Charlie Kirk does a horseshit job of the interview IMO. Most of it is like something Oprah would do. Kyle is kind of full of shit when he claims he wanted to laugh on the witness stand when the prosecutor said something. This was the kid who was crying his eyes out. So, everything with a grain of salt.
But it gets interesting at around 44:00. They finish with a question about the Lin Wood controversy. Kyle and David Hancock explain their side of it. They say that Lin has never given them an accounting of money raised.
They say that Lin would have had the money for bail, but $1,000,000 was spent on fighting extradition -- of course, that money would have gone to John Pierce, and the question is "WHY?"
Anyway, interesting to see some specifics from that side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_USI8VJj2c
Still don't have the full truth, IMO.
Not exactly.
Bail was $2,000,000. Lin Wood says he had raised all but $150,000. That final amount came as a loan from Rich Schroder, who wanted Lin Wood to personally sign a guarantee. Wood did, and then he had the full amount.
What David Hancock is saying is that isn't the full story. He says part of that money was $585,000 that Wendy Rittenhouse raised and gave to Lin Wood's foundation thinking that it would be used to help Kyle.
He also says that Wood's foundation raised more than $2,000,000 (much more), but a lot was spent on lawyer fees (John Pierce, I assume) to fight extradition, which was Pierce's legal strategy and not something Kyle wanted.
He claims that $800,000 to $1,000,000 was spent on that legal strategy that did not work and was not wanted, and that they would have had the $2,000,000 bail if that money was never spent.
So, Lin should respond to that.
Civil litigation attorneys go to trial, too. You mean he's not a criminal defense attorney.
Yes, Lin Wood explained things, but Hancock says that Wood left out some important facts.
Don't tell me I'm ignoring what Wood said when I posted exactly what the fuck he said.
Hear both sides, THEN arrive at conclusions.
No, because you don't seem to be able to write coherently.
Dude, don't be calling out other people when YOU don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Can you name his CIVIL lawyer? I doubt you can.
His LAWYER is not the one "accused" of fucking his mother. David Hancock is not a lawyer.
No shit. But this is one side saying one thing and the other side saying something contrary. The truth is in there somewhere.
Hancock seems sleazy, but he did raise some interesting points, and Wood should answer them.