Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 10) (9/24/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 10) (9/24/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: with Tyler Robinson's prelim hearing, day number two. Prosecution, thank you. 5.1
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: is a general explanation of what Turning Point USA, Charlie
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Kirk's organization, is and was on September 10th. The exhibit
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: describes the events that Turning Point USA holds, talking about
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: at least 200 plus of these events featuring Charlie Kirk,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: as a headline speaker, taking place by that time. That's
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: in paragraph 3. That these events discuss political issues, as
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: well as religious issues. Most political issues in the portion
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: I previously quoted talked about gender issues, in particular, gender
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: sexuality issues, or the Christian and political view regarding marriage
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: and families, and gender identity. And that information is relevant
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: to the motive that we're alleging in the case. And
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: it's also relevant to the victim's targeting enhancement, which is
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: in part a motive-type enhancement, and the evidence will be
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: introduced through, or we will offer evidence through other witnesses
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: that talk about some of the defendant's statements that indicate
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: his gender persuasion, and that it falls into some of
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: these political and gender views that Charlie Kirk argued against.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: That's the relevance of this statement. It shows that Charlie
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Kirk publicly, in front of a large gathering of people,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: debated and presented his views. And the relevance of that
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: to the defendant's motive is that he was on the
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: other side of those views. And you'll see evidence that
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: talks about that through other witnesses, it talks about being
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: the inference and the motive that he had or the
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: inference from the evidence supports that motive, which supports the
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: victim targeting enhancement and frankly motive in general, which goes
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: to identity. For that reason, Your Honor, the exhibit is relevant.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: I don't see the prejudicial effect, unfair prejudicial effect this
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: would have on the fact finder, whether or not it
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: has some capability of prejudicing the potential jury pool, I
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: think that's a completely different question. I don't think it does.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: I think this case has already highlighted the political issues
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: that we're talking about here, but my job here is
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to present the case to the court, to you, your honor,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: for you to make a decision. This evidence is admissible
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: for that purpose. Whether or not to be published for
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: the public to see is a different question, which I'll
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: submit the media is very capable and represented in and
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: I'll let them make the argument on that point, but
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: I would ask the court to admit the exhibit. Defense,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: thank you, Your Honor, for the state to argue that
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the exhibit says anything about Mr. Robinson's state of mind
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: should be rejected out of hand. The exhibit does not
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: say anything about Mr. Robinson's state of mind. And that's
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: what motive is, and that's what the victim targeting enhancement
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: adopted by the legislature focuses on, is the defendant's perception.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: If the prosecution wants to propose significant redactions to the
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: exhibit so that Your Honor, acting as magistrate, can consider
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: things that are narrowly tailored to what the information alleges,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: which is the allegation is that Mr. Robinson perceived that Mr.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: Kirk had certain political views, that's one thing. But this
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: document talks, and now Mr. McBride, not to be colloquial,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: has sort of thrown down the gauntlet. This document talks
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: about foreign affairs, political doctrines, America's founding principles, cultural trends,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: and what Mr. Englehart refers to as orthodox Christian views
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: on sexuality, marriage, and gender sex. So the document goes
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: way beyond what the state just flagged for the entire
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: world is their view of Mr. Robinson's motive, which has
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: something to do with gender identity, gender ideology, and sexuality.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: That's what Mr. McBride has just said that this case
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: is all about. This document goes way beyond that, and
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: that's why it's not admissible. There may be, as I said,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: other evidence which Mr. McBride and the state want to
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: rely upon, which they haven't presented yet, and the state
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: hinted at, so I think it's not admissible at this
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: point in time. I don't think it's relevant in the
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: sense that it has a tendency to make a fact
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: of consequence more or less true. That's the definition of relevance.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: So how does the court go from the state has established,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: which is motive, or Mr., well, actually the state doesn't
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: have to establish motive, motive is not an element of
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: the offense, but at least with respect to the victim enhancement,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: according to the legislature, the question is what is in Mr.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: Robinson's state of mind? The other thing I want to
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: say is that Mr. McBride did not address the admissibility
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: of these opinions. Now, the court talked about 1102, but
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: 1102 doesn't resolve all the other rules of evidence. It's
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: just a gateway for an affidavit. So what we have
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: in this document are what I think are purported to
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: be untested expert opinions, or at least lay opinions. And
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: the question under the Rules of Evidence is whether the
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: document is helpful to the court when it makes a
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: determination about whether Mr. Robinson perceived that Mr. Kirk had
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: certain political views. So, where is the evidence in the
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: document that Mr. Robinson was aware of Mr. Kirk's political views?
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Where is the evidence in the document that Mr. Robinson
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: had disagreement with Mr. Kirk's political expression? None of that
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: appears in this document. There may be other evidence. Of that,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: we'll have to see, but there is nothing in this
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: document which connects up with Mr. Robinson's state of mind,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: which is a question in the enhancement. And the prosecution cannot,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: of course, express any opinion about Mr. Robinson's state of
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: mind because he doesn't know him and because he would
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: have improper opinions and evidence under the rule of law. So,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: for a document to be received into evidence that quotes
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: one very narrow piece of religious doctrine... and that involves Mr.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Englehart's interpretation of what that means. I mean, Mr. Englehart,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: that at the top of page 2, is basically telling
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the court what he thinks chapter 19 means. How could
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: that possibly be admissible in this proceeding? And how could
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: it possibly be admissible, for the purpose of this court concluding,
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: what Mr. Kirk thought about chapter 19 of Matthew means?
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: So it's not relevant. It's improper opinion evidence. It's definitely
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: overbroad in terms of the evidence. the state's proffering to
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: prove a very narrow point. And it actually doesn't get
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: to that point, which is, what was Mr. Robinson's state
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: of mind? It also doesn't say anything that Mr. Kirk
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: specifically said on September 10th that Mr. Robinson may or
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: may not have heard, or anything that Mr. Kirk said
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: before September 10th, specifically that Mr. Robinson may or may
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: not have heard, nor has the state presented any evidence.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: And as an officer of the court, I would say
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: I don't think the state can present any evidence that Mr.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: Robinson specifically heard Mr. Kirk say a specific thing at
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: a specific time. There are some statements which I think
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: that the state will say are admissions by Mr. Robinson
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: which reference Mr. Kirk, which we will get to later,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: but none of those references specific statements by Mr. Robinson
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: about specific statements by Mr. Kirk on any specific issue
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: that would even make a piece of this relevant. So
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that I've reached that point where anything
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: more I say, I'm going to be repeating myself. And
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: so I'm just going to stop unless the court has questions.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, I don't, thank you. Well, I do have
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: a question. As it relates to political expression, does religion
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: or gender intersect with political expression? Answer, I think that's
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: a great question, but probably not a question to be
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: answered by me in this proceeding. That's actually a really,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: really complicated question that the state wants the court to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: say is a simple yes. Judge, okay, all right. Answer,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: because I don't want to be the expert, I mean
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the court's basically asking me to testify. I'm not trying
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to be flippant. The court's asking me to testify about
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: where religion and politics intersect. And that's a fascinating question.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: The question here is whether this document, the way it's presented,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the way it was written, is admissible under relevance as
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: expert 701-702 rules of evidence to prove what Mr. McBride
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: says the state, that he acknowledges the state to prove.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: which is that Mr. Robinson had a state of mind,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: which was, let's just say, hostile to Mr. Kirk's political expression.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: I don't think that the court should be deciding based
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: on the record before it, where, if at all, politics
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: and religion intersect. I mean, if the court needs to
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: resolve that issue, then the court also needs to resolve
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: the question of which religious philosophy are we talking about.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, well, I bring that up because you mentioned it,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: and you said you cited directly to the enhancement. You
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: said political expression. And then you went to the Bible itself.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: And so it appeared to the court that you put
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: it in play. So I just wanted to get a
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: little bit of guidance from your position. And so that's
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: the reason for the question. Answer, no, I totally appreciate
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the question. I'm not suggesting, Your Honor, that there's a
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: problem with the question. Any question that the court asks
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: is a question that counsel should take seriously. The legislature
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: separates in the statute religion and political expression. The state
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: selected the victim targeting enhancement based on political expression only.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Now the state wants to bring, I didn't bring Matthew in.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: The state's bringing Matthew in through Englehart. I didn't bring
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: the Bible into the courtroom. The state brought it in.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: And what concerns me greatly, because the state is turning
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: this into a question of whether Mr. Robinson's views, identity, life,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: are anti-Christian. And that's a huge problem. And the state
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: has created that problem. This hearing's now being broadcast to
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the entire jury pool. And that's what Mr. McBride just did.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Is he turned the case into whether Mr. Robinson's life
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: is consistent with what Mr. Englehart calls orthodox Christian values?
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: I'm just going to stop right here because I think
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: the court knows what the problem is. Judge Graff, thank you,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: all right. Anything further before the court makes its ruling?
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: I appreciate the in-depth argument and the passion behind the
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: argument you are advocating for your client's right, and I
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: respect that. Prosecution? Yeah, Your Honor. I just say it
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: provides context for the defendant's state of mind. Judge Graff?
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: All right. In making this determination, whether it's admissible or not,
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: I'm going to start at the beginning, which is this.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: This is a prelim hearing. The purpose is to determine
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: whether the state has established probable cause... to believe a
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: crime was committed and that Mr. Robinson committed it. As
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: it relates to this case, as I turn to relevance,
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: I turn to the information as previously stated, and is
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: this relevant? What is before me? And without indicating my
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: decision on probable cause, because I am not at that point,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: I'm withholding all decision-making until all evidence is properly before me,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: and so in this ruling, is not indicating either direction
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: that the court is heading. However, the court finds that
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: it's relevant, as it relates to the victim targeting enhancement,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: as it relates to Charlie Kirk's political expression. And the
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: court recognizes the argument made by the defense in regards
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: to state of mind. And it's because of both arguments
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: that the court finds that, while the court is ruling,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: that it is provisionally admitted into evidence. And at such
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: a point, when it becomes relevant based off of what Mr.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: Novak has talked about and Mr. Robinson's state of mind
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: about Mr. Kirk's political beliefs, then at that point, whether
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: it's admitted or not into evidence... will be decided upon.
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: So as of right now, it's provisionally admitted. Because of
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: that stance, it will not be published to the courtroom
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: or media, but both parties can weigh in on when
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: this is brought up again and the request for it
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to be fully admitted is made by either party. Then,
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: the court will re-examine whether it should be published at
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: that time to those in the courtroom and whether that's
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: displayed on film or by the camera. Alright, let us proceed.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: to lunch because it's now 1240. It seems like a
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: natural place to stop. I believe everyone looks like they
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: need a lunch break. So let's go ahead and break
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: for lunch. Let's come back at 115. Well, no, I
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: need to give you a full lunch here. I need
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to do my lawyer math and see that that would
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: bring us to. So it's 1240. Let's come back at
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: 145 for lunch. All right, folks, we're going to wrap
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: up right here as well. And when we get back,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: we'll pick up where we left off. All the information
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: description box.