ridiculous. But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued. Right? If there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial. Well, you didn't do that. Wait a second. Wait a second. I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right? My argument to you is what I meant. Your argument to me is that, hey, wait a second, Andrew. There's not enough here that convinces me, right? Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you. Is that you are saying why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? No. I, I, I, I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm explaining to you this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And by the way, I want to be clear that which convinces me. What, yeah, well, but that's far as every point that you brought up, every point that you brought up, would you, do you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you're, I remember what I said my opening to be put. This is not a debate. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming. So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it? And that was the limitation of the claims that you made. If it was just, wait a second. There's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody have problem actually. At least of all me, I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, they've had tons of discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracy exists. Some of them have way better evidence than others. But I've seen on myself, I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right? That's never the, what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that, where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because, and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff, or it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going to show a lot of that. A lot of this conjecture that based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever, like you couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that. Okay. I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't understand this lecture that you just gave. But beyond that, what I'm saying is that the state is allowed to use... I've been listening to your questions about my problems. You guys are not alike. Yeah, you guys think while it's illegal, you actually... You can. You are allowed to do that. But anyway, going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem, I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make sense. That's not the case. In fact, the people looking at the gun and I see... And I'm inferring this. And someone else says I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that they're both doing the exact same thing. They're not. You're just saying I want to do it for the state. That's propositional false claim. That is not propositional. That's not propositional. That's not exactly how. It is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion, period. That's just logic, right? It's a law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into where we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions. We can actually come to true conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence. So you felt like you were convinced. Sure. But here's the thing. I'm assuming my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You can even say, but I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation. In fact, was so that we could move into your actual claims that you've made which transcend the idea of, I'm just asking questions. Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. So if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution file and showing defense had full discovery by April 1st. Maybe to not. That's not true. Wait a second. Yeah. To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under rule 16 Utah, are criminal to be more precise as of April 1st. Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100%. That's why they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was I mean, there was an entire and we can pull this up like we should not play the Kathy Nester clip because that's from there. So and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage, meaning it's reason. It's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff of things of that nature. But of course by the time of trial comes you're going to get all the. Where I want to show cost. Yes. So that's what they're saying. Yeah, I understand. Okay. So that's not even. And I'm even fine. Yeah, we all know and then by the way, just now that the hearing is over and you can also fact check this they now at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff they gave to them like the week after you guys can give me the exact. Now I don't want to say because I don't know my. I don't remember how much was it but the certain amount of stuff that they gave to them right after the preliminary hearing that they have been asking for because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that. The preliminary of the preliminary why not just given the stuff now so they can engage in these arguments as I feel like you it's like I want to hear if they have to say about the technology that want why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you. And I didn't happen so but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at the stage and that was the whole point of that. Because the preliminary preliminary. Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy video? Well, he's saying he's honest agreeing so I don't think we need to know. Yeah, there's no. That she said that. Yeah, so I guess the. I was also I am. The evidence is that you have stated on the record which transcend elements of reason why are we having a. Transcendental conversation now because I mean because you're your entire thing was about looking at the evidence which never made sense to me again. Transcendent transcendental okay, oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. All of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay that was the argument told me that I can take as much time as I want to question. You know, but I'm just asking you to just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is. I do still want to hold you for going through because we discussed the gun. We discussed your. And you can hold me to those things but I would like to get into. And we should just driver. So I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim in his green regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about. Not just the case of Charlie Kirk is assassination. You should have the answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should yeah agreed. So if that's the case, then I would I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into. Well, just to be clear. And I'm happy to have you talk about like I said publicly. You want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate. The substance of our debate. This is the major. The demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson. I mean, the Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. You don't find convincing. It's well, it's been invalidated by the testimony that we saw and in your answer for what I explained. What you have in the valley. Have most degraded prints was I don't know. Okay, well, they're then their lies, my ability to process that. It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching. Nobody's feeling you're conceiting. Nobody's feeling you dispute that if all your claims ever were, were just up to now the evidence that the state's getting out. The evidence that the state's given. I'm just kind of not convinced that is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case. And in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the state's theory. Okay, yeah, I mean. Sure, those are the things that I do. I do doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think, you know, if you want to move into opinions. If you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about turning point USA, all she's talked better opinions. Totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that like I do not feel because I said what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic. First of our actual debate claims, I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming. Sorry question for you. I am sorry. You feel that way. Candice one question. What evidence do you need to see for you to say title Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? That's a great question. So I actually expected in this preliminary hearing actually the almost the inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the this is now the time the state is putting on the evidence. That's the purpose of this hearing, right? The state is using hearsay but they're also putting on their evidence. So I was expecting some sort of a slam dunk. Like we got him on camera taking the shot. We have we have him clear on camera. You tell me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. People are going to see and go crap like it was really Tyler Robinson. I was expecting to at least see evidence that because I had reported early on that the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. I was my perspective that he had something to do with something. I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at this stage at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. I find the lands to be more suspicious if I'm being honest with you. And also like I said, the use immunity that was given to lands by the feds, the fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions. The fact that I spoke with lands to his family and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff allegedly, I'll say allegedly. But when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slammed down. I was waiting for that photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, all right, I think this could be the guy. If they had handed over the discovery on the technoschism, that was their big tada. We've got the text messages. That would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up, like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say we were handing things over and we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying it was not the case. It's not the FBI. It's the FBI that's holding on to things as the FBI took everything. The FBI took the gun. The FBI took initially the screwdriver. And then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't, that they found that were suspicious, example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me that they say they traced the shooter. They traced the route that he went on. And then there was no band. We know it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library. And they felt that they should be taken into evidence. They took it. The FBI, this was the testimony of Amanda Baker. I believe her last name is but you might want to fact track that because I think I'm wanting last names. So she was the forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stopped testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually wasn't there. But the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of a layout of the campus, you're going, well, what the hell are they doing all the way up? This is nowhere near anywhere. And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not that that's like why would you give it back? You're actually like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before. Right? So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is you know, this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn and this is completely created to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erica. That's absurd. That is absurd. Everything should be an evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed cleaned and back up for resale. That's absurd. That should be sitting in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say or person has been involved in a crime will say I didn't get myself back for years. That nothing to do with anything around and they. have to end evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the Attorney General has to sign off on giving you those objects back. And we were told this is all fine. And we see at this, just one example, Erica holding the crucifix. That should be an evidence. In respect of if you feel bad for her and think she should have it and it's sweet, that should be an evidence, immediately paving over the crime scene. Is this like the craziest thing ever? Is it like the five covetous you immediately? And when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain, I got the call. They said it was a paper emergency. I've never in my entire career heard of a paper emergency. They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down papers. That is what people are looking at and going, this is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done. He tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVU's washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true, because we heard during the testimony, one person described the regions of who was in control of everything, the feds were in control of the courtyard. So in order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory. So to speak, maybe not using the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So these are things that I think should be answered for. Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident, the various decoys. I did it, I did it. It just doesn't look right. OK, so go back to the question. So what would you need to see for you to say? Something, if they had, I was expecting here, we have a meet with the shot here it is. And then I would be like, great. A clear image of him on the staircase from a definitively Tyler Robinson and he was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing, but hearsay of people saying, but you're basically getting no case. Basically no case up planet Earth, you get that. Oh, we got a picture. You're in the heart of that. You're taking the shot. Most of this doesn't take place on a college campus. It has to be at least everywhere. Yeah, but I understand when you're asked. Car plates, you're asking the question, what would it take to convince? It'd be the same question be asked to me. Andrew, what would take to convince you that the oppositional strategy, right, that he's a patchy or something like that? Just good clear concise evidence that's been presented, right, and is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a patchy. That's what it would take for me. OK, I don't disagree. I don't disagree. I don't agree. Just a good evidentiary standard. And then of course, I would change my mind. So just to qualify this, there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, guys, it's done, Tyler, kill them. So you're saying yes today? Yeah. It's very important for the audience here to offer. Without question. Is there anything that you could see for you to say? Yeah, this guy was a past government. So I'm going to always help out. Evidence. Perfect. So my whole thing is just this. It's really important to me. I don't mind people being true seekers and justice searchers. And the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no if answer, bless about that, right? However, there's also people who, you know, they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone. You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based I actually a tactic. Right. And in fact, Ben talks about it, but the Russians did it as well. It's been talked about. That's not been saying anybody here's purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is is that the real not take by the way absent, absent. Oh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence. Those become claims. And claims have to be defended. Just like mine have to be defended. Yours have to be defended. And that's what we're going to get to now. Yeah. You want to get into it? Would you like to take a break? I think it's not that. I have a break. And now we'll talk Erika Kirken, TPUSA. And they can spare the seas that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case in Charlie's case. Or we'll take a three and a half minute break. And now we'll be back soon. All right, you guys. You have probably been in a pause right there. And I really wish there's two people down, well, at least three that I know are former FBI or police in the space. And some have been anyways. Some have been other things because she said, she's like, I don't like it that this guy was a former undercover police officer that was now what a regular police officer taking testimony. I people do understand they have a career after they're undercover police officers. Then they're just normal police officers. I mean, it's just really, it's really reserved. Hey, still. OK, what's up? I wish I wrote about this. I wish this is great. And I wish it would happen against a police investigator. And I'll explain to you why. Because I'm a massive fan of Chircrime. I've consumed Chircrime since the age of seven. In every single one of her questions, I can answer right now. It's very basic police investigation. I can go through every single one of her claim and explain them. So when the podcast is done, you've got to take it treated through an AI. And then you've got to make an audio review. No, I'm saying I'm already doing it live. But again, there's no point because I can't explain as good as a police unit. For example, I'll just give a few. It's the most basic fingerprint degradation. Fingerprint degradation does not only happen from time. It could happen from weathering. It can happen from skin condition, moisture. The gun could have laid on one side where his fingerprints were in the other fingerprints of his family's were. It's that simple. How did he confess over the phone? That's not normal. Actually, that's insanely normal. It happens almost every case. That's why they can take the phones. People are dumb. And when they do dumb things, they panic. And when they panic and they write stuff, it's recoverable. Even if you deleted it, even if you threw your phone into the ocean, there's ways to recover. And if you're not a professional criminal, you don't even think to not use a device. Because you don't think somebody's going to come along behind you, yes. Exactly. And could someone have wrote those messages and logged this into his account? No, you couldn't. To make a TKPS handshake to a server like Discord, it would be paint. It doesn't matter if you use the VPN or the most insane type of software ever, it would still be shown as not Tyler's phone. It's all very simple things. I wish there was a police investigator there, or someone from the FBI or anything, because all of these are really basic questions. I, again, as a fan of true crime, I can answer all of them. And it's not even, I'm not an expert at all. These are really basic police investigation questions. I do want to say one thing. I don't think anybody should ever allow their children to be watching true crime at the age of seven years old. It's highly highly damaging. Can cost of your anxiety disorders. Oh, why not? Murder, she wrote. That's not what we're talking about. That's about as bad as this is to hold. Yeah, you turn out like me if you watch true crime and that just. But again, all of these points, it's just all of these points that Candace are making can be summarized into one sentence. I don't know how police investigation works. So I'm trying to fill in the gaps. Everything there was regular procedure. Why did they give the shirt to Erica Kirk? Because there is not going to be any evidence on the man himself for who shot him. That's not how it works. You take the blood samples and you give it to the wife. There's nothing else you can do with it. And his personal jewelry was not part of a crime. Yeah, even more. Again, every single one of those questions is basically someone who has never maybe maybe she think she did who has never seen a police investigation has never went into it. Red online hour works once and then is asking questions. All of these are super basic police investigation questions. Very basic actually anyone who has dove into police investigations or FBI investigations can answer them in an instant. I wish you would do this with a police investigator, not Andrew. So we've had people like that in our face and we've had those people actually go to other influencers faces that are on here that are now being paid to show out this narrative and they don't care. They don't care. That's the whole point. So even with all that, it doesn't matter. So she knows exactly what she's doing. And again, the thing that pisses me off the most, I'll be honest, is oh, there isn't a clear photo of him. I can't remember a single crime, especially a shooting somewhere random that there's a clear photo of the person shooting. That's not how it works. Oh, we can't know it's in the photo. Yes, we can. Because what the police did or the FBI or whoever's investigating it now, they're just not telling you that they did is that they reconstructed everything leading up to that photo. That's why it's not been out yet. You don't give all the evidence outright for a few reasons. The most important one is you don't want the defense to make up excuses. That's one. Second of all, also, you need to leave a lot of evidence behind to catch people who are still that you're still not sure about. The only way.