On Friday, I attended Charlie Kirk’s case hearing. There’s a lot to unpack from

Dear Novak, in his first speech, said something very interesting. He said, well, we don't have the evidence. And you know what? It's not FBI's fault. It is not Mr. Muckbridge's fault. It is the fault of law enforcement partners. What? Blame me, little guy? Are you serious right now? So if prosecution came out and said, it is the law enforcement partners. It's all them. It's not the FBI. I would understand because it's prosecution. Of course, they are coming for the FBI. You know, like the evidence is still with the FBI. So that I would understand. What I don't understand is defense team portraying it as if it's not FBI's fault. It's the little guy, you know. So they presented their first witness. And Brandy, if you could walk people through why he was there. Yeah. So his name, the first witness was Dr. Edelman. So Brian Edelman, he's a trial consultant based in California. And he has a background in social psychology and was introduced to the court as an expert who works with attorneys on pretrial research. Also jury selection and post-trial interviews. He clarified that his role is not to advocate for either side, but to assess how the media exposure has affected the community and where people are getting their specific information from about the case. And so he presented a PowerPoint outlining the extent of the media coverage and its potential impact on the jury pool. And so he shared a survey with data reflecting public impressions and raised concerns about what information is being introduced to the public. This is amazing, guys.

And guess what, guys? Candace Owens didn't make the cut. Oh, wow. The most listened to podcast and a woman that's one of the most famous podcasters didn't make that cut. How do I know that he never even looked at Candace Owens? I actually caught up with him. I actually caught up with him right after he came out of the bathroom and or he was like washing his hands or doing something. I'm not sure what he was doing, but I caught up with him and I said, did you ever check Candace Owens when you did this research? And he goes like, no. He was kind of like annoyed. He was like, no, like rolled his eyes and like walked away. Yeah, he called Candace wacky that there is an angle here. I'm just thinking about the defense and what could there be some tie? Right. And as I look into it and as I know and learn about, there is a Washington angle that's real because and I have to frame it in a way to have you understand. So Nestor sits on the Supreme Court Evidence Committee. You have Burt, who is retained by the federal judiciary as a death penalty resource counsel, and both depend on federal judicial establishment goodwill for their ongoing careers. OK, so that structurally explains why Novak deflected the evidence delay off of the FBI yesterday and onto local law enforcement attorneys whose professional standing depends on federal institutional goodwill do not publicly attack federal agencies. That is a traceable institutional incentive. It does not require a Zionist or Rothschild's framing to explain it. The ideal ideological pattern is establishment progressive left. I would say Novak NLG past president. Nestor is Obama clemency work. You know, Visser published on abortion rights. Burt defended Menendez and represents the Mexican government. The team's cultural instinct is to treat Candace Owens and independent conservative creators like ourselves as fringe, regardless of the content. So that is why they're maybe not citing her and not because they're protecting any foreign government or anything like that, maybe. But because their professional class dismisses them entirely, dismisses all of us entirely on site. And the defense is dismissing the only press ecosystem development that their client's exculpatory narrative and their and the cause is like the ideological, ideological establishment and the exculpatory narrative. Plus the federal judiciary establishment ties. Sorry, I'm getting tongue tied to try to say all these words, but there the the the obstacle is is kind of baked within the system that they're working in. I'm starting to think in that I'm trying to find a way into their minds. And when I look at their background, I look at and I find that you see where I'm going with that. Yeah, I absolutely see pretty much what we're saying to say it in an easier way is they are worried about their careers and assets and they are putting their careers and culture and what they understand to be politically right above their clients needs. That's what that's that's that's what I think.

Yeah. And you got to admit, I mean, that's what we see a lot in lawyers, you know, and it's that's a that's a scary place to be if you're Tyler Robbins.