[Commentary · Candace Owens] Candace Owens VANISHES After Bombshell Tyler Robinson Defense Filing | Guest Host Arty Trolls

Document text

COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "Candace Owens VANISHES After Bombshell Tyler Robinson Defense Filing | Guest Host Arty Trolls" (published 2026-08-13).
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=DtCZ8nctqSY) — verbatim ASR.

[music] >> [music] >> You are now entering a dangerous liberty zone where God-given natural rights are held sacred and exercised. This is your warning. Tyranny, fascism, and censorship will not be tolerated. Ideas will be exchanged freely. Rigorous debate and open discourse is encouraged. If you're weak and your beliefs are fragile, you should leave now. Prepare yourself. We are now live on the >> Hey, how's it going everybody? It's a little bit of a strange setup here, isn't it? I don't even know how I got in here. Just trapped in a box with uh a whole bunch of new faces, it looks like. How's everyone doing? So, uh, we got a little bit of, uh, Candace Owens on the run today. I think I think she's, uh, feeling a little bit of pressure. What do you guys think about that? Let me know. I got to get you guys actually pulled up on my other screen here. For some reason, I don't have that. So, let's go ahead and pull you guys up and get that muted. There we go. Ah, how y'all doing here? We got Zoe, we have uh Samurai, we have Juju Bee, and thank you all so much for coming in here. Glad to see you all over in the other chat. Heck yeah. So, we got a little bit of a show. We're going to be watching Baron Coleman try to break down this uh document. I haven't watched it yet myself because just go into it fresh, see what happens. All righty. Let's um let's go over some crazy stuff that's happened today, though. Apparently, Gary has got into it with a priest. I'm just going to leave it at that. Use your imaginations. We're gonna We're gonna go ahead. Uh Jen, uh let's go ahead and uh uh pop this in. I think we should uh take a look over at this. So, apparently everything in this image is fake and gay. Let's let that linger a little bit. This is what I call tension. There's a priest involved. No, we'll we'll we'll go ahead and scroll down here, guys. Even priests aren't immune to brain rot. Okay, so Joseph Dearzio, apparently, I guess he's a real priest. I uh had no idea. In fact, I didn't even know that he claimed to be a priest whenever uh I saw this earlier. So, that's kind of shocking. You would think that a priest would take a little bit of time to at least uh do a little bit of research before making claims. and he does make one heck of a claim. So, let's go ahead and read through some of these, or all three of these, I suppose. Even priests aren't immune to brain rot. Before you keep endorsing evil that leads to greater damnation and leads Christians astray, reflect on these clergy participating in attacking widows. Matthew 23:14. I know I said this wrong, clergy, but I don't care. I don't care. Come at me, Candace fans. Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye devour widows, houses, and for a pretense making long prayer. Therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation, bearing false witness. Proverbs 6:169 19 6:16-19. These things doth the doth the Lord hate. Yay, seven are an abomination unto him, a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood. A heart and heart that divisth wicked imaginations that feel or feet that be I am reading from a screen far away from me. I'm sorry, guys. Feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that sweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 19:9, "A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish." Biblical commandments for protecting widows. Exodus 22:22- 24. Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry out all unto me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall hot uh shall wax hot. I almost said hot wax. I am I've already got my mind too far in the gutter on this. And I will kill you with the sword and your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless. Isaiah 1:17. Learn to do well. Seek judgment. Relive the oppressed. Judge the fatherless. Plead for the widow. Zechariah 7:10. And oppress not the widow, not the fatherless, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor. And let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. Deuteronomy 27:19. Cursed be he that preventeth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, "Amen." Clergy endorsing sin. Romans 16:17-18. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them, for they are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Think that was uh pretty well said. And apparently, Father Joseph has taken some notice here. So, hello Paramount Tactical. I hope I'm reading these in the right order. If not, well, I'm sure we can piece it together. Peace be with you. Something I think that is really important is firstly to note that Candace Owens has never directly accused Erica of murder. I can already feel everybody typing in chat right now. Yeah, apparently she's never done that. Like I said, you would think that a preacher or priest, um, whatever you would call him, you would certainly think that he would at least take 5 seconds to do some research to make sure that she didn't call d or not call, but directly claim that Erica Kirk had something to do with Charlie's murder. It's unbelievable to me because we're going to get into that. the hard evidence that is of her directly, you know, accusing Erica Kirk of just straight up murder, but you know, I mean, it's cool. I'm sure he overlooked it. She has asked questions regarding actions or statements of Erica. If Candace has made a baseless claim, it's important to point out the specific claim and explain why it's false. It is not sufficient to just say Candace is a liar or guilty of calumny. I am not familiar with that word. I'll be honest. It's okay. It's okay. We're all in the same boat. We're in the same boat with Candace. We can uh get words wrong together. Not that you are asserting that what happened to Charlie was evil and affected the whole nation. We agree. And I pray for Erica, her family, and for their consolation. I do not condone uh derision. So on that score, any person, whether it be Candace or not, engaging in that behavior ought to repent and apologize. Derision is essentially mocking a person in order that others may view them contemptuously. Well, I guess uh when we get to that tweet, I think you all know where that's going. I've already well that leaked message, not tweet, but the tweets of the leaked message. I've already stated this clearly in previous conversations on X. That being said, several points need to be established. Firstly, no person is exempt from examination, especially a public figure. A person being widowed does not exempt one from being asked questions. That's not what we're upset about. We don't care if questions are asked. We care about claims. Though I do not accuse Erica Kirk, it simply should be noted that we even read in scripture that it is possible for one who is a widow to be wicked. Yeah, they're called uh what was the name for those? Oh, yeah. Black widows. Yeah, we'll be we'll probably pull that up, too, because that's a that's a great example. I'm glad he brought it up. I almost forgot. She called Erica Kirk a black widow. Why do we call them that again? I'm really confused by that by that name. So sadly people will read this and say therefore you are saying Erica is wicked. No, that's not what I'm saying. No, no, I never even thought that. Not even for one second. Unless you said that she was wicked. Why would we accuse Erica Kirk of or Candace Owens of calling Erica Kirk a black widow or a murderer and then twist your message? It's a little easier than that. So, I'm pointing out that turning to passages of scripture that speak of widows does not automatically sanctify a person or grant them a pass at being asked a real question. Nor does it automatically make a person incapable of sin. Consider Athalia, if I'm saying that right, who was the mother of Isaiah, which we read about in two chronicles, I am going to be terrible with biblical names. I'm just going to put that right out there right now. Um, we read that when our husband's when our husband Jerome dies, she launched a massacre on the southern kingdom. And we read, "When Atheilia, Athelia, mother of Isaiah, saw her son was dead, she began to kill off the whole royal family of the house of Judah." 2 Chronicles 22:10. And for the sons of Athalia, the wicked woman had broken up the temple of God. 2 Chronicles 24:7. To be clear, my point here is not to accuse Erica Kirk. My point is to argue against blanket claims gaslighting of those who ask questions by employing any scripture passage that speaks of widows. In all fairness, I don't know if we had to ask questions of her slaughtering an entire kingdom, but I think that's um not really fair to compare. I don't think that's apples to apples in all fairness, but uh who am I to judge this? Oh, sorry about that, guys. Anyway, so one can accept that Oh, wait. Did I read this part? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Yep. One can accept that widows should be treated with care and compassion because of the loss of their husband while also starting stating that the nature of being a widow does not make a person either immaculate or immune to begin asking questions nor from being wicked as we read in Chronicles regarding Athalia. Finally, you mentioned a passage from Romans. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them, for they are such serve not Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Firstly, when we speak of causing offenses contrary to the doctrine, this is quite the opposite. I speak in defense of the doctrine received since it is cath since it is the Catholic Church that possesses the fullness of the truth and hands down the teachings of teachings via sacred tradition. Oh man, he said that as a matter of fact, didn't he? Watch out Protestants. Um [laughter] we're going to start a war here. That's what we're going to do. Where are the Protestants in chats in chat here? Get your pitchforks ready. No. Uh that's uh they'll probably do that in Scotland or something. Those to be avoided are actually promoters of error, such heresy, etc. I am a defender of the faith handed down to the saints through the one holy catholic and apo uh apostolic church. Another part of this passage I wish to touch upon is not serving Christ but their own bellies. Here we can make a connection with the passage regarding the uh Pharisees devouring the houses of widows. Our Lord's accusation was that the Pharisees under the religious pretext were exploiting the needy and most vulnerable to their own gain. Well, yes, that we Why do we need that explained at all? That's exactly what we're talking about. In what way am I exploiting Erica Kirk? I don't did I don't recall Gary saying that he specifically did that. Am I missing uh I'm not missing anything, am I? If you are accusing me of belonging to our lord's woe, are you saying Candace is exploiting Erica in what way? Um, he's just saying before you keep endorsing evil that leads to greater damnation and leads to Christians astray, reflect on these. Like that's not an accusation of you doing anything. That's saying that you are endorsing Candace Owens. Like I I don't know how that was. So, how is this lost on him? That's what I got from it anyway. Uh, I don't know. I don't I don't know. That doesn't make much sense to me. I think he should have been able to pick up on that pretty easily that Gary was simply at least I don't want to speak for Gary but it looked to me like Gary was just simply saying hey before you endor endorse Candace Owens and the rhetoric she's spewing. So I don't know it just seemed pretty obvious to me. A final note is that being false witness firstly should be noted that according to St. Thomas and Cecilia uh Cecilia Bach, I would assume, on the subject of lying. A lie is when one speaks other than what is in their mind via outward signs and with the intention to deceive. Oh, I get it. He's calling Candace own schizophrenic. Gotcha. Because she'd have to actually believe what she's saying. Are you accusing Candace of being a liar? If so, please state the lie. Why is it a lie and the truth? I think we've shown plenty of Candace Owen's lies, have we not? Have we not uh seen plenty of Candace Owens lies? I think we could name probably quite a bit. Uh I imagine that this chat's getting unbelievably uh an unbelievable amount of comments here that are going to show him wrong. I'm kind of curious. Let's see. Uh I will state the lies for you. Well, it's almost like that was just too easy. Candace claimed that BB never sent Charlie a letter that was proven false within the first week. Candace Owens said that an exploding microphone killed Charlie. that has been debunked in nuh numer well has been debunked numerous times. Candace also claimed that Israel was behind the murder of Charlie Kirk with no evidence no proof that has been debunked numerous times. That's a lie. Candace said that Erica Kirk went to a milit a military base and plotted the assassination of Charlie Kirk. That has deepened Okay. That has deepened debunked numerous times. I'm sorry, man. I don't I'm not trying to make fun of you. I promise I'm uh I I don't know what you were trying to say there. Uh for that part, Candace said that they were mole people that killed Charlie Kirk. That has been debunked numerous times. Did she actually say the mole people part? I always find a new conspiracy every day with Candace Owens. It's kind of like opening up a treasure chest. You know what I mean? Going through or like opening up your old toy chest and just digging to the bottom. You just don't know what you're going to come across that's been gone for a long long time. That's hilarious. Mole people. I wonder what happened to the mole people. Candace Owens said that she would stop when Erica Kirk told her to stop and she has only continued. Candace Owens said anytime any place I'll debate and then when that time was given she bailed and lied. Candace Owens said that there was no video of Tyler Robinson on the University Utah campus and that was debunked numerous times. Candace Owens said that Brian Harpool plotted the assassination of Charlie Kirk and that has be done be debunked numerous times. Tongue twister there. the next time you speak, you should probably know what you're speaking about because uh because the subject you clearly have no clue and you know, hate to be rude to a I really I genuinely do hate to be rude to a preacher or anything like that. Not trying to be, but sometimes it really is better to just I don't know, hop on AI and just kind of Google your question to AI maybe before you put it out here on the internet. That's my advice. I'm not saying trust AI, but for the love of God, just it wouldn't hurt to double check. If you're fixing to put a tweet out, maybe type that tweet into AI or something like that and then ask Grock, be like, "How accurate would this tweet be if I posted it?" I'm sure Grock will have a couple things cooked up for you to uh maybe just explore and look at and consider before hitting send. Just a little bit of advice there. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy though. Maybe people will sit there and say that I'm uh relying on AI too much. So, let's jump jump on over here. We're going to get to Gary's uh final response here. Let's see. Share this tab. Alrighty. So, here we go. This is my original response to someone else regarding Joseph Demarzio. And instead of responding to me, he decided to post and tag me in Candace Owens, which seems to indicate spotlight seeking motives. man. Yeah. Yeah, I would definitely have to agree. I mean, he he had to sit there and signal for Candace to come in. Um I wonder if she's going to defend him. Original post here. Okay. Before Oh, I haven't even read this tweet yet. So, here we go. I think this is going to vindicate me a little bit for what I said a second ago. Before you keep endorsing evil that leads to greater damnation and leads Christians astray, reflect on these clergy participating in attacking widows. Yeah. Matthew 23:14. Wo unto you scribes the scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites for ye devour widows. Uh oh, wait, wait, wait. I already uh I already read through all this, of course. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, this was his uh Yeah, your original post. Exactly. I don't know. Reading's hard on X. You know, you can't expect people to know how to read when they jump on to jump onto X. For some reason, they have to insert words that don't exist. Okay. So he said uh hey Paramount Tactical why did you leave at you mean out the first part of your post which was directed at me? It was I don't Yes. He said this is my original response to someone else regarding Joseph Demarzio. Okay. Yeah. All right. So why did you leave this part out of your post? Whatever. Also I responded via post because sometimes I've had issues. Who cares? Just pay attention to what's actually being said. So anyway, we have this. This look familiar, guys? First question. Why did you murder your husband? I just don't understand. Is somebody paying these preachers? I don't know. I have no idea what's going on here. I don't know where this is coming from. Who's the puppet master? Is it the left? Is it Islam? Is it Marussia? I have no clue at this point. It's uh it's getting murky. It's getting really murky in my opinion. I don't know. Maybe it's clear to other people. Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but this is just mind-blowing to me. Mind-blowing. This is supposed to be an individual that has spent all his time studying. He knows how to do research. He absolutely knows how to do research. He could look into all of this stuff before he even begins to try and defend Candace Owens. If Candace Owens was just asking questions, I could give a crap less. I really could. I don't care. I love conspiracy theories. I think they're fun. I've had a lot of fun listening to conspiracy theories my whole life. It's fun to listen to. It's fun to consider. Never once in my life have I decided to get so wrapped up in a theory without evidence. It's wild. Like I could consider what and Candace Owens says and be like, "Oh, okay. Yeah, maybe there's some weird stuff here. Maybe there's some weird stuff there." Right? It's not exactly that difficult. Where you completely lose me is when you go, "This person did this. This person covered this up. TPS USA covered up a crime. No evidence whatsoever." That's a huge issue. That's not the right way to go about it. That's inexcusable. You can't accuse people without evidence. There is none whatsoever. So, I don't know. I don't know why uh people ignore that. They pretend it doesn't happen unless maybe they're getting paid, which is great. You know that the other side accuses all of us of getting paid. I have not received, by the way, a single dime. Not a single shekele. Not a single anything from overseas, from anyone, period. I've never been paid to make these claims. I've never been paid to make these videos ever. So, I know where I stand. And I know when people are accusing me of it, something is very messed up. So, it makes me wonder if it's just projection. But, of course, I don't have any evidence. So, I can't even really make the claim that they are getting paid. But, I find it to be weird. I guess maybe I'm not allowed to ask questions, though. So, there is that. All right, that is a What do you guys think about this? I'm going to check chat. What What do y'all think about uh about this preacher here? Is uh does does he deserve a little bit of grace? Do you think he'll come out and apologize? Maybe? Let's see. Concentrate on the defense statement released. Oh, that's uh it's a weird opinion. No. Uh yeah. Yeah, we could go over that maybe. Um or we could have our buddy Baron Coleman go over it. How about that? What if we have our best friend of the channel here, Baron Coleman? He's a He's a buddy, right? He's a bro. He's uh he's been a wild guest. We could uh watch some of his breakdown on it. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm sure it's going to be hilarious. I'm sure he's gonna [sighs] add a little bit of fluff in there. What do you guys think? Should we uh should we do that? Or actually, you know what? I got a little short thing for us. I think we ought to watch a little bit of Andrew Wilson. He's giving us some good news today. It's about three hours old. I don't think that's considered old news yet. If uh if you all want to, we could uh go ahead and uh watch a little bit of Andrew Wilson. Let's see what he's got to say here. Well, I'm off. He's a little quiet there. Let's crank that up. See? Well, I'm off for the debate tomorrow. Should be awesome for me. It'll be Well, it'll at least be awesome for me. What do you guys say we win this thing once and for all? >> Little bit of words of encouragement. So, it's on. We're going to be live tomorrow. We're going to have a good time. It's going to be hilarious in my opinion, but we'll see what happens. We'll definitely see what happens. I think Candace Owens is bit off a little bit more than what she could chew. And I think that's why she canled yesterday's stream and today's stream. She's uh feeling a little bit of pressure. These documents came out that we're going to Yeah, I think this was uh this was a big mistake for Candace. But hey, maybe we'll get proven wrong. Maybe we'll just eat our words. Maybe I'll have to find a hat, choke it down somewhere, and uh cope for the rest of my life in the corner of a bedroom. I guess we'll see what happens. So, you guys ready to watch some uh a little bit of Baron Coleman? I don't know how far we'll be able to make it into this. Um I don't know. Hopefully we'll have a little bit of fun doing it. Uh let's see here. Uh this is a jeez a three-hour long stream. It took him three hours to read 33 pages. Is that a or 31 pages? Right. 33 is the whole I wish it was 33. That would have been hilarious if they narrowed it down to 33 pages. Uh or is it 41 pages? It's There's a decent amount of pages there. Don't think it takes three hours to read though, but maybe it takes him that long. So, let's go ahead. We'll jump on into it. Uh, Jen, uh, just out of curiosity, uh, about how how long do we have here? >> You have as long as you would like, Arty. Go as late as you want. Do as much as you want. We're totally down for it. Although I can tell you that probably the audience would appreciate him being put on 1.5 times speed because he likes to drag things out. >> That sounds good to me. I can definitely do that. I could tell just by his uh the how long it took him to read uh 30 to 40 pages here. Uh clearly does like to drag things out. Holy cow. Alrighty. Well, I appreciate it, I guess. Um, all right guys. Woo. This is going to be a long stream today. We're going to go 24 hours. No, no, I'm not doing that to y'all. Like, there's no way I could punish you guys that much. There's a there's a limit to how much arty needs to be on the internet. That's for sure. Things start getting wild. All righty. Let's uh [laughter] we'll jump right on Oh. Oh. Oh. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry, guys. Welcome in. Welcome in. Welcome in. >> Can we do that? Like how did how Wait, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I'm I'm too curious. Okay, come here. No. Okay, we're going to restart this. How does this look on like Um, >> all right. All right. Yeah. Yeah, that's enough. >> Music a little too much there. Uh, for those of you who always watch the replays, you have no idea what I'm talking about because that theme music gets trimmed out about an hour or so. >> Is this uh is this loud enough for everybody? Let's do a little bit of a sound check here, guys. Uh, you all hearing this in the chat? Do I need to bump this up? Just >> sounds a little quiet to me. >> A little bit, please. >> All righty. Uh, how's this? >> Welcome in. Welcome in. We got a big show today because nobody knows what the hell's going on. And by nobody, I mean fence lovers. They have no clue how to read legal documents. They don't know what they mean. Uh, everybody's >> all righty. >> Swing to X to try to figure out Tyler Robinson's attorneys really admit that he did everything. No, guys. No, we'll cover that. We'll cover it all um in just a little bit. I apologize for the matinea edition, but it's really convenient on a Wednesday. [laughter] It allows the Baptist to get to church in the night. So guys, church is on meeting. >> Why don't you give him 1.5 points? We got a lot to cover today. This is going to be a big show. We got a lot to cover today. Um, by way of schedule tomorrow, we'll probably go around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. God's time central daylight time. Uh, because Candace has already announced she will not be doing a show tomorrow on account of preparing her studio for Smoke Boy to arrive on Friday, if he does in fact arrive. >> Commentary on that a little bit. >> Don't know how that happened. Um, is that really what they're going to be calling him? Is Smoke Boy. They couldn't have came up with anything better. >> I I want to do a few minutes on that. uh probably the last I'll say about it before Friday, but unless something else happens else happens. But I do want to go through the filing somewhat in detail, not line by line, but somewhat in detail. >> Um I want to show you what the fed sloppers are saying about it because they are making idiots out of themselves. Even some of them purported lawyers from Canada, the little dimminionive Viva Fry, uh the little small fry. He is >> he's he's commenting on it like he's some sort of Uton legal expert. And he apparently is not. He is not at all. Um >> he's not a You don't think he's a legal expert? >> This is the pot calling the kettle black. And then we're gonna check in on our buddy Frank the Frank the Snake. Frank the Snake Turk Turk. He is a lunatic. He has a pamphlet out on how to help stand his spouses. We'll look at that a little bit. Also, >> JD Vance has a new book out. Where is it for sale? Where can you get it? Well, it might surprise you. It might really really surprise you. I mean, like a lot. So, we'll cover that as well. Uh, and we got a few other things on the back end we might have time to get to. I'm not sure if we will or not. But, let me let me sort of back up real quickly uh by way of sort of an opening. Let me let me be a quasi opening today. Let me sort of give you an idea of how the criminal justice system works in the United States because if you are a fed slopper, you apparently have no idea. Um, if you are foreign, I doubt you have much of an idea. And >> well, I guess I'm going to get educated today, guys. Uh, let's find out. Let's see if uh I'm just completely out of my league here. So, I don't really know how it works. Uh, okay. >> Even many here in America are confused and baffled by it. Watching NYPD Blue and CSI and you know, everything's done in an hour. you you have a it opens with a dead body uh and then within the hour they've reached a jury verdict and that's just not the way it works in real life. In real life these things take time. >> Yeah, >> there's several steps along the way. There are a lot of boring hearings. Um I declined the offer to >> participate in a lot of blowby-blow commentary and those commentaries did very well during the preliminary hearing. They did very very well. But I declined the offer to um to be on there with them because eight hours of covering relatively frankly boring legal maneuvering around the courtroom and introduction of evidence is not exactly very exciting to me particularly at the >> It's probably bad for your audience too for them to see the evidence. That would have been a big mistake. Yeah, I noticed that none of the real none of the Candace people really decided to stream the court, but all the uh people who are, you know, actually interested in what happened September 10th, they all seem to be streaming it and watching it and, you know, informing themselves. I find that to be a little weird. See, the funny thing about it is is people don't understand why I watch Candace Owens. Well, you got to watch stuff from the opposite side of the news and get as informed as you possibly can. That way you can make informed decisions. But I find it funny that the people on Baron Coleman's side here and Candace Owen's side, they don't like to look at anything outside of their bubble. It's very leftlike. It's very leftleaning. I would say preliminary stage. I just figured I'd come on at the end of the day and if anything decent happened, we'd summarize it at the end of the day. And that's how we handled the preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing is not closed, believe it or not. There was five days, but it's not over. Uh part of the judge's schedule on this preliminary hearing is that he gave each side an opportunity to provide a written summation. And we got the states written summation last week. Yesterday we got the defense's written summation and we'll cover it a little bit today. And then they'll even have an oral summation. They'll come into court on September 1st, I believe, and they'll give an oral summation and then the judge will rule one way or the other sometime on or after September 1st. That's just part of this. This is not the trial. This is not to determine uh what evidence goes in front of the jury. This is not an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing will determine whether a particular piece of evidence goes in front of the jury. There might be a suppression hearing, whether a piece of evidence cannot go in front of a jury. Those things take place afterwards. Then you'll have motions and limiting and then sometimes those go to hearings and that will be determining what can and can't be said, what can and can't be introduced, what can and can't be hinted at or you know it's some of them are pretty complex and so we'll have those along the way. We'll have 702 hearings in all likelihood and that's when the state will name an expert, the defense will name an expert on a given topic and then we'll have a hearing on whether or not that person is in fact an expert and what are the sort of bounds of their expertise? What are they allowed to what are they allowed to discuss? By the time we get to trial, most of these issues will be hashed out. What we had uh July what 10thish or so couple weeks ago and what we're getting our filings on last week and yesterday is the preliminary hearing. This is just a gatekeeping step. It's a little anneronistic, if we're being honest. Um, it almost always passes, but all the state has to do, and I'll pull up the the case law in just a minute, kind of outlining the state's burden, but all the state has to do is meet a very minimal standard, and that standard is reasonable. Is this reasonable to send to a jury? Is there a reasonable belief that this crime may have been committed in the way the prosecutors say? Is the person standing trial? Um, is there a reasonable belief that he could have done it such that a jury would need to then weigh evidence? A jury would weigh evidence. That's where you're going to bring in things like alibi. That's where you're going to bring in things like, um, you got the wrong guy. You know, it wasn't me, officer. You got the wrong guy. Uh, that's where you bring in things like, hey, the gun, uh, has dust in the barrel. It can't be fired. What we have at the preliminary stage is the prosecution is basically the architect of the preliminary hearing. Um, in a lot of states, the defense may not even be there. Uh, they may do this all behind a closed door in something called a grand jury where it's just the prosecutor. There's not even a judge. Believe it or not, the judge only gets involved in a grand jury if there's an issue, but it's just the prosecutor and it's just the grand jurors. And they get together and they decide together as a group. And and I've been in front of a grand jury before. I was called as a witness in front of two different grand juries. Um, when you're called in front of a grand jury, it's a little different because there is no judge there. And the grand jurors start raising their hand in the middle of it and they're like, "Yes, number 17. Go ahead." And they start firing questions at you. It's a very interesting stage. Some grand juries are very active, some are less active. In Utah, they've chosen to go the preliminary hearing route. It basically substitutes for the grand jury. In a preliminary hearing, there is a judge present, but the function is largely the same. Did the prosecution meet its very minimal burden? It's reasonable belief that something might have happened the way we're telling you it happened. In other words, the prosecution's theory in the Tyler Robinson case is that Tyler Robinson climbed on top of the Los Center roof on September 10th, pulled out a 306, fired a single round, and killed Charlie Kirk. Nothing else really matters. Uh there were some other charges tampering with witnesses. And >> so the other charges don't matter at all. Is that what he's trying to say? I wonder >> some aggravating factors. We'll talk about those today. But the meat and bones of the case is that that limited set of facts. It's not an element of the crime whether or not he walked onto the campus and went through the parking garage. So it doesn't really matter whether you argue that that was or was not Tyler Robinson. It's not an element of the crime to be in the stairwell. So it's not It's not something that you're going to spend a lot of time arguing that he wasn't in the stairwell. It's not >> I wonder is uh Utah does is it a uh concealed carry state where you can conceal carry without a without a license? Just out of curiosity because I know that's not the way it is in Oklahoma. You can open carry here, but you can't conceal carry without a license. If it's the same way on uh in in Utah, then he was conceal carrying a rifle underneath his clothing. So, that actually would be a crime if he's walking through there doing that. May not be the biggest crime, but it actually technically is a crime, especially if we could see evidence that he had his rifle in his pants there. No pun intended. But, you know, he admitted to it and you could see him on video. So, yeah, that I I would say that's probably probably a crime. Uh oh, I can definitely slow it down if people want to, but it is a very long stream. I don't know if we'll even be able to get through all of it. I would like to just get some of his like Well, you know what? OH. OH, I see. So, like half of it is uh Okay. Half of his stream is him going over it. The other half is just reading super chats. Okay. Well, I respect that a little bit more than Candace Owens picking only like three super chats out of everyone that super chatted cuz, you know, kind of feel bad for those people. But if you're, you know, dumb enough to super chat to Candace Owens, I guess, then whatever. enjoy throwing your money out into the void and not getting it even so much as read or looked at. That's a that's a great perk. Thank you, Candace. H I find it to be funny though. >> An element of the crime is in text messages. Now, it could be it could further the the illumination of one of the elements of the crime if there were things incriminating in those text messages, but sending a text is not an element of the crime. You can commit murder without sending text messages. You can commit murder without being in the stairwell. You can commit murder without being in the parking garage. >> Oh, I could have. >> And so, as we look at this, it's important to frame it properly. It's important to frame it properly and I'm going to do it by contrast and direct examination on this. I'm going to look at the filing itself and then I'm going to contrast with what the Fed slappers are saying about it because I think they're intentionally misleading you. Not all of them. Some of them are going along to get along or they think they're being smart but they're actually stupid. They don't >> you talking about me understand what they're saying. So let's dive into this thing. Let's let's jump feet first into this thing. Um but before we get there >> and he thought I was stupid. You go head first in shallow water first, dummy. Before we get there, I want to show you sort of the operating law in Utah relative to um to the standards we're dealing with here. There there's I've got to give you ahead of time. We're going to come back and look at this after the case as well. This is a case in Utah called Utah versus >> This is tripping me out. It's a Streamyards and a Streamyards >> Virgin >> Utah versus Virgin. You will see this cited all over the place. I am not a Utah lawyer. I I tell you right now, I'm not a Utah lawyer. I very well could misunderstand some aspects of Utah law. Don't take this as >> Yeah. Don't you know Utah has its own time. To be a Utah lawyer, you got to re be something real special. >> Definitive. Tyler Robinson's team will not be watching this and preparing based on anything I say. But based on my research, this is a very good case for us to look at. >> Oh, I forgot every time I did. Oh, don't email that email account. All right. Um, I want to roll through some of this because paragraphs 21 to 25 here sort of really give us a good idea of what we're dealing with. When you send something to trial, when the judge gets something in the preliminary hearing stage and he decides, "Yes, I want to send this to trial." In Utah, they call it a bind over. We are binding it over to trial. Meaning, I as the magistrate, I as the judge sitting at the preliminary hearing, who's known as the magistrate. I am going to send this for jury consideration. We will now start the process. He will have to enter a plea at this point. Are you guilty or not guilty? You know, Tyler Robinson still has not entered a plea whether he's guilty or not guilty. >> Then we can start the discovery. I I I I don't think we need all this explained to this detail. Is this like Utah law related? Okay. Can we skip all that and get Yeah, I'm just going to skip all that. We get it. We understand how a trial works. We understand how a preliminary trial works for the most part. I don't think we need Baron Coleman to explain this to us. I just want to see him read the documents directly now and see what he has an issue with. >> Through some of my notes, I made notes as I read this. One of the first things you should do Oh, let me pull it up first. One of the first things you should do when you're ever confronted with a filing like this, don't start reading at the top. Don't just scroll down and start reading. Okay, we got a bunch of authorities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Where are we? Where are we? Uh, let's get to the intro. Here we go. Now, let's start reading. No, that's not how you read these. That's not how you >> What do we do? Start from the conclusion and work our way backward. What are we in Japan? We read right to left. It's really funny. Don't start with the intro. Okay. >> Read these. Let's >> Okay. >> Instead, you scroll all the way to the bottom. Oh, okay. >> Scroll all the way to the bottom. This will give you the road map. Go to the bottom and look at the conclusion. Go to Okay. I was joking. But all right. I mean, we can read the conclusion first. There's nothing wrong with that. But that was way too funny. That was way too funny. Yeah, we could Let's just start from the beginning, though. Like, why what's wrong with that? The conclusion is a nice uh I don't know. I think it's a nice little happy ending that takes place at the conclusion, but uh do you want to read off the conclusion first? I wonder if he reads off the conclusion at all at the very end because that's a good way to get the conclusion out of the way and then spend a lot more time on all the rest of the documents nitpicking it and then get people to in your audience forget exactly what they concluded >> and look at the conclusion. We're scroll. There we go. Now we have a road map for how to read this thing. >> You read the conclusion first. I start with left and then go right, but okay. And then down. >> In relying largely on hearsay deemed reliable by rule, the state has failed to prove >> exactly >> uh has failed to prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of each of the charged evidence. Right there is them saying that is the defense saying, "We concede nothing. We concede nothing. We do not concede that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk." That is uh not even what they said whatsoever in this actually. See? Okay. So, he is trying to manipulate his audience right there from the beginning. Uh they don't even talk about technically speaking if they if he did or didn't necessarily shoot Charlie. I mean, they kind of did. It's just not in your favor. They said that when he shot Charlie, he didn't endanger anybody else. I don't know about you, but I kind of take that to be uh a little bit of admission. But maybe I'm dead wrong about that. Maybe I shouldn't have read it that way. Maybe he'll teach me how to read English from right to left instead of uh left to right because apparently we're doing it wrong. >> We don't concede that Tyler Robinson did anything illegal. Text messages, confessed to anything. They told Lance Twigs not to comply, knew there were 14-year-olds in the crowd. We concede nothing. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know how to read a legal filing. >> Okay. Well, then let's read through the legal filing and see what they actually said because you're dead wrong. >> Or they're fundamentally a dishonest actor. I think there's a little bit of both. >> Go to the conclusion first and then close the rest people to do essentially. >> So, they concede absolutely nothing. >> Not true. >> For this reason alone, the court must decline bind over. Not bind over on particular charges. Bind over on everything. >> Not even what they're referring to. They are. And just, you know, spoiler for anybody who doesn't know, they're referring to four specific points that they make throughout this document. Um, Baron Coleman was kind of smart to do this. See, get everybody. He knows that retention on his live streams is probably going to be about the first 20 minutes. As we can see here, in the first 22 minutes, 50 seconds, people are going to come through here. They're going to read this. He's going to tell them, "See, if you don't start here, you don't know what you're doing. Here it is. They already poisoning the well by saying well they concede nothing including him shooting Charlie Kirk but they don't even mention that really in the document and in that way in that context they are talking about four specific uh what would you call them enhancement charges on top of the original charge of murder they're not talking about the original charge of murder at all in these documents but then after they see Baron Coleman post this give his little rant about the conclusion usion tell people they don't know how to read the document then they think they have enough information. Dunning Krueger goes full however many chromosomes you need to be for that you know to get that going in your system and then they click off the video and then they think they have the full information. Pretty simple. But I bet whenever we go through all these files, I wonder how he's going to react when we get to the pages that specifically talk about Tyler Robinson ending Charlie Kirk's life, but without the intention of in of harming another. I wonder how he's going to squeeze up his rear end and uh pucker for the camera here when he gets to that line. I guess we'll find out. >> They're going to go with their strongest argument. The state has not provided the court with sufficient evidence as a matter of law to satisfy the sole aggravator. >> Yes. started the bottom wrapped up. >> So, we know they're going to spend a long time talking about the aggravator charge. That's the charge that elevates this to the death penalty. >> Under controlling constitutional law and Utah Supreme Court interpretation, the court cannot find based on the state's evidence that the circumstances presented a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk and himself and that the shooter knew of this high probability of the death of another. In other words, >> okay, so in other words, what it says specifically here that he was not putting a great risk of death to another than Charlie Kirk and himself. I wonder who is himself in uh documents about Tyler Robinson. I wonder if that could be Erica Kirk or wait, no, they could be talking about Candace Owens, right? Or maybe even Lance Twigs in documents about Tyler Robinson specifically. I I don't know. I'm I'm I'm I must be a little slow. Who could they be talking about, guys? In a document about Tyler Robinson, who would be himself? Man, I'm I'm just at a loss for words. Uh maybe you should throw some blues clues in there cuz I'm just too dumb to understand what himself means. >> They did not meet this burden. Even if you find that he did meet, they say did meet the burden on preventing presenting enough credible. >> Billy, did they say even if you can find on this document? I don't read that anywhere. Maybe it's in the fine print. You know how those lawyers are >> evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? We do not believe they met this aggravator burden. Finally, this is your next strongest argument. The court should decline bind over on aggravators count six and seven. And we'll talk about what those counts are in just a minute. So, >> great. Well, I already know that there's going to be some annoying people typing 67. So, let's [sighs] We could have skipped that part. >> Understand that you're being lied to. If you're talking to anyone, if you're reading anything that says that the state conceded Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, that person is either an idiot or a liar. There's no third option. They're either in the writing uninformed words in their mouths. That's not a liar. >> If you're hearing it from a lawyer, they're a liar because they know how to read these documents. If you're hearing it from some feds slopper, they might just be a paid operative running with talking points from a group chat, the group of 92, the group of 40, or some other group chat. That would be a reasonable interpretation. Now, >> oh no. God knows. Yeah, you're probably right. I bet these documents are in those group chats. Oh no. [laughter] Oh, how terrible. When they're in public, it's okay, but when they're in a group chat, it's evil. >> So, let's go to the introduction. Now, one more thing I'll say about this real quickly. >> If you get a thousand lawyers to all try this case, we're all going to try it differently. >> If you get lawyers to write this brief, we're all >> thousand different outcomes for what happens with Tyler Robinson here. I think there's two. It's either guilty or not guilty. I don't know. Maybe I'm again, maybe I'm dumb, but I'm pretty sure if he gets found not guilty on the murder of Charlie Kirk, he's probably not going to be found guilty on anything else. And if he's found guilty on anything else, then yeah, he's going to be guilty of murdering Charlie Kirk. Uh, I don't know. I don't see a thousand different ways on this, but all right. It's just a matter of opinion. I mean, you have the four gospels and they were all differently, right? How many angels were present at the resurrection? Well, depends on who you read. >> Who got to the tomb first? It depends on who you read, what was said. It depends on which gospel you read. There are differences in those stories. That's the foundational fundamental story of Christianity. And it differs based on who wrote it. Don't take my word for it. Go look it Does it is uh I thought God was the author here. Does uh did did I hear that right? Does like what? >> That's the foundational fundamental story of Christ said. It depends on which gospel you read. There are differences in those stories. That's the foundational fundamental story of Christianity. And it differs based on who wrote it. Don't take my word for it. Go look it up. You'll see what I'm talking about. That's not to say it's not true. >> Okay? >> Just like this thing, this this case, just because I might have written this brief differently just because some other law >> was he talking about the Constitution or was he talking about the Bible? Because I think he might need to be doing a little bit of reading. I don't know. >> Lawyer might have written this brief differently. Does not mean >> you may want to do just a little bit of reading and make sure. It just means that every single lawyer approaches every single case with his trillions of experiences that made up who he or she is in their life and they chose to lead uh with with a certain strategy. They chose to pursue a certain strategy. Maybe I would have chosen a different strategy. That doesn't make my strategy right and their strategy wrong. It just make them different. Now, maybe one strategy would be better. I don't know. I don't know. You had four different lawyers. >> Well, so far you've had every strategy kind of lose. Yeah. I don't I I don't know. Maybe they should uh maybe they should consult you on what not to do. on this four experienced lawyers working on this and I think you can see in based on what you are doing the different things they write they write differently >> they absolutely write differently so let me pull it back up I want to roll through some of this >> because a lot of people are reading from the top they don't read the conclusion first and they're concluding that the only thing the state I mean >> is there a problem with reading from the introduction all the way down to the conclusion and then reading through the whole conclusion like what [laughter] what is he talking about some people Just read the top. Yeah. Yeah. You're supposed to start on introduction. I don't know. I've never started on the conclusion. Like I I just had to put together a whole grill and I didn't start with the end and then go to the beginning. I I just started right at the beginning and things kind of worked out. I don't know. Uh that's that's typically how I follow instructions. >> The defense is arguing. I keep calling it the state. The only thing the defense is arguing is that the aggravator doesn't apply because right here we read the first paragraph on September 16th. They charged Tyler Robinson. The state had over 10 months to investigate and the state's presentation of its EV evidence as to this alleged circumstance and aggravation at the preliminary hearing wholly fails to carry its burden of proof. They think, "Oh, they must only be talking about the aggravating factors. They must have forgotten everything else." Well, they didn't. They didn't. It's actually in this intro as well. They talk about all >> that first intro in the argument itself. >> Wait. Oh, wait. Did he actually scream past Okay. The state has failed to prove >> I was about to have a heart attack here. I was like he actually is going to cover up the points but it's right here >> by prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of the charged evidence. >> Yeah. >> The court must decline to bind over on all charges. They are not admitting Tyler Robinson did anything that day. >> Just keep reading. If you keep reading, you'll learn something. >> Keep that in mind. He'll get there eventually. >> Keep that in mind as you read this. >> So, what are they talking about? What is the inter guinea pig in one of those mazes? >> They talk about the thing they raised time and time again. This is all based on hearsay. >> It'll take them a while to liability in Utah. That's fine. Okay. Well, if it's law in Utah, why do they keep bringing it up? Because a federal court may disagree or maybe the Utah Supreme Court will decide this is the time that they disagree and they change the law in Utah. Just because the judge is required to follow Utah law as enunciated by the Supreme Court does not mean that the litigants themselves cannot argue in good faith for a change of that law. That happens all the time. >> Cool. >> That's how laws get changed in the first place. Somebody raises the issue of the trial court, trial judge says, "I'm not allowed to do anything about it. I'm compelled to follow the law here." >> And then the Supreme Court comes along and changes the law. That happened to me in a case famously. >> The state supreme court of Florida changed the law. >> All right. Well, let's get to their first point. >> Or in order to throw out a dismissal on a case I was working on >> 28 minutes. >> Got the case dismissed at the trial court level on a criminal case because the law did not speak on his crime. >> It goes up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, "Well, we're going to change the law. We'll allow this the law now to encompass your client." Okay. Well, thanks. Appreciate that. That happens, though. That happens. And the only reason the Supreme Court changed a law is because the state argued that it should. But the trial judge said, "I have no choice. I have to dismiss this case." Just like the trial judge here is going to say, "I have no choice in the Supreme Court as it relates to the evidence cited by the state to establish identity." >> In other words, how do we know that's Tyler Robinson? Well, they're going to find out in court whenever they present the evidence, aren't they? the camera, the phone, the DNA, the vehicle, the I mean just every single part of it, the text messages. I mean it tough question though, right? How do we really know it's him with all the overwhelming evidence, right? Candace Owen's favorite word. Overwhelming evidence. How could we possibly know? >> It largely came from Lance Twigs. It largely came from Lance Twigs. He was the guy who identified >> came from Lance Twigs. I didn't know that. >> It largely came from Lance Twig's text messages. Those text messages were never authenticated. >> They are necessarily hearsay. They're they're presented to the court for the truth of the matter asserted that they are the text messages and they were never authenticated. >> Yeah, they were because here's your little theory about it. The feds either put them on there or they're real. And if the feds didn't put them on there, they're real. But why would the feds waste time putting all these messages on a phone instead of just simply I don't know if they were in on it the whole time? Couldn't they have just pre-made these text messages? Makes sense to me. Not to mention, I already showed how easy it is to change your clock on your phone. Very easy to do. I mean, if I know a lot of people here probably have iPhone, but just uh let me go ahead and I will show you. You go into settings here. Okay, pretty simple. Pretty simple. You go right on into settings. You uh go into your Where is it at? It's uh shoot into your security all that. I'll have to find it again later. I did show it. I showed uh I should probably make a quick short on it. That's what I'm going to end up doing. Showing how easy it is to change your time clock. You just take it off world clock and then you can set it on any Android. And Lance Twigs had an Android phone. You could set it anytime, anywhere. You don't have to punch a hole in your screen to hide the clock. It makes no sense. You could just set it. It's very easy. And so they're arguing here saying, "Hey, by the way, you should change the law here in Utah. This isn't right." He's talking about his texts, talking about the Discord messages, talking about talking about the identification of Tyler Robinson from U BU security footage. Again, that footage itself was never authenticated. It was just officer Bag Boy looking at it. Officer Hull looking at it saying, "Yeah, it kind of looks like Tyler." He's wearing a maroon shirt, isn't he? And everybody in a maroon shirt. >> Yeah, I'm sure that's what his parents thought, too. It was just It kind of looks like Tyler. I don't know. Couldn't be Tyler. >> Tyler Robinson. Is that what we learned from the media? >> His parents don't know what they're talking about. >> I bet you and I want to pull up this document in just a second. But the state would not permit Lance Twigs to be called as a witness in person. A witness the court would not allow Mr. Robinson to seek a subpoena from another state to testify at a preliminary hearing. The statement of Lance Quigs came in, you'll recall, as a Zoom call, a very strange looking Zoom call. >> Oh wow. Yeah, it looked how strange in comparison to any other Zoom call. >> That Zoom call looks like he's saying words at times that his mouth isn't moving. Looks like sometimes his mouth is moving and no words are coming out. Has this been edited? >> How do we know this is what they say it is? Well, they never authenticated. >> I've never seen anyone say >> and they never brought him in to testify. Here's the judge ordering that he will not >> making stuff up now. >> The defense applied >> to compel him to come testify. The state said, "No, we do not want Lance Twigs." Even though Lance Twigs is the whole sum of the case, even though we cannot possibly convict Tyler Robinson without Lance Twigs, we find Lance Twigs such a lousy witness that we don't want him anywhere near this case at this stage. We're afraid he'll blow it up for us. That's the only explanation I have. They hid Lance Twigs from us and Judge Graph went along with it. This was [clears throat] his order. >> Oh, okay. So, the judge is the dirty judge and he's in on it. That's a It's a wild thing to say on the internet. You got any evidence of that? It's a long order. It was thought out. And here's what he said. The preliminary hearing is limited to determining probable cause. It's not a discovery device. The state can rely on this hearsay. And the enforcement of the subpoena is not warranted on the present record. We go period at the end of that sentence. But I'm not judging it. >> Um, the defendant has failed to identify specific anticipated testimony that's reasonably likely to negate probable cause, >> which is ludicrous in my opinion. How do you know what he's going to say unless you ask him? As distinguished from anticipated impeachment, that would merely create competing credibility inferences. >> Why are we skipping all over to page nine, though, for this? Like, why don't you actually read it in order and get the points down of what this document's talking about? Why is it that you're pretending like this document is going over the murder charge when it's only going over four enhancement charges? See, that's uh this is a great way to disguise this. This is um exactly what Candace Owens was probably gonna try and do, but she needed two extra days to do it. But because Baron Coleman is, you know, pretty used to doing this stuff in court, that's what he decided to do. He's a little bit faster to the punch than Candace Owens on it. So, there we go. But that's what he's going to do. I guess that's exactly how we're going to watch his video. This is exactly what I thought he was going to do was skip all over the place, not show you the full document, not show you that the document was obviously just about the four enhancement charges. He wants to pin this on the murder directly to Charlie Kirk and claim that they are arguing in favor of his innocence as a whole. That's not what this document's about at all. That is absolutely crazy. Very smart. very smart thing to do whenever you want to, you know, have a cult following. These guys will never watch Gary's channel. They're never going to watch my channel. They're never going to watch Jay Wit. They're never going to watch Bronson Milkbar. They're never going to look at any of that. And as long as he can, he knows this. Baron, I keep pointing over there. He's over here on the screen, but he's over there on my screen. So, sorry guys, I'm a little bit backwards, but this is what he's doing. This is how he keeps his audience. He feeds them garbage and then they stick around for more. It's unbelievable. It's I can't believe it's this easy to do. >> Uhoh. I've lost my document. >> You [snorts] wouldn't lose it if you uh >> I'll pull it back up. I'll pull it back up. >> Lance twigs in court. Nor did the state Lance Twigs in court. That ought to tell you how confident they are in their case. >> That ought to tell you right there that the case is pretty lousy if we're being honest. >> It has to be >> pretty lousy. Now, let's go back to the uh the filing. The >> the defense would have made this claim no matter what, whether it was a good case or bad case. What are you talking about? It's their job to do that >> now that we're hilarious. >> The initial part of the argument. >> No wonder he lost so many cases. >> He was like, "Oh, it's a pretty good case. I guess I'll just let my defend >> the court I mean, the defense spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the aggregating factor. >> They spend almost no time talking about anything else. >> They spend a lot of time talking about the >> Wow. Oh, it's almost like I predicted it. You had to bring your screen off of off of the uh off the stream here. Switch from page nine to page two because something would have popped up on screen that people would have paused you on. Your face would have been right there on it and it would have been right next to the words and then they would have posted that screenshot and that would have looked pretty bad on X. >> That's what I think happened. >> In fact, it goes from page two right here. I thought my mouse was right here in front of me. >> All the way to um >> tricked myself. Page >> two all the way to where does it go? >> Clever though. >> Top of page 27. It goes from two to the top of page 27. This is all talking about the aggravation whether or not Tyler Robinson should be put to death as opposed to just life in prison or >> No. No, you're wrong. See, you're lying about that. That's not okay. the uh I could scroll back and I could show you exactly what this one uh page 2 to 27 is. Let's uh let's go back real quick to it. Uh shoot. Where is it? Introduction. I'm sure I can find it on here. It is a little tough to see it. Wow, there it is. So, page 2 to 27 is actually about page one here or this one point right here. 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. That is what page 2 to 27 is about. But he didn't want to show you this. He didn't want you to know this. It's what it seems to me. Instead, he's saying it's just an argument of the death penalty only, which I don't know if getting rid of that single charge would get rid of the death penalty or not. Um, oh, looks like he is going to go over it up here. Okay, maybe I spoke a little too soon, right? So, let's see. Let's go Let's see. I think we were right. Where's page two? Or does he pull up page two here? No, I think I'm a little too far behind. Where did he bring it back up? >> Initial talking about the aggravation. In fact, it goes from page two right here. Oh, >> okay. He did have it pulled up. I didn't even need to go look for it. >> You just scrolled down >> um page two all the way to where does it go? >> Top of page 27. It goes from two to the top of page 27. is all talking about the aggravation whether or not Tyler Robinson should be put to death as opposed to just life in prison or or just penalized for >> I don't think that single charge would be just enough to get rid of the death penalty though. I mean, he took another man's life, >> the murder itself. Is this a death penalty case? This is all going towards the agg. But I just want to show you how much time doesn't make much sense to me >> on the aggravation. We've got to go all the way to the top of page 27. You might ask yourself, why didn't they spend this much time talking about everything else? Well, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Um, am I saying they did a bad job? No. No, I'm not saying they did a bad job. >> Well, that would be very strategy different from a strategy. I might >> I would laugh. >> I would laugh with really bad aggravators in the eyes of Baron Coleman. >> That's a That's pretty bad. That's pretty bad. They wanted to know did he knowingly create a great risk of death to a person other than Charlie Kirk. And they wanted to know if there was any kind of uh reliable hearsay about um about uh Charlie Kirk's political or religious positions. Those were where they spent the bulk of it. And if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Even though I might have tried the case differently, even though I might have filed this differently, even though a lot of other lawyers probably would have written other >> Does make sense if they think their clients guilty, doesn't it? It would make a lot of sense, isn't it? I I think think he's close to being on to something. Um, is my uh audio a little too loud? Baron's a little too low. I could still crank this up a little bit if need be. Uh, let me do that. >> Words in different orders. >> They're trying to create a record of appeal. >> He is a little quiet. so that they can get the death penalty taken off the table. You get the death penalty off the table, you get a little more wiggle room, >> a little more wiggle room. Maybe the defendant testifies when he otherwise would not have testified. Maybe we bring in different arguments, different um different witnesses. We got to figure out right now, are we facing a death penalty case or is this just a regular murder case? So, you have section one, they're talking about the um >> just out of curiosity is okay. So, in Utah, it has to be aggravated in a sense that somebody else uh somebody else's life has to be in danger or knowingly put to danger, something like that, in order for it to be a death penalty case. I actually was under the assumption that taking or murdering another person or assassinating a person in front of people in general just came with that price. So, I don't know. >> [clears throat] >> I know aggravated murder for sure has to be there in order to get a death penalty charge, but I didn't think it had to be putting other people's lives in danger. I thought a public execution would probably land him that spot no matter what. But maybe I'm wrong about that. >> Vader, relative to uh the other people being around section two, they're talking about telling uh Lance Twigs to remain silent. Ask for a lawyer. Does that rise to the level of aggravation on um on interfering with a witness? Uh section three, is there a knowledge of a child under the age of 14 being present for the >> I can't remember if it's three or four. >> And then the victim targeting enhancement. Do we know >> whether or not he killed him because of religion? Is there credible evidence to believe he killed him because of religion or political beliefs rather than just being a psychopath, being a crazy murderer, those believe it or not, that that matters. We we we colloally refer to those things as hate crimes, right? Republicans aren't supposed to like hate crimes, but this whole case really rests on hate crimes. [snorts] Really relate crimes. So, let's roll through some of these specific. >> It's not about hate crime. It's about motive >> fixing here. Let's go back up and roll through some of these specifics that they keep referring to on X and on other places to determine whether or not we agree that these are the types of things that are the defense admitting anything. [snorts] Let's roll down to our first highlight here. Um, beginning at 12:1520, we have surveillance that begins at 12:1520. Then then the videos jumped to 12:22 when a figure is seen running west across the Losi center roof. I raised this issue. They're raising it sort of. What the hell happened in those seven minutes that they don't want us to see? What was the alleged Tyler Robinson doing? What was the figure on the roof doing in those seven minutes? This is a >> I don't know. Maybe we'll get to see it. I'd like to take a look myself, but if I had to guess, he's probably out of sight on the camera the whole time. You got you guys supposedly are super confident in your case. If you're super confident in your case and you're not trying to sandbag this and you're not trying to frame Tyler Robinson, then just show us the footage. It's 7 minutes. You had f five full days for this preliminary hearing. What would another seven minutes have done? And I'll say this. Let me say this. >> Well, how much more evidence would you have asked for after that? I mean, they gave a bunch of footage. They tried to get this done as fast as possible. And we still had to get an extra day. There still had to be an extra day. We're having another trial or we're having another uh hearing September 1st when it should have been wrapped up a few weeks ago. So obviously that's probably why that's probably what another seven minutes does. I don't know. It's not that hard to think about it. We got to get on with the actual trial. So I was already upset enough to have this essentially delayed till September 1st. I would have really liked an actual court date, but now that Just seems obvious to me, but I don't know. What am I talking to? I'm not a lawyer. >> That evidence better all be presented at trial. >> If this goes to trial, that evidence better all be there. >> It should all be released in full in total. >> No evidence should be missing from this case. >> Great. >> Every single piece of video footage from that day from their surveillance cameras better be provided to the defense. >> Yeah. better be available to see the light of day should the defense want to see it. >> Awesome. >> It's not the only camera, the computer science building camera. >> Sure. All of it. >> And there not be a missing second in there that the defense that the prosecution failed to hand over. >> Okay. >> And if it is, they better show us. Oh, the camera broke. Oh, yeah. The camera broke. Really? Like like it did with Epstein? The camera broke? >> I don't know. We're not even there yet. >> Yeah, it was broken that day, guys. Sorry. But only for a little I mean, Was it broken for seven minutes or do you have that footage? >> I don't know. >> Did you have that footage? Release the footage. Show the footage. What was he doing up there? >> That's kind of the point. Why are we going on about this? Okay, you've already made your point. They need to show the footage. Okay. Yes, I'll agree. I I agree with you. They should show the footage. Can we Can we go? >> Was he assembling a rifle? Was he talking on the phone? Was he ordering a pizza? Did he have lunch? >> No. Chick-fil-A? >> Did he eat a bowl of spaghetti? We don't know. Did somebody else come up there and talk to him? >> Did he pick up a phone and call someone? Did he text anyone? >> Did he put in a listening device so we could hear what was going on at the 10? We have no idea what happened in those seven minutes. And I think it's important >> further because we can't identify the guy running. We you can't identify him. I mean, it's just a blob. They even called him the figure here. The >> I wonder if he was a blob in real life, right? >> Figure, not the suspect, not the shooter, the figure because we cannot identify the figure seen running west across the Los Center roof. That seven minutes becomes really critical because how do we know it's the same person? We're just >> I noticed that he did definitely skip the part though. That that was a very important part. Let me uh real quick, I'm going to see if I can pull it up. Where did I have those? I'm just going to see if I can pull it over here and find it because he he didn't really want us to see what they actually had admitted to. And I find that to be fantastic. Uh, did I Nope. It's not this. Maybe I bookmarked it. I'm going to look for it real quick. So Arty on >> but I know I shared it >> on page 23 and 24 is >> 23 and 24 is where it said >> is where they admit that he that Charlie was shot with a rifle and that admitting the bullet wound from being shot. So, I don't know if that's something you want to cover sometime in here because I know he's gonna go over like again >> being exploding mic and stuff like that. So, just pay attention for about the being shot. >> All righty. I think I got it. Yeah, I got it pulled up here. Awesome. I appreciate that. Let's uh I think it's here, right? So, uh Utah's never more over. I think it's this. I'll see if I can uh pull this on up real quick. So, I just kind of I find it funny that he did want to just skip past this. I just wanted I want this to be in here for people to be on the record to easily access even assuming uh I are grindo. What the Okay. Anyway, doesn't matter that the shooter had knowledge that there were other individuals near Mr. Kirk. fact that the fact alone does not satisfy that there was a great risk of death to another. The state relies on the case of Pennsylvania for the assert uh the assertion that a zone of danger encompasses everyone near a victim. STBR 16-17 as noted above. Utah has never adopted a formulation of KGD under which a single shot fired at a specifically identified target who is near others is sufficient to establish KGD. So KGD is uh shoot what do they what do they specifically mean by KGD? Uh let's see knowingly okay so it is just knowingly created great risk. Why did they have to they didn't have to abbreviate that in my opinion. Um [laughter] just making me look dumb on live in front of people anyway. So you know they didn't think that it uh warranted great risk to others. I mean, it technically does. I think it technically feats uh fits that pretty well. But why would they need to argue it like this? They never say if he did it, which is very important. He kind of just shoves that into the document, saying, "Well, if he if you find him guilty of this, he wasn't knowingly creating a great risk." But they never said if. They never said maybe if you find him guilty. That's not in this document anywhere. And I think it's uh in our best interest to Well, keep that in mind. Sorry, my voice is starting to go out. >> You're supposed to take your word for it. >> Why? >> We see a figure emerge at 12:15, 20 >> and then it goes away and then the video stops and all of a sudden we see a figure running and and we're just supposed to assume it's the same figure. >> I'd like to see that he never left the camera. >> What if he walked up? What What if What if just what if? >> I don't I don't care about what ifs. That is so stupid. What if? What if? What if? What if? What if? What if? What if? I don't know, man. Like, what if words had machine guns? I bet they would have got him before he got on the roof. There you go. What if the figure that we see walk up to the roof at 12:1520, walks up to the roof, and then leaves and then walks back down the stairs. And then walks back up there. How do you know it's the same figure? Could be two figures. The point is, we don't know. We don't know. >> Great. Now, could the judge look at that and say, "Well, that's a lack of credibility." Yes, >> it's a word you should use a lot more often. >> The judge could look at it and say, "I'm not going to consider that footage because you didn't show me all of it. All of it wasn't made available to me. How am I supposed to know it's the same? You're just telling me it is." [snorts] Does that rise to the level of a lack of credibility? I honestly don't know in Utah whether that would hold or not because the state said it's the same guy. Maybe that he's required to go with that. I'm not I'm not exactly sure. I don't particularly like that. [snorts] Now, let's go to is this Tyler Robinson? because I keep reading everywhere on X that they've confessed this is Tyler Robinson seen all over these cameras. >> Oh, exhibit 1214 contain video of an individual, the state's witnesses identified as Mr. Robinson. So right there, they're not conceding it's Tyler They're not conceding that's Tyler Robinson on campus. [snorts] Instead, what they're saying is the state has identified him as Tyler Robinson. And we understand, judge, for the purpose of this hearing, you're probably compelled to go with the state's position that that is in fact Tyler Robinson. But we don't >> is is Lance Twigs the state now? >> See it, your honor. It was identified based on unauthenticated footage and hearsay. >> I guess that's what it comes down to. >> Down here, a vehicle is seen. >> As soon as you become a witness, you're just part of the state. I guess that'll probably happen when Tyler's parents get involved. >> Matching Mr. Robinson on campus. Judge, we don't even concede that's his car on campus. >> They'll be now state assets. We can see that it's a car and we can see that it looks a lot like Tyler Robinson's, but we're not conceding it's even car campus. >> And again, an individual state witness identified at m as Mr. Robinson returning to his vehicle. So all these appearances you see on campus, they're not conceding that's Tyler Robinson. I've seen over and over and I'll show you examples of it in a minute from X where people are like they told they said it was Robinson. They admit it's him. No, they don't. But once you once you make the claim that this is all these identifications are based on a state witness identifying him or a vehicle matching or another state witness identifying him, you don't have to keep saying it every single time. Now you can refer to him as Mr. Robinson for the rest of the pleading. Why? Because you have to evaluate. Go back to the law I showed you. You have to evaluate this evidence in the light most favorable to the state. They're claiming it's Mr. Robinson. Therefore, we can talk as if it is for the purposes of this pleading. That is not us conceding it's him. This paragraph right here in the middle of >> I smell a lot of cope. I smell a lot of cope in this stream, guys. Y'all smelling it, too? It's It's just infectious, isn't it? I don't know. I like rolling around in it a little bit. Can be a bit of a bit of a pig rolling around in somebody else's coat. Can't we? I think that's a lot of fun. [laughter] Oh, I don't know. I don't know. I find it to be funny. You know, you would think that in these documents they would actually also be arguing, you know, to get him out of his other charges. Maybe maybe they're just not supposed to do that yet, though. >> Page 14 is them saying, "We're not conceding it's him." >> Here's [snorts] another one. The individual identified as Mr. Robinson is seen returning to campus in different clothing and walking with a limp. >> Class, are they saying that's Mr. Robinson? No. So if they refer to him later as Robinson, are they say are they changing their mind in the middle of the filing? They decided all of a sudden, you know what, we are going to concede as Robinson. No, that's not how you read these. >> I really could care less about your opinion on it to be honest. But fine, you know, whatever. The funny thing about it is is the way it reads, it does only apply to the charges that they're talking about. Only to the charges that they're talking about. They are not mentioning anything about the original charge. >> They even have a a footnote here. The state did not show footage of the individual identified as Mr. Robinson's movements in and around campus during their hearing. Only the footage from the parking structures. >> Okay. >> He's identified as Mr. Robinson, >> but >> but we know, judge, >> you kind of skipped over their point. >> You're compelled by the Utah Supreme Court to assume now because they've identified him as Mr. Robinson that it is in fact Mr. Robinson. This would be a very long pleading if every time [clears throat] they talked about this figure moving around campus, this figure moving on the roof, this figure walking with a limp, this figure supposedly having a gun down his pants, this figure supposedly walking through parking structures, this figure supposedly getting in the prone position. This would be a very long pleading far beyond the 35page limit that the judge kept them to. If every single time they referenced that figure, they had to write out this long narrative about how they can test that it's him. that figure, Tyler Robinson, man. Yeah, you're right. You're right. If they replace Tyler Robinson with that figure, this would be a 72page document. You you you really got us there, >> judge. We're going to talk about a figure again, the figure we're talking about, the state has identified it as Tyler Robinson. We can test that. They unauthenticated. You can't do that and meet the 35page burden and introduce all your arguments. >> Crazy. And again, I say anyone who claims to be a lawyer who is telling you that they are confessing that this was in fact Tyler Robinson is lying to your face. Anyone who's not a lawyer, so if Andrew Kovette or Jack Masonic or >> we're just going to take his word for it. He's known to tell the truth every single time, isn't he? >> Like Nef or any of these people, >> he's never lied a day in his life. >> Tell you that this is in fact >> Tyler Robinson and his defense team is admitting it's Tyler Robinson. Any of those people, well, they might just be stupid. It's possible. It's very It's frankly probable. [laughter] Frankly, it's probably very likely. They're just they're just not very bright. They saw something and they're like, "Yeah, that sounds right. Let's get them." But lawyers should know better. No lawyer should be telling you they've admitted anything. They've specifically time and time again, according to agent, the individual he identifies as Mr. Robinson is seen walking in a parking structure. [snorts] This is them saying time and time again, "We cannot identify this guy as Robinson. We're not conceding that it's Robinson. We're just telling you that they're referring to him as Robinson [snorts] >> as opposed to that figure because that would have been so much longer. >> Irritating. Wait till I pull up these expos after I've gone through this. You You won't believe these people saying the things they're saying. >> Really? >> All right, let's scroll down and look at these text messages. >> We got new text messages. >> We got new text. >> Get past the other point, though. It's up there. Scroll up. Scroll up >> in these new text like we had these already. >> If police ask you any questions, ask for a lawyer. Stay silent. My lawyer should be Doug Terry. I'll see if he can reach out to you and make sure the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants, and stuff. But people, >> why don't you go over it? That suck. Okay. Well, I'll do it for you. Uh, what what part are we at? What page are we on here? 34. Okay. Let's go over to 34. Oh, this is this was doing well the other day. Oh, wait. No, 33. Shoot. Now I'm uh I guess Why are his documents longer? Shoot. Okay. State example 16.1. I should be able to find that. There we go. Okay. 16.1. Found it. Okay. So, it's going to be right before that, right? Okay. I'll go ahead and just uh just for transparency purposes here, guys. We'll go here. So, he skipped over this. Maybe he'll go over it here in a few, but I just want to make sure it's here before skipping past it. Count six must be stricken because the evidence does not establish that Mr. Robinson's statement to Mr. Twigs. Ask for a lawyer and stay silent was intended to obstruct an investigation. That's the whole point of this next part that he's going to be going over. Some good old-fashioned added context. >> Light and respectful, of course. Now, some of that's actually new. This last part is actually new. Uh, this is Tyler Robinson taking on the role of a lawyer advising Lance Quigs of his rights. Bam. Are you Is this the defense admitting these were Tyler Robinson text messages? No. No, that's not what they're admitting. I can't be any more clear about this, guys. This is not None of this is an admission that any of this was Tyler Robinson or any of >> What if we read the document, though, and that's what the document says? I don't know. Maybe maybe it would be clear for them to >> this is accurate. They've already said unauthenticated. They've already said that they shouldn't be admitted, >> but they have to argue that even if your honor finds that these are in fact credible and you are going to consider them >> and even if even if we take all of this evidence as as as accurate, they still don't meet their burden. That's it. So when they say Mr. Robinson's advice to Mr. Twigs was as follows, they're not conceding that Mr. Robinson wrote those text messages to Mr. Twigs. What they're saying is even if he did, all he's telling him to do is to make sure the police follow the right procedures. Well, that's not inter >> I'm just saying I didn't see even if they did in the documents. I'm I don't know if I'm crazy or not. I just didn't read that. >> This is the defense argument. That's not interfering with a witness. Make sure they have proper warrants and stuff. Okay. Well, that's not necessarily interference. The police should have the proper warrants and stuff. >> Getting your bar license here. Let's call it that. Passing the bar. I like calling it the bar license though cuz it's a little bit more funny. Apparently to pass that you have to understand that in every document you have to insert the words what if or what we really mean or actually how this reads. You know what I mean? You just got to insert a couple more words that aren't really there. >> Be polite and respectful of course. Well, that's not interference. >> Pretty high level degree. >> That's good advice for everybody. Be polite and respectful of course. [snorts] >> He says to Mr. Twigs again. They keep saying he. They keep referring to Tyler Robinson. Are you sure? >> Yeah, they sure do, don't they? Nick, >> they're not admitting that's Tyler Robinson. Yes. >> Wild. >> I'm absolutely confident they're not admitting that. None of this is going to be in front of a jury. None of these pleadings will make it in front of a jury. They will have the opportunity to go after the authentication. They'll have the opportunity to explain, should they decide to, strategically, that he didn't author any of these, that these aren't his text messages. But for the sake of this pleading, because they're in evidence, we have to operate as if they are Tyler Robinson. And then we have to articulate why we don't believe they meet the standard, even if they're true. He says to Mr. Twigs, "I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff." >> Who's keep things sort of quiet here. I only hope they let you visit. And then we have an ellipses, meaning Lance Twig said something. I'm going to miss you, too. Please be good for me. I wonder if he could explain why they're not trying to say in the document at all that they don't believe these text messages to be Tyler. I don't know why. Wouldn't Wouldn't that be kind of important to put in the document? I think that might be an important detail. Is there something I'm missing? Maybe. I don't know. I don't know. I just think it's weird. Is he gooding Lance Twigs? [laughter] >> Are you going to be a good puppy? He's not gooding. He's good furrying. You going to be a good furry? Be good for me. Be a good boy, Luna. Luna, >> I wish I didn't have to say. >> Sorry. Get back to the serious stuff here. No, try not to get too uh too off base again. Uh please be good for me. If you need anything at all, both of my parents are willing to help you. Please go to them >> knowing that he could do that. >> Leave the room alone. Uh you cannot be any more don't interfere with evidence than that. Leave the room alone. The feds will search it top to bottom for certain, then work with my family to sort it out what goes where and such. >> [snorts] >> In other words, don't go into my >> I don't want to go to sleep tonight after seeing that. >> My room and hide evidence. >> Don't go into my room and hide evidence. Don't go into my room and try to start changing things around. Don't remove anything. Leave it alone. The feds will come in. They'll get anything they need. And then after it's done, it'll be torn apart >> and you can work my parents on how to put things back together. >> In response to Mr. Twig's question, "Is there any way you don't go to prison?" Mr. Robinson responded, "I highly doubt it. I will update. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Allegedly Mr. Twig's question. See, you didn't have a problem with that earlier. So, you believe that that was really Mr. Twigs? What if that wasn't Mr. Twigs? Man, you were you were real quick to believe that they really meant Mr. Twigs here. But what if they didn't? What if they meant allegedly Mr. Twig, the figure Mr. Twigs? I don't know. Hate you as much as I can. If you need a place to stay, I'm sure my family would have you in my old room. >> So, let me get this straight. Mr. Twigs is Mr. Twigs, but Mr. Robert Robinson here is not Mr. Robinson. Just saying. Dang right. I'm sleeping with my light on tonight. I don't want to hear some Baron Coleman dog. Oh man, that's I'm I guarantee you there's going to be nightmare fuel for that. Someone's going to generate it. Ju just keep your eyes open on X and uh avoid all windows. >> It's a little weird to me because why would Lance Twigs need a place to stay? He's staying in his own house. >> What? What you mean allegedly, Mr. Twigs? >> Tyler was actually Lance's roommate, not the other way around. It's not like they're losing the place because Tyler got arrested. Lance is still very much not arrested. You're all I worry about, love. Don't talk to any media. Please don't take any interviews or make comments. I will always love you, too. I will write to you as often as possible. If any, please ask you questions. Ask for a lawyer. and stay silent. In other words, you have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. >> No. >> If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. >> That's not what he said, though. >> That's all he's doing. >> You would have to see I don't Why do they think that Tyler Robinson is like this mastermind? I don't understand. >> Do you really think he knew how to Miranda uh his roommate there? I don't know. That's pretty funny, isn't it? >> This is Miranda rightites. Make sure the police follow the right procedure, proper warn be polite and respectful. Of course, we've already read that one. These statements by Mr. Robinson. Oh, they're admitting Baron that they're statements by Tyler Robinson. Again, no, they are not. Baron, you're being repetitive. I know because people are stupid. >> Oh, okay. Well, I bet you don't read this next part about Mr. Twigs. And I I'm willing to bet that you would also say allegedly Mr. Twig's coming right up here, right? Let's see. >> People are stupid. >> Yeah. >> It's a shame that they're stupid, but they're stupid and I have to correct them time and time again. >> Such an such a mean guy. What they're saying here is even if that's true, it's just altruistic advice. >> Really, >> all he's doing >> I didn't read here even if that's true. But >> is telling him if he did indeed author those which we can test. >> Well, we repeat ourselves. I guess I >> just tell him he has fifth amendment right to ask for a lawyer and stay silent. >> This is not an attempt to impede >> allegedly Mr. Twigs. >> Therefore, count six must be stricken. Now, is that going to fly? I doubt it. I doubt it. I think he'll let a jury decide that. But that overount go over number three. [snorts] >> So let's go look at what people are saying about this now that we've gotten Oh, let me go back to this real quick. >> Okay, good. >> Let me go back to >> go back to the >> what the judge may consider now that we've gone through this >> real I'll do it much quicker this time, but I think it's important now that we've gone through >> to look at the standard. Let's just roll down here to the the last two paragraphs that we covered before. So what may the He may make credibility determinations on [snorts] a limited basis. The probable cause standard demands reasonable belief rather than mere belief. So he must make some sort of reasonable determination relative to credibility. >> Yeah, we we know what reasonable belief me means, man. We're we're not we're not that dumb. I know you think we're that dumb, but we're not that dumb. I promise. but he may only disregard or discredit evidence that is wholly lacking and incapable of creating a reasonable in inference regarding a portion of the prosecutor's claim. So go back and look at those text messages. Go back and look at those identifications. Go back and look at the evidence that was discussed in their pleading. The judge is going to look at that and they have testimony from last. >> Please tell me he brings up point number three, though. I really want to see that. I'm gonna I'm going to try and fast forward up to that. Let's get past this. I don't want you ducking out on it and trying to overexlain everything here. Oh, now we're we're we're going over Candace Owens and his cope with that. Does he show it? Does is that him? Did Wait a minute. That's really all he shows on the documents. Wow. Okay. Well, I'll do it myself. Fine. I will be the bad guy here. I will make people read a terrible document that isn't very fun to read. Okay. So, what he leaves out here is count seven must be stricken because the evidence does not establish that Mr. Robinson had acknowledged that a person under the age of 14 was present and would see or hear the commission of the charged homicide. Here's my opinion on this straight up. Last night I said it in the stream, I will say it again. I think for every single person, and there's an estimated amount of uh I believe 600 people that were under the age of 18, I think Tyler Robinson should get a charge for every single person that was under 18 in that crowd. That is an insanely traumatic thing to show children no matter what. Like, could you imagine being that age? You are there watching probably one of your idols right in front of you get taken out right there live in front of everyone and then as a child obviously you're wondering am I next does this stop here does it keep going adults are panicking and running so imagine how somebody under the age of 18 feels in that moment that's terrifying I think he should catch a charge for every single minor in that crowd. And if there are an estimated of 600 in there, that's 600 charges. I don't care. And I think this alone warrants capital punishment. Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Utah does not think that, but I think this right here is way more important than any other charge they have a problem with. That's just my opinion. So, he skipped over that, though. I wonder why he didn't want to show this. And then there's also number four right here that he also left out. The state has failed to produce reliable evidence that the victim targeting enhancement imply applies here. I don't know why he wanted to skip over that to be honest. Um maybe somebody in chat will know. I don't know why he would want to skip over number four. It doesn't seem like it does seem like it is the least most important thing in the document. Maybe that's why. But for kids to be there in that crowd and they have to witness that and then Baron Coleman just skips over it like it doesn't even matter. That bothers me a lot. That really bothers me a lot. I don't think that's okay. And I think he did it on purpose. I think he didn't want people to consider that that there were not just adults in the crowd. He doesn't want his cult of sickopants to end up seeing something that may change their minds. That's my opinion on the matter. Now, I showed every single page on my live stream. I noticed Candace ran away from it and Baron Coleman didn't want to show every page. I wonder why that is. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Um, all right. I think that's pretty much Yeah, I think that's actually really all I have for the most part. Um, unless we want to maybe we do want to come back and watch what he says and how he defends Candace Owens running away from this. Let's go ahead and just see real quick >> to the >> I'm curious. So, let's go through some of these absolutely ridiculous claims. Oh, first I give you a quick update here because I know this when we do a Matt May show, this is always a concern. So, I want to alleviate this concern. >> [snorts] >> right out of the gate. Uh, we have an update from the principal, ladies and gentlemen. We have an update from the principal. Okay, officially bumping my show today. >> So, she got downgraded from queen to principal. That sucks. [laughter] I love that. I love the fact that she got downgraded to principal. That's unbelievable. Actually, that's really funny >> cuz I'm realizing it would be a total mistake for me to do my show on this recent defense filing when we are less than two days away from the great debate. I of course have a lot to say about it as always, but forcing myself to stay mum on it until uh me and Andrew come face to face on Friday. Please appreciate how difficult it is for me to exercise this level of restraint as the usual suspects put on the typical 4K HD theater. So, the principal has opted out of doing a show today. That way, anything she says on her show, Andrew can't go prepare for as he gets ready for his debate. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. But I know as we do our matinea shows, people sometimes wonder um when she's going to set a time. Is it going to be while we're still on the air? Are we going to have to hurry and get out of here? Uh I guess that's all he's going to say about that, isn't he? Just that Oh, well, she just needed more time to prepare after these documents were dropped. Um I mean, she had all day to prepare for it. It was released that morning. She had like what, uh 12 hours to review these? Nine hours at least to review them before going on to her show. Is it really that difficult to read 40 pages in nine hours? I mean, I guess Baron technically maybe that's the case because he couldn't even go through more than a couple paragraphs in how long was that? An hour and two minutes and he couldn't even get through all of the documents. That's crazy. That's a lot of time. I don't know. I didn't think it would be that difficult. >> Take heart, ladies and gentlemen. None of that is going to be the case. Uh, I want to go first to Viva. Tiny Viva, dimminionative Viva. I want to go to Viva. I want to show you how nice of you. >> Now, he claims to be a lawyer. Granted, he's not a lawyer in the United States. So, I'm going to give him a pass and just say he's ignorant and not a liar. I am making my way through the Tyler Robinson defense filing. This motion is from the defense. He bolded that line, ladies and gentlemen. In case we didn't know, it is not from the prosecution. It cannot be written off as fence lock. Unless I'm misreading or missing something, it seems even the defense is not denying the authenticity of the text messages. Well, we covered that. >> Yeah, you you you did cover that, didn't you? There was a lot of cope because they actually did not deny the authenticity of the text messages in any way, shape, or form. Is he wrong? >> You covered that. Others who need not be named have been vigorously denying imputing the authenticity of those text messages. Well, >> I have been I mean, you can name me. I've been impuging and denying >> and Well, okay. You You heard it here. You heard it here himself. Right from uh right from the mouth of Baron Coleman. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. You can do that, I guess. Just doesn't make you look too intelligent in my opinion, but okay. No evidence whatsoever to show otherwise. So, I don't know. I think that's pretty much it with this. After all that, he just goes on and reads his super chat. Oh, he goes over Frank Turk and other people, too. Uh I don't know. I don't really care too much. But on JD book, JD Vance's book. I don't know, guys. I think that's a good place to cut it off on this. I think uh I've heard enough of Baron Coleman in my opinion. He's uh he tried. He tried. He skipped around. He didn't want to go through all the uh other points. He didn't want to show his audience that, you know, people of the underage variety were in the crowd witnessing things they never should have witnessed. But, you know, why uh why show your crowd something that uh they may have to think about and uh quite possibly change their minds over. So, uh let's see. I think we should move on to super chats here in uh on the channel. What do you think? What do you think, Jen? I think that's uh about all I have to give here when it comes to uh entertainment for the most part. All righty. So, we got already the uh old lady 512. Black widow spiders kill their mates. Um, actually, I think it's a fun fact here. I think they actually don't do that, but that is why they got their name originally. I guess sometimes they do it or something like that, but it was a myth, but the definition of Black Widow came from the spouse ending their spouse before it was a spider. The spider got the name because people believed the spider ended its partner. That's why it's the black widow. So, just fun little facts, I guess. I don't know the exact details of it. I've just been told that it's not as common as we once believed for the spider to eat its other mate. Okay. And uh two goats and a dog. Let's see. We got and demanded she be hauled in for questioning and has stated now Erica convicted Tyler Robinson when she forgave him. She's just vile. Absolutely. And that you know that's funny. That's twisting scripture, right? She forgave him. Oh, if you forgive someone like that, that means you're condemning them. That's a it's a pretty wild claim to make when that's what the Bible tells you to do. But I guess God's word just isn't as important to Candace Owens. That's my opinion on it. Anyway, Jemmo Har for I think I read that right. She's not only called her a black widow, she made a six-piece documentary about Erica, her family and friends, and insinuated Erica was trafficking children in Romania. Absolutely. You know, I would say trafficking kids is probably a worse claim in my opinion, especially without evidence, than ending your own husband. But maybe that's just me. Maybe other people have a different opinion on it. I think that's probably one of the most vile claims you could ever ever make on somebody is that they're harming children with absolutely no evidence. That's just crazy to me. Thank you so much for that, Jim. Velvet Lace. All right, good to see you here, Velvet. People should overload that priest with a compilation of Candace saying everything, including Black Widow. You know, that probably does need to happen. I would definitely do it myself, but man, Milk Bar is so good at it. I'm willing to bet he jumps on it before I do. But you know what? If he doesn't, I may have to take that. I may have to go and run with that idea. Avenge 1616. Born and raised Catholic. I hate how the church has been hijacked by these cradle Catholics who hate for a living. Yeah. Well, it's kind of what it says it is supposed to happen, doesn't isn't it? At least uh that's what I think. I'll have I'll get there eventually. Reading this is a lot more difficult than I actually anticipated and it takes time, but absolutely. Velvet Lace became a YouTube member here, too. Congratulations. Everybody should become a member here on Paramount Tactical for sure. Go join support Gary. He's doing amazing work. And thank you so much, Gary, for allowing me to be on here. I really appreciate it. Straight up. That is just an awesome thing. He didn't have to do this. Nothing about like any of this had to happen, but he did it anyway. So, I am very, very grateful. Uh, Fran G. David, they like to insult people and then they freak out when they get smacked by the people who they attacked. You know, it's the age-old uh the leftist cries as he strikes you uh or cries out in pain as he strikes you in the face, if I remember that right. I haven't used that line since like 2015, I think. Man, MTX just joined. Arty, if you want a law school students analysis of the brief, uh, let me know where I can send it to you. I broke down what's supported versus what's being lied about word games. Could make a short. Absolutely. Hey man, I appreciate that. Absolutely. Can send me a message on X. You can uh send it to my email. Um, my email is in my It's like right there in my how would I even say it? like right on the front page of my channel. You have to click the little dots that say click here for more and then you have to physically click a button to make my email appear. It's just an amazing piece of work for no reason. Nikki for freedom failed lawyer turned podcaster slopper telling us how the court system works while making a living falsely accusing people. Wow, it is amazing, isn't it? miracles can happen where you can just uh go about and do the craziest things that people would never imagine somebody would do. That's Baron Coleman in a nutshell. Dr. Altoids, [laughter] I don't know why that's funny. Uh getting legal advice from Baron Coleman is like getting dieting tips from an obese nutritionist. You know that's a real thing though, right? Like I have seen that a lot. It's remarkable. But I I I don't I'm not going to try and make anybody mad here today. [laughter] We're already poking the bear enough it as it is. Uh Holly Handmade Baron wants to poison the well and make sure he taints how the audience will interpret what he says. No one reads the conclusion first. Uh well, at least they shouldn't in my opinion, but otherwise it would be called a effing introduction. That is true. Very true. And then Holly Handmade again here. Heck yeah. only the aggravating factors. Dude, Baron is such a propagandist. Absolutely. So, yeah, which is, you know, specifically why he did not want to mention the whole again people under 18 being in the crowd because why would he do that? That just there's no favors to be gained there. Ramza, heck yeah, man. Good to see you here. I had to uh I had two dude tell me that there was 82 different sets. Really? 82 different sets of DNA on the firearm. Well, that person's insane. I had another woman tell me to pray to Candace. Wait, like pray two, not pray four? All right, that's actually creepy. These people will make you go crazy, bro. Yeah. Yeah, that's psychotic. Alrighty of ex-conservative news. Because the defense's strategy implicitly acknowledges Robinson fired the weapon rather than arguing a frame up. legal analysis note. It directly clashes with the alternative narratives. My microphone is right in the way of the screen. I'm sorry, guys. So, you're going to see me do silly stuff. Okay. MTX says he's lying. The recommended order is what the brief is physically built in. Well, yeah, that would just be I think we call that English. I don't know what country Baron Coleman's from. I hear it's the country of Alabama. It's kind of strange there. I wouldn't recommend it. Now, Alabama's probably fine. Alabama's great, but still. Apparently, you don't read English left to right. You read it back to front and then you just skip around through it and make things up. That's the only way to read a book from what I understand. People should tell me how that goes for them, by the way. Should try that. But anyway, the it's structured in a way for a reason. Court rules mandate that uh structure prec uh they mandate that structure precisely because it is the intended path absolutely 100%. So flur when you read something by jumping around it you can easily misread and therefore misrepresent it. Baron knows this. Oh, I think he crafted it. That's exactly what I think. I think he absolutely crafted it. As soon as the documents went out, he was thinking, "Okay, I got to come through here and I got to show them only these small snippets or else they're going to be on to us." And that's why Candace Owens hit the road. It's just obvious to me. Julius 2790, create doubt, attack institutional trust in our justice system. One aimless theory after another, they won't be held accountable, but hopefully more people will simply tune them out. We can only whole truth, good to see you here, man. Count six dropped is the only thing defense will win. It's a Yeah, maybe that's very much uh I would I would bet it's possible for count one. Not very likely, but it is possible, you know. Holy cow, Paramount Tactical joining us here. Thank you so much. >> [laughter] >> It was traumatic for me and I watched it live on a Tik Tok. Yeah, it uh I hate thinking about it. I really do. This uh it just comes with doing all this. Absolutely, Jen. Thank you very much. Jim O'Har 4 says, "Did everyone see the Candace fans infighting? Mitch Snow versus Elizabeth Lane." Oh, yeah. That has just been a disaster piece worth watching. It's beautiful. I've been enjoying myself a lot reading through all that. I covered it uh two days ago. I think it was three days ago. And it Yeah, it's just a joy. Project Constipation versus Ian Carol. I did not know about that. Billy Webb, are you kidding me? I did not know that Project Constipation here had some issues with Ian Carol. Well, I got some reading to do tonight. This is going to be great. It's amazing. Project Constipation just posted Oh, sorry. I missed the last part of that. Oopsie. Poopsy. Uh oh, there we go. Uh they just posted they are all Fed assets. No. No way. You're kidding me. There is no way. He just admitted that. Hold on a minute. No. Five hours ago. Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. No way. I'm go ahead and let's see if we can get that pulled up here. This is crazy. Hold on. Great. So, you are openly admitting you are all Fed assets duly noted. Billy Web. Who is Billy Web? Is she Is she a good Billy or bad Billy? Jenz has entered the chat I don't know. Uh, breaking. I am a fed and everybody else in the world is also a fed with the exception of Colin himself. You want to know what I really care about? Integrity. You want to know what I don't really care for? Clickbait. Read the room, bro. Or at least very uh at the very least read your replies. [laughter] This is so crazy. What is Where's Ian Carol in the mix on this? That is insane. Oh, I think I messed up. I think I might have messed up. Uh oh. What happened there? >> It looks like you stopped sh Okay, there we are. Full screen it there. There we go. Sorry about that. Oopsie. I somehow uh somehow messed that up. I I don't know what I'm doing here. H So, forgive me guys. I might mess a thing up, a few things up, but that's okay. We're all here to mess it up together. So, anyway, great. So, you are openly admitting all of it. Okay. So, all right. I'm right here now. There we go. Share this tab instead. Oh, I think I probably clicked stop sharing. I think that was my problem. Uh, okay. So, let's read it. What the f is your problem? What do you mean? Okay. Which one is this? Who's blue and who's who's gray? Shoot. Then Brandy accidentally let us Who's okay? It was Z. I don't know. Maybe I'll find context clues. But somebody sent, "What the f is your problem? What do you mean?" Take down the post of Shelby. You didn't even ask Brandy if I uh and I if you could say that. Oh, wow. Somebody has to have permission to say what they're going to say. All right. So, obviously, Blue is Project Constitution, then. We're both beyond beat off. That's not your information to share. She's a very sweet girl and freaked out when she accidentally told us that information and we promised her. And then Brandy accidentally let it slip when we were on the phone with Z. And then Project Constitution says, "No, I can't do that. I will not stand by and allow pertinent information to be withheld." How do I do his voice? No, I will not do that. I will not stand by and allow pertinent information to be withheld and guilty people to be I do have to squeeze my nose out. Is that how I have to get that proper like nasally? I I I cannot do his voice very easily to be protected. I respect yoy and like you a lot, but I am not in this for friendships. I'm here for the truth. Z didn't tell me. By the way, Shelby has nothing to do with anything. And she is literally balling her eyes out right now. There's nobody else that could have told you that. I'm not Man, this is great. This is great. I I don't have mental issues here. We'll we'll try and keep it family friendly as much as possible. The lack of empathy from some of you people is legitimately absurd. Good to know where you stand. All right. So, it's so wild. Wow. All right. So, yeah. Brandy, Shelby, and me all joked about how we all applied for the CIA when we were younger. I'm unfollowing. Oh, this is great. Where's he and Carol? Here. Ah, here we go. No, she's saying you're sloppy and you have burdened your own credibility and your response is no improvement. Oh, wow. This is amazing, guys. Ah, it's such a good day. Are we all having a good day, guys? Are we Are we just having a great time watching the pizza boy crashing out and uh having a bad time with the guy who consumes way too much pizza? Wild. That is crazy. No, he says whatever, bro. Just stop. You know full well your comment has nothing to do with anything to do with this post. You're still sour or are still judging me over one mistake that I promptly made a correction for regarding the audio I thought was Erica. There's a lot more than that. Get over yourself. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm sure you have. What about the mistake where you said that Erica Kirk met up with somebody in a bar that's under construction and not open to the public? How about whenever you uh doctorred that photo of Erica Kirk giving her niece a kiss on the cheek for graduation and then said that she was trafficking that girl? What about the video of the girls that I actually ended up talking to that are big fan girls of Erica Kirk and they kind of follow around TPUSA and go to a lot of their shows. I guess you could call them shows, right? Venues, whatnot. They go there and you tried to say that Erica Kirk was being creepy towards them and they were very upset with your comments about it openly. That's like four different things. I'm sure there's like I think there was six of them. There's a couple other things I'm missing that he's fabricated, but he's fabricated a lot more than that. That's crazy. Uh, you know as well as I do, the only reason they attacked and piled on you two was because of your proximity to Candice. Stop taking it out on me. This is so great. And I really regret not having a bucket of popcorn. Guys, let's be go. Uh, let bygon that. I almost read that. Very not good. That was very close. I will be more careful there, guys. Let's bygones be bygones. Back to focusing on the important stuff, please. Too close to the truth to start nonsense between each other. And he says, "I agree. I Well, I didn't really want to click into that. I just wanted that. I agree. I said nothing bad about them in my original post about Hunter and Shelby until they dame after me. Nothing good comes from infighting, but at the same time, I will defend myself. That being said, I don't want war with any of them and would rather just focus on the investigation. This is great. Oh man, that's that's amazing. That is absolutely amazing. And then they go quiet. Crazy stuff. So, is there more context to all this? What else we got here? Okay. Wow. A 39 minute video. I guarantee you none of this is legit whatsoever. Willing to bet none of this is legit, but you know, at some point, we may have to go through all that. Exposed though, Hunter Kak, his wife Shelby, a wheelchair. Oh man, not the suspicious wheelchair. And a web of Utah political connections that keep leading back to the same Lyman Circle. A major trip just came in that deserves serious attention. Hunter Kak's wife, Shelby A. Kosak currently serves as corporate relations and development director for the Utah Lake Authority and previously worked with the US Department of State. She is a Fullulbright fellow. Okay. Is that like the newscaster? Holds a masters from George Washington University and has a resume that runs through federal and quasi governmental channels. Multiple people on the ground that day have stated that she was president UVU with Hunter on September 10th. Oh my gosh, how long does this go? That's a lot to read. Did he have AI do all this? Here is what gets more difficult to ignore. Shelby allegedly underwent a C-section and gave birth to a premature baby on September 7th. How is that relevant at all? That's wild to bring up. Only 3 days before the event, standard US hospital stays after an uncomplicated C-section run 2 to 4 days. Okay, so that runs like right here to where she could have been out, but all right, just ignore the two part. Only four days. You could have just put four days here and saved yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment, but okay. Early discharge is sometimes possible, but it still requires the mother to meet basic mobility. Early discharge could be considered one day, though, or a half day, but okay. And pain management milestones. Three days later, she was reportedly standing and later sitting outdoors at a large public rally in the Utah heat and sun for hours. Uh, okay. So, I guess she faked her C-section. Is that what he's saying? Anyone who has been through a major abdominal surgery knows the level of pain, limited mobility, and risk involvement. Calm down, PC. It's not a lipo suction. Relax. And uh, if you keep eating afterwards, they also don't they don't work. Just saying. Anyway, leaving the hospital that quickly to attend a crowded outdoor political event is not the normal recovery behavior. What do you guys want to bet that he thinks a C-section is probably the equivalent pain level of a lipos suction? Any anybody just I don't know. I kind of just feel that way. Can I go off vibes? Can I go off of uh feelings? That would be uh that would be rich, wouldn't it? I don't I don't think we're allowed to do that, guys. Candace wouldn't let us do it. And we have to listen to the queen, right? Anyway, witness accounts and the video place a wheelchair near the position the entire time. Hunter, Shelby, Hunter's mother, and the entourage of acquaintances, including Tiffany Barker and Natalie Clawson, were clustered around that wheelchair. Shelby was seen standing next to it while filming and later sitting beside it. After that shot rang out, footage shows the wheelchair still there while people around it react. Yeah, that that was one brave wheelchair. You you got a point. Uh, remarkably, Shelby herself did not flinch. That's probably why the wheelchair was there. She probably wasn't capable of doing that if I had to guess, but okay. Did not duck, did not look toward the direction of the sound, and did not stop filming. She continued as if nothing happened. They brought the wheelchair into the event, consistent with the claim she had just had surgery, then left it behind in the amphitheater afterward. I'm willing to bet it was probably easier at that point during gunfire to probably go take cover instead of worrying about getting into a wheelchair and huffing yourself out of there. You know what I mean? I don't know. I I wonder how he would have I guess doing it without a mobility scooter probably would have been tough if Project Constitution himself was in that situation. I wonder how he would have gotten out of there. Uh stop, drop, and roll. Maybe that's a pretty good method. That detail is hard to ignore. Hunter is familiar with the standard TPUSA event security protocols. A wheelchair can move through checkpoints, thus far less scrutiny than a bag or a case. Okay. Oh, wait a minute. Is he going to say that this wheelchair had something to [laughter] do with with Charlie's death? That is going to be remarkable. I really hope it comes around to that. While there is no direct proof it was used to bring anything prohibited inside a remote device or anything else, the combination of bringing it in for postsurgical attendee, then abandoning it on site has raised questions for a long time. This is my first time hearing anything about this wheelchair. Dude, what are you talking about? Even before the people who brought it were identified. Once those people turned out to be Hunter and Shelby, the questions only got louder. Uh, okay. Let's hear this because I don't think they did. The family connections are documented. Tiffany Barker, who has given multiple media interviews as a witness, is the sister of Natalie Clawson, Phil Lyman's running mate. Another sister, Lisa Dean, is the mother of Taylor Bell Dean, who went to prom with Hunter Kak's brother, Connor, and also did interviews after the event. Well, I hear somebody that's jealous that somebody else went to prom. Tiffany's own daughter sang the national anthem at a prior Charlie Kirk event. Also, why is that even relevant that they went to prom? Talk about digging up details that literally do not matter. The Peterson, Clawson, Barker, and Dean families from a tight local uh uh form a tight local political and social network. Hunter and Shelby sat inside or sit inside the same web. They attended the event together as a group. Every single lead we have followed in this corner of the case keeps circling back to the same Phil Lyman network. The same surnames, the same political alliances, the same overlapping family and church ties. It is an intricate web of Utah politics and religion that function like a closed circle. Call it what you want, but the pattern is consistent. Hunter, Shelby, the Bakers, the Clawson, the Deans, and the people around them all sit inside that same orbit. There is well, okay, I I won't be mean. I won't talk about orbit. There is a more. Oh, there is more. There is a more. What was I doing there? There is more. When Hunter and Shelby appeared on the Brandy and Billy show, Shelby saw Bry's CIA mug, Candace Intelligence Agency, and initially mistook it for the actual Central Intelligence Agency. Genius level people here, guys. After Hunter corrected her, Shelby remarked that working for the real CIA was her dream job and that she had applied multiple times. That's not a casual comment. Combined with her State Department background, Fullbrite Fellowship, and the rest of the pattern, it raises serious questions. Hunter has previously used the term Mike in an interview. A short hand uh a shorthand common in intelligence and defense circles. Is it MIC or Mike? He turned down $20,000 to offer to take a polygraph. Okay, come on. Let's not throw stones and glass houses here. Candace Owens turned down 60 grand and then she almost turned down $300,000. Uh, okay. That's not really much of an own or anything like that, but whatever. Who cares? Also, polygraphs are also garbage. They're fake. They're not real. I don't I don't care if I offend anybody on this. I have I won't say through who, but I know somebody who had ran a polygraph for a long time, and even they don't even fully believe in what it does. It's just garbage. but it's not even uh admissible in a court of law. He was elevated quickly into a high-profile media, including the CBS apparent appearance with Erica Kirk. The odds of the final question landing exactly where it did, followed by the immediate national platforming of the person who asked it continued to look statistically extreme. Utah has long been known as a recruitment ground for federal agencies. Yet, all 50 states are, but okay. particularly among tight-knit communities with strong institutional loyalty. Shelby State Department and fullbrite background. Oh, that was almost a math mouthful there. Shelby's State Department. Oh, dang it. I did a bad thing. How did I get out of it? Oh, there it is. Okay. Right, right, right, right. Sorry about that. Okay, where was it? Uh, Shelby State Department in full bright back fullbrite background. That is a mouthful to say. I cannot say it right. Whatever. I'm not trying again. The wheelchair that was brought in and left behind, her complete lack of reaction to the shot post C-section timeline. So funny. Uh, the family clustering and her own stated desire to work for the CIA all sit in the same frame. This is not an exhaustive map. It is the portion that can already be shown through public records, interviews, and footage. More eyes on it will only clarify what belongs there and what does not. Shout out to it's KK1 who has done a tremendous amount of research for this story. Everyone please follow this lady because she's amazing. Is this the lady that's uh uh nope that's Billy Web. Never mind. So then she says, "Brandy, Shelby, and me all joked about how we applied for the CIA when we were younger. I'm unfollowing the cons uh constant twisting of information isn't for me." And there we go. That kind of comes around full circle now. Ian Kelly comes to her defense. Oh man, what a wild wild situation, man. Who is it that uh who is it that just told us uh was it uh Har was Har 4? That guy. Is he the one that told us about this? Thank you for that. Thank you for sharing the information. Straight up. This is hilarious. I am so glad to see that these people are infighting just at an unbelievable stupid level. Everywhere in her ranks, people are fighting with each other. Now we got Mitch Snow, Project Constitution, Ian Carol, Billy Webb, whoever the other lady is, and uh Elizabeth Lane all fighting each other. I wonder who will end up on top, who will end up as number one Candace fan. Let's uh should we start bets? Should we like download one of those gambling apps and put that in there? Who's going to be the number one Candace fan after this? Uh who do you think she sides with? Blake Bednars thinks it's it's an explosive necklace now. Well, everybody has to have their own twist. Look at Project Constitution. He has to have his own take on the case in conspiracy theory because then more people will follow him exclusively. See what I'm doing here? It's pretty easy. Blake Bednars has his little niche. Project Constitution has his little niece. Ian Carol has his little niche. And uh so does Baron Coleman does to a slight degree, although he seems to just do whatever Candice actually wants him to do. So they all make their little niches in their little uh areas. So they, you know, end up with loyal bands, ones that'll come to them first instead of Candace Owens first. They're all like these little parasites, you know? That's what that's the way I see it. Anyway, Mindy says, "Oh, it gets better already. I sent you some tweets." Uh oh, wait, wait. From Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. All righty. Uh, let me stop sharing real quick. That way, I can pull up notifications just in case. You never know when somebody's going to send something that's really offensive over this. Uh, Holly Handmade. It absolutely proves that Andrew was correct and they have been coordinating and that's the best part. Andrew called the Candace Orbiters and ZF America to working together perfectly. I agree with that a million%. Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's see here. We have um Okay. Okay. I can pull this up real quick. No big deal. here. We'll see if this pops up quickly. Boop. Full screen that again. All right. So, Okay. Cool, cool, cool. Could we uh pull up the uh Raven Grace thing here real quick? Let's see. All righty. I appreciate it. Uh, okay. Now it makes sense. And now it makes sense. Yeah. I almost thought she said now it make it make sense, but I misread that. Okay, now it makes sense that we are back to Mitch. Mitch and Elizabeth Valhalla got into a few days ago. So now we know Billy and Brandy are Elizabeth's girls. Oh, so it really is going to be Project Constitution squaring up with uh Mitch Snow against Elizabeth and uh Valhalla. Oh, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. I misread that. Or wait, is it Elizabeth Valhalla? I do a few Mitch and Elizabeth versus Valhalla. I I don't even know. Wow. I need to really look more into their infighting. That's just a gold mine. I didn't know it was falling apart this badly within the Candace ranks. That's crazy. It took long enough, though. I guess in all fairness, it's almost been a year. I'm surprised they've held it together this long. Pretty wild. Okay. So, anyway, I'm I'm willing to bet Project Constitution ends up on the Mitch Snow side and then Elizabeth Lane, Balhalla, or uh Brandy and Elizabeth. They're all going to take one corner. I wonder where the rest are going to fall. I mean, it seems to me that Ian Carol is also falling in line with the uh with Brandy and Billy and uh Elizabeth Lane. So, there we go. And now Project is fighting with all three of them. Just found out Honest Ash is on Mitch's side. Mitch will show up soon with El Mitch will show up soon with Elizabeth soon. Candy baby, your crew is fighting. Yeah, I didn't think it would burn to this ground this quick. Or not this quick, but at this point in time, I didn't think it would just burn to the ground. I actually thought Candace Owens and her crew would end up making a lot of people turn against us, turn against MAGA. And I guess I uh I was just so far off the mark. I think this is gonna end up very very very bad I just didn't envision it crumbling like this. I really didn't. So anyway, Honest Ash here is saying, "Nope, Ian is Vajala's best buddy. Vajala's girl is Elizabeth Lane. Billy is one of Elizabeth Lane's girls. Welcome to the circle of what it looks like. A bunch of insiders. Let me know if you want to chat about what I know. Know Project Constitution. They would be wise to leave you be. Oh man. Yeah, I bet. I bet Project Constitution would just ruin all these people's lives. He's so good at it, right? He just He's known to just absolutely eviscerate and destroy his enemies. Yeah, I really doubt that. So, anyway, we already read that part. I think we're good here. I think that's really it. Wow. Well, I'm going to have a lot of work to do tomorrow, guys. You've given me a plateful. Thank you all for that, though. I am genuinely grateful for that information. Uh, this is this is just so fun. Oh, wow. Dr. Altoids here watching Gal Sharpton get her a handed to her in her own house by Andrew Wilson tomorrow. Absolutely. Great name for it, too. That's great. Alrighty. So, uh, shoot. What else we got here? We got Paramount Tactical Solutions from Facebook. The Fullbrite program is the flagship international academic exchange initiative sponsored by the US government. Operating in over 160 countries, it provides roughly 8,000 to 9,000 grants annually for students, scholars, teachers, and professionals to study, teach, or conduct research abroad and increase mutual understanding uh between nations. Absolutely. As per usual, you know, the left or well, I say the well, I guess I'm not incorrect. The left, you know, Candace Owens fans, they like to twist things and make uh, you know, one little program means it goes for one specific thing. According to them, it's kind of like whenever they were screaming about the integration of Israel's military into the United States military, even though we've done this integration like I don't know 16 times or something like that. And even though it only shares uh scientific information, technology, things like that. It doesn't actually merge our militaries whatsoever. In fact, the language is very clear about that. Never even suggests that our militaries merge. But this time, it's different. for some reason, even though we did it under Bush, we did it under Obama, even did it under Biden, did it under Trump's first term, nobody seemed to have a problem with it then, I don't know. It's wild. But, you know, that's what they tried to spin. And now, look at them. Now, look at them. They're falling apart. They're absolutely falling apart. And it's just delicious to watch. I don't know. I'm going to enjoy myself. I'm going to cook myself up a bucket of popcorn tonight. And uh I'm gonna be scrolling X, that's for sure. This is hilarious. Oh man. So, did everybody have a good time? Everybody have a good time on this show? Did I do a decent job? I didn't butcher it too bad, did I? I am. If you couldn't tell, I'm just a little bit nervous. I don't know. Just a little bit nervous here. Did everybody leave a like on Paramount Tactical? Did everybody from my channel go over to Paramount Tactical and subscribe and like? because I would greatly appreciate that. Like I said, Gary did not have to give me this platform at all and yet he did. I am incredibly grateful for it. Thank you guys so much. I hope you all had a lot of fun here today. Um, everybody in chat's just been unbelievably nice. Thank you guys so much. You guys are amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's just been an absolute pleasure being here, guys. It really has been. Man, I am at a loss of words. At a loss of words for sure. Uh let's see. We have uh we have Lace here saying uh and did everyone from our channel go sub to Arty? [laughter] That's very nice of you, Lacy. Thank you. Oh, man. Looks like I got to join the MSAD. Well, it's never too late, guys. We got to join right now. Well, that's what I was on my way to do right after this. Um we just got to go sign up for MSAD. We're all going over there and fighting the good fight, right? Did everybody everybody in chat made sure before on the on the way out, guys, make sure to get your uh bag. We have goodie bags for you. 7,000 shekels in each bag. Make sure you grab that because they're for everybody here. Everybody needs their shekels. Go out and get your shekels. I don't know. No, only we get the shekels, right? Is that how it works? Oh man. Oh, no problem at all. Do go to the dog. Thanks for my 7K. You're welcome, man. H I'm glad to serve. Glad to serve. Thank you so much for that comment, by the way, Jen. I I really appreciate it, man. Man and what a crazy crazy day. Alrighty. I think uh I think that's all I have to offer, guys. I uh I don't know. >> And we'll be back here at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> Absolutely. I am excited for that. That's going to be a hilarious show. Oh, that's going to be great. So, Candace Owens, debate tomorrow, 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, 9:00 a.m. 9:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. Central time, I think. 7 a.m. Pacific time. Where's Mountain Time at? Is mountain time the same as central time right now or is that later on in the fall? I cannot remember. But if so, it's either 9:00 a.m. Central or 9:00 a.m. Mountain time or 8:00 a.m. Mountain time. I'm not sure. That's going to be up to you Mountain time people. You'll have to figure that part out. But we will be here live watching the great Candace Owens Andrew Wilson debate. It's going to be a blast. It's going to be an absolute blast. Let's see. You can Oh, yes. All of this will be No, never mind. All of it's in UK time. Why not? We'll just all do it in UK time. Not even Utah time. Let's not even do it in Utah time. We'll go to UK time instead. No, I have no I have no idea UK time what time that would be. Um I could find out for you. If it's 9:00 a.m. Central, what is it in the UK? It would be 300 p.m. in the UK. For all you uh crazy crazy British people out there that are going to stick around to watch this 3 p.m. It's a hard time to wake up at, but I know you guys can do it. Be there or be square. All righty. I think Yeah, I think that's all uh all I have left in the tank. And thank you so much for having me here, Gary. Thank you so much for having me here, Jen. I really appreciate it. Let's see. We will be live at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time tomorrow. Absolutely. Well, I think uh I think that's the end of this of uh what I have to offer today. Um unless uh >> Nope. That's it. You did a great job. Everybody in the chat loves you. Um, we'll see everyone here tomorrow at 10 a.m. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much. >> We might have a show tomorrow evening where Gary calls in and uh responds to some of the stuff that happened during the debate. Um, so keep an eye out for that. That hasn't been set yet, but possible. But Arty and I will be here tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Hope everybody has a great evening. And thank you, Arty, for stepping in. >> Oh, thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it. >> All right, guys. Have a great night. [music] >> [music] [music]