The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230209_fetterman-hospitalized-hunter-hearing-and-murdaugh

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Feb. 9, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:35:10

20230209_fetterman-hospitalized-hunter-hearing-and-murdaugh

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Severe Diagnostic Possibilities 00:05:18
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Later this episode, we're going to bring you the latest on the Murdoch trial.
	Oh, my goodness, there was some amazing testimony this week before the whole thing got shut down thanks to a bomb threat.
	I wonder who called that in.
	Who would have reason to shut down this trial, which is going so well for Alec Murgadok?
	We're going to have our star panel back that we had earlier on this case that everybody loved with the latest on that and the latest on the fact that the civil lawsuit against Alec Baldwin in connection with that Rust shooting just got filed again.
	Remember the family of Helena Hutchins sued him and then they settled and then they cut a deal for the widower to be an executive producer of the production, which they said was going to start back up.
	Well, guess what?
	Now, I don't know if that's off or what, but he's retained Gloria Allred and they've filed another lawsuit.
	All right, so we'll get into all that.
	Then we're going to have a conversation with Miranda Devine on the Hunter Biden laptop Twitter hearing yesterday.
	So much good sound to bring you from that.
	But we are beginning with the news that Senator John Fetterman has been hospitalized.
	To discuss this breaking news, we have cardiologist Dr. Anish Koka and our friend Rich Lowry from National Review.
	Guys, thank you so much for being here.
	So, Doc, the latest news we got is that he was hospitalized overnight, and that his team is saying that the initial review did not show evidence of a new stroke, but doctors are running more tests.
	And this was yesterday evening, and that he's remaining overnight for observations.
	That he was in good spirits and talking with his staff, but we really don't know much more than that about the 53-year-old, who, as viewers and listeners may recall, suffered a stroke on May 13th, 2022, four days before the Democratic primary.
	So, what concerns come to mind as you hear this news?
	Yeah, I mean, thanks for having me, Megan.
	When you have somebody like Mr. Fetterman, have lightheadedness, you know, it's important to remember, put it in context.
	It's not like, you know, having a 25-year-old man who has no medical history having lightheadedness.
	This is, you know, a 50-something-year-old man who, you know, really unfortunately had a stroke.
	And then, and then, you know, it was a more, it wasn't just a, and that's complicated enough, but on top of that, it was discovered at the time.
	I think we found out a few days later, that he had a weak heart muscle.
	So he has heart failure.
	On top of that, he has a defibrillator.
	A defibrillator is a device that is implanted in the body by cardiologists that kind of sits there and it's like a computer that's constantly monitoring the heart rhythm.
	And if there's a bad heart rhythm that's noted, the device gets activated to try to save your life.
	So the diagnostic possibilities in terms of somebody who's 50-some years old, who has a history of a stroke, who has heart failure, who has the defibrillator, who has lightheadedness, is obviously, you know, there's some severe possibilities there.
	It could be totally benign.
	It could be that it could be that he's dehydrated.
	It could be that the doctors, in terms of her managing his heart failure, when they're adding medicines for that, it could be that, you know, those medicines he could be having some type of a reaction to and they have to dial back some of those medicines.
	Or it could be, or it could be things that are, you know, that could be, you know more concerning like bad arrhythmias um uh or, or heart failure, that that that's progressing um, so there's a number of different possibilities and again, it's it's really hard, with the little pieces that we get from uh, from the the Fetterman side of things, to kind of figure out where where, where in that whole gradient.
	Uh, you know, he would be well when you say it could be heart failure progressing um I, of course, I know absolutely nothing about cardiology in the way you do, but if you have a defibrillator in there as well as a pacemaker, how does one suffer heart failure?
	Yeah, so it.
	I mean, if you so, defibrillators it's a common question that's asked, it's a good question.
	Defibrillators and pacemakers um, except for one peculiar circumstance where you have a certain conduction problem with the heart and then the pacemaker actually is re-synchronizing the heart to make the heart pump better.
	And we don't, we have no idea because we've never, we've never actually spoken or heard from the treating uh physician who actually put in the device.
	So we don't even know the details of what exact device is.
	So defibrillators are complicated.
	There's a defibrillator that just has one lead that sits there and is just sitting there looking to see if you're going to have a bad rhythm and it shocks you or paces you out of that bad rhythm.
	And then there's one unique case, like i'm talking about, where the, a re-synchronizing pacemaker, can be used to improve your heart function.
	We don't know any of that, but if he has the general type of defibrillator, which is just a defibrillator that's sitting there waiting to save your life, in case you have a very bad rhythm and you're predisposed to these bad rhythms because your heart muscle is weak, then that defibrillator isn't doing anything to make your heart better per se.
Questions About Fitness To Serve 00:14:32
	So so um, so yeah, so again it's, it's very hard, kind of stumbling around in the dark uh, without knowing any, any of these details, and there's so many details that you know, as cardiologists, we would, we would love to love to know.
	Well, can I ask you about that because you're from Pennsylvania?
	Um, you're a Pennsylvania guy?
	Yep, has it been frustrating for you, as a doctor who's also a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, to not get more information, because all we ever got was like a general note from his general practitioner saying he's fit to serve.
	He never released his medical records.
	Yeah, I mean, it gets to this whole notion.
	I never really spent that much time thinking about it, but it does get to this notion of like well, what exactly is the public supposed to know about the politician you're voting for um, in terms of how sick you are, you know?
	And I mean, do we need to know like, what exact hypertension medications he's on?
	I guess probably not but but um but, you know, after someone suffers such a significant um event um yeah, I mean, I think it's, it's, it behooves folks to know more about what the prognosis is here and uh uh, how you know more and in order to know what prognosis is, how well you're going to be able to discharge, you know what is a very busy or can be a very, very busy, stressful job um yeah,
	it would be really helpful to know more details and and we just, you know, there just have been details have been so, so difficult to uh, to kind of uh pull out.
	So yeah, that is that has been, has been frustrating.
	All right, stand by Rich.
	It's interesting to Hear the good doctor, a cardiologist, talk about how frustrating it is for him to not get the details he would like to ascertain whether Fetterman really is fit to serve and is capable of doing this job.
	And it was a frustration that a lot of voters and would-be voters had in the run up to this election, one that we were told over and over again was somehow inappropriate to raise, that you were being an ableist if you pushed too hard for more details.
	And now the guy was sworn in on January 3rd.
	It's a month later, and he's already had a medical event.
	He's back in the hospital.
	And once again, we're getting the stiff arm on details.
	Yeah, so let's hope it's nothing and let's hope he's out soon and feeling better.
	But they've been hiding the ball on this from the beginning.
	And the fact is, it's not unusual.
	Any politician with a major health issue instantly becomes George Santos, right?
	You can't believe anything they say.
	They always hide the ball.
	And Fetterman was diagnosed with this heart condition in 2017.
	We never heard about it.
	He has the stroke.
	They're not transparent about it.
	They're not forthright about it.
	As you say, they get a general note from a friendly doctor.
	I would say in their defense, that debate he had with Oz, the one debate, is pretty much all you needed to know as a voter to ascertain his condition.
	And it was not good.
	You know, he had trouble understanding the questions and expressing himself.
	And it wasn't just problems with the teleprompter as they try to spin it afterwards.
	He has genuine problems communicating, which is a huge part of the job of the senator.
	But Oz managed to lose to him anyway.
	And a decisive segment of Pennsylvania voters just decided it wasn't important to them.
	But I'll just add the most shameful episode this entire period when they tried to destroy the career of that NBC News reporter who's covering the campaign, had an interview with him and said prior to the interview, it was clear he did not understand what she was saying when she was trying to engage in idle chit chat.
	They said she was lying.
	And as you say, she was an ableist and hated disabled people and set the cause of disabled people back decades.
	And it's one thing, Megan, for like people to come after you.
	You know, you're used to it.
	Here's this young reporter has to fear.
	Is she going to get fired?
	Is she going to have any career again?
	And they were lying.
	And she was telling the truth.
	And that was just disgraceful.
	Yeah.
	I mean, she was the best example of people being shamed for asking good questions or raising concerns.
	And all along, Doc, they kept telling us there's no cognitive issue with him.
	It's just this auditory processing difficulty in the wake of the stroke.
	And yet, in that debate and since then, it does appear that there are cognitive issues.
	He can't, it's not just the way he hears things.
	His speech makes no sense half the time.
	He's not saying the right words in the right situations.
	Am I, is that cognitive?
	All right.
	Hold on.
	We're going to work on our connection with Dr. Coca and try to get an answer to that question.
	But here's an example, Rich, of what I'm talking about.
	He spoke this is February 3rd, not even a week ago in Philadelphia.
	And you can see, you can hear for yourself, he's trying to talk about clean water.
	Here's how it went.
	Replacing the lead pipes and ensuring that everyone has clean, safe, clean drinking work, water.
	Drinking work.
	I mean, meanwhile, the drinking water sign is like blaring behind him.
	This is what the whole event is about.
	He couldn't get it out.
	Anybody else, you'd say, oh, we all stumble on our words.
	I mean, it's every day with this guy.
	Yeah, it's painful.
	And he's generally avoided interviews.
	And it's a clear double standard because when Mark Kirk, former senator from Illinois, Republican, had a stroke and was like, he had a stroke.
	He's not going to be able to be a senator anymore.
	The newspaper said it in Illinois.
	No one was like, oh, you're an ableist.
	This is a terrible thing you're doing to Mark Kirk.
	So again, I would have thought just given that debate that you shouldn't have voted for John Fetterman because it's going to be really hard for him to do the job.
	But they had the debate and Pennsylvania voters made a different decision.
	Here's why it's upsetting because he was pressed over and over again about whether he was fit to serve.
	I mean, honestly, he's made it one month and he's back in the hospital.
	One month.
	And here's just a preview of what was happening back in November 2022 when he was talking about this.
	And the thing is, there's a reason that nobody wanted us asking these questions.
	The Democrats understood very well that it was a 50-50 Senate at the time.
	They had the opportunity to capture this seat.
	And therefore, we weren't allowed to inquire past, I'm fit, I'm fit, I'm fit.
	Here's an example of an exchange he had with Don Lamont over at CNN, SOT 22.
	Because then voters may wonder, is there a reason that you don't want your doctors to take questions?
	That's why I keep asking this stuff.
	Oh, I just believe that we have our doctors just weigh in on that and they believe that I'm fit to serve.
	I'm fit to serve.
	And then let me flash forward with you to his swearing in January 3rd.
	And just he looks completely lost.
	This is SOC 2.
	Congratulations, Senator.
	Congratulations.
	Okay.
	Nice to see you.
	Take care.
	Okay.
	It doesn't get better from there.
	And then the water thing I'm telling you about.
	So, I mean, we haven't exactly had a banner first month.
	Yeah, it's painful.
	And it's just, we've talked about this a lot over the years.
	One of the worst things about our politics is just there are two different sets of standards and reality is distorted to accommodate one side and whatever its interests are at that time.
	So we heard from all sorts of voices in the legacy media, oh, it's so, he's so courageous because he did this debate knowing he's not going to be able to talk very well.
	Or, you know, this is this is a great advance for disabled people.
	They're going to have a senator who can't really communicate very well, which no one would have thought of saying prior to needing to elect John Fetterman to the seat that could have a decisive effect on who controlled the Senate.
	So just making up these new standards are a reason why everyone distrusts or a huge swath of people distrust anything you hear in the media.
	His physician, the one we were relying on for these assurances that he was A-OK, the primary care physician, which is not a cardiologist, that is not somebody who's got the in-depth knowledge.
	He came out and said before the debate that Fetterman speaks intelligently without cognitive deficits, though shows signs of auditory processing disorder, which causes him to have trouble understanding certain spoken words.
	Well, that wasn't true.
	I mean, that just wasn't true.
	We saw it for ourselves in that debate.
	So you tell me, Rich, why we should feel reassured or in a position to take the word of the Fetterman team when they tell us, oh, he just went into the hospital because he felt lightheaded and that the initial test did not show evidence of a new stroke, but the doctors are running more tests.
	I don't trust these guys.
	Even though he's already got the office now, I don't trust them.
	No, and you shouldn't trust them.
	Again, they've been hiding the ball and have been transparent for years on his underlying conditions and especially after the stroke.
	So maybe this is true.
	I don't discount it.
	Let's hope it is true, but you got to distrust and verify.
	So let's wait and see what actually transpires.
	But no, you can't believe them in the least.
	Dr. Koch is back with us now.
	So what of that, Dr. Coca? says the doctor, this same primary care physician was telling us there are no cognitive defects at all.
	It's just an auditory processing issue.
	And what we saw at that debate and what we've seen thereafter to the layperson does definitely seems like there's a cognitive issue.
	You know, it is very hard.
	You know, as I'm not, as I'm a cardiologist, but I've taken care of enough folks after having a stroke.
	And it's very difficult because you can be intact and cognitively intact, you know, but you're unable to get the words out and the words are misprocessed and it's kind of a word salad that kind of comes out, which kind of seems like what's going on with him.
	So, but it is possible there are other ways of testing cognition beyond just speech.
	And so it's certainly possible.
	And I take care of a number of wonderful patients who've had strokes and have difficulty speaking.
	And, you know, and I've written testimonials for them in terms of, yes, you know, these folks are doing well and they can participate in X, Y, and Z.
	But I think it would be nice to have just more transparency because I think most doctors that are busy that see patients, you know, they're not going to necessarily say, ah, this is a patient that has difficulty processing and getting words out.
	And therefore, you cannot do anything like this ever again.
	Or this definitely means that there's some severe cognitive impairment.
	But I think the issue is that just the lack of transparency, as you're saying, makes it difficult to trust them, right?
	If they say right after having a stroke, oh, it's a standard thing that you get a, that he's getting a standard pacemaker put in after you have a stroke.
	That is not standard at all.
	Not only do you not need to get a pacemaker, you got a defibrillator, which implies a weak heart pump, which implies heart failure, which is much more ominous than just having, just having, you know, had a stroke, which is ominous in and of itself.
	So I think the issue is just one of transparency.
	And I wish they would be more transparent.
	And, you know, folks on, regardless of your politics, I think folks would feel a lot better about that.
	Do you, what do you make of that report, feeling lightheaded and then hospitalized for observation?
	What does that sound like something that happens to a stroke victim?
	No, no, yeah, that it's just, it could, it's not necessarily related, could not necessarily be related to the stroke.
	It could be something just simple as he was a little dehydrated, right?
	The most common thing I would say from a cardiac standpoint in my heart failure patients that I cause this all the time is when I'm trying to uptitrate their medication to get their heart muscle to pump better.
	You want their heart marinating in a nice mix of medicines.
	Some of them are diuretics.
	Some of them are another panoply of four or five medicines.
	And the goal is to try to get them on all these medicines so you can get the heart pumping better.
	But one of the downsides of doing that is that you drop their blood pressure, you make them more dehydrated, and they may and they will come in saying, Doc, I'm feeling real lightheaded, you know, after you started this medicine.
	This happened an hour ago.
	And so like, all right, well, we got to pull you back off that medicine.
	So it could be something as simple as that, but it could also be something much more serious.
	And so that's why, you know, they're right to take him to the take him to the ER to check to make sure he doesn't have a stroke.
	But there's other things.
	It could be, you know, he has a defibrillator for a reason.
	The defibrillator there is there to look for bad arrhythmia that he's more predisposed to because his heart muscle is weak.
	And so, you know, is it related to, could there be some arrhythmia going on that could have caused him to be lightheaded?
	We have no idea.
	That's complete idle speculation.
	But the point is, if you are transparent about those things, I think everyone would feel a lot better.
	Like simply the treating cardiologist saying, hey, you know, we checked out his device.
	Everything looks beautiful.
	You know, this is what his heart function is looking like now.
	These are the meds.
	You know, this is what we found.
	And I think, you know, we would be able to not just sit here and throw darts, throw darts and be like, is it this or is it this?
	Well, because we all know that if the treating cardiologist had been saying optimistic things back before the election, they would have put him out there.
	Right.
	They would have put him out there.
	There's a reason they didn't allow us access to the true expert.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And also now, you know, they've won.
	So he's there for six years, God willing.
	Be honest now, at least, right?
	Be transparent now.
	Don't leave these lingering questions.
	Well, Rich, I guess.
	Yeah, go ahead, Doc.
	I guess, I guess, you know, I wonder.
	I mean, we always worry when they're not being transparent about how bad something may really be.
	So, you know, if, for instance, your left centricle, which is, you know, if it's dilated, there's, there's degrees to that, right?
	If it's mildly dilated, it's one thing.
	If it's 6.5 centimeters dilated, you know, any heart failure doctor you talk to is going to be like, oh my goodness, that is, that is a prognostically difficult place to be.
	And, and, you know, do you want somebody like that necessarily being in a very, very busy, active, stressful job?
	And so I think one of the things in terms of why they kept him away so long until the debate is that they're really hoping for improvement, right?
	So, you know, they want to take a snapshot when he's doing really well.
	And I do understand that, that, you know, they were hoping for as long as possible, you get as much recovery as possible and then kind of show your cards.
	And, you know, the question is, at what point do you say, okay, this is what we have?
	And this is where we are with his heart, with his brain, et cetera.
	So after all this heart disease talk, all viewers of the segment go straight to the treadmill for watching her.
	Or at least they should.
	Definitely go to your cardiologist once a year and get a stress test.
	I do it.
Confronting The Chairman's Health 00:14:46
	Rich, before I let you go, is there any possibility of Senator Giselle Fetterman if he is not able to do this job?
	Because many believed that's what she wanted from the beginning, the wife.
	Yeah.
	I think there is some possibility.
	If for some reason he had to step aside, I think there'd be lots of calls to do that.
	Not sure that the governor of Pennsylvania Shapiro would go there, but there definitely be a lot of pressure.
	People would, you know, all the same things we heard before the election be kind of those arguments we've made again that how could this is so nasty of you?
	How can you be so mean to her?
	How can you be sexist, not pick her?
	So I think there'd be a lot of pressure, certainly in progressive media circles to pick her.
	I'm not sure it would happen, though.
	So it would be up to the governor, though.
	And it's not like the governor is going to pick a Republican.
	No, no.
	And I don't know whether eventually it'd have to be a special election, but if there would be, I would be pretty confident given the record of Pennsylvania Republicans here that they'd mess it up.
	So you can be rest assured of that one thing closing out the segment.
	Dr. Cochrane, thank you so much for your expectations.
	They lost to John Fetterman in his current state.
	They can lose to anyone.
	Yeah, put your money there.
	Rich Lowry, great to see you too.
	Thanks, guys.
	Thank you so much.
	All right.
	We'll be right back with Miranda Devine on the Hunter Biden Twitter dust up at the House yesterday.
	President Biden tells PBS that the American public does not care about controversies involving his son Hunter.
	And instead of pressing him on that claim, the reporter simply took him at his word and moved on.
	Joining me now, Miranda Devine, a columnist for the New York Post and author of Laptop from Hell, Hunter Biden Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide.
	Miranda, thank you for being here.
	I'll play the sound bite with Judy Woodruff.
	I mean, no one's surprised.
	No one's surprised to see PBS try to check a box.
	We asked, we asked about it with zero follow-up.
	I'll just play it so we can get this out of the way.
	It's sought for.
	One of the things Republicans say is a priority for them is investigating your family, your son Hunter, your brother, Jim.
	They talk about access that they say others have gotten because of you, because of your political success.
	How do you plan to deal with that?
	The public's not going to pay attention to that.
	They want these guys to do something.
	The only thing they can do is make up things about my family.
	It's not going to go very far.
	How do you plan to deal with that?
	What a landing.
	The way she landed it, right, tells you everything you need to know about how she wanted the answer to come out.
	What do you make of that?
	Well, as you say, Judy Woodruff has given him a soft soap and he knew that that question was coming.
	And I think that's really the only way he can deal with it.
	He can't deal with it, honestly, because he's denied that he had anything to do with his son Hunter or his brother Jim or Frank's overseas business dealings when they were selling his name for profit overseas.
	But I just don't think that this line is sustainable.
	At some point, they have to confront the problem that they have about the influence peddling scheme that his family was running and Joe Biden's involvement in it.
	And, you know, it's not just the Republicans in the House who are aggressively investigating this corruption, but it's also the long-running Attorney General, not Attorney General, U.S. Attorney in Delaware's investigation into Hunter Biden and all his businesses.
	So at some point, they have to confront it.
	And Joe Biden has been an ostrich from the beginning and it's worked for him.
	But when he says the public isn't interested, he's only talking about that half or less of the American public who still reads the New York Times and the Washington Post and gets all their news from CNN and MSNBC and PBS.
	They don't actually know because they've been kept in the dark the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop and Hunter Biden's former business partners like Tony Bobolinski and all the financial documents uncovered by the Republican senators Chuck Grasley and Ron Johnson.
	They don't know about the corruption.
	And so, of course, all they hear vaguely in the background about a laptop is that Hunter Biden was a poor, you know, drug addict and he's reformed now and these mean Republicans are crucifying the child of the president who's such a great family man.
	That's all they hear, maybe a little bit of drugs and sex, but they don't care because they constantly the refrain is Hunter Biden's a private citizen.
	He didn't run for office, et cetera.
	But thankfully, as the Republicans, James Comer and Jim Jordan and so on in the House are making very clear this is not an investigation into Hunter Biden.
	It's an investigation into Joe Biden and whether or not all these millions of dollars that flowed through to his family have compromised the president of the United States in the eyes of China and Russia and Ukraine and so on.
	Yeah.
	Like why did he spend about 17 words on China in his State of the Union?
	Could there be some reason for that beyond the fact that he feels feckless in dealing with them for professional reasons and for national reasons?
	Could it be personal reasons?
	By the way, he's wrong too, because we just pulled this.
	This is from a Fox poll from just this past December.
	Nearly three quarters of voters, 72%, say it is important for the Justice Department to investigate the younger Biden, Hunter's business dealings with foreign governments, unchanged from the 72% who felt that way in August.
	And that number includes majorities of Republicans, 88% of Republicans, Independents, 74, and even 54% of Democrats.
	So even a majority of Democrats believe it's important to investigate Hunter Biden's business dealings.
	And it is because they understand it could reflect on the president and the safety of the country in terms of Joe's decision making.
	So he's wrong about that.
	And Judy Woodruff should have done her homework or at least tried to pretend to give a damn on behalf of her audience and just the truth.
	So she didn't.
	So now cut to the House where the Republicans have taken over and they are taking a look at this.
	And so they had some Twitter executives come yesterday and started asking questions about your paper, its breaking of the Hunter Biden laptop news shortly before the midterms.
	And I'm sorry, before the presidential election, and why Twitter decided to suppress that reporting and the coordination that Twitter was clearly doing with the FBI to make sure that the people never saw that reporting and in particular, the documents that proved it, the documents from the laptop that showed what you guys were reporting in your paper.
	So let me ask you overall what you thought of the hearings and whether any ground was made.
	Look, they were a little bit frustrating from my point of view because it seemed like some of the Republicans asking questions weren't really on top of the detail, which is complicated and they were sort of repetitive and uncoordinated.
	But in total, I think it was a good taster for what's to come.
	My big takeouts were that James Baker, who was the number two lawyer at Twitter, parachuted in from the FBI, where he'd been the top lawyer involved in all the Russiagate hoaxes.
	He was parachuted into Twitter five months before the 2020 election.
	And he was asked who hired you.
	It was very uncomfortable, pretended he didn't really understand.
	Then he named his boss.
	But that wasn't the person who hired him.
	And he wasn't pressed on that, unfortunately.
	He also was pretty evasive when it came to questions about when he knew about Hunter Biden's laptop.
	And did he talk to anyone at the FBI about it?
	We have that.
	Let me interrupt you and just, I'll play that and then you can pick it up on the back end.
	This is important because what they're interested not so much in what a private company, Twitter, did around the election, even though it was despicable.
	They're interested in this as government officials because they do believe and have good reason to believe that there was coordination with our intelligence agencies that the FBI was actively working to insert itself in a presidential election on behalf of one candidate.
	That's why it's interesting and problematic.
	So here they have the general counsel of Twitter, deputy general counsel, who had just two minutes ago been working for the FBI, and they're probing him on, did you, as the top lawyer at Twitter, have any conversations with your old pals at the FBI, in addition to the ones we know they all had, about this specific report in the New York Times, in the New York Post and Hunter Biden's laptop.
	And here is part of that exchange, slot six.
	Mr. Becker, did you call any of your contacts at the FBI to ask whether or not they knew if the material had been hacked?
	I don't recall contacting them about that on that day.
	Your response is real specific to the chairman.
	You said, I did not talk to the FBI about the Hunter Biden laptop story that day.
	I assume that day is October 14th.
	I want to know if you talked to him on the 13th or before, or if you talked to him on the 15th and after.
	I don't recall speaking to the FBI sitting here today.
	I don't recall speaking to the FBI at all about the Hunter Biden matter.
	Well, then why did you answer it the way you did?
	I beg your pardon.
	I yield back to.
	About the laptop, about that.
	So they were talking about Hunter Biden, and he was weaseling and wiggling to avoid admitting that.
	We don't know what else he might have admitted if they'd had longer time and effective cross.
	Look, I think what was really telling there was when James Baker qualified himself and said the laptop, the laptop, meaning you can assume that he was talking to the FBI about Hunter Biden, about the Hunter Biden matter.
	He may not have been talking about a laptop, but he was talking about material from the laptop that was going to be damaging to Joe Biden if it came out before the 2020 election, which of course the FBI knew it would because they'd been eavesdropping spying on Rudy Giuliani's cloud.
	So they knew that he'd been contacted by the computer repair shop owner who had the laptop after Hunter had abandoned it.
	They knew because he emailed Rudy Giuliani with some pretty forensic material from the laptop.
	And then they also would have had access to my messages with Rudy Giuliani, which would have given them an indication that the New York Post was about to publish or would publish.
	So the FBI knew.
	And of course, they'd had the laptop since December 2019.
	And if they were talking to James Baker, James Baker knew.
	And he was instrumental in censoring the post.
	Right.
	So here's the problem.
	They had it in their possession.
	They knew full well that it was legitimate.
	And so I don't know what they actually said in terms of words to James Baker, but they 100% were warning Twitter, disinformation is about to come.
	And I'm sure it sounded something like, and it's going to be about Hunter and you can't trust it.
	And of course, they knew the opposite was true, all of which is really problematic.
	Well, I mean, at least problematic.
	It's corrupt.
	It's interfering in the 2020 election on behalf of one candidate, on behalf of Joe Biden.
	And what we don't know is who was orchestrating it.
	Who arranged for James Baker to be parachuted into Twitter five months before the election to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that none of this material saw the light of day?
	They also did the same thing with Facebook.
	They parachuted in a left-wing lawyer who was there for a few months and then got a job in the Biden administration.
	This was a woman, a professor, Pamela Carlin, who had already publicly shown hostility towards Donald Trump's then young teenage son, Baron, making some snide joke.
	And so it was a sort of an orchestrated campaign to crush the story that the FBI knew was coming out.
	Who was it?
	We know from FBI whistleblowers that there were people within the Washington field office who had buried the laptop, ensured that no investigation could occur into it before the election.
	And not only that, they had buried the material that Tony Bobolinski, Hunter Biden's former business partner, had brought to them before the election, including the contents of three of his devices and a five and a half hour interview that he gave in Washington,
	D.C. at FBI headquarters that, according to him, had the agents, the young agents interviewing him, their jaws were on the floor with the stories he was telling them about the Biden family's involvement with China, this mega million dollar deal, and that Joe Biden was involved and had met personally with Tony Bobolinski to vet him as CEO of this scheme, this deal, you know, in California.
	So this was implicating Joe Biden.
	And again, Tony Bobolinski never heard from those people again.
	And extraordinarily, you'd think he'd be the star witness of that U.S. attorney's investigation down in Delaware into Hunter Biden, the grand jury there that's called Hunter's former lovers and a couple of other former business partners.
	But they've never asked or subpoenaed Tony Bobolinski to appear there.
Implicating Joe Biden In China Deal 00:12:24
	Is that right?
	First of all, the fact that this poor guy was in earnest going in saying, I have information you really might need to know.
	And they already had the laptop and he's thinking he's dealing with federal investigators who will get to the bottom of this potential crime, potential corruption.
	And the poor guy takes him years to realize they're corrupt.
	You're going to people who are in the business of covering up for the very man you are essentially accusing.
	I mean, that's really what we've learned over the past two years, thanks to you, the New York Post, and this great reporting you've been doing, about what the FBI did to Tony Bobolinski and anybody bringing them information on Hunter Biden slash Joe.
	Yes.
	And that includes John Paul Mac Isaac, the computer repair shop guy.
	Remember, he didn't want to go to the media and he didn't.
	He never did.
	He went to the FBI about eight months after he got that laptop and after it became his legal property because of the work order that Hunter had signed saying that if he abandoned it after 90 days, it belonged to the store.
	And he looked at the material.
	He was disturbed by especially the Ukraine stuff and the China stuff.
	He thought this is a matter of national security.
	There was the impeachment of Donald Trump going on at the time.
	He was a Donald Trump voter, supporter, no crime in that.
	And he thought that the material on the laptop would help Donald Trump.
	He went to the authorities.
	He went to the FBI and they buried it.
	He was a patriot.
	Similarly, Tony Bobolinski is a naval veteran from a family, two generations of military veterans.
	And he is an unimpeachable witness.
	He has a top secret security clearance from the Navy and somewhere else.
	So he's not someone that you can just dismiss as an unreliable witness.
	And he again went because it was his patriotic duty, he felt before the election to allow the American people to understand exactly who Joe Biden was, which really is the opposite of the persona that he has built for himself.
	And remember when he was up on the debate stage in that last debate against Donald Trump, and he looked down the barrel of the camera and told the American people that, you know, this story about the laptop, it was just a Russian plant.
	And he said, look at my character and compare it to his, to Donald Trump's.
	You know, I'm honest.
	You know, I'm trustworthy.
	You know my integrity.
	And unfortunately, he has managed over four decades in the Senate and as vice president to fool a lot of Americans.
	And I think that mythology is coming to an end now.
	So you've got James Baker, the FBI lawyer who then got parachuted into Twitter, clearly, in my view, misleading about his specific contacts with the FBI on this story while he was in his Twitter role.
	And the guy under him is this Yoel Roth, who he's been out in the news quite a bit in the wake of his departure from Twitter and he got the vapors over COVID and January 6th and all the things.
	And now they ask him about what happened with the Hunter laptop.
	And this to me, we don't have this sound cut, Miranda, but this to me was probably the least credible testimony that was given yesterday.
	Jim Jordan, who's the best cross-examiner they have, they should just give, everybody should just seed their questions to Jim Jordan.
	Let him do a thorough a through line.
	You know just why everybody's need their moment in the sun, but they should just let him do it.
	Um, he starts asking Yoel Roth about the fact that FBI special agent Elvis Chan sent you, mr Roth, an email.
	And this email Miranda, as I understand it, was sent the the night before you broke the laptop story.
	It was the night before you and the NEW YORK POST were breaking the laptop story.
	So this is the FBI special agent reaching out directly to this guy, Yoel Roth, and saying, heads up, I'm going to send you a teleporter link for you to download 10 documents.
	It's not spam.
	Please confirm or receive when you get it.
	And two minutes later at 6.24 p.m., this guy Roth responded back to the FBI saying received and downloaded thanks.
	Jordan says, what were those 10 documents?
	Roth, Twitter didn't give me access to my laptop.
	I think he means in advance of this testimony, but Special Agent Chan has said publicly, and the FBI has confirmed that those documents did not relate to Hunter Biden.
	And that's my recollection.
	I find this extremely difficult to believe.
	And the fact that this guy, Roth, Miranda, is claiming he has no idea.
	You and I both know as press, as journalists.
	Special agent from the FBI calls you with a, I'm sending you via teleporter link, 10 documents for you to look.
	You know exactly what they were.
	You know that day.
	You know, two years later, it's seared in your memory.
	That kind of thing does not happen every day.
	This guy is not telling the truth.
	No, and particularly when you put it into context, you're talking about 6.30 in the evening on the very day that we had called Hunter Biden's lawyer, George Mazir, to try and get a comment from his client and to give them a heads up that the story was coming.
	So obviously panic stations there.
	And next thing in the evening, John Paul MacIsaac is at his computer store and he gets a phone call from a man who says he's George Maziers and says that he understands that John Paul MacIsaac has his client's computer.
	And so John Paul MacIsaac, being a pretty savvy individual, says to this man on the phone, look, can you please hang up and send me an email so that I can check your bona fides, send it from your work address and then we can talk.
	And so George Mazir did send that email from his law firm email address and confirm that he was George Mazir and that he just talked to John Paul MacIsaac.
	So there you have it.
	The panic was setting in.
	They were trying to retrieve the laptop.
	And so all you can assume is that it's an enormous coincidence that mere hours or less than hours after we alerted the Hunter Biden people that we were about to do the story the next day, you had this late night flurry of documents come into Twitter from the FBI.
	And look, even if the words Hunter Biden were not mentioned, all they would have to say is, and in fact, Yoel Roth admitted this.
	He said, oh, most of our conversations with the FBI were about malign disinformation or malign foreign information.
	All they would have to do is say, hey, remember that story that we warned you about that was going to come, the big dump of Russian disinformation in October?
	Well, that's going to happen tomorrow.
	So of course.
	And in the meantime, you've got the New York Post trying to do honest reporting on this, and you've got the rest of the media working together to try and suppress it.
	And that pattern continues to this day.
	CNN's Oliver Darcy, this is his take.
	Okay, this is the new CNN, right?
	The new more fair and balanced CNN reporting that Republicans are living in a reality distortion field.
	GOP lawmakers continued to push, quote, a factually unsupported narrative about the federal government secretly colluding with Twitter to censor the New York Post, despite, quote, no real evidence to support this weighty and consequential claim.
	Republicans were unrelenting in peddling it to the American public.
	He is not a well-respected or well-known person, but AOC is pretty well known.
	And she pushed similar messaging yesterday in a pretty outrageous description of this entire issue and you're reporting.
	Here she is in Slop 7.
	New York Post had this alleged information and was trying to publish it without any corroboration, without any backup information.
	They were trying to publish it to Twitter.
	Twitter did not let them.
	And now they were upset.
	A whole hearing about a 24-hour hiccup in a right-wing political operation.
	That is why we are here right now.
	And it is, it's just an abuse of public resources, an abuse of public time.
	Through stuff, we're talking about Hunter Biden's half-fake laptop story.
	I mean, this is an embarrassment.
	Trisha, it's interesting to me.
	She sounds very nervous.
	You can hear the quiver in her voice.
	She's nervous.
	She doesn't know what she's talking about.
	That's a problem.
	When you don't know what you're talking about, you get nervous.
	So your story is half fake.
	Hunter Biden laptop is now half fake.
	She's holding on to that.
	That it was a 24-hour hiccup in the New York Post reporting.
	That's not true at all.
	That's not what happened between you guys and Twitter.
	And that this is basically an embarrassment and a right-wing political operation, which I think she means Twitter is.
	I think she's referring to Twitter as a right-wing political operation.
	Okay, because Elon wasn't even involved in Twitter at the time that all this went down.
	And by the way, he's an independent.
	So what are your thoughts on her attack?
	Yeah, she does seem nervous.
	And I find it extraordinary that she's supposed to be, you know, a leftist and she's just become an establishment shill.
	It looked like she was auditioning for a role in a Kevin Morris production over in LA.
	You know, when she says there it was a 24-hour hiccup, our account was locked by Twitter for more than two weeks.
	We only got it back a few days before the election.
	And, you know, that stopped our reach.
	It cost us a considerable amount of money and was just illogical.
	And they knew from the very beginning that what we were publishing was real.
	It wasn't hacked material.
	And for AOC to say that we published this story with no corroboration and no background material is just garbage.
	And it's obvious from all of our reporting that we've corroborated and checked and authenticated every word that we've put in the paper.
	And, you know, from the very start, for instance, just one example of the corroboration, we had the contents of Tony Bobolinski's devices, who was Hunter Biden's former business partner.
	And so his devices, he had the emails and the text messages and the documents and so on that were also on the laptop.
	That corroborated and augmented what was on the laptop because he also had encrypted messages, WhatsApp messages with Hunter Biden and the partners and Jim Biden, where they were, you know, much more open about their discussions.
	And, you know, and we also contacted other recipients of emails.
	We compared, you know, photographs and dates and diaries and, you know, Secret Service movements, et cetera.
	I mean, there are a million ways to corroborate what was on the laptop.
	And so it's really clutching at straws, aesthetic.
	I just think that the Democrats were so desperate yesterday to try and bury this story and pretend that it's not real because they know the truth is seeping out to even their voters.
	Even though, Miranda, now that you needed it, but even though now all the mainstream outlets, including, by the way, Oliver Darcy, CNN, have confirmed that the contents of the laptop have been authenticated, that it was real.
	So I guess we're now back to pretending that didn't happen because we're actually having hearings on it.
Corroborating Laptop Evidence 00:05:52
	Yes.
	And I think their position is increasingly untenable.
	At some point, they're going to have to come out with some form of words that explains why Joe Biden was involved in his family's influence peddling scheme and lied about it.
	Some form of words that are recognizable and understandable.
	Miranda Devine, always great to talk to you.
	Thank you so much for your great reporting.
	We appreciate it.
	Thanks, Megan.
	It's really crazy.
	God, when you think about it, isn't it crazy what they did yesterday?
	Wow.
	All right, we'll be right back.
	Don't go away.
	The Murdoch trial, Alec Murdoch has had it all so far.
	This man accused of murdering his own wife and his son in the midst of a financial crisis in which he was being exposed as a criminal, among many other problems.
	And now this jury has to figure out whether or not he did commit those murders.
	The defense maintains he is innocent.
	We've seen some explosive testimony this week from witnesses and even yesterday, a bomb threat that shut down the courthouse and the court proceedings for a time.
	Plus, Alec Baldwin is getting sued again.
	Joining us now to discuss it all, Vinnie Politan of Court TV and also a public defender out of Florida who's been following the Murdoch case very closely, Steve Gosney.
	Vinny, Steve, welcome back.
	Great to see you.
	Good to be back.
	All right, let's spend a minute on Alec Baldwin before we dig into Murdoch, which is a longer and, I think, more interesting case, at least today.
	So my understanding is that, you know, you know how it is, guys.
	Whenever you see Gloria Allred's name attached to it, there's like a little bit of like, oh, God.
	I mean, God bless her because she really has represented a lot of actual victims, but she's represented a lot of fake victims too.
	So she's coming out later today and she is going to be announcing that she's filing a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf against Baldwin on behalf of other members of Helena Hutchins' family.
	So Helena Hutchins' widow, widower, Matthew, already sued Baldwin for wrongful death and they settled it.
	And now she's coming forward, I guess, on behalf of other family members, including Helena's possible, like her parents and a sister is what we're being told.
	We'll know more later, trying to revive this claim.
	Now, I've never brought a wrongful death lawsuit.
	A quick Google search tells me the general rule is you get one.
	You only get the one.
	You can't have like, and now the cousin and the seventh cousin twice removed and the in-laws.
	Like, of course, they're not going to let Alec Baldwin get sued by every single family member of Helena Hutchins.
	I don't know, Steve, you're actively practicing law now.
	What do you make of it?
	Well, I do, I do criminal law.
	My board certification is in Florida criminal law, but I did practice civil for about six years way back when.
	And this is very state-specific stuff.
	And the question really is, is how far is the circle around the decedent?
	You know, it's a civil suit.
	It's not criminal.
	So they're looking for money and how many people can claim damages within the circle of the person that is killed.
	So, you know, you might have a spouse and then children.
	And then like, well, is it sisters?
	Is it parents?
	Second cousins once removed.
	So that's going to be very dependent on the venue that the suit is brought.
	I feel like I...
	Maybe, I don't know, because they didn't file this when Matthew Hutchins was filing his.
	So they're a little late to the lawsuit party, Vinny.
	If they had filed it at the same time that Matthew Hutchins filed his against Baldwin, we probably would have had a court consolidate them and made them all come to a resolution together.
	But it is an interesting question.
	What happens when the spouse files one, settles it, and the rest of the family is there saying, what do you mean?
	We lost someone too.
	And it's as a result of this guy.
	And we didn't waive any claims.
	And Matthew Hutchins couldn't have waived claims on behalf of the parents without their permission.
	So it does kind of raise an interesting issue.
	It does.
	But, you know, when we think of wrongful death, I mean, the purpose of wrongful death actions is to take care of the people who were depending upon the person who was wrongfully killed.
	And in this case, obviously, it would be the husband.
	It would be her child.
	I mean, that is very straightforward, very obvious.
	Now, the parents, what level of support did she provide to her parents?
	Was she providing them financial support?
	Was there the emotional support?
	Did she give them gifts?
	Things like that.
	I mean, the amount would be much less if there is liability, but I think they're going to run into some troubles here.
	Then when you get to a sibling, what was the nature of this relationship between the siblings?
	Did she take care of her sister?
	Was this, was her sister dependent upon her?
	I think you've got to create that actual like monetary, because a lawsuit, a civil lawsuit ultimately is about money.
	The actual monetary dependency between the parents and the sister and Helena.
	And I don't know what that relationship was like.
	Obviously, they're missing something emotionally and things like that.
	But when it comes to wrongful death, in many states and California, they lean more heavily onto like the actual damages, right?
	What did this cost the family?
	What was the actual monetary loss?
	Because you got to put a dollar figure on it.
	So that's really, I think, what the case is about.
	And that's already been taken care of in the civil courts.
	This is going to be a tough one, but I will say this, Megan.
	I have to disclose this.
	Gloria Allred at one time was my anchor-in-law because I co-hosted a show with her daughter, Lisa.
	So that would make Gloria Allred my anchor-in-law.
Actual Monetary Loss For Family 00:12:22
	So I always believe in her and stand up for her.
	She was a great anchor-in-law.
	I mean, I love talking of Gloria.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I've done a million interviews of her over the years, and she's always interesting.
	And she really has represented a lot of real victims.
	But the list on the other side is long too.
	Okay.
	Let's move on.
	I will.
	It's a case where the pockets may be deeper than the level of actual damage for these particular litigants, if you know what I mean.
	Because it's going to be insurance.
	It's probably less than how deep his pockets are.
	It's going to be handled by insurance, the insurance company that was backing up Alec Baldwin on the set of this movie.
	So it shouldn't be his money at all, really, unless he's already tapped out in the settlement with Matthew Hutchinson.
	That's the question.
	All right.
	So all that will come out eventually.
	Let's move on.
	And let's do Gabby Petito before we get into murder.
	Okay.
	So we'll do it like an ascending order of breaking news.
	So Gabby Petito, back in the news, her family, this poor girl murdered by her boyfriend, Brian Landry, after they went on their cross-country road trip in their cute little van.
	And she was strangled to death by him and also beaten with a blunt force object.
	Then he went back home to Florida with the van and no Gabby.
	And he went to see his parents.
	They'd been out west.
	He went home to his Florida parents.
	And then next thing you knew, he was gone.
	He was on the run.
	And the parents are like, we don't know where he is.
	We don't, we have no idea.
	Well, now the parents, then we later found out that Brian had killed himself.
	He had shot himself in some Florida swamp and had confessed to the murder in some baloney note where he was like, oh, I thought I was helping her.
	She fell and she hurt herself.
	And I was really, it was a mercy kill.
	Sure, it was.
	Okay, sure.
	Anyway, the Petitos are now suing his parents and the family lawyer.
	And they are also now going after the Moab Police Department guys, claiming that those cops who pulled over Brian and Gabby right before she was killed, not long before, should have seen that he had beaten her and should have done something to intervene to save her.
	Just as a refresher for the audience, here's a soundbite of some of that exchange between Gabby Petito and the officers.
	This is what the cops are now using because they're like, she said she struck first.
	She was the aggressor.
	And this is kind of their defense, but here's a little bit of what happened in that traffic stop.
	We want to know the truth if he actually hit you.
	I guess, yeah, but I hit him first.
	Where did he hit you?
	Don't do words.
	Slap your face or what?
	Well, like, he grabs me like with his nail.
	And I guess we're quiet.
	And then we have a cut right here because I can feel it.
	Yeah.
	I treated him first.
	She gets really worked up.
	And when she does, she swings and she had her cell phone in her hand.
	So I was just trying to get straight away.
	Well, to the honest, I don't know where he hit me first.
	Where'd you hit him?
	I slapped him.
	You slapped him first and then saw his face?
	Shut up.
	So they are saying that these cops did not recognize that she was an abuse victim.
	And while they did split the pair up for the night, the cops did, they kind of accepted that statement, I hit him first and started treating her like she was the aggressor.
	And they did threaten to bring her to jail.
	And that they should have known.
	And they've released this photo now of her injuries up close, which we couldn't really see on that video.
	And it's just so sad, guys.
	It's so sad.
	You can really see how he hurt her.
	Her left eye is swollen and red.
	And it does look like it's cut.
	And it is kind of shocking to think the cops saw that and saw anything other than a victim of domestic abuse.
	But Vinny, what do you make of the lawsuit?
	Well, I think they have a strong lawsuit here because on the scene, the officer, we've got long body cam, is basically acknowledging that he's not following protocol.
	He's not doing what he's supposed to do.
	What you have to do is look at the totality of the circumstances.
	The call came in from an independent witness that he was hitting her.
	That's the call.
	That's the reason they're pulled over because when they're over at some coffee shop in the parking lot, I think it's two different people call in about a domestic violence incident where a man is hitting a young girl.
	Okay.
	The man is Brian Laundry.
	They're about the same age, but he was hitting her.
	That's what they were responding to.
	They pull him over and all of a sudden the cops are getting buddy-buddy with Brian Laundry, who is acting like so super cool.
	And Gabby Petito is an emotional mess.
	Any police officer who has ever been trained in domestic violence would know that if you've got the victim and you've got the abuser together.
	How many times, Megan, have we heard the story where the abuser says, it's my fault.
	It's my fault.
	No, no, no, don't do it.
	It was me.
	It was me.
	And it's so obvious, so ordinary in terms of what I've seen through the years in domestic violence cases that the victims, especially when they're women, don't want to say, I was the victim.
	It's my fault.
	Meanwhile, he's standing right there.
	There's also a question about when she says I hit him first, you know, the size differential and whether, you know, that whether that would justify him wailing on her as the independent.
	He was fine.
	She was an emotional mess.
	And the two independent witnesses who called 911 said there's a man beating a young woman.
	What they're alleging, Steve, in this lawsuit, the parents of Gabby Petito, is that the cops basically coached her.
	That's the word they use.
	They coached her kind of off the ledge and into saying what they needed to hear so that they could walk away from this pair and not do anything further.
	We pulled some of that.
	It is a very long tape.
	I think it's like it was on for like an hour.
	We pulled a little bit of that.
	And here's a sample.
	Gabby, this is a very, very important question.
	How you answer this question is going to determine what happens next.
	But the only person who can answer this question is you.
	Think very hard before you answer the question.
	Do not typically answer it.
	Think very hard.
	When you slapped him those times, were you attempting to cause him physical pain or physical impairment?
	Was that what you were attempting to do to him?
	What were you attempting to do?
	What was the reason behind the slapping and stuff?
	What was it you were attempting to accomplish by slapping him?
	I'm trying to get him to stop my contract.
	Well, it doesn't sound to me like she attempted to interrupt.
	And this is what they allege in the suit, that the Moab police officer, Eric Pratt, was, quote, fundamentally biased in his approach to that investigation, choosing to believe Gabby's abuser, ignoring evidence that Gabby was the victim, and intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of Utah law and his duty to protect Gabby.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I think Vinny laid out the kind of the plaintiff case here pretty well and pretty powerfully and emotionally.
	And obviously, you have some parents here who lost their precious child.
	And so obviously the sympathies with everybody are going to be with the murder victim's family, right?
	So that's a powerful emotional appeal.
	There will be defenses, I'm sure.
	I mean, I can think of a few defenses.
	And sadly, this is very common in the criminal justice system.
	The police are overworked.
	You know, it's just another case.
	They've got, you know, 20 calls a day and they just want to move to the next call and just get it resolved.
	And so they're kind of pushing to get the answer they want.
	So it's like, okay, give me the answer and we're out of here, right?
	And because it's to them, at the time they're on the side of that road, it's not a big deal.
	It's just another domestic violence call in the string of 20 that we dealt today, right?
	But when you look at it in hindsight, it's a terrible tragedy.
	And then you have the second guessing that goes on and you have the lawsuit.
	But it's a heartbreaking situation, obviously.
	And I think Vinny, I mean, the way he said that, that's enough to shake some pockets loose in the insurance companies.
	I don't know.
	I mean, the police department is saying our officers acted with kindness, respect, and empathy toward Ms. Petito.
	No one could have predicted the tragedy that would occur weeks later and hundreds of miles away.
	And the city of Moab will act will ardently defend against this lawsuit.
	Those cops did spend a very long time with them, you know, for busy cops.
	That exchange we just played seemed to me cops trying to get her to say what she needed to say so that they didn't have to arrest her.
	But that again presumes that this whole, oh, I hit him first claim is real and that they're, we're just going to go with that, notwithstanding the two independent witnesses, Vinny, and what we all know about domestic abuse violence or victims and how that dynamic plays out.
	Like, you know, there has to be some understanding that, come on, really?
	Like, use your head.
	That's pretty obvious what happened.
	Go ahead.
	The whole premise of this relationship and what Gabby and Brian were doing at the time is that they were living the van life.
	So many domestic violence situations, right?
	If you have, you know, partners that are together, a husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever it is, and they live in the same house, they can go to separate parts of the house and kind of stay away from each other.
	They were living in this van, and it's not even a full-size van.
	It's like a quasi-minivan.
	And this is their, they are next to each other 24 hours a day on the road, 3,000 miles away from home.
	That was part of the situation that day that they should have realized and uncovered.
	But it is so quick as you watch this video from start to finish that they start buddying up with this with this murderer, Brian Laundry, because he's got the way to kind of smooth talk him a little bit.
	And Gabby's an emotional mess.
	She's an emotional mess because this is a volatile relationship, a volatile situation, and police didn't do what they were supposed to do.
	You know what?
	Charge them both, give them a court date, and let the judge figure it out.
	That's what the protocol is.
	That's what they were supposed to do.
	And that's what they acknowledge in the video they weren't doing.
	Well, the other interesting piece is it looks like they may have settled their lawsuit.
	They got a $3 million award in their wrongful death lawsuit against the parents of Brian Laundry.
	Gabby's parents did.
	But they also added Brian Laundry's parents' lawyer to their civil suit, claiming that guy, Beryl Lino, came out while Gabby was still missing and not yet found.
	And before Brian killed himself, he was, I think, on the run at this point and said the Laundry family hoped, quote, the search for Miss Petito is successful and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family.
	And the lawyer for Gabby's parents said that statement is downright outrageous that that lawyer made it knowing she was dead and that Brian had killed her.
	And how dare he go out there and say they hope the search for her is successful and that she's reunited with her family.
	You go back and read it now as a lawyer, and it does seem very carefully worded.
	It's not like, we hope she's brought home alive and safely.
	It's like the search for her is successful and she's reunited with her family.
	I mean, that actually could be written by a lawyer who knows she's dead.
	The whole thing is so creepy.
	And all you really want to see is the petitos get whatever they can get since they're the innocent victims in this whole thing.
	All right, let's turn the page to another case that we had you on earlier.
	And that is the Alec Murdoch trial, which is dominating America, dominating America right now.
Creepy Lawyer Worded Search Letter 00:15:12
	I've listened to so many.
	I can't get enough of this case because he's like, I don't want to call him a criminal mastermind.
	That would be too generous.
	But like, he's committed a lot of crimes and gotten away with them for a really long time.
	And he's been very scary to the people around him.
	You can kind of, the prosecution is doing a good job in this case of laying out how people were afraid of him.
	And no, Steve's like, no, no, no, he's ready to defend her.
	So I will go to, I recognize there's a dispute about who the most compelling witness was this week.
	We had the financial testimony about all the funds he stole from clients and from his law firm, but I will give my vote to Michelle Smith, who was a caregiver to Alec Murdoch's mother, who was not far away.
	And she, I think, Alec was hoping would be his alibi.
	Alec claims that he was asleep during the course of the murders, you know, from 8.40 to 9 p.m.
	The murders happened out at the dog kennel on the property, and that he woke up at nine and he went and he saw his mom, who has Alzheimer's.
	He saw the caregiver and that he was there for some period of time, 30 to 40 minutes, and then came home and found the bodies.
	The prosecution says, you were there the whole time.
	We have videos that can prove it.
	And you only went to your mother's after you had committed the crime.
	So the caregiver takes the stand.
	And the question is, did you have any conversations with Alec that night, you know, or in the days thereafter about his visit?
	You know, right around the time of the murders, at least.
	And this woman, who was so sweet and so credible, gave the most compelling testimony.
	Here it is, Sat 9.
	And what did he take?
	That he was at the house.
	He was at the house.
	And I'm not 100% following you.
	He was telling you or saying to you that he was at the house when?
	The night of the murders.
	The night of the murder.
	Yes.
	What was he telling you about that he was at the house the night of the murder?
	That he'd been here 30 to 40 minutes.
	Did he indicate to you what he wanted you to do with that information?
	No.
	No.
	What did he say?
	He didn't say that he was at the house.
	Took 30 or 40 minutes.
	That's it.
	He said what?
	Was he there 30 or 40 minutes that night?
	Not to my dog.
	Why are you crying?
	Because a good family, and I love working here.
	And I'm sorry all this happened.
	Good people, you know.
	Vinny, what do you make of it?
	So this is a, I think it's sort of like the passive aggressive Alec Murdoch wielding his power and influence because there's other parts of this conversation.
	The first thing is, right, he's telling her how long he was there.
	So he's giving her the story.
	I'm here 30 to 40 minutes.
	Later on in the same conversation, he says, oh, I hear you're getting married.
	Weddings can be expensive.
	And then sort of offers to help with the payment of the wedding, but that can be read two different ways because one of her jobs is as a caregiver for his mother.
	So that expensive wedding could get much more expensive if you lose your job, but it could get much cheaper if I help pay for it.
	Then he also adds about her second job at the school that he's good friends, good friends with her boss, the principal, which could help elevate her status at work and maybe give her a higher paying position at her other job, or perhaps she could lose that job.
	And that's Alec Murdoch.
	This poor woman, super nice, super honest, and I think really sees the best in people all the time.
	But to me, and I think to folks inside that courtroom listening to her testimony, it was clear what Alec Murdoch was trying to do.
	He was trying to flex his Murdoch muscles and influence her to jump on the, oh yeah, Alec was here for 30 or 40 minutes train.
	Steve, the mere fact that he would go back to her a couple of days later and be like, it was 30 to 40 minutes is very suspicious.
	Who goes back and tries to say, like, remember the exact length of time I was here on the night of those murders?
	And the fact that she said it through tears, like, I don't, she's basically saying, I don't want to be doing this.
	I don't, I don't want to testify against him.
	It's a nice family.
	She didn't want to hurt him, but the truth was the truth.
	And then she added, this isn't just in retrospect.
	She added in the moment she knew something big was happening there in that conversation.
	And she, what did she do after the conversation?
	Here it is in SOT 10.
	Did that conversation upset you?
	Somewhat.
	You upset right there?
	Yes.
	Did you call anybody about it?
	My brother.
	You called your brother after that conversation with Alex.
	Yes.
	To tell him about that conversation.
	Yes.
	And her brother is a South Carolina policeman, I believe.
	He's a policeman.
	And she wanted to discuss what was going on.
	So how do we defend against this, Steve?
	Well, first off, it's a great case if the burden of proof is on the defense, but the burden of proof is on the state.
	And the state has to prove beyond an exclusion of every reasonable doubt that Mr. Murdoch killed his son and wife.
	And I understand that there's, you can look at different conversations and take these spins on it that are sinister.
	And sadly, every good deed that this man has ever done in his life now becomes a basis for saying, oh, he's just a manipulator.
	Now, clearly he was a manipulator.
	Clearly, he was an embezzler.
	And he was really good at it because he could spin his way out of anything.
	That's kind of the modus of right.
	That does not mean he killed his wife and son.
	And this is the problem is that it's all this guilt by insinuation and innuendo.
	This is a circumstantial case.
	What do you mean?
	They're building a circumstantial case.
	This is a piece of it.
	Fair enough, but a circumstantial case requires them to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, in which there is a much more reasonable theory that is unrebutted by the state, by any of their evidence that's been presented so far.
	Why'd he go back to the caregiver and say it was 30 to 40 minutes, right?
	To the point where she felt uncomfortable because she knew it was much shorter than that at the time the murders were happening.
	Well, I'm not certain because on the cross, I don't, I think there was a little bit of equivocation on that.
	And I think that she is a bit, you know, timeframes like that, whether it's 20 minutes or 40 minutes, can you be that precise of what you did three or four days ago in a, you know, in a high stress situation?
	And when at the time, those type of timeframes were not significant and not important.
	You know, we really are not accounting for basic human failings of memory, which is a very common thing in criminal law.
	We see people testify to vastly different stories and they're not lying.
	They're just misremembering.
	They're perceiving things different.
	So, and I think she may have misperceived the way he was coming back.
	I mean, if this man was just...
	All right, but if that's true, Vinny, then why'd she call the brother?
	Why, if she was just 20 or 40, why'd you call the brother?
	I don't think that gets lost on the jury.
	They understand when there's sort of like a shakedown kind of thing happening.
	Everybody can put two and two together.
	Folks in the low country, they get it.
	They understand it.
	And I think they felt it in that moment.
	But it's interesting that Steve mentioned the failure of memories.
	I guess that is true because Alec Murdoch forgot that he was at the scene of the murder that night before the murders.
	Well, okay, so let's go through some of the other witness testimony that came out.
	Forgive me, I guess.
	I can't remember the guy's name, but the friend, he was a lifelong friend of Alex.
	And he was, they called him uncle.
	Buster and Paul, the two sons called him uncle.
	And that guy took the stand and also did not want to be testifying against Alec Murdoch.
	This is a friend.
	This is somebody who cared for Alec and those boys.
	And he said, if my memory serves, that's them on that tape.
	That's Alec on that tape.
	You know, the audio tape that we heard that Paul took moments before the murders.
	He took this tape at 8:47.
	It's not been proven that it was moments before.
	It was 22, it was within 22 minutes of the murders from the way I understand the timeline.
	So, well, 8:44 p.m. is when the tape was taken.
	Let me just say what I know, and then you correct me because you're following more closely.
	But I thought it was 8:44 p.m. that the tape was taken, and they believe the murders happened at 8:49 p.m.
	Let me just finish.
	And then, uh, one of the reasons they believe that is because the wife who was murdered was she started a group text at around 8:48 and change or 8:49.00.
	And then somebody pinged her asking for a response on a text like that same minute, and she didn't respond and she never picked up the phone again.
	That's what the prosecution is putting into evidence.
	Go ahead, Steve.
	Well, the timeline there were there's the I've been focused on this when I've been covering this stream is on streaming is that um there's the 906 time frame is the key number.
	So we have an 844 number, which is the video that Viddy was referring to, that establishes that he was at that scene.
	But then there's a 22-minute gap to 9.06 between, and at 9.06, two things happen.
	Mr. Murdoch's car starts and he is suburban.
	And at the same time, it is the last movement of the phone.
	And the last movement of so, so basically, when his car is starting, that phone is moving.
	And there's another bit of missing evidence, which is consistent with innocence.
	It's consistent with somebody waiting in the back behind the shed, waiting for him to leave and go back to the house, which only takes two minutes, and then coming at and assassinating his family members and then taking the moving the phone and disposing of it outside the thing.
	Now he goes back to the house, he wakes up, gets in the car.
	So there's a 22-minute time gap that the state is trying to compress that, but is not supported by any of the evidence that I've seen.
	And there's one other little bit of evidence too that we're speculating on because we were expecting much better evidence out of the forensics of the vehicle.
	And that was not done.
	And what they evidently, and I'm not a big techie guy, but the cell phone of Maggie never connected into the suburban.
	So if it was Mr. Murdoch that killed his wife and picked up the cell phone, you would expect her cell phone to connect into the suburban as he transports it to dispose of it.
	So that's another bit of evidence in the cell phone stuff that is consistent with his innocence and the theory of an assassin who is, and he had a lot of enemies, as we've talked about.
	Vinny, thoughts on that?
	The problem with the assassin theory is that I was at the location and it is extremely quiet there.
	But if there's a noise anywhere close by, it reverberates through the air.
	So I don't know how he is not hearing the gunshot, the AR gunshots, or the shotgun blasts before he leaves and says goodbye to Maggie and would hear those and not check and see what's going on.
	Why are there guns firing in the air?
	Just ignores them and then drives the brother decides to drive to his mother's house at 9:30 at night, where like nothing is happening in the low country of South Carolina.
	You can't get a table at a restaurant at 9:30 at night.
	Those sidewalks, those streets are rolled up at sunset, which was 8:29.
	So that's the whole scenario of the hiding assassin to me, there is no evidence of it.
	And if it did happen, there would be evidence of it.
	It would be Alec Murdoch hearing the gunshots.
	Well, except that this is a rural hunting camp where people shoot guns and hunt all the time in South Carolina.
	It's not New York City.
	So the fact that, and also he could be in his truck or his house when the assassinations occurred.
	And the fact is, is the violence and one of the things the defense is doing throughout the trial, every state witness, they're saying he loved his family.
	He loved his family.
	He loved his family.
	And there was no evidence of any kind of character that would show his kind of outrage and violence.
	And because this was a very violent, evil killing.
	So it's much more consistent with somebody who maybe Paul was involved in in the death of this young girl in this boating accident three years earlier.
	I can foresee lots of people who loved that girl or were around her who wanted vengeance on Paul for not getting his comeuppance and did exactly that, waited in the woods, saw what is a waited to pounce when Mr. Murdoch went back to the house.
	I don't find the, he must have heard it evidence compelling at all because there's many ways that you cannot hear gunshots.
	Even the reflection of sound, you could have echoes, there's pockets, you can be inside, he could be in his car, you could think it's another hunting gun.
	There's lots of reasonable explanations why he wouldn't make note of that.
	I mean, I'll say this, no one's a murderer until they are.
	I mean, no one's a murderer until they are.
	So the fact that he hadn't done it before, as far as we know, isn't really all that compelling.
	Although we don't know, you know, there's all sorts of evidence about what happened with that housekeeper.
	How did she fall down the stairs allegedly over a dog?
	But that wasn't mentioned in the 911 call.
	And then she died.
	And then he stole the wrongful death settlement with his own insurance company and didn't give it to her sons.
	Like, I don't know what he did with respect to that woman or anybody else, but it's sketchy.
	All right, Vinny, wait, I'm going to give you the floor as soon as we come back.
	Quick, quick break.
	So much more to get to, including this devastating ruling on the financial crimes they're in.
	And it did not go well for Alec Murdoch.
	So, Vinny, yesterday the proceedings were shut down by a bomb threat being called in to the courthouse.
	The judge, cool as a cucumber, quietly telling everybody it's time to leave.
	Is this, what's the speculation?
	I mean, my own is it's Alec Murdoch or somebody connected to him trying to cause a mistrial, trying to stop testimonial that he thinks is going to be bad for him.
	Who else would have the motive to call in a bomb threat?
	I'm not sure on who else would have the motive to do it.
	I know everything was handled very well at the courthouse.
	I mean, there were a lot of people inside that courtroom.
	It was jam-packed once again.
	You know, people around the country, around the world are following the case.
	It was apparently a phone threat.
	So I would think that investigators will be able to track down whoever's responsible.
	But if it's anyone connected to this case, that is going to be a big trouble, big, big trouble.
	I mean, I think at this point, he'd be, of course, he'd be thrilled with a mistrial.
	That's always a win for a defense lawyer in a criminal case.
Motive Behind Bomb Threat Call 00:10:19
	You get another bite at the apple and you've seen the prosecution's case.
	But they're steadily plugging along on the prosecution side.
	Now, they put on all these financial witnesses to they had done like a show and tell with the judge, for lack of a better term, you know, outside the presence of the jury.
	They showed the judge what they were going to prove about Alex Murdoch if given the chance that he's a thief, stole from the client, stole from the law firm, been doing it for 10 years, millions and millions of dollars.
	And the defense said, how is this relevant to Steve's point earlier this week?
	How's this relevant?
	This is a murder trial.
	This isn't whether he's a bad guy or stole some money.
	Well, the judge said, I believe it is.
	They've got to show malice and motive can be relevant to malice and the prosecution's theory that this guy was in a panic and a downward spiral after being outed by his law firm.
	Like they finally caught him that day.
	They had a conversation with him.
	Like, you're stealing.
	And later that night, his family's murdered.
	So it's all in.
	And This is interesting because Gene Seckinger, who's the CFO of the law firm, testified that indeed, after the murders that night, they'd been ready to gear up on Alec.
	But after the murder that night, they had a little change of heart.
	Here it is in SAT 17.
	After the murders happened, was anybody at all concerned about getting the proof for those missing fees after those murders happened at that point in time?
	We weren't because we were concerned about Alec.
	He wasn't working a whole lot.
	He was erratic.
	We knew he was taking pills.
	We were just worried about his sanity.
	So we weren't going to go in there and harass him about money when we were worried about his mental state and the fact that his family had been killed.
	It just wasn't even on our mind.
	Vinny?
	Mission accomplished, right?
	That's what prosecutors definitely can argue is that it bought him some time.
	And this is why, you know, the defense is saying, well, did it really buy him time?
	It was going to catch up to him anyway.
	But what prosecutors are doing is taking us into the mind of Alec Murdoch.
	And you have to think about who he is and who his family is.
	This is where this is all relevant.
	For years, the Murdoch family had controlled things.
	They controlled the criminal courts as the local solicitors or prosecutors.
	Then they controlled the civil courts as having the most powerful civil law firm in that part of South Carolina.
	And they would sue huge corporations and force huge settlements.
	So he's used to fixing things.
	So in his mind, and I think this is what prosecutors will and should argue, in his mind, by giving himself some more time, he's a Murdoch.
	If I just get a little more time, I can fix this.
	I can control this.
	And that is what it doesn't make sense to you or I, like, but we're not murderers.
	And you've got to get this jury out of that mindset of thinking of it like they're doing it.
	Like, no, go inside the mind of a desperate murderer who's been committing these crimes for over a decade, has been betraying his clients, his law partners.
	And in the low countries of South Carolina, all your business partners are your friends.
	They're your friends.
	Everybody is connected to everyone down there.
	And that bond that they have is, yeah, we do business together, but then we go hunting together.
	Our families vacation together.
	We boat together.
	We have oyster roasts together.
	I mean, that is the ultimate.
	So you've got a picture of a man who is committing all this betrayal to all these people who are close to him.
	This is just the ultimate betrayal in a situation where drastic measures needed to be taken for him to be able to get control of his life and his legacy and his money, which was unraveling.
	Steve, on top of all that, Nancy Grace is reporting that she was on the ground there for two minutes before 10 people came up to her and told her that Maggie Murdoch was getting ready to file for divorce.
	It was not a happy marriage.
	And in the process of a divorce, all the financials would be laid bare.
	He'd have to be putting everything on the table.
	A forensic accountant would come in.
	He'd get caught.
	That, of course, he was facing a civil lawsuit over Paul's boating accident in which Paul allegedly killed Mallory Beach.
	And she was killed.
	And they say he was driving, though he was going to deny that, I think.
	So both of these family members were going to, their behavior was going to bring forensic accountants sniffing around in a way the lawsuit, the law firm had just done that day.
	So they're building this case of like the financial pressure building up against him.
	And if they do introduce evidence of a potential divorce, the peace on Maggie will come too.
	Right.
	Well, that's just vastly different from my perspective and view of the way the evidence is unfolding.
	And obviously, you know, maybe it's my defense perspective.
	I don't really know Murdoch.
	I don't know South Carolina.
	I don't know the surroundings of this.
	I'm just looking at the way the evidence is being presented.
	And there was no crisis on that day, the June 7th date of the murder.
	There was nothing special.
	He had been stealing for 10 years.
	And he's obviously, they have a very strong case against him for embezzlement over many years, obviously.
	But I don't see the crescendo.
	Like basically, the state is saying that he murdered his beloved wife of many years and his beautiful son because he needed a continuance.
	But he did get confronted by the law firm that day, the day of the murders that she went to him.
	Yeah, he got caught.
	Like the house was caving in.
	Well, at what point does the house cave in?
	It's a 10-year cycle.
	And everything, the defense, when they're coming back on these witnesses, I mean, the state's got him dead to rights on these financial crimes.
	But the question about the murder and this is being motive for murder is inconsistent with everything that everybody says about this guy over his entire life.
	The purpose for him stealing was to serve his family.
	He loved his wife.
	He loved his son more than anything.
	And he was using this to, you know, he would fly them, give the best schools, take up hunting.
	He spent, and the defense, every time a state witness gets up there and talks about how he stole money, he'd say, but did he love his wife?
	Did he love his son?
	Did he love these people?
	And it was yes, yes, yes.
	There's just no evidence of this kind of animosity that would result in bloody murder of his wife and his son.
	I just, it's just inconsistent with the testimony that's coming out so far.
	It's, you know, the state's case not done yet, but I don't buy into that argument.
	I think instead the state is using that to make him look bad generally.
	And therefore, he's generally guilty.
	And they're using the motive as an excuse to get the evidence in front of the jury, which is a no-no.
	That would be a that would be overruled on appeal if an appellate court thinks that's what the prosecution did.
	Go ahead, Vinny.
	Betrayal.
	I mean, all the people, and this is what we're talking about.
	All the people who were testifying about, oh, yeah, he loved his family, were friends that he was betraying.
	So that same relationship, they thought Alec was a great friend to me.
	Oh, he's my pal, he's my friend.
	I went, you know, we take family vacations together.
	They call me Uncle Ronnie, all of that.
	He was betraying them for money, betraying his friends and his and friends who he considered family for money.
	So what is more important to him?
	So this facade that family was the most important thing to him can be pierced because he betrayed his friends for dollars.
	He's going to betray his family to keep up whatever it is that he's going through.
	And he wasn't spending all the money on his family.
	He was burning through millions.
	Nobody knows where that money went.
	Right.
	Vinny, that's one of the weirdnesses of this case.
	Where is the money?
	If he stole up to $10 million, where is it?
	He wasn't living lavishly.
	He says he had a drug problem.
	$10 million went to the drugs.
	Like, where's the dough?
	Well, he was living lavishly.
	I mean, this is a 1700-acre hunting farm.
	He had a plane trip where he took his family to, I think it was to the Bahamas in a private jet.
	I mean, I don't know what that cost.
	He had lots of houses and he, you know, he was making the amazing thing is that insight, it's an amazing trial because this guy was the senior partner of a major law firm.
	He was bringing in $10 million a year.
	And so, and so seven beats into the perm for 7 million.
	This is why it does this snapping idea doesn't think that's okay.
	So, it's 70% of my annual income.
	I can make that up consistent with his idea.
	That's typical of an embezzler.
	And embezzlers are not generally murderers.
	That's a very unusual motive.
	It's a much more motive to be primal defense of a beautiful young woman who is and who has been wrongfully killed and to take revenge.
	Revenge and hostility against this family and this son is a much better motive than is the financial motive, as far as I'm concerned.
	You got to keep your eye on that.
	You're not wrong that Steve, the defense is going to beat that drum about who really had motive.
	There was a group of people very angry about Mallory Beach's death, and Paul was the one who was at the helm.
	That is another viable suspect pool.
	Vinny, I'll give you a quick last word.
	Yeah, that case would go nowhere.
	Could you imagine if we were prosecuting the family of Mallory Beach?
	People would laugh us out of court because there's no evidence of it.
	They investigated them.
	Zero Zippo, Nada, Niente Evans.
	It could be friends, though, friends of the girl, too.
	I don't know.
	The investigation has not been very good either.
	So let's just say that's good enough to catch a killer.
	Not yet.
	All right, guys.
	To be continued, look forward to seeing you hopefully next week.
	Vinny and Steve, all the best.
Remarkable Human Being Story 00:04:06
	We're going to be right back.
	I'm going to tell you about something I did last night that was unbelievable.
	And I'm very happy to tell you you can do it too.
	This is not like a sponsored thing.
	I just want to share an amazing experience I had.
	I've got to tell you about what we did last night.
	Now, a couple of years ago here in New York, I went to see magician, mentalist Dan White perform at this hotel.
	And it wasn't cheap.
	It was like $150 a ticket, if memory serves, it was, but it was so worth it.
	So worth it.
	And now you can have Dan White perform for you and your family for, I think it's $136 for the whole household.
	You can get your whole family to watch this virtually and it's interactive.
	It's not just like something that's, you know, packaged that you buy.
	It's, he does it live a couple of times, a few times, I think a month.
	So $136 for so much fun.
	I died.
	It was Abby watched it too.
	I would have her weigh in, but she's taking Stradowic to the vet right now because we thought he might have Salmonella because his parasite didn't go away and the medicine didn't help him.
	So then we thought maybe Salmonella.
	Anyway, I digress.
	He doesn't have Salmonella.
	He has something else.
	Anywho, she did it too.
	And our minds were blown.
	Blown.
	You sit in front of your TV.
	He mails you a box that you use during the performance.
	And you have to do it via like Zoom, you know, so he can see you too.
	My kids were beside themselves.
	All of us.
	I can't, I don't even know how to explain it to you.
	It's not just regular magic.
	It's mind-blowing next level stuff that will completely blow your.
	I can't tell you because I don't want to blow all of his tricks and his bits.
	And one is more amazing than the next, but it's crazy stuff.
	Like you do this number and you do that number, blah, blah, blah.
	It all comes together at the end in a way you're like, there's no way he could possibly have known that.
	Everybody here must be in on it.
	Oh, but wait, I'm here and I'm not in on it.
	So this must be real.
	Anyway, he's not paying me for this.
	This is just an organic recommendation.
	If you would like to do this, it's danwhitemagic.com.
	And it is a make great present for your love.
	You could give it to your spouse or your whatever for Valentine's Day.
	Check it out and you're welcome.
	Before we go, I want to bring you a little edition from the MK mailbag.
	You can go to megankelly.com if you want to sign up for my Friday email.
	It's got all the highlights of the week and really fun clips.
	I love this one from Carolyn who wrote in, Megan, there's only one concern I have as I watch you all the time.
	I'm 82 years old and I've not been a person to use colorful language.
	I notice when a situation really upsets you, you speak with strong convictions.
	As you say, F you, I find myself thinking, yes, you go girl.
	I just hope I don't pick up that word from you.
	My grandchildren would be appalled.
	Carolyn, thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	Not everyone feels the same, but sometimes you just got to do it.
	Strudwick, yeah, we got a lot of mail about him.
	Caprice wrote in, as a dog sitter, I want you to know that Lab's puppy stage lasts about four years.
	Looking forward to more tales.
	He's adorable.
	He is adorable.
	That is the reason why I let him live and stay with me, notwithstanding the many problems.
	Lots of feedback on Roland Griffiths, that interview, 483 if you missed it.
	Gringo writes in, I almost skipped this episode.
	Instead, I'm fighting back my sobs to say thank you so much for sharing Roland with us.
	What a remarkable human being.
	I felt the same.
	Alex too writes in, the episode on psychedelics with Dr. Griffiths has to be one of my favorites of yours so far.
	Both his story and research are so compelling.
	I understand why you got so emotional.
	Very moving for us all.
	So if you would like to email me, you can do it at Megan, M-E-G-Y-N, at megankelly.com.
	Or just go to megankelly.com to sign up for our little Friday email.
	And I think you'll be really pleased with what we send you.
	It's super fun.
	All right, see you tomorrow, guys.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:15 Severe Diagnostic Possibilities
00:05:34 Questions About Fitness To Serve
00:20:06 Confronting The Chairman's Health
00:34:52 Implicating Joe Biden In China Deal
00:47:17 Corroborating Laptop Evidence
00:53:09 Actual Monetary Loss For Family
01:05:31 Creepy Lawyer Worded Search Letter
01:20:43 Motive Behind Bomb Threat Call
01:31:03 Remarkable Human Being Story