Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government

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.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham died unexpectedly yesterday, according to preliminary medical reports

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, July 13, and man knows not his time. yesterday, a shocking breaking headline that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham had died. according to the medical examiner in D.C. of aortic dissection. That preliminary medical report says so. Graham died hours after returning home from a trip to Ukraine. Ah, President Trump said that he spoke with the senator Saturday evening. That quote could have been his last call. So when I first opened the news yesterday morning, I honestly thought I had read the headline wrong or that the Washington Post had gotten the headline wrong. And I thought to myself, wait, they misspelled, Mitch McConnell. This can't be Lindsey Graham. but, you know, that's, that's the way, that it goes. And, this type of thing obviously does happen suddenly. his father actually had passed away, from a cardiac event. At only 69, Lindsey Graham was 71. But it's been fascinating to me to see the difference in the outpouring of support for Graham's legacy after his passing from many, key members of the Trump administration, the White House, and also members, of Congress, when, you know, the people and the voters had been suggesting as recently as this year when Graham is up for reelection and he won his primary, significantly, that he was one that needed to be primaried. And then we hear from the Trump administration and the establishment how central and integral he was to everything that the Trump agenda is championing. So there's a lot to break down here.

There is some controversy over the cause of Senator Lindsey Graham's death

And let's welcome in, Todd Starnes, who is a radio host, Newsmax host and author. You can find all of his [email protected] and, Todd, let's start, first before we kind of get to his legacy, which I think is a fascinating topic, there is some controversy over the cause of death, which, you know, of course is generally the online conspiracy theorists. But even some more mainstream journalists like Mark, Theessen, who appears regularly on Fox, posted it's entirely possible that he, Lindsay, just had a heart attack. But it's not a conspiracy theory to suggest something else might be at play. He goes on to say Putin has poisoned and assassinated many of his opponents. And Graham was just in Kiev, where certainly FSB agents are operating. There should be a full autopsy and talk screen to rule out foul play. well, now there has been at least an autopsy, and, the D.C. medical examiner, as I said, came back with aortic dissection. And this appears to be completely natural. But, do you buy into any of the potential conspiracy theories that, you know, Russia had something to do with this and that mimicked a heart attack or, you know, any of the things along those lines?

Todd Starnes: Well, I don't believe that it's a conspiracy theory. I think it's. Those are legitimate questions that deserve to be addressed and answered. And again, what we have now is the preliminary cause of death and will, of course, get the full autopsy results. but I think they're fair questions. look, just a few days ago, there were protests in Tehran, and Lindsey Graham, they were calling for his death. they were marching around with posters showing a, bullet in the middle of his forehead. So I think. I think that's a very prudent thing to do. nothing conspiratorial about it at all. You know, again, he had just returned from Kiev, and, a few hours later, he was dead. So I think that's a very fair question. however, when you. When you step back and you. You hear the reports, he had a conversation with President Trump. And when you look at the timeline, he had that conversation around 7 o' clock Eastern Time. By 1 o' clock in the morning, he was gone. it's our understanding that he had made comments that he was not feeling very well. and so based upon that, there could be some other things involved here. possibly, there had been, a deep vein thrombosis, being on the plane for that amount of time. He'd also had a history of hypertension. And what's really interesting and relatable about all of this, Jenna, is that about seven, about seven and a half, eight weeks ago, I nearly lost my life because of the same issue. So I am very well versed on aortic aneurysms, and high blood pressure and those sorts of things. And, the doctors, fortunately, were able to save my life. M. But again, I was feeling just very poorly. There was no rhyme or reason to it. And, you know, just that still, small voice, I think it was the Holy Spirit told me to go and see my cardiologist and I'm glad I did, or I would not be sitting here talking to you this morning. So, it's just, you know, sometimes it's just one of those things, that happens. You might remember the great comedy actor Jon Ritter from Three's Company. he actually died on the TV set, as a result of the same sort of condition. He was, I believe, 54 years old, so. And I, to him in my 50s. So it's one of those things you have to look out for.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we're so grateful that you, are with us and that, the Lord spared, your life. And, you know, it's one of those things that I think a lesson overall that all of us can learn is that if you're not feeling well and something just seems off, it's always better to be safe and, you know, go get checked out. Axios was reporting yesterday that a person who spoke with Senator Graham shortly afterward said that the senator complained he was feeling unwell and the person urged him to seek medical attention immediately. Graham said he would do so Sunday morning after his scheduled appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. Of course, he never got to that appearance. And, you know, yeah, it is one of those things that, for any, you know, any reason, especially heart conditions. But, you know, I remember years ago, this is my first year of law school. my. My dad was kind of feeling a little bit off, and. And he said, oh, you know, it's probably just, you know, something I ate, whatever. And my brother was the one that urged him to seek, medical attention immediately. We went to, urgent care instead of going. This was around Christmas, instead of going to see the Nutcracker Ballet. And it ended up that he had, a very odd, like, intestinal infection, was hospitalized for over three weeks, including over Christmas. It was a very bizarre Christmas. I was very thankful that Starbucks was open on Christmas Day because we were going to the hospital for so long. but the doctor had said if he had waited any longer, I mean, so all kinds of things can happen. And, you know, we always want to make sure that we're taking care of ourselves.

Blake Masters: A lot of Republicans are remembering Senator Lindsey Graham following his death

And, yet, you know, with this, with this tragedy happening, to Senator Graham, you know, as I mentioned, it's been really fascinating to me to see that how the Republican base of at least voting voters saw Lindsey Graham as kind of one of the rhinos, the warmongers, the opposition to a lot of, at least the peace deals that Trump was trying to make and had Even called for him to be primaried this year. And in the aftermath of his death, which I think is appropriate obviously to remember him in the best light possible. But it seems like, a lot of the Republican establishment, including the Trump administration, has been identifying him and remembering him as central to the Republican agenda. how do you reconcile that perhaps for the base who clearly, you know, had a very different view of Graham's, work?

Todd Starnes: Well, I. Look, I mean it's politics and Graham was a great political operator, had a great history of being a conservative, certainly, a pro lifer, that, you know, he's being really given great accolades for his support of the pro life movement. there's no secret that he opposed President Trump in the early days going back to the first term in office. and yet they became pretty much best friends. And the President was genuinely, moved by the news of Senator Graham's passing yesterday. Certainly no doubt about that. I think a lot of people were caught off guard at how, you know, the President got just a smidge choked up when he was doing one of the interviews, one of the phone interviews with, with with the networks on, on Sunday. So. So look, politics is politics. You know, one minute you're somebody's enemy, the next minute you're there, you're their best friend. And a lot of times in the, in the Christian world especially, we, we try to place our value system and the way we handle issues and relationships and we try to, we try to voice that on, you know, the political world. And it doesn't work because they're two very different worlds. So yes, while there were great disagreements, you know, Lindsey Graham was probably one of the most ferocious supporters of the Republican Party out there. And he, would go out there and campaign and raise money for candidates that he perhaps disagreed with. So from a political standpoint, I mean he was a, A true Republican. And I think that's one of the things that people, you know, really appreciated about, about Lindsey Graham. And of course, you know, he you know, his history, growing up as, you know, his dad owned a pool hall and he was the first kid in his, in his family to go to college. The fact that his parents died when he was very, very young and he ended up, ended up adopting his younger sister and raising her, it really is an amaz. and of course the fact that he served our military and was a patriot, you cannot take those things away from Lindsey Graham. And it's good to See people, you know, from both sides of the aisle, I think honoring his legacy and his memory.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, no, I completely agree with you. And you know, while politics is certainly one of the, if not the most controversial lines of work, you know, getting into it, that you're going to be, loved by some, hated by others, and that could flow flip on a dime. And I mean you and I even, Todd, even though we're not in elected positions, are well aware of, even just as commentators, how that can turn and how, you know, people can love you one minute, hate you another. And yet it is very good to see that there's an outpouring of, condolences. And one of my favorites, speaking of how, Lindsey Graham was such a team player and wasn't moved at all by people disagreeing him, came from Blake Masters, who had run, for Senate in Arizona. And he posted this yesterday. Ah, once when a donor asked Senator Graham, why are you helping Blake, given how much you two disagree on foreign policy, he replied with a grin. So Blake's wrong about Ukraine. Who cares? We aren't here to talk about how correct I am all the time. We're here to talk about getting the Senate majority because I want to be chairman of my committees. Lindsay was cheerful and determined and he understood that he played a team sport. May his memory be eternal. that was wonderful. And also Steven Miller from the White House posted a really, I thought, very eloquent, eulogy. And listeners can go and read that at ah, his X account as well. He's such a prolific writer.

Todd Starnes: Photo of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sparks controversy

but you know, this also raises the question as well, Todd Starnes, about the future of particularly the Republican Senate. The. Because of course, Senator Mitch McConnell has been hospitalized for about four weeks now and finally came out yesterday after the news of Graham's death broke and and. And put out this rather lengthy statement and now a picture of him and his wife with him in a hospital bed that there's speculation that that's AI generated. But you, know, nobody's a lot of people, I shouldn't say nobody, but a lot of people aren't really buying this. But, the statement is that his absence was due to a fall and then not very serious pneumonia, and he assures Kentuckians of ongoing Senate work during his recovery. so this seems like there are a lot of, Republicans, at least, that are very concerned about that in the future of the Senate, particularly in the Republican majority. what do you think about Mitch McConnell and the controversy there?

Todd Starnes: Well, I genuinely don't know. I, you know, have not had a 20 minute phone conversation with Senator McConnell as, others have alleged they have. I find the, I find the timing of this letter that came out somewhat dubious and the photograph as well. It just seems to me that, Senator McConnell is playing, is either playing games or his staff. there's been a lot of concern in Kentucky about whether or not he's actually still alive. And maybe they're just holding out for the inevitable. I don't think he's dead. But again, what do I know? I mean, I haven't, you know, I haven't talked to the man. I haven't seen the man. I would only know, you know, what I read in the papers. people are now questioning the authenticity of the photograph. It just seems to me that, you know, that the easiest way to resolve all of this is to invite, you know, Fox News or one of the networks in, to do a brief interview. Clearly, if the man is sitting down for at least, you know, I was trying to add up the numbers here. He almost did two hours of phone conversations. If he's got that much strength and energy and vigor, then sit down and do a TV interview. Or better yet, let's see some visual evidence aside from a photograph that some people are saying was AI generated. So, but, but a lot of this has. People are saying, why is he doing? Why? What's going on here? Well, ultimately they've got to keep them alive until August 3rd. And that's the thinking is that, August 3rd is the deadline for whether or not you have to, you know, you've got time to replace McConnell or you have to wait until the new Congress before you do that. So there's a lot of ugly politics involved there. It's all just very strange. But maybe we need to start having a conversation in this country about, if not limits, maybe age limits. Because right now Congress is quickly becoming a basically a glorified nursing home. And I'm not sure that's what our founding fathers intended.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree with you. And you know, August 3rd is still three weeks away, so, plenty of time for, the truth to come out. And it's really damaging, I think, overall to the Republican Party to have this much m, Much speculation over whether the staffers and, you know, whoever is responsible, for this statement and this photo to be telling the truth. I mean, that doesn't generate trust and transparency in anything. but it does raise the question also about the future of the party. Because if people, like McConnell and even, even Graham, you know, at 71, that are holding on to power, are refusing to kind of pass the baton to the next generation, then when they inevitably, do die in office, like, like many of them have, then all of a sudden it seems like then Republicans are scrambling to say, okay, well, who can we just put in there? Instead of having this kind of, transfer of power that's calculated and it's. It's something that, voters can expect. And it just seems like it would be a lot better for the overall agenda to not have, these people hold on to these seats like they own them, but rather. Or that they're entitled to them, but rather understanding that this is a trust. I mean, the Senate seat in Kentucky belongs to the people of Kentucky. Senator Graham's seat in South Carolina belongs to the people of South Carolina. And we need to get back to this whole idea of statesmanship instead of career politicians. And, and I've been, for a long time a fan of term limits, but I think age limits. I mean, maybe Trump is the one exception to that. But overall, with what we've seen, you know, with Joe Biden recently, with what we've seen now about Mitch McConnell, I mean, on, you know, all sides of the aisle, we, could certainly say that an age limit might be appropriate. I doubt that's forthcoming. But, overall, in terms of the future of Republican Party leadership now with, potentially, you know, two senators that, Republicans are losing, I mean, McConnell is out regardless. He's not running for reelection. You know, where do you see the future of Senate leadership? Because certainly, hopefully it's not with Jon Thune.

Todd Starnes: Well, the reality is that Jon Thune is, a very powerful man and I think he solidifies his power. You know, Lindsey Graham reportedly was, a big proponent of the Save America act, which is really going to be, I think they're going to try to use this and use, Graham's, death as a way to get that across the finish line. I'm not even sure that's going to work. So I do think that we are watching a man who's been in Washington, had been in Washington for gosh, 30 something years, and now he's gone. And so we are going to see the power structure move away from South Carolina, to other parts of the nation. So that's just the ebb and the flow of Congress, that we're seeing right there. the big question is what happens next. Who replaces, you know, I think again, God forbid, Mitch McConnell, something happens to him, you, would basically have a one or two seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. the good news here is South Carolina is a conservative state and you know, they're going to have a Republican senator, no doubt about that. there will be a special election, that will be held on August 11th. And if there is, if there is no clear winner, and you have to get 50% of the vote, then it would go to a runoff about two weeks later. So, we'll see how all that plays out. And some names that people are familiar m with, Congressman Ralph Norman, Nancy, Mace, being mentioned as possible, candidates. And even former Governor Nikki Haley's name has been mentioned. So, certainly a lot of high profile names. Pamela Yvette, the current Lieutenant governor, she lost in her bid to be governor. So, you know, there's a possibility of that. The only thing we do know is that Congressman Joe Wilson will not be a candidate. He had already put out a statement yesterday saying that he wants to remain in the House of Representatives. Representatives. So certainly, a lot of politicking going on in South Carolina and we'll have to see how all that plays out.

Jenna Ellis: A lot of politicking going on everywhere. But Todd Stearns, really appreciate it so much. And again you can follow his [email protected] also follow him on X for all of his brilliance and mostly witty takes as well. And we will be right back with. Foreign.

Last week concluded the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And last week concluded the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. And what was very interesting to me was that the judge indicated that he's not going to make a ruling on probable cause, which is the whole point of that hearing, whether or not the prosecutors have enough evidence to proceed, against Tyler Robinson, for the charges that currently include of course, aggravated murder, which carries the potential of the death penalty. The judge is saying that he's not going to make that ruling until early September, which in my opinion, you know how these things go. Obviously this is a very high profile case, but this is not something that's really, you know, takes a whole lot of effort. He could have made a ruling from the bench and then said he would follow up with a written ruling of his findings. I mean that kind of thing happens all the time. So why is he delaying? well, let's welcome in Gerard Felitti who is senior counsel at ah, the Lawfare Project, and Gerard, Erica Kirk and the family filed a motion through their attorneys as the victim representative, which is, you know, recognized position under the law, asking for an expedited findings so that they don't have to wait a couple of months. And I think she has a point. I think you're right.

Gerard Filitti: I think she does have a point. But we also have to remember that this is a process that's playing out so much in the public eye that the judge, I think Judge Graff really wants to be sure that he is leaving a bulletproof case, so to speak, for prosecutors to put forward and that we're not going to have to play this game again if an appeals court rules that he did something wrong in the process. So I think this is taking more time than we would like to see and certainly that Erica Kirk would like to see. But September is not that far fetched when you consider that we're already mid July and he's allowing defense to put forward some motions as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So, what can we expect then in terms of the full conclusion of the hearing? I think just from my observation, and I didn't even watch the whole thing, that certainly there is sufficient evidence to make that finding of probable cause. what was your overall impression of the full hearing?

Gerard Filitti: My overall impression is that the prosecution's case is substantially strong. They had the timeline, they had the forensics evidence, they had the multiple admissions that Tyler Robinson made to Lance Twiggs, and those statements. So I think that what we saw collectively was a very strong prosecutorial case, that meets the standard to move forward to an actual indictment and trial.

Jenna Ellis: And I completely agree with you. And and I don't think that this is a very, you know, complicated finding in terms of just the, the pure legal of it. Of course, there have been more and more controversy that is generated on social media largely from a segment of commentators who really aren't familiar with the process. They aren't familiar with what a preliminary hearing is. It's not a mini trial, you know, as you and I have of course, discussed last week in setting up the, the first several days of this hearing. But the one piece of evidence that I found interesting because it wasn't published to the public. So there's a little bit of disagreement from people who are actually there of what it, what it contained. according to a couple of the turning Point USA guys, Benny Johnson, Jack Posobic and A few others. there was a video that actually showed allegedly, ah, Tyler Robinson taking the shot. but then there was another reporter who was in the room who contradicted that narrative and said no on social media. you know, there was a. There's the video, of course, that we're all aware of, of, someone who they're alleging is Tyler Robinson, you know, leaving, the rooftop in the building and, that video. But there wasn't anything that actually showed, the shot. And so m. My thought on this, you know, first of all is why the disparity in stories. I mean, it will be pretty obvious when the trial occurs and the evidence is actually published to the public. But I don't see any reason that the turning Point USA guys would exaggerate this or amplify it. Because then when we get to trial, if that evidence didn't come out in the form and manner that they're suggesting, then people will of course, wonder what's going on and why the prosecution didn't produce that.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think it has to do a little bit of what we heard throughout this preliminary hearing. And we have to keep in mind that people sometimes understand things differently. What, we heard was that there was video of a figure on the roof climbing the roof, moving to the edge and lying in a prone position. there was footage recording where the shot was fired, but you can. And then the figure, meaning Tyler Robinson running across the roof. But again, whether people interpret that as him taking the shot or he was positioning himself to take the shot, I think people can see that or understand the words differently. but to your point, I think that all these videos will be made public once we get to trial. I think that for now, this is being done. They're being kept from the public eye, some of them, in order to avoid that potential for tainting the jury. So ultimately, I think this may be an interpretation of how people view things or what they think they understand something to mean versus what will actually be seen by all of us when these videos are made public.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's, it's really fascinating how that kind of different perception, just goes to a, you know, very obvious issue with any sort of criminal proceeding is that perspective matters. And what one person sees of an event, may be very different from someone else's. not just perspective in their opinion surrounding, but just, you know, their vantage point of, of some event that they're witnessing. And, and I just still think, though, that the. If this is in any Way exaggerated by the Turning point USA guys. I think that will open the, the entire proceeding for more fueling of this kind of. Well, you know, they're exaggerating the whole narrative overall, and I don't think that that will carry much on the actual verdict by the jurors who are eventually impaneled. But certainly this is a potential, issue for the court of public opinion and for the people, like me, who really want to see justice served for Charlie. I mean, that's the ultimate purpose of this entire proceeding, is justice for Charlie and for his family. And so, you know, I don't see that as a, as in any way helpful whatsoever, to the proceeding. If, you know, these kinds of exaggerations potentially are being made, instead of just saying, you know, here's all the evidence, and almost under playing it to the extent that, that each separate, you know, piece comes in, but saying, which I think is accurate so far of what's even come in at the preliminary hearing, that there is more than sufficient evidence, not just to reach probable cause, but to conclude that, you know, they got the right guy. I mean, it's. It's pretty apparent that, at least to me, that, you know, they're prosecuting the right person who's responsible for Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Gerard Filitti: Absolutely. And I think that that's everyone who watched this. most people who watched this preliminary hearing came across the same conclusion that when you're watching the videos, when you're watching the sequence of events, when you're looking at the evidence, including the DNA evidence, and seeing what was actually put on, there is more than enough evidence for a reasonable person to think it likely that Tyler Robinson committed this act, which is the low standard. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a low standard to get to, the trial. But quite frankly, in my personal opinion as well, I think that there is enough here for a jury to convict as well. So I think that when we have all these commentary people who are trying to portray the evidence in different ways and serving to confuse things, that makes it a little bit frustrating because at the end of the day, this is a pretty straightforward, straightforward criminal case where a conviction is, in my opinion, in my experience, highly likely. So the more we, you know, the more people comment on the evidence and try to twist things, the more likely it is that that endangers the conviction and makes things worse for Charlie Kirk's family and for the community at large.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, it's really frustrating that in trials of this public magnitude. There is so much commentary that is critiquing all of this and then it's just obviously the way that it goes with any sort of, public interest proceeding, but that it could potentially, damage the ultimate outcome in terms of preservation of appeals and so forth.

Gerard Miller: The preliminary hearing is expected to take several months

But you had mentioned, Gerard, that you know, in the interim between the conclusion of this proceeding, the preliminary hearing and the actual finding by by the judge in his ruling that there may be a flurry of motions, what do those generally consist of and what can we anticip?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that what we can anticipate is the defense putting forward motions and arguing that some of the evidence should be excluded from consideration in the probable cause hearing, that there are sufficient flaws and this is what the defense is going to argue, sufficient flaws with, some of the DNA evidence and some of the intent and motive evidence that the judge should not consider those when determining, when making the determination on probable cause. So really I expect that will be the brunt of it. Trying to shake some of the foundations based, on some of the testimony that we heard and their own witnesses about the ballistics. Effectively. I don't think that that will impact the overall decision by the judge on whether to bind over Tyler Robinson for trial. But this is an attempt by the defense to kind of start in more depth to tell the legal side of their story in an effort to mitigate some of the charges and the evidence against their client. Against Tyler Robins. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And you know, there's been some commentary as well that this finding of probable cause is going to be made, pretty close to the one year mark of Charlie, Kirk's assassination. And it just shows that, justice is not necessarily swift and that, you know, this is taking a very long time. and, and that's not unusual for trials that carry the death penalty, certainly. And for murder cases. I mean, obviously, you know, we can't expect things to be wrapped up in the, you know, the ah, clean 45 minute bow that Law and Order and you know, other TV shows make it look like things just happen very quickly. But at the same time, with the trial potentially not even being set until 2028 is, what the court is currently suggesting it's anticipating. that does seem like it. It's a pretty long time to wait, especially for the eyewitnesses. And you know, the more that time goes on, their memory isn't quite as sharp of that particular event. I mean, obviously something of this magnitude, stays in your memory pretty solid. you know, things like this compared to any, you know, any ordinary day. but is this unusual at all to you that, the trial may not be set, for, you know, another potentially two years?

Gerard Filitti: It is somewhat unusual in my experience, because we're not looking at an, effort that's still ongoing to collect evidence or to find witnesses. The case is there. The prosecutors have what they need. Ultimately, I think that for the defense as well, it's very hard to imagine what additional discovery might take them time, to put forward. So really we're looking at the machinery of, filing motions and doing the paperwork, to put it simply for listeners. and that is not something that normally takes years. That's something that takes days or weeks, in some cases months. So it really is unusual in my experience that you'd have a case like this where everything is already out on the table to be dragged out for so long. and to your point, witness memory degrades, I think here, on the other hand, we did have. Prosecutors did a great job in doing comprehensive and thorough interviews. So you do have those tapes. You do have the ability to refresh the recollection of witnesses with things that they said contemporaneous to, the murder. so I'm not too worried about the witness statements. But it is disappointing that this is dragging on to the point where this is really. We don't want justice to be denied to Erica Kirk and their children by virtue of this dragging on for such a long time. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And that is, a really just unfair part of the overall process. And obviously the process is and should be geared toward, you know, due process, protections for the defendant. that's just something that is a hallmark of our law and our justice system. But we do have to balance that with the interest ultimately of justice, for the victims and ensuring that, speedy trial actually means something, not just for the defense, but overall in the entire process. And, and looking ahead and, we had a lot of evidence come in for the preliminary hearing, like I said. I mean, my. My opinion just on the legal part of it, is that there was more than sufficient evidence, not just to determine probable cause, but ultimately that, That it's Tyler Robinson who's guilty of this offense. But is there a. Any in your opinion, is there any single biggest unanswered question that still has to be resolved at trial, or, Do you anticipate this being pretty straightforward from here on out?

Gerard Filitti: In my opinion, I really don't think that there is much that will need to be resolved at trial. I think that what we will see at trial is the defense pushing to raise questions about some of the evidence, some of the. Some of the bullet fragments, or, making questions about the DNA on some of the items that were recovered. Not to say that Tyler's DNA wasn't on it, but to paint a picture of maybe there was degradation, maybe other people could also be included that were not, broaden the pool of suspects things to raise reasonable doubt. but those will be fought on the margins and only with certain pieces of evidence. I think that it will be hard, for this to find us somewhat in unexpected territory. Ah, especially since we have the timeline, we have a video timeline, we have eyewitness timelines, we have ultimately Tyler Robinson's own admission. So we will see the defense kind of poke holes at all of those. But ultimately, I think that the corpus of what we have is an upward conviction.

Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Jared Felitti, really appreciate it. We got to take a break here, and we just need to continue to pray for Erica Kirk, for Charlie's parents and sister, and, ultimately for justice in this case. Because, while that. That whole assassination was just utterly, utterly tragic, and I wish that, there had been a different decision at that moment, to not pull the trigger and that this had never happened. the best that we can do this side of eternity is to enact, civil justice to the best extent possible. And in my opinion, of course, I'm an advocate of the death penalty. I think that's entirely appropriate that the prosecutors pursue that in this, this case. I think it should be pursued in more cases than it is. But, we just need to continue to pray for this and for a speedy conclusion and implementation of justice. We'll be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

The 21st century road to Housing act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the 21st century road to Housing act, which stands for Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream, is the first major federal housing reform package in decades. It passed in Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it became law after President Trump allowed it to take effect without signing it. It was a little bit of a, all bark, no bite, sort of protest because he said he would not sign the law until the SAVE act, became law. But he didn't veto it either, probably because, since this passed with such overwhelming bipartisan support, he knew that there was, enough votes for a veto override. Didn't want to have that on his record, which makes sense. But, but this particular legislation, I'm wondering exactly why Republicans are championing this. Speaker Mike Johnson, actually posted after it, after it passed, just tacitly through President Trump, not signing it or vetoing it. He said House Republicans worked hard to ensure this legislation will pave the path to home ownership and the American dream for hardworking families who have been crushed. But this was, Liz Warren's legislation. And so why exactly are we championing, her legislation? I mean, there's a lot of Republican advocates who suggest that this is going to be a good thing. And the disagreement, though, is primarily over how much, the federal government should subsidize housing and what role the local government should play in shaping where that housing is located. And political commentator Anne Coulter had a lot to say about that. Let's listen to her clip. This is cut one among some good

Ann Coulter: things in the, in the housing bill, like overturning stupid federal regulations that previous Congress has put in. Oh, there is a poison pill, an absolute disaster. It expands section 8 housing. For any of you who live in a town with Section 8 housing, you're, you know, running to get your guns right now. Section 8 housing is this great idea by liberals that because they can't oppose things like welfare dependency or single motherhood, drug use, they don't even oppose crime. No, they will not punish criminal behavior. Instead, their solution to help poor black people get ahead in the world is to move them to better zip codes. And that will be your zip code. Unless you're a very wealthy person, they will never move it to your town. This is going to destroy middle class and working class towns across America, as it has already begun to do. My. A number one example is Ferguson, Missouri. you remember Ferguson with Mike Brown, Hands up, don't shoot. Turned out that whole thing was nonsense. The sainted Mike Brown emerged from Section 8 housing. All of his neighbors who lied and carried on about that cock and bull story that he got on his knees, put his hands up. Hands up. Don't shoot. Oh, no, no. He was charging. And even Rick Holder's Justice Department under Barack Obama, found that Officer Darren Wilson had shot Brown in self defense. But we had to go through six months of the neighbors just, just lying through their teeth. And this housing bill expands section 8. Guess who's made millions of dollars off of section 8 housing? Yes, that would be Jared Kushner.

Orin McIntyre: Republicans are rolling over on Section 8 housing bill

Jenna Ellis: All right, well, let's welcome in Orin McIntyre, who is a, host at the Blaze and Orin, you know, this isn't surprising that a member of the Trump family is making, money off of this. It's been a, recurring theme, it seems. Any criticism of the Trump administration, probably rightly so, but why on earth are Republicans just kind of rolling over on this and suggesting that this is somehow a win for affordability?

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, that's really good news. You know, we can't get the SAVE act done. the Republicans can't actually pass legislation that will secure our elections moving into the future. But we can, you know, we can vote for an Elizabeth Warren bill. Now, don't get me wrong, there is some critical stuff in this bill. And I think the thing that most people are focusing on which is positive is the idea that private equity firms would not get to continue to buy, residential homes. I think it's something like if you, if they own 350 or more homes already, they can't buy more. They don't have to sell the ones off that they have, but they can't acquire additional ones. And that's a real factor. That was a, a real pain point in the housing market and absolutely did need to be addressed. that said, the fact, as Anne Coulter pointed out there, that you're expanding Section 8 housing, you're heavily, incentivizing, different municipalities to rezone and increase their density means, that you're going to see the kind of development that often brings with it. you know, crime, you know, public disorder, these kind of things. And so you have, what is very much a mixed bag and you desperately need to kind of section these, these issues out. But of course that's not how we do it these days. We wrap everything up to make sure that you have to swallow the poison along with the rest of the medicine. and so, that this is going to have a really bad impact on a lot of different, municipalities as they develop going forward.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, that's, you know, it is so unfortunate that Republicans who allegedly have the majority here, you know, have to, bend over and work with Democrats instead of holding fast and firm and saying, you know, we have the majority at least in the House, to say we're not going to allow some of this to get through. And if you want to work with us on affordability stuff, well, we're not going to allow some of your poison pill nonsense to be in the bill. I mean, that should be a strong negotiating tactic. But it seems like Republicans, aren't playing by the reality that they actually have the majority. And that's the frustration that a lot of voters have because even though, yes, there's some, there are some issues in here that did need to be addressed. And I agree with you that you, these private equity firms, ah, just coming in and buying up a lot of single family homes is damaging for the market. That needs to be addressed. But it didn't need to be addressed at the expense of allowing everything that the Democrats wanted in here. Why doesn't Speaker Johnson and the rest of the Republicans hold a firmer line?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I think there's a couple things. I think one, they don't really care that much about, kind of the federalist system. They are fine applying pressure to localities to do this kind of thing, you know, through financial incentives. That's something that Republicans have grown more and more comfortable with. Also, I think there's a, you know, a difficult line of argument here. you know, as you know again, Anne Coulter pointed out in that clip, the people who are going to move into Section 8 housing are largely low income immigrants or African Americans. And you have to explain why that's bad. Right? Like that's not an easy conversation to have with people. Everybody knows what zoning laws do. Everybody knows that zoning laws at some level are also laws about keeping populations in particular places. And so when you have to have a discussion as to why you don't want to inject a large number of low income housing units into an otherwise middle class town, then people have questions as to where that is. And I think people like Speaker Mike Johnson would have a difficult time explaining the issue there. So they can't really go to bat for this. They can't really explain what the issues are. And so instead they just kind of slink away and say, oh, well, I guess we did something to help, you know, poor people. I guess we helped something to increase affordability without addressing any of the issues implicit in meddling with local zoning laws.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's, that is really unfortunate that they can't get their messaging together. But you know, this also, seems like not only does it, you know, benefit the Democrats narrative going into the midterms to say, you know, we did something on affordability, but it may also be the Republicans tack to say, okay, we did something on affordability, but the criticism of Trump here has been like, well okay, he had kind of this toothless Protestant to say, I'm not going to sign any legislation until the SAVE act passes and now his administration can't take credit necessarily for, getting the good parts of this bill across the finish line. how can the White House potentially message that heading into the midterms? I mean, obviously, you know, this was bipartisan support, so they'll take credit for what Republicans are doing anyway. But that's been the chief criticism of Trump.

 Auron MacIntyre : I mean, I don't think that. I think possibly they don't want to take credit for it. they, they kind of know, you know, that there is a mixed bag of this, and probably best to have some kind of reason as to why your name is not ultimately affixed to it. in the short term, you know, yeah, the headlines are affordability, affordability. but in the long term, I don't think this is going to be a bill that people are going to, you know, appreciate many of the aspects of when they show, when it shows up in their neighborhood. that said, you know, I think it makes a lot of sense at some level to be fighting for the SAVE Act. I think you should be using maximum political pressure to do so. But because as you pointed out, this bill was so bipartisan, it was veto proof anyway. And so there was never a real threat of Trump being able to stop what was going on here.

 Auron MacIntyre : So I would applaud the Trump administration for ultimately trying to use political leverage to force the SAVE act through. I think that's absolutely critical and they should do that whenever possible. But, you know, as you kind of point out, this is impotent from the beginning. There was never going to be any danger of this bill not going through because Congress is not taking action. And so therefore, you know, your protest is entirely in vain and you never want to exercise power unless you can get what you want.

Jenna Ellis: Well, hopefully maximum, ah, pressure is being put on to actually pass the SAVE Act. We really need that. But, Orin McIntyre, really appreciate it. That's all the time we have for today. Follow him on X and you can reach me and my team, Jenna afr.net