Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Google Debug aims to stop bad bugs with good bugs by releasing sterile mosquitoes

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, June 2nd and you may have heard about this headline, that in the midst of all of the political news and you know, kind of the emphasis on the midterms and Iran and you know, all those things that of course we're going to get to, we need to be focused on what's actually going on around our planet and in the environment. because this is the headline and this is coming from the Hill. Google wants to Release up to 32 million quote unquote good mosquitoes in California and Florida. So this is coming from ktla. When you think of Google debugging something you probably think that's where not actual bugs. Yet the tech giant is seeking approval from the federal government, specifically the EPA to release up to 32 million mosquitoes in California and Florida as part of its coast quote unquote debug program. The little known program but it's actually gotten a lot of attention now, especially across social media. aims to stop bad bugs with good bugs by releasing millions of sterile mosquitoes to eliminate those that carry disease. So mosquitoes are the deadliest animal in the world. According to the cdc, over three, thousand five hundred species of mosquitoes and one alone carries the Zika virus. You've heard of some other of those which stick against hundreds of millions of people per year. Google Debug says on its project homepage that this is a difficult problem to solve and explaining that most diseases carried by mosquitoes don't have effective vaccines or treatments. So attacking mosquitoes with pesticides is unsustainable because they're becoming less effective over time and can be toxic to people. And clearing standing water is not enough because people can never find all the places that mosquitoes breed. So we need a new approach.

Charles Cornish Dale questions why Google is focusing on tackling mosquito problems

Google concludes well I have a lot of questions about this so let's welcome in a rag nationalist our friend Charles Cornish Dale. you can follow him on X. And he is a, ah, prolific author, nutritionist and and I would say environmentalist. But ra, thanks for joining on this topic and it's gotten a lot of widespread attention I think, as it should online because first and foremost concerned about why Google, out of all companies and people and you know, programs, why Google is interested in solving this particular problem. It doesn't really seem like that is within its purview. So what exactly is going on?

Raw Egg Nationalist: it's good to be back with you, Jenna. Yeah, I mean look, we all, I don't think that there's anybody on the planet who likes mosquitoes. I mean I, I made the mistake of falling asleep out, falling asleep outside the other night. I've got a bed outside by my summer house and I fell asleep and I woke up and I was, I'd been absolutely savaged by mosquitoes. I mean they're horrible creatures, we all hate them. but yeah, you're right, the question is, well, why is, why, why is Google doing this? What's, what's Google's, stake in this? Because of course, you know, I mean I, I think it's well established enough by now that Google isn't some sort of benevolent company that does things for the good of humanity. It does things like all corporations for its bottom line and for its shareholders. So yeah, it's kind of puzzling and I mean I've puzzled over the fact that this is happening in Florida and California. I mean there are mosquito borne diseases in Florida and California. There are, but there are very, very few cases of them each year. I mean we're talking a vanishingly small number. People don't really die of mosquito borne diseases in Florida and California. So it doesn't really, it doesn't really make a great deal of sense. And I mean, you know, there's been a lot of focus recently on tick borne diseases and I think, and especially you know, this alpha galaxy allergy which makes people immune, which makes people allergic to meat. If they end up getting bitten by a tick and it's spreading across America really, really fast, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the US may now be allergic to meat because they've been bitten by a tick. I mean, I think if you want to focus on a critter, on a very, very unpleasant insect, you would be much better off focusing on ways to reduce the reproduction, and the spread of ticks across the U.S. that's a bigger problem. So I find it puzzling actually from a, from a number of different, directions.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, it's a good point that this is a problem that does need A better solution. And RFK Jr. of course the HH Secretary has been talking recently about the problem of ticks that are becoming more widespread and Lyme disease. And there was, there have been several doctors that have been going on, you know, various news programs talking about how Pfizer has the vaccine, for Lyme disease now that supposedly is safe and effective and we've all heard that before. So I think there's a lot of skepticism about some of these kind of newer solutions. Maybe that's a good thing. but the problem of you know, some of these bug borne illnesses, it still remains a problem. So the question is, you know, is this actually a good solution? And, and I think the hesitation that people have is that they don't really trust a company like Google getting involved rather than, you know, maybe the, I mean if people still trust the cdc, but it just seems like it's coming kind of out of left field. And so do you think that there's any, any truth to the concern that maybe this is a pretext for something else that's, that's maybe more nefarious? Because there are other conspiracies online as well that you know, some m of these ticks that are m, perhaps being intentionally released, some say maybe by the government. So you know, there's, I think there's a lot of just concern and you know, information across the spectrum and people don't really know what's going on.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, I would, I would agree with that Jenna. I think there's a lot of, I think there's a lot of rightful mistrust of the government, of the health authorities and of big corporations like Google. And so when you get a situation like this which seems largely inexplicable and I mean I, as I say, I don't know why Google is so interested in this. then yeah, people are going to speculate and people to, are going, people are going to start triangulating and trying to draw their own conclusions about what's going on. I mean the one thing I think that this mosquito plan has in its favor is that it, it doesn't involve genetic modification. it involves basically mosquitoes being infected with a virus that makes them stabilize, sterile. but we don't know actually what the knock on effects could potentially be of introducing this, you know, sterilizing virus into the into the wider environment. I don't necessarily mean with regard to people, but I just mean with regard to the kind of broader web of animals. Within the ecosystem, other insects. Do, do we know, for example, that this sterilizing virus won't also sterilize other kinds of insects that we don't want to kill? So I mean, I think we have to be very careful and I mean to talk to the point about ticks then, I mean we do know, and it's well documented that the US government has worked on weaponizing ticks and tick borne diseases for decades, since at least the 1950s in places like Plum Island, Lyme, Connecticut which is where the very first cases of Lyme disease were documented. Which has led a lot of people to believe that actually maybe, you know, Lyme disease is the result of biological weapons research that then spilled over into the wider environment. And then you get other people who say, well actually you know, these diseases are being deliberately introduced into the environment as well. I mean it's, it's hard, it's hard to ignore the fact that you have these sort of social engineers, globalist types, people who are associated with the World Economic Forum, bioethicists who talk about how, you know, it would be a good thing if we made people allergic to meat, it would be a good thing if more people caught Alpha Gal syndrome because it would, you know, mean that actually we could make an easier transition to a, to a global plant based diet. So there's all sorts of information, all sorts of, kind of facts that are circulating around and there is a huge amount of, of mistrust and I think some of it is actually not misplaced, I think some of it is actually quite justified. And, and it would be nice to know for example why this is being done by Google and why not the cdc? If this is a public health imperative, if this is something that really needs to be done because mosquito borne viruses are so bad in Florida and California, then why aren't health authorities doing this? Why is it Google?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's really the main question that I've seen arise online and is probably the main question that I have. And you're right that the skepticism overall isn't just because of the COVID era that was so recent and we're all still in basically the aftermath of the total destruction of trust for the so called health and medical experts. But I mean this has gone back all the way you know, to World War II and some of the biological warfare and some of the things that was going on then and probably even further back than that. And so we always have to ask the question, you know, is this Actually a natural thing that is arising or is this potentially manufactured? Is this just getting more attention in the media for fear mongering purposes? I mean there's all kinds of reasons.

Jayhatta: Where's the line between reasonable public information and fear mongering

And you know, that leads me into Actually the second headline that I wanted to ask you about as well is this so called Ebola outbreak, which this has just been contained within, I think it's two different countries now in Africa. And the reported cases remain low in the sense of what has happened in just the last few years. for Ebola. There have been no reported cases in the United States. According to the cdc. we all remember just a couple of weeks ago with the headlines, in my opinion, fear mongering a little bit about the cancer virus and that ultimately has been contained and no one else besides anyone on that particular chip ended up actually contracting that disease. And so when the cdc, I think it has a responsibility to inform the public of, you know, hey, this is a potential concern. But where's the line between reasonable public information versus the, the fear mongering over a potential pandemic yet again?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, I mean I think there, there obviously is a line that should be drawn and I think you're right to say that the hantavirus I think has, has turned out to be largely scaremongering, you know, media outlets, in particular, social media, amplifying this idea that there is, you know, we're on the, we're on the cusp of yet another global pandemic. And look, the hantavirus isn't nice. Ebola isn't nice. Ebola is horrible. The Zaire strain of Ebola I think has a mortality rate of up to 90%. And this new outbreak, which I think is the Bundigbio strain, if that's how you pronounce it, has a slightly, has a lower mortality rate. But because it has a lower mortality rate, I think it's more transmissible and actually potentially, you know, more deadly. But never, nevertheless, there aren't any clear signs that this is anything other than a regional outbreak, that should be treated by health authorities, in quite a, in quite a circumspect manner. You know, you can just prevent people from flying from the Congo and Uganda to, you know, outside Africa or even outside their countries. You know, like you don't, you don't need to drum up this fear. And the media obviously does have a part to play in this. I mean, you know, people, it's a good way of generating Clicks. It's a good way of generating traffic to your website or to your social, media profile. And so people do engage in it. But I think, you know, especially under, especially under RFK Jr. Who has, you know, was obviously a great skeptic and a great critic of, of the pandemic response. And I think the American health authorities do have a responsibility actually to maintain, ah, a measured approach, maintain measured messaging and you know, to keep people, to keep people properly informed and not to let them get too carried away. But you know, to go back to what we were saying about the. About. In. About the insect diseases, about mosquitoes and ticks and whatever, there is a great deal of mistrust of the health authorities. And so as soon as, you know, you get the CDC saying look, there's nothing to worry about, people. People begin to get worried about that because of course they remember what happened during the coronavirus. They remember that the World Health Organization told people that there was absolutely nothing to worry about. That, you know, municipal authorities, the Boston Mayor was, was telling people to go out at Chinese NewSong Year and hug a Chinese person in the street, you know, to show your solidarity. That coronavirus COVID 19, you know, was, Was basically, you know, didn't really amount to anything and there wasn't any risk. So there's all of this, all of this skepticism, m. All of this distrust, these layers of, of skepticism and mistrust and distrust that, that are very, very hard to cut through actually. And I mean public health authorities do have a difficult job now I think, in, in really convincing people to trust them.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's going to be the difficulty and the challenge between Trump's cdc, which now is led by Jay, Bhattacharya, who has earned our trust, I think, through how he had advised Trump during the COVID era. but there is a difference, I think, in perception between the cdc, the World Health Organization, some of these, kind of entities that are responsible for the trust, the science kind of narrative versus the trust and and the cheering frankly, that people have for RFK Jr. And the HHS. I mean, I find that disparity really interesting that people are are really encouraged by Kennedy and actually trust broadly, his proposals and propositions and the Make America Healthy Again movement, overall, even though now he's obviously part of the federal government, but they don't really trust the CDC or the WHO and some of the other organizations. Do you think that that's just more because it's RFK Jr. And that personality. And we tend to trust that figurehead versus necessarily the part of the federal government he's attached to.

Raw Egg Nationalist: I mean, yes, I do think that figureheads play a very important role. And you know, you could compare RFK Jr to Anthony Fauci for example. You know, who was, who was such a, I mean RFK is a polarizing figure too, let's not forget. I mean there are people now who, even people who might have supported him, you know, Democrats, let's say leftists in particular, who might have supported him once upon a time now will just, who won't listen to him, who will. Everything that he says is a conspiracy theory. Whether he's talking about raw milk or fluoridation or vaccines or the importance of, you know, eating animal foods, anything like that. It's all it's all, you know, it's nonsense, it's woo, woo, it's a conspiracy. He's got a brain worm, etc. So the role of figureheads, yes, I think is important. And for the people who trust RFK Jr. It is very much on the basis of the fact that he has been a, a tireless health campaigner for 30 plus years on all sorts of environmental and and health issues. And so yes, I mean that, that does play a, that does play a big role. But it's, it is important to remember that for all the people who trust RFK Jr. There are nevertheless equally as many people who, who look at him and just say, well, oh, he's a, he's a dangerous right wing conspiracy theorist and you know, you should do the opposite of what he says. Right.

Jenna Ellis: And so, and it is difficult to get into some cohesion which really though is at the heart of the American way, which is to receive information but be able to determine what's best for ourselves and our families. Which is why, I mean I was adamantly opposed, from a moral and constitutional perspective to any sort of vaccine mandate, during COVID to say the government is requiring you to inject yourself with this experimental, medication. I mean, it's just bizarre. And that type of biological authority, should never override individual liberty in terms of health and freedom. And you know, in states like Florida have championed more health freedom. And unfortunately the proposal that Governor DeSantis wanted, the Florida House didn't take, up this session. hopefully that will come about in the next few years, but all states should have that. And at least there is, you know, some now, more you know, more of the federal issues on that. But, we're already out of time and I hear the music. But riot nationalists, I really appreciate your perspective on this. And bottom line is that, you know, there's so much information out there and I think we need to be careful. Both just blindly trusting and then also being led into fear by any headline that we come across, whether it's on both the outbreak, it's on, you know, these mosquitoes or whatever. I'm really looking forward to Lee Zeldin, the head of Trump's epa, commenting. I haven't seen his comment on the situation yet. The EPA has had a time for public comment on the Google mosquito, so it's PA looking at that. So we'll be following that story. But you can follow Robin Nationalist on tech. And we'll be right back with more.

Scott Ulinger: Iranian leader reportedly resigns amid ongoing nuclear negotiations

welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And the latest that is going on in Iran, apparently the leader of Iran submitted his resignation, that has been reported by several news outlets amid the ongoing negotiations with the United States. So what is the current status? Let's welcome in Scott Ulinger who is a former intelligence agent. And where do we stand in all the negotiations if there are any ongoing with Iran?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, it is rather confusing, Jenna. Frankly it's even hard for me to keep track of the constant announcements and counter announcements and so it's very hard to sort what's going on. I guess we have to trust that President Trump has much more accurate and current information than we do. But I think the way with this, apparently like the Iranian president, resigning, I think it indicates the schism that exists between the leadership of Iran, that the civilian government, is at odds with, the religious, fanatics of the, irgc. But the problem is that that doesn't really. Recognizing that doesn't give us really the solution to the problem. I think maybe this is why President, ah, Trump has been unusually patient with waiting, with waiting with the negotiating because he's aware that the government is fragmented. But the problem is that he's giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I think at the same time, unfortunately, what's happening is he's kind of undermining his own position because the more this goes on, like as it is right now, the more from the, from the Iranian point of view, and I know because I've worked against them my entire CIA career, they sense weakness and so they're going to move to exploit it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and so we also have Trey Ah Yings from Fox News, saying as of yesterday that Iran has suspended all diplomatic communication and messages with the United States. According to Iranian state media, the decision was reportedly due to Iranian oppositions to Israeli strikes against Hezbollah. So, you know, how does. Of this. And, and then there's also report from Axios that Trump, ah, was yelling at, Netanyahu over the Lebanon bombing, talking. And I won't repeat his rhetoric with some expletives there. And that was reported by Axios. but how does this kind of triangular situation, affect perhaps, as you mentioned, Trump's patience? because you know, Israel is playing such a large factor in this and Trump, while he has a great relationship with Netanyahu and obviously Israel, doesn't directly control them. Right.

Scott Uehlinger: So, the. Right.

Scott Uehlinger: So there's, there's been this, this maybe, maybe Aksirs really can't be trusted. But there almost certainly is tension between the two leaders. But see, the problem is, is that again, see, because we've delayed so long, I think the Iranians have sensed weakness. And so what they have done, what they have tried to do is to tie, what's going on in Lebanon with what's going on in Iran. But the problem is, is that we have let them do that. And so, and actually, so last night was actually not, I don't think, very good news for Trump because Trump spoke to Netanyahu and that was fine. And he also apparently spoke to Hezbollah. Like, you can take those guys word for anything. And then of course, so that makes it sound like, okay to try to kind of smooth things over with the Iranians. But then the Problem was is that like literally a few hours later Hezbollah fired on Israel again. So in other words, it makes Trump look weak because he called them and they said we won't shoot. And then they shot a few hours later. So this further undermines the US position. And so and now with the talks of the that the talks have been broken off, I mean it seems, it's something I don't really like to recommend but basically he's got to start bombing again. He has to hit them. I mean there have been a couple of attacks yesterday on some naval positions and some anti aircraft sites. But he needs to renew the bombing because it's clear that the longer he waits it seems like he's undermining his own position. And the Iranians definitely sense that. And so it really kind of makes me think like, you know, really this whole thing was kind of a mistake I think to stop the bombing for like the last six weeks. I was very pessimistic about this or very suspicious about this even six weeks ago. And unfortunately I think I've proven to be correct.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, and that's, you know, that's quite a recommendation. And so, you know, what would that do overall for any potential negotiations that I mean, is it just a show of force and basically forcing them to come back to the negotiating table and, and actually serious about and not, you know, asking for ridiculous terms that the US will never agree to like being able to keep their uranium enrichment and you know, possibility of nuclear weapons. I mean obviously the US isn't going to agree to that.

Scott Uehlinger: I think, frankly I think it's more a matter of eliminating everyone that you're dealing with because these people are, you know, they killed Americans in, you know, in truck bombings in the early 80s and they basically killed people for the last 30 years. Years. So pretending or thinking that we can negotiate with these people is truly a mistake. And so I think that maybe the path to take is you literally have to, okay, we'd like two or three people deep into the. We've eliminated a lot of people, but we need to eliminate more people and we need to basically do what was starting to be done. Knocking out the civilian authority over the civilians to allow the Iranian people to rise up, to overthrow their government. Clearly the government is still somewhat stronger than anyone really ever thought after this much bombing and stuff. They have proven more resilient than I thought. But it seems like in this case further attacks are the only answer to get a bunch of people who are willing to speak in a realistic way, not people obsessed in apocalyptic, apocalyptic death cult, who are obsessed with the 12th imam, because that's who you're dealing with. And clearly it's not working. And so how much longer can we. I mean the good thing is that the blockade is working. Okay, so the blockade is working and so that's the whole time they're slowly being strangled. But at the same time the longer we wait, basically they will look for further attempts to humiliate President Trump. And that's not good from a long term peace perspective.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, of course. And so. Well, so if that's the guidance that you would advise for President Trump on Iran, what about Israel then? I mean let's assume for the moment that the Axios piece is, is true. And also President Trump posted on True Social, which then of course gets around to X, that he had a very productive call with Netanyahu of Israel. There will be no troops going to Beirut and any troops that are on their way have already turned back. Likewise, I had through highly placed representatives, I had a very good call with Hezbollah and they agreed that all the shooting will stop, that Israel will not attack them and they will not attack Israel. So what about his, his perspective right now on, on basically advising and negotiating with Israel?

Scott Uehlinger: I think that you know, look, Trump is a very clear headed guy and a very good businessman. So he clearly understands that that, that Netanyahu, M. Has an obligation to protect his own country as he has an obligation to protect the United States. So M. I don't think that even if there were words spoken between them, I don't think that that's anything to really worry about. I mean he understands that Netanyahu has an obligation to protect the Israeli people. And so, and certainly Israeli troops in Beirut is definitely, from a policy standpoint is not good. Even though it may foster regional peace more effectively. It's not a good look, I suppose publicly. so they'll basically work on that together and limit Israeli expansion into Lebanon, at least the public perception of it. And maybe the United States needs to do a little bit more to help the Lebanese army, disarm Hezbollah because if the Israelis don't want, we don't want the Israelis to do it, someone is going to have to do it or else Hezbollah is going to remain a danger. So and certainly if the war were restarted, so to speak, I don't, you know, Israel of course wouldn't have any objection at all because Israel is right there in their backyard and is obviously concerned about everything that's been going on. Because, you know, the problem with killing a snake is that when you make the, make the decision to do it, you've got to do it. And if you wound the snake, then it's even more of a danger to you. And so, I think, I think everyone is learning these lessons now. President Trump was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in hopes of making a deal, but he's never dealt with a suicidal death cult before. And so that's what we're looking at, I think.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that definitely changes the equation. We're almost out of time.

Scott Eulinger: Public perception on war depends on how Trump handles it

But what about public perception on this? Because it was just not that long ago that the, the peace deal was supposedly in the works. I think that is off the table completely, at least for now. But, you know, is the White House, gaining momentum in terms of buy in from the base? I mean, it doesn't seem like it, no.

Scott Uehlinger: but I think. Right. So I think it's better if, for instance, it would be certainly better from this point on, I think if just let the blockade continue, continue to strangle them, but stop tweeting and stop talking about imminent peace talks. Just maybe say nothing because it's clear that progress hasn't been made in that area. And I think that the American people understand the people who are against the war are against Trump, anything he does. But I think that, the war has been revealed that it was necessary to do this to prevent nuclear holocaust in three years. And so I think the American people are willing to touch, tolerate, you know, higher gas prices and basically this blockade situation with Iran for a while, because. Alternative.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, but it depends on how long it is. Yeah, right. Yeah. Well, we're, and we're already out of time. Scott Eulinger, I apologize for, for cutting you off here, but really appreciate your analysis. And you know, it really depends on how long people, people, have patience for this and how, how Trump handles it from here, I think. But you, can follow Scott Ewlinger on X. And we'll be right back with more.

New Charlie Kirk assassination evidence set to be made public at bombshell court hearing

Scott Uehlinger: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And there was a, a big covenantiary, decision made in the Charlie Kirk assassination trial yesterday. So this is coming from the NewSong York Post. New Charlie Kirk assassination evidence set to be made public at bombshell court hearing. Judge rules. And so, that is next month where, the, the suspect, that lawyers, his lawyers the defendant's lawyers sought to bar news cameras from the five day preliminary hearing set for July, where the prosecution is expected, expected to lay out evidence against the 23 year old defendant. And so the preliminary hearing is basically to determine whether there is probable cause for the the allegations and the the indictment as it stands. And so the judge decides whether there's enough evidence to believe whether a crime was committed and the defendant himself likely committed it. And so this this process which defendants can waive potentially strategically, really is just, is almost like a mini trial. But it's it's. Now that this is actually going to be public, I think this becomes a more interesting question for the defense. Whether they want to test the prosecution's evidence and witnesses, which is really what happens during a preliminary hearing like this, or whether they want to waive it so that the public doesn't get to see it and basically comment and maybe have their own opinions in the court of public opinion influenced, before the actual trial. So with also my dog Todd weighing in on that and hopefully agreeing with me, I think he's agreeing more with the squirrel in the backyard.

Gerard Felitti: Whether defense goes to preliminary hearing makes sense

Let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, you know this is always an interesting question for the defense, whether they go to preliminary hearing or whether they waive it. because the judge I think rightly is allowing cameras in the courtroom. The public should be able to access, you know, all parts of this trial so that we're not hearing this just from reporters in the courtroom or third parties. where do you think this stands in terms of what the defense might be thinking?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the defense went up usually evidentiary hearings. These waiving of the preliminary hearings makes a lot of sense. Sense in cases where the prosecution has strong direct evidence of tying the crime to the defendant. it makes little sense to be challenging that when the evidence is very clear. You want to be saving your best efforts for trial. and you want to, you already have a preview of what the government is going to put on. Usually you're saving your efforts for that. You don't waive it when you think you can make an impact, when you think that you actually do stand a likelihood of getting a dismissal on some of the charges or all of the charges. so this is going to be a very interesting tactical decision on the part of the defense. We know that there were potentially issues with the bullet fragments, not matching the rifle that I think may have gotten more media attention, a few weeks ago. But that is one reason why the defense might want to go ahead and challenge, some of the evidence. In order to raise those questions before the judge and get some things excluded. But ultimately the public's interest in knowing about this. I think we saw the judge saying that the public will be, able to see and watch these proceedings to know what's going on.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, some of those exclusions could be brought up, you know, later in pretrial motions. And, you know, some other things in terms of evidentiary exclusion. And so, you know, what if any of the charges that, Robinson is actually charged with may potentially be impacted, or to a degree of the defenses, is trying to lessen potentially if they actually went to preliminary hearings?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that's the excellent question. And that is the. He has, among the counts that are there, among the top counts. We don't think that anything will be successfully challenged. But there are things. For example, he's being charged. Tyler Robinson is being charged with two counts of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. These are things that might be more amenable to being challenged at an evidentiary hearing. these charges often get tacked on. these are not the main cause, obviously, of what he's being charged with. So it's charges like the witness tampering or obstruction of justice, even the commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. These are the types of things that the defense might want to challenge, before going forward towards pretrial practice.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so it's going to be really interesting to see their strategy, but in terms of cameras in the courtroom, which, as I've said, I fully agree with the judge because this is, probably the highest public interest, ah, trial, that we have ongoing so far. I mean, I can't think of, something that the public would be more interested in. Than a very public, assassination of one of the top conservative commentators, in the world. M Not just here in the United States. And so, the judge said in his ruling that the defense hasn't shown that presenting evidence publicly and having the preliminary hearing, if they choose to go to it, in public and obviously with cameras would deny Robinson a fair trial. So, is. I mean, and obviously those are issues that the defense will preserve on appeal. And, you know, all. All of that, you know, that's just normal practice, defense practice. But in terms of the issue of cameras in the courtroom, And I think that you're going to get a jury in Utah that of course will have heard of this case. what are the factors that go into something like that with, I mean, moving forward to the actual trial, with trying to get a fair and impartial jury, that likely the entire jury pool will have heard at least somewhat of this case?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the presence of Cambers or the, everything that we've seen in the media so far, this is a very high profile case. And this is not the first high profile case that's ever been tried, whether in Utah or elsewhere. And you only have to think back to other very high profile cases. In NewSong York, Mangione was a very high profile case, is a very high profile case. Or, go back into the 1990s and you see the O.J. simpson case, which really set the standard. So our expectations on media access to trials and in all of these cases, ultimately the lawyers have to do a good job with selecting the jury, with what, veering the jury, making sure that the jury is as impartial as possible. Because most crimes, most murder crimes do get a substantial amount of reporting and people are aware of them. So this makes it more important for lawyers to be on the top of their game when they're going through the jury selection process. But ultimately that's an issue in many capital cases. This is hardly unique. So the public interest in knowing, especially because it was such a high profile murder, murder, a political murder, I think that outweighs the concerns that are typical in any higher, profile murder case.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I fully agree with that. And you know, obviously the defense, will have to weigh, you know, all of these decisions and and then determine, you know, whether they, they will actually go to preliminary hearing, from, you know, if you're the prosecution and then if you're the defense, you know, what are some of the strategic, issues you would be contemplating, on both sides of a such a high profile, case like this? Because if it goes to preliminary hearing, I mean it's set for five days, which is probably standard in this, you know, type of a murder case. But that's still a really long time for the public to be tuning in, paying attention and actually seeing, evidence and the prosecution's case well ahead of the actual trial.

Gerard Filitti: From the prosecution side, I think that the most important thing is that they be attuned and follow the rules, follow the procedure, follow the process, and be very careful in the comments that they make outside of the courtroom and even in court, on camera that characterize the evidence or characterized motive, or the statements that are made that go beyond what they can narrowly say that they can prove, because those types of statements can be then held against them. That's the type of thing that can, result in a mistrial. That's the type of thing that can result in a transfer of venue. And that's not what you want when you are a prosecutor with a strong case. From the defense side, I think the concern is different. You don't want there to be too much out in the public that paints your client in a very negative light, that will make it difficult for a jury to be impartial. so you want to be judicious in your use of objections, but you also want to be sure that the prosecution follows the rules and doesn't go too far in tainting by characterizing that evidence and characterizing your client.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And then, so then on the defense side, what are the concerns that they need to be focused on?

Gerard Filitti: They need to be focused on questioning the prosecution's evidence in a proper way, and basically trying to punch holes in the prosecutor's theory, but also again, without making grandiose claims. And in cases like this they'll be, look, the bullet fragments are the best example. You want to be able to poke holes in the prosecution's evidence showing that, it's not as reflective, that the prosecution can't make strong claims that for example, the bullet conclusively matches the gun, when there is evidence that it is not that conclusive. So that's the type of thing you want to highlight through testimony and cross examination at a preliminary hearing. But again, you have to be careful not to go too far because the evidence as presented, if you've gotten to this point and all the pre trial practice that you've had so far, none of the charges have been dismissed. This is not likely to go in your favor as a defendant. So you want to follow the rules and preserve everything you can for appeal. Poking those holes and then later arguing that the judge made potentially a wrong ruling, and allow things to be said or the testimony to be made or evidence to be introduced that shouldn't have.

Jenna Ellis: And m. You know, so if you, ah, Gerard Felitti, are listening to all of the public commentary around this case because, you know, since it's such a high public interest case, I mean everyone has their opinions and you know, largely, I think, most of the public has made up their mind even before, you know, I mean we all saw the video, but also we've seen you, know what's at least been reported to the public. I think it'll be even, better when the public can see for themselves the, the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses that are presented by the prosecution, and then. And also the defense, to. Then, you know, kind of solidify their, own perception, and commentary on the case. But obviously the court of public opinion is very different than the actual, court of law and the. The 12 jurors that would ultimately sit.

Jared Felitti: The biggest misconception about preliminary hearings is misinformation

But if you're listening to all of the public commentary around this case, what do you think that the biggest misconception people have about, the preliminary hearing, or at least just the whole process of the preliminary hearing actually proves or doesn't. Because I can, see, you know, if the defendant is bound over, to, after the preliminary hearing, then naturally people will say, okay, well, that's, you know, the judge is indicating that he thinks he's guilty, you know, and not actually focusing on what the hearing itself represents.

Gerard Filitti: I think you're absolutely right. That's the biggest misconception, is that anytime we have a hearing, a lot of people think or assume that this is somehow dispositive, that this is somehow the ultimate outcome, that whatever the judge says is an indicator of how this case is going to turn out. So if the judge allows something into evidence, some people think, well, that means clearly, that evidence is solid and legit. It's true, it's good, it's unimpeachable, and therefore he must be guilty. Or if the judge excludes something that causes people to think, well, maybe, he didn't do it at all. There's one thing that's flawed in the presentation of evidence that raises doubt about everything else. so there's a lot of people who think that this preliminary hearing, if he is bound for. Held for trial, that, this is an indicator that he's more likely than not guilty. But that's. We have to remember that the legal system is not one and done. There are multiple parts to a trial, especially a criminal trial, and there are multiple opportunities for both sides to put on witnesses and challenge evidence. But ultimately, one of the biggest misconceptions, and this is a danger to the prosecution and defendants alike, is we live in an era of conspiracy. There keep thinking or saying that this was something else. This was, someone else killed him. Someone was responsible for this. This is part of a wider conspiracy that makes it harder both for Robinson to get a fair trial and for the prosecutor to get a conviction, which is why it's so important to have the transparency and have everything out in the open for the public.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And I think that's the biggest piece that people should take away from this, is that, this is part of the process. And you know, even it may seem like, you know, there's, There are so many things that are being protected around, the defense. And obviously most people, I think, listening to this program are on the side of wanting justice for Charlie Kirk, Which, you know, is a normal thing. And I think that that is totally fair. What justice looks like in terms of the accused, Tyler Robinson, looks like affording him, all due process that is constitutionally required. And then if the prosecution, fulfills their burden of proo. And the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, then, then that is justice. And if, if they don't, then that as. As to the process is also justice. And so, you know, we have to go through all of this in order to, get to justice. And I think while there are, you know, obviously in. In any system that's run by humans, there can be flaws, there can be things that we can improve. We do have, overall, when it's not being weaponized, one of the best, legal systems, you know, in. Across, Across human history. Because we have those dues process protections and we have that clash between the prosecution and the defense and you know, all of this that ultimately comes out at trial. but Jared, ah, Felitti, you know, looking for.

The prosecution needs to prove motive and why Tyler Robinson allegedly confessed

In just last couple minutes I have with you, looking forward to the trial, then, you know, what's. What is in mind right now. As you know, obviously everything that is done from both prosecution and defense perspective from day one is building their case toward trial and toward, jury selection ultimately. So what. What is the prosecution ultimately thinking about that? And. Sorry, we have about 30 seconds.

Gerard Filitti: Well, the prosecution is thinking that apart from physical evidence, they really need to get into the motive and why he did it and the statements that Tyler Robinson allegedly made, taking responsibility for it. Those are things that the prosecution needs to prove very clearly. On top of just the gun, the location, and pulling the trigger, they need to convince the jury that he actually had that motive and had that confession. So that's something the prosecution is still working on, I think. And as we will see more at the preliminary hearing next month.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we'll be following this story, of course. like I said, this is the biggest public interest trial, I think you know, in the century. But also apologies for the connection today. We are working on it. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, at AFR Net.