Jack Posobiec and Andrea Burkhart dissect James Comey's indictment, arguing it proves a threat to the president's life linked to proceeds from his novel "FDR Drive." They contrast this with the Tyler Robinson case, where defense attorney Burkhart challenges scientific evidence despite gag orders, while Posobiec champions courtroom transparency. Later, Kirk Cameron joins to promote their "Built by the Brave" series, criticizing modern education for ignoring American achievements and urging parents to counter leftist narratives by raising children with faith and courage to protect the nation. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
America First True Meaning00:07:50
Hey guys, it's Jack.
I wanted to let you know that we're starting a new push for subscriptions here on Human Events Daily.
So make sure that when you're listening to this podcast, you hit subscribe, you download it, and you share it with five of your friends.
Make sure they're all going and downloading as well because we need to get the signal out as much as possible.
Look, we've done so much over the past couple of years since this show started, and we're only going to do so much more.
Let's get it.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobic.
Christ is King.
Democrats in the Senate are trying to stop potential conflict in Cuba, but they failed in passing a measure to rein in the president's power to use military force.
And it comes as the administration's rhetoric directs.
At the Caribbean country has grown increasingly hostile.
Senate Democrats have tried and failed multiple times in recent weeks to rein in Trump's war powers amid the war with Iran.
The Supreme Court has just released a major decision which could have a profound impact on the midterm elections.
The justices issuing a ruling on a case out of Louisiana involving the Voting Rights Act, redistricting, and whether states must end any consideration of race when redrawing congressional maps.
The decision potentially reducing the influence of minority voters.
And minority representation in Congress.
Do you have proof that the former FBI director knowingly and willfully threatened the life of the president?
The grand jury indicted Mr. Comey yesterday.
Grand juries hear evidence.
That evidence is not something that anybody can talk about today.
But when you talk about whether proof exists, the proof that we have is in the fact that the grand jury returned an indictment.
Remember, that is not the Department of Justice charging James Comey with a crime.
That is a grand jury returning a two count indictment.
Let's do a compare and contrast, Mr. Blanch.
In 2022, someone well known in right-wing circles, Jack Poscobic, posted on X, 8646.
He did not take it down.
He did not apologize.
Mr. Comey has done both of those things.
The Biden Justice Department never prosecuted him.
By the standard of that grand jury, Jack Poscobic should face charges as well.
Will the Justice Department pursue that case?
Because they sound very similar.
That's just completely not true.
That's not how a grand jury does its work.
They don't just look at a single image and then say, okay.
Yes, we'll indict, or okay, no, we won't indict.
They do an investigation.
This conduct took place in May of last year, May 15th.
It has been almost a year.
I assure you, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the U.S. Attorney's Office have not been sitting around doing nothing.
They have been investigating.
I have no idea whether there was an investigation into the other times that that post has been made and whether that investigation yielded different results.
This investigation that we undertook resulted in a two count indictment.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily.
Today is April 29th, 2026, Anno Domini.
James Comey is currently being indicted down in court.
He's turned himself in in North Carolina.
Whereas CBS News, as you saw this morning, was pushing Acting Attorney General Blanche and asking, why hasn't he indicted me?
Why hasn't he indicted Jack Posobick, conservative commentator?
An author, former Navy intelligence veteran.
Well, Blanche pointed out that the context matters, that the investigation matters, that intent matters, the grand jury's work matters.
And so, as everyone on the human events audience remembers, that in 2021 and 2022, we did a series called The Shade War Updates.
And it was all about whether or not Kamala Harris would launch the 25th Amendment on Joe Biden.
Every conservative was talking about.
25th Amendment on Biden or impeaching Biden.
That was the context.
Donald Trump faced two assassination attempts in 2024.
This is two years later.
So 2022, 2024.
Butler and Palm Beach change the context.
And oh, by the way, we just had a third assassination attempt Saturday night, less than one week ago.
But people will say, well, hold on.
How do you know?
How do you know?
You still have to prove intent somehow.
What is the way that we can prove intent with James Comey?
Well, I'm more than happy to be able to do that.
What was James Comey's Instagram post immediately before his post about the numbers?
Everyone talks about the numbered post, but everyone misses the post that was right before it.
We've got that post for you right now.
It's James Comey on a beach.
And what is he doing?
He's reading a book called FDR Drive.
Now, why does this matter?
Well, FDR Drive is a book that James Comey himself wrote.
It's a novel.
He put it out.
And what is the context of it?
It was the content, the plot.
Political assassinations is the plot.
So James Comey writes a book about political assassinations.
And then he puts up the content and a link to buy his book.
Along with the description of the book immediately after his post about 8647.
This is why, if you read the indictment, which nobody in media has done, the second part of the indictment is a section all about proceeds.
Proceeds derived from the offense.
Under federal law, you cannot derive proceeds from a crime.
He made money, ladies and gentlemen, by selling a book.
By selling a novel about political assassinations.
That's why he made this inciting comment to rile up the members of the far left by making this comment, this inciting comment about President Trump.
He knew that there would be media attention and he knew that this would spark interest in his book, which again was about political assassinations.
That's why that's the second count of the indictment.
That's why he has to forfeit his property.
Derived from the proceeds of an offense.
And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, we can see the intent and the motive for James Comey here, directly tied to his book sales about political assassination.
Be right back with more Jack Posovic.
Human Events Daily.
Nothing will stand in our way and our golden age has just begun.
This is Human Events with Jack Posovic.
Now it's time for everyone to understand what America first truly means.
Welcome to the Second American Revolution.
All right, folks, Jack Posobic, here we are back live, Real America's Voice Human Events Daily.
Proving Intent in Court00:15:21
Ladies and gentlemen, we know that Mother's Day is coming up.
So, why don't you give mom the gift of a great night's sleep?
Pay her back for all those sleepless nights.
Ghostbed is family owned and operated, three generations of doing business in the United States of America.
And what better way to give mom the respect, the love, the generosity that you can show her after all those years that she did it for you when you were a little guy or girl?
What's great about Ghostbed is that right now you can get 101 nights to try Ghostbed at home totally for free.
If you, excuse me, with your money back.
If you don't feel the difference, you can send it back risk free.
Right now, Ghostbed is offering my audience their lowest prices of the season, plus an extra 10% off.
So, how do you do it?
You just go to ghostbed.comslash poso and use promo code poso.
That's ghostbed.comslash poso, promo code poso.
I love mine so much.
Tanya Tate loves it.
And in fact, after the last time we were doing this, you know, the Ghostbed read, my mom, who watches every day, She texts me and she goes, Yeah, I really want one of those ghost beds for Mother's Day.
So here we go.
Here we go.
We're doing the ghost beds for Mother's Day.
Couldn't be more excited.
I wanted to switch gears a little bit since we're talking legal cases today, since we're talking criminal cases.
Someone that I've personally wanted to have on the show for weeks now, probably months at this point, Andrea Burkhart joins us.
You guys may have seen her.
She's all over LawTube.
She's been covering so many cases, but one in particular that sparks our interest is, of course, the Tyler Robinson case.
She also has a Substack that I hope you guys check out because it is phenomenal.
And she's got all the hard documents, the evidence, the filings are all there.
Andrea, how are you?
Very good.
Thanks so much for having me.
Thank you just seriously so much for the tireless work that you do because I've seen you do some of these hearings.
What is the longest hearing that you've live streamed at this point?
Probably in the ballpark of 10 to 11 hours.
Oh my gosh.
And the hearings will end and then you'll still do commentary for another.
Hour, hour and a half, two hours, I've seen.
Yeah, it's not uncommon.
I mean, a lot can happen in a full day of court.
And a part of what I'm trying to do, I've been a practicing criminal defense lawyer for almost 20 years.
And so I'm just trying to bring a little bit of insight into just the parts of the process that if you're not a lawyer, you may not be aware of.
You may not understand kind of how things are unfolding the way that they are, why certain decisions are made, and so forth.
So I just find that.
Especially in this day and age where there's a lot of interest in the criminal justice process, which I find very gratifying and hope to kind of help just make it a little bit more accessible for people that are interested in cases.
Well, I think that's great.
And you do such a great job of breaking it down.
You know, one of the ones that we've seen, though, with Tyler Robinson specifically is, you know, this is a case, and obviously, you know, myself, all the colleagues, you know, we're very close to this one.
But, you know, the level I think, Of misinformation on this case has gotten really high and very, very rapidly.
Whereas to me, it seemed to me that the evidence in the case was pretty straightforward and that I kind of thought through what I thought the legal challenges might be, what the defense might be.
And it's actually kind of what we've seen play out, to tell you the truth.
This is pretty much what I expected.
But I'll throw it to you.
When you look at the defense's strategy thus far in the case, I don't see very much example, at least for them, of arguing about whether or not evidence is for or against him.
I seem to, it seems to be more of delay, procedure, whether certain evidence is allowed in, that type of thing.
Do you get what I'm saying?
I do.
And, you know, when you're a criminal defense lawyer, it's part of the reason why I started doing what I do I want to help people understand what exactly that means and what the job is.
Criminal defense lawyers tend to not be particularly popular in just the world at large.
And I think a lot of that is just based on a misunderstanding of what the role entails.
You get the case that is presented to you.
And some of those cases give you a lot to work with.
Some of the cases give you much less to work with.
And so your role in a case can be anything from vigorously fighting to establish the innocence of a client that you sincerely believe didn't commit the crime to explaining to your client what it's going to be like to be processed into prison and how parole works and things along those lines.
So it's all very fact dependent.
But after the time that I've spent in practice, you get pretty accustomed to being able to read.
Initial documents, probable cause affidavits, and things like that, and get a pretty good sense of what you're going to have to work with in a case versus what you're not.
And so, this case in particular, the probable cause affidavit is a representation of the evidence that the state anticipates being able to present.
Of course, it isn't the evidence itself, but it's a representation that this is what they're going to be able to establish.
And so, If they are able to do that, if they're able to deliver on what they represent they have in these charging documents, this is quite a strong case against Tyler Robinson.
It doesn't leave a whole lot of opportunity to argue factual innocence.
And so the only way that the defense is likely to be able to create room for themselves to get there is through these efforts to kind of challenge, for example, the validity of some of the scientific evidence we've had.
Previews from the defense that some of these issues they expect to litigate concerning DNA evidence, concerning ballistics evidence, and things along those lines.
And so, the more they can chip away at the evidence that is actually going to be presented to a jury to be part of its decision, then the better opportunity they may have to be able to identify some reasonable doubt, some reasons for a jury to acquit.
But if those efforts are not successful, Then they're very likely going to be in a situation, which is quite often the case in death penalty cases, where your main focus is simply going to be trying to save this individual's life, that there isn't necessarily a good case to be made for factual innocence.
But the goal is to simply avoid the death sentence, present the mitigating circumstances, present the jury with the reasons why they should not choose death as a consequence.
And so, what you're talking about, this is all in the context, and just for I get what you're saying, but for the folks that may not have followed the case as closely, you're talking about will certain elements of the evidence be allowed to be entered in the trial?
Because at this point, there's no jury, there's no date for a trial to be set, and we haven't even had the preliminary hearing.
So, all of these fights are going to be about what that future jury is allowed to see and to weigh as evidence for or against the guilt of Tyler Robinson.
In this case.
And that's why, and to your point, this is very similar to what you would see in other capital cases where there are going to be fights over the validity of testing of DNA, of ballistics, of all of these things.
Is that a new type of science?
Is that a new type of evaluation, et cetera, et cetera, where they're going to be looking at it?
I'm sure there's going to be questions about surveillance cameras and footage and the technology that was used for all sorts of things.
But ultimately, that's just about getting it.
Into the actual trial, which hasn't even started yet.
Absolutely.
In fact, Tyler Robinson, this is often one of the things that isn't understood.
Tyler Robinson hasn't even entered a plea at this point in time under Utah law.
So, by the way, is that usual or is that like a Utah thing?
It's not terribly unusual.
I don't think that it's unique to Utah.
Okay.
But it's based on this idea that because they have not used a grand jury to kind of review and invalidate these.
Charges being brought based on the evidence that the state purports to have, that at this point, there is nothing really formal for him to answer to.
And so, until the preliminary hearing has been held and the judge has made a determination, yes, there is sufficient evidence here to find probable cause to believe that this individual committed the crime, he's not required to formally enter a plea until that happens.
You know, at least theoretically possible that that could fail, and he would never have to enter a plea on the case.
The case would simply be dismissed for insufficient evidence.
That said, given what we anticipate from these charging documents, the evidence is going to be, that seems pretty unlikely.
And the bar, of course, is I mean, this is pretty much the highest bar that you're going to need if you're actually going for the death penalty, which they are.
They need to hit every single piece of this.
And by the way, not just in this trial.
But also at every level of review and appeal, which of course will inevitably come.
Oh, absolutely.
I think that one of the things that is important to bear in mind with a case like this, any type of death penalty case, but here is where Utah in particular, it may be an issue, is that the process of appeal and post conviction relief through the federal courts, this can be not just a years long process, but a decades long process.
Process.
As we sit here today, I believe the person who is serving the longest term on death row at this point in time is Michael Archuleta.
He has been on death row for 36 years, and his case is still under post conviction review.
It's currently having hearings in the Superior Court.
It was sent back down to Superior Court by the federal court to kind of take evidence and make certain factual findings.
And so once it goes back up to district court, then it will work its way again through the federal appellate process.
So these things don't happen quickly.
And they're also what the defense lawyers have in mind right now in Tyler Robinson's case as they're making their choices about how to do it.
They know the process because it's their state.
They know.
Andrew Burkhart, we are coming up on a hard break.
Let me put a pin in that, come back with you.
This is fascinating stuff, a preview and an understanding of how the case against Tyler Robinson will unfold.
Human Events Daily, right back.
Today, you know, they talk about influencers.
These are influencers.
And they're friends of mine.
Jack, or Selvik, where's Jack?
All right, folks, Jack Kasubic back live, Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice.
And we're on with Andrea Burkhart here.
And we're talking about Tyler Robinson.
So, Andrea, you mentioned before, and you've done such an incredible job on your Substack of uploading the documents that have been unsealed as they come out again and again.
You're the very first to break the preliminary ballistics report, which, of course, has been.
Um, you know, it's been all over media since you did that, and I just kind of wanted to go through some of that with you because, to your point, we have summaries, we have a good idea of what the evidence is going to be.
We're getting more of that now as certain things are being um unsealed.
For example, we got this uh letter, this handwritten letter, it's a photo of a letter that was um that was released, I believe it was in one of the unsealed uh search warrants recently that we had had a reference to in the probable cause document, but now we actually have the full.
Letter.
So, do you anticipate that more of this evidence is going to be made public as we get closer to the hearing?
I do.
And that's fairly typical for a criminal case that unfolds in this manner, where you have a really short period of time between a suspect being identified and the suspect being arrested.
And that's because a lot of the investigation in those types of cases doesn't really take place until after the charge has been filed.
So, you have what's public is kind of the initial bare bones of what the The prosecution had to get them to that probable cause step.
But it's often very far from the end of the story when it comes to the full picture of guilt or innocence of that particular defendant.
So it's very, very common to, as the case goes on and more and more information is obtained, that that information starts being brought up through court processes, litigation, and just otherwise makes its way into the public record.
Right.
For example, because I keep hearing people say, oh, well, there's no video of this.
There's no video of that.
Where's this video?
Where's that video?
And yet we do see references through these documents.
And I believe it came up in the previous hearing, the most recent hearing, that there were other videos of Tyler Robinson.
And so the presumption isn't necessarily at this point that all of the video has been released.
In fact, it's that it will be released at the hearing.
Yeah.
And frankly, even at the hearing, it's.
It's likely to just be a portion of what they have.
We know from the conversations about Discovery that they have somewhere in the ballpark of 24 terabytes of video evidence just from UVU's surveillance cameras alone.
They have footage from neighboring ring cameras.
It's very common in cases like this as well to do what they call a video canvas.
And so they would identify like routes that Tyler Robinson would have.
Taken either because it's a logical route or because they have obtained his location information from his cell phone or from his vehicle, a navigation system, or something like that, and then go and obtain video evidence from those sources as well.
So we can anticipate there is a huge volume of video evidence that's in the possession of law enforcement, but simply hasn't been made public because we haven't gotten to that point in this court process yet.
Persuasive Family Testimony00:03:52
And so, what What do you say then to folks?
And I saw you kind of going back and forth with a few people who have had these questions to say, well, oh, well, the video hasn't been released yet.
Therefore, there isn't any video.
But ultimately, this is the way the system works, is kind of, you know, for better or worse, but that's sort of the answer, right?
It absolutely is.
I mean, we hold trials in the courtroom, not in the public square.
The process needs to be fair to the defendant.
And part of that includes having a jury that hasn't already made up their minds because they've already had everything that the parties have vetted in the media.
There's obviously a lot that can go on, like we just talked about, between What parties have or what they purport to have versus what ultimately gets presented to a jury.
Some things may ultimately not be admissible for one reason or another.
So it wouldn't be appropriate for the jury to be making a decision based on that type of information.
But if it's all out in the public, you can't unring a bell.
You can't take that out of your mind once you've been exposed to it.
So this is just a fundamental aspect of due process in criminal cases that we preserve these types of issues for the courtroom.
And that's reflected in the ethical rules that apply to attorneys when it comes to making statements about cases or sharing information about cases.
It's also reflected in this particular case in the gag order that the judge has entered on the attorneys and on the law enforcement investigators, precisely for this purpose to prevent them from sharing information that isn't already being made public through the court process itself.
And so we talked a little bit.
You said the DNA evidence.
Obviously, that's going to be something that's challenged in a number of ways.
They're going to try to chip away at it.
But there's more than just DNA evidence here, too.
I mean, there's things like fingerprints, which is a much more traditional form of identification.
And ultimately, and I just had to keep coming back to this it's going to be that role of the parents, the family members, and his significant other, who apparently are going to be testifying in this upcoming hearing.
I mean, that to me isn't something that you see a lot in these types of cases.
You definitely don't.
And it's extremely powerfully persuasive evidence.
Just because people can look at their own experiences, their own kind of common sense, and what would I do in this type of situation?
And I think most people can relate to having a child.
You would probably believe almost anything to avoid reaching the conclusion that your child was capable of committing a crime like this.
And so to be in a position where the parents apparently are so.
You know, deeply persuaded, where the significant other is so deeply persuaded that they would present that information to law enforcement that they would assist him in involuntarily surrendering for criminal prosecution.
You're right, this is not the type of thing that you see in everyday cases.
And it is likely to be, I think, particularly persuasive.
No, I just keep coming back to it.
And when people bring up, you know, this thing or that thing, and then, and sure, there's going to be a lot of that, as you say, the chipping around the edges.
That there are these huge factors that you really can't get around.
And it's going to be very tough to try to convince a jury otherwise when you have someone's own mother and father saying what they're going to say.
And we'll see, of course.
Certainly the hearing is yet to come.
One more segment with Andrea Burkhart right after this break.
Pure Water Science Facts00:02:09
Jack Sobick, Human Events Daily.
And Jack, where is Jack?
Where is Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys that should be getting politicians.
Tobac back live, human events daily.
Folks, the government has been medicating our water for over 80 years with fluoride.
And by the way, this isn't because you asked for it or because you voted for it.
It's because, well, they decided you need it.
It's not a decision I want someone else making for my family, which is why I filter every drop of water in my home with Cove Pure.
Over 209 million Americans are on fluorided water right now.
Here's what the science actually shows.
In September 2024, a federal judge ruled that adding fluoride to water poses, and I'm quoting the court directly, an unreasonable health risk to neurological health.
Not a fringe study, a federal court ordering the EPA to act.
Then in January 2025, a study published by JAMA Pediatrics, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, confirmed the link between fluoride exposure and children's IQ scores.
The higher the exposure, the lower the IQ.
Sure, some states are moving on this Utah, Florida, they've banned it.
But that process takes years.
Your kids, your family, they're drinking this water today.
You need something that works now.
And that's exactly what Cove Pure is.
It's clear wave reverse osmosis technology.
It's certified to remove up to 99.9% of contaminants, fluoride, PFAS, lead, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals.
Anything that isn't water gets filtered out.
Don't wait for the government to catch up.
Go and get yourself a Cove Pure.
Use our link.
It's covepure.comslash poso for $250 off.
C O V E P U R E.comslash poso.
My kids love it, by the way.
We call it super water.
And we've been filling up a lot of bottles for Little League Baseball with super water, thanks to our Cove Pure.
The kids have been doing great at baseball, too.
We're on with Andrew Burkhart, our final segment here.
Fighting Back Now00:16:12
Andrew, I want to ask you so we have this upcoming, it's a WebEx hearing.
So it's not the full court hearing, but Judge Graff is expected to make a couple of rulings here on May 8th, one regarding cameras in the courtroom, and then another regarding a potential delay of.
The preliminary hearing.
I'll let you take it in whatever order you prefer, but what do you think we should expect out of this upcoming set of rulings?
So, first off, the timing of the preliminary hearing this is an issue that's going to be of critical importance to the parties that are appearing before that court.
Of course, if the preliminary hearing is going to go forward as it's currently scheduled, which is, I believe, in the third week of May, they need to know that right away.
They have witnesses that they would need to get under subpoena, they need to make travel arrangements, do all of those types of things.
Preparations.
So I expect a prompt and rapid ruling from the court on that particular issue.
I am not expecting, just based on his questions and the arguments that were presented at the last hearing where these issues were argued, I'm not expecting him to continue the preliminary hearing.
He made a comment to the parties to the effect of keep your feet on the accelerator, which tends to suggest.
A need to continue moving forward in the expectation of a rapid hearing.
The more, I think, intriguing and bigger picture question is the one about the cameras in the courtroom.
This has, of course, been an issue that the defense has litigated quite extensively and just a variety of different contexts and arguments that have been raised.
They don't want this case receiving the type of publicity that it has.
And in one instance, even decided to name drop our show, Human Events, because we have been pushing so hard, you know, so ardently, and wrote this open letter where we were pushing for cameras in the courtroom.
And I think we kind of got the ball rolling on a lot of this.
And they really didn't seem to like that.
So they named, name checked us in court a couple of hearings ago.
Yeah, they did.
And they have been presenting just a vast volume of information about the kinds of commentary that is going on.
They focus primarily on the mainstream, but they have also talked about podcasters and they've referenced some conspiracy theories and things like that.
So, by and large, what the defense really doesn't seem to like is frankly just the interest in the case, the commentary about it, the fact that people are discussing it and have opinions about it.
And so, they made what I think would be a particularly strong case for that public commentary can be damaging to Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial.
But the problem, of course, is that the First Amendment right that we all enjoy to be able to not just See what is happening in our courtrooms, which is itself protected by the First Amendment, but of course, to talk about it and to discuss it and to say what we think about it and whether we think it's right or wrong or things need to be changed.
So, there's no real viable way to stop that from happening.
And I think the problem the defense faces with this particular argument is that what they're trying to ban is just the raw feed of the courtroom proceeding that's happening, our ability to be able to see what's going on in these court hearings as if we were sitting there in that courtroom ourselves.
And that's just Purely factual information that has, frankly, a better chance of alleviating a lot of the misinformation about the case than eliminating the cameras would have.
So I think they face a real uphill battle, not just because of these important First Amendment implications, but also because Utah itself is probably the most favorable state in the country when it comes to having cameras in the courtroom for precisely this reason.
Transparency breeds.
Trust in the process and it allows us to accept the integrity or to at least see for ourselves if there are issues that we're concerned about.
If this is all happening behind closed doors, then that is a breeding ground for distrust.
Well, and of course, I was commenting on your stream as they mentioned this in the last hearing, where ultimately the defense's arguments over and over and over.
Weren't actually about the live stream.
They were just about people's comments following the live stream or people's opinions on the live stream, none of which the live stream causes.
So you can have a live stream of a trial, which is something obviously that I've been calling for and Erica has called for and so many others, but that doesn't determine what someone's opinion is.
And honestly, that's also not the job of the court.
So the idea that a judge is going to rule on this.
Because people are having comments about a case, you know, this is the United States.
We just don't do that here.
We don't.
And I mean, the reality is that people are going to talk about the case anyway.
And so, would we rather they be talking about legitimate information or talking about, you know, opinions that they have based on what they heard from somebody who heard from somebody who watched something on YouTube somewhere?
This is what makes us informed citizens and gives us the, the, the, Tools and the information that we need to be able to exercise our independent judgment about what's happening in the courtroom and whether we think it's producing a just result or not.
Well, and by the way, I would point out that there are other countries like the UK, for example, and the president just had the king here yesterday.
I think he might still be here, actually, which are very different in terms of this.
And they do actually have limits on the public commentary on cases, which include even naming victims or, in some cases, naming perpetrators is completely illegal.
So they have a completely different tradition than the United States under their law.
It's actually something that makes us quite unique.
Very much so.
And it all again goes back to that First Amendment.
The First Amendment right to petition the government for grievances, for redress of grievances, is what underlies many, many court decisions coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the various circuit courts of appeal that hold that that right is what protects our ability to sit in a criminal court and watch what is going on.
Because the criminal court process is such an important part of our government, and it often gets Overlooked in favor of Congress or governors or things like that.
But the criminal justice system, it's actions that are done in our name.
They affect us most directly in terms of the deprivations of liberty, of property, and so forth.
And they implicate us because they bring us in as jurors to decide what is justice in a particular case.
So it's extremely important that we have the ability to continue to monitor that and to.
Be heard about whether the system is working the way it's supposed to.
Couldn't agree.
Couldn't agree more.
My wife commented to me once.
We were watching a trial a couple of years ago, and she was born in the Soviet Union before she came to the United States.
And she said, I can't believe they let you do all this.
I can't believe that you have a system like this because she's been in a place where they don't have a system like this.
Andrew Burkhart, incredible wealth of knowledge.
So honored to have you on.
Where can people go to follow you and get smarter on this and so many other things?
So, you can find me, as you mentioned, on Substack.
It's Andrea Burkhart.
Substack.com.
That is where I maintain the legal archive of the documents in this particular case that I collect.
You can also find me on YouTube and on Twitter.
My handle is at A Burkhart Law, or you can just put in my name, Andrea Burkhart, and you'll find me where I'm live streaming the hearings in the Tyler Robinson case and offering commentary as the situation develops.
And other cases, she's great on other stuff.
If there's something going on in another case, give her a follow.
You will like what you have.
So, I'll be right back.
Human Events Daily.
So, we're going to call this the Jack Posobic Appreciation Hour.
I can say confidently, I believe, I think Josh Shapiro would be the vice presidential nominee if it wasn't for Jack Posobic.
And that is, I'm being honest.
All right, folks, we're back.
Jack Posobic, Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice.
Very excited, by the way.
So, we know America's 250th is coming up.
We're just a couple of months away.
We're in the year.
July 4th is coming.
And what better way, especially if you've got young kids like I do, what better way to get them into the spirit of the 250th, the new patriotic, not just book, but book series, mini series, I guess you could say, coming out.
And the first one is going to be by Kirk Cameron.
He joins us now.
Kirk, how are you?
Hey, Jack.
I'm doing so good.
Thank you, man, for having me back on Human Events.
And yeah, this is so exciting.
It's America's 250th.
And I couldn't help but hear you talk in the last segment about how much your wife appreciates America.
Like they let you do that stuff here.
Like I can't believe you guys have this kind of freedom.
And the crazy thing is, so many people.
And you've met Tanya.
You know that she is very, you know Tanya, and you've met my kids too.
And you know that she's very, very genuine when she says that.
Right.
And so many people from other countries are so genuine in their appreciation for the freedoms that we have in America because they know what it's like when you don't have them.
And young kids today are being raised to be embarrassed or to be ashamed and not proud of and not appreciate America, which is insane to me.
And so this is an opportunity that we have to fight back.
Against the extreme leftist narrative that's teaching kids to hate America and teach them to love America and to know why they love America again.
So, this is cool.
So, Built by the Brave, it's Brave Books, and this is your, you know, continue your partnership with them.
But it's a new series in terms of a new continuity where there's new characters.
It's set, you know, not in the fictional fantasy Freedom Island universe, but it's set right here in the US of A.
And I believe it's kind of a time travel series, a little sci fi action.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Kids are going to love it.
It's so cool.
And actually, Dr. Ben Carson, Riley Gaines, and I have teamed up.
We're sort of like the dynamic trio who have each put out a book and we've got signed copies of them.
Mine is called Built by the Brave.
And it's about a little kid named Eli who thinks history is boring until somebody, his name is Liberty Man, on the Monument to the Forefathers, which I've talked about so much and traveled around teaching about.
You've seen it.
He comes to life and he takes little Eli.
In a time travel capsule to some of the most daring adventures in American history, to the stormy voyage on the Mayflower with the pilgrims, to the battle at Lexington Concord.
And he learns that bravery is not the absence of fear, it's the conquering of it, and that America was not built by perfect people, just courageous ones.
And Dr. Carson's talking about America built on faith, and Riley Gaines is teaching kids one, two, three, we are free.
So it's a super cool series.
It's called the America Wins Bundle.
And this is how we take back the narrative inside the home, reading to your kids where the real battle is fought.
And that's so amazing because, you know, we're always looking, especially for me, you know, and we've done the library events, and you got to be really careful.
You got to be so careful because you take your kids out and you say, oh, just it's not like it used to be when I was a kid and my mom would just take me to the library and say, hey, have at it and go for it because now you're perusing the shelves.
And it's, you know, it's anti racist baby and LGBT this and everything else.
And they put them in the kids section on purpose.
That's why it's so important to get there ahead of the enemy to say, I hate, don't get taught about hating your country.
Actually get taught the real history of how great America is, how much our forefathers fought to create.
And to your point, the system that we've been talking about, they're trying to tear it down.
Yeah.
And you're doing such a great job day after day, Jack.
Thank you and your family.
For the commitment and the sacrifice.
And I know you do it with joy because it's worth fighting for.
You know, kids today have been taught to celebrate Pride Month, right?
This is people being proud of the rainbow religion and taught to be ashamed of being an American.
The country that actually allows you to do things like have Pride Month.
Try that in other countries.
Not so much freedom to do that.
When in reality, the things that we ought to be ashamed of and the things that we ought to be proud of are being reversed for our kids.
And so, if we want to straighten them out, we've got to do that, not only through the books that they read, but the music they listen to, the TV shows and the movies that they watch, and the education that we give them.
So, everybody has a part to play.
And my role right now is to put these three books into parents' and grandparents' hands.
It's called the America Wins Bundle.
You can get it at Brave Books or just go to.
Kirk250.com.
And you can see all three get a signed copy with little tokens, memorabilia of the accomplishments of Americans, all these cool little things like a Saturn V rocket and a Wright Brothers airplane, along with an American flag and these books.
And this is a way you can push back and capture a sense of pride in the hearts of these little young Americans in your life.
And it's so amazing.
It really is.
And that's one of the things I'm glad you mentioned the space program, actually, President Trump is.
You know, he's meeting the Artemis crew right now.
And it's one thing I love that we're now as a country, we're reaching for the stars again.
We're reaching up.
We're trying to progress for not, you know, like not progressive, but actual human progress.
That this is a country and we are as a people, a group that's just done amazing, incredible feats.
We put a man on the moon.
We are the ones who created the first airplane.
These are incredible things.
Regardless of where you're from, regardless of what your history is, this is just better for the world that we have done these things.
And yet, you go into these schools and they teach you to hate the country.
They teach you that everything America did was wrong.
George Washington and all the founders are all a bunch of racists and you should just get rid of them and slavery, et cetera, et cetera.
It's all they focus on.
They don't want to focus on the good.
They don't want to focus on the achievements.
They don't want to focus on the things that, yes, we have overcome, but we've overcome them together because.
We can do this with the unique blessing that we have as this country.
And I think if you believe that, you can show people another path forward.
I used to, when I would talk about, you know, after we lost Charlie, I would point out that there's sort of like the Charlie Kirk version of America and then there's the Zora Mandami version of America.
Real Responsibility for Parents00:02:17
And it's interesting because they're similar in age.
And that one was all about loving your country and building it up.
And the other one is all about just hating the country.
And wanting to tear it down and giving yourself money from other people's pockets, which is exactly what Mandami's doing right now, by the way.
He's like demanding that Albany give him more money because he can't fund his own things.
But it's always done from a place of anger.
And I confronted him in the Oval Office about it.
He had his little smirk on his face, but I caught him.
I just called him out.
I'm so glad that you did.
People need to be called out.
And we all need a wake up call as citizens.
And realize that the people who are ultimately responsible to sustain the country, to protect the country, is not the super high up politicians in the White House or in the Pentagon.
Thank God for good and godly people who are doing the right thing and appreciate what America is built on.
But the real responsibility comes to people like you and me, moms and dads, grandparents, who are raising your children to love what is good, to hate what is evil, and fight for what is right.
And we should be doing it with joy because we're a very blessed and privileged group of people.
So let's again, like Ronald Reagan said, believe that we have a rendezvous with destiny, that our best days are still ahead of us, that we can be a shining light on a hill again.
And to do that, we've got to get back to faith and courage.
Kirk, once again, tell us the title of the book, where people can go and get it.
Go simply to kirk250.com.
In honor of America's 250th anniversary, go to kirk250.com and get the America Wins Bundle.
It's awesome.
You'll be so glad you did.
All right, Kirk.
And I know you are going to be celebrating the 250th.
I am too.
Thanks so much for being here, man.
Thanks, Jack.
Take care, you guys.
All right.
Took this up.
Built by the.
I got to get my copy of this.
I got to talk with our producer.
I say, where's my copy?
I got kids.
I got to teach them love America.
Don't worry, folks.
My kids learn about loving America every single day of the week.
Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission.