[Commentary · Candace Owens] Candace Owens’ Tyler Robinson Theories Are Collapsing

Document text

COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "Candace Owens’ Tyler Robinson Theories Are Collapsing" (published 2026-08-14).
This is third-party opinion/analysis ABOUT State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson — NOT the court record. It is indexed for comparison against the primary transcripts/filings. Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elWPrGJXXsw) — verbatim ASR.

Yo, what's up, everybody? We're back. If you've if you're Are you here? Let me check my my phone and make sure we're good. Guys, we had some audio issues on our last stream. So, I don't want that to go, you know, up because like it's going to kind of confuse people cuz it's there's like a bad echo. So, I what I want to do now, we got four people in here. Oh, shoot. I don't Let me turn this down so we don't get an get an echo. All right, go we got Rain. Rain says perfect audio. So, I hope I hope Rain is correct. Are we good on the audio, people? Yeah, no, Rain, I I agree, man. I got to check my audio, but you got to remember, dog, I'm I'm like doing this for a month, so um But, hey, guys, what do we got to get into today? We have Candace Owens and her theories are collapsing. What do I mean by her theories are collapsing? Well, first things first, we have to start with what Candace Owens has been telling her audience. I've gone through this in the last stream, but I'm going to do it again here. Candace Owens has been telling her audience that someone other than Tyler Robinson was responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025 at UVU. Who this individual was has not been identified, and that is a factual issue for purposes of asserting this, you know, second shooter or you know, grand conspiracy type, you know, allegation. But, one second, guys. Let me grab my my notes back up. Um you know, when Candace Owens tells her audience this, it does create a lot of speculation, obviously, in the public that it could be another person that's responsible for this crime. Uh you know, one of the issues, though, is this. For purposes of asserting these theories that it's a second shooter or someone else was, you know, involved in this, it's not going to be so easy to do that anymore in light of the filing that we just had by Tyler Robinson's defense counsel. Tyler Robinson's defense counsel essentially submitted a brief that endorsed the idea that assuming arguendo the state's theory is true, they did not prove all of the elements of the claim for whether it was getting the death penalty, sentencing enhancements, and other, you know, legal consequences that are alleged to flow from the alleged actions by Robinson. So, the thing is is the state wants to get the death penalty. They want to get certain sentencing enhancements because you you know, if you're a prosecutor, you're going to go for it all. Like you're going to try to, you know, throw everything you got on the table. And like for example, one of the sentencing enhancements that we have here is the allegation that, you know, he assassinated some individuals or he assassinated Charlie Kirk in in the presence of children. And so that in the presence of children aspect actually becomes a factor in sentencing because think about it. If you commit a heinous crime in the presence of children, the judge can consider that for purposes of, you know, I guess even sentencing later if you were found guilty of doing that. Because it is like a bit of an aggravating factor. It just shows, you know, contempt for the actions at which you just did to do such an awful thing like in the presence of children, right? But and I'm going to try to get into this as the the stream goes on, we do have some pushback in some areas by the defense. The defense more or less argues that hey, you know, assuming that's true, right? Take the communications that we have between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs. Those communications purely state that Tyler Robinson's sole intent was to assassinate Charlie Kirk that day, not any, you know, anybody else. He didn't think children were going to be there. So, that's going to be the way the defense frames, you know, some of that. and they're going to say, "Look, you shouldn't consider in the presence of children because Tyler Robinson, assuming the state's facts are all true and correct, he didn't even know he was in the you know, children were there." Now, one could shoot back and say, "Hey, how do you not know the presence of children are there amongst thousands of people and even if you don't see, you know, children there, you could still assume since there's so many thousands of you know, I thought it was thousands of people that there would be children, you know, places within the crowd. You know, this wouldn't be just a an all adult crowd. Um I mean, you know, one could probably shoot back and say it's at a college campus and involves political topics, but, you know, children accompany their parents and professors and things of that nature. Um guys, really quickly, what I want to do, I just want to check that audio one more time. Make sure we're good. Uh yeah, no, really. Thanks for the Thanks for letting me know the audio. The issue one of the issues is this. I try to display the chat, so I'm going to struggle tonight to get to some of the chat. I'm using a different program for purposes of streaming and when you're using like a different program, there could just be some issues that arise, you know, you're not going to know every audio thing that comes up. I've even got some different tech all here. So, it just kind of creates some like practical streaming issues, quite frankly, that you got to kind of like learn to overcome. Um hold on. One thing One else One other thing I want to do while I got you guys on here. Uh is that I just want to take off that last one. You guys You guys are literally going to make you see me take this stream off. How's everybody doing tonight? If you If you're If you're having a good night, please hit like and subscribe. Let me get my like and subscribe going. Now, please like and subscribe. Always appreciate your presence or just skip forward, you know what I mean, if you're watching this after the fact. Um No, we're So, we're going to be good on that, I think. Uh Yeah. All right, wonderful. So, where were we now? Yeah, back to my streaming issues. That's where we were. Uh So, yeah, basically I I switched some software programs. Switching software programs brings audio issues. So, you know, I'm sure you guys know how difficult tech sometimes can be. So, you can imagine where I'm coming from with this. Uh but yeah, and I've been doing the streaming audio now for about a month. Um but anyway, hey, enough of my streaming audio, right? Let's get back to a little bit of a Candace Owens and what we got going on in the Tyler Robinson case and why these theories are collapsing. Um one of the things I want to do first, guys, after I've discussed my audio issues, is throw on screen for you, though, the filings cuz I was explaining that a little bit in the last video before we had the audio issues. So, let me display that on our screen again. All right, everybody on their screen. As you see here, we have what the state filed, which is a memorandum in support of preliminary hearing bind over. So, as I went through, the bind over is when you have a case that is in the pretrial and you need to advance it to the trial stage. So, you know, again, how do you do that? Well, you have to bind it over to trial. That's what the the verb is, you know, you just got to understand the the the definition of the verb, I suppose. And so, that's what the trial or excuse me, the prosecution is trying to do is they're trying to bind over this case to trial, get it from pretrial to the trial. And in doing this, it's actually a probable cause standard at the preliminary hearing. You know, again, um cops use probable cause standard every day. If they uh sniff something, uh you know, or excuse me, smell something, um hear something, see something like and it gives them reasonable grounds to think there's a crime committed and that this individual committed it, well, that's going to be sufficient for probable cause to arrest that individual. And then, you know, assuming that the probable cause standard is that here, well, that's what the prosecution has to meet. Is that burden is that, you know, there was this crime committed and that this individual is the one who committed it. And here's the evidence to show that. If you can prove those sufficient points now for preliminary hearing, you then bind it over to trial. And at the trial, that's when there's more factual development. So, you know, again, this is not a resolution of this. It's just a determination by the judge of where there's sufficient evidence now to send this to a trial. But ultimately, you know, you're judged by a jury of your peers if the defense here chose a jury trial. So, there is that constitutional protection built in as well. Um but again, looking back at this, this memorandum in support of preliminary hearing bind over, I wish the prosecution had done a better job with their table of contents and stuff like that. They have no table of contents actually. And check out this. Look how long this is. Like, I'll put it to you like this, guys. If you're If you have in California, if you write a brief and it's over 10 pages, you have a requirement actually to put a table of contents because one of the reasons you have a table of contents is it allows, you know, uh judges to quickly filter what are your arguments. Now, let me give this. I'm going to show you the defense's brief now, which is more or less their opposition memorandum, you know, to oppose the preliminary hearing bind over. They don't want this case to go from pre-trial to trial. They want to stop it now, prevent it from going to trial. You know, there was not sufficient evidence of a crime and that this individual committed it and things of that nature. Um, but let me pull it up on screen for us. Here is the defense's brief that they just submitted in their case. So, we got defendant Tyler James Robinson's preliminary hearing brief. And one of the things that they do very well is they actually set forth the table of contents, which they have introduction, argument. They also talk about the state has not met its burden to show probable cause by relying on hearsay deemed reliable by rule in violation of Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights and separation of powers. And uh guys, quickly again, I got to unpack this because this is under the argument section. So, all of this as you read it are the arguments. Like, look. They Well, there's the grand argument. And then just the support that argument, you got Roman numeral one and then there's little subtopics under those and then little even subtopics under that and even subtopics under that. So, it's just subtopicing out. And then we got another Roman numeral two, Roman numeral three. Um, and you know, Roman numeral four and then we go down to the conclusion. So, what I'm going to try to quickly do is give a quick overview of some of these arguments so that you can more understand some of the argument theories being asserted by the defense and Tyler Robinson in their case. So, what we have here guys is the state has not met its burden to show probable cause by relying on hearsay deemed reliable by rule in violation of Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights and separation of powers principle. What does that mean? Well, again, the probable cause standard is and I'm again, you know, I I don't do typically a lot of criminal uh you know, defense litigation, but hey, we all take the bar and we got get this. you have to have a reasonable basis to believe that there was a crime committed and that this specific individual committed it. That's what police officers do every day. Whenever they believe that there's been a crime, a reasonable basis to articulate there's a crime and that this specific individual committed that crime. And if they can put two and two together, that's what gives you sufficient probable cause to arrest an individual. So, now as an example, let's say you have a police officer who pulls over a vehicle and as he approaches the vehicle, under state law, it's you know, not permitted to drink and drive, right? And so, as the officer approaches the car, he, you know, says, "Show me your license and registration." And then he's, you know, gives a sniff and he smells alcohol. Okay, well, smelling alcohol and there's driving, okay, well, now let me see how the, you know, driver interacts with me at this point. And so, now you're going to, "Oh, I smell alcohol. Have you been drinking tonight?" "No, sir. No, sir." And but what if he slurs his words as he says it? So, now it's suddenly you had you smelled alcohol, now there's been a slurring of words. So, do you see what I'm saying is, okay, the crime is going to be drinking and driving, cuz that's typically in your criminal statutes as well and in your or might be in your traffic codes with criminal penalties. I'd have to look at the exact statutory structure. But, that's the articulable crime. That's the crime that the police officer identified. Who's the specific individual that committed it? It's the person sitting in the driver's seat, you know, that you smelled alcohol on and slurring their speech. And then you run a sobriety test and they can't take it correctly. Well, that's sufficient probable cause to arrest the individual. And that's what police officers do every day. They may see somebody that has a bulge in their pants, right? Wait, what are you carrying there? It looks in the shape of a like a weapon or something like that, you know, you mind if I, you you know, can see you can to a search or something? No, you can't search me. Okay, well then does the officer forget other bases to decide there's probable cause? You know, and those are going to be sufficient questions like I mean there's reasonable suspicion and stuff like that in stopping and frisking and you know, temporary detentions and stuff. But that's unpacking a lot of like Fourth Amendment law and things of that nature. But again, for purposes of probable cause, that's my understanding is look, you have to identify crime, which here in the Tyler Robinson's case is all these allegations of you know, murder quite frankly. Um and then the the specific individual in this case is Tyler Robinson. So and again, you're innocent until proven guilty under American law in the United States Constitution. But all I'm doing is showing you guys that the exact same probable cause standard that the judge is applying here, you know, police officers do it every day. So don't think that oh, I need to look at this is like in a higher standard. You don't. You really just, you know, look at it as a police officer would for the criminal context and the facts of the case. I think that is the best approach. Um also, one of the other points, you got to move on in the sentence, right? It's all language. So we get through the probable cause, I've explained to you that. Now we need to discuss by relying on hearsay deemed reliable by rule in violation of Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights and separation of powers principles. Well, let's stop here. By relying on hearsay deemed reliable by rule. What is that rule? If you go to Utah rule of evidence 1102 and I hate that I had to cut the last video cuz I literally thought I remembered the rule on the spot, but I got a tab open now so I don't get all the credit anymore for being a cool guy and remembering rules in the moment, right? You know, now I got the tab open. You might You might not even believe me if you're watching this anymore. But it is what it is. One of the things I want to point out, guys, is this. Look at the very title of the rule. It says rule 1102, reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. Now, again, guys, very important for you to understand this. There is a difference between criminal trials and criminal preliminary examinations. Again, there is a difference between criminal trials and criminal preliminary examinations. And there is a difference with how evidence will be treated at criminal trials and criminal preliminary examinations. Even under the Constitution, that's been recognized that you can treat evidence differently for purposes of, you know, in the pre-trial context versus at trial. When we're dealing with the criminal preliminary examination, that is the criminal pre-trial context, so evidence can be treated differently than at the criminal trial context. So, here in the Tyler Robinson case, you know, where this is reliable at hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations, some of the evidence used here may not be admissible the exact same way for purposes of the actual criminal trial. So, these are very important concepts and principles that you remember, uh you know, as we move forward and you evaluate the case as a whole, too. But, again, here's the statement of the rule. Reliable hearsay is admissible at criminal preliminary examinations. You heard it. Reliable hearsay is admissible at criminal criminal preliminary examinations. Well, what is reliable hearsay? They provide the definition. Hey, doing a good job drafting the law. Makes logical sense. So, for purposes of criminal preliminary examinations only, reliable hearsay includes and it goes through all of this stuff and I've done the previous video on this unpacking um some of these evidentiary standards that were unpacked at the the criminal preliminary examination, but we zeroed in specifically on right here, number five. And number five provides for medical and autopsy reports and records. So, one of the issues that a lot of commentators on YouTube made is they said, "Well, where's the medical examiner? Where's the medical examiner? You know, why didn't we hear from the medical examiner? We just heard from a cop. You know, we got the medical autopsy report. We heard that there was a gunshot wound to the neck." But, we got all this, you know, what what allegedly occurred, but where's the medical examiner to testify to that? Actually, he saw a gunshot wound to the neck. Where's the medical examiner? That was what a lot of people were saying. Well, again, criminal preliminary examinations and criminal trials are different. You will need the medical examiner for purposes of the criminal trial, but for purposes of the criminal preliminary examination, no, you don't need the medical examiner there actually the same way at all. And one of the things that I took issue with actually is why is the state's lead investigator actually saying much of anything at all? You know, I mean, sure, he can say it, you know, and you and but it's like you know, it was like, "Hey, medical Mr. State criminal investigator, what what was what's the manner of the cause of death? Gunshot wound to the neck." Well, he didn't actually observe that per my understanding. He was just investigating it after the fact. So, why was he testifying to that information on that particular document? It's a fair question, okay? I'm not going to say it's the most unfair thing in the world. But, one of the things I want to point out is this. A lot of these Candace Owens conspiracies online have developed as a result of a lack of facts, okay? Because, you know, wherever there's a lack of facts, people want to like connect the dots in all these ways. And sometimes like, you know, you don't have all the facts at like at a very single time. Like it develops over time. You get more facts as you go. But, for purposes of when you don't have those facts at that early time, you know, it can look a little bit like, "Oh, well, maybe that happened. Maybe that happened." And it really didn't. Like, there's no conspiracy or anything going on. Um I don't know how I got off on that tangent now that I'm thinking about it, guys. But, look. Ultimately, what you need to focus on is this. You see it on your screen. Medical and autopsy reports and records are admissible for purposes of the criminal preliminary examination context. That cop didn't even need to testify to it. That document could have been admitted regardless. The judge can accept that document and take it into consideration. Why am I making such a big deal out of this? Why is that so important? Because, look, guys. This is See at the top, it says Utah State Courts. This is Rule 1102. This is a Utah statute. Okay? This applies Um but this particular statute applies in the context of criminal law and specifically criminal preliminary examinations. Okay? And again, when we go back here and we look at the uh document that that was just filed by the defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson, they say that relying on that uh reliable hearsay that they said hearsay deemed reliable by rule. You know what that is? We Rule 1102 here and they're talking about that medical and autopsy report. Maybe they're talking about some other stuff, but I'll tell you what. I know they're contesting that because I recall the attorney at the actual hearing saying, "We should have the medical examiner, not this cop, you know, doing it." And she said cop because that sounds a lot less authoritative than state's lead ex- or state's lead uh investigator. So, you see the the linguistic strategy by how much authority you give the individual. So, we have a medical and autopsy reports and records, which is deemed reliable hearsay, and reliable hearsay is inadmissible at criminal preliminary examinations. That is the rule in Utah. When you go back here, and you see that they say that admitting hearsay deemed reliable by rule is in violation of Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights and separation of powers principles. Now, one of the things is I got to actually unpack what in the world they're talking about with purposes of like separation of powers, but when we're dealing with actually the constitutional rights aspect, look, this was my understanding. The medical examiner is a witness because the medical examiner at, you know, had visual visually looked at Charlie Kirk after the assassination and, you know, concluded his manner of death and wrote that down on the documentation. That's what these individuals, medical examiners, their job is is to more or less find the cause of death for individuals and to document that, and, you know, it it that and it be recorded, I suppose. I don't know if it's recorded, but yeah, that's what the state the medical examiners do. All states have them. Um but again, you didn't need the medical examiner at the criminal preliminary hearing because that document is deemed admissible by itself. You don't need a witness to come in or authenticate it. You have that document admissible without authentication witness. Does that make sense? So, Tyler Robinson's lawyers took issue with that because they said, "Look, we have a sixth I get I think it's a sixth amendment problem, the right to confront witnesses against you. Look, if you could you're in under constitutional law, you have a right in the criminal context to confront witnesses against you at your criminal trial. So, if somebody's going to be a test you have a testimony against you and be a witness against you, you have a right to cross-examine them at their trial in order to undermine their testimony and show that you were truly vindicated. What Tyler Robinson's lawyers here did is they tapped into some of that history and they said, "Look, we did not have the right to cross-examine the medical examiner at the criminal preliminary hearing. And that's an issue. However, per my understanding, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on this. And at criminal preliminary examinations, those are going to be treated much differently than criminal trials. And so, for purposes of confronting witnesses against the defendant, that's not truly a right that attaches, per my understanding, until the actual criminal trial. The for the criminal pretrial context, and like this criminal preliminary examination, that's perfectly acceptable. There was no issues in doing that, actually. So, that's why this is and I just want to pop it back up on screen for you to see. When they say in violation of Mr. Robinson's constitutional right, it's up to you when me, I'm a lawyer, right? I I I do this for a living. I mean, I'm coming up with these arguments and I got to know the law. You got to be able to break that down and you got to say, "Look, the Supreme Court's ruled on the right to confront witnesses and when that's to be had, the the pretrial criminal context is not that context. You have a right to confront the witnesses, per my understanding, at the trial. And that's trial has not occurred yet. This has only been criminal preliminary examinations in order to bind over this case to trial. So, much different um in How's everybody enjoying this so far? You're learning something? This is some advanced legal stuff. Let me go to my chat and see what you Oh, man. Well, I mean, uh explain the timeline, you know, with the with respect Well, hold on. Oh, thank you for fixing that echo. Hey, shout out. No, I appreciate you, body cam. Um Look, hey, body cam, he knows about that Fourth Amendment, I'm sure. You'll go check out his page, you'll see a lot of Fourth Amendment examples. You'll have a you know, stop and frisk or, you know, the a hunch and reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There's all these criminal standards, like that's what they train police officers to do is to actually execute these legal standards each day. So, a part of good legal training or in police officer training involves understanding those legal standards and applying them in the real world. And so, that's a very important uh context, but little outside of uh the subject matter of this video. Going back to this, um so, Tyler Robinson says he hasn't had the right, you know, to confront his accuser with respect to the medical examiner because, you know, that document, that medical autopsy report that said Tyler or Charlie Kirk had a gunshot wound to the neck, and he, you know, died as a result of that. Um you know, they they objected. And actually, I think it's a homicide on the document, so that was the cause of death, homicide, gunshot wound to the neck. And they said not having the right to cross-examine that medical examiner violated their right to confront a witness, you know, but again, that only attaches at the trial, at the trial, not the pretrial context, at the trial context. Very important you remember that. Um want to jump back into this. Another thing I want to show you guys is this. It says count six must be stricken because the evidence does not establish that Mr. Robinson's statement to Mr. Twiggs to ask for a lawyer and stay silent was intended to obstruct an investigation. So, one of the things that occurred, uh you know, per my understanding, and you can deduce it from seeing that document, is that at some point uh after the crime had a you know, occurred, uh these are the allegations. Like again, you're innocent until proven guilty and full disclosure. We we agree with that and we endorse that on this channel. Um but apparently Tyler Robinson allegedly told Lance Twiggs to ask for a lawyer and stay silent. And the state argued that that is obstructing an investigation. Now, I explained this a little bit in the last video, but I got to do it again. So, here we go. When we need to always remember this. You have a right to an attorney, okay? You have the right to an attorney. If anybody tries to block your right to an attorney, they're probably in the wrong, you know what I mean? And again, this this channel and this episode is not legal advice. Don't take it that way. It's just legal commentary, but any you know, anybody that's trying to prohibit you from access to a lawyer, it's like, what are you doing? You know what I mean? We have a right to an attorney and if you're trying to prohibit my right to seek an attorney, it's like, that's not, you know, quite frankly, constitutional. I have the first amendment and the right to associate and if I want to associate with an attorney in order to represent my legal interest to the best of my ability, I have a right to do that under the Constitution, you know? And you can't deprive me of that. And so, that's very important. So, asking for a lawyer, I think it's perfectly fine. Instructing an other individual to ask for a lawyer, perfectly fine. Now, the problem is and I'm going to pop it back up on screen. Guys, is this. I have no issue with that part. Asking for a lawyer is completely fine. You know, always you know, seek legal counsel whenever you kind of need, you know, if you're in a bad situation or something, right? Or you need it. Uh but also, one of the things I got to point out is this. You see this stay silent? I do take a bit of an issue to that. So, look, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. Because, you know, what was the context of stay silent? Was he saying stay silent, you know, to forever and always and could you interpret that as being obstruction of justice and trying to destroy the investigation. I am not so sure, you know, I could quickly jump down that rabbit hole just because it's like, hey, stay silent until you speak to a lawyer. You know, maybe you could argue like like some type of, you know, understanding of that sense, but you know, it's a reasonable interpretation. So, actually, I thought when I was looking at this, put it back up on screen for you. Count six must be stricken because the evidence does not establish that Mr. Robinson's statement to Mr. Twiggs to ask for a lawyer and stay silent was intended to obstruct an investigation. I somewhat feel that that actually could be a legitimate argument because, you know, per my opinion, you have a right to an attorney and, you know, and to stay silent until you speak to one. So, the fact that they're trying to have a charge of an obstruction of justice only for purposes of that statement, I mean, you know, look, that's actually a decent argument. So, I I I'll give you more on those. When it comes to some of these constitutional rights and the right to confront witnesses, you know, in the pretrial context, look, I'm not going to subscribe to all that. I don't think a lot of that, you know, really plays out here. Um but anyway, want to pop this back up on screen for you. Here we go. We got count seven must be stricken because the evidence does not establish that Mr. Robinson had knowledge that a child under the age of 14 was present and would see or hear the commission of the of Excuse me, of the charged homicide. So, guys, what is the defense here doing? One of the issues to point out is this. As this, you know, video title stated, Candace Owens' theories are collapsing. And her theories advanced that it was, you know, anybody else other than Tyler Robinson. However, the defense here endorses the idea that it was only Robinson, but they do they don't do anything in purposes of a judicial admission. They're not stating he did it. There's not you can't truly draw that from this. You can get you can infer some things. There's some complexities, but you can't just say this is an outright judicial admission. But it does endorse the idea that the defense is you know, dancing with the idea that hey, assuming this is even the case, you know, so they're not just saying hey, this isn't us at all. What what do you you got the wrong guy, you know, you would write that brief a lot differently if it was a you got the wrong guy brief versus you know, something else, right? You know, but they're saying look, you know, you know, per his communications with Lance Twiggs and they go into that. If you look on this in in this brief actually, they dive into this and we can't really go through each little detail in this brief, but what they do to support this exact point is they say that the communications between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs after the commission of the offense, you know, alleged commission of the offense which is you know, assassination murder here, that you know, those are excuse me, it was actually before or after. I guess you could use both of them to to evidence this, but they said that this was designed solely to you know, you know, assassinate Charlie Kirk and that there was no knowledge or indication from those text messages to be gained that he knew a child under the age of 14 would be present to watch that event. Now, one may reasonably argue, right? Like if there is a crowd with thousands of people, like don't you think there's going to be a couple of children somewhere in that crowd? I think that's a reasonable, you know, thing to think. Like you know, so I mean some you know, one could shoot back and say look, we have a college crowd sure and there's thousands of people, but we're don't we're on a college campus. This isn't you know, high school or in school where you have children. Like, no, this is college. We expect young adults or adults to be there, professors and stuff. And so, no, we would not expect children under the age of 14 to be there. I mean, that's going to be up to you on how much you would buy that. I mean, if I'm the judge look, I'm going to I'm going to make I'm going to make I don't know if I can truly buy the fact that, you know this argument I I would leave this to the jury to decide. What do you think? Are you going to be the judge and you're going to take this away from the jury to decide? Are you going to let just the jury decide that question? I'm going to put myself in the position of I don't want to resolve that fact. I don't want to resolve a state of mind with respect to children under the age of 14 being present and whether he knew that. Look, I don't want to get into this. I'm here to call balls and strikes and be the judge. I'm not here to find facts. I'm not here to conclusively decide no children under 14. I think that's going to be a reasonable approach. So, I actually think I do not agree with that one like I did the last one. So, count seven I'm not so much in favor of but count six is pretty good argument Tyler Robinson's made there. What now? What do we stricken for the same reason. See, it says there is no evidence that Robinson had the requisite knowledge. Guys, what are you talking about? Like I mean, look, that's a factual question, okay? Ultimately, look, when you're doing when you're trying cases the purpose of a trial is to resolve questions of facts. The court will apply the law. But, we need juries in order to decide facts. So, that's what the prosecution and the defense are going to argue is no, this occurred. No, that occurred. And so, they're going to present facts to the jury and the jury's going to be the one to decide those facts. And um once the jury decides those facts then it's just a matter of the court applying on to the facts that were found by the jury. And so, when you have here, pop it up on screen, it says, "There is no evidence that Mr. Robinson had the requisite knowledge." Guys, that's a factual statement, okay? It would be improper at this stage for the judge to decide that as a matter of law. That is a matter of fact, okay? That's a matter of fact. And there's a difference in in in law between facts and the law. And again, we want to submit all questions of fact to the jury to resolve. We don't as I mean, I'm not a judge, but you know, judges aren't the ones to be resolving questions of fact. You leave that to the jury. That's what's supposed to happen. So, um and yes, one of the things that they talk about here is sentencing enhancements. Why do they talk about sentencing enhancements? Well, they're saying that the presence of a child issue means that, you know, we can seek sentencing enhancements and jail you for longer or, you know, maybe they're going to go after the death penalty, too. That would qualify, I suppose, as like some form of a sentencing enhancement. Just because, you know, think about it. Like the idea and the whole reason we have this these the statutory scheme like sentencing enhancements is like, if you're the type of the criminal defendant who is alleged to have committed this awful crime in front of children under the age of 14, like, okay, that's going to be an extra degree of sentencing. Like, as a society, we we see that as like extra heinous and our criminal code will reflect that. So, one of the things is like, you're almost asking the judge to say it's unconstitutional, but, you know, the the the people of Utah are the ones who came up with their criminal code and stuff and, you know, that's what they found. So, um I don't know. You get it's a morality thing, guys. I'd love to hear your opinion on it or what you think about the sentencing enhancement for that and whether we should have sentencing enhancements, quite frankly. You know, should there be a sentencing enhancement for doing a a particular heinous crime in front of children versus whether it was not in front of children? If you think there should be, um you know, I I I mean I I kind of think there should be, but that's just that's a policy question. It's not really a legal question. Again, guys, you got differences between policies and law. >> [snorts] >> Once again, guys, I'm going to quickly say yeah. Everybody, please like and subscribe. While you do, I'm just going to check and see how we're going. Oh man, 200 subscri- or two or not subscribers. Hopefully, we got 200 subscribers from this video. But hey, hit that like and subscribe button that you see on screen. I would very much appreciate it. We got 200 people in the chat. Hey, hit that like button, subscribe button, share this video, and we're going to grow this thing some more. Because what I'm trying to do is make sure you guys actually have, you know, some real live analysis cuz I mean, you know, I've studied this. I've gone through this. But also, it's like it's like anything. The more you do it, the more you're going to see next time. It's like one of those movies, right? You You watch a movie and suddenly next time you watch the movie, you're like, "Oh man, look at that. I didn't see that character last time." Or, "Oh, he made that joke and I just caught it a little bit more." You know what I'm talking about. It's all cultural stuff. Dude, look at the And hold on, guys. Look at this. Look at the amount of cases cited by the defense, too. Their table of authorities just goes on and on and on. Got a bunch of uh And we even got an Arizona SB code, an Arizona law. That's interesting. Then our rules. Those are just like court rules. Well, criminal procedural rules as well, rule of evidence. I don't know why I didn't put that under statutes. Like I I dude, I just I put that under statutes. Like, if you if you if I write a brief, I'm putting rules like that and constitutional provisions. Cuz look, these are religious statutes. Like, all of this this is just statutes. So, like, put that here. And I would also put that there. So, it should it should just be it should just be look, table of authorities, cases, statutes. And then just put all of them. So, cuz it's kind of weird. You're like bouncing up and down. You're like, "Oh, Utah code." And then down here, it's oh you it's a Utah rule of uh criminal procedure. And sure, there's like technically, you know, rules and statutes, but look, it's all statutory law, quite frankly. It's all passed in that context. Um and same thing with constitutional provision. That's a a federal constitutional provision, which I mean, you know, I guess yeah, uh you know, technically I guess you could say that's not maybe a statute. I don't know if you could technically say that, though. I would still consider it a a form of one. You know what I mean? Maybe just a higher statute. I'm not sure. Um One second, guys. So, going through all of this, guys, what what did we get? What has Candace Owens told her audience? She's told you the whole time and they her audience has bought it hook, line, and sinker cuz she gets like 100,000 views an episode, that it was someone else other than Tyler Robinson. But, the defense is already endorsing ideas that are you endo, hey, even if the state is right, oh, the communications actually suggest that he didn't mean to intend, you know, uh you know, assassinate uh or excuse me, you know, kill or assassinate Charlie Kirk in the presence of children. You know, he thought there wouldn't be children there. It's a little bit of a weird argument. Hold on, one second. I'm going to pull up something again cuz I think I missed a point of analysis for Yes, this is the thing I wanted to point out to you as well. This is very important. Check this out. It says, "As a matter of law, the state has not established and cannot establish probable cause to support the aggravator that the shooting knowingly created a high probability of death to another individual from the single shot from a high-powered scoped rifle from a rooftop vantage that hit the intended target." And so, what do they do in this exactly right here? Is they basically say, I mean, I I more or less what I what I gather from this is they're like, "Hey, you know, even if we assume that there's this high-powered, you know, scoped rifle from a rooftop vantage that hit the intended target, you know, there's apparently they can't establish that the shooting knowingly created a high probability of death to another individual." And then one of the things that they do that the they say the state has not established and cannot establish probable cause to support that aggravator is, guys, they actually argue, and I think I might have mentioned this, that the communications between Tyler, or excuse you, Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs, that those communications themselves, you know, evidence that he had no intent to kill anyone other than Charlie Kirk. So, the defense pretty much makes the argument, "Look, we take the state's evidence as like we're going to assume it to be true, blah blah blah. There's no evidence he intended to kill anyone other than Charlie Kirk." And so, as a result, you should find no aggravator and stuff. However, here's the problem with that theory. Guys, if you're if you're a shooting, you know, a person like that in that context, like you have to expect that you may miss, right? Like that's a reasonable expectation that, you know, oh, or a reasonably foreseeable that if I'm firing from what 150 plus yards away that I could miss. You know, I'm using like an older antique more weapon and like if you miss, what happens? Well, it could strike and hit another person. And so that's one of the issues that I would have in that sense is like that, you know, to argue that as it's a matter of law and not like a matter of fact cuz to me that's a matter of fact when we're determining his state of mind and his understanding of probabilities and what he would hit versus what he would not hit. Well, here it would be my argument if I were arguing for the prosecution that look, you had your weapon and you fired it. Like all the evidence we have shows this and you hit the intended target, which is Charlie Kirk. But when we present that theory of the case, we are not eliminating the fact that you also understood you had a reasonable or you you reasonably foresaw the idea that you may miss, that anyone could miss. Are you Are you Is Is any of us a perfect shot? You know, and I've heard it both ways. Is he a perfect shot or is he not a perfect shot? Sometimes the the people in these conspiracies don't want to ever answer the question because then they may have to shift their other positions in other context. You know, he's either a great shot and he hit him he hit the intended target or he's a terrible shot and there's no way it could have been him. Well, um if that's the case and he's a terrible shot and there's no way it could have been him, well, that's going to be a bit of an issue, uh you know, for for purposes of trying to establish that he didn't understand there was a high probability of hitting another because a bad shot would presumably understand that they have a higher probability of hitting the off target, which in this context would have been other individuals. And um you know, no nobody else was hit. It was actually only Charlie Kirk. So, So guys, again, one of the things to again unpack is where are we in this criminal trial? Tyler Robinson is in the pre-trial context in this in this criminal stage. Pre-trial just means before trial. Now, how do we get it from the pre-trial context to the trial context? We need to bind it over to trial. So, those memorandums I showed you when I showed on screen, we had the prosecution that wrote an entire memorandum saying why the evidence is sufficient to support bind over to trial. So, to get this case from the pre-trial context to the trial context, the defense, which they have the right to do so and they clearly did it here, made the argument that no, you do not there is not sufficient evidence or reasons um to, you know, bind this over to trial. And the defense argued that some of the lower counts uh that we saw such as the, you know, what the the sentencing enhancements with respect to hitting children and um like count six and count seven that we went through that oh, those shouldn't apply like obstruction of justice because of this reason. Now, it's very possible that the judge could say, "Yeah, I'm going to kick out count six and because of obstruction of justice for seeking a lawyer and staying silent, that's not enough. I'll knock that one out. Um but count seven, you know, we'll keep that one in and oh, count one with the assassination murder blah, you know, we'll keep that in and stuff. Well, that's a matter of fact. We're going to let the jury decide this, you know, on certain questions and then as a court we'll just impose the law. So, again, that's what the procedural stage we were at is just getting this case from the pre-trial context to the trial context. And what that requires is the court taking evidence from both sides and hearing the arguments based on the evidence and then determining is there sufficient evidence in order to bind over the case to trial and to try all these different counts. Again, I think we had seven or eight counts, maybe more in that in this case. So, maybe some counts are eliminated, maybe count six like I described, but some of those previous counts will obviously continue. Um talking about what the uh defense request, we discussed a little bit of that. Um Again, another thing that I wanted to point out guys is what is hearsay evidence? Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, and hearsay is generally inadmissible in court. However, as I described, we had rule 1102, which provides for uh reliable hearsay in the criminal preliminary hearing context, and so we don't have any issues with that. But, one of the things I want to point out is the defense did rely on hearsay evidence for purposes of arguing to the judge that, you know, as a matter of law, Tyler Robinson had no intent to, you know, assassinate anyone or kill anyone other than Charlie Kirk. It's still it's not a matter of law to me. It's a matter of fact. Like, that is clearly a state of mind and a matter of fact. But, the defense tried to rely on hearsay evidence for purposes of establishing that point as a matter of law. And again, that you just can't do that. That's procedurally, that's not correct. I mean, I understand why they make the argument. The the defense counsel's got to, you know, build the case they can the best for their client, and if they got to reach and say, "Hey, the Constitution is at stake." Okay, well, I mean, I don't think it is, but, you Hold on. Yeah, just wanted to point out a little bit some of that having it both ways with like the the hearsay evidence and how all the defense they don't like hearsay evidence when it's a medical autopsy report and oh, we don't like that, but oh, by the way, judge, as a matter of law, you should decide that that was actually his state of mind. He was there to kill Charlie Kirk and nobody else. He didn't know there were children there. He didn't know the bullet would go anywhere else. Nope. Nope, he didn't. Nope, your judge, please. This is not for the jury. This is not for the people of Utah. It's for you to take it off the table. I don't know. That I I might start questioning things at that point. I'd be like, oh, that's a little bit How How could you allow that, judge? Just saying. And again, guys, one of the points I want to make and I got a good note on this is again preliminary here to the bond over process in that criminal preliminary hearing, it's the probable cause standard. At trial, that's when we apply the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So, two different criminal standards are applicable here. We've applied applied the probable cause one, which same one police officers do, but when this case case gets to trial, it will be the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Very Mhm. Talked about some of the child presence stuff, uh which, you know, that was kind of an interesting analysis Mhm. Yeah, and guys, another thing I really want to hit on and I I mentioned this earlier, but look, you cannot take this pleading and as a result say, because Tyler Robinson took arguendo. And what do I mean by arguendo? Arguendo means this. It it frames it as even if you're right, it doesn't show this. Even if X, it does not lead to Y. Even if, you know, blah blah blah, it does not blah blah blah. That is what arguendo is. And that is what the defense here did in this filing is a lot of what they did argued from arguendo. Assuming the state's case is true, they can't do this. Assuming the state's case that oh and their evidence that says he was there to assassinate Charlie Kirk, state, you can't find that he was there to kill anyone else. Now, again, I already discussed that. That would eliminate reasonable foreseeability that you don't fire the shot correctly, blah blah blah. I should I would say if I were the judge, keep it in. But, I just want to disclose to you guys some of that stuff on you know, how to consider Oh, well, hold on. No, I don't want to move on from that too quick, actually. Uh Well, so yeah, when I when I say that guys is look, don't take it as a judicial admission. Just don't say, "Oh, well, he argued arguendo in this motion, so he admitted it." That's not true. You can't draw that. If you drew that, you would be incorrect, okay? You know, you're permitted to in law argue arguendo. I'm permitted to you know, and I do this all the time. There's so many motions guys that like are like lawyers write every day that it's arguendo. Like there's so many early motions to dismiss. Even assuming this is true, this should be the result, judge. I mean, look, we had basically the case in Candace Owens like recently with the Macron defamation. Even assuming all this stuff is true, you should move the case out of Delaware because, you know, that's assuming, you know, arguendo. Um cuz there it's really not getting to the substance. It's just like, "Look, assuming the substance, there are other reasons you can't deal with that." And um uh you know, arguing it arguendo is very effective for you know, how to analyze things. So, highly recommend it. Now, um I will say that like I you know, I do question if some of these statements though and framings could be used later. I don't think they they could be, but again, I don't know. It's going to be like the judicial admission aspect. I you know, one could say, "Well, the lawyer is your authorized agent and the lawyer wrote this into this motion." But again, it's arguendo, so there's a little bit of a qualifier before you make those statements. But like then you could say, "Well, let's try to admit that those statements as uh you know, statements of a party opponent and that would be non-hearsay. So, just by virtue of statute, even though it's out of court and stuff like that." But just by statute, it's non-hearsay. Um but I don't know if that would be uh you know, very legitimate in this context. It just it doesn't really add Yeah, um all right. So, look, I guess there's another point I got to make. Why are these conspiracy, you know, Candace Owens and all of her the orbiters that she has and stuff like that and that nation of influencers? Why do they do this? Why Why have they actually even argued some of these positions throughout? Because it gets views. It gets clicks. And it shows no respect for the audience. It You're basically she thinks of her audience as a bunch of suckers because they are. Every day they tune in and waste their lives to hear BS every day. And that's what it is every day. Guys, I'm telling you I this case is going to get bound over to trial and we're going to have a trial and they're going to go oh it's blah blah blah and then you know there's not going to be enough evidence and like but again why why do they push these positions? It is in order to get clicks and views and which inevitably convert to money from a bunch of suckers. Suckers that believe the world is a conspiracy and they would rather have injustice. But you know what crosses the line to me is like I want you to consider this. Candace Owens like talks about Charlie Kirk is he was my friend and every I mean she talks about that ad nauseam. You she she didn't go a single day without talking about something friendship based. But I just want you guys to like ask yourselves this. What would it mean if like your friend argued in favor of your assassinator? You know what I mean? After you passed. Potential. And again you're innocent until proven guilty but like assuming post factor arguing in dough right? You know even if if it does occur then we have to consider like in a in a context like that I just want you to take a moment and consider what type of friend would advocate for over a calendar year on a certain position so consistently that you know if not true would be an injustice if had successfully um but and then also too if it's not true what are going to be the repercussions? Nothing. Nothing. Okay, the repercussions are nothing. What the truth is guys is there is no bad press from this. The subscriber count will remain. The the videos will remain. You you just it's a page in the book. You go to the next chapter and you write the next script, okay? You know, you can be wrong is pretty much the way I see things are going to work out and they're going to be spewing a bunch of things like this. And cuz you know what I think is really going on, guys? Is look, the defense is doing everything it can to avoid the death penalty, okay? The defense doesn't want the death penalty. Because why? Nobody wants to die. Duh. Nobody wants to die. So, yeah, they're trying to avoid the death penalty. What happens if the death penalty is on the table going into trial with the evidence we have right now? Bad odds for Tyler Robinson. That's my legal opinion. Bad odds. And guess what? If that death penalty's on the table and whether the judge would impose it or the jury, you'd have to look at the statutes. That threat, what's the percentage likelihood you could face the death penalty if you allow this case to go to trial? And you got to account for that percentage because nobody wants to die. So, if it's like 10% or there's a 10% chance, you know, 20% 50% 75%? I mean, it's kind of a difficult thing to quantify, right? Yeah, it's difficult to nail down a percentage, but you know, we got experience and we can give a percentage and you know, based on the evidence here, I think it's uh you know, a high likelihood that if he went to trial, you know, he would probably be convicted and you know, in that case face the death penalty. So, you know, but again, innocent until proven guilty. It's going to be resolved ultimately by the fact-finders who are the jury. Um but guys, like to argue for a calendar year that this defendant is actually not the person who did it and and assuming in this world he is, you know, just assuming a world like that, it means you you the quote friend that argued for your friend's assassinator for a year. What type of friend are you? Okay? What type of friend are you? I can't play I got you got a friend in me because I get copyright for that. But you know what I mean? You ain't a friend to me if you're going to advocate for my assassinator after my death. You know what I mean? You ain't a friend at all. Like imagine imagine imagine Andrew Jackson or excuse me Andrew Johnson. He was like, you know what? Booth You got a friend in you know, or he didn't do it. What if he argued John Wilkes Booth he didn't do it. He was like, yeah, I don't think he really did that to Abraham Lincoln. Andrew Johnson. I mean I I don't know if Lincoln and Johnson were all friends all that much. Um but clearly they worked together closely. You know, history books are going to say what they say. Um but it'd be kind of funny, you know, to think about. But look, ultimately um when we have this, I just don't think it's very friendly behavior. What do you all think? What would you what Tell me in the comments what you would do. I'm going to look at what you guys say in the comments cuz I want to know what would you do if you found out like if you could come back imagine you died and then like I I a year two years later I could you know, raise you if you want to go down that route and then you got to see what your friend did. What would you say to him? Or like what type of emotions do you all get or what are your thoughts whenever you think about like somebody describing themselves as a friend but now you're in this position with like the evidence and the defense filings and all of this stuff like it it it is the it's almost laughable. It's like, oh my Oh. Well, you know, again, and why do they do it? Why do they do it? Because there's money. Okay? We you saw it in well, I'm I'm going to show you. Tune in to my video, guys. Tune in to my video coming up between Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens talking about Claire Locke, okay? In that video, Candace Owens mentions people doing stuff for money, okay? She mentions it. And that's what I think's going on here is people doing stuff for money. You know, everybody wants some dollars. And guess what? We live in the attention economy. If you can convert attention into dollars and you get a lot of attention that means you're going to get a lot of dollars. And a lot of dollars means you might, I don't know, buy some nice stuff and live a good life and you know, be a little bit happier and stuff, right? And it's probably a thrill too when you click when you click stream and you see like thousands upon thousands of people like tuning in. That's got to be a little bit of exhilaration, you know what I mean? And be like the number one streamer or podcaster or whatever you want to describe, journalist, I guess. You can describe her that way. Um But no, guys uh ultimately, this is going to be an interesting uh you know, criminal procedural you know, trial coming up if it gets to trial. But as you know my position, I think uh they're going to try to do everything they can to avoid the death penalty. And if they're unsuccessful in doing that and this case is headed toward a trial with the death penalty on the table Tyler Robinson's lawyers will settle this case. They will settle this case. They will say, "No way. We're not permitting our client to go Well, ultimately, it's not their decision. They're going to have to That's the decision of Tyler Robinson. He's going to make be the one making the plea and it's got to be pursuant to the Brady standard, voluntarily, knowingly, intelligent, you know, and that's the Brady's an old Supreme Court law. Um And he's going to have to make all those decisions. But his lawyers are going to tell him, "Look, you look at the evidence before the public right now and what we know cuz we don't know all the evidence. They know all the evidence. We don't as the public, but they know. And they're going to say, "Hey, look. Look at all the evidence right now. And the death penalty is still on the table. Here are the odds, okay? And sometimes the the world's like that. They're odds. What's going to happen? What's not? There's no certainties. And um if you're Tyler Robinson and you're looking down that barrel, you know, what are you going to say? Because I think there's a good chance you might end up facing that, you know, sentence in a situation like this. And if you do, well, that is a complete loss in your case. So, the only way you even salvage a tiny win is you avoid the death penalty. You avoid the death penalty, you take a plea deal, you admit you did it, and you admit everything the prosecutors want you to because they make you you sign a document that states your guilt. And uh when you admit it, well, it depends on the plea plea deal, right? So, I guess sometimes that can be negotiated. Um but yeah, you you basically you sign off, you plea, and uh that'll be kind of the end of that, you know, you voluntarily plead and you would now get to avoid the death penalty and spend the rest of your years in prison. But for some people, that is a win. And probably no parole either, you know. But that's a win because you beat death. You were looking death in the face, and you beat death. And then also, too, I mean, I don't know. Now, maybe some people write you letters or something in prison, who knows? You know how crazy people are when they're writing a bunch of prisoners and stuff like that they don't even know. I've heard of stories like that. Um but guys, that is what we got is Candace Owens theories are collapsing because the facts are slowly starting to narrow where it seems like there was one shooter not necessarily two. And the defense is starting to dance with that idea that hey, maybe there was one shooter, but assuming there was one shooter oh, the shooter doesn't show this this that okay, all right, all right. But what does that do? They're at least dancing with it. You can't use it to say it hey, we did it. It's not a judicial admission. But they are dancing with the concepts. And by just dancing with it, I don't know. I think you could draw some signals from that and how they're going to play out. How I drew it and I'm telling you right now is I think they want to beat the death penalty. They want to beat the death penalty. And if I mean if they can beat the death penalty, they'll go to trial. Yeah, if you can get the death penalty off the table before you go to trial, tell you what, get the death penalty off the table and then we can go to trial. I'll take those odds. But if the death penalty's on the table and this goes to trial, nope, not going to do that. You need to plea. You need to take a plea deal. You know, not face the death penalty. But ultimately too, both sides got to agree to a plea deal. You know, prosecution side's got to come agree to the terms, defense side's got to agree to the terms. And then also, I'll leave this as a question for you all. How much do you think that the family should be involved in terms? Do you think Erica Kirk as the widow of Charlie Kirk should be involved in this type of plea agreement negotiation between the state and Tyler Robinson? Um I'm not so sure I would agree with that actually. I think sometimes you got to leave that to the prosecution's discretion exclusively. You know, and the prosecution can consider what the widow thinks and consider all that, but I don't think they're going to be dispositive decision makers. You should leave that authority exclusively to the prosecution. A lot of the reasons too is not just for morality reasons. It's like guys, the prosecution has the legal knowledge and understanding on how to argue the case. They have better, you know, knowledge of the facts right now. They likely have better knowledge of the law to apply cuz they've gone through it a thousand times at this point. So it's like that should be a prosecutor's decision in my opinion. It should not be the decision of, you know, Eric Kirk and Charlie Kirk's family and things of that nature, survivors. Um you know, but people can disagree with me on that, you know, plenty of people do have thoughts on the input of the family for purposes of imposing or excuse me, like a plea agreement in this context. Uh but sometimes like, you know, you're in situations where uh victims and after, you know, events like that, they don't you know, they they don't think the most rationally if you will. And they can let their emotions guide them and see the evidence differently. And ultimately too, if whenever you go to trial, there is a risk, you know what I mean, always on both sides. Like, you know, as much as the evidence can be, right? It's like football, you still got to throw it, you still got to catch it. And you know, still got to present the case, still got to close the case. Who knows what could come up in between all that, you know, it's all make sure you cross your T's, dot your I's. And the defense is going to be doing everything they can to make sure you didn't cross a T or dot an I correctly and make an issue out of it. the best advocate for their client. Which they should. And quite frankly, I'm impressed with what I saw in this defense briefing by Tyler Robinson's attorneys. The fact they argued that way with the obstruction of justice, I thought that was a great argument. You know, I I got I'm going to actually remember that argument. Now, I'll be interested to see if they're successful in it, but as a lawyer myself, ha, very witty argument to come up with in order to beat the prosecution. So, I will take down that note. But, guys, that is all we are going to have for tonight. I really hope you enjoyed this live stream. I enjoyed presenting with you a little bit on this. Please like and subscribe. We always need that. And leave a comment below telling me your thoughts on this case and what you think is going to be the result. Are we going to be bound over for trial? What's going to be the main evidence? Who are going to be our main witnesses? What are they going to be the, you know, the the central points to be had in the case? Will any defenses arise? What will be Tyler Robinson's position? He did it and he did it for this reason or he didn't do it and it was somebody else. But again, we must remember Tyler Robinson is innocent until proven guilty. And it's a jury trial, so the people of Utah will find the facts as the jury and the court will then apply those facts to the law. But the jury is the one to find the facts. So,