The Charlie Kirk Show - Tyler Robinson Hearing Aftermath: Day 4

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

Day 4 was by far the most eventful day of Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing. Graham Allen helps go through the tremendous amount of evidence presented, from Lance Twiggs's testimony about an in-person confession to Robinson's text messages to the bullet fragments taken during the autopsy. Plus, Allen and Andrea Burkhart react to an appalling and out-of-nowhere attack by the defense team on Erika Kirk. 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 noble gold investments.com. That is noble gold investments.com. All right, welcome to our daily recap episode. It was the fourth day of the preliminary hearing of the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. And it was a absolute doozy. I think it was the most jam-packed day so far. Oh, by a mile. More than the other days combined. Yeah. There was a lot.

Five times over. There's a lot that could happen. This is a lot of what we were building to. The last few days, I guess on the first day, we saw the footage four different times on campus. That was basically a new thing. But other than that, it was a lot of stuff we had seen before, a lot of stuff we knew at least was in the record. This is the first day, I feel, where we got a very large amount of new information, either images of things that we'd only heard state it existed. or in the case of Lance Twigs,

we got actual testimony from a person we had not heard from before. We didn't get all of it. There were a lot of redactions. The defense fought very hard to redact even more of it. Thankfully, a lot of that was dialed back by Judge Graff.

And so we got a tremendous amount of information stuff we did not know before. And we want to dive right into it. So the top lines are, just to summarize memorize it and we'll go into depth on these things we found out that there was DNA recovered from the rifle the cartridges and dremel tool all positively matched to tyler robinson okay twigs

lance twigs uh referred to as luna i believe by uh the uh tyler robinson video testimony and it was devastating honestly for the defense um it contains an admission of guilt and much much more timelines established. The defense attorney was his name Bert? Michael Bert, I believe. Who, didn't you say he once? He was once a defense attorney

far back in the day for the Lyle Menendez. That's the Menendez brothers. Some of you older viewers may remember. Yeah, they killed their parents. So that's his people know him from that case. And he successfully got a mistrial on the first go-round of that case. So this guy attacks, I mean, completely inappropriate attack targeting of the Kirk family for wanting to see the enhanced video of

Tyler Robinson on campus. Remember, there was that back and forth in day two that bled into day three. And they wanted to see the enhanced version. We call it the John Madden style version where they zoom in, they circle it. They want to see that. And then this Michael Burke guy just starts lobbying a bunch of misrepresentations about the Kirk family, about Erica. We're going to get into that. Jeff Nyman, total hero today, by the way. He successfully argued on behalf of the Kirk family to get the Twigs video. Much of it restored, a pretty massive reversal from the original ruling last night.

The indication was that a lot of it was going to be redacted, and then the judge went in our direction significantly. So massive, massive developments today. So let's get into it. We have some great clips. Then we've got Graham Allen who's going to be joining us. And then once again, Andrea Burkart in the second half of this hour. Where do you want to start, Blake? Which clip?

Oh, man. Let's, I'd say this is the part that stood out to me the most. This, I hadn't seen it before. It provoked quite a reaction. They have Lance Twigs. He's talking about that Tyler Ruff. Robinson returned to their shared home after the shooting. In fact,

after he'd sent a message basically confessing, but he'd returned home. It was an automated message. Yes. Yeah, the automated message saying, you know, go check. Yes. Right now. He said, is this real?

And he actually, I don't think we'd seen that before in the transcript. He said, like, F, I thought I deleted this in all caps. And then they have an extended conversation, which we'd seen a transcript of, but not all of it. There were a few quotes that were new. But anyway, they return and he speaks to him at their home where he confirms that it's real.

And he says he admitted it happened. And he says he wished he hadn't done it. Let's play clip 31. Did he talk about what he had done? Didn't go into detail. I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before. And he said it was. I started crying a little bit and said,

he wishes he hadn't done it, and then kept going around and just doing stuff, I think, to keep himself busy or distracted or something. Yeah, that's a really, I think of all the clips today, I was in a really weird headspace after watching that, crying wished he hadn't done it. And the senselessness of this act of evil, just how unnecessary it was, how this kid didn't even feel after doing it like he was convinced that he should have done it

I mean like you could at least so sociopathic it sounds bizarre but if it had been a truly radical terrorist who said I did it and I'm glad I did it and I don't agree it'd be really evil

but you'd at least understand that he was committed to the evil and instead it you get this feeling that this was almost a fleeting obsession a whim and he immediately regretted it after he did it either because he realized it was evil we can hope or just because he realized he'd thrown his life away. We do have Graham Allen on the phone. Court got out a little bit later today so we weren't able to rush him over in front of a Zoom. Graham, welcome. Great to have you by phone. We just played the clip of that video recording from Lance Twiggs talking about him crying, wished he hadn't done it.

me, I'm never going to forget the first time I heard that recording. It's going to leave an impression for me the rest of my life. What was it like in the courtroom? Yeah, so the courtroom today, a completely different vibe and feel than it was yesterday. Yesterday was a very frustrating day. It was only a half day, and the defense did a really good job yesterday of just kind of dragging it out to where nothing really got done. Obviously, over this land, Tewigs video. What we did see, I, you know, I heard the clip play. Yeah, that was a really bombshell clip there.

I said it in my recap on my show this morning. The defense is obviously scared to death of this 35, 37 minute video of Lance Twigs, which is why they fought so hard to get so much of it to where even us in the courtroom, we couldn't see it. The defense was getting their head beat in all day. I mean, if I can just be honest about it, this was evidence after evidence, after evidence, after evidence. And you really felt that with the defense. This Michael Burke guy coming out of nowhere and attacking the victim, Erica.

So look at this. Look, I realize that this is America. and I realize that we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. I get that. But one person in this whole thing is there is no question about innocent or guilt. And that's the fact that Charlie Kirk was brutally murdered and his widow is in the courtroom. And this Michael Burt lawyer guy, because the defense is getting their head kicked in during this case, loses his composure and he throws direct attack. at the widow of Charlie Kirk.

It was the craziest thing I've ever seen. I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face, and that's health insurance. There's an organization I really, really appreciate, called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith-based alternative to health insurance. And this is real stuff, folks. Like, you've got to listen in.

With CHM, you're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with, less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need because they're not insurance. You get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. If you want to see massive savings in your health care budget, CHM has four low-cost programs for every stage of life starting at just $150 a month.

Plus, you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith. Start today by visiting ch ministries.org slash Charlie and use promo code Charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's ch ministries.org slash Charlie and use promo code Charlie. I don't know what I would have done. I mean, you should have seen our text chain. I'm not proud to admit some of the words that I used in it when I saw that happen.

And the fact that he came after the widow, it took everything. I literally can't imagine. I thought it was so out of line. I thought it was so just egregious that he did that. And we're going to play the clip because, you know, we're talking about it. Stop 29. We're asking the court to keep focus on the purpose of this hearing. And as the justice has said in.

the Estes case, the purpose of a trial is to determine the defendant's guilt. It's not to educate the public or the victim's family or the world on what evidence the government or the state has. At some point, I think the court has to return to the purpose of these hearings, which is to expeditiously hear the evidence and then determine probable cause. And I want to point out to the court, Ms. Kirk has been very adapted holding press conferences at where which she has revealed evidence. She has represented that the state is her attorney. She has access to all the evidence that the state has publicized

and that the media and her own lawyer argues is already in the public domain. So they're perfectly free to go outside this courtroom under the court's protective order. They're free to go out and hold press conferences and announce to the world outside the courtroom what they think the evidence is. They have the availability of that evidence. But the court's role, I think, at some point, is to exercise some control, move the case forward, and especially when we have witness availability problems.

And I'd ask the court, whatever the court does, if you're going to allow revisiting or replaying of evidence for the sole purpose of informing the world or Ms. Kirk or anybody else, that the court do it at the end of the process, and not at this point where we will be. be deprived of our ability to call this witness because he has to be done today. Okay, Mr. Burt, you just, I mean, what a like flurry of lies. First of all, yeah, where's the press conferences, Mr. Burt? What the hell are you even talking about, actually?

And I mean, Graham, please weigh in here because so much of that was pure, just unadulterated misrepresentations of the facts. Yeah, well, 100%. And I love that the Kirk family attorney, Jeff, went up immediately after to set the record straight, that everything that he said was a lie, that the state is not Erica Kirk's attorneys. They are the attorneys for the state. This is the state versus Tyler Robinson. And look, they give us a whole speech every time we go in there about the decorum

and how we in the, you know, the audience are not allowed to make faces. We're not allowed to say anything. We're not allowed to do anything. And then for this attorney to come out there and take a personal, multiple personal shots, it seems like he's kind of drinking his own Kool-Aid there. And I was shocked that the judge didn't say anything during that moment. I'm not saying that the judge didn't rule correctly in a lot of ways today. We had a lot of wins.

But in that moment, I really feel like he, I really feel like that attorney stepped over the line and in badgering, been badgering the widow of the victim. Like, she is the victim because the victim is no longer here. Well, Erica is the victim in this. Yeah, exactly. Correct. Correct. Yeah, exactly. And here's the other thing that I will say about this, that I can testify to that I don't know if the cameras pick up or not.

I don't know what, you know, the public sees. We were in the back this time around. So the front two rows alternate between families. So Puyler Robinson's family was in the front row today. And what I will say is this. They were distraught through the entire thing. And it wasn't a distraught like, I can't believe this unfair thing is happening. It was more, in my opinion, it was more we cannot believe that that our,

that our son did this or our... Do we lose him? Did we lose him for a sec? We're working. Oh, there he is. Sorry, sorry. I'm traveling down the road. I was just saying that, you know,

Tyler Robinson's family was in the front and they were distraught throughout the whole process. And it wasn't a distraught like this is egregious. It was a distraught like we can't believe that our son or our family member did this. And so that was something that was really tense. to me personally in the audience. I want to ask about that, Graham. At some point, while the Lance Twiggs video was playing,

it did sound like you could hear a sob somewhere. I think it was actually quite close to the point where he says where Lance was narrating, he wished he hadn't done this. It was in the vicinity of that. Did you notice that in the court? Was that happening? And do you know what quarter it was coming from?

Well, it may have come from both sides. Erica and Charlie's mom were pretty emotional during that moment as well. So honestly, my attention kind of got drawn towards them in that moment. So it could have gone both ways. There was a lot of emotion in the courtroom from both families today. We're going to play Jeff Nyman's retort back to Mr. Michael Berth's egregious. commentary and that's what it was. I mean, he was he was pontificating. I mean, I think at some point he got the judge interjected with when he was, I guess, cross-examining or examining the, the, questioning

the witness from the ATF and said, you're argumentative. And I was like, well, we could have used that a little while ago. Anyways, this is a bit longer clip, Graham, bear with me, it's a minute and a half long, but this is Jeff Nyman, 34. Thank you. Briefly. And I say that because time is of the essence, not because I don't want to hear what you have to say. I understand, but there was a lot that was just said that's just not true. So let me put this in this spot where we need to be. And I understand that there's opinions, but I have to keep this to the probable cause.

I don't want this to go to a back and forth about issues that lie outside of probable cause. And I realize statements are made, and as the victim's representative, attorney, you want to address it. So I just, I will hear you, but we need to be brief. So if you can be succinct, I definitely want to hear what you have to say. Your Honor, I'm most always, I am almost always brief, I promise you. The family has not seen this video. It hasn't. It doesn't have access to the evidence the state has.

The state is the state, and Ms. Kirk and the family have their representatives. There's a completely distortion of reality that was just put forth. And this is about educating anybody about anything. This is about allowing the family to see the evidence that's been gathered after a 10-month investigation in which a father, a husband, was assassinated. That's what this is about. So we ask you to please allow the family to view the video like the court has viewed in order to allow the family to process this moment. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Good for Jeff. by the way. It was funny the judge was like, I must implore you to be quick and he goes on I think longer than Jeff did. Yeah, I know exactly. There's a lot of that in this case. Well, let's move on. I guess

the judge is going to make a final determination about that tomorrow, whether or not the family can see the John Madden style video that we're talking about, the enhanced, zoom in with lines and circles and that sort of thing. Well, he did grant it. He did granted. Oh, did he granted? And so

he did. He did. And so, it was contingent upon, you know, they did this back and forth about, you know, oral arguments for binding and whatnot, and it looks like what's going to happen is it's going to end at noon like the defense that originally stated. Then we're going to get all to this, you know, briefings that they want to do. So it sounds like we are going to get to or the courtroom and the family is going to get to view that video. I don't think that the media gets to, but, family in the courtroom does. So he did grant that at the end there.

All right. Let's get back to this Lance Twig stuff here, Graham. I think this was, to me, the most important stuff. This is Robinson leaving the apartment early on September 10th. Clip 8. Let's jump to September 10th. Did he spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th? Yeah, he did. Yes. Do you know, when he left the apartment on September 10th? I don't know an exact time. I just know he left early. I heard him leaving,

and he just said he had a long drive to work that day, so he was leaving early. So early, any guess as to what, when that was? I don't know. I would have thought it was 5 a.m., because that's when like an early work day was for him, but it was probably more like four.

All right, so he confirms that he left super early. He left very early around four. You can do the math. If it's between four and five, you do the math. He got there. I want to say late in the eight o'clock hour, around nine is when he arrives on campus. You can go check it. It's about three hours and 45 minutes from St. George to Orem and maybe he stops for gas, stops for breakfast, something like that.

Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that, turning point still knows that. And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem. Most of us wouldn't even know how to name.

Or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers, viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. feel it in the comments in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps us build something real. And then of course we saw previously in the other days the compilation video of him on campus and then he's asked about surveillance still images taken from surveillance video and I thought this was a really powerful part, Graham, where you hear Twig say that looks like Tyler.

He identifies and recognizes the person in the images. 17. Okay. Okay. Before he came home, had you seen the press releases, any of the media on this? I'd seen one Instagram, like, link, a friend of mine had sent in our group chat. But I hadn't really looked into it at all. And had you seen the images that were released of the suspect?

I did the next day. I don't think I saw any on the tent. I'm going to show you a couple of those images. I'm on the FBI's website. You can see the URL there at the top. This is some press release about this event. And here on the screen, you see these, there's, looks like there's two rows of three images. Do you recognize the person in these images? I wouldn't say with 100% certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him in terms of the shoes he's wearing the sunglasses.

I don't think I'd specifically seen him wearing that hat, but he was usually wearing a hat and then jeans. So it definitely, especially the bottom, the last two, definitely do look like him. Oh, they do look like Tyler Robinson. Boom. Definitely look like him. Graham, I'm credibly been told by the internets and the social media's that none of these videos from the surveillance cameras on campus determined that it was actually Tyler Robinson on campus.

I've been credibly informed, Graham. Yeah. Well, if you listen to the crazies on the internet, they will say that every piece of evidence that the state has introduced has made the state look worse. and that's what we're dealing with right here. Look, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an attorney. What we saw from the defense today is, look, that's what happened in the parts that were allowed to be seen.

I can't imagine what Lance Twiggs says, reveals in the unredacted part that the court did submit into evidence and will be seen. everything has lined up to Tyler Robinson. The time frame, Blake, I just heard you talking about it. Leaving super early, you do the math. Boom, he's right there on the UVU campus video. We had the testimony of the other SBI agent, not the FBI, the SBI agent today. We had the ATF forensics person come in there. We've got the DNA from earlier from the FBI, along with all of the DNA on the, you know,

the cartridge, the gun, everything. We were wondering when they were going to bring the gun, the rifle in. Well, they brought it in today, and it was one in a trillion type of odds. And, you know, again, innocent until proven guilty. Charlie believed in that. I believe in that. As frustrating as this judicial process is, I get it. But the evidence is truly becoming overwhelming.

And like I said, you could really kind of. feel a shift in the courtroom today where it really felt like the defense was I mean even when they went up and they called their witness all the defense really did was just they the same thing they did with the FBI DNA testing was talking about well peer reviewed studies of flaws well we've got just as many peer reviewed studies that are for it well what about this and what about that and then the state goes up and said, is this not used nationwide? Yes. Is your lab accredited? Yes. Is this, has this been used in court cases? Was there a 2000? Are you familiar with this 2009 study that poked holes in the, you know, it was like so painfully, excessively in depth for, and by the way,

this was again, our good buddy, Michael Burt that got chastised by Judge Gretax. Raff multiple times got corrected, continued on, and Graff had to step in a second time. It was not a good day. It was not a good day for Mr. Michael Burt in that way. All right, guys. Let's keep going through some of these clips. I just, because we have the bullet and gravings.

Yeah, we just got so many things that line up with evidence we found at the scene. So, for example, when they later had the police officer on, she actually, we finally see the images of the engraved bullets. She's scanning through them. In fact, how about we show it? a few of those. Let me look at it here and get the number. Why don't we have Lance describing this

scene while you get those? Do we want the description first? All right, yeah. Sot 10. He asks you here, remember how I was engraving bullets. Was he engraving bullets before this? Yeah, I don't remember exactly when, but he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family.

And he asked me for a, if we had like a Dremel because he said he wanted to create messages on bullets. And I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't like set off a bullet on accident in the house. But I didn't really think about it until then. How long before September 10th was this that he asked about the Dremel? I don't remember because he'd been talking about the hunting slash camping trip for a couple months.

but I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets. So are we talking like a year before? Oh, no, not that long. It would have been, I'd say at most a month before this was when he was asking. At most a month before, he's asking about this tool to engrave on bullets. And then the next witness we had, this Fama, Famauna. I'm not sure how you say it exactly, but she was really, detailing all the stuff they found when they found the rifle, when they found the cartridges,

what they found at his at his home. And she goes through. We actually see her going through the rounds that they found, including the one that was fired. Let's go clip 22. What are we looking at here in Exhibit 19? This is the cartridge case that was recovered from the gun. And what position was this in in the gun? This was the, or this is what was in the chamber. Do you notice an inscription or an etching on this cartridge case? Yes, I do. Will you read what that says? Yes. Notice is bold. Will you read what this says? O-W-O-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W? And to page three. This. And question mark, correct? Yes, question mark. Is this a photograph of one of the cartridges that was down in the gun? Yes, it is. This is the head stamp of it, and it says it is a, according to the head stamp, it is a Remington, 3rd,

30 out 6 Springfield. Is that a different caliber than a 2-2-3 round? Yes, it is. Will you read the markings here? Hey, fascist. And page 3. Catch. And page 4.

Up arrow, right arrow, down arrow, down arrow, down arrow. Will you read the inscription here? Oh, Bella Chow? Chow, Chow. If you read, this comma, you are gay. L-M-A-O. So I think this is really important, Graham, because all of these have political messages,

Right, Bella Chow is a famous. Anti-Fascist song. From Italy or whatever. Hate fascist catch, all of this stuff, which sort of boggles the mind because, remember, they went through that whole rigmarole with David Englehart's letter establishing that Charlie was a Christian and conservative, which we all know. And then you have the bullets here that actually reinforced the fact this enhancement charge that it was essentially a politically motivated assassination.

Graham, your thoughts? Yeah, no, I think it obviously is. you know, I may be mistaken about this, so do not hold me to this because, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that that's going to be part of when they have these briefings that they're talking about. I think that the state said, because this was brought up, like the religious thing and political thing, and I think that they're going to perhaps adjust maybe the wording a little bit. Like that's part of like this briefing thing that they want to do because the defense, to challenge the counts and all this.

So I think they're going to correct that because you're right. Religion and politics has intersected for years, especially over the past 10 years. And it was why Charlie was targeted, in my opinion, allegedly for legal purposes by Tyler Robinson. Charlie had open debate on political and religious matters, specifically, that were anti what Tyler Robinson's lifestyle was and what Tyler Robinson's lifestyle included. And even in those text messages to Lance Twigs saying he couldn't deal with Charlie's hatred anymore and some hate can't be, I can't remember the exact wording. Can't be negotiated out. Can't be negotiated out. Thank you very much. Yes.

Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y. Refi. 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. YREFI can help. Just go to whyrefi.com. That's the letter Y, then refi.com. And remember, YREFI doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to why refi.com and tell you. them your friend Andrew sent you. Yeah, totally, totally disgusting.

I just again, you know, all of this from the defense is a head scratcher because they, how long do they take on the David Englehart letter? Like an hour, two hours? Oh, but and then they get this, the Bella Chow, all this stuff on the engravings. It proves the same point that this was politically or religiously motivated act, right, assassination. So I don't know. Well, I spoke, a friend of mine who's an attorney actually commented on that to me that we did have the very extended attempt to keep this from getting introduced into the record, too much of this visual evidence, too much of the Twigs interview.

But once it was getting in, once they were playing the Twigs interview where he's saying, I spoke to him and he confessed to this, they ask nothing, they want to get through it as quickly as possible. And instead, they're going to have agonizingly long cross-examination on stuff that is. peripheral and and boring frankly like the david englehart letter or the arcana of this uh of what type of bullet fragments were found in analysis of that and it's kind of they want you dedicating more of your headspace to that confusing difficult stuff and as little headspace as possible to tyler robinson confessed to this multiple times to multiple people it's such a transparent tactic and i will just say here we're going to play this clip this is uh agent Fomina, she reads through the DNA evidence found on the rifle.

Here you go. SOT 25. Exhibits 1.1 and 1.4. Do you know what that is referring to? Yeah, they're referring to 1.1 is swabs of the stock and grips of the rifle, and then 1.4 is swabs of the bolt of the rifle with possible ridge detail and or smudging. The DNA profiles are at least one trillion times more likely if they originated from Tyler Robinson, exhibits 7.1, as a contributor.

to the major components and three unrelated unknown individuals than if they originated from four unrelated unknown individuals. All right. So now I just want to play that because again, to Blake's point, there's all these big top line items, DNA, confession, text messages, all this stuff. The timing lines up exactly right on all this stuff. Graham, I want to address this because, you know, I'm part of this story, whether I like it or not. but the caliber of the round, the type of bullet, right?

We know that they recovered fragments and that the bullet was badly damaged inside of Charlie, okay, right? So Phoenix ammunition, I'm actually trying to book him for our show tomorrow during the day five. But he put out a tweet, and I just want to make sure we address it. So he's looking at the photos shown in court of the type of bullets, okay? he said Remington head stamp on the case and despite the somewhat low resolution on the photo you can see the somewhat blunted nature of the projectiles tip. This is a Remington core locked soft point round. Core locked. And I think we have an image of that brand if you guys want to put it up there.

Specifically designed. This is what he says. So this guy's an expert in ballistics. He makes bullets for a living. He says, it's specifically designed to deform, slow down, and prevent an exit wound. Available at literally every single gun store and sporting goods store that sells ammunition. He says, he goes on, Graham. He says, in fact, 16 out of the 1730-0.6 varieties manufactured by Remington used some type of expanding,

deforming, or fragmenting bullet, okay? 16 out of the 17. Graham, this is an important piece for the Internet of it all. maybe just reflect on that for a moment as we wrap up with you yeah i mean yes obviously they did not address any of that in the courtroom today uh i saw the internet when i finally got my phone back um but i i noticed that as well and there was a couple of us that are prior military prior law enforcement we all said the same thing that doesn't look like a full metal jacket to us and so that does eliminate a lot of

of everything. Everything that's been introduced by the state eliminates and or totally, totally refutes the conspiracy theories by people that are acting in not good faith. They're only trying to go after innocent people. They're trying to destroy lives for the purposes of clicks. Clicks mean more views, views more money. That's all this is. And there's still a long way to go in all of this.

this is going to lead again, in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so what does my opinion really matter? It's just a matter of when we go to trial now at this point, in my opinion. And then we've got a long trial. Nobody is under any disillusions that if and when this goes to trial, that this isn't going to be a lengthy thing. But I keep saying justice is coming for Charlie Kirk. I truly believe that justice is coming.

and the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming. It is so much so. It's hard to fathom any other outcomes at this point. Graham, thank you for joining us. Thank you for being by the family side inside the courtroom. I really appreciate you, man. And we'll talk to you soon. Get some rest.

I know it's quite the scene there. So we appreciate you making the time, Graham. Okay, guys. Talk later. Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that. Turning point still knows that.

And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection. Where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem. Most of us wouldn't even know how to name. Or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge. with his viewers. Viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. You can feel it in the comments and the thank you

from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps us build something real. We have Andrea Burk Hart, who has been following this case extremely closely. And if you are following along with us, she was also on on the show on Monday night after day one. Welcome back to the show, Andrea. Thanks so much for having me back. You are a legal commentator, experienced trial and appellate litigator. You can find her at Andrea burkehart.substack.com.

This was a big day. We were commenting earlier that this was the most substantive day so far. I felt like they got through a lot that Lance Twiggs video recording testimony was really, really enormous in so many ways. what do you make of it 30,000 foot view? Oh, I couldn't, I couldn't agree with you more. I think up to today, the evidence is building and the picture is becoming clearer, but it was today that really pulled all the pieces together and drew the most direct connections between the ballistics and the statements and so forth. We now have a way to tie this individual that we're seeing on the camera

and this firearm that that was recovered with Tyler Robinson himself by virtue of this evidence today. Yeah, I mean, the, there was a lot of emotional parts, I think, for today, for us from our POV. And so I'm, I'm going to try and, like, stay out of that because you're very good at being dispassionate. But I will just say, one final point on that. the fact that Lance Twiggs claims that he doesn't remember talking about Charlie with Tyler Robinson, I found horrifying to hear that it was just, I think we said earlier, it feels like his description of it was almost like a whim. It was a passing, you know, fancy kind of thing.

It seems like a good idea at the time. And he gets back and he, you know, he cries and wishes he wouldn't have done it. I mean, that's just, I don't know. And so do we all. Yeah, I mean, seriously. What can you, let's fast forward to the end because Blake and I were just talking about this. And I want to go back through some of the details of the day. But at the end, they were having this deliberation back and forth about timing.

And they, what they call it, a bond or a bind over. It was, they spent the last half hour discussing this, setting a hearing date, it seems, for September 1st. They had a very bizarre back and forth about should we have a page count cap on our briefs in one proposed 30, one proposed 40 pages. And Judge Graff in his Solomon like wisdom, decree 35 pages, even though he noted it was an odd number. That is a very good description of Judge Graf. He's always splitting the baby. It was all very odd. And I guess I didn't know what they were talking about.

So maybe you could explain some of that to us. So windover is the word that they use to describe the defendant being required to, uh, required to, answer to a jury, to formally answer the charge through the trial process, which is what this preliminary hearing is about. Is the charge justified in moving forward to trial or not? And so that's what the bindover decision is. What I found interesting about today and that whole conversation is that in my experience anyway, although granted, we don't do these types of hearings in Washington, but I've watched a fair amount of court. It's not really that comment. to have extended briefing about probable cause.

Probable cause is not a particularly difficult standard to meet. And there's just a lot of ways to get there. In this particular case as well, in Utah, there's a lot of limitations to the judge's ability to question the evidence. He has to just kind of take it at face value at this stage because it's for the jury to decide if they believe it, if the science is good, if somebody is credible,

and all of those types of things. So it's not normally the type of thing that requires 35 pages of briefing. But here we are. It is a death penalty case, of course. They are going to be more cautious. Judge is, again, giving them every opportunity to make the record that they see they need to. But having said that, I have a hard time myself just imagining what is going to take 35 pages for the defense. to say about this case.

Yeah, I felt like all they basically did was try and obstruct the presentation of evidence that seemed pretty straightforward to the layman's eyes out here. I want to know process here, Andrea. So they were talking about tomorrow they think it's going to take a half day, and then there might be some stuff that draws it into the, I don't know, a couple hours after lunch break. What happens then? What happens when they wrap this?

What does the judge do next? So at this point, the case will simply adjourn, and he will wait for the briefs. The case will continue to develop, I would expect, and probably has in terms of discovery is continuing to be produced and provided and so forth. They're not going to put the brakes on and wait for the court's decision. Wouldn't expect them to do that. So there's likely to be things going on in the background. we may see some litigation related to that type of thing if there are disputes that that arise but by in large at this point we wait because it's not until he's found to you know probable causes is found

and mr robinson is bound over for trial that he even has to enter a plea to the case so there's just this step to get through it's so painfully slow we're likely to get past since it sounds they'll have to hearing on September 1st, but then they have to weigh it. We're likely to get past the one-year mark before a plea is entered in this case. Yeah, I think I think that's, I think that's very possible. Now, the way around that, I think, would be if Judge Graff did what would be extremely atypical for him, and that is rule on probable cause from the bench at this September 1st hearing. But he, like everyone, he's been very careful. He's taken the care to make. sure that one he is entertaining the arguments of the parties but also that he is documenting his

decisions and his thought process so that that's in our record it's available for review for everybody and that takes time as well so hard to imagine that happening before the one year deadline and so if if he did rule from the bench which apparently is at his discretion to do so i don't see why that would be a problem given the you know breadth and depth of evidence that was just presented to him. Does that sort of, the reason he may not choose to do that is to look impartial, to look fair, and to protect this case from appeal down the road? Is that kind of the logic for not doing that? Yeah, I think it's all of those things. I think that he has, although not, he doesn't have a perfect record on transparency, but he has certainly, I should

say maybe he's not a maximalist as as I am, but he has certainly appreciated and recognize the importance of it. And so the thought process being transparent about that, I think is something that's important to him to make sure not just that we know what the ruling is, but why he reached that ruling. And so I think also, like you said, the fairness to the defense so that they're on notice and if they take any issue with it, they can dispute it, they can appeal it, they can appeal it. And then there's there's no concern about somebody's rights being trampled. All right. So I think then my questions now, Andrea, go to this, this back and forth. And you saw Kirk family representative, Jeffrey Nyman get in the mix here. This balancing this tension between

transparency. You said you called yourself a maximalist. I think it's fair to say that the Kirk family and the state have been more on the transparency side. The defense has been arguing to keep certain exhibits from the public. How do you, how do courts weigh this question of transparency when it comes to the evidence and, you know, bias for a potential jury or tainting a jury pool? I saw you posting about, I believe it's Estes and then they kept referencing the French name. You probably know it, Andrea. What is the, yeah, what is the, I guess, predicates or precedents rather for this? What is Judge Graff trying to balance here?

Well, that's, that's, it's a very large question. The, the, the issue with Estes and Redo goes to televising and the presence of the cameras. And these are rather old precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court in the early days of television itself, where they were quite hostile to the intrusion of the cameras. And so that reasoning and those decisions have, have largely been overridden. by subsequent developments in the law. But that said, it always remains a concern about if jurors are exposed to too much information, particularly information that's of the kind that's likely to have a real big impact, the kind of thing that's hard to ignore, then it's hard not to prejudge the case. And then it just becomes that much more difficult to find impartial jurors.

what we've seen in the case law developing since these early decisions and the hostility to television, first off a recognition that this is universal. This doesn't depend on TVs. This is going to be an issue with newspaper coverage as well. It's about information and access to it. So there's no real reason to be hostile to the television per se. It's not adding any kind of problem like that. But we've also seen a growing acceptance of this idea that. the time to sort out those issues is in jury selection. It's easy to lose perspective or to, I guess, project our interests and our viewpoints on the rest of the world and assume that everybody is paying attention to what we are and with the same degree of focus that we are.

But the reality is that those of us watching all of these intricate details of this case, we are the minority. And so that's jury selection recognized. that and that yes there almost certainly will be people showing up asked to try the case who will know too much we'll have too firm opinions but that's what the process is for is to sort those people out so that we can find the ones who have spent the last week looking into the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey wedding instead right right 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. I mean, and by the way, there is this mutual tension because in a case this high profile, you have a whole cottage industry of conspiracists that have invented all of this stuff. And so I have the same concern, right? So if the defense is going to raise the concern that this could unduly bias a potential jury, I have the same concern, but the inverse of it, that if we don't get these facts transparently made available to the public, that there will leave a void, a chasm that will be filled by conspiracies. And if that happens, then we could taint the jury in the other direction. Absolutely. I think that's very legitimate. We had the evidentiary hearing on the defense's motion to ban the cameras. They had done a public opinion survey. It was done by the same guy, actually, who did a public opinion survey for Brian Coburger over in Moscow, Idaho. And so that was fresh in my mind when we watched him testify here. And the disconnect between those two cases, the disparity in the public opinion, It's hard to overstate how significant it was.

In Brian Koberger's case, there was something like 98% of the community, you know, knew about it, overwhelming opinions of guilt. And we're not seeing that in this particular case. It was more like 50-50 in terms of prejudgment of guilt. And so I think that the alternative theories are a big. reason why because from my perspective if I were to put put these probable cause affidavit side by side the amount of evidence we're dealing with here is overwhelms what was available in brian coberger's case at the same time in the process well I think we all understand where some of that's coming from

which is why what Jeffrey Nyman said he you know when he was arguing on behalf of transparency he said judge you have tools at your disposal to deal with that and I believe you mean during jury selection. So we kind of dealt with this with Jolene as well, who's a jury consultant. She did OJ. and she did Joelle and Demetrius. Yeah, Joe, what did I say? You said Jolene. Jolene. Like the Dolly Parton song. Yeah, no, Joe Ellen, sorry, Joelle and Demetrius. She did the OJ Simpson trial. She did Enron. She's done a bunch of big high profile cases. Daniel Penny. She was saying, you know, kind of floating out some options that the judge would have at his disposal. sort through the jury selection process. So putting that hat on, Andrea, what would be at the judge's

disposal as you see it? Well, these can be challenging issues. There's really no question about it because what you're trying to do is is sort out bias. But the problem is that bias isn't, we aren't always aware of it. And so it isn't always something we can disclose and talk about. That said, it's been extensively studied. I'm sure that your jury consultant has done a massive amount of that type of thing. And so there have been techniques developed to kind of be able to suss out things that might lead you to conclude that a person is prejudged a case, even if they aren't necessarily aware of it. But generally speaking, the tools are you expand the jury pool. If you normally call in 100 people for your jury veneer, we already know it's going to need to be more than that for this case just because Charlie Kirk is so high profile. The case is so high profile. But say you normally call in 100, then maybe you call in 200 so that you know that you can get rid of more and still have enough remaining to come up with a jury. You do pre-jury questionnaires. You expand the questioning.

You allow extended questioning about what they've been exposed to and what their thoughts are and their opinions. You do individual questioning behind closed doors if you need to get into specifics, meaning closed doors just meaning away from the other jurors so you're not tainting them with extraneous information, but to talk to them real specifically about maybe what they have seen, what they have read, details that they picked up and things like that. And so just getting the largest number of people available and getting as much information from them as you can is going to increase the likelihood that you'll be able to find 12 to maybe 16, you know, for the alternates that are going to be ignorant enough about the case or just,

open enough about the case that they'll be able to judge it fairly based on what they see in the courtroom. We can only hope. Andrea, we have a few more minutes here. So a thing that really stood out to all of us here, of course, is near the end of the hearing where Michael Burt, one of the defense attorneys, while they're discussing whether they're going to see this John Madden style video of things, he tears into Erica Kirk specifically by name, talks about her. holding these press conferences, which yeah, exactly doesn't happen. Treating the prosecutors like they're her personal attorneys. It's a really quite personal attack.

We were talking about that with Graham as well. And I guess what I'm wondering for you is, first of all, have you seen something like this before? It seemed very unusual. What's the strategic reasoning of this? What do you make of this that it happened? Is it as appalling to you as it is to us? And it's okay if you say this is more common than you. think? No, actually, I was very surprised. I was, I was quite taken aback myself because I handle

victims with kid gloves. It's not in your interest, the overwhelming majority of the time, to be aggressive with the victim. People are naturally sympathetic to victims of crime, and this is a woman who lost her husband. Her children have lost their father. And so it's hard, it's hard not to have a massive amount of sympathy for that. And so it can really, really backfire among the people who are more inclined to appreciate what Erica has gone through to see her, you know, being attacked like this. I have a hard time really seeing what the strategy is. Well, I think it was a mask off moment, Andrea. I think I think he just, I think he just forgot himself for a moment.

I mean, he's an elderly man and he was probably getting frustrated. He was probably focusing on this really, this mundane minutia for so long that he just, I mean, it was egregious to me watching it. I was very upset. That's charitable. I am worried that his strategy is, as you said, that apparently in the local area, people are more 50-50. I'm worried he is, in fact, pandering to there's basically a cottage industry. People have made entire careers as podcasters and whatnot basically turn to. running Erica into this soap opera villain.

And by the way, to do it without any factual basis, there was no press conferences, accusing the Kirk family of treating the state as their personal lawyers was just a, that's not true. They don't have access to the state evidence. This is why they're asking for the ability to see this video that they haven't seen yet. So the whole thing was just absurd. This guy, that's him. And he was Lyle Menendez's lawyer. But, Andrew, you're saying this was very unusual.

I can't say it's unusual in the sense that, you know, no lawyers do this. There are lawyers that do this. But I would have to say I don't expect good lawyers to do this. I don't expect lawyers with his kind of experience to take this kind of approach with the victim. If he has complaints, and he may very well, it's, I mean, yes, Erica has made some statements. They're not press conferences. you know, it's, I think that the characterization of it that is so particularly nasty, and that's, that's the revealing part. You do have to sometimes talk about difficult facts with victims. This is very common to have to talk about difficult facts with victims.

But the way to do that respectfully and in a way that is just less likely to hit us like this has, is to keep it factual, to keep it accurate, to not color it with accusatory types of tones and and characterizations and stuff. So yeah, I was I was very taken back. It felt very passive, aggressive and like a bullying tactic. So is there any way that if this happens again? I mean, I would be in favor of somebody, you know, lodging a complaint to the judge. and if this happens again for there to be potential sanctions, I don't know, is there anything like that at the judge's disposal?

I don't see why not under the constitutional victims' rights that are afforded to her. That includes the right to be treated with respect and dignity. And so if she feels that that's not being met, it seems to me that she would have the right under the Utah Constitution to bring that to the judge's attention. Good to know. Andrea Burkart, thank you for joining us again.

We're coming up at the end of the hour, and we're trying to keep these things tight. Final minute here. Anything that we missed that you think was significant today that you want to draw our attention to? Well, I mean, there really was a massive amount of evidence. Like I said, this is really where the links were being made, the connections.

What I would say, I guess, is that my optimism out of today came from the fact that when we left court last night, we had a much lower expectation of what we were going to see today, particularly as it relates to that interview from Mr. Twiggs. And so the fact that we were able to make it through today and we actually got to see something at all, like leaving yesterday, we weren't going to see anything. We were just going to have audio recordings.

This suggests to me, it's just I am an opposite. But it does suggest to me that the judge is trying to course correct. He's recognizing not always going to be perfect. But he's also not so grounded in his ego that he's just going to dig in to a decision that he's made whether it's right or not. I agree. I think seeing him change course was really encouraging. Andrea Burkart, check her out on Substack on X and YouTube. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.