Lance Twiggs Video Testimony Reveals Prosecution's PR Strategy in Charlie Kirk Shooting Case

[00:00] Let's just start with the the big one,

[00:02] which is video recorded video of Lance

[00:06] Twigs. This is the guy. I thought it was

[00:08] remarkable in the setup package. Jake

[00:10] Whitman, our producer, found these

[00:12] pictures of Lance Twigs looking like a

[00:14] like a man, like I don't want to say a

[00:17] reg regular normal man, but like a a guy

[00:20] like your typical guy. And then you see

[00:23] the after pictures when he was dating

[00:25] Tyler Robinson and living with him where

[00:28] he's got the the ears on and the furry

[00:31] cap. And obviously this is an unwell

[00:33] person. You don't declare yourself trans

[00:36] and a furry as this guy did. And I mean

[00:40] I I'm sorry, but like the name Luna is

[00:42] perfect for him, short for you know

[00:44] what. Um I this person is the

[00:47] prosecution's main witness, Dave, which

[00:50] I would think poses a bit of a challenge

[00:52] to them because this is not a well man.

[00:57] >> Yeah. And you're in Utah, a culturally

[00:59] conservative state, and so they're going

[01:01] to see this individual and they may not

[01:04] like him. Um but he is a crucial witness

[01:07] because he's the supposedly the

[01:10] motivation for Tyler Robinson. He did it

[01:13] for love of Lance Twigs and Lance Twigs

[01:16] by all account knew nothing about it. He

[01:19] saw the message afterwards and was

[01:20] shocked and he is cooperating. But there

[01:24] will always be conspiracy theories out

[01:26] there. And I think you hit it earlier,

[01:28] Megan, when you said that. I think the

[01:30] reason why you're seeing so much

[01:33] evidence out there is because the

[01:34] prosecution is very conscious of the

[01:37] conspiracy theories and the narrative.

[01:39] That's why the prosecution did what

[01:41] prosecutors don't normally do and go and

[01:43] respond to the stuff that the defense

[01:45] put out about the ballistics and even

[01:48] went on TMZ. Yeah, I think that the

[01:51] judge should not have sanctioned the

[01:52] prosecutor for it, but I understand that

[01:56] it's unusual to go on TMZ as a prosec. I

[01:58] never did that when I was state

[02:00] attorney, but this is not like any other

[02:02] case.

[02:04] >> Yeah, he he gave a print statement to

[02:07] TMZ. didn't physically go on, but it was

[02:09] a statement to TMZ. And TMZ, you know,

[02:11] with all due respect to Harvey, it's

[02:12] considered a tabloid publication. They

[02:14] pay for news. It's, you know, it's it

[02:17] doesn't have the greatest reputation in

[02:18] the field of actual lawyers and judges

[02:21] who who practice law for a living. But

[02:23] in any event, that's what he did and it

[02:24] reached a lot of people. They have wide

[02:26] reach. Um, the Lance Twig's video

[02:30] statement, Ashley, he's been given use

[02:34] immunity for this statement. Can you

[02:37] explain what that means?

[02:38] >> Yeah, definitely. So, use immunity means

[02:40] that the government cannot use what he

[02:43] says against him. It doesn't mean that

[02:44] he's immune. So, if they found

[02:46] independent evidence that he was somehow

[02:48] involved and they find that and it's not

[02:50] based on his statement, then they can

[02:52] still prosecute him. So, they're not

[02:53] limited in their ability to actually go

[02:55] after him. They're just limited in their

[02:57] ability to use his statement or anything

[02:59] that they get from his statement. And

[03:01] so, that allows them to actually play

[03:03] this. um it undercuts any

[03:05] cross-examination to a certain extent

[03:07] about you got this blanket immunity

[03:08] because he's only got this limited use

[03:10] immunity.

[03:12] Now, the reason they're putting him on

[03:15] the stand, well, via video, um the

[03:18] reason, well, let's just start with

[03:19] that. The reason they're doing it via

[03:21] video, you tell me, Ashley, is to

[03:23] prevent cross-examination.

[03:24] >> Yes. Oh, yeah. I This was so

[03:26] interesting. Legally, you know, you've

[03:28] got typically you don't have witnesses.

[03:30] So, that's the first thing. Typically,

[03:31] the defense doesn't get to subpoena

[03:33] witnesses at these hearings. So, you

[03:35] know, that's surprising because they

[03:36] don't need them. He's got a statement

[03:37] that that the officer can just get up

[03:39] there. They don't even have to play the

[03:40] statement. He could literally say, "Hey,

[03:41] this guy told me this and that's

[03:43] admissible." So, you know, the fact that

[03:45] they actually were trying to get him,

[03:47] but he's also an out of state witness.

[03:48] So, I thought this was a really

[03:50] interesting part of it. The defense was

[03:51] trying to get a court order to compel

[03:53] him from another state to come into the

[03:56] state of Utah to testify. And that's a

[03:57] big deal. A lot of people don't really

[03:59] realize that that you can't just

[04:00] subpoena someone from another state and

[04:02] force them to come into a different

[04:04] state to testify because you're

[04:05] essentially forcing them to cross state

[04:06] lines. You have to get a court order of

[04:08] need. And when you're doing that, what

[04:10] you have to tell the judge is, I

[04:12] actually need this witness and there's

[04:13] no other way I can get this evidence in

[04:15] without this witness being forced to

[04:17] travel into this state to testify. So,

[04:20] what the defense was asking, they were

[04:21] never going to get. I mean, that was

[04:22] just insane that they thought they would

[04:23] get that. They're never going to get a

[04:25] judge to compel a person to actually

[04:27] enter Utah to testify. So it, you know,

[04:30] the fact that they really thought that

[04:31] that might have happened was was

[04:33] surprising to me. I think it was just an

[04:34] effort to to sort of some smoke and

[04:36] mirrors maybe.

[04:39] >> Why Why is he necessary at all, Viva?

[04:42] because they've got I understand this is

[04:46] the guy who would we're going to allege

[04:49] received text messages and a letter from

[04:53] the accused killer confessing but they

[04:56] have those writings they have the text

[04:58] messages the prosecution they have the

[05:01] letter you know this isn't a trial where

[05:04] you need him to authenticate everything

[05:06] and you need him to contextualize like

[05:08] you can halfass all of that at a

[05:10] preliminary hearing to show the judge

[05:12] you make a profer as the lawyer I'm we

[05:14] will be able to call him we will be able

[05:16] to authenticate we will be getting all

[05:18] these documents in through him here they

[05:20] are judge in which Tyler Robinson says I

[05:23] did it so like what is the point of

[05:25] putting this guy on via video to say all

[05:28] of that

[05:29] >> operating within the bounds of what I

[05:31] know and what I don't know and what I

[05:32] know that I don't know you know I'm not

[05:34] a criminal lawyer I don't know if

[05:36] there's a uh you know purely strategic

[05:38] reason to show the world that they have

[05:40] Lance twigs and that he hasn't absconded

[05:42] like was the rumor back in the day

[05:44] whether or not it's just to quell

[05:45] certain conspiracy theories and to show

[05:47] the evidence just to the folks out there

[05:49] who say uh you know that they have the

[05:52] wrong guy. My concern with this, and I'm

[05:54] going to defer to Ashley and Dave on

[05:56] this, is people are now saying, "Oh,

[05:58] he's not being able to be compelled as a

[06:00] witness when my understanding is it's

[06:02] only for the preliminary hearing, and he

[06:03] can potentially be compelled as a

[06:05] witness by the defense at the trial. And

[06:07] so, it's not like he's being totally

[06:09] procluded from any involvement and all

[06:11] that they have going forward for a

[06:12] conviction is this video evidence. It's

[06:14] lending to some confusion. But my

[06:16] understanding and subject to

[06:18] verification and confirmation from

[06:19] Ashley and Dave it he's not they can't

[06:21] compel him now but in theory he could be

[06:23] compelled as a witness at the trial for

[06:25] the for the benefit of the defense if

[06:27] they so choose and that he's not been

[06:28] given immunity and now can have nothing

[06:30] further to do with this case.

[06:33] >> Completely and and nor could Ashley nor

[06:36] could they play this little video

[06:38] they've got going at trial. Like if if

[06:42] the the defendant has the right to

[06:43] cross-examine and if he doesn't actually

[06:44] show up physically at the trial, the

[06:46] jury will never see this thing.

[06:47] >> Exactly. And that's that what the law

[06:49] says is he has to be available for

[06:51] cross-examination. Whether or not they

[06:53] do cross-examine him, that's a different

[06:55] story. But that means that the

[06:56] prosecution has to actually bring him

[06:58] and he has to be available for

[06:59] cross-examination. Otherwise, they

[07:01] cannot admit this out of court statement

[07:03] in and typically what happens is he

[07:05] would actually take the stand. he would

[07:07] testify and if he said something

[07:09] different than what's on this recorded

[07:10] statement, then they would bring that

[07:12] in. But if he says exactly what's on

[07:14] this recorded statement, the juryy's

[07:15] just going to hear from his mouth.

[07:16] They're not going to hear this recorded

[07:17] statement. But he 100% has to be

[07:20] available at trial. The only way that

[07:22] he's not not has to be there for this

[07:24] preliminary hearing is because the rules

[07:26] of evidence don't fully apply. You don't

[07:28] have a right to confront witnesses at

[07:30] the preliminary hearing like you do at a

[07:31] trial.

[07:33] >> So Dave, this is a PR play. That's I

[07:36] mean that's what's becoming clear that

[07:37] they there are cameras in this

[07:39] courtroom. They're limited. That was a

[07:42] whole big legal fight that they had on

[07:44] whether there would be cameras, where

[07:46] they'll be positioned, what they'll be

[07:48] allowed to show. But we did get camera a

[07:50] camera in there. Not we, the Megan Kelly

[07:52] show, but we the media. So, we are going

[07:55] to see this hearing. We're live

[07:57] streaming it again at the the entire

[07:59] thing at youtube.com/megan Kelly if you

[08:01] guys want to dip in at any mo moment in

[08:02] the day. Uh, it begins every day except

[08:05] for Wednesday, it's going to begin at

[08:06] 11:00 a.m. Eastern. On Wednesday, it

[08:09] starts earlier, I think. Um, can't

[08:11] remember off the top of my head, but

[08:13] what what time, Steve?

[08:16] Oh, okay. On Wednesday, it starts later,

[08:17] 3 p.m. Eastern. Um, but this is a PR

[08:21] play for the nation at large and for the

[08:24] Utah jury pool, Dave, to put this Luna

[08:29] on the stand, so to speak, via video.

[08:32] Because you know why? What we're not

[08:33] discussing is there's been a massive

[08:36] controversy over this alleged confession

[08:38] from Tyler Robinson to Lance Twigs, aka

[08:42] Luna, because

[08:45] it sounds made up. The text exchange

[08:49] between them is so on the nose and

[08:54] artificial sounding that even those of

[08:57] us who believe Tyler Robinson is the

[09:00] shooter have looked at it like what even

[09:03] is that? You know, like and I actually

[09:05] for one wonder whether the video

[09:07] statement is going to include if I were

[09:08] the prosecutor I' I' I'd include this.

[09:11] What's what's with the formal

[09:14] verbiage between the two of you? like

[09:17] you were roommates, you were allegedly

[09:19] lovers. Like why are you talking like a

[09:22] couple of Shakespearean actors as

[09:26] opposed to what we would envision two

[09:28] Gen Z young men discussing? It's just

[09:32] very strange and I'll read some of it,

[09:33] but do you think that's what's happening

[09:35] here? Well, I I do think they are

[09:38] calling Lance Swigs for the purpose of

[09:40] making sure you you see it all in

[09:42] context and that even though he's not

[09:44] going to be there in person, that you're

[09:46] going to see that yes, they he can fill

[09:48] in the gaps. Uh you had the handwritten

[09:51] notes, the note that said, "I had the

[09:53] opportunity to take out Charlie." You're

[09:54] going to read that. And then you had the

[09:56] text message to Twig saying, "I had

[09:58] enough of of his hatred." And then you

[10:00] had the stuff on Discord, right? You had

[10:02] the uh fact that Robinson also confessed

[10:06] on Discord saying it was me at uh UVU

[10:10] yesterday. So you have all this stuff.

[10:13] So it's not just one. That's why if they

[10:15] want to say I don't believe the one

[10:17] message. Well, how do you explain all

[10:18] three messages that are consistent with

[10:20] each other?

[10:23] >> Okay, just FYI, this just breaking. Um,

[10:27] Erica and Charlie's parents left the

[10:29] courtroom when a police officer, this is

[10:31] via Matt Finn and Fox, when a police

[10:34] officer uh started describing the

[10:36] moments when Charlie was shot and killed

[10:38] on the campus last September, it was

[10:41] actually I confirm with my team which is

[10:42] monitoring this in real time. It was

[10:45] just the soundbite that we just played.

[10:47] Um, it but the family doesn't know

[10:49] exactly where it's going. So, they do

[10:51] not wish to hear any details of

[10:53] Charlie's actual murder. the actual

[10:56] moments and they're we're told going to

[10:58] be protecting themselves from hearing

[11:01] any of that. Um, they don't want to see

[11:03] the video. They don't want to hear the

[11:05] details. Who on earth could blame them?

[11:08] I I don't I don't know. I don't know how

[11:10] you could look at that video. Thanks for

[11:12] watching this clip. If you're new here,

[11:14] subscribe. We got a whole lot more

[11:16] goodness where that came from. Would

[11:18] love to hear your feedback. You can

[11:20] email me too, Megan Megnancell.com

[11:24] or just leave a comment below. But join

[11:26] the community by becoming a subscriber.

[11:28] We really, really value your input and

[11:31] your support. We may not always agree,

[11:33] but we are always going to talk about it

[11:35] and respect. No BS, no agenda, no fear.

[11:39] Think about this. In 2006, $20,000

[11:42] equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at

[11:45] spot price. At today's prices, those 33

[11:48] ounces would be worth about $165,000.

[11:51] That's why many smart Americans

[11:53] diversify a portion of their savings

[11:54] into precious metals. And that's why you

[11:57] should consider buying gold from Birch

[11:58] Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold

[12:01] has been a store of wealth. And today,

[12:04] it's a crucial part of any balance

[12:05] strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can

[12:07] help you convert an existing IRA or 401k

[12:10] into a tax sheltered retirement account

[12:12] in gold. Just text MK to the number

[12:15] 989898 to receive your free info kit on

[12:18] gold. There's no obligation, just useful

[12:20] information. With an A+ rating with the

[12:22] Better Business Bureau and tens of

[12:24] thousands of happy customers, let Birch

[12:26] Gold help you diversify with gold. Now

[12:29] that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to

[12:31] 989898 today.