The Megyn Kelly Show - 20221014_leaving-the-dems-leftist-policies-in-schools-and-w

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Oct. 14, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:38:16

20221014_leaving-the-dems-leftist-policies-in-schools-and-w

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Real Life Streaming Dreams 00:05:46
	Okay, so that's the same thing.
	And two extra streaming turns on the HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
	Pumobile Neta, Net Brett, the Chromecast Potel Teva Netren Strundag for Granca.
	Olente Funkiri, Hello, OOS.
	Outengiranet or Alenta.
	Tremonter Sotenikron.
	Null Binning Poor Tev or Streaming Accurate Somede Vihada.
	Going to Test Sommer.
	Tilburg 3 Monte.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Can I tell you what just happened to me?
	So, two nights ago, I had this dream.
	I told Abby, I had this dream that I missed the top of the show.
	It was like 11 minutes into the show, and people were still working on getting the camera on and the lights on.
	And I was like, The show started.
	You got to get the stuff connected.
	And Abby said to me, That's so unlike you, MK, because that's worry and you never worry.
	And it's true, I'm not a worrier.
	I'm like, Yeah, I don't know what the deal is.
	We're making a plan to go on the road.
	I'm like, Maybe I was worried about the technology on the road.
	Well, there I was downstairs just moments ago, getting ready because you know, I do the show out of my house.
	And my iPhone was almost dead, so I plugged it in out in another room and I went in to get ready.
	So I only had my little, my little clock that's on my makeup table.
	And I guess it's slow.
	And you know, I'm like, I knew I was up against it, but usually if I'm in the chair by like 56, I'm good.
	And I hear like this little voice, like, oh, oh, I'm like, what's happening?
	And then I hear Megan, and I pop my head out, and it's Abby.
	She goes, You have one minute to air.
	It's 11:59.
	My little clock said I had five more minutes.
	Who knew?
	I never checked the accuracy of the little clock.
	Kind of just always go by the iPhone, which is nearby.
	Anyway, I made it.
	No worries for the wear, but I thought I'd just share that.
	Have you ever had those dreams where like you're missing something important?
	Maybe you should pay attention to those dreams.
	Or maybe I made it happen.
	Maybe like I dreamt it.
	And then I made anyway.
	Glad to be with you on this Friday.
	And clearly, I need a couple mornings of sleeping in.
	So TGIF.
	All right, we've got some very hot stories for you and the end of a busy week and a lot to go over.
	Nancy Pelosi on tape threatening to punch President Trump.
	She's tough.
	She's super tough.
	President Biden suggesting inflation is not so bad.
	It's barely there.
	Look over here.
	And parents taking on their school board over a quote family-friendly drag show.
	And you will not believe who's leading the charge.
	It's a blast from the past and a story we covered a lot on Fox News.
	You saw the name, we were like, is that who we think it is?
	We'll bring you that plus Kelly's court.
	And we've got a lot to go over in Kelly's court.
	Some really juicy stuff.
	A Kim Kardashian podcast that's playing fast and loose with the truth.
	Harvey Weinstein back on trial.
	Adnan Syed is now released by that Baltimore prosecutor saying she's not going to charge him again.
	He can never be charged again now.
	But wait until you hear what she's basing it on.
	And we'll talk to you about the so-called lab she's now claiming exonerates the guy.
	Anyway, lots to go over, including the Alex Jones verdict as well with a man who used to represent Jones.
	Okay, we're going to start, however, with a woman who's been all over the news in recent days because she has decided to say Sayonara to the Democratic Party.
	Tulsi Gabbard is a former congresswoman from Hawaii, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and is now host of the Tulsi Gabbard Show.
	Tulsi, welcome back to the show.
	Thanks, Megan.
	It's great to see you and great to talk to you.
	Oh, it's great to see you too.
	Have you ever had that where you're like, you think you forepast your own lateness?
	And it always happens.
	That dream and that nightmare always happens like the night before.
	I have to be up at a certain time.
	This actually happened to me in real life, though, recently.
	Like I always have that phobia of like, oh my God, I'm going to miss my alarm clock.
	I had recently, I was getting on a plane somewhere.
	I had to wake up at three in the morning to go and catch this flight.
	And my phone literally died in the middle of the night.
	And that was where my alarm was at some hotel room.
	I don't even remember where.
	It literally died completely dead.
	And thankfully, I woke up like 10 minutes before I was supposed my alarm was going to go off, checked my phone.
	I was like, oh my God.
	Yeah, seeing the belts and suspenders.
	The fear is warranted, actually, because I lived through it.
	It wasn't just it's not paranoia.
	It's real.
	It's based on reality.
	All right.
	So let's start with your big news this week.
	You've launched a new podcast.
Leaving The Democratic Party 00:02:11
	You have decided to tell the world that you are officially leaving the Democratic Party, which is remarkable when you think about just two years ago, you were on the national stage vying for the nomination for that party.
	I mean, it didn't come as a surprise, I think, to most of us who have been following your career arc, but talk to me about your evolution.
	You know, like, when did you go from the point of like, I don't relate to these people and they're bullies and we don't have a lot in common to I'm out of here.
	Yeah, well, Megan, you know, I was 21 years old back in 2002 in Hawaii when very passionate about the environment.
	I decided to run for the state house in Hawaii, had never declared a political affiliation before then and really started to think about which party do I want to, you know, which box do I want to check on that form to file my election papers.
	And looking at the history of the Democratic Party, especially in Hawaii, you know, I was inspired by leaders who were fighting for plantation workers who were working under terrible conditions, inspired by national leaders like Martin Luther King, President JFK.
	And I saw a big tent inclusive Democratic Party that welcomed people who held views across the spectrum on the biggest issues of the day, who stood up for civil liberties, who stood up for free speech.
	And it made sense to me to join the Democratic Party.
	The Republican Party in Hawaii, especially, had been the party of the elite, the party of the rich and powerful.
	And I was interested in being a part of a party that was fighting for the people and fighting to protect our environment.
	Fast forward over the years, You look back at when I ran for president in 2020, really living through what we are seeing now in like high definition and in extreme, which is how this Democratic Party of today that's controlled by fanatical ideologues through that presidential campaign as a Democratic candidate for president,
	they attempted to limit my ability to speak to voters, limit my exposure, and actively sought to undermine and smear my character and credibility in my campaign.
Respecting Independent Voices 00:16:01
	This has not stopped.
	Anytime the Democratic Party leaders see someone that challenges their narrative, that questions the policies they're putting forward, rather than just saying, you know what?
	Hey, I disagree with her.
	And here are the reasons why.
	Instead, they take those tactics of smear, destroy, cancel, work with big tech to censor because they don't stand for freedom.
	They don't believe in the Constitution and are actively seeking to undermine our God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
	They want to control the way we think.
	They want to control what information we see.
	And it is, it got to a point where this is a party that I can no longer associate myself with because of the danger and threat that it poses to our country, to our democracy.
	All right.
	So now you're a free agent.
	And that leaves some to ask, where will she go next?
	Perhaps as an independent, as a Republican, you might throw your hat in the presidential ring for the other side.
	It's kind of exciting to see, to think about that switch.
	And I want to bring you to an interview I had with a woman I know is your friend, Christy Noam, governor of South Dakota, who came on this show.
	And I asked her about the two of you.
	I got a little sexist in my commentary.
	You won't be offended.
	Here it is.
	Watch.
	Tulsi's a good friend of mine.
	In fact, when we were in Congress, we worked out in the mornings together and she's a wonderful person.
	I was just texting with her a day or two ago about potentially getting together and maybe doing some messaging together, just common sense.
	You know, here are people with very different backgrounds, but we're both women that care about this country and recognize that the extremes are not getting us anywhere we need to go.
	I mean, the thought of you and Tulsi Gabbard on the same ticket together someday is too much to bear.
	That would be so amazing.
	It would be A, the best looking ticket ever.
	And then, and B, just the brainpower there, because obviously you're considerably farther to the right than Tulsi is, but she's just a reasonable person and she hasn't abandoned all of her Democratic principles, but she's willing to compromise and willing to criticize her own side.
	And it would be exciting to see that happen in any shape.
	Well, and I think both of us have some, have some scar tissue.
	You know, I've been beat up by the left for many years, but I've also been beat up by the right.
	And they can be just as vicious as anybody else.
	All right, that wasn't really sexist to say you're both good looking.
	So that's fascinating.
	I mean, like, any interest in that?
	Any, is that tempting at all?
	Christy is, she's a, she's a dear friend.
	And like she said, she and I were very disciplined and worked out regularly with our bipartisan workout group when we were back in Washington.
	And I respect her for the reasons that she talked about, you know, a friendship that's based on respect, that's personal as well as professional and understanding what's most important, right?
	It's these values and principles that we share as fellow Americans and focusing on what are the things that we can do together, because there is so much, there is so much there.
	I have no idea what the future holds, but Christy and I are keeping in touch and we'll continue to try to find ways that we can help however we can to bridge the divides in America right now.
	My God, it would be incredibly exciting.
	I'm going to just, maybe I'll try to dream it.
	Apparently, when I dream things, they come true, Tulsi.
	So I'll try to dream it.
	Now, the other possibility is that your old friend Nancy Pelosi decides to punch you in the face and tries to stop your future career as an Independent or a Republican.
	And I know you've said before, you're not sure what you're going to do in terms of registration, because this is apparently her thing.
	This is from January 6th, prior to the Capitol being breached.
	CNN got this clip.
	The daughter was taken by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter, because of course, when your mother's in peril, what you do is take out your phone and try to document it and then say, and on cue, act tough.
	And here's the clip being lauded by the left today.
	I'm waiting for this, for trespassing on the Capitol grounds.
	I'm going to punch him out and I'm going to go to jail, God, and I'm going to be happy.
	Yes, Queen.
	What do you make of it?
	That was the first thing.
	I didn't see that clip yesterday, but I saw some of the others that were being played.
	And I was just wondering, how is it that in this moment of peril that they're describing, that there's like a perfect camera angle and shot of all of the action that was very strange to me, including what we just heard of.
	I don't know if I ever told you, Megan, I grew up doing martial arts.
	So I ain't afraid of Nancy Pelosi.
	I got to tell you.
	You're good.
	You have to watch out for her rhetorical punch in the face.
	It's just so ridiculous.
	You know, women still, a lot of my friends are Democrats and they still love her.
	They talk about her like she is the queen.
	You know, like we've got Nancy Pelosi.
	She's so badass.
	And just from the stories you told me of what she did to you and some of these moments, it's really hard for me to just sit there biting my tongue.
	She's a bully and she is a not, she is not a nice person.
	Hey, you know, you think about our democratic system, our democracy.
	You know, you often hear people in Washington talk about the U.S. Capitol as the people's house, the House of Representatives as the people's house.
	The process and the control with which she exercises over the Democratic caucus and over the House now that she's speaker is very undemocratic.
	You know, she has total control over what bills come to the House floor.
	Any proposals of rule changes, which I and others tried to implement and get passed, which basically said, hey, if I as a member of Congress introduce a bill and I get, let's say, 100 co-sponsors or 120 co-sponsors, then guarantee that this bill will see the light of day on the House floor and get a vote, get an up or down vote.
	Leave it up to me to make the case to my colleagues of its merits and why they should vote for it.
	And if it fails, then that's on me as the person who introduced the bill.
	That was killed.
	That was never even considered within the Democratic caucus to turn into reality.
	There are a lot of different other examples.
	And it's just unfortunate because every single member of Congress was sent to represent the voices of the people in their districts, their interests, their values, their principles.
	And yet the reality of how Congress is run couldn't be farther from that vision that our founders had for a representative style government and democracy.
	And that's what is lost.
	That's what's so wrong with Washington is you have people like Nancy Pelosi in charge and they don't care about the people.
	They say, oh, we work in the people's house.
	But when the people come and try to knock on the door and say, hey, what about our voices?
	Those knocks are not answered.
	That's right.
	Not if they don't completely align with her, her worldview.
	She's not our president.
	She's not our one dictatorial leader, but she acts like it.
	On the subject of you leaving the Democratic Party, to me, it's really interesting because I have so many friends in New York, Democrats, who have left the Democratic Party over the past two years, are toying with leaving.
	Last night I had dinner with some friends here in Connecticut, and one of the gals was saying how she's a lifelong Democrat.
	She voted for Joe Biden.
	She's never voted Republican before in her life, but she is really against this woke nonsense that's being shoved down the throats of our children at school.
	She's Jewish and she's had, there's a lot of anti-Semitism in this woke movement.
	A lot of it.
	That's why there's so many Jewish people who have been pretty bold in speaking out about it.
	And I do think more and more you're going to see Democrats follow the Tulsi Gabbard lane.
	Like, I don't have to stay here.
	There's a way out.
	But how do they land at Tulsi?
	Because how do they, how do people who are lifelong Democrats who still are pro-choice and, you know, they like the social safety net and, you know, all the things that made them Democrats to begin with, how do they walk away?
	Walk away, period.
	Because just because there are things that you believe in or issues that you care about that, you know, they may be more aligned with one party or the other.
	What I encourage people and what I said in my statement when I announced I was leaving the Democratic Party was I invited other Democrats who feel as I do, other Democrats who are absolutely sickened by this so-called woke radical ideology that is driving Democratic Party policies today, walk away.
	Become an independent, as I have.
	Recognize that you may be more attracted to policies that may come from one party or another party.
	Put the partisan stuff aside and just stand on your values, your principles, and the foundation of freedom.
	And I think that's really the most important thing and the most important message that I hope other Democrats in the country hear in my message, which is the danger of a Democratic Party that is in power today that does not respect freedom and is actively seeking to undermine it.
	When they don't respect us as people, as voters, being critical thinkers, being able to think for ourselves, that means they don't respect us.
	They think we're stupid and they have this condescending elite attitude towards anyone who not only who doesn't agree with them, that's not enough now.
	You can say, yeah, okay, fine, you have a point.
	If you're not out there, you know, marching in the protest, holding the sign, holding the bullhorn and proving the depth of your conviction and belief in whatever issue they choose to feature on any given day, then you're not good enough.
	You're not pure enough.
	Forget all that crap.
	Become an independent.
	Think for yourself.
	Vote based on the issues you care most about and put the interests of the people in our country first rather than thinking vote blue no matter who, or frankly, even on the Republican side, blindly voting on the Republican side is just as much of a problem.
	Don't be a blind voter.
	Look at who the candidates are.
	Look at what you care about and make your choice accordingly.
	I think that's the best exercise of freedom that we could hope for.
	Here's my question for you.
	And I don't know whether you want to get back into politics at all, although that Christy Noam thing could be good.
	But if you decide to get back into politics, how does one, is there a future for someone who is independent?
	And we can get into, you know, which of your democratic principles that you held very dearly, you still hold on to.
	You know, I imagine you haven't gotten rid of all of them just because you realize a lot of these people are real jerks and they're pushing the wrong things.
	So how do you have, you know, a foot in both camps, ideologically or policy-wise, you know, and go forward in politics, whether it's you or anybody else?
	I think it's important to not allow yourself to be pigeonholed into an agenda that's set by someone else.
	And I think it's important for people who run under the label of a party, be willing to challenge that party.
	There is an area that you disagree on.
	It's not, it doesn't make sense for anyone to think that you have to conform completely to one party label or another, if that's what you choose to do.
	You know, the viability of running for office as an independent is questionable, frankly, under this political system, especially nationally, different states.
	It may be have different effect.
	But the reality is that I think it's something like 45% of Americans don't identify with one party or the other, which makes it a majority of Americans.
	And that tells us that the problem is not that there is not a demand for independent thinkers and for leaders who are making decisions based on the substance of issues and what's best for the country rather than what's best for the party.
	The problem is with the system itself that limits voters from being able to have that opportunity to have that third choice.
	But again, if someone chooses to run under one party label or another, ideally we have party leaders who welcome that diversity in views and positions and thought and encourage people to step up and lead and serve based on what's in their heart, their conscience, and what they feel is the best course of action for the American people.
	Do you feel like there's been a different reaction in the media to your leaving your party than there has been to Republicans leaving theirs?
	Like people like, well, I don't know, Joe Scarborough or Bill Crystal or these commentators who've decided they're no longer Republicans.
	They're disgusted with the Republican Party.
	Or even people like Liz Cheney, who hasn't left the Republican Party, but certainly is ostracized by it because she's been so hardcore anti-Trump.
	And she sounds anti-Republican in a lot of her commentary.
	In any event, do you think they get different treatment than you've received since your announcement?
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, if you can see the difference in kind of what I call the permanent Washington and that, you know, the mainstream media in Washington is a part of that.
	And you're very familiar with that whole kind of cabal and that club where you're either part of it or you're not.
	And so, you know, obviously MSNBC celebrates people like Joe Scarborough, celebrates people like Bill Crystal and others because they feel like they're coming over to their side.
	They don't celebrate people who are independent thinkers like myself who happen to disagree with them, whether it be on foreign policy or whether it be on, you know, Hillary Clinton running for president and not being qualified to serve as commander in chief.
	So if you, again, this goes back to kind of that foundational point where if you're not on the side of that establishment, the Washington swamp, the permanent Washington elite, then you're going to get the negative treatment.
	You're either going, they're not even going to cover you, or if they do, it'll be in a very negative light.
	And that's what I've seen kind of play out over the last few days with that group.
	There's been a lot of positive coverage from people who respect that independence.
	And I appreciate that.
	That's right.
	You've got, here's just an example, speaking of Bill Kristol regarding Telsey Gabbard makes sense.
	If you're pro-Assad and pro-Putin, you joined today's Republican Party.
	He's so bitter.
	He left it and he's like, now anybody who joins it is a loser because I left it.
	And then you've got, this is Max Burns on NBC saying, bye, good riddance.
	She's been drifting relentlessly rightward anyway, going on about your anti-establishment isolationism, which was rejected roundly by fellow Democrats.
	In other words, you didn't leave them.
	They left you.
	You can't fire them.
	They quit.
	And then you've got like MSNBC opinion columnist Zihan Alam saying this is about her specific brand of anti-war politics.
Avoiding Nuclear Escalation 00:12:35
	It was always a better fit for the nationalist right than for the left.
	And I don't think they're going to miss you.
	But Megan, what's interesting about those quotes that you mentioned, the common theme there that jumps out at me is two things.
	Number one is their attacks are always the same and they have nothing to do with a substantive disagreement.
	And secondly, the common theme there is they're saying, they're criticizing me for being against war and that the Democratic Party that used to be led by people who stood up for peace, apparently the Democratic Party, even in their words, has now become the party of warmongers.
	It is now led by these elite war hawks who beat their war drums and are ready to take us into one regime change war after another, which is exactly the main point that I made in my announcement of leaving the Democratic Party.
	I'm a veteran.
	I continue to serve in the U.S. Army Reserves.
	I know the cost of war.
	And throughout my entire time in Congress and my campaign for president, I made that issue a very central focal point serving on the Armed Services Committee and on the Foreign Affairs Committee with that message, end regime change wars.
	Yes, we need to be prepared to defend our own security and our own freedom, but we should not be going and starting wars around the world, toppling dictators, causing devastation in other countries and exacting a very costly toll on the American people and our servicemen and women.
	So they, in their own words, have just admitted this so-called woke Democratic Party is the party of war.
	And I think the American people are as sick and tired of that as I am.
	You know, I had this filmmaker on the other day named Meg Smaker.
	She did this film originally called Jihad Rehab, and then she renamed it the uncensored.
	She got canceled by the left after some in the Muslim community were like, we're sick and tired of seeing Muslims depicted as terrorists.
	Meanwhile, it was about actual terrorists who were held at Gitmo, who were released by Obama.
	And Saudi Arabia got a bunch from Saudi Arabia and from Yemen and decided to put them through rehab.
	It's actually kind of fascinating.
	And we were talking about like, how does painting the flowers and swimming in the pool and doing charades, I'm not kidding, Make you not want to kill anybody anymore.
	And she did this deep dive on, like, these are, you know, they're the enemy, but they're just guys.
	Like they're, they were like 15-year-old guys who got sucked into al-Qaeda by their older brothers, by promises of three meals a day, by, you know, doing something that means something from a land where not a lot of good things were happening.
	And she was talking about the enormous consequences of launching these wars.
	And we forget how so many lives get ruined on both sides and how America getting involved in Afghanistan for 20 years, forget the initial strike, or for 20 years, created so much more membership in Al-Qaeda and these splinter groups than we ever would have seen had we done pinpoint strikes, had we gotten in, gotten out, you know.
	So it's like, this is kind of the point you're trying to make.
	Like before we, before we go into nuclear armed conflict with Russia over its battle with Ukraine, let's be really, really honest about what that's going to do.
	You're absolutely correct, Megan.
	They wrongly, again, that the usual trope they trot out is, you know, Tulsi Gabbard or anyone who speaks out against or even questions as you're saying, hey, here are the costs.
	Here's the cost and consequences of a nuclear war with Russia.
	Immediately they say, oh, well, she's an isolationist or she's a pacifist or all this other crap.
	I have been, again, I wear the uniform and I am ready to put my life on the line to secure our country.
	If there is an enemy that is threatening that security and that freedom, then our military is ready to take on that threat and destroy it.
	But what they are doing is pushing us into shoving us to this nuclear brinksmanship, putting us, the American people, the people of Ukraine, people of the world at risk of nuclear catastrophe, a nuclear holocaust.
	When you put them on kind of on the hot seat and question them about, they just say, well, Putin, we've got to win.
	And I did this yesterday in a conversation with someone.
	I reminded them of what Ronald Reagan said, that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.
	And so rather than continuing to escalate, escalate, escalate, acting purely on emotion, look at reality and look at where this road leads if it continues.
	Learn lessons from the past from great leaders like President Reagan and President Kennedy, who told us very clearly they recognize the dangers and the risk and they led.
	They led to try to de-escalate.
	That's what President Biden as our commander in chief should be doing.
	And that is what he is absolutely failing at.
	And worse yet, he is making the problem worse.
	I'm reminded of a quote Glenn Beck gave me one time when I asked him, because, you know, Glenn's got a lot of theories about a lot of things.
	And very often he's right.
	He's not always right, but very often, I've been following the guy for 15 years.
	He's right about the stuff he's predicting.
	And it's kind of eerie.
	And I asked him about it one time, like, how?
	And he said, there's really no mystery to it.
	I just listen to what people are saying and I believe them.
	And that's it.
	It's a simple formula.
	And if you apply that right now to what Vladimir Putin is saying, it does not end in a good place.
	And de-escalation sounds pretty good.
	It's the only way through this.
	You know, all of our hearts break for the suffering and destruction and death that we're seeing in Ukraine.
	The best way to help them is not by saying, well, let's continue to escalate this war, because like I said, this war continuing to escalate can only lead to one place.
	And that is a nuclear war and a nuclear holocaust.
	The best way to help the people of Ukraine, us, the American people, the people of the world, is for President Biden to exercise his responsibility and his leadership to negotiate a peaceful end to this conflict.
	I think we just heard comments from, I just read this morning, comments from Putin saying that he's open for talks that would be mediated by some international body.
	I don't know what Zelensky's latest comment is, but President Biden, uniquely, as the leader of the United States, is in a position to bring these parties to the table and work out a peaceful outcome to this, because whether it's tomorrow, a week, or a month, we don't know.
	We don't know, as you said, that tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are on the table for Russia.
	Let's not wait.
	Let's not wait to find out if and when that might happen.
	We can't afford to wait.
	The other thing is, you know, our greatest adversary is really China.
	You know, China is much more powerful than Russia.
	It has much more money.
	It poses a much more great technological threat to us.
	Its military is a lot stronger.
	And the more we get immersed in this battle with Russia, via surrogates or otherwise, the more we're taking our eyes off of the other ball.
	And it does, like, I think about like World War II.
	You know, we weren't friendly with the Soviets.
	Things weren't like particularly rosy, but we understood that we had a bigger threat.
	We had Hitler.
	And so we needed to get along with the Soviets and we needed them to be a part of the Allies.
	And, you know, we recognized what was the bigger threat.
	And we were right.
	And the Soviets wound up helping us defeat Hitler.
	Now we're singularly focused on this dispute between Russia and Ukraine.
	And I get it.
	I get it.
	And I feel terrible for the Ukrainian people.
	But like we as Americans have a big, big threat facing us down right now in this third party that's gone totally ignored while we focus on this other conflict, which is only going up, up, up and getting more and more intense.
	And we're getting more and more drawn in and it's potentially getting even more devastating.
	And I just wonder, like, where's the triangulation?
	Where's the diplomat who says, like, we have to be smart about where we're going to place our energies and our hostilities?
	Yeah.
	And I think that there's a few things I think we need to focus on there.
	And your point about where is our diplomat?
	You know, we see the State Department that is supposed to be the chief of diplomacy, essentially, for the country, right?
	Building those relationships around the world, being our emissary around the world.
	And yet under this administration, we are seeing everything but diplomacy.
	Again, we saw back in March, you know, barely a month after Putin invaded Ukraine, rather than the State Department and Tony Blinken taking the lead and saying, hey, let's work to support these representatives of Russia and Ukraine who were at that time sitting down and working through talks.
	Let's help encourage that so that we can bring about a swift end to this conflict.
	Instead, everything that we were hearing at that time is that the United States was discouraging Zelensky from actually participating in those, discouraging Ukraine from making a deal at that point, saying, hey, just hold it out.
	You know, we'll continue to support you for whatever reason.
	They did not want to see that end.
	Meanwhile, here at home, and this is the thing that I hear most from people, Megan, everywhere I go, is people at home are saying, hey, what about us?
	You know, we've got rising inflation.
	We've got still supply shortages.
	Our dollar is worth less and less as inflation continues to increase.
	We've got so many challenges right here in our backyard that are not being addressed and are being exacerbated by the decisions that this administration is making.
	And that's where the context of all of these decisions, both domestic, in domestic policy, and in foreign policy, need to be made within that context of what is in the best interest of the American people, our well-being, and our ability to continue to move forward towards being able to live in a peaceful, prosperous, and free society.
	And I think that's the context that our leaders need.
	That's the context that I look at, you know, all these different issues in figuring out, okay, what's the best course of action forward.
	But we don't, again, we don't see that.
	We don't see that coming from this administration or from their allies in Congress.
	And that's a dangerous thing because it only gets worse the longer it continues.
	I do not see a world in which Vladimir Putin signs surrender papers and peacefully walks away saying, forget it.
	Just forget I did it.
	Here's the territories back.
	Sorry.
	And even in law school, they taught us that the best deals, the best negotiated deals end with both sides being disappointed.
	And I'm not trying to create a moral equivalency between Putin and the Ukrainian people, but we are where we are now.
	And so, you know, the thought of we're just going to vanquish him and he's going to give up doesn't seem very realistic.
	Exactly.
	We have to recognize that reality that I agree with you in that.
	Also, it is not realistic that Ukraine is going to win this war.
	They may continue to win certain battles, but when you look at how this picture goes in the long term, it's not something that ends with one side or the other getting everything that they want.
	And history points to this.
	When there have been negotiated outcomes, treaties that have been met during different conflicts and wars, as you pointed out, all parties usually end up walk away disappointed.
	They all walk away having had to sacrifice and compromise in some manner, but also getting some of the things back that they may have lost or meeting their objectives.
	And when you look at so much of our foreign policy in the past, these decisions are often made in such a basically in a fantasy world of people in Washington saying, oh, well, this is the world that we wish existed.
	So we're going to build our policy towards that.
	Afghanistan is a great example that was not rooted in reality, did not have a clear objective.
Kamala Harris Record 00:04:38
	I think we need that kind of reality here in seeing this situation as it is, rather than some idealistic fantasy that never will be.
	Dark stuff, but we're going to have to deal with it one way or another.
	Sadly, this thing hasn't gone away.
	It only seems to be going in the opposite direction.
	And you got the president of the United States using words like Armageddon loosely at a Democratic fundraiser and then just going on his merry way while the rest of us are like, wait, what?
	All right, Tulsi Gabbard's staying with us.
	We're going to do a quick break and much, much more on the opposite side of it.
	So Tulsi, you had an interesting debate with Kamala Harris when you were running for president.
	She was running for president.
	And one of the items that you disagreed on was whether people should be prosecuted for smoking pot.
	And you got on her for the fact that when she was California AG, she put a bunch of people in jail for smoking pot.
	And your jaw must have dropped when you heard the new version of Kamala Harris.
	This week she said in a couple different places, here's Soundbite 8.
	We are also changing, y'all might have heard that this week, the federal government's approach to marijuana.
	Because the bottom line there is nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.
	Someone should have told Attorney General Harris that since she put a few thousand people in jail for it, something Tulsi Gabbard raised on stage.
	I refer you to Sunbite 7.
	Senator Harris says she's proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she'll be a prosecutor president, but I'm deeply concerned about this record.
	There are too many examples to cite, but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
	What happened?
	Where's that, Kamala Harris?
	I hope, I hope, lost and never to return.
	Just in that clip when she was announcing the Biden administration's policy, I thought it's just funny how her whole kind of vernacular and accent changes a little bit.
	But hey, it's a positive step.
	It's a positive step.
	It's something that the Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration should have done from the get-go.
	I hope that they listen to more things that I'm saying and talking about that they should implement in this administration.
	If they leave those crappy ideas behind, hey, look, I'm all for it.
	I'll send them a list.
	Why doesn't somebody like, I think she was on with Seth Meyer saying it, like, why, why don't they follow up with, what about the 3,000 people you put in jail for doing that?
	It wasn't, they weren't all smokers.
	Some were sellers, but she definitely put people who smoke weed in jail.
	Where's the follow-up?
	Like, what changed your mind?
	Do you want to, are you sorry to those people?
	You did it under state law, so they will not be the benefits of a federal pardon.
	By the way, according to the Wall Street Journal, you know how many people have benefited from Joe Biden's federal pardon on smoking weed?
	Zero, absolutely zero.
	So this is all PR event.
	But like, where's the, you know, there's no reporting from somebody to say, yo, just like two years ago, you were fine with this.
	Yeah, it's consistent with how the mainstream media has handled Kamala Harris throughout certainly her national aspirations and maybe throughout her whole career.
	I don't know, but they've handled her with kid gloves.
	I was shocked in that moment on the debate stage that I was the first person ever to challenge her on her record, given how every day on the campaign trail in her interview, she was talking about she would be a prosecutor president, proud of her record as California's attorney general.
	Yet no one, no reporter even ever really held her to that saying, okay, let's talk about your record.
	Tell us exactly what you were proud of.
	Tell us how you explained the fact that not only did you throw people for minor marijuana violations in jail, but that you actually held people in jail past their prison sentences so that she could use them for free labor to serve the needs of the state of California, which is essentially slave labor.
	No one ever held her to account, which again, kind of points to where we started, which is the problems with this political system where you have people in charge in the Democratic Party working with their friends in the mainstream media.
Gender Affirming Care Debate 00:06:48
	They pick and choose.
	They're like, okay, hey, here's somebody that we want to put forward.
	Handle her with kid gloves, make her look great.
	Don't ask her the tough questions.
	Certainly don't do your job as journalists because we don't want the American people knowing the truth.
	However, Tulsi Gabbard running for president, we can't control her.
	She's challenging us on foreign policy and domestic policy and criminal justice reform.
	Let's try to ruin her reputation as quickly as possible.
	And of course, former Secretary Hillary Clinton was at the lead, the tip of the spear of that effort.
	Yeah, let's make her a Russian spy.
	Let's talk about what's happening right now in our schools because even though we don't have daily disputes anymore with these school board members getting reamed for masks and vaccines, we still have aggressively leftist policies being shoved down the throats of our kids in district after district.
	And this tape went somewhat viral this week of moms and parents in Encinitas, California, tearing into their school board for having a quote, family-friendly drag show that they wanted to bring on campus, sponsored by a gay bar and a gender-affirming clinic.
	Look, this clinic that does surgeries and does cross-gender hormones is going to sponsor the family-friendly drag queen show.
	Well, these parents were not having it.
	Watch this clip.
	What is it about a grown man costumed in a sparkly bra with augmented boobs busting out, a leather mini skirt barely covering his twerking ass with tuck tape on his front while spreading his fishnetted legs as he rides on the ground, grinding his groin next to a minor, family-friendly?
	You owe us an answer.
	And you know, you don't get to hide by just taking something down off a peach tree and calling it a day.
	You owe an explanation and an apology to failed our children.
	You, in a normal world, would be criminalized for your behavior.
	We are living in Looney Tuneville.
	There is a surgical center, Aligned Surgical Associates, that is a title sponsor for this boobash event.
	My question is this: What are you guys getting?
	Wow.
	How much is going in your pockets?
	We'll be finding out.
	We'll be finding out.
	I'm just wondering, do they supply the venue and then you supply the children?
	Wow.
	Wow.
	The word for that, I mean, we sent it, it's called a pimp.
	And for you to send out this boobash is disgusting that you're promoting this.
	Would you promote and encourage an anorexic girl to go get liposuction?
	Would you?
	Or how about a gastric bypass surgery?
	Would you?
	Stop sexualizing our kids.
	You should be ashamed of yourself.
	A little school district board of adults made the decision to feature an event to hyper-sexualize young children.
	Do you want to know that the word that defines that?
	It's groomer.
	All right, first of all, everyone, every woman in San Diego County is apparently beautiful.
	They're all like, wow, second of all, just to clarify, the event was going to be off campus, but it was the school was promoting it on their school district's website.
	That was the reference to Peach Jar, this boo bash, as this family-friendly drag queen show.
	And the supervisor of the school board comes out and accuses the opponents of this of hate.
	This person's got she, they on their Twitter and comes out and says, this kind of bigotry has no place in our community.
	Trans kids, I see you.
	I love you.
	You are welcome here.
	This isn't about loving trans kids.
	This is about grooming, like they said.
	And by the way, just as a fun fact, the woman in the yellow was Carrie Prajan.
	I don't know if you remember that name, Telsi.
	She was big time in the national news.
	Oh, God, what was the year?
	2009.
	She ran for Miss USA in Trump's pageant.
	She, sorry, I'm going on, but this is just a walk down memory lane.
	She made national headlines when she answered the following question the following way from Perez Hilton.
	Okay, just bear with me, SAT 12.
	Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage.
	Do you think every state should follow suit?
	Why or why not?
	Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.
	We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.
	And you know what?
	In my country and my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
	No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.
	And that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.
	Thank you.
	That created this national storm around her.
	Then they wound up saying, I don't know, she had taken pictures.
	She's gotten breasted.
	I don't know what it was like a whole weird controversy about her because she took that position, same position Obama had at that time.
	And she wound up, I guess, being disqualified.
	But I remember it's like a walk down memory lane with Carrie Prajan there in the yellow.
	Now she's, you know, still conservative and still espousing her strong opinions out there in California.
	And good for her.
	Yeah, the guy is just, I literally, my stomach was turning watching them talk in great detail about what their kids were being exposed to.
	It is so powerful and is so insane, the reaction that they got.
	And again, this points to literally how insane how this so-called wokeness, this fanatical kind of cult-like ideology that has taken over today's Democratic Party, that the basic thing that you would think like no matter how twisted society gets, what's the one thing that remains sacred, that remains protected by everyone?
	It is our kids, right?
	You would think that that would be the case, but we are in a place now where it's not.
	They're actively going after sexualizing our kids, using taxpayer dollars to do so through the public school system and even worse yet, undermining parents' ability to raise their kids with the values and principles that they choose, undermining that foundation, that fabric of civilization and society, which is our families, because everything that they're saying is happening in states across the country.
	And from the federal Department of Health and Human Services, they're talking about this gender-affirming care.
	They're saying if parents don't provide that gender-affirming care, then child protective services could get involved and take your kids away from you.
	These are things that we can't allow to continue.
	We can't allow to stand.
Hunter Biden Addiction Defense 00:15:23
	And I encourage everyone to continue standing up and speaking out as these parents are.
	Yeah.
	The Democrats in charge of the federal government now, the Biden administration now pushing mandatory DEI programs for the federal government that they hope will be the blueprint for corporations nationwide.
	It has a very nice name, but we know DEI programs tend to push very divisive and racist messaging down right to the core to little children on up.
	Telsey Gabbard, thank you for being your courageous self.
	And I look forward to watching you as an independent and as a podcaster.
	Thanks.
	All the best.
	All right, coming up next, Kelly's court.
	And there is a lot to go over.
	Stay with me.
	It's time now for Kelly's court on the docket today, Harvey Weinstein.
	And his case is actually getting very interesting.
	His conviction in New York might get reversed, might get overturned.
	The Second Amendment, you wait until you hear what New York governor is doing to try to get around that Supreme Court ruling against her.
	Alex Jones and the case of a convicted murderer who Kim Kardashian really thinks is innocent.
	But we begin with whether Hunter Biden's history of addiction is going to save him from possible federal criminal charges.
	On Kelly's court today, we've got Jonas Bilbore, who's a criminal defense attorney and founding attorney of John Aspilborough Law, founding partner.
	Also with us, maybe, is trial lawyer and founding attorney of Barnes Law, Robert Barnes.
	We were trying to get Robert's like, he's in court trying to get him.
	I don't know whether he's coming up.
	Just the joy of working with Robert, but he's great when he pops up.
	All right, Jonna.
	So it's just us ladies to kick it off, which is fine.
	We can handle this.
	Hunter Biden.
	So can I just, let's just start with what he's potentially charged with.
	Potential gun charges, potential tax charges.
	And Jonathan Turley, very smart lawyer, has been writing about this for a while, predicting they might go with the addiction defense, the addiction defense.
	And before we get to whether it's going to work, it's not going to work.
	How would him being an addict be a defense to him inappropriately getting a gun, inappropriately brandishing ammunition?
	These are the potential charges, and cheating on his taxes.
	How would that even potentially be a defense?
	I don't see how it is possible.
	I think what it does, what, you know, we saw Biden do this in his interview.
	He's trying to elicit some sympathy for his son, which is, first of all, can we just back up for a minute?
	I mean, the fact that Hunter is possibly only facing charges related to lying on a gun application and tax evasion is ridiculous.
	That's, you know, they may as well just charge him for jaywalking compared to what could actually be chargeable.
	But to say that he is incapable of formulating the intent to lie, which is both of these crimes involved, right?
	If you're going to lie on an application, you're lying.
	If you're cheating on your taxes, you're also lying.
	So the fact that he was the crack made me do it is his defense is not legally going to fly in a court of public opinion.
	Does it allow the people to say, oh, wait a minute, do these crimes involve an element of intent or don't they?
	Because if it does, then it is potentially intent crime.
	Some sometimes voluntary intoxication, which would be the crack made me do it, can be a defense.
	These are not those.
	If you have to, if they have to prove you lied on your application to get the gun, they don't look at what was in your head.
	Couldn't you say I was so high on crack?
	It wasn't a lie.
	I was out of my mind.
	Which is sort of a catch-22, isn't it?
	Because you can't get out of your mind and lawfully get a gun.
	You know, it's kind of the same.
	It's a little bit apples and oranges, but you know, sometimes when you have a juror that wants to get on a high-profile case and they are asked questions by the judge or the other attorneys, like, do you have any, did you ever have, were you ever arrested?
	Or do you have a bias about this, that, or the other thing?
	And they, oh, I forgot.
	You know, it's sort of similar to that, that he's saying, I want to get a gun.
	They asked me if I was on drugs.
	I was so on drugs that I said no.
	Like it just doesn't apply.
	Right.
	That's the very thing that you're saying is your defense is the thing that the application for the gun is trying to get to and prevent someone like you from having the gun.
	Well, I think Turley's right.
	They do seem to be laying the foundation for this because the president's rhetoric around it has changed from my son did nothing wrong.
	He did nothing wrong.
	We heard that on the presidential debate stage to he's an addict.
	I'm so proud of him.
	I mean, it's so clear, like these White House handlers, they get to, you know, Corine Jean-Pierre, top of mind.
	She was top of mind, top of mind.
	Did I mention she was top of mind?
	And they get to Joe Biden and it's, I'm proud of my son.
	I love my son.
	I'm proud of my, I would have loved to have been the interviewer.
	I understand you.
	I understand that you're proud of your son.
	I understand that you love your son.
	My question was, right?
	Like you got to blow past that.
	That is not an answer.
	Here's how it went when Tapper asked him about the fact that it looks like Hunter might get charged on taxes and gun charges.
	Listen.
	Prosecutors think they could, they have enough to charge your son, Hunter, for tax crimes and a false statement about a gun purchase personally and politically.
	How do you react to that?
	Well, first of all, I'm proud of my son.
	This is a kid who got not a kid.
	He's a grown man.
	He got hooked on, like many families have had happen, hooked on drugs.
	He's overcome that.
	He's established a new life.
	Wait, stand by because there's a second sound bite.
	Let's play it 17.
	By the way, this thing about a gun, I didn't know anything about it, but turns out that when he made my application to purchase a gun, what happened was he stayed, I guess you get asked, I don't guess, you get asked the question, are you on drugs?
	You use drugs.
	He said no.
	And he wrote about saying no in his book.
	So I have great confidence in my son.
	I love him.
	And he's on a straight and narrow and he has been for a couple of years now.
	And I'm just so proud of him.
	You get asked the question, are you on drugs?
	Do you use drugs?
	And he wrote about saying no in his book.
	Now, we went back and looked at his book.
	And maybe we need to look more carefully, but I trust my team.
	And they found only this in Hunter's book, Beautiful Things, on this time period when he applied for the gun.
	It was fall of 2018.
	And it's going to become important because this is what, if he gets charged, this is what they're talking about.
	Fall of 2018, he applied for a gun.
	He got a permit.
	And you don't give the guns to the drug addicts.
	That's one of the good policies here in the United States.
	And he writes, I had returned to the East Coast that fall of 2018 after my most recent relapse in California with the hope of getting clean through a new therapy and reconciling with Hallie.
	That was his former sister-in-law.
	Neither happened.
	Okay, so he's saying he had the hope of getting clean.
	So he wasn't clean.
	He was using.
	And he did not get clean.
	Then he goes on to say, just like in California, like practically anywhere else I'd landed since this long, bad dream began, each new day looked exactly like the one before it.
	Nothing occurred on a traditional wake up, go to sleep continuum.
	If I knew my crack connection, I would start making arrangements to buy from him as soon as I neared the end of my stash, he wrote.
	So he's admitting that he was on drugs in October of 2018 at the time he applied for the gun.
	I did not see the admission that he lied, as the president claims he offered.
	So that's kind of interesting.
	Maybe he admitted it to dad that he lied.
	So maybe President Joe Biden could be a witness in this case.
	But I don't understand how an addiction defense is going to save him, even if so.
	And just as an aside, Johnna, the landing on that question was not how do you react to that personally and professionally.
	It was, do you pledge not, do you pledge not to interfere?
	Should he be indicted if he broke the law?
	You know, like, don't say personally how to react to that because you're going to get, I love my son, my brother, my son, I love my son.
	Who gives a shit how he reacts to it personally?
	Are you going to stay out of it?
	That's the question.
	Right.
	And you would hope that a parent loves their son.
	I don't know.
	You know, the whole thing really stinks because I don't, we don't really care that Hunter Biden lied on a gun application.
	What we care about is he should not have a gun.
	And, you know, the tax evasion issue, that could be a very slippery slope for Joe Biden, if you ask me.
	But using this addiction defense, I think, I think the handlers and Joe Biden want the American people to be so stupid that we're going to buy this whole concocted prosecution if it even happens.
	I mean, talk about the buildup to this.
	Like, are you going to charge him or not?
	Like, how long are we going to go through with this?
	And two, the addiction defense is such a red herring.
	And that's a phrase I really have not used since law school, but it's kind of perfect here.
	And think about it this way, too.
	And again, I don't mean to mess up these analogies, but people who are addicted, right, often get behind the wheel of a car.
	They can cause an accident.
	They can kill somebody.
	They can do horrible things because they're addicted.
	That does not prevent them from being prosecuted for that very thing.
	He's really trying to pull in here the sympathy card more so than a legal defense.
	And Joe Biden is going along with that.
	The answers to that ridiculous interview was going along with that and interfering with that.
	Joe Biden should be saying, don't talk to me about it.
	If you really want to stay out of it, don't talk to me about it.
	That's what you're doing.
	That's exactly right.
	But I cannot help but think of the probably millions of Americans, certainly it'll be in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, who at their lowest moment broke a law.
	You know, maybe they did drive drunk.
	Maybe they stole something.
	Maybe they, I don't know, did a false check, whatever addicts do, and had to pay the price and have criminal records.
	They weren't, they didn't have the president stepping in.
	Oh, I love them.
	They were an addict and therefore they get a pass.
	There is no way, no way that Hunter Biden gets a pass for all this stuff just because he happened to be an addict at the time, unless every single American who got pinched for crimes while on drugs, crimes while addicted to alcohol, also get a pass.
	You know, it's just, it isn't fair.
	He can't, he can't hang his hat on that.
	And you're right.
	I like Jake Tapper, but there was an opportunity missed in not asking about the corruption that Hunter and Joe, to a lesser extent, but to an extent, have been accused of while Joe Biden was vice president immediately thereafter through Hunter's overseas connections.
	Exactly.
	And I don't see how the whole tax evasion line of prosecution is going to ignore what the rest of us already know, that there was, you know, the, what did he call him? The big man.
	How is that not going to get into this pot?
	I don't understand how that's going to escape it.
	I mean, nobody wants to touch that.
	No, it's not going to happen.
	It's not going to happen.
	No, it's not going to happen because they won't apply.
	They won't appoint a special prosecutor.
	And so there's not an independent, truly independent person looking into any of this.
	And even now that it looks like the FBI has got his case and they know what he did and what he didn't do, it's still in the hands of the Delaware U.S. attorney who hasn't made any decisions on it.
	So we really could be at a place where Donald Trump gets indicted for his documents at Mar-a-Lago and Hunter Biden gets a complete pass.
	And the American people are going to understand.
	I mean, it's truly how imbalanced these scales of justice are.
	To put it mildly.
	Yeah.
	To put it mildly, it's sick and it's scary.
	It really honestly is scary.
	I think prosecutors take a shorter time to indict or bring charges against people for much larger crime.
	I'm not saying that these crimes aren't large, but compared to what they could be charging, I really don't know what's taking so long.
	I'd like to ask them that.
	What is it taking so long?
	That's a very good question.
	You've got RICO cases, which are like these federal fraud cases where they use that statute to go after the mob and you got to have three acts and you got to have all these crimes.
	Those are brought in like a week.
	The Hunter Biden investigation has been going on since 2018.
	I think it's 18 or 19.
	And the FBI has been on him all this time.
	They opened up a grand jury back then.
	Where is the decision?
	Okay, let's move on because I want to talk about Harvey Weinstein.
	I find this case fascinating.
	I didn't think I would.
	So Harvey gets tried in New York and our pal Arthur Idala represented him.
	And I had all sorts of fun sending him texts about that.
	Harvey's not a good man.
	Harvey's not a good man.
	But Arthur did what he should do, which is as a criminal defense attorney, give him the best defense possible.
	Didn't work out in that case.
	And it wasn't particularly surprising it didn't work out in that case because they did something extraordinary.
	They let in Harvey's, quote, prior bad acts.
	And we all learn in law school, you can't get in prior bad acts against a defendant.
	You're charged with raping two women.
	That's not great.
	You're going to have to deal with them, their testimony, the evidence.
	But I don't, as the prosecutor, get to put on three other women against whom crimes were never, you know, based on whom crimes were never accused, raised, and have them get up there and say, me too.
	That's not okay.
	That's prejudicial.
	But there is an exception to that rule.
	And the court found it applied.
	And they let, I think, three, three or five other women take the stand in the Harvey case in New York to say, me too, me too, me too.
	And now Arthur is arguing on appeal.
	That was totally wrong.
	And Johnna, you tell me, because the appellate court said, no, it was fine, but it's going up to the New York State Court of Appeals.
	And in New York State, that's what we call our Supreme Court, our highest court in the land.
	I think he might win.
	I think Arthur might win on appeal.
	Not only might he win, I think he should win.
	I mean, can't you just take a page out of the Bill Cosby playbook?
	Wasn't that exact argument made in his appeal, which ultimately got him released?
	And it does make sense because you are not supposed to bring in this kind of propensity evidence for this very reason.
	And the tiny exceptions, you have to prove a common scheme or plan, et cetera.
	And to it, that's a fine pattern, pattern.
	Pattern.
	Maybe the appellate division, which is the first court, appellate court in New York, you know, maybe they didn't get that or maybe they didn't want to get it.
	So, you know, kick it up and see what the highest court in the state of New York does.
DNA Evidence In Appeals 00:15:59
	But Arthur is on great legal ground with those arguments.
	As much as, you know, a lot of us don't want to like or root for Harvey Weinstein.
	I completely get it.
	But purely from a legal standpoint, Arthur's on good ground.
	The judge on the highest court in New York who allowed this appeal is, I think, one of the most conservative justices they have and very pro-prosecution.
	So for that judge to say, Mr. Weinstein deserves for us to look at this is a good sign for Arthur's side.
	So that's why the LA trial becomes much more important, because if they reverse this conviction in New York, I mean, now you got the potential of Harvey Weinstein walking free, wheeling free, because he's supposedly in a wheelchair now.
	I got my doubts.
	So he's out in LA, and now there's another whole host of women accusing him.
	All right, let me get my facts.
	By the way, October 5th, 2017 was the date of the New York Times Weinstein article, you know, breaking this story to begin with.
	That's crazy.
	It's like almost five years ago, exactly as he now starts his second trial in LA.
	The accusations against him span four decades.
	He's been accused net net of over 90 women of sexual misconduct.
	I mean, we all know he's disgusting.
	The question is whether he was criminal.
	He, okay, the jury selection began Monday.
	Opening statements will take place, we think, later this month, maybe October 24th.
	They think the trial will last eight weeks.
	Camera's not allowed.
	He's facing a potential life sentence.
	Arrived at the hearings in a wheelchair while in a brown prison jumpsuit, just when you think it can't get any uglier brown prison jumpsuit.
	Who wants to be in a brown?
	What happened in the days of the black and white?
	That was kind of nice, the stripes.
	Yeah.
	And if they escape, they're so identifiable.
	Why would you give him a nice little brown outfit?
	Yeah, you got me.
	Okay.
	He's facing there the most expansive set of accusations.
	11 charges, four forcible rape, four forcible oral copulation, one sexual penetration by foreign object, two sexual battery by restraint, five accusers.
	Jane Doe's one through five, though one named Lauren Young has outed herself and is comfortable being identified.
	She's a model and an actress, testified at the New York trial in 2020 as one of the others, the prior bad acts, to show a quote, pattern of abuse.
	She says Weinstein trapped her in a hotel bathroom in 2013, masturbated while gripping and pinching her breast before she fled.
	Says in 2013, she was summoned to meet him at a bar in the lobby of the Montage Beverly Hills luxury hotel.
	She was 22.
	Says suddenly he prepared.
	He said he had to prepare for an event with Quentin Tarantino and she needed to follow him to his suite at the hotel.
	She said he unzipped her dress, pulling it down.
	When she tried to leave, he said, no, no, we are just going to have a talk here.
	How am I going to know if you can act?
	I said, no, no, no, the whole time.
	She said, I was not interested.
	And then he started masturbating, gripping, and pinching her breast, squinting at her, which is just sort of a gross detail.
	You can picture it as she was pushed up against the sink.
	At some point, she said he tried to touch her genitals.
	He ejaculated into a towel, then exited the bathroom.
	I stayed standing in shock.
	Now, not for nothing.
	I don't know Ms. Young, but I have interviewed plenty of Harvey accusers, including my friend Lauren Savan, who worked with me at Fox, who was one of the first.
	She was the first to go on television, publicly accuse him with me.
	And her testimonial was shocking and to some extent mirrored the one I just read to you.
	We pulled a clip, listen to her.
	That's when he blocked the entrance or exit for me and said, well, then just stand there and be quiet.
	And that's when I realized, oh, did you know what was about to happen?
	No idea.
	No idea.
	Completely shocked.
	And yet, what is going to happen?
	Like, stand up and stand there and be quiet.
	I had no idea what was going to happen.
	And it happened very quickly.
	And he immediately exposed himself and, you know, began pleasuring himself.
	And I just stood there dumbfounded.
	What are you thinking in this moment?
	I was so shocked.
	I could not believe what I was witnessing.
	Could not believe what I was witnessing.
	She told me that this is at a restaurant.
	This is at Cipriani in New York.
	He offered to give her a tour.
	He brought her downstairs and got her in a hallway in a restaurant that wasn't fully open, as I recall, but it wasn't like a crowded hallway, but got her up against the wall.
	She didn't want to fool around with him.
	And then he basically said, just stand there, whipped it out, pleasured himself into a potted plant, Johnna.
	That was part of Lauren's story.
	And then walked away.
	And I remember she was saying, like, I didn't know what he was going to do.
	Like, it was just like, what's he going to do?
	And we, I talked to and listened to all these psychiatrists and psychologists trying to analyze his behavior at the time.
	And what they said was, he gets off on the dirtiness of it.
	Like something must have happened to him.
	This isn't scientific, so just go with it.
	But something must have happened to him with like his mother when he was little or something happened where like the dirtiness of it, the naughtiness of it, the forbidden nature of it was the turn on.
	Like he needs it to be gross and forbidden and deeply wrong in order to get off.
	So he doesn't care that he's jerking off into a potted plant in front of a television anchor.
	He, that's his thing.
	So I have to say, Ms. Young's testimonial rings very true to me.
	She might have DNA evidence as well, Johnna.
	Well, that would be a nail in the coffin, maybe, because I'm looking at the LA trial as almost deja vu all over again.
	Because if you remember from the New York trial, the bulk of his defense was basically not that these people are lying per se, or I don't know who they are.
	I've never had any contact.
	He's basically saying, this was all consensual.
	All the intimate details, all the things that we did was all consensual.
	Sorry about that, you know, but you can't convict me if it was consensual.
	And there was some.
	as much as they took a minute, there was some evidence in his in his favor.
	There were some emails that one of the accusers or the victims said, you know, I want you to meet my mother.
	And this was after that they, you know, he raped her.
	Stuff like that that the jurors had to wrap their mind around.
	Just, you know, pick it up and move it 3,000 miles.
	And we're going, I think we're going to have the same exact blueprint for the LA trial.
	And the reason why we now know why they're even bothering with the LA trial and not dismissing the charges or not offering some sort of plea is because there is a chance that Harvey Weinstein wins an appeal in New York.
	It might take a while.
	It won't be tomorrow.
	But if he does that, then he's got to go for broke.
	But he, you know, so he can't, he can't just sign up and plead in California for another 10 or 20 years to run whenever consecutive to this case because he might get out.
	He might get out in New York and he doesn't want to be locked up in California when that ruling comes down, if it comes down.
	That is, it's unbelievable to think there is a possibility this guy could be free walking around like in the not too distant future.
	In this case, the DNA, the alleged DNA, is that when this woman testified in the New York case, she didn't have the dress that she was wearing.
	She said two days ago, I don't know, recently, I guess I should say, because I don't know what the date of this, she found the dress and that she's given it to the prosecutors in LA and it's going to be tested for his DNA.
	But again, that doesn't answer the story of consent, the question of whether she was there consensually.
	She, of course, says no.
	He's going to argue yes.
	And this is what we know so far, okay, according to a variety article dated December 2021.
	He's going to say that some of these accusers gave inconsistent statements to the cops, that another one faked an orgasm, raising the question about whether he knew she was not consenting, that another one was entering into a transactional arrangement following the alleged assault in which she would get access to movie premieres in exchange for allowing him to masturbate during massages.
	And that one of the accusers failed to identify certain physical anomalies.
	That's another disgusting thing.
	In addition to his weird squinting and public exposure, he's apparently got a deformed penis.
	Forgive me, audience, but he does some scarring or something on it.
	And a lot of these women are able to say that.
	They know that.
	And the juror, the jury in New York was shown pictures of it.
	These poor jurors.
	And the same will happen in LA.
	Then there's another, similar to what we saw in Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.
	One of the accusers posted a photo of herself online with Al Pacino with the caption, Beautiful Evening, hours after the alleged incident with Harvey.
	And his lawyers are going to say, that's not a victim, right?
	So it does get a lot.
	When you're up here, John, you're like, okay, he's a scumbag and he's a criminal and he should go to jail.
	And then you drill down just a little bit lower and you're like, still a scumbag.
	Proving no consent.
	And then he knew they weren't consenting.
	It does, I'm not saying it's not true.
	I'm saying it gets tougher to prove.
	Exactly.
	And that's going to be the dilemma for this jury.
	Although, you know, the reality is the California jury is probably well aware of the New York case.
	There isn't going to be a single person on the jury who doesn't know who Harvey Weinstein is, what he was accused of, what the Me Too movement.
	Nobody's, they're all going to know that.
	And in this day and age, even though jurors say, oh, we can be fair and impartial, it's hard when you have a kind of backstory that you're not going to get in front of you as you're sitting there participating in the justice process.
	But that said, you know, can I go back to something that you said?
	Because I think I find it very intriguing that you had conversations with shrinks who said the reason why he got off doing things the way he did is because he got off on it.
	And I think maybe he got off on the dirtiness of it because he knows deep down inside that he is not deserving of a real relationship with these women because they wouldn't be with him but for his fame and the opportunity that he perhaps dangled over anyone's head who was in the same room with him.
	That he knew that he had nothing to offer but maybe the possibility of getting in a movie and that he, and that's what he used.
	And that's what made him ultra disgusting.
	And I can also tell you, speaking from experience, it's hard.
	If you're a woman confronted by a man who you know, and maybe the man has some sort of power and he does something that you're not expecting, like who wants to have a meeting, a conversation in a public bathroom with some dude?
	Like, if you're going to have a conversation with me, I'm not going to the bathroom.
	Like, that's not what he was there for.
	And it's hard.
	I'm not saying you turn to a deer in the headlights, but you, you, you mentally have to decide how am I going to react in the few seconds I have to react.
	And I think, first and foremost, you're like, first, I want to stay alive.
	Second, I don't want to be raped.
	Third, I don't want to be misinterpreting what's happening here and look like a fool.
	And I think that's a big one and a mistake that a lot of women make when they might, I'm not saying acquiesce and say not know how to react, not know how to react.
	You're just getting through it.
	Not know how to get away.
	Right.
	You're just getting through it.
	That's exactly right.
	These are all great points because, you know, a lot of people, there's a knee jerk like, because the Me Too movement overreached so much.
	There's a knee jerk of like, she didn't complain.
	She posted the picture saying beautiful evening.
	You got to understand who Harvey Weinstein was.
	These four women who are, or four of the five women who are accusing him in LA, four of these alleged rapes and assaults and so on occurred during Oscar's week, 2013, when Weinstein released Silverlining's playbook and Django Unchained and would win Academy Awards.
	And may I remind the audience, 2013 was one year after Meryl Streep stood up at the Academy Awards, which presumably all these young actresses and aspiring actresses heard and said the following.
	So I just want to thank my agent, Kevin Yuvain, and God, Harvey Weinstein.
	One year after that, four of these alleged rapes and sex.
	It's complicated for these women.
	Listen, I can relate to this just from Fox.
	You cross the king.
	Your career is effing over.
	You know, and it's like he was the king.
	He was God.
	And these women knew that.
	They didn't want to sacrifice their entire career in the moments.
	I mean, it's not to say you, you know, you, you, you go along with it, but you don't know what to do.
	I'm sure they did freeze.
	More than one of these women likely froze.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And who can blame them, especially if you're not expecting it?
	Look, they might have enjoyed having a conversation with this guy because of the power, because of the position he could have put their careers in.
	And they might, look, that's just Networking, for lack of a better word, but that's where it should have stopped.
	That's where it should have stopped.
	You don't need to, you know, masturbate into a plant.
	You don't need to corner women in bathrooms.
	You don't need to summon them, summon them to your hotel room so they can take a look at your misshapen penis.
	It stops.
	And it didn't stop for him.
	And, but, and therein lies, I was going to say therein lies the rub, and I'm going to take that back because I don't think it's unintended.
	But when you now look at the evidence, that's evidence that's going to be presented in this California case.
	It's a struggle to determine how many of these women do you bring in to tell this same story without violating the rights of the accused.
	And they're doing prior bad acts in California too.
	They're also letting women in to do prior bad acts in California too.
	So if it's a mistake in New York, it could be a mistake in California too.
	Why not just rely on the evidence of the five accusers you have?
	Like, why take the risk?
	You know, that is a really good question.
	And I don't know if it's for the pomp and circumstance, but look, and I hate to bring him up again, but this was the exact argument that got Bill Cosby released.
	So, you know, prosecutors should learn from this.
	You know, put up enough.
	Don't try to overkill, right?
	Because it could come back to bite you on appeal.
	I have to tell you a story.
	So I knew Harvey Weinstein a little bit just from meeting him at events and so on.
	And he met me and he met my husband, Doug.
	And at one point, he actually offered Doug a job to go write screenplays for his companies.
	And I was like, all right, Duggar, that, you know, because my husband's a writer.
	And I'm like, Duggar, that'd be so cool, right?
	This is before, you know, I certainly didn't know Harvey Weinstein did any of this stuff.
	And Doug said to me, again, before any of this was even in the air, he goes, no way, Meg, he's a bad guy.
Entertaining Legal Podcasts 00:16:07
	What do you mean?
	Seems okay.
	I'm so stupid on this stuff.
	It seems nice.
	He sees your genius.
	He's like, no way.
	It's not happening.
	He's not a good guy.
	Doug always knows.
	He always knows.
	And thank God he did not go and work for him.
	Not that he was going to sexually assault Doug, but just, you know, God only knows.
	You know, maybe he was using Doug to try to, you know, make sure my coverage of him would be favorable.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, this guy is not a good man.
	And I'm very happy, even though I can't always spot the bad guys.
	I married someone who can.
	Yes, John.
	She was at the wedding.
	All right.
	Stand by because we have so much more to discuss, including Kim Kardashian's latest pet project.
	Yet another person she wants us to believe her legal document tells us does not belong in jail.
	Don't go away.
	Kelly's court continues after this.
	All right, let's bang through these cases because we have a few to get through.
	Number one, New York State basically made it impossible to get a concealed carry license in this state in a case that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And the court ruled six to three to strike down the New York law, saying you've taken what's a constitutional right and tried to make it into a privilege that some bureaucrat gets to decide whether it's granted or not.
	And New York promptly passed a new law that, as far as I can see, may be even more restrictive than the law that was just struck down, saying, once again, you have to show proper cause.
	That was the language in the old law to get a permit, saying you can't have a gun in virtually any sensitive location, which includes subway stations, parks, schools, you name it, every place.
	That you have to disclose three years worth of your social media accounts, as well as the identities of all relatives, including spouses, in your permit application.
	And you have to demonstrate your good moral character and so like in interviews with local.
	I mean, this is absurd.
	So a federal judge said, no, I'm blocking at least huge portions of this, consistent with the Supreme Court opinion.
	And now New York State has appealed to this very liberal Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And one judge has said, I will grant you like a temporary hold on that lower court's ruling and let you continue enforcing all these restrictive policies on gun applicants, gun permit applicants, until you can have the full appeal heard.
	So where's this likely to go?
	This is horrible.
	I think what's likely to happen is eventually when this is heard, even though it's a liberal circuit, it's going to go back to center.
	Look, I have a real problem when any state, but especially New York, loves to do it.
	Don't crap on the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Just don't do it.
	And when the Supreme Court made that ruling and said, look, the Second Amendment is a second amendment.
	You don't need to force people to have a reason to enjoy the Second Amendment.
	You don't need to force them to do that.
	When they came back with basically punching SCOTIS in its face, figuratively speaking, it said, oh, yeah, well, we're going to do this, this, and this.
	It's wrong and it should not stand.
	But right now, New Yorkers should be very confused about where and when and how licensed gun owners like me, Megan, lawful, law-abiding licensed gun owners should be very confused about where we can carry.
	Number one.
	Number two.
	Number two.
	So I didn't mean to cut you off.
	No, no, one thing that I can say that is encouraging is some of the sheriff's offices in the state of New York have said, you know what?
	I don't care.
	We're not going to, and this is one way to get around what the craziness of New York governor doing.
	We're not going to enforce these highly restrictive new laws.
	And I have, if I can tell you a quick story, because it's a little bit funny.
	Back in 2013, when the other ridiculous governor, Cuomo, enacted the SAFE Act, I was the first attorney, maybe the only attorney, to get a case where somebody was arrested under the SAFE Act.
	His name was Gregory Dean, driving in a car.
	He was a licensed lawful gun owner, got pulled over for, I don't know, speeding, whatever.
	They found that he had his gun in the car, which was lawful, but the SAFE Act restricted the number of rounds you could have in your magazine.
	So you were supposed to have no more than seven in your 10-round magazine.
	He was driving around with nine.
	He got arrested.
	I was, again, no pun intended, armed for bear.
	I could not wait to defend him.
	I was going to pontificate.
	I was going to make all these wonderful arguments.
	And when I got to court, the DA declined to prosecute.
	It said, we're case dismissed.
	And I said, come on, I want to pontificate.
	I want arguments to make.
	And he said, nope, sorry, case dismissed.
	Go home.
	And he cost it.
	So that was my big, that was my moment.
	And the DA took it away from me.
	And I think similar things will happen here while we are waiting for the appellate court, the court of appeal to clear up what they're doing.
	Clearly.
	This law is not consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
	And I agree with you.
	If it's not struck down by the Second Circuit, which I think even this left-wing court might strike it down, it's going to get struck down by the Supreme Court.
	Okay, so that's the guns case.
	Now, Kim Kardashian, who's been a lawyer, I don't know, for like one minute and has never practiced law and failed the bar three times, has decided to launch a, it's basically an innocence project podcast where she's using her considerable legal skills to try to tell us why certain, certain people didn't commit the crimes.
	And she's outright said this guy, Kevin Keith, is innocent in her esteemed legal opinion and is making the case for this guy to get out of jail.
	Now, he was convicted in May of 1994 in Ohio on three counts of aggravated murder, three counts of attempted aggravated murder.
	They say he went into this house and he unleashed hell on this family, shooting several people.
	And again, as I said, killing three people, including a four-year-old girl, her 24-year-old mother and a 39-year-old woman who was the aunt.
	And then shooting three others, including a six-year-old, a four-year-old, and the boyfriend of one of the people who died.
	Those who survived have uniformly said this was the guy who did it.
	They've said it was this man who's been convicted, Kevin Keith.
	But there are some holes in some of the testimonials like, well, the main guy said, when he was first asked by like EMTs who did it, he said, I don't know.
	But then the next morning, he's like, it was Kevin Keith.
	And they say, well, the cops got to him and gave him that name.
	But he also managed to pick him out of a photo lineup, six men.
	He said that was him and it was Kevin Keith.
	And they're trying to suggest that there was another guy who did it who was also mad.
	They claim the motivation in this case was this guy had been ratted out.
	This guy had been ratted out by the brother of the main woman who was shot, that the brother of the main woman who was shot was a police informant and this guy paid the price for it, this Kevin Keith.
	And Kevin Keith raised at trial the fact that there was another man who'd been ratted out by this brother and he could have done it.
	He raised it at trial.
	The jury rejected it.
	Now they want it to be the basis for his conviction being overturned.
	And this is getting attention now because, you know, that's just where we are right now.
	All criminal justice convictions must be revisited, especially when here the jury was all white and the defendant is not.
	Yeah.
	You know, it's funny because when we were able to do this kind of thing, we're able to have these innocence projects, the podcasts, all the entertaining things that surround it when we have convictions that are, that predate forensics as we know them today, right?
	Because without that, eyewitness testimony is often subject to, you know, it's problematic.
	Other testimony, witness statements, blah, blah, et cetera.
	It's not as solid in a juror's mind as the science can be.
	So it kind of lends itself to this sort of attack years, years later down the road.
	But I, you know, and I didn't follow this case per se.
	I don't like whenever children are killed, I kind of, you know, I'm not going to, I don't get involved because there's no excuse.
	You know, and I don't know how much if there's no solid evidence that can exonerate, if there's no solid evidence that says not only did this man, he's innocent versus not only can he, we not find him guilty, we actually have to find him innocent.
	If there's no evidence to prove that, then I have a hard time overturning convictions that several courts have refused to overturn, et cetera.
	And this, to me, falls in that vein as opposed to another podcast.
	And I know that you've heard of it, the serial podcast with which I thought totally different from this.
	When I listened to serial, I was hooked on serial and I was also convinced that Adnan Syed was innocent, actually innocent.
	Not that they didn't prove it, that he was actually innocent.
	And when I compare these two, it's not the same for me.
	Do you, how did you feel about the Adnan Syed?
	Do you feel like that?
	When I listened to the podcast, I was leaning toward, oh yeah, you know, there's, I don't know if he did it.
	Like I have enough questions that they should try him again, that we should have another fair look at this.
	But I've got questions about Marilyn Mosby and the way that she, that's the prosecutor in Baltimore who you and I go way back on her.
	And she's an activist.
	And this, they've raised similar allegations of like Adnan was bullied because he was a Muslim and the police didn't do that.
	And she's like all about identity politics.
	And she's the one who swooped in and said, oh, no, he didn't do it.
	And now the one who swooped in and said, and he's never going to be retried.
	We're not retrying him.
	It's over.
	Double jeopardy, whatever.
	Can't go back at him.
	And I don't trust her.
	And when I took a hard look at the evidence, you know, that the family was raising, I remain with questions.
	Where's Jay?
	First of all, he's the main witness in that case who says Adnan showed him the body in Adnan's trunk and that he and Adnan buried the victim together.
	Right.
	Now, I realize there's some holes in Jay's story, but I didn't find them that problematic.
	The biggest one was Jay originally said that he Adnan showed him the body of the defendant, the decedent, in front of Jay's grandma's house.
	That's what actually happened now, according to Jay, but originally he told cops another story.
	And Jay is saying, I didn't want to tell you in front of my grandma's house.
	I didn't want my grandma to get involved.
	And by the way, I deal drugs out of grandma's house, so I just didn't really want you going over there messing with it.
	I buy that.
	I really have doubts about Adnan.
	I'd like to see another trial.
	I don't agree with the decision not to retry him.
	But I don't, I don't know about this case.
	I don't see anything here that makes me say we should be revisiting this man's conviction.
	Nothing.
	What I see is an attention-hungry, vain, back-to-me person who wants to see her name in the headlines, perhaps for some reason other than her ass, trying to bring attention to herself and not to this defendant.
	That's what I believe is happening here.
	Well, isn't it, isn't it perfect?
	I mean, what a great way to be a lawyer, right?
	Not actually practicing law, just sort of practicing more legal entertainment, which I found serial to be very legally entertaining.
	I'm sure Kim's podcast is very legally entertaining.
	She doesn't actually have to make any decisions or have anybody's life specifically in her hands and not for nothing.
	And you probably know this, but a lot of the, when, when we do have a defendant who is later exonerated and let out of prison after so many years, they typically get big fat paychecks from the state for their wrongful incarceration.
	And not that she needs the money, but I could see that maybe helping her motivate things.
	I don't have to.
	I mean, I just feel like uncomfortable generally with this, like, you know, people who don't have law degrees, who don't have never practiced law, who are not steeped in the criminal law, doing these in-depth podcasts, trying to get somebody exonerated because they think it's exciting.
	They think it's, you know, they're onto something.
	They're going to get their own name and lights.
	I think we really need to pump the brakes on these cases because the public sort of loves these, you know, down on his luck.
	Oh, look at him now stories.
	And there are real victims.
	You know, this guy, says a jury, murdered three people, including a child, and shot three more, including two other children.
	That is not somebody we want back out in the streets because Kim Kardashian thinks he ought to be.
	So I really, I got, I got concerns about the whole situation.
	All right.
	Let's end it on Alex Jones being forced to being a billion dollar verdict awarded against him in favor of the Sandy Hook families who sued him for the harassment that he's unleashed on them by saying over and over and over again that they're crisis actors, that their children didn't die.
	You know, he's like, they're not going to get paid.
	I declared bankruptcy for these entities and, you know, has absolutely zero sympathy for them as he, as he has always shown.
	So what's going to happen with this billion dollar verdict?
	Nothing.
	This is a Pyrrhic victory.
	Unfortunately, I don't think these families are going to see a dime.
	There's so many ways for Alex Jones to evade having to actually pay them.
	Bankruptcy is one, but there are other ways that he can do it.
	Just like harken back to OJ Simpson had a $33 million verdict against him.
	I don't think he ever forked over a dime.
	There are ways around it.
	Smart lawyers, lawyers will be able to do that.
	Unless, you know, what I would love to see, this will never happen.
	Imagine if he just did a 180 and was contrite and said, I'm going to pay what I have.
	I'm going to pay what I have.
	And I don't know, maybe that is.
	I don't know if he's got a billion.
	I don't know if he's got less than that, whatever, but I'm going to pay what I have and then walk away and either go away or I don't know if he's going to try to rebuild himself by being apologetic.
	The harm to these families is beyond measure when they lost their children.
	He doubled down on that.
	I would love to see them get paid.
	I predicted they won't.
	They just won't.
	He continues.
	I'm sorry, but my friends in the media who say this is about his free speech rights, I respectfully disagree because he named parents by name and repeatedly said that they were crisis actors.
	And those parents testified about the hell that was unleashed in their world, about their babies' bodies being threatened to be dug up by people who believed that they weren't in there and being stopped on the street and harassed.
	And Alex Jones never stopped going after them by name.
	Even yesterday on his InfoWar Wars show Wednesday, he said, and I quote, they covered up what really happened.
	And now I'm the devil.
	They covered up what really happened.
	They did not cover up what really happened.
	They were very open about what really happened.
	And it was one of the biggest tragedies to ever befall a set of parents in the United States.
	Okay, finally, before I let you go, Parkland.
	Massive shooting down in Parkland, Florida, a school shooting, 17 dead.
	And the jury came back recommending life in prison for the shooter, not the death penalty.
	Here was just one parent's reaction.
	This is Dr. Ilan al-Hadaf, father of Alyssa al-Hadaf.
	I'm disgusted with this system that you can allow 17 dead and 17 others shot and wounded and not give the death penalty.
	What do we have the death penalty for?
	What is the purpose of it?
	You set a precedent today.
Parkland Life Sentence 00:02:20
	You set a precedent for the next mass killing and nothing happens to you.
	You'll get life in jail.
	I'm sorry.
	That is not okay.
	As a country, we need to stand up and say that's not okay.
	I pray that that animal suffers every day of his life in jail.
	And he should have a short life.
	Poor dad.
	John.
	I mean, the jury, apparently, there was one woman who held out.
	I mean, what do you make of it?
	I couldn't agree more.
	It's absolutely disgusting.
	The jury made a mistake in it.
	You know, come on, you know, to have sympathy, to have sympathy, because I don't know, this guy, they thought he might have some sort of mental illness.
	I'm sure that was brought up in the penalty phase that, you know, mom drank when he was in the womb.
	You know, 17 kids.
	It's just disgusting.
	I can't.
	I really, I really don't have words for that, but he will, but I will, there is some solace.
	He won't live long in prison.
	He absolutely won't.
	People who do that do not live long in prison.
	He'll be murdered or something, whatever.
	They'll find him, you know, belly up in his bunk, but dead.
	It's just so awful.
	Listen, thank you so much for being here.
	We're going to call up Robert and start prank phone calling him.
	Thanks so much for joining us, everyone.
	Next week on the show, Mike Rowe comes back.
	Looking forward to that.
	And an interview with U.S. Top Gun Fighter pilot, Dave Burke.
	What Dave learned from his decades of service about fear and discipline.
	What did he think of Tom Cruise in the Top Gun movie that just came out?
	Did he do Top Gun Justice?
	I'll ask him.
	This is an interview you won't want to miss.
	In the meantime, download the show, Megan Kelly Show on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher.
	Go to youtube.com/slash Megan Kelly, and you can sign up for my Friday email at megan at megankelly.com.
	Just go to megankelly.com, basically.
	And you can enter your email and then we can have a weekly correspondence.
	I think you'll really enjoy this Stradwick update this week because he's just as naughty as ever.
	But maybe I'm seeing the glimmers of goodness.
	I'm going to update you on that next week.
	In any event, you can check it out at megankelly.com.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:23 Real Life Streaming Dreams
00:06:10 Leaving The Democratic Party
00:08:22 Respecting Independent Voices
00:24:23 Avoiding Nuclear Escalation
00:36:59 Kamala Harris Record
00:41:37 Gender Affirming Care Debate
00:48:25 Hunter Biden Addiction Defense
01:03:49 DNA Evidence In Appeals
01:19:48 Entertaining Legal Podcasts
01:35:55 Parkland Life Sentence