The Megyn Kelly Show - Major SCOTUS "Birthright Citizenship" Case, with Aronberg and Davis, and Charlie Kirk Murder Trial Bullet Questions, with Branca and Geragos | Ep. 1286

Episode Date: April 1, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dave Aronberg, MK True Crime host, and Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, to discuss the major "birthright citizenship" case before the Supreme Court today, President Trump's attendance at the court today, why the case will have major ramifications on immigration and politics, Megyn Kelly is joined by Dave Aronberg, MK True Crime host, and Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, to discuss how they think the court will rule in the birthright citizenship case, which conservative justices will rule against Trump and which are likely to rule in his favor, and more. Then Andrew Branca, attorney "Law of Self Defense," and Mark Geragos, MK True Crime host, join to discuss a recent revelation in the Tyler Robinson case ahead of the Charlie Kirk murder trial about the bullet, the recent viral misleading Daily Mail headline about the bullet and gun, whether it matters legally that the ATF could not identify the bullet, the legal relevance that there was no exit wound in the Charlie Kirk assassination, the arguments the prosecution and defense will make, the role the alleged text messages between Tyler Robinson and his alleged lover will play in the trial, the arguments the prosecution and defense will likely use, and more.   Aronberg- https://substack.com/@davearonberg Davis- https://article3project.org/ Geragos-https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime Branca- https://www.youtube.com/@thebrancashow   Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com/MEGYN & Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order. Quo: Make this the season where no opportunity slips away. Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://www.Quo.com/MK Relief Factor: Break up with pain—Relief Factor targets inflammation so you can move better and feel better; try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF.     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Wow, do we have a show for you today. There have been some wild headlines in the Charlie Kirk murder case lately. And we've taken a serious look at what they mean and what they don't mean. And we have two really smart legal experts to break down for you what's really going on. As you know, we're invested in this. one. And we'll be handling it thoughtfully and carefully and with an open mind. What I want more than anything is for Charlie's killer to be convicted, to go to jail, and for us to make sure we know what's what in that case. So we're going to be taking a deep dive on that in just a little bit. But we have got to begin with major news at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. And this is a huge,

huge case, so huge that the president of the United States went to the argument. I mean, I'm not sure that's ever happened before. We had a president who served as president and then went on to become chief justice at the U.S. Supreme Court, but I don't remember a case where the president of the United States went and sat there for the oral argument. Trump considered doing it on his tariffs, oral argument, which, you know, he ultimately lost that case and has been finding workarounds on it. since, but this one was so important to him he wanted them to know. And it's because this morning, the High Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order

that ends birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors to the United States. This birthright tourism has been an ongoing problem in the United States for some time. you all know that. People come from all over. By the way, it's not just Mexico. It's China. They've got like one and a half million Chinese citizens now who are just, they're not Chinese citizens. They're American citizens because people come over, they have their babies, and boom, they're Americans with the right to all the American privileges that you and I have.

But there's, of course, a ton of people who come from south of the border and they want their kid to be an anchor baby. and they want the kid to get the entire family here, and they want to take advantage of the American taxpayer's generosity, and it's not just Mexicans, it's Somalians in Minnesota and elsewhere, who know that thanks to our Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular, if they have a baby here, they've got the glories of American citizenship. And what happened was this guy named John Eastman, who writes for Claremont Institute and is a lawyer in his own right,

started really writing a lot about this, and I think he got in the ear of the president, that this is not what the intent of the 14th Amendment ever was. And President Trump clearly was sold on it, and millions of Americans are sold on it. He's made a different kind of argument that we, the 14th Amendment has another clause in it, that you have to be born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that that second clause basically creates a loophole that we can drive a truce truck through to say illegals having babies on American soil doesn't actually convey U.S. citizenship.

Okay, so I'll get to all of this as our legal panel comes on. But President Trump attended the oral argument. What a thing. The president signed an executive order his very first day in office. But it's never technically gone into effect because immediately he had multiple legal challenges to it, saying we're no longer doing that. We're no longer acknowledging that you're an American citizen just because you're born here if you were born to two illegals or to parents who don't have the right to be here. Now, as you may remember, the order went up already to the U.S. Supreme

Court last year, but it wasn't heard on its merits. That case was only about does a district court, that's the trial court judge at the federal level, have the power to issue a nationwide injunction on a case that comes before him. And the Trump administration won that case with the high court holding that. In most circumstances, these district courts do not. They don't have the power to do that. And now, as a result of that case,

they can no longer issue nationwide injunctions. So that was one piece of this whole litigation that the Trump administration won, but that did not constitute a decision on the merits of what Trump did there. All right, so that did not stop the ACLU and others. from trying to block the law in substance, the executive order in substance. And in fact, the case that's before the High Court today was filed in New Hampshire on the very

same day as last year's Supreme Court decision on the nationwide injunction. Because they knew we have to have this procedural piece of it play out. And then as soon as we get a decision on it, now we have to fight it. Now we have to see whether Trump has the right to do this. In the case, U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante, a George W. Bush appointee on July 10th of last summer, issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order against a class of babies born after the date of the executive order, February 20th, 2025, who are or would have been denied U.S. citizenship by

Trump's order. That court finding that the people challenging the law or the executive order had a substantial likelihood of success. And so he entered a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The Trump administration then took the unusual step of taking the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court before a Court of Appeals decision was reached, like that interim level. And today at the High Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking of George W. Bush, he too was a George W. Bush appointee seemed skeptical of the Trump administration's position early on in the hearing.

Listen here. You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky, you know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country.

I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big, group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples. There are those sort of narrow exceptions for Ambassador Foreign Public Ships, tribal entities, enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well. But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And there they didn't say subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There it says not subject to any foreign power.

Now, if you go back to Blackstone in Calvin's case, they say it does not matter if you are subject to any foreign power. you are born in the king's domains, you have this indefeasible duty of allegiance to the king at any time. So there's a clear repudiation in the civil rights act. The Civil Rights Act is this breakwater, which makes it very, very clear that they are not thinking about allegiance in the terms of like the British common law. They've adopted the Republican conception of allegiance. So it's from non-substabics any foreign power. So that's John Sauer, who is our chief appellate argument for the administration. And he's

trying to keep Trump's executive order alive, saying, you know, if your allegiance is to a foreign country, because, you know, that's basically where your parents are from and where you should have citizenship from, then your allegiance is not to the United States. There's no question the administration has an uphill battle on this. I think most legal experts looked at the argument from the beginning and thought it wasn't going to fly. But as time has gone by, and as people have taken a closer and closer look at the argument, I have watched as more and more legal scholars have said, you know what, they could be on to something. They actually could be on to something. But to say that the overwhelming weight of legal scholars is on the side of the administration

would be to mislead you. It's not. And today at the high court, so far, I mean, what we've been hearing, I haven't listened to the entire argument myself, but the reports from reporters I trust who cover the court have suggested. we have a very very skeptical bench looking at Trump's argument. Joining me now are our favorite legal analysts on things like this. And I care about their opinions more than I care about anybody else's on this. And that includes Article III project and founder Mike Davis and M.K. True Crime host, former Palm Beach County prosecuting attorney Dave Aaronberg. Let me tell you about cozy earth, which makes relaxing at home so much more enjoyable. If you have

not tried their robes or slippers yet. You are seriously missing out, my friends. Their robes are unbelievably soft, perfect for slow mornings after a shower, or just relaxing at night. The fabric is breathable, lightweight, and incredibly comfortable. It's the kind of robe you put on and immediately feel more relaxed in. And their slippers have this plush lining. They're warm, they're comfortable. They're easy to wear around the house all day, which you should. With Mother's Day coming up, cozy Earth makes an amazing gift, something she will actually use and appreciate every single day. And here's the best part. Cozy Earth backs everything with a 100 night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty so you can try it completely risk-free. Go to cozyearth.com.

Use my code Megan for 20% off. That's CozyEarth.com promo code M-EG-YN for 20% off. And if you see the post-purch survey, mention you heard about Cozy Earth from this show. Guys, welcome back. So let me start with you on it, Mike. How do you think it went? Well, if the justices do their job and follow the very simple law, this executive order should be upheld. The issue is that there's this whole thing called politics. And I am concerned after listening today's oral arguments that these justices didn't wear their ropes today. they wore their capes today because it is very clear that birthright citizenship was included in the 14th Amendment to fix the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court decision that said

that the children of the freed slaves are not American citizens. And you have to ask, why the hell did we fight a civil war? And so we had the Dredd Scott decision. Just about a year later, we enacted the 14th, 14th, 15th amendments to free the slave. provide equal protection and due process to the slaves voting rights to the male slaves. That was extended in the 19th Amendment to the female black Americans. But part of the 14th Amendment provided birthright citizenship to the to the freed slaves and their kids. And it talked about, it talks, there's a key phrase in there that says subject to the jurisdiction. And as they talked about it.

Fourteenth Amendment basically says you have to be born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Yeah, you have to be both. It's not just one. You have to be both. And there is a key meaning to that. Subject to the jurisdiction means you are, you have allegiance to the United States. And this is the dispositive question that these Supreme Court justices need to answer. The Supreme Court previously held that American Indians were not. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning they did not get birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Congress later fixed that and gave birthright citizenship to American Indians through statutes. So ask these justices this dispositive question. If American Indians did not have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, how the hell with illegal aliens? And the answer is simple. They do not. not. Here's how Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas, raised this issue in discussing it with the ACLU.

They're obviously on the other side. They're litigator, Cecilia Wang. Listen to Clarence Thomas. Get into that. Sop four. There are five exceptions to citizenship that you do accept. Yes, depending on how many you count, Justice Thomas, how you count them. What is the underlying rule of law that you use to connect these five exceptions? Sure. So, as I just said, all of the exceptions involve situations where that U.S.-born child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And the one I think that's the easiest to understand, Dave, is the children of diplomats. like a diplomat comes over here from Saudi Arabia or the UK.

And we've all seen this happen like in the movies. If they commit a crime, they run a red light, they can't get a ticket because they've got diplomatic immunity. They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They may live here and they may have a baby here. But that baby will not be an American citizen. If it's two diplomats from the U.K., it will be a U.K. citizen. It will not be an American citizen.

And that's because of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And the Trump administration's trying to argue the children of two people who are here illegally is the same as that child of the diplomat. And the ACLU says that's not correct. And I think you agree with the ACLU. So can you explain why, why it's not the same? Megan, good to be back with you and Mike. And my belief is that if you want to change the 14th Amendment, pass an amendment to do so, you can't do it through executive order.

And to address yours and Mike's point about the Dred Scott case, Mike is right that the impetus for the 14th Amendment was the Dred Scott decision. But the text that they wrote, and this addresses your point to, Megan, was intentionally broad. They didn't write, all former slaves shall be citizens. What they wrote was all persons born or naturalized. And the 14th Amendment's framers were smart enough to use the word persons, not former slaves. And so if we only applied constitutional amendments to the specific people they were intended to protect, the 14th Amendment wouldn't protect anyone today. And so there's a case on point, the Supreme Court back in the 19th century and that Wong Kim Arc case, they already addressed this argument. And by the way, that court back then wasn't a liberal court.

That's the same court around the same time that enacted Plessy versus Ferguson, which is separate but equal. I don't know if you got to my question about why aren't the kids of illegals the same as the kids of diplomats. Well, are you – I'm a little confused with the question because are you saying that you mean political allegiance? So if you are, you have to say that you're... They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Like that's, I'm just saying this is what the argument is. The argument is that you can understand it simply when you think about the diplomats, right? They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

They're not. They don't have to abide by our laws here. It's basically a way of honoring the king of another country saying you've got the allegiance there. Kings aren't going to send their emissaries over here if they have to be subject to the jurisdiction of American laws. That was kind of why diplomatic immunity. started. So like, it would make sense to me that two diplomats having a baby on U.S. soil would not be an

American citizen. No one's ever submitted to the jurisdiction of the United States. And what the Trump administration is saying is the kids of illegals are the same because those parents are kind of in a similar position to the diplomats. Okay. I understand where you're coming from, Megan. And the reason that children of foreign diplomats are treated differently is that their parents carry that diplomatic immunity. They're literally outside the law. This is different. than if a child of someone who's undocumented commits a crime. They're subject to the laws. They're going to be arrested.

So I think you're dealing with apples and oranges here. How about that, Mike? Well, and here's the question that Dave needs to answer. You said the 14th Amendment applies to all persons. How come the 14th Amendment didn't apply to American Indians? Okay. You're talking about there was that case, that elk case, right? Is that the one you're talking about the Wilkins v. Elk?

That's the, right. Well, that was from 1884. Here's the reason. That's because Native Americans were considered members of sovereign, independent nations. And that existed outside the U.S. legal system at the time. They were like foreign diplomats living in their own embassies. And that's why they needed a separate act of Congress. That's the act you referred to, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. So that's different. So an undocumented immigrant living in our community isn't a member of a sovereign. tribal nation exempt from U.S. taxes or laws. They're fully subject to our laws every single day. They can be arrested. They don't need a separate law to make them subject to the laws of our country. Well, you talked to, you mentioned the Wang Kim case, and that talked about lawful. That was the Chinese exclusion cakes. And that dealt with lawful and permanent residence, lawful and permanent. And the key distinction was subject to the jurisdiction there. was that the Supreme Court said that they had allegiance to the United States because they were lawful and permanent. How are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

How are Chinese birth tourists? Why should Chinese birth tourists, over a million of them, come to America, have a kid and then go back to China, never step foot in America again, but can vote in our elections and can take American welfare. Do you think that's what the what the proponents and the public understood the 14th Amendment to mean or any subsequent statute after the 14th Amendment? Is that what birthright citizenship means to you, Dave? Well, you mentioned that in the Wong Kim R case that the court mentioned that the parents were lawful and permanent and they did. You're right about that. But that's because those were the facts in the case before them.

The court's legal reasoning, though, did not depend on their, these. status. And, you know, we don't want to be confused between a fact and a rule. In that Wong-Kim our case, the court noted the parents were legal residence because that was their specific story. But the legal rule there is that the court announced it was based on what's called the right of the soil where the 14th Amendment requires, if that amendment requires lawful status, it would have said all persons born to lawful residence. It doesn't. It says all persons born? Should Chinese birth tourists get American citizenship? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Can you say it again? Should Chinese birth tourist get American citizenship? Well, according to the 14th Amendment,

if someone is born here, they're subject to that 14th Amendment, which says all persons, and yes, they get citizenship. That's the way it's always been. In fact, every single judge has ruled that way, including the judges here in this case. And that's why I think this case, the Supreme Court, is going to be 7-2, maybe 9-0. The Constitution is what it says it is. No, it's not going to be 9-0. Not this one. Thomas and Alito aren't going to go. I think Thomas and Alito right about that. You're probably right about that. I don't think they've got Roberts. Are we shocked, Mike? We're not shocked. Cavanaugh, here's a little of Kavanaugh. We're just looking at the conservative justice, since we know what the libs are going to

do, but there's only three of them. What typically happens in these swing cases, you got to look at, you got to look at Roberts, you got to look at Kavanaugh, you got to look at Coney Barrett, and you got to look at Gorsuch. I think Thomas and Alito will be in the president's camp. But here's a little from Kavanaugh asking questions of John Sauer, the administration's advocate. Listen here, Sot 3. Given Juan Kim, Mark, one might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Juan Kimark on what the scope of birthright citizenship or the scope of citizenship should be. And yet Congress repeats that same language knowing what the interpretation had been.

For example, you could use the language from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or some similar formulation if your idea in 1940 and 1952 was to not have ambiguity or not have an overly broad scope? I think if you look at the structure of that statute where it's 1401A and then B through H, A, and it says these are the people who are entitled to birthright citizenship. A is the constitutional standard. And then B through H are all the categories that Congress has super added to that. I think the natural inference is that Congress is codifying,

which it was consciously doing in 1941, pulling all the naturalization rules and immigration rules together into one statute and said, you go to one place, here's who is a birthright citizen. A, those who are guaranteed that right by the citizenship clause and B through A, to the ones that Congress has added through its naturalization power. So that inference to me says, A, is merely, it's not trying to change or alter the constitutional standard, just saying, hey, the baseline is what the Constitution says, and we we codify that, and then we move on to the new cap. So that to me, Mike, is Kavanaugh sounding a little skeptical, saying, look, we had the 14th Amendment and then we had a statute enacted that would dictate

who's a citizen and that if Congress wanted to change or do anything different around this issue after that Wong King Arc case, which was decided in 1898, then that statute would have read a little differently, that they wouldn't have just kept repeating the same language. Just for the audience, I know this is dense. try to hold on. But in that case, the Supreme Court upheld the American citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. As our panelists pointed out, those parents, however, were both here lawfully. They were legal resident aliens. But those who are still using it as evidence that it would apply to illegals point out that at the time in 1898, we weren't really doing the

legal alien, illegal alien thing here in the United States. We weren't really looking at aliens in those categories yet. So that's why it wasn't really, that's why Dave's side said it's not a real point of distinction on this case. But you could hear Kavanaugh there saying, look, if Congress wanted to change what subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant or wanted to get a little bit more exacting when they enacted the civil rights law that kind of get to this, they would have been more explicit, Mike. Well, I think that Wong-Tamark actually helps President Trump's executive order, it laid out the test. And it's subject to the jurisdiction means allegiance to the United States. It means you're here lawfully and you hear permanently. And that is the opposite of

illegal aliens. That is the opposite of Chinese earth tours. That is the opposite of foreign ambassadors kids. That's the opposite of invading armies. I would just say this to these Supreme Court justices who are waffling a little bit, you know, these more political types who are, you know, maybe looking at the polling on this. I would say this, that our most crucial sovereign power, as we the people, the sovereign citizens of America, is to control our border and to control our populace. And we never agreed to give birthright citizenship through illegal aliens, not at the 14th Amendment and not any statute since then. So they can play their little political games to try to get to the result that they think is politically palpable, but that is not the law.

Their job is to follow the law. They wear robes, not capes. There's a little bit more of a clue here, Dave Ehrenberg. Gorsuch, we got to check in with him. So so far, I feel like Roberts and maybe Kavanaugh are leaning against the administration. That would be enough to do it. That would only leave four conservatives, assuming Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas go with Trump. So let's check in. What did Gorsuch sound like today? He just gave us that great decision yesterday.

I mean, eight out of the nine justices gave us that great decision yesterday saying you can't Colorado and 23 other states have laws telling therapists they can only tell confused minors around the gender issue that they really are secretly not the gender that their biological sex is. You can only tell them affirm, affirm, affirm, you are gender confused.

and that's because you really are this sex that you're not. So that was great. Gorsuch authored that opinion. That concerns me, frankly, as somebody who would like to see today's executive order upheld because he's probably feeling like I gave you a solid Trump. And now I'm free to do it, whatever the hell I want. I know he feels he's free any day. But here is one soundbite in which he was given the ACLU attorney a little jazz.

It's not six. Well, there's a lot in elk. And some of it's not terribly helpful for. it seems to me because Justice Gray again strikes again says that they may be subject in some degree or respect to the United States so there's some jurisdiction he says they're born with in the in the geographic limits they are in a geographical sense born in the United States but because they are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and Oh, allegiance distinct from the United States.

That's what takes them outside. And that language sure sounds a lot like the Solicitor General's presentation today. To the contrary, Justice Gorsuch, I embrace that part of Elk v. Wilkins's holding. Justice Gray, of course, wrote both Wong Kim Ar. I know, and it's a struggle. Sure. Let me try to help you out with that. So, you know, the government tries to make it seem as though what sets the exceptions apart, what defines the exceptions, is that the government has some maximum theoretical power.

The government could have exercised plenary regulatory power over the tribes, and therefore that's the same situation as a foreign national in the United States. Okay. No one understands a word that was said there, Dave, but they do understand that just. Justice Kavanaugh, sorry, Justice Gorsuch was giving the E.S.LU kind of a hard time suggesting there's wiggle room in the case law for him to find a way to vote for Trump. That's right. And Mike Davis should be proud, I'm sure, because that's his guy, Justice Gorsuch, and it looks like he could go either way on this. I'm sure Mike is beaming. But it's interesting. I'm going to try to distill it down because it is confusing. But here, in plain language, Justice Gray wrote both the elk and the Wong Kim Archipitonan.

So it's interesting that they're asking him back to him, like, how do you distinguish these two opinions? And the key is that in the Elk case, the 1898 case, Justice Gray was dealing with a Native American who owed immediate allegiance to a sovereign tribe. And so that's different. And that's, I think, the distinction between Elk Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark. So in other words, in Elk, because you're dealing with a Native American who owes allegiance to a sovereign. tribe, they're not, they don't get birthright citizenship because there's that allegiance question. Like I was saying, the subjects of the king, the diplomats come over, they're still loyal to the king, not to the United States. Whereas in the Wang Kim case, you had two Chinese, a mother and a

father who were not citizens of America, but were here lawfully. And their child was recognized as an American citizen because they didn't have that lack of allegiance problem. that the native person did and that, in my hypothetical, the English diplomats do. Exactly. An undocumented immigrant is not a member of a sovereign nation within the United States that has its own treaties and laws. They are individuals. Well, look, I think the bottom line is, you tell me, Mike, because you kind of dodged on how you think it went today, you know, but. I'm not confident. If you were betting, if you had to put money on it, I think we'd put money on

them signing against Trump. I think the Supreme Court's going to rule against Trump because I think these justices are being politicians in robes. They're being weak. They're not going to follow the law. And I would say this. If Dave said that he was trying to distinguish those cases between the Chinese lawful permanent residents who get birthright citizenship versus the American Indians who don't because of their, they are allegiance to a separate tribe, to a sovereign tribe. What the hell? What happened to these Chinese birth tourists who come? come to America, have their kids, their Chinese foreign nationals, their kids go back to China, they're Chinese foreign nationals with American birthright citizenship under your interpretation. They never step foot in America, but they can mail in their votes. I don't think that's what the people who proposed the 14th Amendment sold to the public. And I don't think that any Congress since then sold that to the public.

And if the Supreme Court rules that way that Chinese birth tourists get birthright citizens, It can vote in our elections from China and get welfare sent to China. The Supreme Court's going to lose its legitimacy. Here's the thing. I'm going to stay with you on this, Mike. Our pal John Yu wrote an editorial on this, and he's an originalist, like most of the conservatives on the high court. And he made the following point. He's on Dave's side, which you don't always say about John Yu. He's a very conservative. guy and legal scholar. He's the one who authored the memo that would justify the torture that was unleashed on al-Qaeda during, you know, the post-9-11 years. He argued, as Dave is arguing, and said, you can't argue this about the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, it does protect or include the children of illegals. And he ended his peace as follows. If the American people are dissatisfied with aspects of their constitution, the remedy lies in their hands,

amend it, pretending it says something it does not can only undermine the Constitution and the rule of law. That's a great principle, Mike, and you and I both agree with that as more federalist-type constitutional people, because it's that principle that we use to say, Roe versus Wade is made up. You can't read rights into the Constitution that aren't there, and you can't read prohibitions into it that aren't there either. Look, I love Jodd, you. Maybe this is personal for him, but I would say this,

that no, you don't misinterpret the law. You don't give away our most crucial sovereign power as we the people by handing out citizenship to Chinese birth tourists and then say, oh, if you don't like it, amend the Constitution, that

has the argument backwards. We have the sovereign power as we the people. We decide who comes, we decide who goes, we decide who our citizenry belongs to, and we don't just give that away from some weak justices on the Supreme Court who, you know, maybe they have personal political views on this. That is not how our Constitution works. This is a glaring red line. This is a violation of our most crucial sovereign power as we the people to control our border and to control our population.

So John Yu is just dead wrong on this one. Megan? Unfortunately, Dave, we're not going to, yeah, go ahead. Well, you know, when it comes to Mike's argument about Chinese children who come here, and that argument was made actually during the debate on this amendment, the 14th Amendment, there's a center of Cowan who made this debate saying, hey, if you pass this, you're going to now give citizenship and the term you're used with Chinese and gypsies. and the Congress passed it anyways.

Yeah, they actually said, they said, you're going to give citizenship to China, the Chinese and the gypsies. And yet, Congress passed it anyways because they chose a bright line rule so we wouldn't have this kind of debate in the future. And that's why every court has decided in that way, even conservative justices and judges are saying that

because if you want to change the Constitution, you can't do so through executive border. No, no, no, no. The Supreme Court has not decided this issue on the illegal aliens. They've decided the issue of, lawful and permanent residents. People who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which means they have allegiance to the United States. It's not Chinese birth tourists who get to come here. Al-Qaeda's kids who get to come here. ISIS kids get to come here. You have to have allegiance

to the United States. And you can't just throw up your arms and say, well, if you don't like it, just amend the Constitution like that's easy. No, we never agreed to give away citizenship to people who hate us. We agreed to give citizenship to people who have allegiance to the United States. The children of freed slaves and then the Supreme Court extended that to lawful and permanent residents. That's all the Supreme Court has decided. They have not decided the illegal aliens. That is a bogus argument. Well, back in 1898, that was the argument that the government tried. They said that Wong Kim-Arck's parents owed allegiance to the emperor of China. They couldn't become Americans and the Supreme Court rejected that.

They were more than permanent residents, Dave. That was the difference. I know. They had allegiance to the United States because they were lawful permanent residents. They're not Chinese birth tourists, 1.5 million of them. They're not illegal aliens, Trendy, Aragua, who are going to come into our country illegally. And we have 20 million people here because Biden opened our border. Do you think that all of these illegal aliens kids get birthright citizenship?

You think these Chinese birth tourist, it's birthright citizenship? if you think that Congress can change the laws like we did for American Indians. But that is not what we agree to in the 14th Amendment. Well, that's what, well, Dave. Yeah, go ahead, Maggie. Yeah, okay. Well, I was just going to say that the reason we can't just amend the Constitution, because, I mean, any sane person in 2026 America would understand what Mike is saying.

And, I mean, the vast, vast majority of people do not want those Chinese residents to come over here, have their babies, bring them home. That kid grows up to have voting rights in America. No. But the Democrats are the reason that we can't amend the Constitution on this, because the vast majority of red states and Republicans would run to vote for a constitutional amendment that made this perfectly clear. We do not want them. They are not U.S. citizens. That's a privilege that should be bestowed on people who are actual Americans and intend to live their lives here and have done the work to become naturalized if they're from another country originally. The Democrats

don't want that, and they don't even want us to test for citizenship before we can have a vote. at the ballot box. And you tell me, Dave, why that is? Why are they, why do the Democrats want so badly to have the Chinese babies stay here or come here, get citizenship, and then leave? And why do they want so badly for us not to have constitutional or have checks of ID and citizenship before they can vote in November? That's a loaded question, Megan.

So why are the Democrats want, why are the Democrats want open borders and all these illegals to come in and vote for them. Look, that's a political question. Yeah. Exactly. I would say that I would say that I don't know any Democrats who say, hey, the key to future electoral successes, we're going to have open borders so that we can flood the voting booths with the illegals who owe it to us. I know that that's how Republicans think. I haven't heard that in the Democratic side.

Maybe it's part of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, which I'm definitely not a part of. But I haven't heard that talking point on our side of the aisle. I don't, Mike, I, I, let's just switch for a minute if we, if you guys don't mind, because I do want to follow up on the Save Act. It's the number one thing being debated right now on Capitol Hill and amongst every Republican I know. I mean, honestly, every Republican I know is like what's going to happen with the Save Act, which is this attempt to shore up the requirements before people can vote, to provide proof of citizenship, actual proof of citizenship. And that this, it's so important to most Republicans that there's a serious pitch. to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate so that it can pass this Senate, which only has 53 Republicans, and we can get it through. You know, the House obviously is Republican-controlled. The Senate is Republican-controlled. We have a Republican in the White House. And many people believe we don't do it now, what will happen, guaranteed, is the Democrats will come back in a power in the Senate, whether it's 2026 or 2028, and they'll do it. They'll do it for their side

and hoping that they'll get a Democrat president in. I've had my own serious doubts about whether this makes sense because I like minority rights in the Senate because I've just seen too many good Republican minorities stop crazy-ass Democratic legislation. And also, Mike, because it seems to me that generally when you have a Democrat trifecta House Senate and White House, they go nuts on the legislation.

Whereas Republicans are more, you know, we're conservatives. We're more like, ah, we conserved. the status quo. We don't, we're not huge on like, and another law and another law. You mean, so I think it'll help the Dems more than it helps the Republicans. Senate Republicans are giant pussies is what I think you're, you're trying to say there, Megan. Look, I would say this about the Save America Act. It requires proof of citizenship and voter ID. This has the support of over 80% of Americans, including a super majority of Democrats and even a super majority of minorities. The Democrats pretend that women who get married or minorities don't have

the wherewithal to get a voter ID like everyone else. It's nonsense. The reason they oppose this is because they know with our motor voter voter laws that these illegal aliens are getting drivers licenses and they're getting automatically signed up to votes and they're voting in our elections. And this Save America Act would stop this. We don't need to have 60 votes to pass the Save America Act. You need 60 votes to invoke cloture and stop unlimited debate in the Senate. You just need to make the Senate Democrats stand on their feet and debate until they run out of gas. Right. And so at the Article III project, we are getting people to light up, they go to our web page and light up both of their home state senators and tell them

to pass the Save America Act. And if John Thune and Senate Republicans can't pass a piece of legislation with 80% support among Americans, including a super majority of Democrats and a super majority of minorities, they are in the wrong line of work. Go get a real job in real America. Are you worried, Mike, at all about the elimination of the filibuster? Because that's what you'd have to do in order to get a vote. No, no, Megan, you don't. You don't have to eliminate. That's the misconception. You need 60 votes to stop debate in the Senate to limit debate. Yeah. But if you just let the senators debate, make them stand on their feet and debate there's, they can debate, they can debate two times in one day on one piece of legislation, right? So just make them debate until they run out of gas. And after they've run out of gas, hold the vote. And you can pass the Safe America Act with a simple majority vote. This is the requirement. This is the requirement to change the filibuster back to an actual speaking filibuster.

Well, it already is. require them to actually. No, it already is the requirement, but they do the lazy filibuster now in the Senate, where the senators, they're all like 90 years old and they're like, oh, man, we have to get 60 votes. We're just going to go to sleep. Or we need to take another paid vacation. This is exhausting, right? The rules are it's continuous. You can have unlimited debate in the Senate, but you actually have to debate. You have to stand on your feet and debate. And if you don't stand on your feet in debate, you call the vote. standing on your feet and debate is going to rule out half of the U.S. Senate right there.

I mean, you're absolutely right. God forbid you make it work on a weekend, Megan. Just make them work past 2 o'clock on Thursday, and it's amazing what you can get past on the Senate. That I completely believe. Now, Dave, I will not toss it to you with the loaded P word, but you tell me what's going on and what is going to go on with the Save Act, because Mike makes a compelling case. Yeah, President Trump really wants it.

And that's why it's still in play. I thought it was dead and buried, but it's still in play. I'm going to start where we all can agree, all right? The three of us can agree on voter ID. I'm with you on that. I think that's where Mike has his, like, 80% figure from the polls. But the SAVE Act is different because the SAVE Act requires documentary proof of citizenship to register. And that means they're about like, yeah.

Right? Yeah, well, you know, there's about 21 million eligible U.S. citizens who don't have access to a birth certificate. I don't know where mine is, passport or naturalization papers. So you got to go and you got to go get a paper of birth certificate, passport, just to register to vote. And then there's women about 60. I mean, a river. Well, and then there's women, 69 million who have a different name on their birth certificate. You're a newlywed.

Are you not? I met your beautiful bride in the fall. And when you get married, they require all sorts of things from you. You know, like, I don't know, I think you're Jewish, but I'm Catholic. when I got married the first time in a Catholic church, you had to go get your baptism certificate, your confirmation certificate. Oh, so many certificates.

That was just for the Catholic Church, never mind for the state. And I did it because that's life. Why should I be crying tears for the people who have to provide proof of actual citizenship in order to get the privilege of voting? Well, why don't we make it like marriage where I just give my driver's license?

You know, why does it have to be that I've got to go reapply? Because it's so easy to get a driver's license, even if you're not a citizenship. That's what my point is. Here's the real answer. Democrat pretend women and black people don't have the wherewithal to get a voter ID because they want their illegal aliens to vote. That's the real answer. How many illegal aliens vote?

Women are bad in directions. If it depended on like a directional test to get to the DMV, we might not qualify. I speak for myself. First of all, it's already illegal for illegal aliens to vote. And there have been audits in states to see how many illegals have been voting. And it's like 0.001%. So this is trying to suppress a vote not to stop election fraud, which is really non-existent on a widespread basis. And you should have a problem with it's not an issue.

You should have a problem with the Save America Act if there's not existent, if there's not existent, illegal aliens voting, right? But we know that illegal aliens are voting in big numbers. We do know that? Let me get back to this. Let me get back. On the subject of how racist and terrible the Republicans are, Mike Davis, there was a CNN analyst who was on today talking about the birthright citizenship argument at the Supreme Court. And her name is Sean Wu. And this is how Sean Wu frames the issue. The very creation of the 14th Amendment was meant

to combat racism. And really implicitly, people who are challenging that clause are really espousing a racist viewpoint. It's very hard to get around that no matter what sort of legal arguments you want to couch, just because you have a legal argument doesn't mean it's not racist.

So it's racist. I guess it's, by definition, it's racist because when you're talking about people born here who aren't American citizens, they're not American. So maybe it's more xenophobic, is that he should have gone with xenophobic. But your thoughts on whether this argument that Trump's raising is racist and the Save America Act, too, Mike Davis, racist.

Yeah, because I don't want Chinese birth tourists, 1.5 million of them, Chinese nationals in Beijing, voting in American elections. And I don't want them taken welfare. If that makes me racist, then screw it. I'm racist. I don't care. I don't think you guys are racist for bringing this up. And I know Shan Wu, the guy you showed, he's actually a really nice guy.

So, you know, you should have him on the show sometime. We should have Shan Wu and John Yu. And then we could have quite a debate about all aspects of this tough, tough case. Well, you predict 7-2, possibly Dave Aaronberg. What do you predict, Mike Davis? I think that Dave may be right on that. I think that the Supreme Court, the Trump appointed Supreme Court justices. may very much

disappoint on this one. I think they're going to follow the politics instead of the law. Why are the Trump appointed justices so much wobblier than Alito and Thomas? Can I answer that? Truly, why?

They were raised in a different generation where at the law, the law school has got a lot more Marxist when they went to law school than when Justice Alito and Justice Thomas went to law school. And so when you're trying to be accepted in these elite Marxist law schools like Harvard, you have to be the acceptable

conservative. And I think that's the problem with the Trump justices. They care too much about being the acceptable conservative. Megan, I have another follow up for you. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to my 30th Harvard Law School reunion next week. And yes, and I'll bet you that none of the alums will have ever watched me on your show. I think they watch a different network. Dave, you can, anytime you want to come to the Republican Party, Dave. Democrats hate the Jewish people. Come to the Democrat Party. Or to the Republican Party will take you.

I've been very concerned about it. I've been very concerned about it. Be an independent like me. We'll take you too. Now, wait, I want to say something about this. The possibility, we've been talking on the show. This isn't exactly up your alley, guys, but I'm going to land it. Trump's poll numbers are not doing well for a variety of reasons, but the Iran war is

helping. And one of the things I've been saying to the audience is, you know, whether you are in favor of the war, you're not in favor of the war. I think most of us over here on this side of the aisle are in favor of Trump having strong poll numbers and maintaining control, Republicans of the House and certainly of the Senate. And one of the reasons they need to hold on to the Senate is because that's where you get judicial nominees confirmed. And Mike Davis, I am hearing rumblings of Samuel Alito possibly retiring because he did. doesn't want to pull a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He wants to, to his credit, even though we all love him,

he wants to make sure that Trump gets to replace him as opposed to Gavin Newsom. You tell me whether you are hearing the same thing and whether you think we could make that happen before the midterms, just in case the worst happens in November. I got in trouble at the beginning of the Trump administration when I joked that Justice Alita was packing his bags. So I'm not going to do that again. I don't want Justice Alito and Thomas to step down because as we saw with birthright citizenship, they are the two most reliable constitutionalists on the court. I hope they live forever.

I hope that they stay on the court forever. If they decide they want to step down, I think someone like John Sauer would be a great replacement for them. The Solicitor General. Is he wishy-washy? No, hell no. John, he's the guy who made the presidential immunity argument for Trump and one. the most... No, I heard. I know who sour is, but I just, you know, you never know. Like, when I watched Chief Justice John Roberts, who was just then Judge John Roberts, I was like,

central casting, he'll be amazing. I covered his confirmation hearing wall to wall on the air for Fox, and he wound up being rather squishy. Hello, Obamacare! Um, it's a tax. What? That was him. So I do have to worry, but I have to say, like, if, if we get closer to November, I mean, We can't wait that long because the confirmation hearings take a while. You've got to take a serious look at it. My own information is that Thomas is not thinking of retiring and Alito is, we shall see. Gentlemen, love you. Thank you.

We will be right back. Thanks, Megan. If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider River Bend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious. They also contain real high-quality protein that helps fuel your body. Did you see the reason to study that the, the folks in Sweden who ate meat every day staved off Alzheimer's way better than the folks who didn't. How about that? Eat your beef. It's a complete protein. It contains all nine essential amino acids that your body needs to function.

And it also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where it comes from. That's where River River River Bend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, River Bend Ranch has been building an elite black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. All River Bend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the USA. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics, and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award-winning USDA inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Ordered today at Riverben Ranch.com and use promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order.

We've got to tell you about big updates in the case against Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old charged with aggravated murder for allegedly shooting and killing our friend Charlie Kirk back on September 10th at Utah Valley University. It's just, it just still seems so weird. It feels so weird to talk about this like a legal case, you know? It's like the nation is still morning Charlie. It was literally months ago that he was a regular guest on this program. And we and millions of others turned to him for insights and his genius on so many issues, not to mention the Iran War. You know, have you seen there's sort of like a, there are these proxy fights breaking out over Charlie's legacy? What would he have said? Here's a tweet. Here's a clip.

Here's a book. You know, it's like put aside whether you agree with any of it. It's, It's a testament to his relevance, his brilliance, his hard work, how smart he was and how prepared he always was. He studied, studied, studied, studied. And it was all taken from him and secondarily from us on September 10th when he was shot brutally in the neck. It's impossible to overstate the impact of Charlie Kirk's loss, right? And he was so powerful. that many people had reason to loathe him. You know, it's very strange. I'll just say this on a personal note.

I mentioned this to you guys recently, but I confess to you, we've definitely had an uptick in serious security issues in the wake of like this whole Iran stuff and like the bullshit anti-Semi-stuff. And no person should have to die or be threatened, like have their life threatened because of their opinions. That just shouldn't, you should not have to die because of your opinions.

You shouldn't have to die because of your legislating or your executive orders as a politician either. And it's like crazy now that this level of political violence is kind of like, yeah, okay, you got to expect it. Sure. Yeah, you could get shot to death because you feel the following. What? That's why Charlie was murdered. He was murdered because of his opinions. And while, you know, the police say it was Tyler Robinson and I believe it was Tyler Robinson and I do have real questions about whether his trans Tifa friends helped him or at least knew, they very much seem to know in advance of the murder. From the beginning, I've been open to other questions about whether that's true, whether that's right. The police have

the right guy. I believe they do. And also, whether anybody else might have played a role in it somehow. Okay? And I think that piece of it, Candice Owens has been asking that question, you know, she's taking a hard look at the investigation, putting aside the stuff with Erica, I've told you a million times how I feel about that.

I don't agree with her on Erica Kirk. I think we all be better off if Candice used her considerable investigative skills to focus on other things. But her questions about this investigation are fair game. and she does have some sources. And I think that's the reason in part. It's not just Candice. Many others have got questions about the investigation here

and about whether what we're being told makes sense. And does Tyler Robinson, you know, those text messages with the boyfriend sounded fake? I mean, they did sound fake, but that doesn't mean they are fake. And that's why I think this Daily Mail headline got so much attention earlier this week, even though it turns out it was somewhat misleading. The quote was, bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match rifle, allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims. So they're saying the bullet didn't match Tyler's rifle. And they're citing a new court filing for that.

The bullet didn't match the rifle. Well, that's, I mean, did you see? I, too, and I'm in the legal business, like, whoa, what? What? it's not quite what it appears. But that doesn't mean it's a nothing. All right. And that's what we're going to get into now.

Look, if they can get this to a point where they can definitively say that what they found in the autopsy definitely didn't come from Tyler Robinson's gun, he's going to be acquitted. That's not where we are. All right. That's not. There's more to this story. And we took a look at the filing that they based this on in the Daily Mail. it comes from Tyler Robinson's defense team, which wants to delay or even vacate an upcoming preliminary hearing so that there's more time for the defense to receive and examine evidence. Here's what they write.

Quote, regarding the firearm evidence, the defense has been provided with an ATF summary. You know, that's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, with an ATF summary report. Okay, so this report comes from the government, which indicates that the ATF. was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle, allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson, unable to identify the bullet to the rifle. It's a weird phrasing. It's not exactly the most articulate way I think you could say this, but the ATF, according to the defense, is saying it could not identify the bullet to the rifle used. That ATF summary report has not been made public. And nor has it been provided in full to the defense.

We know from their filing, they've only received a summary of it. And they haven't received, excuse me, the full report. They've only received the summary. And we, the public, have received neither. But there was another filing earlier this month from media organizations who are seeking more access to documents in this case. By the way, still unclear whether we're going to be allowed to have cameras in the courtroom and watch this trial.

The judge better allow this. I mean, this is Erica wants it. The media wants it. Charlie was killed on camera, and there's been so many questions swirling around this. If they keep the media out, it's going to be worse than if they let us in. In any event, the media has to fight for every damn brief to get access to the documents in the case. It's ridiculous. Court proceedings are open to the public.

We pay for them. We are the ones who are endangered by the people who are tried inside of these courtrooms, and we have every right as the people's representatives to be inside these courtrooms. But, okay, I digress. So the media has filed a motion, too, seeking more access to documents in the case. That happened earlier. And the media's lawyers were able to see this ATF summary. And they wrote in their brief that it features, quote, a comparison between a bullet jacket fragment.

So like the casing of the bullet, not the actual, like, bullet itself, recovered during an autopsy of Charlie Kirk and a rifle recovered by law enforcement. So they see that there's been a comparison between, they say, a bullet jacket recovered and the rifle. The filing quotes one sentence directly from the ATF report, quote, the result of the comparison was inconclusive. Okay, so maybe not as dramatic as we were led to believe by the Daily Mail. But interesting. I mean, inconclusive is not the same thing as did not match. So what are they trying to tell us? I mean, I think a lot of people were very confused.

But we are no longer confused because we've done some investigation with our. gun experts and our legal experts, and you're not going to be confused after you hear this segment either. Andrew Branca is an attorney and self-defense law expert who has significant experience with firearms and criminal defense attorney, and MK. True Crime host, Mark Garagos, is also with us. He knows a thing or two about what he would do with this evidence and whether it is or is not a significant deal. Andrew, let me start with you as somebody we've gone to repeatedly on firearms and self-defense and so on, your take on what this, put aside the Daily Mail headline, but what does this actually mean? What is the ATF trying to tell us?

Well, I mean, it's mostly a big nothing to tell you the truth. It's not an all-unusual to have difficulty making a match between a bullet recovered on autopsy and a firearm. You don't actually even need the bullet, of course, to find someone guilty of having fired the bullet. So it's nice. It would have been nicer to the prosecution of they could have had a high probability definitive match with the rifle. They would have liked that. It would have been great for the defense if some grotesque characteristic of the round, like the numbers of lands and grooves, the rifling on the bullet, were distinctly different than in the rifle. So you would have a definite exclusion. But all we have here is an inconclusive result. And frankly, it doesn't

surprise me. It's not unusual to fire a bullet, especially a high power rifle bullet into a human body end up with a lot of fragmentation. The jacket strips off of the lead core. It fragments into a bunch of pieces that are some of which are recovered from the body. Others are not. They're just dispersed within the tissue. And it's just unable to come to a definitive conclusion of identifying a match between that round and the firearm. Mark, the defense seems to be objecting to the ATF having another bite at the apple, going at this again. they'd like it, I think, to stand where it is. When you read that, not the Daily Mail headline,

but when you found out that this is what the ATF has said, this is the government saying that in its summary report, that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson. What was your reaction? My reaction was very similar to yours. I mean, the reason I went and looked at the motion because I thought the headline had,

excluded it. Once I saw or took, I read the motion, then I realized that it was not an exclusion. However, this is a criminal case. Criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Anytime as a defense lawyer, you see something that says inconclusive. You're going to jump all over that, number one. Number two, one of the problems with this kinds of testing and the testing that may be done here and why the defense would be objecting is they want to do the testing themselves at this point. They don't want the ATF or FBI or some outside lab destroying the remaining sample if it's microscopic before they've had a chance to do their own testing. There are other tests that can be done. I've done other tests. I haven't done it, but I've had

experts to other tests where they can match up metallurgical kinds of analysis, other kinds of analysis that will attempt to exclude this bullet fragment. It could this, I would not be dismissive here of the ability of the defense to use this and use this well, because what you pointed out to, some of these text messages to me just sound fake and they sound kind of, I don't know, almost like they were AI created. And if I've got a- like a Gen Z young man. It does not in the least.

It does not, it does not sound authentic for a term that everybody likes to throw around. And when you've got texts that seem phony and you've got an inconclusive test, if you're the defense, it's almost malpractice not to be running down that test and doing your own tests. And I'm sure they've already hired a ballistics expert who's all over this thing. Andrew, what can you explain what's going on here? because there's been a big debate. People who have questions, and they're entitled to them,

about what happened to Charlie that day, have many people, a lot of gun experts online, have questioned the absence of an exit wound. You know, we all saw where the entrance wound was and how badly and grievously Charlie was injured. But there wasn't an exit wound, and I believe that's not in dispute. Now, the Daily Mail did go on to report

that this bullet was fragmented inside, of Charlie's body, and that that also, that that can happen. They had experts in there saying that that can happen when even with a bullet that comes from a rifle like this, it can basically shatter, I guess, inside of the victim. Yeah, that's right. In fact, again, it's not an all-unusual. Anyone can Google or go on GROC or whatever and just ask it to provide examples of high-powered rifle rounds that have been shot in the human bodies and didn't result in an exit room. The bullet was captured within the body. You know, there's what we call terminal ballistics,

how the bullet functions and whatever it ultimately strikes, is really a matter of probability, not of certainty. Now, if someone fired a 30-odd-six round like this into a human body, the probability is it's going to completely traverse the body, and there'll be an exit wound. But that's not a certainty, and it's not unusual that the bullet does weird things. As soon as it hits, they can take 90-degree turns,

they can enter horizontally a neck and go down into the body. It's not what you would expect to happen, but it happens often enough that it's not shocking, and it's certainly not impossible. Do you find it strange, Andrew, at all, that the ATF did a test to see what they could match up from the remnants of this bullet, bullet fragments. By the way, there are two reports here.

One says that it was the bullet that they, unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle. And then that media filing, referencing this same ATF summary, described it as a bullet jacket fragment that was compared to the rifle. We actually called the authorities and asked whether there's more than one. Like, was their analysis done on a bullet and analysis done on a bullet jacket? And neither one was conclusive? And they told us no, the media motion and the defense motion are talking about the same thing. There was one fragment found, or at least tested. It's not two separate tests, ones from the casing and one's from the bullet. So for whatever it's worth, some fragment,

we believe, of the bullet was recovered. But do you find it odd, Andrew, that the ATF being unable to, like, I'll use their word, I guess, identify that to the gun, then didn't do the more testing that they that they're now doing because the state indicates that the FBI is in the process of conducting a second comparative bullet analysis as well as a bullet led analysis. But these are not yet complete. And I'm just thinking, enter, that if I'm the prosecution, I'm probably not going to turn any of this over to the defense until I've done all my tests trying to get the best result possible showing a link. Well, I mean, there's a tension here, right? So as a prosecution, you're obligated to turn this material over to the defense at some point.

Certainly the judge won't like it if you delay excessively in getting this material. So with the prosecution, I mean, they do like to delay, right? There's a lot of evidence in this case. And I've seen many cases in which prosecutors delay as long as possible, get it to the defense late in the process. That makes it very difficult for the defense to do an adequate evaluation or challenge of the evidence. I've seen prosecutors' offices take these enormous. volumes of evidence and basically bury things inside all of it because they know the defense isn't going to have time to look through everything. At some point, the prosecution has to turn it over.

The exact timing of that, they don't want to be castigated by the judge for not having turned it over in a timely manner. That would intend to drive them towards releasing what they have, what they have it, even if it's not the totally comprehensive analysis that would ultimately result. And it's not good for the prosecution. Of course, Mark, they have an opportunity. to turn it over to the defense if it's exculpatory, if it would help Tyler Robinson. But you tell me whether you think this is unusual that they turned over the thing that was going to be exploited by the defense. And also the defense appears to know, because this comes from their brief, that the state, that the FBI is in the process of conducting a second

comparative bullet analysis as well as a bullet-led analysis and that they're not yet complete. Well, what's going on here, and I've been down this road, I can't tell you how many times. They have to turn it over because it is exculpatory. People can diminish it. People can say, well, it doesn't mean this. You can do whatever you want in terms of couching it. It's exculpatory evidence. They've got to do the under Brady to turn it over.

That's number one. Number two, you're dealing with a fragment. What I always do in this situation, and I've learned this from others who are very well-schooled in this, I then say, I want my expert present when you do any further. testing because I'm not going to sit here and wait for you to do the testing. My expert is going to be present, number one or number two, you can't do any more testing until I make sure that my expert has taken a sample or has reviewed your bench notes and all of your work, because you do not want a situation where there's going to be something called a trombetta hitch motion where you've

destroyed what remaining exculpatory evidence there is. You knew that you did that. And then there's going to be subject to a motion to dismiss. So the defense is all over this. How is it exculpatory, Mark, when, you know, what Andrew's saying is you had a bullet go in, it fragmented, you know, I think Andrew's basically saying, of course you're not necessarily going to be able to tie a bullet fragment to this rifle in particular. Like, you might be able to say, oh, this is the bullet fragment of a nine millimeter. That's not what was used by Tyler Robinson. So that's very exculpatory. But that's not. not what they have here. They're just saying this bullet was so torn up. We can't positively say

it came from this weapon. So my question is, how is it exculpatory? Look, under Brady and then it's, yeah, under Brady and to some degree, lesser degree, jiglio, anything that diminishes the case. Remember, the prosecution has to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. When you have a forensic test that is done that comes back and it's inconclusive. by definition, that's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is certainty to some degree. And so that by definition is exculpatory. That is why they turned it over. That is why, by the way, all you need to know about the prosecution is the fact that they've already turned that over to another agency, namely the FBI, to do secondary testing. They recognize the fact, no matter how they couch it,

no matter how forward-facing or public-facing, they try to diminish it. They recognize that it's exculpatory. That's why they're doing further investigation, further testing. And that is, to my mind, is exactly why the defense is honing in on this. Yeah, I agree with Mark. Do you think? I do agree with Mark. In the sense that, of course, you know, it's not the job of the defense to prove Tyler

Robinson innocent, right? There's no innocence in court. It's their job to prevent the state from proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So in that sense, anything that does not advance the prosecution's movement towards proof beyond a reasonable doubt is helpful to the defense, of course. And what, do you know anything, Andrew, about this? They're doing a second comparative bullet analysis as well as a bullet-led analysis. Do you know what a bullet-led analysis is, Andrew? Is that toward trying to figure out whether this came from the 30-0-6 or whether it's,

like I said, maybe a 9mm or a 357 magnum, which would be helpful to Tyler Robinson if it's not. Well, I mean, bullet leads come in a lot of different alloys. Some are harder, some are softer, and you can differentiate those with laboratory testing. So they'll test the lead from the bullet, and then they'll test inside the barrel of the gun and see if those leads can be matched up.

And that would be helpful, obviously, for the prosecution. Again, whether you're likely to be able to do that or not, lots of different bullets can be fired through a single gun. You get lots of different leads. much lead is common among many different types of bullets, so it's very difficult to get an exact match that way. But they're looking for anything they can use to try to tie this bullet to the gun. If they can get that, that's very helpful for the state. Mark, we talked to our pal Sean Davis over at the Federalist, who knows a thing or two about guns,

and he knows a bit about these ATF documents, too. And he suggested that the sort of barrel matching, matching this whole process, it's questionable as a valid forensic science at all. He doesn't believe it is. And he said multiple courts are now concluding the same thing. And he said at best the forensics can tell you whether this bullet was fired from this particular make and model of gun. But it absolutely cannot conclusively determine that this bullet is from gun A and not gun B when gun A and B are the same make and model of gun.

So I think he's suggesting we're asking too much. of the ATF here. Yeah, and for those who are in the weeds, there's something called the Daubert analysis in California. We call it Sargon. We've got Sanchez, where you challenge the science in these kinds of cases. We've been doing that on ballistic style evidence for a while. You may remember, Megan, years ago, because I think you covered a couple of these cases out of Texas, the arson, so-called arson evidence, which was thought of as state-of-the-art, which was admitted into many different murder prosecutions was later found to just be junk science. And so that is the same kind of analysis has been used for a number of years in various

jurisdictions challenging this ballistics evidence because there are those experts who will say this is junk science. And the idea of making it akin to fingerprints, which also has some of its own issues is something that is a hotly contestant topic. I want to keep going. Candace does have, she says, law enforcement, good sources involved in this case. And she has reported, Andrew, that police dogs did not alert to the rifle. That, you know, the rifle was found in a grassy knoll not far from the campus. And allegedly it had been fired. Allegedly it had been shot, you know, by Tyler Robinson to kill Charlie, which would involve gunpowder, right? And the reporting, the suggestion is that law enforcement was found that

curious, too, that the dogs would not alert to the weapon. Your thoughts on it? Dogs are imperfect. I mean, you know, they're really good at what they do, but they're not perfect, and they miss things on a regular basis. It doesn't, again, it's a matter of probability. If you ask me what I have expected the dog to find the rifle, I'd say yes. Does it surprise me that it didn't happen? It really doesn't. Is that the kind of thing? that could ever come into evidence, Mark? Could the defense ever get that into evidence that the dogs did not alert?

Absolutely. I was just chuckling because I remember doing a one-week hearing on dog evidence in the Scott Peterson case. I think you were actually there. At the time, or at least surrounding it, we actually... We had extensive hearings about the dog sent evidence

about the dog's ability, whether the handler was guiding it, whether the handler was kind of projecting onto the dog and all of that. It is something that the defense will use, I think, significantly. And you mentioned the term of grassy knoll. I think part of the problem here, you know, the late great Searle Wept had spent almost five decades talking about JFK and a lot of the ballistic evidence there and about whether or not there was a conspiracy

and things of that nature. To your point that you originally made, if there are no cameras in the courtroom, this is a recipe for conspiracy gone wild. And that's why there has to be cameras in the courtroom. Speaking of Peterson, my biggest regret in that case is that I agreed with the prosecution not to have cameras in the courtroom.

It's a fool's errand. It makes no sense. And in this case, it's going to be something we'll talk about for decades if there aren't cameras. sir. I mean, there's a lot of ambiguity around a lot of this evidence, right? And by the way, my perspective is from criminal defense, of course. So I think the defense here is doing everything they're supposed to be doing. There's a lot of evidence in this case consistent with the guilt of Tyler Robinson. And the job of the defense is to attack every piece of that as aggressively

as they can. That's their duty to their client. So all these things, of course, should be challenged by the defense. And the most robust environment for that to happen is in the course. It's in the courtroom. I mean, that's why we have courtrooms, right? It's an adversarial process. The state brings their experts. The defense brings their experts. Everyone's questioned and subject to cross-examination. That's why it absolutely should be televised so that all of us with an interest in this case can view that battle in real time and have confidence that the right decisions are being arrived at. On to your point on the evidence against Tyler Robinson, because the reports are that the prosecution feels extremely confident about their chances of a conviction, notwithstanding any of the stuff we're discussing today. And this is some of what they put in the charging document when they charged him with aggravated murder.

That law enforcement officers followed his path to the southeast end of the campus, where they believed he left campus and entered a wooded area. In that wooded area, investigators found a bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel. The rifle contained one spent round and three unspent rounds. This is consistent with the fax officers observed at the time of and immediately after the shooting, no shell casings were found on the roof, suggesting a bolt action rather than an auto-loading weapon and only a single round was fired. I haven't gotten to their best part here, but Andrew, you being the gun expert, can you translate that into plain English for the rest of us?

Well, I mean, either a semi-automatic rifle would tend to eject the case that you just fired. A bolt action, you'd have to cycle the bolt to get the case ejected. In either case, someone can just pick up the case and take it with them when they leave. So I'm not sure exactly what point they're trying to get to there. Okay, and that was his gun that he, you know, that we've all seen that picture of, that old-fashioned gun, is a bolt action that would hold on to the casing. If you didn't cycle the bolt, the case stays inside the action. And they go on.

The rifle, ammunition rounds, and towel were sent for forensic processing. DNA consistent with Robinson's was found on the trigger, other parts of the rifle, the fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges and the towel. And now, Mark, I imagine if you're looking at that last piece as a defense lawyer, you're not loving it. You're not loving it. but you tell me what you do with that, that they can prove Tyler touched some of this stuff, but they have to go past that.

They have to prove that he actually fired the shot, the actual shot, and that's why we have to look at the bullet and try to tie that to him. Correct. But you know, ironically, if I'm defending this case, the thing that gives me the most pause

about the gun and the bullets and everything else are if you believe the texts that they have about worrying whether his, dad is going to see it or recognize it or it's his grandfather's done. Those are the things that give me the most pause because in order. But if those are fake, if those are fake, right, then you, by the way, if those are fake, everything else falls by the wayside because you can argue. Very good point. Right. I mean, that's the, that's kind of the wedge. If you get past that, then you're off to the races if you're the defense.

Right, because let's keep in mind what we're really, well, we, I mean, if they're fake, we'd like to know, but we're really kind of arguing if the defense can convince the jury that they're fake, then the whole case could go away because if the defense can convince the jury they're fake, then the defense is convincing the jury that the case is fake news. Go ahead, Mark. Yeah, well, I was going to say one of the greatest instructions you get in a criminal case, talking about either reasonable doubt or a witness. willfully false. If you can show that some material, something that's important, something that matters

to the prosecution is false and that a witness falsely produces that evidence, testifies that evidence, there's an instruction that you get in almost every jurisdiction that says you can disbelieve everything. So that is, you know, that's generally a witness willfully false is a the centerpiece of a defense case. And that's why I say, if you can pull on a string and you can get them to admit or get a witness to concede that they were false about something, everything else can go, can fall apart. It's a house of cards instruction. But Andrew, we, one of the things that we have now learned from this same defense filing that spoke about the bullet, wrote about the bullet, is that the defense, it has revealed that the prosecution is going to be calling as it's

witnesses Tyler Robinson's parents and his lover, the furry, the trans furry Lance Twigs. And let's just, let's start with the trans furry lover. That's the one with whom Tyler Robinson was allegedly texting, the weird sounding texts that sound like sort of old English almost. I mean, it just doesn't sound like a Gen Z young man. But Tyler Robbins, or Lance Twigs will presumably, if he's going to get called by the prosecution, stand up there and say, not only do I confirm, those are my texts with Tyler, but let me show you a litany of other texts between me and Tyler, where we often

sound like we are old English or we are from a Renaissance fair and speak like this to one another. You've got to laugh where you can. And that'll be very helpful. Like if that's what he's going to do, if he's not like some sort of hostile witness, but he's really cooperating. and at a bare minimum authenticates those texts, then isn't this whole debate about whether they're real done? Well, I mean, we have to keep in mind, of course,

in any criminal prosecution, nobody knows what actually happened with absolute certainty, especially not the jury, right? The jury's supposed to come in like a blank piece of paper. What the jury's hearing is two stories in the courtroom. They're hearing a story of guilt from the prosecution and a story of not guilt from the defense. And you read the information before.

And listen, anytime you read an information that's, of course, created by the state, that's their narrative of guilt. It always sounds great until it's challenged in court. This kid is going to come in. He's going to testify. He's going to be subject to direct examination by the state, and it'll probably be a good witness for the state if they've prepared him properly. But then he's subject to cross examination. And it's not at all common. Is he a fantastic witness on direct completely collapse on cross?

And of course, that's the job of the defense. We won't know that until it happens. Again, that's a reason why this needs to be televised, so we can observe that for ourselves and not rely on, you know, media reports on what's happening. The other thing I wanted to mention is you talked about this motion of the defense that was, we're all discussing. To me, the really interesting part wasn't actually the rifle stuff per se,

the ballistic stuff. It was the DNA stuff. I mean, obviously, it would be very helpful for the state to have this DNA connection between Tyler Robinson and the rifle. but in fact there's only very tiny amounts of DNA that they're able to test, and they're using a technique to test it that is relatively new and novel and not demonstrated as being robust. It's been rejected by a whole bunch of federal and state courts, and I think that's going to be even a more robust avenue of attack for the defense, because it's bad for the defense if they have the DNA link. It's great for the defense if they can get that evidence excluded so the jury never hears it in the first place. No, it's fascinating.

This is what they say in the motion in part, Mark. Well, I'll give it to you. Let me just read you in part what they say about the DNA in the motion. Robinson says DNA reports by the FBI and ATF will take time for the defense to analyze because the reports indicated that multiple quantities of DNA were found on some of the items of evidence. Quote, the summary DNA reports produced to date by the FBI and ATF indicate that both agencies recovered minute quantities of DNA on various items of evidence, which the reports open. pine consist of mixtures of up to five or more individuals. Five or more is in quotes. So this is

the defense quoting from the government's summary report. And then they go on to say, as these cases indicate, determining the number of contributors to a DNA mixture and determining whether the FBI and the ATF reliably applied, validated, and correct scientific procedures is complicated. It requires time. So they're saying themselves that they gleaned from the government's report, that some of the DNA has mixtures of up to five or more individuals, and they describe the amounts as, quote, minute, Mark. So there's two problems, and Andrew Abley pointed out the first one when it comes to DNA is there's going to be a, have to be a hearing that is done onto the admissibility, number one,

because the report itself, and I'm to some degree speculating because we're only getting selective quotes out of the report, but I will speculate wildly that there's going to be a very contested, heated battle over the admissibility of any of the CNA evidence number one. Then if it gets admitted and somebody says, okay, this is reliable or it's something that should be admitted, there's going to be a further battle over whether or not there is transparency or whether or not this is a adequate safeguards were taken for the chain of custody. The other problem with the witness that they put on the list, which is the roommate, lover, whatever you want to characterize, I don't think for a second, I would be shocked if this

person did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. If I'm representing that guy, I'm saying, go pound sand. You want to, you want this person to testify? I'm not testifying. Absent immunity. and then the prosecution has to make the decision. Are we going to give transactional? We're going to give use immunity to this person before we know what they're going to say. And by the- Object to the use of the word person.

Yes. We're not sure. It's a furry of some sort. I was actually going to say, ironically, transfer for DNA and here, but I didn't want a bad dad joke. But wait, let me ask you on a procedural matter then, because the reason we know that Lance Twiggs is going to be called by the prosecution,

I mean, I think we assumed it since he was corresponding with Tyler in the moments after the crime and obviously in the days prior, that doesn't mean he's agreed to testify for the prosecution, though the reports are that he is cooperating with him. Those are the reports. But you're saying that none of that means he's not going to take the stand in assert his Fifth Amendment. He may yet still do that. Well, when he, if he's got a lawyer or somebody close to him, he's telling him, Hey, do you see what the defense is doing here? He's going to figure out pretty soon or pretty quickly that the defense is going to be challenging

his role in all of this. And if that's the case and he lawyers up, he'd be foolish to not assert his Fifth Amendment rights and get some kind of immunity. Well, I think he's cooperating so far. And I think the parents, well, I don't know what the parents are doing in fairness. But there's, we got to get into the parents next. and what they've done so far and what the defense is now saying about them. Can you guys stick around for a few more minutes?

We're going to take a quick break and come right back to Andrew and Mark. Okay, don't go away. When you are in a business growth mindset, you know how much the basic stuff matters, like how you talk to customers or clients and keep your team aligned. A more modern setup makes everything run smoother. So I want to tell you about one of our sponsors, Quo, spelled QUO, the modern alternative to running your business communications. Quo works right from an app on your phone or computer unless you keep your existing number,

add new numbers or teammates, and sync your CRM. Your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number, so there's no mixed messages or missed, mixed or missed. And Quo's AI automatically logs calls, generates summaries, and highlights next steps, so nothing gets lost. It can even qualify leads or respond after hours, ensuring your business stays responsive. Make this the season where no opportunity and no customer slips away. Try Quo for free. Plus, get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com slash mk. That's QUO.com MK. Quo. No missed calls. No missed connections. Ever been in a bad relationship? You know the kind it just wears you down. You settle in, even though deep down, you know this is not how it's supposed to be.

Well, that's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to feel good. and you start thinking, I guess this is just my life now, but it doesn't have to be. With Relief Factor, you can break up with pain just like Anthony did. He wrote, quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue. I've been taking Relief Factor for about two months, and now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening, doing the things that really matter to me. If you have back pain, knee issues, or stiffness slowing you down, relief factor could give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug-free. It targets the inflammation that causes pain, helping you move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again.

Try the three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 8004 relief, break up with pain, and get back to what matters. Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news only on the Megan Kelly channel, Sirius XM 11, and on the Sirius XM app.

Andrew Branca and Mark Garagos are back with me. So the other big thing that jumped out at me in this is that the defense says the prosecution's calling Tyler Robinson's parents. And their spousal privilege, right? They can't compel you to testify against your spouse in a criminal court of law. But there's no mother-son privilege or, you know, father, son, or parent-child. So these two, I guess, could be called, and they're not subjected. Thank you. To any, they don't have any criminal exposure in this whole thing. And here is what we know from earlier on in this case, from, again, the criminal information,

which is the charging document for Tyler. it describes him as turning himself in with his parents. This is verbatim what the state alleged. On the evening of September 11th, this is the day after Charlie was killed, 2025 as law enforcement continued their investigation, Tyler Robinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's Office with his parents and a family friend to turn himself in. Robinson's mother stated the following to police.

On September 11th, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson's mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. Robinson's mother called her son and asked him where he was. He said he was at home sick and that he had also been at home sick on September 10th. Robinson's mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspected shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed. His mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male, who was transitioning genders. Hold on a second. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views.

In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. He accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched a rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, his father contacted the son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson,

and Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail. He just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there's too much evil and the guy, Charlie, spreads too much hate. They talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced Robinson to speak with a family friend who is a retired deputy sheriff at Robinson's father's request. The family friend met with Robinson and his parents, met with Robinson and his parents and convinced Robinson to turn himself in. The family friends spoke to police and reported telling Robinson that it would be best if he brought all evidence

with him to the sheriff's office to avoid police having to search his parents home. The family friend also asked Robinson if he had any clothes that were related to what he did. Robinson replied that he had disposed of the clothes in different areas. So that's from the police. That's what they say the parents told them. And I mean, Mark, I just feel like that's about as damning as you could get, right? Like the parents saw the image on TV, and they were like, that's Tyler. They saw the gun.

They were like, that's the gun. His, Tyler's grandpa gave him. They texted Tyler. He didn't have an alibi. They then talked to Tyler, and he confessed to them or came as close as possible. And he's talking about how he wants to kill himself about how he thought Charlie spread too much hate. How about how he wanted to end it? And you heard, you know, the other state.

that he allegedly said. They convinced him to speak with his friend who was a retired deputy sheriff, and they went from there. So I've had, and I'm sure Andrew has had this over the years as well, I can't tell you countless times where when a parent is confronted with their child who is accused of something, the parent either, I don't want to bail them out, leave them in, they've got to learn a lesson, or we've got to cooperate, or we've got to do this or that. To your point, yes, I've never understood why there isn't a parent-child filial kind of confidential relationship, but there is not. The problem for the prosecution is that, as you saw, people initially what their reaction is, and later on, can change dramatically. when the parents realize that, hey, we cooperated, and the next thing they know, the prosecution's trying to kill their kid, they may have a completely different take, number one.

Number two, look at the language in the charging document. He implied. He said this. There's not a confession. There may be an admission. Those are going to be things that you may find a parent is not so willing to help the government kill. kill their kid when it comes down to it. And the government may say, we don't want to put them in that position at the end of the day. As far as the family friend, I don't know. I'd have to

see what the reports are on that. And Megan, I wouldn't be so quick to say the parents don't have potential criminal exposure here. I mean, we've had a number of cases in recent years where a child goes to a school and commits a shooting and the parents are prosecuted and convicted for not preventing their child from accessing the firearm that was used for that school shooting. And the same kind of argument could be made here. Well, I guess it depends. I mean, what we know that the parents knew prior to this shooting, I would base my judgment on the earlier cases, that won't get them in trouble.

But if there's more, if it turns out that Tyler was writing his parents over and over, I can't stop myself from having the visions, I want to shoot somebody. You know, Charlie Kirk, he's full of hate. Yeah, we might be getting there. I don't know. I doubt it. But, you know, I think this is very damning, very damning for Tyler Robinson. And you're right.

You're not only going to have the parents potentially. You're going to have the family friend who is potentially going to take the witness stand. And then if Lance Twiggs gets up there and says he did confess. He confessed to me that back and forth, you know, he says to Tyler in the email exchange, it wasn't you, was it? And Tyler writes back, yeah, it was. I can't remember the exact wording. But it's like there was some hate can't be.

negotiated out or however he put it. So look, all of the, it's an interesting discussion because this is how defense attorneys make their case, right? Mark, it's like they don't have some big sweeping normally like the big aha moment. The bullets from a nine millimeter, not from this kind of gun. It's the little seeds of doubt around this tiny bit and that tiny bit, the mixed DNA, the bullet wasn't proven to be a match. The parents didn't actually say on the stand what they said to the police. The lover is weird and not credible. Like, that's how it's done. It's a death of a thousand cuts.

Right. And by the way, I haven't seen. Has anybody, and I apologize that this has been done. But one of the first things that I'm sure Andrew does, because we do it with great regularity, is we go and obtain cell phone evidence. And we get the tower evidence. And we get all of them surrounding because that is, to my mind, some of the most incredible evidence to either overcome an accusation or inculpate you.

I can't tell you the number of cases. Death penalty cases I've handled where I've actually walked somebody out the door because I had the cell phone evidence. By the way, Mark, do you agree we talked last week about whether this suggestion that, you know, by Joe Kent, that there were leads. about foreign interference in this or foreign involvement in Charlie's murder that he believes were not adequately investigated by the FBI. Our conclusion was that will not come into evidence unless there's more, unless there's specifics. But how do you see it? The mother of the judge has not been born that's going to let you get into that unless you've got something really solid. They're not going to let you make that case unless you've got something that is demonstrable that ties a link for.

there. I mean, it's a great link if you could make it, but you've got to have something more than just wild speculation. Look, you know, there's a whole, there's a whole third party liability doctrine. Before you can point your finger at a third party, you have to make the case. You have to get over the hurdle of making a plausible case to a judge. He's the gatekeeper for third party liability. And that is a classic third party liability. Yeah, he's not going to allow just random. Random. Exactly. You gotta run because we're at a time.

Guys, thank you both so much. Great to see you both. Take care. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.