Jon Rappoport

Sep 17, 2025

∙ Paid

 

(This is Part-6; for Part-5, go here.)

It’s a waiting game, unless Robinson pleads guilty right off the bat.

If he doesn’t, his lawyer is obligated to scrutinize every piece of evidence the State has submitted, and every court document, before entering a final plea in the case.

That process could take months. Before the trial begins.

In the meantime, Robinson will sit in his cell alone.

This in itself is a form of pressure. Pressure to confess.

Other angles of pressure: the continuing media firestorm; family and friends urging him to admit guilt; prosecutors telling him they’re going for the death penalty unless he confesses, in which case they’ll settle for life in prison.

And these are just the pressures we know about.

The goal of the State? Avoid a not-guilty plea and a courtroom trial.

A trial risks exposing evidence that doesn’t add up. A trial means the State will need to fabricate some evidence to plug holes in its narrative. (see here and here)

As the trial drags on, the media (and definitely social media) could start criticizing the prosecution for putting on a weak case.

And it will be a weak case, if the defense is allowed to show key contradictions in the State’s narrative.

Large segments of the population could turn against the prosecution: “It looks like this guy Robinson didn’t do it. So who DID kill Charlie Kirk?”

You never know what’s going to happen in a trial.

On the other hand, if a trial does occur, the judge becomes a key figure. Before courtroom proceedings begin, he makes decisions about what evidence he’s going to allow and what he won’t allow.

In meetings with lawyers from both sides, and in considering pre-trial motions, the judge could, for instance, decide video showing Tyler Robinson on the roof of the building is “too vague” to permit as evidence. This would eliminate the defense’s contention that Robinson was not carrying a weapon.

What about the rifle the cops found in the woods? The judge could decide that event is “muddy,” because there is suddenly an argument about whether the cops found the gun assembled or in pieces. Therefore, that evidence is also ruled out.

The defense won’t be able to say, “See how ridiculous this is? My client supposedly broke down the rifle in sections and then REASSEMBLED it in the woods.”

The judge can go a long way toward sculpting the case before it comes to trial.

He could hamstring the defense so badly, they’ve got very little to offer the jury: