The Megyn Kelly Show - 20220502_corporate-media-gate-keeping-and-bizarre-depp-hear

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

May 2, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:35:07

20220502_corporate-media-gate-keeping-and-bizarre-depp-hear

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Journalism vs Comedy 00:14:39
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Happy Monday.
	We have a ton to get to today, including a deep dive into the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial next hour with two of my favorites, Vinnie Politan of Court TV and Mark Garragos, both of whom have been following it really closely.
	And it's about to get very interesting because she's expected to take the stand tomorrow.
	And keep in mind, we've only heard his side of the case so far, right?
	So we're going to hear her side and we're going to go in depth on what to expect because we took a deep dive into what happened over in that UK, that British court, where she won.
	She was accused of lying about his alleged abuse there.
	And she won the case.
	It was a defamation case.
	In any event, we're going to give you coverage.
	You probably aren't going to hear any police else today.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Okay.
	First up, though, did you stay up late Saturday night to watch the press celebrate the press at the White House correspondence dinner?
	My executive producer, Steve Krakauer, sent us a text at like 10:30 on Saturday night, like, haha, did you see how Biden's doing humor?
	I'm like, are you sitting up watching?
	Are you staying at home watching this thing?
	Are you the one?
	He has a new baby, so it's not his fault.
	He can't go out.
	2,500 people in a DC ballroom handing out awards to themselves.
	Apparently, no longer too concerned about COVID protocols.
	Joe Biden was even there and actually did some stand-up or tried to.
	We've got the highlights and the lowlights with some of our favorites, the hosts of the Ruthless podcast are back with me today.
	Joining me now to discuss it all, Michael Duncan, Josh Holmes, and the man known to his Twitter minions as Comfortably Smug.
	Welcome back, guys.
	Hey, great to be here.
	Good to be back.
	Yeah, so were you like Steve grilled, like riveted to your television at home Saturday night, taking down every word?
	No, no, not even a little bit.
	The funny thing is, it's become such an unbelievably narcissistic, incredibly, I mean, like, I don't even know how to wrap my mind around this, right?
	They make you triple mask and double and double vax for like the better part of two years.
	And then all of a sudden, yeah, it's all good, right?
	We need 2,500 people in a ballroom to celebrate ourselves.
	Yeah, why not?
	COVID's over, right?
	Or wait, is it over?
	Wait, I have to check my memo.
	Over, not over, depends.
	Immigrants, who are we talking about?
	It's like, I can't get the story straight.
	It's incredible.
	But you know, here's the thing that really bothers me about it.
	And maybe this did like 10 years ago, I used to go to these things.
	Maybe they weren't as bad that I don't, or maybe they were, and I was just sort of like wrapped up in it.
	But now, if you look at it, like they celebrate each other as though they're like movie stars, right?
	And they're all like, they're all decked out, except they're all like just dorks.
	Yeah.
	You know, they call it nerd prom.
	I guess they do.
	And they, but they talk about it as though it's like, oh, this big celebration and like red carpets and stuff.
	Like, who the hell wants to see any of these people on a red carpet?
	Like, thanks so much for the 700 words daily.
	So CNN treated this like it was the State of the Union address.
	Like the big run-up to it was covered.
	They had full panel coverage, CNN team coverage of the White House correspondence dinner.
	The brilliant Debbie Murphy, Canadian Debbie, has assisted in putting together a little montage of some of the pregaming that went on on CNN prior to this event.
	Watch this.
	But these are live pictures right now.
	If people enjoy, I don't know if this is the salad or the dessert portion of the meal.
	It is the wine portion of the meal, which is a very important portion tonight.
	Yes, I do see that on the table right there.
	Exciting, though.
	So everyone looks great there.
	We're just trying to get people the play-by-play of every minute.
	I don't know what's going on there.
	Is it an ascot on the outside, Scott?
	I don't know.
	It's like a tie in an Ascot, a Tascot.
	It's a merger between the two.
	Sorry, you can see Trevor Noah there.
	This is live pictures right now.
	Trevor Noah hobnobbing with White House bestsecary Jensaki just a little bit prior to when he will be delivering jokes.
	I did not mean to interrupt.
	Not at all.
	How would you describe Joe Biden comedy?
	Well, he's great in one-on-one settings.
	This isn't one-on-one.
	3,000 to one.
	I was kind of burying in the lead.
	Oh my God.
	You guys.
	Wow.
	Can you think of anything that needs play-by-play commentary less than a White House correspondence dinner?
	I mean, just filling all that dead air.
	Yeah, you almost feel bad.
	Being in this line of work now, Megan, I almost kind of feel bad for him having to fill all that time, that empty air.
	People are eating appetizers and you got to make it sound interesting.
	Once you're out there, you're dead.
	The no had to come when the CNN bosses went to them and said, Here's what we'd like you to do.
	It needed to be shut down before it ever started.
	I mean, the whole thing, and even CNN doing like a play-by-play of it, just makes it so conceited of these journalists just celebrating themselves, depicting themselves as war heroes, and the grotesqueness of it all.
	Well, I mean, you always see, as always, at these events, the help is wearing masks, and then all the stars and celebrities.
	Oh, they're too good for masks.
	Except none of them are stars and celebrities.
	That's what gets it even worse.
	I guess we had Kardashian and Pete, which is basically like every journal took a selfie with over the over the weekend.
	Right.
	But then they set the whole thing up as some grand event.
	Like, can you imagine doing color commentary on top of it?
	You're like, you're looking now live at, well, nothing you want to look at.
	I mean, it really is.
	It is like the Hunger Games or something.
	You're seeing all these people in DC, you know, celebrating themselves and Joe Biden even laughing at a joke about how everything's getting more expensive for Americans, how it's getting harder to afford food.
	And it's the funniest thing in the world for them.
	I think we have that now.
	Do we have that?
	It's not like they haven't put American people through two years of if they're lucky if they have maintained a job.
	They're having to be masked up.
	Their kids are having to be masked up.
	It's insane.
	Here, listen, we have the Trevor joke about inflation and Joe Biden yucking it up.
	He thinks he finds inflation hilarious.
	Watch.
	Ever since you've come into office, things are really looking up.
	You know, gas is up, rent is up, food is up, everything.
	No, it really has been a tough first year for you, Mr. President.
	Okay, I get it.
	You know, it'd be a good sport, you know, laugh and all.
	But the fact is, people are really hurting.
	And there was a poll out just, I think, today or yesterday showing it was that 94% of the American people say they're either concerned or disturbed about inflation right now.
	So, as the president who unleashed these policies on us, you're going to have to be a little careful.
	Yeah.
	You know, here's the thing.
	I love a good roast, right?
	I mean, I think all of us do.
	Megan, I know you love a good roast.
	I mean, like comedy being comedy again, I love that idea.
	And I love the fact you can roast the president of the United States sitting next to him.
	But these are the same people who enforce the no comedy absolute deadlock on everything else in American culture.
	That's right.
	Nothing is funny unless they're doing it with themselves.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the one joke that Joe Biden did, which I actually appreciated, was when he came in, he was like, it's nice to be in a room with people who have a lower approval rating than me talking about the media.
	Which I really like.
	That was a good line.
	That was a good line.
	But how about this?
	Speaking of the self-congratulatory tone of it all, Trevor Noah, he actually did a decent job in the, I think, in the overall.
	I expected him to be far more partisan and kind of unfortunate, but I have to say he wasn't.
	He, of course, ended it by touting how important the press is in response to which they got all teary-eyed and excited out there that, you know, Trevor Noah had something nice to say about them.
	Here's it in part, sound by eight.
	I already hope you all remember what the real purpose of this evening is.
	Yes, it's fun.
	Yes, we dress nice.
	Yes, the people eat, they drink, we have fun.
	But the reason we're here is to honor and celebrate the fourth estates and what you stand for.
	What you stand for.
	An additional check and balance that holds power to account and gives voice to those who otherwise wouldn't have one.
	Do they?
	That group.
	Right now?
	Yeah, we know why we're here.
	We hold Republicans accountable.
	That's why we're here, right?
	Yeah, we dox random people on the internet.
	That's how we hold the powerful to account.
	Cue the national anthem playing quietly underneath the tail of the Wrens.
	Yes.
	It's like, you know, journalism was supposed to be about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
	And right there, he says, you know, it's up to us to hold the people in power to account.
	When in that room, it was less of a bald and more of just buddies hanging out.
	There's the White House press corps and the White House press just hanging out.
	Like the only difference is they're wearing tuxedos.
	Otherwise, it's the same as business as usual.
	It's like, are you looking at Peter Doocy?
	Because outside of that one guy, there isn't anybody in the White House press corps doing that right now.
	Anybody?
	What happened to Fearless Maggie Haberman?
	Remember, Fearless Maggie Haberman?
	Oh, and you know, actually, Trevor Noah made a joke about how the fact checker over at CNN and I think it was the Washington Post went totally silent.
	They like, they're gone.
	What happened to them?
	There was an article, I think it was in Politico last week that was basically like, oh, well, the briefing room now, it's so boring because, you know, Biden's such a normal president.
	And she said, Saki's so good.
	Saki's just so good.
	You know, we're not going to get any book deals.
	This is a ho-hum assignment now.
	You know?
	Well, that is true.
	They're not going to get book deals.
	Absolute indictment on the press of that's what their mission was.
	Is they wanted, they loved having Trump there because they could make careers off of trying to attack him, getting book deals, of how they're like the final guardian of democracy left in America right, and in the absence of them being able to create their careers off of that they have.
	No, they're like, what are we supposed to do our job?
	That's crazy, oh no oh, you know the answer.
	You guys know the answer.
	So what did the NEW YORK Times do on sunday?
	A three-part series, now that they don't have Trump to kick around anymore, on Tucker Carlson.
	He's the I don't know face of white suppression.
	Whatever they say they can, they don't get it.
	They're outraged that Tucker is focusing on class distinctions right, who used to care about that too?
	Democrats, Press Corps, uh.
	And of course, they just style it all as, oh, he's a racist and he, he issues sort of racist tropes.
	I'm like, oh okay what, what?
	What are they?
	Let's see.
	Oh, he's concerned about immigration.
	Oh okay, I guess every Republican is a racist.
	Then, right and on.
	It goes like the examples that they provided were not moving and they had something like nine reporters on him watching his show for like 1200 hours.
	Meanwhile, somebody's pointing out online, what, what if they had done this on Hunter Biden, wouldn't that have been like?
	Couldn't that have been done?
	Why Tucker?
	Yeah no, there's no news value in in the people who are actually in charge.
	It's the people who are talking about the other things that everybody's concerned about outside of the, the little sort of urban epicenters that all of these people live.
	But you even you even made a cameo.
	Uh, in this piece, Magnet is providing a platform for all of us, uh sort of i'm a platformer.
	I, i'm definitely a platformer.
	It's so funny.
	It's like, we used to call that journalism.
	I wrote when we, when I, uh, when I interviewed Alex Jones, they lost their minds in the press at CNN and others.
	By the way, he'd been on CNN.
	Okay.
	So they lost their minds.
	And I was pointing out at the time, I'm like, do you realize Diane Sawyer interviewed Jeffrey Dahmer?
	Okay.
	Alex Jones is very controversial, but he didn't eat anybody.
	Like nobody's in the freezer that we know.
	Seriously, she interviewed Charles Manson.
	Like, could you stop with your platforming nonsense?
	Because we call it journalism.
	You interview good guys, bad guys, controversial people, other people.
	It's what we do.
	You talk to them and you figure out their story and then you let the audience figure out how they feel about that person.
	Totally.
	But don't you feel like, I mean, I just pick up this new, I know exactly what I'm going to be able to read here when I picked up this story and started working my way through it.
	And I do it because it sort of enrages me.
	And I like that feeling from time to time.
	But I pick it up.
	Okay, Johnny Depp.
	Right.
	I have a better wife than Johnny Depp.
	But like the way that it's constructed, it's like journalists going to the zoo, right?
	Or like a foreign exchange program where every single observation that they're making about Tucker, about his world, about it's like, oh, look through, peer through the glass and look at this list of horribles that we can't possibly identify with, right?
	It's just like all their coverage is so predictable.
	They don't get it.
	They don't.
	And like Glenn Greenwald was tweeting this out, but it was my first reaction too, which is, who's his for?
	The people who read the New York Times are almost 100% liberal.
	Like virtually everyone who reads it self-identifies as liberal.
	They already hate Tucker.
	They hate Fox.
	They hate conservative media.
	They don't consume it.
	They already think it's all racist and blah, blah, blah.
	We've heard it a million times.
	And the people who don't believe that, right?
	Who have no problem with Fox News and may or may not watch Tucker, but don't accept that everything he says about the border or Black Lives Matter is racist just because he's not on board with Team Biden's policies.
	They don't need a New York Times.
	Like they're not going to listen to the New York Times and it's nine reporters and they're 1,200 hours watching Tucker.
	So who's his for?
	I mean, it's for themselves, right?
	It's two things, I think.
	I think number one, it's preaching to the choir, which is the only thing that they're capable of doing now these days, is speaking to a very narrow subset of the American population that already agrees with them.
	And that's the reason why these people subscribe to the New York Times in the first place, be told that they're good people and get pats on the head.
	And I think number two, it's gatekeeping, right?
	I mean, everything from the White House correspondence dinner and the people in that room, they do that for a living.
	But, you know, articles like this do as well because they define what you're allowed to talk about, right?
Weaponized Narratives 00:09:37
	That's a good thing.
	And that's the most important thing for a lot of these media figures is to, like you said, terms like platform, where the hell did that come from?
	You know, platforming or deplatforming and giving voice to angry people and all this sort of stuff that sort of, it's risen in the last five years around, you know, the presidency of Donald Trump, where suddenly, you know, certain conversations were not allowed to be had, basically.
	The speed from which an opinion of like a professor at Oberlin has become accepted reality and enforced upon the public has become stunningly fast.
	Like it's gone from theory to practice in months.
	Right.
	Where any crazy idea of where the Overton window lies, you know, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what's considered disinformation and becomes enforced by the media.
	And now we even have a government agency.
	You know, the Ministry of Truth is going to start deciding what people are allowed to discuss.
	And I think a lot of that has to do with, particularly the Tucker Carlson piece is the left has become incredibly nervous, not just about this midterm, but in general, where for the for years, their message of basic neoliberalism is, listen, you know, if we have open borders, everyone's going to be fine.
	All you coal miners are going to learn to code.
	We're all going to drive flying electric cars.
	And then we'll get just house.
	We'll get solar panels from China.
	And none of it has worked.
	Everything has gotten a lot worse, especially for working class people.
	The same group who the New York Times is terrified might start listening to conservatives.
	So they have to say, listen, you're not allowed to listen to this guy's show.
	He's addressing your concerns.
	He's addressing what matters to you when this administration is laughing in your face about inflation.
	You're not allowed to listen to him.
	But they want to signal to any person who gets the idea of, wow, maybe he does speak for me, that if he speaks for you, then you're a white supremacist.
	Yeah, you're a racist.
	That's right.
	And they want to help you off the path.
	It makes them feel better.
	Like Tucker's hugely successful.
	Tucker's got the number one show in cable news right now.
	He's powerful in that way.
	You know, in conservative circles, he's powerful.
	And he's watched by more Democrats than any other show on cable, but that's just because nobody else has ratings.
	So anyway, but he's powerful.
	Okay.
	So it makes them feel better to say, okay, he's horrible.
	He's powerful, but he's horrible.
	He's horrible.
	No decent person would ever consume that show.
	So our side has the moral high ground.
	He may be doing very well in terms of the numbers.
	People may be flocking to him, but those are bad people.
	Our people are good.
	We're on the side of goodness and light.
	And it's the same reason why so many of them can't let go of January 6th.
	They are obsessed with it.
	I mean, they love to talk about it every day.
	If there's an inkling of an update, they love to cover it.
	They can't wait until every trial goes through because it makes them feel like this is an albatross around Trump's neck and Ivanka's neck and Eric and Don Jr. and Jared's neck forevermore.
	And we will never let anybody forget about it.
	They're the bad people and we are the good people.
	We don't care how much, even if he's going to win if he runs against Joe Biden, you remember he's bad and we're good.
	Oh, totally.
	And especially in light of the fact that these are the same people who contributed to bail funds during a summer of rioting, Kamala Harris, you know, invited everyone, please give to this bail fund where recidivists got back out.
	They committed rapes.
	They committed murders.
	There was a summer where cities across this country were set on fire.
	In New York State, they issued a blanket pardon.
	Right.
	They're like, oh, you know, sometimes burning down a building is mostly peaceful.
	You know, you got to let them go away with that.
	I think the greatest irony of all this with the Tucker Carlson article is that it's all done through this principle of diversity, right?
	They're protecting diversity.
	When in all honesty, it's the exact opposite of diversity in every possible way, right?
	Unless you subscribe to this absolutely specific narrative that the New York Times and the Washington Post conjure up on a day-to-day basis, you are the other, right?
	You're out and you should be canceled.
	And like, look, I don't agree with everything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
	I don't suspect that most of our audience agrees with everything that I have to say either.
	Right.
	But asking the question and having conversations, I thought that was the reason we were all here in the first place.
	Unless you want to hook yourself up to the hive mind and everybody has the exact same opinion.
	Right.
	But it seems to be like that's what they want.
	Yeah.
	They're really, you know, with the Ministry of Truth, they're really starting to make a play for that.
	Like, I think we can make the hive mind happen.
	You know, but it's an interesting thing, right?
	Because I do wonder whether those attacks have really truly lost all impact, right?
	And 10 years ago, that kind of an appeal, that kind of appease by the New York Times would have hurt.
	I mean, I know at Fox News, we would have spent a day dealing with the PR people who would have been freaking out about it.
	You know, nobody liked the Times, but they still had a lot of influence and you would not have wanted a piece like that to have come out.
	Yeah, Glenn Greenwald pointed this out very well.
	He was like, you know, this shows how much of a silo the left has put itself inside where, you know, there was a time where if the New York Times says this individual is a white supremacist, that used to mean something.
	Yeah.
	Number one, because that term wasn't thrown around every single day for every single person where even they've accused Clarence Thomas of being a white supremacist.
	It's lost all meaning of the word.
	And secondly, the New York Times is only preaching to the choir.
	This doesn't matter.
	Everyone who reads the New York Times already, you know, their base is people who hate Tucker Carlson to begin with.
	Except for one thing.
	Megan, it doesn't matter for people like us or you or consumers of both of our programs, obviously.
	But their constituency is corporate American in a lot of ways.
	Right.
	And so by putting out a piece like this, they still have a very responsive sector in the most powerful corporations in this country to basically send a memo to all of them that like, you don't have, you can't have anything to do with this guy.
	Right.
	Right.
	This is controversial.
	This guy's racist.
	I mean, if there's a company in America that had a look at, it's a Fortune 50 company that had a look at that piece in the New York Times.
	What are the chances that any of them choose to advertise on his show?
	Like zero, right?
	So this is all, they are talking to themselves, but they're also trying to intimidate commerce in this country to try to move away from any sort of conservative thought or basically any thought, right?
	Because there's a lot of stuff that Tucker's talking about.
	It's not conservative at all.
	It's more libertarian or maybe even left.
	But to your point, to your point, Holmes, like you used to be just the Media Matters sleeping giants, these people who like get behind the boycotts, right?
	People on the far left who organize this stuff through social media and say, you know, don't, don't, you know, don't advertise on Tucker Carlson's show.
	But New York Times now is basically mainstreaming this concept where, you know, we've seen this and you talk about it, Holmes, a lot, but like how casually we call people racist in this country now or misogynist, you know?
	And so the New York Times, you know, like you were saying, it's basically just like mainstreaming this idea that he must be othered, right?
	That always existed a little bit, Megan, like in the background, and people will call for boycotts.
	But, you know, rarely would you have a publication like this willing to go this far.
	That's such a good point.
	Can I just say a word on Media Matters?
	So I was their target for years and still, I still am one.
	But when I was at Fox and they had nothing else to cover because conservative digital media really wasn't a thing yet, right?
	It wasn't.
	It hadn't exploded in the way it has.
	So all they had was Fox.
	They loved to cover me and they loved to just distort what I had actually said into something that was controversial that wasn't.
	And back then I was a young anchor and it bothered me.
	I was like, this is so, this is so false and this is so dishonest.
	And like, then I understood it was a partisan group and I didn't need to worry about them at all.
	But when I left NBC and all these left-wing publications were writing up, you know, my alleged history of racism, what they did was they took a Media Matters like cheat sheet and they put it in the pages of major newspapers and nightly newscasts without any fact checking whatsoever.
	There was one that they pull out sometimes.
	There's just so many that they misrepresented, but there was one about this young black girl at a pool party outside and she had a tussle with police.
	Like they wound up like putting cuffs on her, getting rough with her.
	And I was on the air while it was happening and I said something.
	Well, she was no angel prior to this because I'd been watching the whole thing live on my show and she had repeatedly disregarded the orders of the cops.
	Like they had been telling her to comply.
	She hadn't been complying over and over and over and over, whereas a lot of other people had been complying with police orders and they didn't get that would tussle with cops.
	Well, it was like, you know, blaming the victim or something.
	I guess she was black, a black young girl.
	She was no angel because of her skin color, I guess.
	The implication is.
	People run with that.
	They roll it like as an example of like, this is a so I, of course, am in the position of like, I'm very skeptical whenever they throw this label on anybody because I know how they weaponize race.
	They weaponize it to try to discredit you if you're saying something that goes against their preferred narratives.
	And that's still the model, the Media Matters cheat sheet model.
	I mean, if you go back and you read that, that story on the libs of TikTok in the Washington Post, it's basically a rubric written by Media Matters.
Student Loan Bailouts 00:07:49
	Yes.
	And she cites Media Matters.
	She cites them openly.
	Right.
	And that's the thing is a lot of journalism.
	I mean, journalism is basically dead at this point in the country.
	There's no actual investigation.
	There's no one, no journalist out there trying to hold power to account.
	They're all friends with the White House press corps.
	They're all, you know, on the same team, essentially.
	Yeah, they're outsourcing their job to a liberal advocacy.
	So Media Matters is like, okay, we'll do the journalism for you.
	Here's what you copy, paste, you put in your article.
	Some of them aside, it was pretty fun.
	This past weekend, you had a person from Media Matters tweeting about how President Biden needs to forgive all student loan debt, saying that they are being crushed under the weight of student loan debt.
	And then someone pulled up because Media Matters is a nonprofit group.
	Someone pulled up her income and Media Matters pays her $180,000 a year.
	It's all there on the $990 form, Megan.
	They're like, why aren't taxpayers paying for my education?
	I make $180,000.
	Can we talk about the student debt thing?
	I'm horrified by this.
	This is like, this is infuriating.
	I was talking to, there's a gal who comes and does my hair a couple of days a week because I can't make it look like this on my own voice.
	And she doesn't make a lot of money.
	And I was explaining to her.
	We were talking about, you know, what Biden's saying now about student debt.
	And basically, I'm saying, I'm looking at this woman who works so hard.
	And I'm saying, what they want is for you to pay off the student loans of people who are now potentially doctors and lawyers.
	And any individual, so long as they're making less than $150,000 a year or couple, so long as they're making less than $300,000 a year.
	That's what Joe Biden just said.
	Those are the modifications he's considering imposing, limiting the payback or the forgiveness to couples who make over or under $300,000 a year combined.
	That's insane, right?
	Like, how on earth?
	This is a reverse Robinhood, right?
	Where we take from the working class and we give to the rich.
	And the only limiting things he's considering are that, $150,000 or $300,000 for couples.
	And maybe, not even certainly, maybe if you went to law school or med school, you won't be a candidate to have your debt forgiven, which basically means transferred to other people.
	Is this, this is madness?
	So what's very interesting when you look at this is they're trying to make it an argument saying that we're helping lower income people here, right?
	They say that these are people who are suffering under this debt, but the people who are affected by this are inherently college educated individuals.
	These are people who are already statistically going to be in a higher income bracket.
	This is not helping lower income bracket individuals who didn't attend college and don't have the college debt to begin with.
	But those are the individuals that are paying for it.
	It makes no sense.
	Brookings did a study on this, right?
	And the people who are likely to benefit are more likely to be white, obviously more likely to be higher educated and more likely to be higher income than your base population at large.
	I mean, why is this the civil rights?
	Well, I mean, it's kind of a legal question.
	The thing that really offends me about this whole policy isn't isn't just the getting rid of the debt, right?
	I mean, these borrowers were wrong.
	Yeah, they were 18 years old, you know, so there's a little bit of sympathy I have for those people.
	What I don't understand is how you could propose this huge program to basically bail out the student loan industry with no reform.
	We're not going to reform universities or tenure or the not going to bend the cost curve of college at all.
	We're just going to bail out universities that are robbing this next generation of income.
	I mean, it's absurd.
	Their billion dollar endowments.
	Yeah, why am I seizing the entire sense to pay for this?
	That should be so.
	So you guys, you're the perfect person to ask this of, right?
	So you are, you're DC insiders, you're swamp creatures.
	You know how it works there.
	So is this all about improving his numbers with young voters, which are cratering by 20 points?
	Because I look at this.
	Gallup just did a poll and no one gives a shit about this.
	So I'm like, who is he trying to curry favor with?
	This is what Gallup says.
	There was an article in National Review on this.
	They ask people frequently what they believe is the most important problem facing the country today.
	According to the Gallup analyst Justin McCarthy, the pollster is, quote, unable to report the percentage of Americans who have mentioned student debt or student debt cancellation because it hasn't garnered enough mention to do so.
	They go on, Gallup has conducted four polls on the question and just one person said this is the most important facing problem facing the nation.
	No one cares.
	Like no one's, it doesn't matter enough for them to even respond to Gallup.
	So it is about politics, but it's even worse than you think.
	It's not that students are somehow totally in favor or younger Americans are totally in favor of this.
	It's actually been a cottage industry that's been stood up on the left and paid for by billionaire leftists that employ all these make work fail sons to push paper to try to convince people that this is the next progressive hill to climb, right?
	It's all in the name of basically creating government run everything.
	But this piece of it, they've tried to make clear that it is somehow a civil rights issue, that somehow Hispanic caucus and the black caucus and everything is important to them.
	When in reality, as you just ticked off in the stats, it's not.
	It's not, right?
	So yes, it's about politics, but it's actually not even about electoral politics.
	It's about everything that has driven this administration since day one, which is this constituency, this narrow progressive constituency that he is entirely responsive towards during the entirety of his administration.
	So plus, it's like we were talking to Peter Schiff, economist, about this last week.
	So if he doesn't pay for this, this forgiveness of debt, you can't make debt go away.
	Like it's being transferred from somebody to somebody else.
	So it's either other taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill, right?
	So I've got to pay for somebody's college education, even though I already paid for my own, even though I was responsible with my loans and I paid them back, even though it wasn't that easy.
	And it isn't for most people, but they do the right thing and they pay them back.
	Or there's a whole group of other people who didn't go to college at all because they knew that they couldn't afford this and they didn't want to be saddled with debt.
	Well, now they're going to get saddled with other people's debt who can't pay their bills or who can, but prefer not to.
	People who went to med school, maybe people who went to professional school, people who make $149,000 a year.
	It's absurd.
	But he was saying, or they just print more money from the treasury, right?
	Like if they don't want to raise the taxes, they go back to their favorite trick, which is print more cash, which is inflationary at a time we already have 8.5% inflation.
	And that's a tax on everybody.
	So either way, you know, it's like, what's the Saturday Night Fever?
	Everybody's dumped dumping on everybody.
	That's what we have here.
	Dump, dump, dumping on everybody situation.
	Nice Travolta.
	I like that.
	That's really good.
	I've never played outside.
	I only watch television and movies.
	But, you know, I mean, what it boils down to is, I mean, you mentioned all the people who chose not to.
	Some people went to trade schools, right?
	They're making great money, but they took a loan to go to a trade school that they could afford to pay back.
	I mean, ultimately, what we're talking about here are people who made an investment in themselves that was so poor that they couldn't pay it back.
	If you ultimately make that kind of investment decision where you are deciding to go entirely in the red for something that you know will never be able to pay back some art history degree or something else, if you can't make that investment, why the hell should I?
The Fauci of Information 00:09:14
	Right.
	And that's basically what these guys, but is their more fulsome understanding of the government itself.
	It is just basically there to protect every bad decision that any American could ever make in any facet of life, including now your education.
	That is such a fascinating way of looking at it.
	See, this is why we like your connection to the swamp.
	This is why we need advocates who are swampy, not necessarily swamp creatures, but swampy.
	Guys, stand by.
	So swamp adjacent, stand by because there's so much more to go over, including more from the woman who is going to run our disinformation cafe.
	She's now going to be in charge of whether you've said the wrong thing or thought the wrong thing.
	Oh, wait.
	This is America.
	Don't go away.
	Nina Jankowitz is a name that we're going to have to become familiar with if we're not already.
	She's going to be our new leader, our new unelected disinformation czar.
	She's going to be running the Department of Homeland Security's disinformation board, the government disinformation board.
	And the Maorkis, DHS Secretary Majorkis, was asked about her and what this board is going to do by Dana Bash, I think, on CNN this past weekend.
	Take a listen to how he described what the board is going to do.
	You tell me if you feel reassured what the board is going to do.
	Soundbite nine.
	But it's still not clear to me how this governance board will act.
	What will it do?
	So what it does is it works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy.
	And the board, this working group, internal working group, will draw from best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators because the board does not have operational authority.
	I think Kamala Harris wrote that.
	That was exactly my reaction to it.
	That is the most Kamala answer of all.
	That's best practices.
	What do you mean you don't know what best practices are?
	Best practices.
	Best practices.
	They're going to work collaboratively.
	I think Brett Baer also asked Majorkis this question because he was really hoeing in with a conservative audience about, well, this is just foreign threats, right?
	What we're really monitoring here is China and Russia and all that.
	And so Brett was basically like, okay, so steal dossier.
	Is that misinformation?
	And he's like, I'm not qualified to talk about that.
	Look over there.
	He dodged too.
	And Dana asked him, would you be comfortable with the Trump administration doing this?
	He was like, something shiny over there.
	And there's a shiny Brian Stelter's head.
	So he was asked about Nina Jankowitz, who we do need to be concerned about because she seems like a lunatic.
	She was asking him whether she's qualified and whether she's partisan and so on.
	And he defended her.
	So let's just listen to that first.
	Sound by 10.
	Republicans are criticizing your decision, the administration's decision to choose Nita Jankowitz to lead this disinformation board.
	They say she is not somebody who is neutral.
	Your response?
	Eminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation.
	Absolutely so.
	Really?
	Because she's the one who dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as just a Trump campaign drop.
	I mean, I think she's an expert in disinformation as someone who's experienced.
	Yeah, you're right.
	That was the experience that Mayorkis was talking about.
	It was like, no, no, no, you don't understand.
	She's a purveyor of disinformation.
	She's very good at disinformation.
	Like a Hillary Clinton type.
	I don't know if you saw the video of this lady.
	Oh, yeah.
	But like the video, we have it.
	Yes.
	Wait, I'll play it and then I'll give you the floor, Josh.
	Stand by.
	Here she is.
	We showed you the one where she was singing the weird song about disinformation.
	I don't know.
	But here's a second.
	She loves to sing.
	She's like a theater major, which is reason enough for concern.
	Here we go.
	Went looking for some prefects in the bathroom one day.
	But instead, I found Harry and so I said, hey, I helped you.
	Harry Potter.
	Harry Potter.
	I hope that Harry drowns tomorrow in the lake.
	So that our honeymooner we can trade.
	Oh, that ghosts have working net on me.
	But what's better than that?
	We don't get STD.
	What the hell's going on?
	She's a giant nerd.
	I mean, how disturbing is it?
	They're fantasizing about like us underage kids.
	Eight years old or something.
	Yes.
	I don't know.
	I mean, look, we need lives of TikTok.
	This is why they need to be congratulations.
	This is unreal.
	The first time we're going to stand the right caption.
	The first time I saw a video of her, and you'll appreciate this as a mom, Megan, but she reminded me of, you know, those kids, like Saturday morning shows that are not cartoons where they have this like super overly enthusiastic adult that's trying to like pretend like they're a child and like you can't figure out when it's a children's show or you're having a fever dream, right?
	Like that's, that's, that's basically what I thought of the first time I saw this lady.
	It's like the wiggles.
	You know, the wiggle?
	She's like a character from the wiggles.
	This is, I feel like this woman just wants to be a star.
	Does everyone like who works at the White House, who like Jen Saki, she wants her own TV show, of course.
	This woman, she wants to be a star.
	She just found some weird back way to develop some alleged expertise in an area no one cares about.
	And she, you know, the blind squirrel found the nut because it just happens to be the favorite thing in the Democratic Party right now.
	And now she's going to be a czar.
	Which actually should be terrifying.
	We're laughing about this, but it should be terrifying if you really think about it.
	You know, somebody who's like this, who craves attention this much and is this much of a nerd who thinks they know what misinformation and disinformation and information is is like, that's somebody who's could be a tyrant, right?
	Like you look at what Anthony Fauci did with COVID over the last two years.
	And I'm very concerned that she will be the Fauci of information on the internet.
	And she's going to go before Congress and people are going to discuss, you know, what is allowed to be said and what's not allowed to be said.
	I don't trust that individual at all to be neither.
	Let alone defining the when Mayorkus is like, we should be, you know, we should feel calm and good that this person is going to set best practices for what's considered acceptable to say.
	I mean, that's stunning that he would think that's a good idea.
	This person clearly, you know, should not be trusted with anything, let alone, you know, the American People's First Amendment.
	Let me have a totally confirmative take on this for a second, Megan.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I actually, if Republicans get the House and Senate back, I want that.
	I don't want this woman to go anywhere.
	I want her to be exactly where she is.
	Because can you imagine the entertainment value of this woman sitting in a panel in front of like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton and the rest of them, just giving her, I mean, it would be the most pay-per-view hearing in history.
	It would be fantastic.
	I want to, I want to sit with her and just say, okay, I'll give you a couple, Kate.
	100,000 kids are in the hospital or ICU or on ventilators because of COVID right now.
	Sony, Sodomayar.
	Disinformation or true?
	You tell me.
	That's it.
	Perfect.
	Right?
	Like, we could go down the list.
	It could be really fun because I guarantee you this woman has no clue what's real and what's not when it comes to the most dicey debates because she only listens to her one side.
	And they didn't report that Soda Mayor was wrong in the places that she listens to.
	But here's some of sort of the this is like part of the problem.
	Is it pleb or plebe?
	Plebe.
	I'm going to go with plebe.
	Yeah.
	I always said plebe and then somebody said it's pleb.
	Whatever.
	Plebeian for plebeian.
	Yeah.
	Plebeian.
	I guess surf, low life, a nothing, a nobody.
	Sorry, and then it got mean.
	That just turned mean.
	But CNN's David Zerowick.
	Remember, he was from the Baltimore Sun, I think I used to write for.
	This guy used to be somewhat, not totally normal, but somewhat like reasonable to listen to as a media critic.
	He wants it.
	Like, this is why I was sort of going to the surf place.
	Like, there are some in the masses who are like, yes, lead us, mistress, lead us away from the dangerous misinformation.
	How else will we figure it out on our own?
	Listen to this guy on CNN commenting on her.
	This is dangerous.
JD Vance Primary Surge 00:06:29
	We can't think anymore in this country.
	We don't have people.
	No, I'm serious.
	We don't have people in Congress who can make regulations that can make it work.
	I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it.
	But you need, you need controls on this.
	You need regulation.
	You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country, or we are headed to hell.
	We are there.
	Trump opened the gates of hell and now they're chasing us.
	Gates of hell.
	Yikes.
	I mean, first of all, imagine just a scenario where you show up and you're like, you know what?
	The one thing that we have to do to ensure the Bill of Rights is let's just try to replicate Western Europe.
	Wowzer, right?
	It's scary.
	Yeah, but it's also this underlying thing that you see play out of the White House correspondence dinner and everything else, which is modern liberalism.
	This is their, this is their religion.
	This is their organized religion, right?
	It's not about any sort of faith in anything other than institutions to tell us what to do and free thought, free expression.
	I mean, this guy says nobody can think anymore.
	But he doesn't mean him.
	But he doesn't mean himself.
	Right.
	He means everybody else.
	He wants everybody else to listen to him.
	And what his thought is is what's real and what's not real.
	That's always, that's always the turn with these people.
	And that's why they always become tyrants is because when they say stuff like, oh, well, we can't think anymore.
	Well, you think you can think.
	It's a royalty, you know?
	It's a royalty.
	Right, right, right.
	All right.
	So let's talk politics in the few minutes we have left.
	Primaries are coming up in several states for folks who would like to become U.S. senators or what have you.
	And there was a moment, I've got to play this because I got to get your reaction.
	So Trump, there was a big fight amongst the Republicans out in Ohio to try to get Trump's endorsement.
	That's Trump territory.
	And they all, all these GOPers, wanted Trump to bless them.
	And in the end, he gave his endorsement to JD Vance.
	And now there are cutthroat advertisements being run by the other guys against Trump's endorsement and then back and forth.
	And so JD Vance gets the nod, but Josh Mandel is right behind him in the polls.
	JD Vance now has 26%.
	Josh Mandel has 24%.
	And Trump seemed to be a little confused about who he actually wound up endorsing when he spoke at a rally in a neighboring state or another state over the weekend.
	Listen to how that went.
	Boy, they're waiting for one race.
	You know, we've endorsed Dr. Oz.
	We've endorsed JP, right?
	JD Mandel.
	And he's doing great.
	They're all doing good.
	Oh, no.
	So what's that about?
	Clearly, he's not really bonded to JD Vance.
	Well, I think J.D. Mandel's a pretty solid guy.
	I think he'll do well for the people that are.
	There's nothing to like about J.D. Mandel.
	Not worried about J.D. Mandel.
	Maybe he's just hedging his bet.
	That's why, you know, whoever comes out on top, he can be like, well, I said both their names.
	I endorse that.
	Alabama Senate race.
	Just need a little bit more precision.
	I mean, honestly, Ohio, Megan, for people who follow this stuff closely, this has been the best soap opera in politics they've ever seen.
	It couldn't end any other way than that clip, right?
	That's true.
	Unbelievable to watch.
	I mean, mercifully, it's done on Tuesday because I don't know if there's going to be anybody left standing in a month from now.
	There was almost an open brawl on the debate stage between these candidates out there.
	It's like, that's how exceeded it's gotten.
	And it's like $10 million table stakes, right?
	Minimum.
	Like each candidate, you have to bring a 10 mil spend minimum.
	It's unreal, unreal how that primary has gone down.
	What do we think is likely to happen there?
	Do you think JD Vance is going to pull that out?
	Or what do you think?
	Because it's like Vance is at 26%, Mandel's at 24%, and then Matt Dolan's at 21%.
	National Review likes Matt Dolan because he's like, he wants to move beyond Trump.
	I like the guys at National Review, but, you know, they're sort of the more sophisticated, like distinguished Republicans.
	They're like, oh, anyway.
	But I wonder what's going to happen.
	You clearly do not fit into that category.
	No, you're the same.
	But what do you think is going to happen?
	Because I think Ohio is interesting.
	And of course, the way the media is going to write about it is this is all a test of Trump's power.
	If Trump's endorsed candidate doesn't win, he's a loser, right?
	It's like without accounting for the dynamics on the ground and so on and so forth.
	Yeah, I mean, they pick and choose on where they want to enforce that, right?
	I mean, Trump still has a huge hold on a segment of the primary electorate.
	And it's evidenced by JD Vance basically surging six, seven, eight points in recent polls to take the lead in that.
	Josh Mandel has been in that one or two slot now for nine months, maybe a year.
	So he's basically been where he's at.
	But then every other candidate in this race, as we said, it's like $10 million table stakes.
	Everybody else has had their moment, right?
	Whether it's James Timpkin or Gibbons or now Dolan.
	And so look, I mean, it's polls show this Dolan guy is starting to surge at the end.
	I think it's JD Vance's race to lose because of the timing of the endorsement and the timing of the peak of his end of his campaign.
	But I mean, you wouldn't be surprised if it got razor thin here at the end.
	Yeah.
	The only poll I trust is the exit poll.
	That's the one I'll be watching for.
	The least reliable serves so very well.
	In case you didn't know, listeners.
	Well, hopefully we, I mean, obviously we don't have too much longer to wait because we are going to get some results soon, at least in these primaries.
	Herschel Walker looking good as a Senate candidate on the GOP side in Georgia.
	And then what's happening with Dr. Oz?
	So that's a tight race, right?
	McCormick and Oz have basically made that a two-man race here for the last three months or so.
	Again, tons of spending in the race.
	Trump made his endorsement of Dr. Oz.
	By all accounts, it's within the margin of error at this point.
	And I think this is a real coin flip.
	You've got to think that the Trump endorsement probably propels Oz to an advantage, but I'm not ready to rule McCormick out at all.
	I mean, they've spent a ton of money.
	They've really done a lot of damage to the image of Oz statewide in Pennsylvania.
	But I think ultimately, from a Republican standpoint, either those two candidates are going to be incredible general election candidates, particularly when matched up against this Fetterman guy.
	That's going to be so bad for them.
	Like the stories that are coming out about Fetterman, he's a lunatic.
	I mean, that has to be our tease until the next time because we're up against a break.
Oz Endorsement Impact 00:15:10
	Guys, always a pleasure.
	Thank you so much, and we'll be right back.
	We are taking an in-depth look at the trial captivating the nation right now, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
	It's an insane case.
	It's really, it's nuts.
	Every time you tune back in, somebody said something equally outrageous to the day before, and you didn't think that they could do it, but they found a way.
	And everyone's got an opinion on it.
	Last week, Johnny Depp was on the stand.
	People came from all over to get a look at Johnny Depp.
	I mean, this country's still obsessed with celebrity.
	This week, it's Amber Heard's turn.
	Joining me now to discuss what has happened and how this case is likely to go to very experienced lawyers who've been closely following the trial.
	Vinny Polloton is a lawyer, former prosecutor, and the lead anchor of Court TV.
	He's covered some of the nation's most captivating and critical trials, including Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, Jody Arias, and George Zimmerman.
	And Mark Garagos tried all those cases.
	He tried virtually everyone.
	All right.
	I just mentioned who's a lawyer for Scott Peterson for Michael Jackson.
	He's now the managing partner of Garrigos and Garagos, and he co-hosts his own podcast called Reasonable Doubt with our pal Adam Carolla.
	Welcome, guys.
	Good to have you here.
	And Vinny, I've been enjoying your podcast on Court TV covering this case too.
	And the young female reporter, forgive me, I can't remember her name, but she does a good job who's Chandley.
	First of all, I like that name, Chandley, and she's been doing a good job covering that too.
	All right.
	So thus far, this is my take.
	And then you guys can tell me whether I'm right or wrong.
	But my take is thus far, it's only been his case.
	So she hasn't yet presented her defense.
	He's suing her for defamation, for suggesting in the Washington Post that he abused her.
	And it's going well for him so far in that he's gotten a lot of evidence in that she allegedly abused him.
	And that might cast doubt on her previous allegations that she suffered abuse at his hand.
	So that's a win for him.
	He doesn't need her $50 million.
	He's already got hundreds of millions of dollars.
	This isn't about earning money from her.
	It's about squaring things up PR-wise so that the public understands he wants them to think he was the victim at a minimum that they were both tumultuous and it was ugly and bad.
	And so he's winning at that.
	But now she's going to put on her case.
	And they've already been through this once before in England.
	And they actually had a lot of these same witnesses and she won.
	She won outright.
	And they, so they already, this dance was danced before.
	And it was a judge, not a jury, but she won.
	And the judge rejected all these arguments that the press here has been spending so much time on, saying, no, she was an abused victim.
	I don't know.
	So right now, I feel like he's winning PR-wise and it'll remain a win because he's gotten enough out to show that she abused him too.
	He's not going to win a defamation claim, however.
	Where am I going wrong?
	Mark, I'll start with you.
	Well, first of all, I think, and I can't find it.
	Maybe Vinny's got it.
	I haven't seen the jury composition because one of the things I've noticed about this so far is that it breaks almost completely down gender lines, meaning team depp is females and they're the toughest on other females and it supports everything that I've ever known anecdotally about jury selection.
	I want to know who's on that jury because I will tell you he's got he's got the leg up if he's got some driving females who are going to drive this thing.
	Number one.
	Number two, remember, and you bring it up, Megan, and people generally forget about this.
	We've seen this show before, and he lost in spectacular fashion.
	And this isn't about the money.
	Clearly, he doesn't need it, or the amount of money that was stolen from him allegedly prior to this was only a dent.
	This is all about publicity.
	I don't understand it.
	If he had come to me, I would have tried to talk him out of this.
	I don't think this has helped him.
	I understand that, you know, a lot of times, this is precisely why I avoid family law like the plague, because this is way too similar to a divorce case for my liking.
	Because the way it came up in England, Vinny, was he sued a newspaper over there that had suggested she was his abuse victim.
	And he was like, that's defamatory.
	It's not true.
	And in England, the court found, no, there's plenty of evidence that would sustain that accusation.
	And that defamation claim is not going to fly here.
	And now he's got her on, you know, in an American courtroom, kind of retrying similar allegations.
	Well, here's the thing.
	And it's amazing.
	I'm going to disagree with both of you.
	This is unreal.
	I mean, this is exciting.
	We haven't seen this before because the first trial was in the UK.
	What does the UK not have that the United States of America does have?
	Court TV, cameras in the courtroom.
	The public is actually hearing and seeing all the evidence in the case.
	What did we hear out of the UK?
	We heard, you know, secondhand accounts filtered, filtered through journalists who see the world pretty much all in the same way.
	I think you will agree with that, Megan.
	You've lived in that world a long time.
	You know the way journalists see the world.
	So now it's directly from the witness stand to the public.
	And to me, that is the huge difference in this case, number one.
	Number two, let me get to what Mark was saying, which is another big, big, important factor.
	And I don't know how to read it, Mark.
	This jury, I walked into that courtroom and I looked at the jury and I was like, well, are we on spring break?
	It's like a bunch of young guys in their 20s and predominantly Asian young men in their 20s.
	I don't know if that means anything, but you've got seven jurors who will decide this case.
	Right now we're down to nine.
	We lost two alternates, but you've got five young men.
	You've got one older man.
	Then you've got an older woman, a younger woman, and a woman with a mask.
	I have no idea how old she is.
	You know, that's interesting, Vinny, because if I were going to handicap it and I were picking the jury here, I would want young men if I was representing Amber.
	And I know it sounds trite, but I've seen it anecdotally.
	The people who are identifying with Johnny Depp almost breaks exclusively or tilts heavily towards women.
	And I think they've been vicious on Amber.
	And I have not seen that when it comes to young males.
	I'm the father of the young male and I talked to him and his friends, my own personal focus group, and they're not buying anything Johnny Depp is selling.
	It's kind of an interesting dichotomy here.
	Now, let me go to this.
	So the judge in England, Judge Andrew Nicoll, found the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms. Hurd by Mr. Depp have been proven to the civil standard.
	There's a multiplicity of emails, texts, and messages, and diary entries in the papers before me.
	He goes on to say that they may not be independent evidence of the truth, but he believes she's been corroborated in her abuse allegations.
	And he goes through all of her abuse allegations, which we haven't yet heard in this case, okay, but we're about to.
	So this is sort of a preview of what's coming this week.
	There are 14 in all, a couple of which he did discount.
	And I'm not going to go through all of them, but she says there were, let's say, let's just go with the ones he found he believes were supported, 12 assaults.
	First one, Los Angeles, early 2013.
	She joked about his tattoo that used to say Winona Ryder now says, why no forever?
	And she said he got angry, he knocked her to the floor, then he cried and apologized, saying he sometimes turns into the monster.
	Los Angeles 2013, she alleged he was enraged.
	She hung a painting by her ex-partner.
	He tried to set it on fire.
	He hit her, quote, so hard that blood from her lip ended up on the wall.
	She said he was at Jekyll and Hyde on a binge.
	All of these involve drugs or alcohol.
	Three, Hicksville, June 13.
	He had taken alcohol and mushrooms.
	He threw glasses at her.
	He ripped her dress.
	He damaged the cabin they were staying in.
	Four, private plane from Boston to LA, May 2014, after drinking heavily.
	He had thrown objects at her, slapped her in the face, kicked her in the back, causing her to fall over.
	He threw his boot at her.
	He passed out in the toilet.
	He denies all of this and on it goes.
	I could keep going through all 14, 12 of which the judge believed.
	But this same judge, for what it's worth, guys, found, number one, her donation of the $7 million to charity is hardly the act that one would expect of a gold digger.
	Well, we know that didn't really happen.
	She didn't donate the $7 million she got in the divorce settlement.
	So the judge was confused to be charitable on that.
	And then the judge also did not believe the poop incident.
	He did not believe that she had defecated or had a friend defecate in the marital bed.
	But this week in court, and forgive me for playing a poop sought, the chauffeur testified that she admitted it.
	Here it is, Soundbite 25.
	And did you have any discussions with Ms. Heard on the way to Koshala that evening?
	We had a conversation pertaining to the surprise she left in the boss's bed prior to leaving the apartment.
	And when you refer to the surprise in the boss's bed, what are you referring to?
	The defecation.
	And what did Ms. Hurd say about the defecation in Mr. Depp's bed?
	A horrible practical joke gone wrong.
	So the judge, he wasn't all that up to speed over there in England.
	Binny, your thoughts?
	I mean, to the point of that's a different trial than this one.
	Yeah, and I think we refer to it as a grumpy.
	At least that's what Johnny Depp refers to it as.
	A grumpy is a new word for me.
	Here's the thing, right?
	You've got all these allegations by Amber Heard, which are going to come up this week, but this jury is hearing them a little bit differently than the judge because of one of Johnny Depp's witnesses, which was the psychologist who interviewed and analyzed Amber Heard for this jury and described her as borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder.
	So there's a little bit of a different filter that that jury has right now.
	And I'm sure Amber Heard will have her own experts, but the bottom line is they've heard that testimony from that expert describing the mind of Amber Heard.
	So now when they hear these allegations from Amber Heard on the witness stand, maybe they look at her a little differently than the judge did.
	This is a very good point.
	You raised this on your podcast, which I listened to.
	And we stole this soundbite from you, hoping that you might raise that point because it was a good one.
	This is Soundbite 30.
	This is the psychologist who examined Amber for 12 plus hours and has thoughts on Amber's issues.
	Here it is.
	Borderline personality disorder.
	You're having these fluctuating moods constantly.
	And again, this hypersensitivity to being slighted or feeling offended, really driven by the fear that if you're offended or slighted, if the therapist comes in two minutes late or if somebody shows up to dinner two minutes late, that they might be abandoning you.
	So if they're in the middle of the restaurant and they feel offended, they're going to start the fight.
	People are going to see it, or they might just start crying or break down, but they'll make a lot of accusations.
	And that reactivity is when you're going to just, you're going to see a lot of this escalation in the bizarre behavior.
	They can react violently.
	They can react aggressively.
	Now, Mark, they tried to poke holes in that by saying, well, you know, you only interviewed her for 12 hours and you came to this case by having dinner with Johnny Depp and his lawyers and a bunch of drinks.
	And only when they talked to you over the booze did they decide she'll do, right?
	Because we all know how that works.
	You're like, well, would you believe that this woman, you know, right?
	And then she's like, no, I wouldn't.
	And you're hired.
	I'll tell you, every time I've ever had a witness with psychiatric so-called qualifications, all you got to do is put somebody else up there who says the opposite.
	And then the jury says a pox on both your houses.
	I mean, this is that to me is not going to be pivotal in the least.
	People are going to discount that maybe.
	You think so?
	Because right now they're like, she's a lunatic.
	This woman's a lunatic, borderline person, and histrionic personality disorder.
	I actually knew somebody who had this.
	And it's, if you, if you might know somebody who has this thing and you might not know that's what it's called, but it's somebody who tends to be hypersexualized in lots of their conversations, trying to draw weird, inappropriate attention to themselves.
	They have to be the center of attention.
	If they're not the center of attention, they get upset and they do weird things.
	There was this one woman who I knew a long time ago who like, if the conversation was going on and she wasn't involved, she would just start like humming loudly.
	She would do whatever she could to get the conversation back on her.
	Always weird references to her sex life or her body or whatever.
	Anyway, the jury's thinking she's in.
	Is that someone you worked with?
	I was going to say, Megan, you may have a sequel on your hands.
	She actually is well known publicly.
	That's all I'm going to say.
	Okay.
	Vinny will start guessing.
	We'll start a pool.
	We'll chat after the show.
	I don't need my own defamation case against me.
	So let's shift to this.
	Johnny Depp gets up there and he's introduced lots of evidence that he's the victim.
	He's the real victim.
	She claimed she was a victim falsely and ruined his career.
	Here's a sampling of what he says was the physical abuse he faced.
	Soundbite 16.
	It would commence with sort of demeaning, name-calling, berated, sort of to be made a fool of.
	And those would escalate into a full-scale argument.
	I would just go and lock myself in, you know, the bathroom or anywhere that she couldn't get into.
	If I stayed to argue that, eventually I was sure that it was going to escalate into violence.
	It could begin with a slap.
	It could begin with a shove.
	It could begin with, you know, throwing a TV remote at my head.
	It could be throwing a glass of wine in my face.
	She kicked the bathroom door into my head.
	So it, yeah, she kicked the bathroom door into my head.
Domestic Violence Allegations 00:12:24
	And I was completely taken aback by such a corrosive prolific move.
	The next move was just a bang.
	She clocked me in the jaw.
	She walked up to me and reached and grabbed the bottle of vodka and then just kind of stood back and then hurled it at me.
	And then I looked down and realized that the tip of my finger had been severed.
	And what did you say in response when Ms. Hurd said, tell the world, Johnny, tell them Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man I'm a victim to of domestic violence?
	I said, yes.
	What do you make of it, Mark?
	How many points did he score there?
	Look, I just don't, I don't understand, frankly, the plaintiff's case.
	I mean, people have to understand he brought this case.
	And to my mind, the collateral damage to him is worse than anything that ever was suggested.
	And mind you, I don't even think he was named in the Washington Post editorial by him.
	But it was clear.
	It was clear, I suppose.
	But if you stop somebody on the street and you ask them today, do you remember that editorial?
	Or do you remember the argument over whether or not the tip of his finger was cut?
	I'm going to suggest or that somebody defecated in his bed.
	I think that's what they're going to remember.
	So I don't understand.
	And now I will give Vinny kudos here.
	Now that I know who the jurors are in this case, I really don't understand what the point is of this case.
	I really don't.
	But isn't that the point?
	Like, if all I can remember about this case is that he lost his finger and there was a poop in the bed, I see her differently, not him.
	I think that that is, we're taking kind of a snapshot right now.
	I think she may, we'll see, acquit herself well on the stand.
	It's about to get worse for him, for sure.
	Yeah.
	I mean, because that's the thing, Vinny, is like, so far, it's just been his stage.
	And she's an actress, too.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	And by the way, I'm telling you again, I see this going down gender lines.
	So that's just my, that's a great prediction.
	I'll say this about her testimony, though, Megan.
	You know, and it's six years later, but she was deposed and I've seen the video of her deposition.
	She's no Johnny Depp in that deposition.
	So it's six years later.
	She's a more mature woman.
	She's been through it a couple times already.
	She may come across much better, but she did not come across well in her deposition.
	Can we talk about that first?
	Okay, hold that thought.
	Because can we talk about that for a second?
	I've seen some of those clips too.
	And you're 100% right.
	I haven't heard enough people make that point.
	She was bizarre.
	She was getting crossed by the lawyers and it was getting uncomfortable.
	And she kept shoving, was it mint?
	Was it gum?
	I thought it was mints or something in her mouth.
	Like every tough question, she'd shove her mouth full of mints or gum.
	And then she'd like need a minute before she could answer because she was chewing whatever was in her mouth.
	I mean, it was such an obvious delaying, like stalling mechanism.
	She looked like a moron.
	And then she went all holier than now.
	But the one time she admits, she, I mean, he says he got hit many times.
	She admits to hitting him one time when she says he was allegedly threatening to throw her sister down the stairs.
	And just her overly dramatic, absolutely, to save the life of my sister.
	Yes, yes, of course.
	Every time I will hit somebody, it was, you would think as a professional actor, she'd know.
	Ballot back, sister.
	Oh, we have it.
	All right.
	Sorry.
	Hold on.
	Let's let the audience hear it for themselves.
	He was about to push my sister down the stairs.
	She was attempting to break this up.
	I am protective over my baby sister when he laid hands on her.
	I don't know what I did, but I know I jumped in between the actions that I saw could lead to a fatal injury to my sister.
	She was standing on the top of a flight of the stairs and she has never hurt anyone in her life and she does not deserve to be pushed down the flight of stairs and looked like she was about to be.
	And I would have done what anybody who has a child or sister would have done.
	I acted defensively in her life.
	I saw her standing on top of a flight of stairs and trying to interrupt a fight in between him and I.
	I don't know what part of my body I put in between me and him and her, but I would have done anything.
	I would have done anything to prevent her from being pushed down a flight of stairs.
	Go ahead, Vinny.
	Well, there's a couple things about her testimony is with her sister.
	This relationship isn't clear.
	Sister's on her witness list, so I'm sure she will testify for Amber Heard.
	But there are allegations that there were some problems between the sisters and where her sister Whitney may have been a victim of Amber.
	At least those are some of the allegations that are floating around all this.
	So expect to hear that on cross-examination as well.
	So it's going to be a huge moment when she testifies.
	But I know it's six years later and she looks like a different person in the courtroom than she did in that deposition.
	And we'll see if she sounds like a different person.
	But something tells me you don't change that much.
	And I think there is a chance here.
	The other part of this lawsuit has always been why, why, why?
	And I think Mark has a great point.
	Why would you do this?
	I think it goes back to in 2016, they had a divorce settlement.
	And then that's it, right?
	Mark, you divorce someone, especially if you're a public figure like they are.
	You don't talk about it.
	That's the end.
	We move on.
	And then two years later, she poked the bear with the ACLU for some reason and put out this op-ed, which he felt was directed at him.
	And the jury will make that decision.
	I think it's obvious, but maybe it's not obvious to the jury.
	And I think that's why he brought it.
	It was like, okay, you're going to poke me.
	You already took me down.
	You're trying to take me down again.
	If I'm going down, you're going down.
	And it's almost like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where this is the spite lawsuit.
	Look, I don't disagree with you in the least.
	That's why somebody should have talked him off the ledge on this, in my humble opinion.
	And by the way, maybe Megan will want to get to this.
	The ACLU is, look, I've always thought, you know, for 40 years, early in my career, I thought they did great work, fantastic work.
	You know, and even as recently as the last decade, this, at least if you believe what's reported, is abhorrent.
	I don't even understand this.
	A $3.5 million donation to help co-author an op-ed?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And she, and they were allegedly behind the very first draft of, of course, because let's face it, she seems like a moron.
	So she didn't write that op-ed.
	Wrote the op-ed for her, and you can tell.
	Megan, you are proving my gender theory in spades on this thing.
	I'll just point that out.
	I am open-minded to her case.
	I have not ruled out the possibility that Johnny Depp abused her.
	I haven't.
	I want to hear the enchanting Johnny Depp versus moron Amber Heard.
	But no, no, no.
	He seems like a moron, too.
	At least he's able to string two sentences together today versus all the tapes we've seen of him where the guy's had so much drugs and so many, so much alcohol in his system.
	It's like a walking advertisement.
	And I said to my team, the moral here is do not marry Johnny Depp and do not marry Amber Heard.
	Don't marry these people.
	Once constantly intoxicated and drugged up.
	You do not do family law or anything related to it.
	But what I want to challenge you, Mark, because I actually don't disagree with his strategy of bringing the lawsuit.
	He'd already been labeled as an abuser.
	It had been all over the British tabloids, some of the American tabloids, I think, too.
	She like she was sort of, she orchestrated that press opportunity in front of the tabloid reporters, the paparazzi, when she came out after she filed for divorce.
	So she made sure that the press was going her way, that she was this abuse victim and poor Amber.
	And he was probably really irritated about it if, in fact, she abused him in the way that he now claims.
	So at a minimum, he's changed the national conversation to he's an abuser.
	By the way, he was like fired from the Pirates of the Caribbean series immediately.
	He's changed the narrative from that to they're both hot messes.
	They were in a very messy, unfortunate, abusive relationship.
	And she's not just this unsullied, poor little woe is me abuse victim.
	As long as we're talking about a snapshot in the trial, what if he loses?
	Then what happens?
	And by the way, I think he will lose.
	At least in Hollywood, the scuttlebutt, if you will, is that he was uninsurable prior to this for reasons that had nothing to do with her.
	And that was the real reason that he wasn't working as much.
	I rather know that that's true.
	Yeah, no, he's a mess.
	He's like fired his entire legal team a couple of times.
	He fired his like managers or agents, something like that.
	He hasn't been able to maintain relationships, which is not unusual when you have some.
	By the way, when you go through, you know, one of the things they tell you, the state bars always, and ethics lawyers always tell you, is shy away from a client who's on their second or third set of lawyers.
	You're just asking for all kinds of issues.
	That's kind of the red.
	She's equally bad, though.
	She's, I mean, like all the stories about her doing the drugs too.
	She's, I don't know if she's as bad of a victim when it's a car team.
	She's got a car team this week for her testimony.
	Right.
	They just fired over the weekend.
	The headlines are too bad for her.
	What?
	Sorry.
	But that's, it's really not the fault of the PR people.
	They've just, the press is in there listening to the allegations about her bad behavior.
	That's why I think it wasn't a bad move for him to just say, okay, I've behaved like a shit, not as badly as she says I have, but she's problematic too.
	And let why don't, because now already we're seeing something like 3 million signatures to get her booted from the Aquaman sequel, which she was in.
	Because, you know, what's good for the goose, right?
	Like if he has to go from pirates, she has to go from Aquaman and it's on.
	Yeah, and I think, you know, ultimately with this jury, and, you know, the law obviously is on her side.
	He's a public figure, First Amendment, United States.
	I get it.
	But ultimately, I think there's a chance that the jury can look at this and say, wait, this really wasn't fair.
	What happened to Johnny Depp?
	We've seen, we've now learned what this relationship was like and what it was about and how she was and how he was.
	And it just didn't seem fair that she should be the one that comes out as the victim.
	He comes down as the cliché wife beater and his life gets disrupted.
	I could see them not coming back for the 50 million, but how about the 7 million from the divorce?
	Just as sending a message that this whole thing wasn't fair.
	That's interesting.
	Because all along I've been thinking no public figure can win a defamation case.
	You know that, right?
	So it's like, he's not going to win a defamation case.
	The bar for proving defamation if you're a public figure is just so impossibly high.
	So he's got that against him.
	And then he's got the fact that there has been testimony, even on his case, that he did abuse her.
	So, you know, technically what she implied was true, but it wasn't the full story.
	So that's been, that's sort of why I've been thinking he's not going to win because maybe he did abuse her, but it wasn't the full story, but I don't see a defamation.
	And they're arguing differently.
	There are types of abuse.
	Megan, a big part of this is it's like Amber Heard and her team are really focused on the emotional abuse, the verbal abuse, whereas Johnny Depp and his team are focused really on the physical abuse and that aspect of the relationship.
Violent Tape Evidence 00:04:08
	And again, we'll see what the jury does with that, but you can see where the two sides have split in this case and the way they're questioning witnesses, trying to define abuse for this jury.
	Well, and the question is, what evidence does she have?
	What evidence?
	Like he's put in pictures of his face hurt right underneath his eye, like on his orbital bone.
	And what's her actual evidence, apart from her claims that he abused her?
	We've seen cops testify they saw no injuries on her when they showed up the night he allegedly whipped his phone as hard as he could in her face.
	They said we saw nothing.
	We've seen his security team testify, nope, we saw him hurt.
	We never saw her hurt.
	But she's got friends too, and she's got witnesses and they're on her witness list.
	That's where we're going to pick it up right after this quick break.
	Let's talk about what she is going to say.
	First, before we play him assaulting the cabinets with the wine and all that, there's a soundbite, it's 27 where you can hear her saying, here's what I've got on my side.
	Sound by 27.
	By the way, my family, my friends, everyone around me saw all the bruises and broken blood vessel under my eye, the bruises on my head, the missing chunks of hair, the split lip, the black eye, the swollen nose, all that shit.
	Because you're stronger.
	It does not mean, it does not mean because they heard me, that I'm somehow more responsible.
	It just means they heard me because I yell in a fight.
	You do provoke.
	I yell.
	It doesn't mean I'm more responsible.
	Oh, batter.
	Batter.
	Back to my earlier point.
	Okay, and then I'm sorry.
	She's not running for president.
	You are that former prosecutor of you.
	I can't help it.
	She's not going to, she's not leaving the trial for her mensa meeting, but neither is he.
	Okay, then this is probably the most damning piece of tape that we've seen because his alleged abuse of her is not on tape.
	We have no tape either way showing somebody hitting the other person, at least not that we know of.
	Here's Soundbite 26.
	This made the rounds on social media and so on a long time ago.
	And now here again at trial.
	Nothing happened this morning.
	You know that?
	Were you in here?
	No.
	So then nothing happened to you this morning.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I just woke up and you were so sweet and nice.
	We were not even fighting this morning.
	All I did was say sorry.
	Did something happen to you this morning?
	I don't think so.
	You want to see Craig?
	Don't give it crazy.
	Oh, you're crazy.
	Are you crazy?
	Have you drunk this whole thing this morning?
	Oh, he got this going.
	He got this going.
	Oh, really?
	Finds the camera, didn't you were smashing?
	This is at your house in West Hollywood on Sweetzer Avenue, correct?
	That's correct, sir?
	And that's you in the video, mr Depp?
	Right, that's correct, sir.
	And you would agree that you were violent in that clip, correct?
	Um, clearly I was having a bad time.
	I don't.
	Uh, I don't know what it was with regard to completely at this point since I don't know the date, but um um, being illegally recorded by your um chosen other is uh well, it's quite fitting with the rest of the photographs and tape recordings she made.
Independent Witnesses 00:12:42
	So um, I thought what was most interesting is that she tried to hide it from me and then that she laughed and smiled at the end.
	I thought that was most interesting part myself.
	But so yes, you didn't.
	I did assault um a couple of cabins, but I did not touch.
	Miss heard.
	They're kind of eating it up inside the courtroom.
	From what I hear, Vinny like there's a group of women that loves Johnny Depp.
	He says hello to them every day.
	You know, they're the fan factor, I don't know.
	Yeah, they love his little jokes about the cabinets and so on.
	Oh absolutely and, and there was a moment in the courtroom when I was there that i've never seen before.
	Maybe Mark has seen it, but where uh it's it's, it's done, we're done for the day.
	The judge has, you know, ended.
	She's left the bench.
	It's time for Johnny Depp to exit.
	Uh, he goes uh, in the back behind the judge's bench is where the door is that he goes out, and as he's going through the doorway, he just turns and just gives them a little wave like this, and like 50 women are like this.
	Oh my, it was so amazing.
	That's the level of fandom that you have inside the courtroom and outside of the courthouse.
	They wait for him to come out every day as well, and there's, you know, in fact, the demographic is basically, i'd say, probably like 40 to 55 is the majority of them, but there are some that are younger.
	He definitely has younger fans from the, from the Pirates movies as well um, and a few guys, like one or two, but like 50 to like 150 women every day that are there for Johnny Depp.
	How does that play, Mark?
	I mean, you've made a career out of representing celebrities in trouble and uh, she's a star, but she's not the kind of star he is.
	Well, the.
	That's why I say jury selection is everything in a case like this, because you want, you're looking for a constituency and, as Vinny has described it, that's exactly what I would have expected.
	His constituency is maybe even a higher uh, on On the upper band of the age, but that is, that's kind of where they are teamed up.
	The problem is that if Vinny's description, and I have every reason to believe it's completely accurate, if it's younger males, that is not his demographic.
	And, you know, you may have, I don't know, Vinny, did they ask on the questionnaire whether any of these people were fans or had seen the pirates or anything of that nature?
	Do you know?
	And I would want to know those kinds of things because you can be the most popular person in a courtroom with your fans.
	But remember, there's only one audience or demographic that you're appealing to, and that's the jury.
	Although I would say it would be interesting to me, I don't know, Vinny, did you observe with this judge, how does the judge treat them and what's her interplay with the various lawyers on each side?
	The judge has been amazing, by the way.
	You know, the type of judge that calls balls and strikes is decisive, does it quickly, doesn't blow anything out of proportion.
	And a lot of hearsay objections, both sides are all over it, right?
	So if she has to bring people to the bench, she'll bring them to the bench.
	But I didn't get the sense one way or the other that either side was the favorite of this judge.
	I mean, it's the perfect judge for a case like this.
	She does, however, she has a big concern about not turning this into a circus, has very specific rules about what happens in the courtroom.
	And sometimes when that courtroom gallery reacts to Johnny Depp, she has to remind them once in a while.
	It hasn't happened a lot, but it happened a couple of times.
	But she's done a great job keeping order.
	The one thing, though, that she didn't allow us to see was the jury selection process.
	So that part was not open, but the judge has been amazing because the state of Virginia, Court TV, we've never done a trial in the state of Virginia before because it was.
	I was wondering about that.
	How did you, yeah, because they have some of the most restrictive rules of any of these states.
	So I was wondering about that.
	I was also wondering whether you think the lawyer for Amber Heard, who's been pilloried on the internet, deserved or not deserved.
	She's doing her job.
	What happens is people, you know, the people take sides.
	You know, it happened in the Jodi Arias case.
	It happened in the Casey Anthony trial.
	They take sides and then they can't separate it.
	Like sometimes it's hard to separate Scott Peterson from Mark Garagos, although they're completely different people who've led different lives, completely different lives.
	But that's the dynamic that happens.
	And I think that's what's happening online.
	The thing is, we're in a world now that, you know, between TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and Twitter, there's so many places.
	It's so overwhelming for Johnny Depp that I think that's why Amber Heard is concerned right now, why she hired a new PR team, because the fans of Johnny Depp are, there's many more of them.
	And right now we're in Johnny Depp's case and they're cutting those little pieces of video and sound and over and over again.
	I'll give you one example that I thought was a little unfair directed at her lawyer whose name I don't know, one of her lawyers.
	He had asked the question of Depp and Depp had started to go on a narrative and then he objected.
	And he didn't use the right evidentiary objection.
	I mean, he should have moved to strike non-responsive, but he was savaged on social media, objecting to his own question.
	But he was basically what he was trying to articulate is objection, non-responsiveness.
	It's devolved into a narrative.
	But boy, that evidentiary distinction was lost in the great abyss that is the internet.
	Back in the day, when you take somebody's deposition, the rules of evidence, they don't really apply.
	Like you can pretty much ask mostly what you want and the person's just supposed to say objection to form, object to the form of the question.
	But pretty much you're allowed to ask what you want and get a bunch of information.
	And whether it's admissible at trial is a different question for later.
	But there was this old grizzled partner at Jones Day where I practice law.
	And he was great.
	I love this guy.
	He just didn't suffer fools.
	And he'd be taking a deposition.
	And he'd say, the other lawyer, instead of saying object to form, would say, objection, hearsay, move to strike.
	It's like, okay, you don't move to strike in a deposition.
	Anyway, this old grizzled lawyer, Jones Day, would go, overruled, motion denied.
	You would rule him.
	I still laughed.
	It was so fun.
	I miss the legal war stories.
	Okay, wait, here's a question for you.
	Back to, let's go back to the legal matter because I have two brilliant legal minds here that I want to probe.
	Because if she, if what she said in the Washington Post op-ed is true, I am an abuse victim.
	And she clearly means at the hands of Johnny Depp.
	It is true, but it is not the full story.
	If the jury gets to the place of believing you are also an abuser, the question is whether that can amount legally to defamation, because there is something that's known as libel by omission, libel by omission.
	Now, wait, while you ponder that, I'm going to play the soundbite of Laurel Anderson, who was their marriage counselor.
	She's apparently been a counselor for 40 years.
	They both came in when they were still married.
	She was called as a Johnny Depp witness, and she seemed to say they both abused each other.
	Here's a soundbite of Laurel Anderson.
	This is Sat 24.
	He had been well controlled, I think, for almost, I don't know, 20, 30 years.
	And both were victims of abuse in their homes.
	But I thought he had been well controlled for decades.
	And then with Ms. Heard, he was triggered and they engaged in what I saw as mutual abuse.
	Sometimes I'm not sure.
	I know she led on more than one occasion and started it to keep him with her because abandonment and having him leave was her worst nightmare.
	Okay, so if the jury believes her, mutual abuse, can he win?
	Because Amber Heard's op-ed was misleading in that it certainly did not tell the whole story and created a false impression of the relationship.
	Well, I think what you're going to see is in most civil cases, this is civil, you're fighting over other people's money, what the judge will do is give a verdict form that will have questions and they'll go down the verdict form and the jury will have to answer the questions.
	And there are certain points where if you answer yes or you answer no, that's it.
	It stops their deliberations and the verdict is done.
	So this is one of the reasons I was asking Vinny, and you anticipated it about the judge, is the crucial aspect of this case, you know, summation is great, but summation is basically just giving your arguments to the people you think are with you so that they're effective when they're in the jury room.
	But clearly what's going to happen is the jurors are going to sit down and they're going to have to figure out at certain points the answers to those questions.
	And one of the questions, Megan, you're spot on here, may be if you find that she was an abuser, but he was as well, blah, blah, blah.
	Those could conceivably be in the final jury instructions that the jurors get.
	I wonder, because typically, and it's been a while since I've looked at this, but typically when you have a liable by omission claim, it's because like the thing that you omitted would have completely changed the meaning of the thing that you said.
	And so like this doesn't completely change the meaning.
	Like she's, if the jury believes he abused her, then the statement is technically correct.
	That she was also a shitty person doesn't necessarily, it's context that's interesting and may ethically change your view of both parties, but I don't know that it's going to, it's going to make what she said defamatory in a way that's illegal, you know, that's unlawful such that he could recover.
	Anyway, from a legal perspective, I find that I find that whole thing interesting.
	The other thing is, Vinny, so far, all the cops, all the witnesses, they're saying they saw nothing on her.
	Now, she's going to have friends who are going to come and say, I saw her bruises.
	I saw this.
	But those are her friends.
	Now, the cops and sort of the independent witnesses are saying, I mean, I guess his household staff is more aligned with him, right?
	Like the maid in the Bahamas and his security guards.
	He pays their salary.
	But the cops who showed up on the day she, again, he allegedly whipped his phone as hard as possible at her face said, I saw nothing.
	I saw a woman who's crying.
	That's all I saw.
	So how does the jury figure out who to believe?
	Her friends versus cops and so on.
	I think this is crucial.
	We focused a lot on this on my show, the independent witnesses, witnesses who have no known bias going into all of this.
	What did they see?
	What did they observe?
	And if you've got the officers who are responding and you had two sets of responding officers don't see any injuries, and this was the incident, this was the incident that was the subject of her going to get a restraining order against Johnny Depp, right?
	This was the incident with which she took the whole thing public, right?
	As soon as she went down to the courthouse and filed all this stuff, this is when it became a public matter.
	And if you had the responding officers didn't see anything, but days later, there were marks on her face, then the question is, well, how did the marks get there?
	Were they there that night?
	No one saw them.
	Did she self-inflict these marks?
	Well, who would do that?
	Maybe someone with a borderline personality disorder might do that.
	I don't know.
	That may be the argument, but that's going to be really crucial, I think, to all of this is the independent witnesses.
	And then there has to be an explanation from the other side that is inconsistent with the independent witnesses.
	And right now, that's Amber Heard has to come up with that explanation.
Amber Heard Depression 00:02:51
	All right.
	So we don't know what's going to happen, but we learn new information about the jury, which gives me some pause too, Mark.
	That was a fascinating observation.
	Young men, spring break.
	That's what's going to stick in my head when we get this verdict.
	I love the spring break characterization of it.
	Boy, jurors gone wild.
	Could be good for her, right?
	They're thinking, girl's gone wild.
	What's the matter?
	It's fine.
	He's the jerk.
	Mark Vinny, thank you guys both so much.
	We'll be watching this week.
	Bye, Vinny.
	Okay, don't go away because up next we're going to talk about the death of Naomi Judd.
	I have a couple of things I want to say on that.
	Some terribly sad news breaking over the weekend.
	Country music legend Naomi Judd died just a day before her induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame.
	Her heartbroken daughters say she died of mental illness.
	The reports are she died by suicide.
	A few years ago, I had her on my show at NBC and we talked about her really tough struggle with depression.
	I knew that all during my life there were periods where I would get so sad and everybody in the family, my neighbors and friends would say, you're so empathic.
	You care so much about other people.
	You pick up their stuff and I do.
	And my psychologist, Ted Klant, said that I'm one of the most compassionate, empathic people that he's ever worked with.
	So I just attribute it to that.
	But when I came home off the tour, I went into this deep, dark, absolutely terrifying hole and I couldn't get out.
	I spent two years on my couch.
	She was such a doll and she was so open in her book about those struggles, which is a big risk for a public figure to talk that openly about their struggles.
	And she's been studying whether there was a link, you know, whether it had a genetic link.
	And she believed strongly that it did.
	But she was doing well then.
	You know, so it was so, so sad to hear that that's, that she died and that she died by suicide and that it was a battle ultimately she did not prevail in.
	Thoughts to her entire family today.
	Of course, her daughter and she, huge, huge stars.
	They scored 14 number one songs, five Grammy Awards in a career spanning nearly three decades.
	And her other daughter, Ashley, is super famous in her own right as an actress and as one of the people who helped bring down Harvey Weinstein, a truly bad actor.
	Listen, I want to tell you that the suicide hotline is there for anyone struggling.
	It's 1-800-273-8255.
	Please don't suffer alone.
	Tomorrow, we're doing our first live in-person interview when former Attorney General Bill Barr will join me.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Hope you'll tune in.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:00 Journalism vs Comedy
00:14:40 Weaponized Narratives
00:24:17 Student Loan Bailouts
00:32:06 The Fauci of Information
00:41:21 JD Vance Primary Surge
00:47:51 Oz Endorsement Impact
01:03:01 Domestic Violence Allegations
01:15:25 Violent Tape Evidence
01:19:34 Independent Witnesses
01:32:16 Amber Heard Depression