All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2026 - Lionel Nation
21:45
Why Tyler Robinson Is Not Guilty*
|

Time Text
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 00:03:04
Tyler Robinson is not guilty in the murder of Charlie Kirk if the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the case were met.
If they can't prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt, reasonable doubt, not innocent, not guilty, because of the reasonable doubt.
This is something I can't explain enough to you.
People say, you know, I think he did it.
That's not enough.
You know, I know he did it.
That's not enough.
You know, I've done my own investigation and I know he did.
That's not enough.
Did they prove it?
If you walked into a courtroom and you said, I know that son of a bitch killed Charlie Kirk, I know it.
I've done everything.
I know everything about this case.
I didn't tell them I know this, but I know it.
I know about the confessions.
I know about the ballistics.
I know about everything.
And if during the case, the prosecution never brought up any evidence, you'd have to find them not guilty.
Because it's their job, not yours.
You are not a detective.
You are a juror.
Let me tell you what the jury instruction says for reasonable doubt.
This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is from a federal model manual for jury instructions around the federal circuits.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty.
Firmly.
It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation.
It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence or from the lack of evidence.
See, further, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty.
On the other hand, on the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is then your duty to find the defendant guilty.
So the question is, is there a reasonable doubt?
Is there a doubt with which you can attach a reason?
Is there something about this that makes you say no?
Reasonable Doubt Explained 00:14:48
Listen, my friends, because this is not about blind faith in any particular official story.
It's about demanding proof, proof, meaning it is proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, to a degree of moral certainty in the case against Tyler James Robinson for the fatal shooting, the murder, the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September the 10th, 2025.
The prosecution wants you to swallow a narrative unless they've got something that's going to blow your mind.
But they want you to swallow a narrative that strains credulity and belief at every turn.
They want you to believe that a 22-year-old from Washington, Utah, someone described by family as squeaky, clinging, good, a great, brilliant, brilliant student, more into online games and furries or whatever the hell that is.
And perhaps maybe, maybe a transitioning roommate.
Maybe that, maybe, maybe.
You know what transitioning roommate means?
Gay.
He's gay.
I'm transitioning into an onion ring.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
He's gay.
That's it.
And then suddenly, suddenly, all of a sudden, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he becomes subtly radicalized, radicalized himself into, in mere days, he learned of an obscure campus event announcement on a TPUSA website that was basically not looked at at all prior to this.
And he decided to act.
Decided to act.
He retrieved his grandfather's 30 out 6 bolt action rifle, zeroed it perfectly for an unknown distance.
Who knows?
140, 200 yards, whatever.
Who knows?
Who knows?
Since there's really no public details on zeroing distance or adjustments, whatever, I don't know.
He scoped out the massive UVU campus layout, identified the exact unsecured building with a roof access and a clean line of sight to wherever the stage might end up.
Because initial invitations didn't specify the precise spot, just tickets and sign-ups were kind of required for details.
They just anticipated, just guessed.
And he guessed, I guessed, anticipated, believed, hoped, believed, predicted that Charlie would be elevated on some kind of a raised platform.
Unlike his usual kind of like, you know, those ground level setups at other stops and the like.
But this is to counter the bowl effect.
I guess it's hard to say, but he knew this.
Prescient, Vatic, Pythonic was he.
He climbed undetected, positioned himself only about maybe 30 seconds before firing.
A single precise neck shot.
I mean perfect.
One shot.
One shot.
One kill.
30 out 6.
Old, an old rifle.
Perfect.
We've talked about this.
Some people said that, depending upon the ballistics expert you talked to, that this round would have taken the head off much, but he had bones and vertebrae of steel.
And then he escaped by jumping or using a vent or some type of a who knows what.
He magically knew about this.
And he just shimmied or left.
And he happened to find one particular part to ditch the rifle to ditch it.
That's probably something.
I think he wrapped it up.
Remember later on he talked to his furry transition friend to retrieve it.
We'll get to that later.
He evaded immediate capture despite thousands of witnesses, an immediate police response, and then surrendered the next day after his parents recognized him from, I guess, released images.
Oh, oh, and all this while supposedly not even being shocked by the reported minimal security at the event.
Security that was so monumentally lax, the witnesses were stunned.
Yet, Tyler allegedly expected full roof access and escape routes without issue.
I guess, or he was lucky, or he knew.
Either he was a master planner with psychic ability to portend the future, or this was some kind of a self-harm mission with no exit strategy beyond hoping to vanish.
I guess who knows?
But boy, how did he even know the event details?
Was he obsessively looking into something?
I mean, how did he do this?
Did he sign up for the tickets to get the intel?
Did he scout the campus in advance?
None of these basic questions.
Logistic questions have clear public answers from investigators, the Utah County Attorney, or law enforcement.
We don't know.
I'm sure it'll come out in Discovery.
But the timeline crumbles under scrutiny because the event was the first stop of TPUSA's American comeback tour announced weeks earlier, but not updated on the site for months, apparently.
Yet, we're to believe this guy not exactly in Charlie Kirk's ideological orbit, one would think.
I mean, here's a guy who's hanging around with furries and lefty chats that doesn't exactly scream at TPUSA regularly.
But anyway, somehow he got hyper-keyed in, hyper-focused, hyper, hyper-selected.
He planned a sniper shot flawlessly, so perfectly, so perfectly, and executed it all in under a week after learning a lot.
Add the physical impossibilities, taking a rifle, and I'm no expert.
I have to defer to others as well.
Zeroing a rifle for an exact unknown range, and you would have to account for a drop in wind and elevation.
You know, remember how snipers have these books doing linear configurations and calculations?
Finding an unguarded vantage with perfect sight lines on a sprawling campus where the setup could have been anywhere, anywhere.
Could have been inside, outside, up, down, who knows.
He knew about escape paths, including a specific vent, they were saying, in a wooded drop zone of source, and doing it all without prior reconnaissance that anyone has confirmed.
We don't know this.
Witnesses describe shock, again, at the lack of security.
Yet, Tyler Robinson allegedly wasn't shocked at all.
He knew he could lie prone, he could fire, slip away or not.
They said DNA on the gun on other devices as well, a confession via Discord.
It was me at UVU yesterday.
A note to his roommate about taking the opportunity.
I mean, these are damning, if indeed true, but in a system that demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they don't erase what many people would consider to be the absolute glaring logistical holes.
We don't know.
Did he sign up?
How did he know this?
How about rifle zeroing?
Pre-event scoutings?
How did he know the precise elevation?
How do you do this?
How do you just, on your first maiden time, maiden event, I would imagine, doing this?
And why was there this rush to accept a narrative that requires, of course, superhuman intuition over kind of the usual stuff about regular things like impossibilities.
Look, this isn't about proclaiming absolute innocence.
I'm not saying that.
It is about pointing out and establishing reasonable doubt.
And the reason for that is that the story, as presented, forces you to accept.
And by the way, we're trying to piecemeal this from all of these other little stories because they're not telling you anything.
We don't know for sure if this was the rifle that fired the round that actually did the damage.
And was there any round available?
Is there anything to compare it to?
How do you even know?
It might have been fired.
We don't know this.
Because we haven't seen the discovery.
A lot of this is preliminary because there have been delays in this.
Remember, there was a delay at first to force a preliminary hearing because they thought they'd get a lot of discovery.
And then they're delaying that.
And the prosecutors are saying, you know what, screw it.
Let's just go to a grand jury, establish probable cause via the grand jury, and then just indict them in the heck with it.
No need to turn over all this evidence ahead of time.
There are strategic situations.
But there's too many coincidences, too much unverified foresight, too little explanation for the mechanics.
Curiosity isn't conspiracy.
It's the refusal to swallow whole cloth, things that don't make any sense.
A story that breaks things down.
In court, the defense doesn't need to solve the case.
I don't have to do it.
All I have to do is show that the prosecutor's version doesn't make sense, doesn't hold water, or that the prosecutor did not prove something.
Now, remember, they might come to us and say, without a doubt, they may say, you have no idea.
We've got a, there was a person who took a video of this.
There were other confessions.
We have the twigs or whatever, the furry roommate coming forward.
God knows what.
Then we're going to be looking at the insanity defense.
Then you've got the other issue of Erica Kirk wanting to expedite and to speed a speedy trial because in Utah, apparently, they have a, since this is a victim's state, a victim can apply to, it's almost like a suggestion, like, would you please hurry this up?
Which I think flies in the face of trying to help somebody because believe me, time benefits the defendant, not speed.
You don't want there to be, theoretically, a miscarriage of justice.
You don't want there to be somebody botches something because you're speeding through this.
What's the hurry?
Take your time.
He's not going anywhere.
Let him talk.
Maybe you'll get a jailhouse confession.
And for the love of God, keep an eye on him.
For the love of God, keep an eye on him.
Don't let him get Epstein.
I've told you before, when you were in confinement, there was something called noose on a button.
And noose on a button is the idea that you're introducing something which has the precursor to a, let's say, a binary poison.
Take this, have whatever the substance A is, a water or this.
And then when you introduce substance B, the two lock together.
And then when the chemicals themselves break down, lab reports, tox screens, show, let's say, elevated potassium or something.
You won't see something foreign.
Candace Owens should be a part of the defense team.
I would love to be a part of the defense team if I believe, well, he deserves counsel no matter what.
But there are some things that don't make any sense.
This is Lee Harvey Oswald all over again.
I mean, I don't know what he's saying.
I don't know the look, the affect.
I don't know the demeanor.
I don't know anything.
What I'm trying to say is that if the initial story that we see, the initial story, remember, it's nice when you catch somebody in the act, when you catch them at the site to prove that was he and not at a dairy queen later on and that story.
But when you catch him, he's got the residue in his hands, he's got the rifle, the rifle's warm.
I mean, you know, that somebody says, there he is.
There he is.
That's the kind of stuff I want.
Notes, you know, calculation, something.
That's what real, obviously good stuff looks like.
Because normally there's loads of evidence, loads of it.
He was a good shot.
What if people came forward and said, he never shot a thing in his life?
He never shot anything.
And then you put on expert witnesses to show how indeed, how difficult that was.
And then you show perhaps countervailing arguments to say that the exit wound, excuse me, the entrance wound, could have been an exit wound.
I bring all those people who initially appeared online who said, wait a minute, we saw a flash before the actual shooter might have been behind him and it might have been through.
We need to see the actual forensic.
We need to see the medical examiners.
We need to see the morgue, the shots.
We need to have them take, if it's possible, they'll take a dowling and put it into the wound to see trajectories.
We need everything, everything.
Preserve everything.
And we also need a widow to act like a widow and to act like she wants to get to the bottom of this and to realize that there were other people who were involved.
Look, we're not saying anything other than the official narrative of Tyler Robinson acting alone at this juncture from what we've seen is fishy.
Show Us The Evidence 00:03:02
Could be.
Could be.
So show us.
Now, show us, not at the cost of his trial.
And when you also, the thing that will, that will blow, that doesn't make any sense or these these messages that were made in language using the words like vehicle.
It sounds, people say chant GPT, it doesn't sound right.
And what about this?
Go back and get that rifle.
Go back and get that rifle.
That's Grand Pappy shooting iron.
He's going to kill me.
Do you know what you've just done?
What if?
What if?
For all you know, what if he said, I'm going to go there, I'm going to do this, but I changed my mind.
Or I fired and missed.
And it was another rifleman, another shooter, another sniper.
Imagine there being a conspiracy you don't know about, because you can't conspire with somebody you don't know.
I mean, the possibilities of this are labyrinthine.
And when people say apodictically, absolutely, well, I believe it's Tyler Robinson, what information do you have?
The more you get into it, remember, when things don't make sense, they devolve perfectly.
All I know is there's a lot of people out there, a lot of powerful people who would have wanted Charlie gone.
A lot of people.
varieties of reasons.
We don't know who they are, but that makes sense.
That makes sense.
That somebody would want to do this.
We've also known that in our society, you can do things anything in the open that you want, anything.
Nobody will say anything.
Nobody will come forward and dispute what you're saying.
Nobody will provide evidence against what you're saying.
It just doesn't matter.
People don't, we don't do anything.
We don't, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, go down the list.
Epstein, they're still saying he committed self-harm.
No.
I've been telling you a million times, hyoid bone, the thyroid cartilage, this is non-ligature.
This was homicide.
But we don't do anything.
We don't.
We're too busy worrying about, you know, writing, and maybe we're worried about playoffs.
We give things three days max, and then we lose all interest in this.
So what I'm telling you is that, if Tyler Robinson is not guilty, it's not because he's innocent.
It's because they haven't proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember, he's not guilty.
Not innocent.
We Don't Do Anything 00:00:48
Big difference.
What do you think?
What are some of the cases?
What are some of the facts that you find fascinating?
What are some of the facts that you think?
And I'm looking at this from a completely perfunctory.
I've read no police reports, no nothing.
And if I'm getting this vibe from hearing what little I've seen, you must have loads of questions.
I want to read you.
I want to read your soul, read your mind, read your brilliance.
So please like this video, subscribe to the channel, hit that little bell so you're notified of live videos.
And also, go back and let's see this wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, these questions and your responses.
I love them so much.
Have a great and a glorious day, my friends.
Export Selection