All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2025 - Lionel Nation
46:26
Why Proving the Case Against Tyler Robinson Isn't the Slam Dunk You Think It Is
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today might be one of the most difficult issues for you to handle.
But something that we must discuss, and that is what kind of a case do they have against this Tyler feller?
And is it a slam dunk?
Seems obvious, doesn't it?
How many of you great people think that it's gonna be just a piece of cake?
Right?
They've got him.
There's a there's a confession, right?
Well, maybe.
Well, there's evidence, right?
Don't we don't we have the evidence of him?
Well, sort of.
Maybe.
I hope.
What do you mean you hope?
Well, you keep saying, well, a lot.
Yeah, well, I'm not sure.
I am not sure.
And this is something which bothers people tremendously.
It's not whether you know, I believe, right now, if I had to be a detective, just a detective, I would say, oh, he did it by himself.
There is just simply no evidence.
Could be something could pop up later on.
You might find out that he had a handler.
He had somebody who was advising him.
He was in telecommunications with somebody.
That could very well be.
There's no evidence of this though.
There's no evidence of this now.
But it could be.
It could be.
He he might, but there's no evidence of this.
And that's all a trial is, it's evidence.
It's not what we think.
It's not what we think.
It's the fact that we have this issue.
And that is that we have to prove that this prosecution has to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
And the problem that people have with this is that for some reason people feel that they have some ability to weigh in on this in terms of legal matters.
And the reason why is because they feel intuitively connected to all matters juridical.
They they feel that they know these things, that they feel that they just kind of know how things are.
And they feel that they are of the ability of the of the of the mindset to articulate and negotiate and navigate the various mindfields.
Let me give it a little problem.
The young lady, Arena, who was killed by that vermin.
There may be a difficult time they have with federal law because the federal statute they are trying to charge him with deals with trains.
And this is an intra Charlotte light rail, not really a train.
We're not sure whether federal jurisdiction would even apply to that.
So that may be that may be something that you may think, oh, it's trifling.
No, that basically is their entree into federal court.
So just keep that one in mind.
So we're going to be talking about that.
Already people are weighing in.
One says, here's my friend says, Jason says he's a Patsy.
How do you know that, Jason?
Good buddy.
How do you know that?
Is Sal here, by the way?
Our good friend Salangelo.
Sal called me this morning in the middle of the night.
Bless his heart.
How do you know he's a Patsy, my friend?
How is he a Patsy?
Tell me the uh I'm I'm all ears.
Why is he a Patsy?
How do you want uh?
How do you want this?
Hubbelson says, I want both trials to be in state court and televised.
I don't like televised trials.
I used to.
I don't like them now.
I don't like him.
I want it nice and clean and sterile and get him.
This is not, I know the Sixth Amendment provides for a speeding to public trial.
I don't want that.
Why do people think it's a Patsy?
And you have people say, like, well, I have a gut feeling.
I have a feeling.
We'll get to that in a moment.
But something I want to talk to you, which is very important to Alex Jones, Alex, by the way, has been superb.
I I cannot say enough about Alex.
Alex is uh Alex is incredible.
What I've noticed about old Alex is that he is gonna be back, I think tomorrow, and he was saying that he believes there is going to be basically uh false flags at black colleges, various leftist uh events.
There's gonna be a problem, and there's gonna be serious problems.
And I am not in the position to say, oh no, Alex, come on, what are you talking about?
There's no, there's no problem.
What are you?
Come on, please, please, please.
But when you talk about civil war and fall flags, false flags and blackouts and EMPs and riots, it it's not tomorrow's nightmare.
It's today's reality.
And we've been talking about this.
We we're always ahead of the curve.
You know that.
And the systems are we trusted are cracking, they're falling apart.
They're they're they're disassembling.
One week without food, and you'll learn fast.
Cash cards, credit, bitcoin, even gold won't feed your family.
Survival isn't theory, it's primal, primordial, instinctual.
Food, water, energy, ammo.
That's why my Patriot supplies, three-month food kit matters.
Over 2,000 calories per day.
22 meal varieties, shelf life up to 25 years.
And right now you get four weeks free, a 247 dollar bonus.
The world has changed, my friends.
Hunger is the oldest weapon of control.
Don't wait for disaster to prove it.
Preparation isn't paranoia, it's survival.
Click the link in the description.
Prepare with Lionel.com.
Prepare with Lionel.com, secure your food, secure your family, secure your future.
Prepare with Lionel.com.
Okay.
Now let's talk about something.
Again, your your thoughts are fantastic.
I just want to know the truth for once.
You sure?
I think we know the truth.
I think we know what happened.
I think there's no, I mean, I I personally feel just from what I've seen that it's him.
But proving it beyond a reasonable doubt's a different story.
Absolutely not.
We just need the truth.
We just need the truth.
Why so complicated?
Why so complicated?
Well, the reason why it's so complicated is very simple is because you're talking about perhaps maybe putting somebody to death.
We have this thing about due process, and it's pretty much of a stickler for this.
Okay.
You understand this?
Now here we go.
Look at this.
At 11:49, he was seen walking towards the campus.
No weapon, already limping after changing clothes.
What was he doing outside of the campus prior?
And that gave him another 30 minutes to limp into position.
So he's guilty.
So he's guilty?
Is that what you're saying?
Our good friend says it seems like pretty pretty sloppy work on the Kirk case to get a conviction in a legitimate court of law.
The Luigi case was sloppy work too, such as the Adams Purp Parade, which could pollute jury pools.
To an extent, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But uh the Luigi case, you had manifestos, you had the gun that he made, the the ghost.
You know, you had you had all kinds of things.
Here we have a riot.
Do we know anything about a rifle, brother?
Do we know anything about whether the forensics matter?
Jeff says, Lionel, you're making money off of murder.
Everybody's making money off of murder.
Media, uh, folks, everybody.
People who raise money, people who raise money on behavior, people are saying, yeah.
And to make money off of murder, there's this pesky Sixth Amendment rights or council, and that means you got to go in and you've got to challenge it.
It's not a case I would want because I would feel that under the canons of ethics, I couldn't be very, very.
I just wouldn't be zealous.
It's not one that...
Luigi, I would have an easier time defending.
Because remember, defending doesn't mean I think he's innocent.
It's I think he's got a case.
So let's talk about this.
I want you to take everything out of your mind, everything out of your head, clear your mind, clear your head.
And the case that Tyler Robinson really never confessed to.
See, while mainstream media report and reports rather have painted a picture of Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect in the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University as having quote confessed in in some capacity, he confessed.
A closer examination of the available information reveals significant holes in this narrative.
I'll lay out the argument step by step that Robinson never truly confessed to anyone in a meaningful verifiable legal way.
Certainly not in a manner that's consistent with conviction.
Ryan says left-wing outlets on YouTube are already laying the groundwork that if the killer is confirmed a lefty, they'll claim the FBI cannot be trusted.
They're terrified they'll have to own this one and uncertain how to defend.
No, I wouldn't worry about that.
If the if the killer is confirmed a lefty, they'll claim the FBI cannot be trusted.
Well, I don't think it'd be trusted.
Cash Patel has to step down.
Kash Patel is just...
I think you know how I feel.
There's no...
So let's talk about this, though.
Robinson never really confessed.
He will claim to anyone in any meaningful, verifiable legal way.
And certainly not in a manner that holds up as ironclad evidence and provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
See, this includes pointing to inconsistencies in reports about any alleged admission to his father, and highlighting why proving the case against him could be extraordinarily difficult without stronger direct links.
Now, this isn't to declare innocent, but to underscore the weaknesses in the prosecution's position.
This is a based on public reports.
Remember, I, as a defense lawyer, merely have to get one juror to agree with me.
Hang up the jury, hang them up.
Mistrial, just one.
That is as close to an acquittal as you can get.
No prosecutor wants to proceed afterwards because of that.
See, there's no direct official confession that exists.
What we have is secondhand and vague.
Robinson hasn't confessed to law enforcement or in any official capacity, as explicitly stated by Utah Governor Spencer Cox.
Instead, he's been described as uncooperative with investigators, refusing to provide any statements or or assistance that could clarify his above.
This lack of a formal confession means prosecutors can't rely on his own words against him.
Maybe I'll explain it.
Everything hinges on external evidence and interpretations from others.
If he were to say, yes, I killed him.
That is a confession.
That is not hearsay because it's an admission.
It's clearly it is an exception to the hearsay rule.
But does it have indicia a reliability?
Is it trustworthy?
The only purported confession stems from private family interactions, specifically claiming that Robinson implicated himself to relatives or a family friend.
However, this is not necessarily what you think.
Sparky says, there's been plenty of guilty people go free from sloppy work from investigators to the courtroom.
I imagine it's worse now than ever.
Uh in competence across U.S. government and industry.
Oh, I think you're right about that.
But one thing I would do is we have a rule.
Nobody reports anything to the to the press.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Because his team is going to say, no, they said, Tyler, is this you?
Yeah, that's me.
I think that's me.
Is it AI?
I don't know.
see the stories about the AI?
They're putting up AI pictures?
Already.
Well, that's not a picture.
That's an AI picture.
Well, who put an AI picture up?
I don't know.
I can't tell.
I'm not in control of this.
If somebody puts an AI picture up, that could I don't know what that is.
Mr. Robinson, did he tell you he killed Charlie Kirk?
Or that that's him in the picture?
Or that he was there.
Did he?
Or maybe was he was involved, but what is that?
Now it's hearsay, remember, but it's an exception to the hearsay rule because it's an admission.
The theory being that you can, it's reliable because most people don't say things against themselves if it's not true.
We have statements relayed, second or third hand without recordings, witnesses outside the family.
It's very interesting.
It's very interesting.
Corroborating details that couldn't be challenged in court.
For example, reports indicate that after authorities released surveillance images, Robinson's father confronted him, leading to him to some to form of this leading to some form of an admission.
But even here, the language is fuzzy.
He reportedly admitted to being the person in the photos, but expressed a preference for suicide over surrender, which could be interpreted as despair or evasion rather than a full confession to the act of murder.
And remember, remember, remember, remember, you don't have a full police report.
You don't know what anybody said.
You don't know what anybody said.
None.
Nothing.
It's a very interesting thing.
Critically, no source proves verbatim quotes from Robinson that we know of himself in these family exchanges, leaving room for misinterpretation, for exaggeration.
And even coercion within the family dynamic, or somebody who extrapolates it.
Robinson's family described as devout Mormons and registered Republicans with ideologies that apparently differed from his own, had every incentive to act quickly to distance themselves and cooperate with authorities, potentially, potentially framing vague statements as a as a confession to resolve the situation.
That's very interesting.
There are conflicting stories about alleged confessions to his father, undermining his credibility.
You see, media coverage isn't uniform on what exactly happened during Robinson's interaction with his father.
Matthew Carl Robinson, his father, creating clear inconsistencies that cast doubt on the entire story.
So here's kind of a breakdown.
Some outlets frame it as a as a straightforward confession.
Robertson allegedly told his father that he was involved after being shown the photos, prompting the father to involve a youth pastor, a family friend and court security officer, who then contacted U.S. Marshals.
This led to his arrest at the family home in Washington County after a 33-hour manhunt.
Was that a confession?
Remember, confession versus an admission.
Confession is the admission to the well-pled allegations of the case.
All of the elements of the crime.
Admission could be, yeah, I was there.
It could be a part, it could be a bigger story.
Now other reports soften or contradict this.
Governor Cox has publicly stated that Robinson has not confessed to murdering Charlie Kirk, emphasizing instead that relatives alerted authorities that he had implicated himself.
And the term implicated is notably vaguer than confessed.
It could mean anything from expressing knowledge of the event, knowing that other people did it, to making ambiguous comments under stress.
See, this distinction matters legally, as implication doesn't equate to admission of guilt.
So, and then then adding to the murkiness of the whole thing, pre-arrest messages, Robinson sent to friends, show him joking about a doppelganger being responsible, which reads as a denial or a deflection rather than any admission.
If he was truly confessing to family around the same time, why would contradictory tone in private chats?
And by the way, Cash Patel, we still don't know whether we've talked to those people.
I would grab those people so fast.
I want all those people on Discord.
I want to talk to them.
This also suggests that the family confession and the confession story might be overstated or misinterpreted.
Perhaps maybe influenced by the father's recognition of surveillance images.
Maybe a desire to intervene.
I don't know.
But these variances aren't minor.
They highlight how initial reports that are often based on law enforcement press conferences evolved or were clarified.
And how you are taking this and you're extrapolating.
He confessed.
I had a rather vituperative man today call up.
He was absolutely frightening.
Gracie says, Leo Dad knows to call an attorney for this.
Well, yeah, I don't know what that means, but we don't know if is he a law enforcement officer?
Does he a deputy?
Or did he work with I I don't know.
But listen, he he called, he basically called the the he called somebody.
He really went out of his way to turn his son in and fast.
I wouldn't have done that.
I'm sorry, my paternal instincts would kick in further.
I'd say, I'm gonna wait on this one.
So Utah could be a state.
Mormons had to do a hardcore public relations campaign, culminating in Donnie Marie before they were a rough gang who wouldn't give you their up their own odd the father snitched.
We don't know, again, Sparky, we don't know the real story.
There's Carrie C, by the way.
Thank you, Carrie C with a super sticker.
Thank you, Carrie C. Now, let me go back with this.
Remember, all I need is one juror, one juror.
I get a hung jury.
I don't have to prove anything.
I just have to create reasonable doubt.
One juror.
This narrative is far from settled.
Now, in a trial, defense lawyers could exploit these discrepancies to argue that the confession is not unreliable hearsay, because remember, an admission is an exception, but it's just unreliable.
It's inconsistent.
We can't really, there's a reasonable doubt.
What did he say?
He was there.
Is this you in this picture?
Yeah, and that's me.
Now it's going to be tough.
Remember, Tyler is not going to take the stand himself.
I would love to see that.
Tyler says, I didn't do that.
That's not what they said.
They said this mean a picture.
And I said, it's AI, or I don't know what this is.
I wasn't there.
That's not me.
Is that you in the roof?
Nope.
Come on, that's you on the roof, isn't it?
Nope.
Let me tell you something.
Right off the bat, you want cross-examination of family members?
You want them up there?
And if for some reason they get the pressing, why are they, why are they so?
I mean, listen, people love Charlie Kirk, but I would be really, really hard pressed to turn in a family member.
I would.
I don't care what they did.
I just, you know.
I would be the last one.
I would, if somebody's a rabid dog, I've got this crazy violent, horrible, terrible, you know, uh uh, whatever.
Well, but that's me.
But then again, you don't know.
Just like Ted Kaczynski's brother ratted him out.
Now, proving the case against him is going to be difficult due to circumstantial evidence and gaps.
Remember, circumstantial evidence is good, but it's it's you know, there might be a way to explain this.
You know, even setting aside the confession issue, the evidence against uh Robinson appears largely circumstantial, making a conviction far from guaranteed, especially in a high-profile case where reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt ends the case.
It Remember, as a defense lawyer, I don't have to prove anything.
I just stop it.
Prosecutors would need to connect the dots without Robinson's cooperation.
And several weak links stand out, a whole bunch of stuff.
You've got surveillance and identification issues.
Images show a person in common attire, dark hat glasses, shirt, whatever, with an American flag and a motif, arriving on campus hours before the shooting.
Now, while family identified Robinson from these facial features aren't clearly visible, and similar clothing isn't unique.
Without DNA or fingerprints, now they said today that they found DNA or something at the scene, his DNA.
Okay.
I want to see more about that.
But without DNA or fingerprints tying him directly to the scene, there is, I mean, there's nothing that even puts him there.
Now the question you got to ask is the fact that he was there.
Why would he be on the roof?
Let's assume you had the DNA.
He's on the roof.
You know he's involved.
Does that mean he's guilty?
And the weapons.
There was a Mauser 30.6 that was found wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near campus with engraved casings featuring memes and phrases like, hey fascist, catch, or if you read this, you are gay.
Remember, his roommate is a male.
Now, intriguing, intriguing, intriguing, intriguing, intriguing, but but leaking into Robinson relies on Discord messages from an account named Tyler, referencing the rifle's location.
However, clarifications reveal these weren't planning messages, but post-shooting recounts from Robinson's roommate, transcribed as transgender in some reports, about some note left by Robinson.
Discord itself denied any evidence of violence promotion on their platform, further muddying the chain of custody.
So forensics might match the rifle to the shooting, maybe.
Do we have any kind of a is there anything required recovered from Charlie?
Was it through and through?
Did we did we get this?
Is the is the round salvageable?
How do you know that rifle did anything?
I don't know.
But proving Robinson handled it beyond here, could falter without direct prints or witnesses or something.
Then there's motive and background gaps.
You see, reports note that Robinson had become more political and expressed dislike for Charlie Kirk, reviewing his him as full of hate.
But but this is kind of anecdotal from the family and his background as an electrical uh apprenticeship student with no prior criminal record, doesn't scream premeditated assassin, though it could be.
He could have been, quote, radicalized.
His family's Republican ties, and their church uh involvement, contrast, obviously, with his views, potentially allowing a defense to argue external influences or mental health factors, though no such diagnoses are public yet.
But also the pressure they had to distance themselves from this kid.
He would be an embarrassment to them.
Obviously.
This guy kills this scion, this the dole fan of the of the uh Christian rights.
Then there's other challenges with Robinson silent and not cooperating, investigators admit they're pouring over evidence with little hope.
In a politically case or charged case like this, jury bias, pro or anti-conservative, could amplify doubts.
Novel forensic tech uh mention in some reports, for example, tracing the rifle and all that might help.
But if it's untested in court, it could be challenged.
So you don't want to introduce new forms of evidence, new forms of science that aren't uniformly accepted as reasonable and rational and acceptable and trusted.
Overall, without a confession or smoking gun direct evidence, the case rests on a web of inferences that a school, uh school or experienced defense lawyer could really hand, I mean, hack and And not to attack these people, but just to say to the jury, are you sure?
Can you prove this?
And at the end, they'll say, I really can't.
I mean, it looks bad.
It's that enough.
It looks bad.
So the the idea of a confession crumbles under scrutiny.
It's unsubstantiated hearsay, with an exception, with conflicting portrayals across many sources, and the evidentiary foundation is shaky enough to make prosecution really tough.
This doesn't exonerate Robinson.
But I hope it illustrates how media headlines can simplify a complex legal reality.
And this is also, this is something you gotta remember.
This is also Cash Patel trying so hard to be relevant, trying so hard to be the big guy, the big guy.
This is important.
This is critical.
This is something which is the most...
Now, here is the thing.
I do not know.
There is something which is very...
Oh, oh, oh.
Sparky says, a Reddit was used in Nepal for regime change.
NGOs of government Intel routinely participate in Reddit to manipulate the unwitting to overthrow their government.
Good there, they'd never use it nefariously in the US.
That could very well be.
But, so the thing I'm saying to you is this.
Oil, old, painlessness, it's a slam dunk.
No, it's not.
Any reasonable doubt?
Any reasonable doubt?
Ladies and gentlemen, how do you know he did it?
When you go back into jury room and you say, I know, I know.
Well, how do you know?
And why do you know?
What is it specifically?
What is it?
How do you, what do you really know?
Well, he was there, I guess he was there, uh-huh.
And he uh his and and his girlfriend, his boyfriend, because he's gay, was trying to get some type of a of uh of a sex change, okay.
And and Charlie always talked about transgenders, okay.
Fair enough.
What else?
What else?
Well, um what?
Do you know this rifle killed Charlie Kirk?
The bullet, the round came from this rival.
Was this fired?
Yes, it was fired.
Okay.
Did you recover the round from his neck or did it was it a through and through that it hit something?
Was it salvageable?
Assuming it was, did you can you do some kind of a forensics comparison?
Is that bullet from that?
If it's true, that's something that's really important.
Then if his DNA is on the rifle itself, there's no chain of custody problems, it's interesting.
It's interesting, it is beyond interesting.
It is fascinating.
You see this.
That is all I am saying to you.
It is fascinating to me.
And what's interesting is if we go back again.
I have to get one juror to say, ladies and gentlemen, if you go back into that jury room, and you find Mr. Mr. Robinson, guilty.
You're gonna have to ask yourself why.
And if you say to yourself, why?
Because I know it.
Because I know it.
I know it.
Just like I know Israel's involved.
We'll get that one going again.
Did you see how Harrison, what is his name?
A good friend, or good friend from Charlie from uh from uh uh Alex Jones, Harrison uh Harrison Smith, is his name?
Harry Harrison Smith, yes.
He said, you know, I've been talking to some people.
Uh and I'm here that you know he was Charlie was a little nervous because he was saying some things about Israel.
Okay.
Well, do you have any connection to Israel?
No, but uh I would think they would be, okay.
Do you have any connection to Israel?
Any proof?
No.
Not proof per se, but no, no, I don't.
Sparky says, maybe he wasn't gay, so he insisted his roommate transition first.
Yeah, well, well, there's there's an old joke about how do you know your roommate's gay, and I'm gonna leave it at that.
But you might know the punchline to that, and it's very, very funny.
If I had to guess right now, just like in the case of Man Joni, he was solo.
He wasn't a conspiracy, he didn't work with any kind of outside agencies, he wasn't a part of it.
No, he just did it on his own.
I think it'd be it's absolutely ridiculous.
Now, again, remember something with with this Israel thing, because they're still, they still love this.
You see, for those who are by the way, any brand new folks here, any brand new, if you are welcome, are you brand new to this?
Maybe, maybe you're here, maybe you've you listened on WABC, or maybe you I don't know.
But you might be saying to yourself, what exactly, what exactly is this Israel connection?
And you see, there were somebody will bring up the term USS Liberty, and that's what you always have to say whenever the notion of Israel comes up.
I like the Levant affair in 1954.
That's more esoteric.
If you throw in a Levon reference, that's pretty good.
But I have the following scenario, the following scenario in my mind, and it's just a hypothesis.
This is BB and the deep state, and everybody's saying who was the idiot.
Who was the profound idiot?
Whoever did this, who was the profound fool?
Whoever allowed this, whoever permitted this.
We who did this, who martyred the most popular, popular, popular person.
Last night at the Emmys, there's this woman for the show hacks, this is Ellis Fierce, Jean Smart.
We saw Gene Smart on Broadway, and she's in the show hacks.
And the woman, I I think it's um Lorraine Newman's daughter, I think.
She's up there, she's doing Palestine and uh Palestine and uh uh.
I think I think Charlie Kirk reference it, I'm not really sure.
And they just don't get the memo.
They don't get the memo.
I will never understand, I will never understand how doctors and lawyers and politicians and people and nurses will ever interject their own politics into what's going on.
If you have any children, I want you to bring them aside and say, I want to ask you something.
I'm gonna give you something called it's an expression called pick the hill you want to die on.
And what that means is simply this.
It means that it is most probably in your best interest to not necessarily say something, go out on a limb, unless it is something you're willing to bet your career on.
Not only that, you're going to sound like somebody who is one of these political hacks.
I would never ever use my position in sports or entertainment.
Now, you might on your own, on your own, just separate from this, you might be, you could be involved in charity, you could be nobody minds that if you work for St. Jude's or for or if you're some type of an advocate or proponent of certain types of charities and the like, you're you're lauded, you're heralded for that.
But in this particular case, what's very interesting is that people might say, you know, we really don't like what you're doing.
We don't like this.
And we find this notion of what you're doing to be despicable.
We find it to be despicable, and we find all of this is pickable because this is something which is horrible.
This is a beloved, a beloved person.
There were more, we couldn't believe last night, last night, the numbers of people who are in New Jersey alone, it was unprecedented, unbelievable.
The people, the the candlelight individuals, Kennedy Center.
There are people right now who are saying, I want to go to church.
Churches are seeing a resurgence in new, heretofore unaffiliated young people who want to know about Christianity.
If B.B. Netanyahu or some rogue agent or some outlier decided to take out the most popular person today, because they dared to, because they dared to go against the political narrative.
He is certifiable.
Sparky says, should your boy Netanyahu have uh gone on his TV campaign?
Did he come across as protesting too much, Allah Shakespeare?
Did it make it worse for Israel?
Make it worse for Israel?
No.
Nothing could make it worse.
Why he's saying anything, I have no idea.
I don't think he, I think he lives in a world that I just don't need to.
Charlie Kirk was saying, this is ethnic cleansing.
This is look.
The president very, very, very soon, will one day announce I've had it.
He may not say it officially, but he will tell BB, this is this is the cost-benefit analysis means that you are out of the picture.
This is you are, this is a boozing lattle, as they say.
Now, the other people as well, as you know, they love this fact where they will say things like, you know, this seems like a professional job.
This seems like, you know, and everybody's an expert on this.
I I don't know what was what was professional.
But I well I will tell you this, and I want you to listen very, very carefully.
Believe me when I say this.
There are people who are going to be shocked when they find out the actual and the the total, the total facts as adduced, as presented, as correlated, you would you are going to be shocked.
You should never give out anything in the news, not to intimidate witnesses.
Let the witnesses feel like, ah, nobody cares about this.
Come on, talk to us.
What did you see?
What did you hear?
May I, would you help us?
Were you on the Discord thing?
What did you say?
Did he ever say anything?
What did he say?
Do you have copies of That.
Hey, Discord, do you have any copies of this?
Did he did he ever say to anybody, what if he never said, I never said I killed anybody?
I said I might have been there or whatever.
Being there is not alone.
It's not enough.
Not only that, if you have a conspiracy, you have to conspire with somebody, unless you're Ghlaine Maxwell.
So what I'm trying to tell you, my friends, what I'm trying to put into perspective is before you, before you you jump in down, jump up and down, and you basically celebrate his conviction and guilt.
This case is absolutely fraught, fraught with problems.
Fraught with problems.
Replete with problems.
This is not in any way.
I had a guy this morning on WABC who said, What are you crazy?
He confessed.
No, he didn't.
I mean, some people said he didn't.
Did he confess it?
Well, what do you think that means?
That may not be uh enough for reasonable doubt.
That's a different story.
Reasonable doubt is a different story.
Reasonable doubt stops the train.
Anything, if I say, you know what, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you have that one moment where you say, you know what?
I just don't know about this.
That's reasonable.
That's reasonable now.
We had a lawyer one time who used to say this thing, and I can't, to me, it was it was objectionable, but it never, but he always got away with it.
He said, Have you ever left your home and then thought, did I did I lock the door?
Did I tell you?
Did I turn that stove off?
I don't want the cat walking.
Did I?
And then you go back.
You go back home.
You you go back home to check the door.
That's reasonable now, he said.
Well, I don't think that's the definition.
But that's all that takes.
All you have to do, my friends, if you hold up that X-ray and you say, you know what?
I think this is a fracture.
But it might be the angle.
I can't say for sure.
I probably I bet anything on it, but I that's reasonable though.
It's not that he didn't do it, it's they can't prove it.
And by the way, they may not be to prove it, not because they're incompetent, but the facts don't.
You know why there are cold cases?
Because there's no evidence.
There's no evidence.
There's no evidence involved.
A cold case could very well be.
There's no evidence involved.
None.
Klaus Van Bulow, Sonny von Bullo.
Oh, he did it.
Everybody thinks, but there was a little reasonable doubt.
There were some problems.
O.J. Simpson, somebody thought, oh, he absolutely killed these people.
But the point that I'm saying is that what you think in real life, what you think as far as common sense in law doesn't work.
We don't care who did it, can you prove it?
And when you did prove it, was there anything that you used that was verboten that might have been inadmissible?
Was the defendant denied a fair trial?
Not guaranteed a perfect one, but a fair.
Was there anything unfair about it?
And so much can be done.
Remember, Diddy.
I still can't believe that he walked away.
He walked on federal trafficking cases.
So my dear friends, my great friends, my lovely friends, my beautiful friends too, Sparky, the inhibitable Sparky, the ineffable Kerry C, thank you.
To our good friend Gracie loves George, and of course, the inevitable Ryan.
God bless Ryan.
Thank you for this.
Also, don't forget to follow Mrs. L at Lynn's warriors.
Lynn's Warriors, she's got so much.
Right now, as we speak, she was on she's on a conference call, a media strategy meeting with her various groups in Washington on how to deal with basically digital safety and what's happening coming up.
She's on the phone, she's constantly working.
This is what we do constantly.
She more than others.
So please follow her, support her, Lynn's Warriors at YouTube.
All right, my friend, Jeff Yzik.
Jeff, thank you so much.
And uh there he is, uh Sparky says, as a Philadelphia uh Philadelphia Netanyahu has used his inside of America and Americans to great success.
But maybe his insight only applies to boomers.
Can he no longer depend on this insight?
Yes.
He is, I think, by virtue of the fact there's a certain degree of desperation there because remember, people hate him.
His, I mean, there are more people who despise him.
And they realize the only thing maybe if if he can pull something off, if he can somehow eliminate all of the Palestinians in the name of a war on Hamas, or maybe they just left or I don't know.
You call it, you can call it whatever you want.
That would really change the calculus.
Because I don't think most people really I don't think most I don't think most Israelis would object to being the only people in their country.
But that is for a different issue.
That has really nothing to do with this because there unless you can show me otherwise there's no connection to Israel or Mossad or Bibi or anybody.
None.
None.
All right dear friends make sure you're subscribed to Lionel Nation.
We'll see you later.
We got a little later start today because I'm just busier than you can imagine.
Later on I have more to say.
So anyway thank you.
I hope you listen I hope I made you think like oh it's interesting I never thought about that.
▲
Export Selection