Originally Posted by zooterkin
The case was about pedophilia. Robinson's repeat
actions, in blatant defiance of a legal ruling not to do so, could be reasonably construed as trying to support a potential pedophile in a court case by disrupting the legal process leading to a mistrial.
I rather doubt he would behave like this if he was violently opposed to pedophilia - he would have shut up and let the accused get convicted (assuming guilt, of course).
So the conclusion you can reasonably draw is that he supports the accused's position on pedophilia. That is, an enabler.