🚨 POSOBIEC DEFENDS CHARLIE — “THE REAL HATE WAS THE SHOOTING” — AND THE REMARK JUST IGNITED A MASSIVE FIRESTORM… |
KIRK DEFENDED: Jack Posobiec FIRES BACK After Defense Lawyer Calls Charlie Kirk’s Remarks “Hateful”
The courtroom remark triggered immediate backlash from Kirk’s allies. But the legal reason the defense made it — and the way prosecutors turned it back on them — is the part most viral posts leave out.
A single line from the defense table changed the atmosphere inside a Utah courtroom — and quickly ignited a political firestorm outside it.
Richard Novak, an attorney for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, told the court that Kirk had spoken “hatefully” about several groups of people.
The remark drew visible disagreement from Kirk’s family, a sharp response from prosecutors and furious pushback from conservatives, including Turning Point USA contributor Jack Posobiec.
Newsmax highlighted Posobiec’s response Wednesday as he rejected the characterization of his late friend and fellow conservative activist.
But the story is more important than one television clash.
Because the word “hate” is now sitting near the center of the prosecution’s theory about why Kirk was killed — and the defense’s attempt to weaken that theory may have given prosecutors an opening of their own.
What the Defense Attorney Actually Said
During closing arguments at Robinson’s preliminary hearing Tuesday, Novak challenged the state’s claim that Robinson targeted Kirk because of Kirk’s political beliefs.
Prosecutors have cited messages they attribute to Robinson, including a text stating that he had “enough” of Kirk’s “hatred” and that some hate could not be negotiated out.
Novak argued that the word “hate” did not automatically prove a political motive.
“It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people,” Novak told the court, before referring to Kirk’s remarks about people with nontraditional gender identities, people who are not heterosexual and people who have sex outside marriage.
Novak’s broader point was that even if Robinson disliked Kirk’s positions on sexuality and gender, the state still had to connect that dislike to the particular legal theory it was advancing.
He argued prosecutors had not identified a specific political expression by Kirk that Robinson had heard, seen or explicitly cited before the shooting.
That legal context matters. Novak was not delivering a neutral biography of Kirk; he was making an adversarial argument on behalf of a defendant facing a possible death sentence.
Here’s the Turn: Prosecutors Used the Remark Against the Defense
The prosecution did not accept Novak’s framing.
Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander told the judge that Kirk expressed opinions about politics and religion and argued that holding those opinions did not make them hate.
Grunander then made a pointed counterargument: if Novak himself viewed Kirk’s political and religious views as hateful, that helped illustrate the state’s theory that Robinson may also have hated what Kirk stood for.
The Kirk family’s attorney, Jeffrey Neiman, went further, telling the court that Kirk was “the opposite of hate” and drawing a sharp distinction between controversial speech and the act of shooting a political speaker.
That exchange became one of the most emotionally charged moments of the hearing.
And it explains why the controversy spread so quickly beyond the courtroom: the defense was not merely contesting evidence. It was arguing over the meaning of Kirk’s public speech in front of his widow and parents.
Posobiec’s Pushback Wasn’t the Only One
Posobiec, a longtime conservative commentator and Turning Point USA contributor, was among the most visible voices defending Kirk after the hearing.
He had already blasted Novak’s courtroom remarks on social media as “absolutely vile.” Newsmax then featured Posobiec as the controversy moved into national conservative media.
But the rebuttal did not come only from political allies.
The prosecutor challenged the “hate” label inside the courtroom itself, and Kirk family counsel also directly rejected it.
An outside criminal defense attorney interviewed by Fox News called Novak’s comments unprofessional and argued that the attack on the victim was unnecessarily inflammatory.
That does not make Novak’s legal argument improper by definition. Defense lawyers are expected to challenge the prosecution aggressively, particularly in a capital case.
It does show why the wording became such a flash point.
The Case Is Now Headed to Trial
The larger legal battle did not end with the argument over Kirk’s rhetoric.
Utah District Judge Tony Graf ruled Tuesday that prosecutors had presented enough evidence to send Robinson to trial on aggravated murder and six other charges.
Robinson pleaded not guilty to all seven counts.
The aggravated murder charge can carry the death penalty under Utah law.
Prosecutors argue Robinson fired a high-powered rifle from a rooftop more than 400 feet away while thousands of people were gathered at Utah Valley University, creating a great risk of death to others.
The defense argues Kirk was the only intended target and that the single shot did not create the level of danger to others required for the aggravated murder theory.
A jury, not the preliminary-hearing judge, will ultimately decide whether prosecutors prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why the Motive Fight Matters So Much
The argument over whether Robinson acted because of Kirk’s politics is not just rhetorical.
Prosecutors are seeking sentencing enhancements based on the allegation that Kirk was targeted for political expression.
They have pointed to the defendant’s alleged messages, an inscription on ammunition recovered with the suspected murder weapon and other evidence they say demonstrates political animus.
The defense has challenged the strength and interpretation of that evidence.
That is why Novak focused on the phrase “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
If the defense can persuade jurors that the message is too ambiguous to prove political motive, it could matter later in the case.
If prosecutors persuade jurors that Robinson’s hostility was directed at Kirk precisely because of what Kirk publicly stood for, the same language could become powerful evidence for the state.
The Debate Over Kirk’s Rhetoric Is Real — But It Is Separate From the Murder Charge
Charlie Kirk was a deeply polarizing political figure.
Supporters saw him as a fearless advocate for conservative and Christian ideas who built his movement by walking onto hostile campuses and debating opponents face to face.
Critics condemned a number of his statements about race, gender, sexuality and other issues as inflammatory, discriminatory or hateful.
Those arguments about his record did not disappear after his death.
But there is an important line between evaluating a public figure’s speech and determining criminal guilt in a murder case.
Robinson is presumed innocent unless and until he is convicted.
At trial, the question will not be whether jurors personally liked Charlie Kirk’s politics.
It will be whether the prosecution can prove the charged crimes and any alleged aggravating factors under Utah law.
That Is Why This Courtroom Moment Hit So Hard
For Kirk’s supporters, Novak’s remark sounded like the defense was putting the murdered victim’s beliefs on trial.
For the defense, the purpose was to attack the prosecution’s theory of motive and the legal path toward the harshest possible punishment.
Those are two very different ways of hearing the same argument.
Posobiec’s response captured the anger on the conservative side.
But the most revealing moment may have come from the prosecutor, who effectively told the defense: calling Kirk’s political beliefs “hate” does not weaken our motive theory — it may help explain it.
May you like
That confrontation is likely to return when the case reaches a jury.
Because nearly a year after Kirk was killed while doing what made him famous — publicly debating political ideas — the court is now being asked to decide how much those ideas mattered to the man accused of pulling the trigger.
