ABC pauses ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ over Charlie Kirk comments

0:00Say you've always wanted to have a backyard oasis. Here's the thing. If you get smart with your money, you can do things like that. With Empower, you can start making the most out of your money so you can go out and live a little. Isn't that why we work so hard? To have some fun with our money? So use Empower and get good at money so you can be a little bad. Join their 20 million customers today at Empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored. Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you?

0:35Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp starring Emily Blunt, Josh O 'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. also in theaters. Welcome to The Beat. I'm Ari Melber. Today, the defendant in the Charlie Kirk shooting appeared in court for the first time. Tyler Robinson, you can see here in a brief hearing, about 10 minutes, he was read his charges, appointed a lawyer, and told that the state intends in his case to seek the death penalty.

1:14Could you state your name? Tyler James Robinson. I'm provisionally appointing a Rule 8 qualified attorney to represent you on your case. Mr. Robinson, for count one, aggravated murder. Just for the court's information, we did file just recently within the last few minutes a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Robinson indicted on seven charges, which includes aggravated murder and a felony weapons use. Prosecutors detailed some new evidence today from the probe. The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it.

1:58Police found a photograph of this note. DNA consistent with defendant was found on the trigger. Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights oriented. I am charged with bringing justice for Charlie Kirk. Some of that evidence referred to there could shed light on Robinson's state of mind of what happened on that terrible day. You see some of the aftermath here. The new text messages show him texting his roommate about his apparent actions. As they discussed what had happened, asked why, the texts show him responding, Why did I do it?

2:46I had enough of his hatred, referring to Kirk. Some hate can't be negotiated out. That is the latest in the case. That's the prosecution of the defendant going forward on the ground, an important part of our justice system and of prosecuting violence. While the other development related to this today is that under President Trump, the feds are waging an unusual, aggressive, and quite possibly illegal effort, separate from what happened that day, to now continuously try to crack down on free speech and on their perceived domestic political opponents. Yet they're citing the shooting repeatedly as the rationale.

3:25And that brings us to a major legal mistake by the Justice Department's top official, Pam Bondi, coming amid major questions also facing the FBI's top official over this very case. And so before we go any further into the news tonight and the problems Bondi's facing, I want to tell you the legal facts. Free speech is protected in the U.S. It's protected under law and the Constitution. So no single politician or attorney general or official or even a president can change that. And free speech obviously does not just include all the great stuff we might agree on, like this is a great country or you like apple pie or the sky is blue.

4:03As anyone with passing knowledge of this field knows, free speech is tested and more important sometimes when it includes things that people find offensive, distasteful, even hateful. The Supreme Court has ruled it's a bedrock principle of the First Amendment that the government may not prohibit speech simply because it's offensive or disagreeable. That's fundamental. Any law student knows that, let alone a lawyer or someone who passed the bar, let alone the top lawyer at the Justice Department. Yet Donald Trump's pick, Attorney General Bondi, is, as of last night, saying something that is legally incorrect.

4:39Claiming hate speech is not protected free speech, I just showed you that it is covered by the First Amendment as enshrined by multiple Supreme Court rulings. And she says the government will go after people using words that the government or she deems hate speech. And that legally false claim coming from the person who's supposed to uphold the Constitution has drawn swift rebukes across the spectrum. That includes basic fact checks that what she said is not the law. Fox News is Brit Hume saying Bondi should know hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Longtime lawyer and Republican senator Ted Cruz correcting her and objecting to this attempt to seize federal power for a speech crackdown in the wake of this terrible shooting.

5:22So that's been going on here. And for Bondi and the Trump administration, it's a law. I wanted you to have that context and the legal facts before you now see her incorrect legal claim. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action? We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything.

6:07And that's across the aisle. She's saying, quote, absolutely, this Trump administration will target you for free speech, for words, speech. So that's a big deal, even if it comes in a setting where it looks like she's just saying one more claim. Does this administration now insist that that misstated law is the position of the DOJ? Not exactly, because the law still matters. I showed you the blowback. The Constitution obviously carries the day, not what the DOJ says. and now Bondi is changing her claim to move away from speech, hosting this attempt at damage control and discussing actual violent threats, referring to words that cross the line of the threats and violence, she says, is not protected by the First Amendment.

6:52It's true. Courts and First Amendment law have long recognized that if words are part of something that crosses into action to violence or crime, that that is not just free speech. And this is all well known in the law. Those categories include incitement to crime, true threats, defamation, for example, where the words you use, if they're defamatory, can bring consequences. Hate speech is not on that list. As for Bondi's attempted rebrand of what she said in this intense time, well, the Conservative National Review has now dubbed it Bondi's ridiculous 24 hours. at this very time where the U.S.

7:29needs top law enforcement officials doing the real work, not playing politics or misstating the law. And it is in this environment that ABC's Jonathan Karl asked President Trump about the hate speech and these efforts to crack down on people. And he was met with presidential threats and misstatements. And what do you make Pam Bondi saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech. I would probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they'll come after ABC.

8:05Well, ABC paid me$16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me$16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they'll have to go after you. Trump musing about his DOJ going after the journalist questioning him, referring to that settlement, which is about an interview which described one of Trump's civil cases, a settlement that was not about hate speech in any way, shape or form. So his claim about that, trying to couple those together, is inaccurate. The Wall Street Journal, Fox News' sister outlet, reports Trump's preparing to go after his domestic opponents, reviewing the tax exempt status of left-leaning groups, targeting them with laws and identifying groups suspected of what they view as targeting conservatives.

8:52Administration officials saying perpetrators could be categorized as, quote, domestic terrorists.

9:02Terrorism is a very real thing defined under law and by action. And having a government, any government anywhere in the world, misuse those important powerful tools against terrorists to go after free speech or what Bondi, as of last night, called hate speech or what these other organizations are doing absent committing crimes is a very serious and potentially unlawful move. It's an escalation. Donald Trump making these public threats, trying to distort, apparently, how people speak at this tense time, an important time in our democracy, and his DOJ leader, his FBI leader, and a couple other officials under fire across the spectrum for doing a lot of things that don't relate to directly solving and pursuing and prosecuting the terrible shooting we just lived through.

9:54I have a former prosecutor, Joyce Vance, and legal writer Emily Bazelon here. We're back together in 90 seconds.

10:07I'm back with Joyce Vance and Emily Bazelon, and we will get more into what I'm holding here, which is the information, the charging document in Utah for the shooter, and more of that evidence we saw today. But, Emily, first I wanted to get your response to how now both the FBI director and the DOJ leader, Attorney General Bondi, are in a lot of understandable heat, criticism, amid this important law enforcement operation. Bondi effectively walking back the claims that they would target free speech. right i mean i think you can see in bondi's interview that she's angry she's trying to make it seem like she's being forceful and is going to take some action and obviously this is a terrible killing of charlie kirk but the very broad brush way in which she was talking is as you've explained not an accurate statement of the law um you know incitement to violence can be illegal, but it has to be come with intent.

11:08It has to be like likely it has to be imminent, the incitement to violence that you're talking about. And we don't have any evidence of anything like that here. We do have a murder suspect, but this idea of this kind of broad brush attack on anyone who says things the government doesn't like about Charlie Kirk's assassination or this kind of shadowy network of groups that is supposedly supporting violence, you have to have specific evidence and facts to go forward with any of these kinds of prosecutions. And it is unsettling to see the attorney general of the United States talk in this way. Joyce?

11:51Well, I agree with everything that Emily just said. And, you know, Ari, I thought you set it up really perfectly when you talked about the fact that we tolerate speech when we agree with it, but that the First Amendment is even more important when it comes to speech that we don't agree with. Pam Bondi knows that. She's the former attorney general of the state of Florida. She's a well-educated lawyer. She's now the attorney general of the United States. And so I can understand that there's passion and emotion after a tragic event like watching the death of someone that you love broadcast live for everyone to see.

12:28But this is a moment when our leaders need to not let their emotions get the better of them. We need leaders like Pam Bondi to stick to the rule of law and to explain the importance of tolerating speech. That's how Americans understand the First Amendment, because not only people in the media, but people who are our political leaders impress upon us time and time again that we resolve our differences through words, conversation, even arguments, and not through violence. And that's where the disconnect comes with Bondi's comments. Right. And we showed the feedback, lawyers, experts, of course, liberal groups and independents, but also Ted Cruz and others I cited who said, well, this is not what they signed up for or what they want, even at this time where there's been some political rhetoric all around these issues.

13:18As for FBI Director Patel, he was really getting grilled today. Take a look. I think your testimony confirms that, in fact, you've taken direction from the White House. I don't think it does not. In those retaliatory firings. I don't think you're fitting in the bureau. But here's the thing, Mr. Patel. I think you're not going to be around long. The White House has been, do not put words in my mouth. We're on the record. My God. My God. If you want to talk about. fighting this country. I follow you on your social media posts that tear this country apart. Joyce? Well, the FBI director had a tough outing on the Hill.

14:00Anytime that you're arguing with the senators, you know that you're underwater. But I think it's unusual to hear this level of partisan bickering and the accusation that Kash Patel would be a short timer. By the same token, His conduct in this investigation has been far from exemplary, flying out, holding up a press conference in Utah, slowing the investigation down with his his presence. None of this shows the kind of judgment that we expect from the top leader at the FBI. Emily, when you look at this blowback to both those leaders, but a lot of articles and coverage that shows other sources, other individuals now throughout the upper echelon of the Trump administration still trying to use this moment, this time to weaponize or go after people.

14:47It's hard to draw any safety or security line from thwarting the actual violence, the terrible violence in Utah to the tax exempt status of those groups. And yet they seem to be looking at this as the time to do that. Is that legally dubious? And where do we go on that? Well, there are rules that prevent the president, the executive branch from interfering with what the IRS is doing to take away tax exempt status because you're trying to politically punish a particular group. It definitely seems like, at least rhetorically, the administration is dancing in that direction. Whether they actually take these steps, you know, that's a different matter.

15:29And when you have someone in charge of the FBI, like Kash Patel, it's really hard to tell what is bluster. and what is really dangerous because it's not clear that he is like really in control of what he is promising or threatening. It was also interesting that there was a lawsuit this week filed by three former FBI officials who were fired, and it was quite revealing about the kind of level of chaos going on at the FBI. So there's a kind of tension here between trying to appear are very strong and a reality that may be much more chaotic and mixed up. Both of our guests stay with me here. I want to do something that is important and I think will be revelatory for folks.

16:14It's going to take a moment. I say that by way of introduction. This charging information and the new evidence against the defendant is some of the most specific, credible evidence we've had. And there's been a lot of discussion in the country over the last several days. These are alleged text messages that law enforcement has between Robinson and what is labeled here as a roommate. There's more backstory to that, but I basically want to read out more of this in depth. I quoted one key part in our lead, but after all of the talk about this individual, this is the most direct evidence we've had of his state of mind, the defendant, shortly after this terrible incident.

16:51And so reading from these messages, Robinson says, I'm still okay, my love. I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still. To be honest, I'd hope to keep it this secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry to involve you. You can see the roommate's shocked reply. You weren't the one who did it right. I am. I'm sorry. This looks like a text confession. As mentioned, a big deal for a case like this. I thought they caught the person is the question. No, they grabbed some crazy old dude then interrogated someone in similar clothing.

17:23I plan to grab my rifle. from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering. Question why? Why did I do it? As we read before, this part has been quoted a lot. I'd had enough of Kirk's hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out if I'm able to grab my rifle. Unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they've moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it. The roommate asked a question that law enforcement and others would ask, and this seems to be a potentially blunt exchange.

17:56How long have you been planning this? Robinson, again, the defendant booked in charge today, says a bit over a week. I can get this close to it, but there's a squad car parked by it, apparently referencing the rifle. I think they already swept that spot. I don't want to chance it. And then discussing sort of hiding all this. I'm wishing I'd circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. I don't know if it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me. I worry about Prince. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits.

18:23I didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. How the blank will I explain losing it to my old man? Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. And I'm going to ask Joyce Vance about that exchange. But finishing again, what are these new texts from the defendant? Remember how I was engraving bullets. The blanking messages are mostly a big meme, internet reference. And then he names the meme and says, if I see that on Fox, I might have a stroke. I'm going to have to leave it. This really blanking sucks. Judging from today, I'd say grandpa's gun does just fine.

18:54I don't know. IDK, I think that was a$2 ,000 scope. Then he says, delete this exchange. That cited by prosecutors today for another count of obstruction. My dad wants photos of the rifle. He says grandpa wants to know who has it. The feds released a photo. It's unique. He's calling me right now, not answering. Goes on to say, since Trump got into office, my dad's been diehard MAGA. And this nearing the end of the exchange, I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy. you're all I worry about love and then the roommate responds after quite a lot of text without any response quote I'm much more worried about you and then Robinson says don't talk to the media please don't take any interviews or make comments they ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent uh lengthy Joyce Vance but I wanted to include that because this is new evidence uh I'm curious your general reaction and also uh what you glean if anything from this person appearing to admit to this terrible murder, worrying a lot about or going on and on about their family, the grandpa, the rifle?

19:55How do you view all this as a prosecutor like you once were? Right. So first, I think it's important to say that it's unusual to see this level of specificity about the evidence in a charging document. You know, in the normal case, a murder indictment is a paragraph long, and it just lays out the elements of the crime and says that the defendant committed it. So it's clear that prosecutors felt some pressure or some need to provide far more information than we typically see in this case. But if this is in fact their evidence and there's no reason to believe that it isn't, then they have a pretty compelling case.

20:35Look, in Utah, as in many places, a confession alone is not sufficient to prove a murder. You've got to have corroboration for the confession. Here, there's plenty of corroboration available. They've got video of this defendant or someone who appears to be him at the scene. They have the gun, which apparently is very unique and readily identifiable. They'll have a plethora of evidence available to corroborate, and it looks like a very strong case. Yeah. And how do you view his apparent worry about his grandpa and the gun, which is a much lower order item than if he's about to be turned in or prosecuted for the murder?

21:15You know, the takeaway from that seems to be, and I think this is consistent with other information in that charging document, that the parents had begun to put it together. And so the father asked him for a photo of the gun to show that he still had it. And I suspect that the defendant realized at that point that it was going to unravel one way or the other. Emily, any thoughts about all of that? I was just thinking that given all of the distress and dismay and potential for misinformation swirling around this case, that I can understand why the prosecutors would release these texts because they are damning.

21:53And there's a lot of evidence here. And I think it will help allay some of the potential misinformation and doubts that have been happening. It does not appear that this roommate had any prior knowledge of what was going on. And that's an important part of the story, too. Right. And it takes you, again, right into what the authorities believe are the real texts. Sometimes when you're dealing with criminals, there are things that can be misleading. So always they investigate with multiple theories on the table. But if these are, in fact, the genuine exchanges in that heat of those moments, as you say, it would appear the other individuals like, what?

22:31You did it? I thought it was someone else. And then the covering of the tracks, which now legally is one of the charges, as Joyce and I were discussing. And then, Emily, the fact that the reference to the meme is not the end-all, be-all. We're going to have a whole investigation and trial that will build on that. So rather than cherry-picking for example one reference to one news organization or channel or what he was imagining, it's all kind of in there in context. You could imagine as we get with articles sometimes a source would only refer to one line about the meme on Fox and you wouldn't maybe know what the wider context was, Emily.

23:09Right. I think that's true. These are a lot of specific facts and we'll kind of sort through them and talk about them more as this case progresses. But you can understand why the prosecutors charge this person. Absolutely. No, I mean, again, the information as presented in a trial, ultimately, we'll hear the defense side, etc. But as presented today, is the kind of damning day of statement from a defendant, now defendant from then a suspect that prosecutors search for. I mean, this is really strong, which is why I wanted to really, as the government did, release it in full. I wanted to report it in full.

23:46Joyce and Emily, thanks to both of you for your analysis here on more than one angle of this important story. Coming up, FBI Director Patel pressed on not only the issues we just showed you, but also the Epstein debacle. Trump files a new lawsuit against The New York Times that would bankrupt them if he won. But there's a lot of evidence and signs it's not a winner of a suit. And we have the perfect press guest for this, the former Washington Post editor-in-chief Marty Barron, when we come back.

24:20Amid the problems facing the country today, President Trump filed a new lawsuit against The New York Times for articles in a book that he thinks was unfairly negative towards him. He claims there were deliberate falsehoods about him and that also they did not note his successes. As a company, the New York Times is worth about$9 billion. Trump's lawyers claim to be seeking the made-up number of$15 billion. That is, for context, larger than the largest libel ruling ever. But if they did win that number, it would bankrupt the whole company. The Times' own account of this very case says the lawsuit is basically against articles that questioned his success.

24:57The company says the lawsuit has no merit or any legitimate legal claims. They view it as a way to stifle independent reporting, and they will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. For context, the New York Times is a company that has faced many, many such cases of varying merit. They know how to defend themselves in court. Interestingly, their publisher was speaking just last night, moments before this suit was filed. When journalists are kept from providing independent information to the public, it becomes far easier for those in power to act with impunity. If the free press is a watchdog, the playbook seeks to make it your lapdog.

25:39Other media outlets have famously settled even relatively thin lawsuits from Trump, like ABC or CBS. The parent company there was doing a merger. and cut a deal, as did some of the other companies you see on your screen, others fighting back. This comes amidst the wider effort to weaponize and do a crackdown. So you have that about liberal groups and other critics. You have the free speech debate we just covered earlier in the broadcast tonight, where the DOJ is actually slightly backing down. And then you have the offense on the civil side of new cases, according to the Times, designed to silence their reporting when the sitting president might have bigger, more important priorities than litigating old feuds about political coverage from past years.