The Charlie Kirk Show - Tyler Robinson Hearing Aftermath: Day 1

Episode Date: July 7, 2026

The first day of a weeklong preliminary hearing in the Tyler Robinson case just wrapped up, with new revelations about video evidence, Charlie’s autopsy, and more. Graham Allen describes the situation on the ground in Utah, and legal commentator Andrea Burkhart helps dissect what we actually learned after a day of confusing legal maneuvers, and gives her latest prediction of how long the entire process will last. TPUSA's Jobob joins. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter.

Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. All right, everybody, welcome to our special edition preliminary hearing recap that we're going to be doing every day to break down what happened in the preliminary hearing of Utah, state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. and we've got myself, Blake Neff here, and now we have Joe Bob, which is fantastic.

Joe Bob, welcome. There you are. And we've also got, Joe Bob does amazing work for us. It's got a great show, amazing. Joe Bob, just for the audience, you've been on the show before, but just in case people don't realize, you've been with Turning Point for years, you opened for Charlie, you traveled with Charlie at all the campus events,

and you do a great show on Real America's, voice so god bless you man thank you for joining us today it's been a heavy day and i think that's where i'm just going to quickly start i have a whole breakdown of all the facts and we have graham allen joining us and then we have um Andrea burckhardt who's a legal commentator she's going to join us for the second half of the hour so but i just want to start there um i can't stress to you enough of how much this is today has affected me has affected joe bob blake everybody in the office everybody at turning point it's so it's so um excruciating actually to have to be reliving all of this and to have it like up front and in our faces again um so joe bob maybe just tell tell

what it's like for you my friend you know i actually appreciate you starting it off like that because coming into this this is uncharted territory for everybody like i don't know are we you know supposed to break it down like you know these super sophisticated legal minds that of course all are or are we supposed to be vulnerable about the fact that this was a tough day like he was walking around the house earlier this morning and my wife's like hey is something wrong and it's like yeah there is and it just was one of those days where she could tell something was wrong um but it wasn't you know it was just this sinking feeling that you had and i was there last week at HQ and we're talking with some people around there about

what this was going to be. And same sinking feeling when I, you know, kind of realized the gravity of Erica and Charlie's parents being in the room and what they were going to have to see during this whole process that is, is, of course, necessary to get justice. But the very fact that you have to endure it is, is, doesn't make it better, doesn't make it good. It's still terrible. And so, you know, while there's the, the kind of the progression of this, the perceived,

of all of this is encouraging in in the quest for justice again i'm glad you started off like that because it is a sinking like heavy feeling has been around here all day it's so heavy it's so heavy yeah blick i know you've sinking in just this was a heavy day but with the knowledge this is day one of a preliminary hearing that we talked to various people they said they think it'll go at least three days it could go all five and then that's the preliminary hearing we'll talk to Andrew again and see what she thinks, but she says the trial might not hit until 2028. And then who knows how long that will go. And we might have to sit through appeals for this. This is, we were getting a lot of well wishes. I know you were. I was. And what I was telling everyone,

telling people who emailed is this is, it's going to be a long process. And we are here to see it through all the way to the end. Let's get into this. I just want to, it's a beautiful. brief primer keep it on all three of us so we can all chime in intermittently as we go through i'm just going to go through a couple facts since this is day one i just want to reiterate so erika was in court today she was seated next to charlie's father rob and his mother kath uh kathy katherine i call her katherine um they sat together they did enter through different entrances for security purposes but inside they sat together and all the news reporting that i've read is that they were comforting each other crying on each other's shoulders. There was also Erica's sister, Erica's niece and nephew,

representing the full extended family on both sides, including many relatives that couldn't be there, but they're there in spirit with them. Don Jr. was there, obviously a close friend of Charlie's, his wife, Bettina. You also had Jack Posobic, Brandon Tatum, and Graham Allen, who's going to be joining us in just a second. But to reiterate, this was the, this is day one of the preliminary hearing, not the trial, as Blake said, there's no jury. The purpose is for the state to present enough evidence to the judge, Tony Graff, to meet the probable cause threshold. And if that threshold is met, then it will go to a trial. Okay. So during the hearing, you see the state call witnesses and the defense may cross-examine them. And then we saw that today. The defense may also call witnesses. And

the state may cross-examine them too. And there's a lot of, you'll hear a lot of mention a hearsay. Well, the evidence governing a preliminary hearing is different in this case than a trial, right? So the standard of proof is lower. The purpose is you can, you can admit what they call credible hearsay, okay? Blake's not a lawyer, but he does play one from time to time on TV. Do you have any, like, clarifying? It's just the classic. There's usually in a. Humble criminal trial. You have the right to confront your accusers. And so a long established principle in our legal system, I don't know about those around the world, but certainly in ours, is you generally can't go, oh, this office, you know, a police officer will say, this person told me that. And in reality, you could bring that person in. And instead, you just have this secondary hearsay. You can't have someone testify that they heard something from someone while that guy's denying it and say, well, we just believe this officer is telling the truth. And so the example here where it's coming up, for example, is. they asked one of the second witness today what was in the medical examiner's report. And he's just saying, well, I saw this in the medical examiner's report.

And that's a credible hearsay in the sense. This is a police officer who's describing a document that he read while they were preparing this case. In the actual trial, we will be having the actual medical examiner on. Yeah, exactly. As a witness who will say, I performed this autopsy. This is what I found. They can be cross-examined. But for the case of, for this.

sort of probable cause thing. It's totally acceptable for them to have a police officer say, we have this and we generally trust this person unless there's an obvious reason to believe they're lying. Judge Graff has been very disciplined. He's sort of balls and strikes kind of guy. I think

he's very cognizant of the fact that he doesn't want to make a misstep that could make it appealable or whatever, right? The defense has fought very hard to prevent cameras in the courtroom. They previously filed a standing objection to the state's preliminary hearing exhibits. Today they stated additional objections as each exhibit was introduced. And that was one of the

big storylines today. Every single exhibit they would object to. So this is why we saw a whole lot of, I would say, theater, trial theater from the defense today regarding those objections. The judge has been very straightforward, balls and strikes, like I said. And it seems like the defense's strategy has been to blur the focus, right? They're delaying. They want to kind of slow things down. which is not surprising given everything that we've seen from this far, but at least that's my view, right? This blurring of the focus so they can't lay out the details. So as you as a watcher and Joe Bob, I'd be curious your perspective,

just watching this preliminary hearing, trying to sort of keep track of the details is difficult because it's bogged down in so much procedural back and forth. So last week on the Attorney Point Tonight show, we broke down to the best of my ability, right? I'm not an attorney. but the procedural process kind of like what Blake had laid out,

kind of what you guys have been talking about on the show pretty consistently in that there are different procedural rules for the pretrial and the actual trial. Here say it can be admitted. All of these things, the defense, seem to be trying to add the pre, or had the actual trial

to the pretrial, right? They tried to have all of the rights of the defendant that exist in the trial, to the pretrial with just the constant objections over and over and over again. And I hope my terminology is correct there, but that's how I understood it. But what I think was really interesting, and I recognize people don't have, you know, the full day to sit here and watch this. But I would encourage people to watch a big chunk of it if they can, because what I saw

as an observer was prudence and discernment from the judge. Every single thing he took it in, considered, decided whether or not it was going to get played for the courtroom and for the media, decided if that was, you know, good or bad or, you know, obviously evidence admissible and inadmissible. And you really got to see the process of thought that goes into it. It's not just like this haphazard. And again, I don't know why people would assume that it would be, but it was really good to see that reiteration of discernment on the bench to go, Here's what we're considering. Here's all the processes laid out. And again, as more or less a layperson when it comes to the legal system, it was good to see that throughout the entire day, really. Hillsdale College, Great Books 101, Ancient to Medieval course, is an absolute game changer. I'm taking it right now and you've got to check it out. So before Charlie ever stepped into a debate stage or behind a microphone, he understood something important.

And if you want to lead, you have to first learn. Charlie believed that ideas shaped character and conviction and courage. And that's why he spent so many years studying the classics, the American founding in the Bible. And he did a lot of that through Hillsdale College's free online courses. These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors. They're amazing. The best academics in the country. One of those courses, like I just said, is Great Books 101, Ancient to Medieval,

where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization, and they still speak to the deepest questions about our human nature and courage and family and government. The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West for thousands of years. And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey. Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey course launches in July. Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage.

So you can enroll today completely free. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today. That's Charlie forhillsdale.com. Charlie forhillsdale.com. Learn deeply. Think clearly. Lead boldly. Carry it forward.

I'm told that we now have Graham. Graham again, Graham Allen, we're going to be, we're going to be letting him in. Graham was actually in the courtroom all day. So I'm going to, while the studio gets Graham checked in here, I'm going to keep going with some of these breakdown. We prepared a point-by-point breakdown, just keeping notes all day. So all in all, the state is going to call four witnesses and admit 40 to 50 exhibits. I believe we do have the images of the exhibits, if we get to throw those up. Those are pieces of evidence. They called two of those witnesses today. and admitted about a dozen exhibits.

So the big, big, big takeaways, and then I'm just going to stop here with the big takeaways, and then I'm going to bring Graham in, is I think first Agent Hall testified that Robinson was seen on UVU surveillance video on campus a total of four times on September 10th, before, during, and then after the shooting. And so that was a big one, four times. Now, we're going to get into the video issues.

I think we'll talk about that with Andrea. Yeah, the internet's, I think, tempted to run away with that one, but there's nothing. So, and then also that the medical examiner's report listed Charlie's cause of death as homicide by gunshot wound to the neck. So no exploding Mike, no, none of that stuff. The medical, the straight medical examiner's report says gunshot wound to the neck. All right. And then the other big takeaway is, Officer Bagley confirmed that the roof of UVU's Losey Center was accessible by a public stairwell. and testified that he climbed to the rooftop immediately after the shooting.

There he saw a red and black screwdriver and a disturbance in the gravel, which he described as markings consistent with someone lying in the prone position with a line of sight to where Charlie was speaking. So I think those from just an evidence standpoint, those were the big takeaways. Graham Allen joins us now. Graham, so grateful to have you, man. And from the bottom of my heart, thank you for being in that courtroom and supporting Erica and her family, Rob and Kathy.

I couldn't do it, if I'm just going to be honest. I think I would have, I don't know how I would have reacted. It's a weird day. Yeah. What was it like? Well, weird day. Tyler Robinson was maybe six, seven feet in front of me the entire day. I've seen a lot of people recirculating and, you know,

old clip on the internet of him laughing and things like that. What I can confirm what I did see that all of us saw that was on that front row especially is Tyler Robinson was very, very active in wanting to see evidence. But when he would speak to, I saw the back of his head when he would speak to his lawyer, I can see his lawyer's side profile and she was giggling and she was laughing. And so that was hard to see in the courtroom. A couple of things I can put to bed, all this crap about Erica and Charlie's parents not being on the same page or they don't like each other. It was complete garbage.

I was on the same row. It was Erica, Charlie's parents. It was Jack Posobic, me, Don Jr., all in the front row the entire time. when we all went on recess and we're in the holding room, Erica was with Charlie's parents the entire time. Charlie's parents were speaking to all of us and they were talking to all of us. So all this garbage that Erica and the wife of Charlie Kirk and his parents, that they are not on the same page with each other.

That's total lunacy, total garbage. I've also seen a couple things again that, you know, They took her phones from us, so I'm catching up to what the internet is saying. I would encourage everybody to watch as much of the trial as they can, because what a lot of bad actors are doing is they're taking clips of them introducing one piece of evidence, for example, the gravel at the top of the building where the shot was taken. There's one picture that they put into evidence, and they're like, it's kind of hard to see the impressions that you saw that day. is it not? And the officer says, yes, it's kind of hard to see the impressions I saw. Well, people are just clipping that. And they're like, oh, this is a clown show. Like, like, oh, just trust me, bro, all this. But then the very next piece of evidence that they introduce is an even better picture showing obvious indentations of a grown male that was in a prone position to take a sniper style shot with a rifle. Like, so I encourage. encourage as many people as possible to watch as much of the trial as they can. I would also say that if you're watching this and you're on a side that that believes,

and I said this on my show today, this is about getting justice for Charlie. But if you're on this friend's side, it's all about these conspiracies and things, it appears to be the defense that doesn't want any evidence seen by anyone in any way, shape, form or fashion. It seems to be the defense that is against anything being admitted as evidence, being shown as evidence, all of those things. And so that was that that was pretty shocking to me. I expected anything. You can't you can't underscore that point in up though, Graham, is that the I saw the same thing on social media where people were like, oh, they don't want to show any evidence. And it's like, that's the defense.

The defense is the one pushing not to show evidence. state has been consistent like we want cameras, we want to show all the evidence. And every time the defense has come in with an objection about, it can't be on that monitor or it can't be published, which I guess is, means visible in the courthouse because it hasn't been submitted as evidence. They're finding technicalities to sort of limit the publishing or exposure of said evidence. And it just should be said, you know who someone was saying that today was the start of a show trial. And the real truth is, is everything about today. as indicated, this is one of the most methodical criminal justice proceedings.

Any of us have ever seen, it took us 10 months to get to this point of a preliminary hearing, something that is waived in a very large number of murder trials, something that happens within a handful of days in plenty of other, not just robberies, but murders, big cases like this one. Here they've taken ages to get here. They have litigated every single point about evidence, about cameras, about timing, about representation and they will continue to do so. And I think it was very telling that other than those claims,

for a lot of these people, they weren't even engaged today. They were picking other fights. Well, and I had a somebody who's not connected with Turning Point and not connected at all with the trial, but he was just watching. He sent me a text. He said, the defense's hearset objections were legally ridiculous and summarily overruled by Judge Graff. The court was fully briefed on the matter in advance. of the hearings and ruled, but the defense continues to raise this objection anyway.

So that was some, that's like a third part, completely unrelated, but this is a guy that's a prosecutor and that he was just like filling me in and I thought, okay, that's interesting. And there were definitely, go ahead. Go ahead. No, no, no, please. Well, there were definitely conversations about that. How long is the judge going to allow, you know, you know, code 1102 section 12 to be, you know, repeat. repeated over and over and invoked to block the publishing of evidence. Yeah. Correct.

And there were a couple of, you know, prior defense attorneys in there that, you know, we were able to have not in the court, obviously, when we were, you know, in recess or whatnot. You know, that would say that that's, you know, it's not a good sign. You know, obviously everyone's innocent until proven guilty, obviously. That's the way our court system is done. But it's never a good sign when the defense is just stalling like that over and over. If I can talk about the video, if you would call it any type of, you know, small bump in the road, I want to put away any type of things because we were also briefed on this as well.

The video is not dead that they wanted to submit into evidence that the judge said, well, you know, it's been enhanced or whatever it is, like zoomed in or circled around. Yeah, I want to get to actually, Graham, watch this. so we have this clip and just it helps to kind of bring some of this home this is the this is the clip so this is uh when judge graph rejects the admittance of the state's compilation of videos now again we're we're referencing when the state presented uh was i think uh questioning the witness and they said four times and they had a compilation where they put together those four videos this is that clip uh stop 55 this is a compilation

video that was put together from a bunch of different sources by the county attorney's office. This individual did not create this compilation. Can't testify to the accuracy of

the actual materials that it was taken from. And furthermore, Mr. Olson himself is just referred to by Agent Hall. He's specifically says people have altered these recordings. They've zoomed in when the, when the actual recording isn't zoomed. They've added little circles to people they want you to pay attention to you.

They've blurred people's faces out. So, I mean, it's been clearly altered. And it's not, I mean, they admit it's been altered. So we have real concern about authenticity of it. I'm going to go ahead and I'm sustaining the objection. All right. So, Graham, go ahead. Now that the audience all caught up. Yeah. So what the, the judge actually like said okay to in that was not this grand slam dunk like oh the you know the the state didn't get their evidence that's not what's happening well the judge what he did in that uh was he didn't have from the person on the state side who actually zoomed in in certain areas

or put red circles around to make it more easy what you were seeing it's kind of like telling John Madden back in the day that he manipulated the footage that he's replaying showing you that's a perfect analogy that this so it wasn't altered it wasn't like AI what they did is they to they used to John Madden style

exactly right where you know you'd freeze frame the NFL clip and he'd circle like look what the ball's doing here and it's going to shoot this way and watch they're going to move this way so they were trying to spotlight different things they wanted to draw attention to correct and the The video will be resubmitted as evidence.

The only question is, and it will make it into evidence, it's only a matter of question of in what form. Will it be the raw original form? Or will they, because they're going to resubmit this video as evidence when the court's back in session tomorrow morning. However, we just don't know what the judge is going to rule if it has to be the raw. Either way, the evidence is what the evidence is

that they saw him four times on campus. Correct. Right, from my understanding is it was someone inside the state, you know, the, the prosecutions team that did it. But they just didn't have assigned, I think they called it 1102 or something like that. Yes, I did it. I, I enhanced. I'm the one who edited this. Yeah.

Yeah, I didn't, I didn't, you know, edit or redact anything. Sure. So I, from my understanding, the plan is they're going to submit both. they're going to submit the un-enhanced version, along with the version they wanted to yesterday. And from the way it sounded with the judge, he's going to watch both of them then at that point. But you're right, it's going to be submitted tomorrow officially in as evidence.

Independence Day is the perfect time to talk about something we all care about, and that's freedom. And yes, that includes medical freedom, Our good friends and sponsors, All Family Pharmacy, they're running one of their biggest sales of the year from July 1st through July 7th. It's buy one, get one free on ivermectin capsules, Ivermectin cream, and others. If you believe in being prepared, this is a great opportunity to stock up and save. They make the process super simple. Everything's handled online.

They only run sales like this a few times a year, so don't miss it. Go to allfamilyfarmacy.com slash Kirk before July 7. Joe Bob, you have something you want to talk about. So one of the big social media clips that moving, I don't know is the right word, but got a lot of attention was Judge Graff watching the explicit video and his reaction, which probably is way more tame than most people would react. One, were you in the courtroom for that? And two, what can you describe what that was like watching those videos? And we have that clip here, Graham, if you want me to show it. Yeah, yeah.

It's the same one you posted Graham on X. So it's got a music bed to it, but 56. Yeah. It's wild to watch. It really is. I was there. We all were there. And so every one of the videos that were graphic in nature were, were, we're,

admitted as evidence, but both the state and the defense did not want it to be seen publicly due to the graphic nature of it. Because we've all, well, the vast majority of people saw the horrific social media, you know, iPhone images of what happened to Charlie. But especially when the, you know, the 4K. videos were were were put in there um that was yeah that that that was a tough moment that that was a really tough moment yeah to be to be clear though graham these were the videos that were rolling uh like of the event these are event these are the these are the 4k cameras that were around charlie

and that were submitted they were handed over to authorities the the moments after it happened i guess And so they've never been publicly viewed. Correct. Yes. And so, you know, those of us that were in the rows, I mean, you know, the audio is playing and we all know exactly when it happens. I mean, you know, we've all heard the moment the question Charlie was asked and his beginning to answer. And so, you know, I looked around, you know, kind of my left and my right and everybody kind of had their hand kind of clenched because we all knew exactly when the moment happened. But on that video specifically, I was looking right at the judge when that happened.

And so, yeah, it was, yeah, I mean, it's tough. It's tough to look at. And so his reaction is a real reaction. You mentioned you were looking around to people to your left and your right. I know that Erica and her family got the opportunity to leave during the, I guess, demonstration of certain exhibits. it's um were they able to leave during that or were they still there because the judge was just like how did that work yeah so so so they briefed us on that when we were in a recess that because uh but obviously Erica and and Charlie's Charlie's family they did not they did not want to see see that

and so so we knew that they were going to let us know when that moment was going to happen and so yes excuse me, Charlie, goodness. Erica and Charlie's family left. And so the only people left on the very front row was Jack Posobic was on my left. And Don Jr. and his wife were on my right. And that's all that was left on the front row when Erica and Charlie's family left. And then Brandon Tatum and others were behind us on the next row. So yes, they did get an opportunity.

to leave, but it was kind of a known leave because they didn't, they didn't want to see that, nor nor should they have to. No. And even the, even just being able to hear it. Correct. Right. Yeah.

Like I said, I'm just so glad you were in there. Something I didn't see people talking about and I wonder if you saw it. Did you see people outside the courthouse? Either protesters, people. trolling them, you know, trying to make fun of it the way we saw at our women's event or even maybe...

Yeah, what's the scene outside? Fringe YouTubers. Yeah. What's it like in the vicinity? Yeah. So where they have us all entering in at, it's pretty locked down. That there is a little bit of what looks like a parking structure up on top and you have some news crews that are like, you know, pointing down and things like that. it was mainly just media when we were walking in. I mean, there's a lot of videos on the internet of us walking in to the courtroom and things like that. I didn't see any protesters per se in that exact moment.

There were some people that were trying to get Don Jr. like to comment and things and he respectfully said, no, I'm here for, I'm here to support a friend. I'm not doing any on the record stuff and things like that, which I thought was very classy. him, you know, he's simply there for Charlie and for Erica. And so I thought that that was a really big thing because it's not easy to sit in that courtroom all day and listen and just the mundane of all of it. You know, there was another moment where that I saw some people chattering about online where, you know, Charlie's, either Erica and Charlie's parents or Charlie's parents got up abruptly and left or something like that.

From what I understand, Charlie's mom got a nosebleed. You know, it's dry weather here. I don't think it was anything serious. And she was fine the rest of the day. Like I said, Charlie's parents were great. They were talking to all of us in the recess rooms with Erica right there. And so, again, when I see all these things, and again, I was playing catch up with my phone, it's just, it shows shocking how many people have no idea what they're talking about.

Well, and that's been my whole experience of the last 10 months, Graham, is, you know, it's like... Totally out of the loop. The disconnect between real life and, like, where the Internet will go for it. That's one of the reasons we're doing this daily recap, because I want people to have somewhere where they can just get the actual facts from the case. Graham, and Joe Bob, I want to work you in here, too. And then we've got Andrea Burkart. She's actually standing by already, which is great. But Graham, what about Tyler Robinson's family?

Did you see them? Did you know which ones they were kind of? I didn't know who they were initially, but they were pointed out to me. So the way that we were lined up is it's not like the courtroom like you see on TV, you know, like where there's like two distinct sides and there's like this side and then that side. It was four rows horizontal to the,

the actual courtroom that most people saw, you know, from the camera position. So the front row, like I said, was Erica and Charlie's family, and then it was Jack Posobic, me, Don Jr., his wife. The next row, St. Cedarsia Sheridan was in there, Brandon Tatum, several other people were on the back row. And then I believe Tyler Robinson's family was on the third row. And then that fourth row was for just some random public. people that got, you know, a seat in there.

How many people are we talking about, Graham? All in. I think that we're viewing it or in total? Like just everyone. Like how many people were guests in that courtroom? I'm just curious. Oh, yes. Maybe, maybe 40, maybe 50 people when it was on set done.

That's small though still. Yeah, yeah. And that's including the media. And the media was sitting where normally the jury would sit. I would imagine. Got it. Graham, could you get a feel for what the media might have been talking about, chattering about, prepared to put out? Was there any sense of that that you get?

Or did you not really interact with the media that was there too much? You guys know me. I'm not a big fan of the media. So I didn't have it on my radar to talk to them specifically. I did note that a lot of them were looking our direction a lot of the time. It seemed like maybe that was toward Erica or Charlie's parents. Maybe that was towards Tyler Robinson's parents. I don't know.

But I did note that they were looking our direction an awful lot. Graham, final thoughts here. Please, any final things that you noticed or want to make sure that we hear from you. And then we're going to take a quick two-minute reset break and bring Andrea Burkart in next. So, Graham, any final thoughts? Just just continue to pray for Erica, for Charlie's parents, for for the family. This is day one, right? And so, so it's just getting started. Forensics and all that stuff haven't even been introduced. I mean, I mean, there's so much more to do. Just continue to pray.

And then I said this on the show this morning. When all this is said and done and justice has been served and all this. My biggest hope in prayer is that Charlie's legacy is what, you know, is the life he lived and not how he died. It is my biggest hope and everything. And so, um, we just want the truth. And this is actually how you get it and how you actually get actual justice. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Sunlight's the best disinfectant. We want full transparency. We want everything to be visible and viewable for the, I mean, not the graphic stuff, candidly. I don't know. I mean, I don't think anybody needs to see Charlie being, you know, in 4K. I don't need to see that. But either way, Graham, I just want to finish with this and say,

thank you again. It means a lot to us on a very personal level, right? Like everybody's, you know, you got your show, we got ours and influencers, blah, blah, blah, all that stuff. No, like on a very personal level, it means the world to us that you were in there supporting Erica and Rob and Kathy and the whole family. So thank you, man. At least I could do. Angel Studios has a new feature film that is a must-see, and I really, really mean it. This film tells the untold story of George Washington before he was a general or a president.

At just 20 years old, Washington faced crushing failures, near-death experiences, and pivotal moments that forge the courage, the character, and the leadership that would one day shape the United States. Angel Studios and Wonder Project have joined forces to bring you a high-quality production that doesn't erase the values that made George Washington who he was. It's not some woke film directed by John Irwin, who did Jesus Revolution I Can Only Imagine, American Underdog, House of David. This epic film brings history to life with authenticity, scale, and truth. With these incredible people behind it, you know it's going to be good. Starring legends like Andy Circus, Ben Kingsley, and Kelsey Grammer, Young Washington,

Washington arrives in theaters this Independence Day, right on the 250th anniversary of America's founding. Angel tells the stories America was built on. No apologies or rewriting just the truth of who we are. Their curated library of films and shows honors this country instead of tearing it down. This isn't a woke version of history. It's bold. It's authentic. And it's true to who George Washington really was. The biggest blockbuster of the summer, timed perfectly with America's 250th anniversary, where you can become a premium Angel. member for only $15 a month or $135 for an annual membership. You need to see this on the big screen. By becoming a premium member of Angel, not only can you get tickets to see Young Washington, but you'll get access to their whole library of content where you can stream other patriotic

films and shows like green and gold, Mike Rose Something to Stand for, Homestead, and the last rodeo, stories of freedom, sacrifice, and the people who made this country what it is. Join the Angel Guild today. Go to angel.com slash Kirk, take advantage of our special offer and become a premium member for the lowest price of the season. You'll get two free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day and be a part of making this film the number one movie in America for our nation's 250th birthday. We have Andrea Burkhart, legal commentator. She's a trial and appellate litigator. You can find her at Substack. Andrea burkehart.substack.com. Andrea, welcome and thank you for making the time. You've been covering this trout. Really, you've been a source of information for me too.

You have a way of looking at things and insight because you've done this before. Big picture, what do you make of this? And then I want to get in, of day one, and then I want to get into what we can expect tomorrow morning and coming up next based on the exhibit list that has been made public. Yeah, so far, there's nothing that's happened that has struck me as particularly surprising. Every jurisdiction has their own rules and their own ways of doing things, and so there can be a lot of variation in kind of the specifics of how things happen. But by and large, just in terms of what's being

presented, how they're presenting it, the volume and nature of the objections that we're getting from the defense as well. These are all things that, to my view, as somebody who's handled these in similar kind of hearings before. It appears to be going largely according to script, consistent with the expectations that the parties would have had for how a hearing like this is expected to go. I think the big question that a lot of people have, and Blake and I were debating it,

and we were talking to some other people trying to figure out why. I think I texted you about it. And I think you had a great answer, so I want you to share it here. Why is the defense basically, trying to object to every single exhibit, right? What is the tactic here? Is there anything to read into it? Well, I think that is, it is normal. As always in a death penalty case, you, you just do expect to see a little bit more vigorous of a defense than you might in cases that don't have

quite as much at stake. That said, it's always a bit of a strategy call and maybe to some extent a style issue as well, how attorneys to decide to manage things like objections in a case. What we saw today was just repeated objections. There's already a standing objection on the record that was filed in writing, but the defense is taking the opportunity to reiterate that objection, explain it multiple times. And so it can perhaps come across as a bit repetitive to be hearing that same. Yeah, but can't that eventually sort of backfire if you start frustrating the judge, if you start sort of, I don't know, just becoming coming off like obstructionist? It can. I mean, that is the tradeoff. It is a style choice to be aggressive like that

that can be off-putting. The risk is that if you simply flood the judge's attention with everything possible that that you could raise as an objection, then you run the risk that when there's something really good and really, really strong, it's going to be lost in the fog of everything that you've already thrown at him. And he's not going to realize, you know, oh, this time, you know, they really mean it. And there's, there's really something substantive here. So it is a little bit of a risky play. But just given their position and the fact that they do have an obligation to make the best record they can, looking down the road. in anticipating future appeals and future post-conviction processes to make sure that they're not

waiving any possible objection that he could make at any point of this process, that's going to be a big driving factor for why they are behaving the way they are. Really fascinating. And I do think it's interesting, especially if they try that strategy in a trial, which I know you've warned us could be as late as 2028, which I'm still like smarting from, to be perfectly honest. But if they try that in a jury trial, I can imagine that would be very frustrating for a jury. That would be very frustrating for the entire legal process,

probably Judge Graff. So I think that's important to kind of keep in mind. So we mentioned this in the first part of the hour, and I want to ask you this one question, then we'll get into the exhibit list and what we can expect next. I think the big bombshell today, if there was one, I certainly took note is that the state is claiming that they have evidence of him of Tyler Robinson being on campus four times the day of September 10th, two times in the morning, one time

during the actual shooting, and then one time in the wee hours of the night that even bled into September 11th. But then there was this controversy about the video, and Judge actually did sustain that objection because the video had been altered. Please explain how you perceive that. I know that the evidence is going to be resubmitted tomorrow morning. They're going to submit apparently both the raw and the edited. It's not AI edited. It's not enhanced. It's not changed.

They just John Madden style zoomed in, drew circles around certain things to draw your attention to what they wanted you to pay attention to. But how did you perceive that? Well, I perceived a lot of this as a little bit of a feeling out by everybody to get a sense of what the parties are going to try, what types of limits, rules they're going to try to impose. then what the judge's tolerance is is going to be within that, within that playing ground. So what the prosecution was trying to do is really not unusual. It's trying to prepare an exhibit in a way that maximizes its helpfulness. It's very common, particularly with things like video evidence, that there's a lot of dead time. And you don't necessarily want to watch the whole thing. It's just wasteful. Yeah. And you're not even sure where your eyes supposed to be looking sometimes

if it's grainy or whatever, those little aids can help be like, hey, look here because this is where the suspect walks through the frame. You know, that to me makes a lot of sense. But they're saying it adds bias or something. Is that their argument? Oh, no. The only, the sole issue that came up really with this is that because they didn't have the person who actually prepared those edits available to testify or, you know, submit a statement that explains what they did and exactly what the alterations were that they weren't sufficiently authenticated for purposes of admission in court. They are basically resolving that problem by, as you said, their intention is now to just present the unedited compilation of the different video clips that they collected.

And so then they'll be able to show the judge that, and that will enable him to then see when he looks at the edited version what exactly they did to revise it and to draw it to his attention so there won't be any confusion about what was the raw video and what was added by somebody for editorial purposes okay now that makes a lot of sense okay so i want to um yeah okay so we do have that clip all right um 54 just to underscore your point here andria stop 54 we're going to resume with mr hall tomorrow morning tomorrow morning and let me explain to and i was going to explain this but let me explain why. Because our intent is to prepare an original version of the video

that has been in dispute today without the circles, without the blur, and without the zooming in. And our intent is to introduce that tomorrow as a different exhibit. And we just can't prepare that in the next hour or so. For today, Agent Hull, you may step down, and we'll resume with your testimony tomorrow morning. all right so that just just to sort of bring it home i want to take our attention to the exhibit list that's been made public and if i'm reading this right so we got four witnesses that they're planning

to bring up the first two we've we've now met we're we're halfway through with the first with the second it seems like we're about to enter the phase of the preliminary hearing where we start getting into forensic when we start getting into DNA and probably maybe uh we might see that video from Lance Twigs, who's Tyler Robinson's lover. So am I reading that right? Or do you think that the defense is slowing things down to the extent that we're not going to get that far tomorrow? Where I expect we're going to go, it appears to me that the state is telling basically a chronological story. They're putting this in order in terms of the timeline. If that's correct, then we won't probably get the forensics until close to the end. And what we would instead get

is leading into the process of we've started the identification of Tyler Robinson as the suspect. We've introduced the topic of his surrender, but we haven't tied those pieces together, how Tyler Robinson became known to the police, how he came to be in custody, how some of these pieces of evidence were obtained, you know, how they were able to get Tyler's DNA in order to do this comparison in the first place. Those are all going to follow on the story of the identification, the surrender, and then the arrest, and taking into custody, seizure of additional evidence. Hi, folks, Andrew Colvette here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Reefi.

You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com. That's the letter why then refi.com. And remember, why

Reifai doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to whyrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. I think it's just looking at this. It's Exhibit 16 is the recorded statement from Lance Twigs, which if you remember there was that back and forth whether or not he was going to be subpoenaed to come in. The judge said he did not need to be subpoenaed that the video would suffice. But if you're talking chronological order, then we probably would get 16. It's right. I mean, I would think maybe that could be tomorrow, but that really makes sense to me what you just said. Although they seem to have followed this significantly through chronological order almost of practically the order they got the information in

because they started with you're at the scene. These are videos that we obtained at the scene. And then here's the video we obtained from UVU. And then eventually maybe I'm totally off base here. That's actually an interesting wrinkle there. When you say chronological order, Andrew, do you mean the order by which they got the evidence and the order? or is it the as the events took place that day and the 11th and so so forth?

Yeah, no, I think that's a good, good correction by Blake. That's a very good point. It's the story of the investigation because that's really what the probable cause hearing is focused on is did the investigation produce reasonable suspicion to believe that this person likely committed this crime? And so the story of the investigation is kind of a common way to frame that particular issue for the court to understand. understand what police learned when they, they learned it, how it fit into their investigation. And then from that, what are the reasonable inferences that you can draw at each step along the way? So because this is kind of a check on the police and the prosecutor's reasoning in how they conducted the investigation, the chronological story of how they conducted that investigation just tends to be an easy way to follow that.

We asked JTown this earlier, but I wonder if you're going to give the same answer as him. I just asked, so we have the statement, this interview they did with Twigs, it's videotaped, they're going to obviously introduce it. Is it likely you think that we will hear the whole thing played for us tomorrow? Will they merely maybe show a screenshot of it that it exists, introduce a transcript? How much are we likely to get of new information? Because right now we essentially only have that this recording exists. Well, that's the million dollar question. If I were going to you know, go to the prediction markets on this one. Just based on what we've seen from Judge Graff so far, I would expect that we are going to at least hear it, possibly see it as well. But the reason I say that

is because while he has certainly shielded some of the exhibits from public view so far, those have largely been grounded in concerns about the dignity of the victim. And just kind of the common sense, there are certain things that don't need to be on TV blasted everywhere for everybody to see for all eternity. This is not that. That said, the defense is going to have extremely strong objections to this. They're going to argue this is highly prejudicial to the defense. It's the kind of thing that is going to, people are going to form opinions of guilt based off of it. And so because of the potential to prejudice the jury pool, it should not be made public. So far, that argument has had really only limited success with Judge Graff. His view has been

that, number one, there are other mechanisms that exist to deal with pretrial publicity. We call in large jury pools. We do big jury questionnaires. We do a lot of individual questioning and things like that to root out people that have either too, two firm opinions about the case or just know too much about it and can't put that aside. But also because, you know, this is, I guess, the upside of the trial potentially being so far down the road is that the prejudice has time to mitigate. You know, it's not like we're having this hearing and then we're going to go have trial tomorrow, so everything that happened is going to be fresh in everybody's mind. There's a lot of time for new information, for memories to fade, and, and, and, you know, that's. And, you know,

things like that. So if I were going to predict it, I would predict that we are going to be able to see that one. And that's certainly the outcome I'm hoping for. Yeah. So the way this works just to bring everybody back into sort of a procedural mindset, the state goes first. They've allotted five days for this, but this could. And it's like four and a half because Wednesday is scheduled to be a half day. So if you're just looking at how much progress we're making, do you see the state going up until taking up all that time until Wednesday and then the defense taking Thursday Friday? Or are you getting a read of how this is going to work? Because again, the state presents the defense is going to cross-examine. Then the defense gets to call their witnesses and the state will cross-examine.

So I just want to make sure everybody's still tracking with us on the actual TikTok here. thoughts. Yeah, I think that's probably in about the ballpark that I would expect the state to be done at this rate, probably by the end of Wednesday or maybe partway into the day on Thursday. It just depends on some of the details of how these things flesh out. We are expecting the three forensic experts that the defense wants to call. The state did not object to them doing that. So these are going to be analysts likely from the FBI or the ATF. And so I'm not really expecting that to be extensive. They're not going to offer the same kind of like long background testimony that we're getting from these witnesses like Officer Bagley and Agent Hull who participated, you know, extensively in different parts of the investigation.

So there's just a lot of time and material for them to cover. The forensics tend to be much more discreet. And so they do tend to go a little bit faster for that reason. Um, okay. So we've got, I'm trying to make sure we dealt with all of the things I saw online. Erica was actually sitting next to Charlie's parents. We dealt with that. Graham did that. The issue of the defense, it was actually the defense that was trying to block the presentation of the evidence, not the, not the state, not the prosecution. And just to be expressly clear, we are in favor of max transparency here. We are. and then, you know, the online chatter about the compilation video that's going to be resubmitted tomorrow. If you're, now I had, there's a, I have all these lawyers in my life that I didn't realize that are like texting me out of the blue.

I'm like, oh, hi, nice, you know, I forgot about you from high school and, you know, like there's, but I had another, one of these guys texts me and he was basically saying that he, he, his basic understanding of the defense's tactic here, is sort of the dog that didn't bark, right? It's almost like a tell that they don't have a better defense strategy, that they're going straight obstruction. I mean, am I reading too much into that, or is this person who gave me that take? Tell me if I'm wrong, all right? You're the bearer of good and bad news.

You call balls and strikes. Sure. Well, look, I did this job for almost 20 years. So everybody has a little bit of a different style and a little bit of a different approach, but there are some pretty common grounds, particularly with the folks that I relate to, which is the professional public defenders here on this defense team. And so there are certain things that I expect to be the case given that. I expect that if there is a strong case for factual

innocence, the defense is going to be asserting that. They're going to assert it early. They are going to assert it often. And that's because it's just kind of routine. It's normal that any time somebody is charged with a crime, there's a high volume of information from the state side, from the prosecution side about why the charges are being laid. But the defense side often doesn't get heard. And so you have something that correct some of that information. You're going to bring that out early. You're going to bring that out often to try to correct some of that just public opinion, public impression about the case. Make sure that they understand. There's more of the story here. Also, just seeing what has been focused on in the litigation that's happened

in the trial so far, some things stand out to me. One is the absence of discovery disputes. One of the online chatter things that happens periodically, there have been some complaints, some statements made about the record about what the defense has or has not received through the discovery process. The defense has, by their own account, received as a massive volume of information, hundreds and hundreds of terabytes of information, raw video data, raw cell phone data, digital data, a lot of this type of information. And so there may be, you know, things around the edges that the defense is unhappy with. But so far, none of that has risen to the level of actually moving for a court order to compel that it be produced to

you. There may be reasons for that. It may be because they're just waiting until this preliminary hearing is over. It may be because they don't actually have a strong right to get what it is that they're asking for. And maybe that some of the stuff has been able to be resolved. If you could go back in time and buy oil before the world relied on it, would you? Of course you would. Anybody would. So why aren't you buying silver right now? The people who recognized oil early didn't just make money. They got ahead of one of the biggest economic shifts in history. And today, A similar opportunity is unfolding with silver. Silver is more than a precious metal.

It's a critical resource used in solar panels, electric vehicles, defense systems, AI infrastructure, and the massive data centers powering that digital world. While demand keeps growing, it's still affordable enough that the average American can start accumulating it right now. That's why investors are turning to silver to protect against inflation and to own one of the world's most important strategic resources. Don't be the person who looks back in 10 years and says, I saw it coming. just didn't act. Visit noble goldinvestments.com slash kirk and learn how easy it is to own physical silver.

That's noble gold investments.com slash kirk own the metal the future depends on. That's a really good point. So just because I'm just always predicting where the internet is going to go next. So they're going to hear the defense go. But we ask for this information and they're not giving it. And basically there are a lot of explanations of why that, why they may not want a rush to give said intel, right? Maybe they believe, the prosecution believes that they're not entitled to such and such, right? Or that they are planning on doing it, but, you know, and what would be the conflict resolution there? Would the judge rule what they're entitled? It's kind of case by case. Yeah, there can be a lot of different reasons why you might be asking for something. And there's

different levels of entitlement to it. Utah rule what you're entitled to as a mandatory disclosure is very specifically defined. But there are typically always catch-alls where if it's necessary in the interest of justice and the interest of fairness or things like that, the judge can order the prosecution to have to provide it. There's always complications in cases where you have a state and federal law enforcement involved in a state prosecution. This is a whole complicated issue because of the supremacy clause of our Constitution under which federal law enforcement, they're not bound by orders of a state court. They can't be subpoenaed into a state court. They can't be ordered to produce documents by a state court.

And so they have their own processes that you have to work through in order to get access to discovery from federal investigators. So something that criminal defense attorneys are very familiar with and have to navigate with some frequency, but it's not commonly known by the public what that looks like. So that can be part of it. Part of it can be things like. we already know one of the requests that they've made is they want the source code for a proprietary

piece of software that was used to calculate the I'm going to use some technical language here the deconvolution of the mixture the DNA mixture I don't know which example exactly but some of the DNA that was recovered in this case was a complex mixture they have to analyze it statistically they use the software program. And so the defense is demanding the source code to the software program. I understand why they want it and think that there's a good reason why they should have it. But whether that is something that the court can compel a private organization to turn over is a question. Whether there needs to be some kind of protection for their intellectual property, you know, is a question.

Like a New Zealand company or something like that that owns the proprietors? I think it's, yeah, government of New Zealand or government of Australia. Right, right, right. So, yeah. And so just leave it to the internet, by the way, to take the court's inability to compel a foreign entity, a foreign private company to give away its bread and butter, its moneymaker to the state of Utah or the defense of Tyler Robinson. But that'll become the next thing people run with. Blake, you had to. Well, I just wanted to, because.

I think about it all the time. When we last had you on, you predicted we're probably only going to see the trial early 2028, spring 20208. Do you see any reason to adjust that timeline due to events of the last couple months? Nope. Nope. I continue to think that that is an honest. I hate to say this, guys. I really do hate to keep driving this home, but that's optimistic.

It really is. 2028 is optimistic? Yeah. Early 2028 is optimistic. There's a massive amount of investigation that the defense is going to need to do, and there's a massive amount of litigation that is already being foreshadowed with things like the scientific evidence and stuff like that, and this is all going to be very time-consuming.

So it's going to take a while. Terrible update, but I appreciate the candor. Andrew, there has been reports from, like, News Nation has a reporter in there that Tyler Robinson, Graham actually, Graham saw it, so first time to count from him as well, Graham Allen did, that Tyler Robinson and I guess his lawyer, Nestor, were laughing and that she was laughing. And I've seen that go pretty far and wide. You know, that's, I'm just trying to put my head in the psychology. If your client is, you know, standing, you know, trial for murder, it's a capital case you could face the death penalty

why I mean why would you be laughing is this like is that a tell that that's why they've been pushing so hard to keep cameras out like maybe that's why they want to because they realize this kid's his own worst enemy in that way just optically but then I'm sort of questioning like why is the lawyer giggling to I just I can't fathom that like this is a really somber thing that's happening yeah I can absolutely appreciate that perspective. And I think this might be one of those situations where there, there is a disconnect between the way that the attorney and the defendant are encountering the process and the way

observers and even other participants in the courtroom are. The defense lawyers, their primary concern, number one, is their client's well-being, period. Full stop. Whether he's guilty, whether he's innocent, that's what their primary concern is. And so court, for the best of us, is a, is a It's a stressful process. And this is a young man who doesn't appear to have any kind of criminal history. This is a new experience for him. It's very high profile. They're going to want to put him at ease. That's going to be one of their big concerns is that he is not they're racked with anxiety, that he understands the process, that he's comfortable with what is going on. So it probably does look bad. And I think if they were thinking about it through, that filter of what is it going to look like to the cameras watching, they might behave different. But I don't think that is their primary consideration here. They want their client comfortable. And if that means adding some levity, some dark humor to the situation, Lord knows they are not the only ones in this whole process that have had to do that.

Yeah. I think that kind of sums it up for the day. Again, I think the big, the big revelations were the four times. They've got evidence that say video. evidence of him being on campus four times. Officer Bagley heard a shot and he identified it pretty quickly in his mind as a rifle shot. He went up to the rooftop, saw what he described as a sniper's nest. And then, you know, I think the other big one was, yeah, I think those were the two big ones. Those were really the two, from an evidentiary standpoint, those were the two big revelations today. Blake, Andrea, any final thoughts of things that we should be considering as we move into

tomorrow and then we'll wrap this up? I am just continuing to expect, you know, more of the same. This has been a relatively organized process. Just fairly simple in terms of the rulings and the types of objections and things like that. There have been a little bit of, you know, bumps in the road to sort out with things like is the camera going to get to show the exhibits to those of us at home and things like that. But that's normal to work through some of those growing pains. And so now that everybody's on the same page about what the expectations are, I think we can expect a little bit more smooth sailing from here.

One last question here. I got a lot of people reaching out to me just sort of saying, I can't believe the defense didn't waive the preliminary hearing. Was that an option that they had? And what kind of what's a calculation there? either way? Yeah, that's actually a great question. And so part of the reason why I believe they didn't is because in Utah, it's not entirely up to them. The prosecutor has a say in it as well. There is some case law out of Utah that recognizes that the preliminary hearing is also a right that the state has to present the basis of its case and its charging decision to the public.

So had the prosecutor agreed to waive, then we would be having, you know, potentially different conversation. But strategically why people often do choose to waive it is because of what we're seeing. There's evidence that's presented. And if the evidence we can assume is inculpatory, it may not be the whole story. But it's the reason why there is a charging decision. It's selected for that purpose. So it tends to be negative for the defendant from the standpoint of, you know, is people having opinions about innocence or guilt. Yeah. Do we have any? indication that the prosecutor got to weigh in on this? Is there, do we know that the prosecutor said, you know, hey, if you try and wave this, we're

going to reject it? We don't. There's nothing in the record one way or another. Okay. Any final thoughts? I just, as you said, like the big things we learn today, I feel something is good to take a step back because we've heard so many insane things that what we heard today, there were no bombshells.

They were things we obviously expected to hear, which is. We all, I physically saw Charlie shot by a rifle shot. And this officer says, I heard a shot. A guy jumped up and waved his hands around. So I thought, oh, it was a close range thing. And then I did the math in my head. He didn't have a gun. And that was a rifle shot.

And then he ran to the roof. And then he went and looked for that. And we have evidence that Tyler Robinson had been on the scene and fled the scene. And lo, they say, we have the camera footage that says he was on the scene multiple times. We're just getting exactly what we expected, and that's what we wanted to see. Yeah, and I got to underscore it as well that we got the medical examiners reference to it, that it was death by, you know, rifle or a gunshot wound to the neck. Exactly what we would have expected.

You know, exploding mics and all that kind of stuff. You know, the medical examiners report now confirms that. Okay, so I think that's going to wrap it up for us today here. Andrea, thank you so much for making your time. I know you've been streaming all day and taking questions all day. I want to give you a shout out to your your socials here again really quick. Sorry, I don't have them pulled up, but I just want to make sure I reference them. Andrea Burkart, and that's B-U-R-K-H-A-R-T dot substack.com.

Check her out there. And what's your X-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-L-E-R-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E. X-H-H-H-H-H-R-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-E-R-R-E. It's also on YouTube. Okay, A. Burkart Law. Thank you so much, Andrea. Thank you for making the time for us. We really appreciate it.

My pleasure. All right. Okay. Excuse me. We're going to be doing this every day that there is a preliminary hearing and just recapping the big, big takeaways and making sure that there is a, we talk about a court record. We want to make sure there is a factual record in the public and available to all of you as you navigate this alongside with us. And we appreciate you joining us. And we'll see you again tomorrow.

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.