The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230921_dems-politicizing-and-undermining-institutions-and

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Sept. 21, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:37:55

20230921_dems-politicizing-and-undermining-institutions-and

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Streaming for 79 Kroner 00:04:11
	Okay, so fantastic means that the ideal wandering stream flex 2.
	HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
	The foreigner or the funk, the Chromecast Potel Teva, Funkiri, hello, OS, All you need is net and Alente.
	Three months, 79 kroner per month.
	No binding, just TV and streaming.
	Just like you want to do it.
	Go to Alente.no and test it in summer.
	Dispatchespris for 79 kroner is in three months. This is a normal price for 499 kroner per month. Fiken presentes a simple simple regnskapsprogram for to send the facture from your company. It was simple. Fiken,
	a simple regnskapsprogram. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Your home for open, honest and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	I am so excited, so excited about today's program.
	It is a patched show with our all-star Kelly Score panel.
	And just a bit on Russell Brand, on Alec Murdaugh, on Brian Kohlberger, all new developments in all of those, and more.
	But we begin with someone I have long admired.
	I've never interviewed him.
	I mean, like in all the time that we've been in the same circles, I've never interviewed him like an in-depth interview.
	And he's here.
	I kind of thought like it might not happen, but we didn't even promote it because it's like it was too good to be true and maybe couldn't do it in the end.
	He's here.
	Mark Levin, the great one, a legend in the media, host of Fox News's Life, Liberty, and Levin, and a best-selling author.
	He's got a new book out right now.
	It's called The Democrat Party Hates America.
	And it's out this week.
	It is currently Numero Uno, the number one book in America on Amazon.
	A few decades ago, private citizens used to be largely that.
	Private, hello.
	What's changed?
	The internet.
	Think about everything you have browsed, searched for, watched, or tweeted.
	Now imagine all that data being crawled through, collected, snooped in, and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record.
	Yours.
	And in an era where everyone is online, everyone's a public figure.
	Did you know that there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data?
	The worst part is they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or even get your consent.
	One of these data points is your IP address.
	But with ExpressVPN, your connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server and your IP address is masked.
	Love that.
	And the best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use.
	No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, or smart TV, all you have to do is tap one button to get protected.
	So if you believe that your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market, visit expressvpn.com slash MK and get three extra months for free.
	E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash MK.
	Go now, expressvpn.com slash MK to learn more.
	Mark, so great to have you here.
The Democrat Party's History 00:05:58
	Congrats on the book and welcome.
	First of all, it's a great honor.
	I better not screw this up, not with an introduction like that.
	But I really want to thank you.
	You know, I've admired you for a very, very long time.
	I've never understood why we never talked to each other, but it doesn't matter.
	Here we are today.
	Thanks to you, and I appreciate it.
	Oh, it's truly an honor.
	It's like there are certain people, and it's a very small list who I consider appointment viewing.
	And it's like, whenever I see you, I stop.
	Whenever I see Mark Levin clip, I stop.
	Whenever Mark Levin has a book, I read.
	It's just, there is such a small collection of people who are truly brilliant and honest and honest.
	That's you're honest to a fault and you're not just some partisan hack.
	You chart your own way.
	You've been there.
	You were in the Reagan administration, chief of staff for the attorney general at the time, expert on the Supreme Court.
	So I want all of our listeners, I'm sure they already know that.
	But pay attention.
	You're going to learn something over the next hour.
	So the new book, I love the title, The Democrat Party Hates America, which he's never afraid of putting too fine a point on it and has done the same for us here.
	Give us the overall thesis of the book.
	The overall thesis of the book is if you look around the country, whether it's the border, whether it's classrooms, whether it's the economy, whether it's law and order in our cities, all these things are going wrong.
	It's not because of nature.
	It's not because it has to be this way.
	It's because of the Democrat Party.
	They run the cities.
	They're in charge of the border.
	The unions of the Democrat Party are attached at the hip.
	They're destroying our schools with their propaganda and so forth.
	And I decided, you know, I write these books about Marxism and Americanism and so forth.
	But we have a real problem in this country right now.
	And I think it's time to take it to the entity, what I call the Monopoly Party, the Democrat Party that's doing this to the country.
	And then I decided to do a deep dive into their history.
	They have a very horrific, bloodlust, racist, anti-Semitic history.
	Unlike the Republican Party, and I'm not always a fan of the Republican Party.
	As a matter of fact, I think the Republican Party is anemic.
	I think that people tend to vote Republican because they don't want to vote Democrat and that the Republicans don't really have a positive agenda for the country.
	And that's part of the problem when they fight with each other the way they are.
	But that said, they also don't want to fundamentally transform America.
	Biden says he does.
	Sanders says he does.
	The two Obamas say they do.
	Hillary Clinton says so.
	So what do they mean by that?
	So I felt like I needed to explain exactly what they meant by that.
	A lot of us don't want to fundamentally transform the greatest country on the face of the earth.
	Of course the nation's imperfect.
	Human beings are imperfect.
	But it's one thing to be imperfect, and it's another thing to be systematically racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-American.
	And that's the problem we have with the Democrat Party.
	It's an autocratic party like autocratic parties all over the world.
	It doesn't want to lose elections.
	So it tries to change the election system with HR1 to eliminate the Electoral College.
	So half the country has no representation to try and pack the courts.
	And this is constant.
	They get rid of the filibuster.
	All these things are traditional.
	They're custom.
	They're constitutional to prevent exactly what the Democrat Party is doing.
	The Democrat Party wants to replace the country.
	That is, as all these autocratic parties do.
	So you give allegiance to the party, not to the country.
	And so you have to destroy our history.
	You need to rewrite it.
	You need to push these outrageous, stupid books and essays on Americanism.
	You need to destroy the framers of the founders and the Declaration and the Constitution and on and on and on.
	So that's what the book does.
	It's a deep dive on that.
	One of the things that jumped out on me was the openness of the Obamas in stating that they wanted to do over on the United States of America.
	And I remember living this, you know, when they were running, when he was running, she as his wife, they both made these comments over and over.
	And just a couple of weeks ago, I said, I don't believe Michelle Obama loves his country.
	And I trended on Twitter for three days because of that.
	Well, I don't believe that.
	I do not believe she loves America.
	And if you look back at her history, it's pretty easy to conclude that, which is why this piece of the book jumped out at me.
	And we went and found the soundbites in part that you cite.
	Here's just a flavor of one of the jumping off points for Mark.
	We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
	We are going to have to change our conversation.
	We're going to have to change our traditions, our history.
	We're going to have to move it to a different place as a nation.
	It's all there.
	I mean, they laid out exactly how they feel.
	They don't want the America that exists.
	They want something totally different.
	And what does she mean, change our history?
	You can't change your history.
	History is a fact.
	And yet in every totalitarian regime, that's what they do.
	They rewrite their history.
	And it's an amazing thing about the Democratic Party.
	Slavery, segregation, the Klan, lynching, these horrible, horrible things.
	The country didn't do this.
	The Democrat Party did this in the areas of the country that the Democrat Party controlled.
	And so when they talk about our history, they're really talking about their history.
	And somehow they've managed to accomplish the greatest con in American history, that is to project their history onto the Republican Party, because the Republicans are too stupid to know their own history and the history of the Democrat Party, and they're too gutless to stand up for themselves.
	And that's just the beginning.
Wilson and the FBI Act 00:12:42
	I mean, Woodrow Wilson, they loved Woodrow Wilson because he was the first two-term Democrat since Andrew Jackson.
	He was one of the earliest intellectuals for the so-called progressive era, which I call the beginning of the American Marxist era.
	And Woodrow Wilson was an out-of-the-closet racist segregationist.
	He bragged that when he was president of Princeton, not one black kid was admitted into Princeton.
	He re-segregated the military.
	He re-segregated the federal civil service, such as it was, after two Republican presidents desegregated them.
	And for the first time, when you applied for a job in the federal bureaucracy, you needed to provide a photo.
	That way they knew if you were black, and then they knew you weren't going to get a job.
	And I can go on and on about Wilson, but I spend time getting into Franklin Roosevelt because he's the great Democrat icon.
	He is the one that they lionized.
	He is the one who they consider the greatest president in American history.
	Bernie Sanders talks him up, AOC talks him up.
	All Democrats talk him up.
	Why?
	If you look into Franklin Roosevelt's history, and I do a tremendous amount of research for these books, you will find that Franklin Roosevelt was a racist.
	He never lifted a finger for the black community.
	In fact, in 1940, as I've been saying, there was a bipartisan bill put on his desk, a federal law to outlaw lynching all across the country, and he wouldn't sign it.
	He wouldn't sign it because he was running for an unprecedented third term and he wanted to win the South.
	Jesse Owens, the Berlin Olympics, famously, 1936, he was the star.
	And so FDR invites all the Olympians who are white.
	He excludes Jesse Owens.
	And Jesse Owens, in his own biography, he's asked, well, did Hitler snub you?
	He said, I never met Hitler.
	He didn't snub me.
	Franklin Roosevelt snubbed me.
	He didn't even acknowledge that I'd been at the Olympics.
	Joe Lewis, the great boxer, he voted for Wendell Willkie against Franklin Roosevelt because Roosevelt didn't sign that anti-lynching bill.
	I can go on and on with Roosevelt.
	I mean, for instance, the Federal Housing Authority, the FHA, a lot of people watching have benefited from that program in the New Deal.
	But when it was passed as really the first big New Deal project, the purpose of the FHA is to subsidize mortgages and to help protect mortgages so people don't lose their homes and they can buy homes.
	This was considered a great feat.
	I even saw a liberal on cable TV say this is one of the examples of the great civil rights leader that Franklin Roosevelt was.
	But there's a problem with that.
	No loans were to be given to any black communities or any communities that are outside black communities because they thought they were a bad investment.
	And so what did the New Deal, the Roosevelt guys do?
	They took out big red pens and they put circles around the black communities.
	That's where you get redlining from.
	Redlining comes from the New Deal.
	And so when it came to Lyndon Johnson, I mean, there's another guy who's a racist to the day he died.
	He didn't have any kind of epiphany.
	And these are what his biographers say who like him.
	Lyndon Johnson voted against every single civil rights act that ever appeared in the U.S. Senate and he participated in every filibuster to kill anyone that did, except in 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower wanted to push forward a very aggressive civil rights bill in 1957.
	And Lyndon Johnson meets with Ike and he says, I'm going to kill your bill.
	And Ike was furious.
	But three months or so later, he said, I can't get this through because this guy is the Democrat leader in the Senate.
	He'll filibuster.
	So he says to Johnson, okay, this is a start.
	We'll do this.
	And then Johnson goes back to his segregationist friends, and they were his friends.
	And he says, don't filibuster this thing because it has no teeth.
	Now, why did Johnson do that?
	Because all of a sudden, he was some kind of civil rights leader?
	Obviously not.
	He did it because he was playing both sides against the middle.
	He decided he wanted to run for president.
	And so he wanted to be able to say that he helped Shepard through the 1957 Act.
	And of course, most people don't know that he took the teeth out of that act.
	You've got audio in the Oval Office back then.
	You've got all kinds of eyewitness testimony and people writing books, the endless use of the N-word.
	When he nominated Thurgood Marshall, the first black to be nominated and then serve on the Supreme Court, he made an outrageous statement.
	He said, I want to be remembered for putting the best N-word on the Supreme Court.
	And I want them to remember that he was my N-word.
	This guy, 64 Civil Rights Act, 65 Civil Rights Act, these were all Republican notions, Republican ideas that had been pushed in the past.
	And it's just off.
	I mean, he and by the way, Robert Kennedy, they were tapping the hell out of Martin Luther King's phone.
	Lyndon Johnson, I wrote about this in another book.
	He even tapped Hubert Humphrey's phone, his own vice president who's running in the Democrat primaries for president because he wanted to know where he stood on Vietnam, his own vice president.
	At the Democrat convention in Atlantic City, Martin Luther King's phone was tapped.
	All the civil rights leaders who were there, their phones were tapped.
	He had Hoover send in FBI agents to spy on some of these people to see what they were doing.
	This is why, Megan, to be perfectly honest with you, I look at this stuff about Trump and documents.
	And I say to myself, what the hell is going on here?
	Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS against every one of his leading political opponents against newspaper publishers, Annenberg, against Timothy Mellon, the former Secretary of the Treasury under Coolidge.
	For 10 years, he chased him.
	And even Morgenthau, who was his Secretary of the Treasury, said, he's clean.
	We don't have anything on him.
	And even a judge who finally, I think he had to pay some de minimis amount in fines after 10 years, said, Why are you pursuing this guy?
	And he used the FBI.
	Lyndon Johnson used the IRS.
	He used the FBI and he used the CIA.
	I just point these things out.
	You have Biden today, who's Mr. Censorship.
	We haven't had censorship like this since Woodrow Wilson and the Civil War going on in this country today.
	Anyway, I'm being long-winded.
	That's sort of what the book's about.
	Yeah.
	I would love to talk about the Trump indictments.
	I listened to you religiously on this.
	I don't know if I can say I'm as outraged as Mark Levin about these, but I'm in your neighborhood.
	They're absurd.
	And we were covering the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday with Merrick Garland, where it was obviously just one long exercise in obfuscation.
	And I don't know.
	I don't, you know, I don't talk to him.
	I'm hands off when it comes to this investigation.
	You know, that's a question for Mr. Weiss.
	That's a question.
	And we all know when David Weiss gets before the Congress, he's not going to answer these questions either.
	And what's clear is they slow rolled the whole investigation against Hunter and until the statute of limitations expired on the most serious crimes.
	And now they're left with just crumbs, which who knows if they're going to pursue or they're not.
	The gun charge, all right, whatever, the tax charges, we'll see.
	But the meat of the case is already gone.
	This, while they've been incredibly aggressive against not just the former president, but obviously the leading candidate for the Republican nomination against Joe Biden, their boss right now.
	So give us your take on how things are developing when it comes to the criminal prosecutions against Trump versus Hunter.
	You know, I don't actually, on the politics side, you won't find me going on Fox or anywhere else saying, I support this guy.
	And I don't, no.
	I look at this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general, Ed Mees.
	If somebody had come to Ed Meese and said, we're going to get a criminal warrant against Jimmy Carter, we've gone to him two, three times.
	He won't give us our documents.
	And we're going to send a SWAT team down there when he's not home.
	We're going to go into his home and we're going to search his bedroom.
	We're going to search his wife's drawers.
	We're going to go into the client.
	This was really a general warrant, to be perfectly honest with you.
	But we're going to do it.
	You know what Ed Meese would have said?
	Get your ass the hell out of my office.
	What are you nuts?
	And he would have said that primarily because, do you know what this is going to do to the country?
	Now, look, you're a lawyer.
	I'm a lawyer.
	Other lawyers out there, they could have pursued this civilly.
	They could have gone to a court.
	They could have gotten an order for Trump to turn over the documents.
	If he didn't turn over the documents, the court could hold him in contempt and you follow that civil trail.
	But they didn't want to.
	Even though there were some FBI agents who apparently were appalled at this whole track they were following, well, they were basically squelched by senior leadership.
	One of the guys, it's a senior leader, is in the national security side.
	He's this little guy who's very aggressive.
	In my view, he's got issues, but that's the way it is.
	And he even has a lawyer for another defendant in this case who's filed a complaint with the judge saying that basically extorted him.
	He said, if you can get your client to flip against Trump, then you may have a better shot at a federal judgeship in Washington, D.C.
	That still hasn't been resolved.
	And he's still in court in Florida arguing case.
	I've never seen anything like this in my life.
	But just, let me tell you a secret.
	I don't care what these former presidents say.
	They've all taken documents home.
	You don't even have to keep them.
	If you take a document home and you don't deal with it properly, that is technically a violation of the Espionage Act.
	But here's the problem.
	The Espionage Act was passed in 1917.
	It was passed by Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats to go after his political opponents who opposed World War I. There are very broad sections in that act.
	It was used against W.E.B. Du Bois, as a matter of fact.
	And it was used against others who were planning on running against Wilson for president.
	That's the law they're using.
	But what they didn't have back down there was the Presidential Records Act, which was passed in the 1970s and was implemented during the Reagan administration.
	And under the Presidential Records Act, no longer can a president take documents and keep them personally.
	In other words, you can buy, for instance, signed documents by presidents, official documents.
	I've had many of them.
	I had the first appointment of a Supreme Court justice signed by John Jay, who received it as the Chief Justice, George Washington, who made the nomination.
	I donated it to Hillsdale College.
	You can't, as a president, do that anymore.
	You can't take those documents with you and keep them.
	That statute actually protects Donald Trump.
	It's the Presidential Records Act.
	And why does it protect Donald Trump?
	Because it trumps, in my view, the Espionage Act.
	A president, it was never intended for a president to be charged under the Espionage Act of the United States any more than it was Hillary Clinton.
	But Hillary Clinton didn't have the Presidential Records Act.
	She was not protected under the Presidential Records Act.
	And yet they didn't bring charges against her.
	And they bring these charges against Trump and they do these things that no administration before this would ever do.
	And so you have the potential, put aside all the rest of the cases, that Donald Trump would spend the rest of his life in prison over documents.
	They have no evidence that he sold any information, that he gave any information to the enemy.
	They're doing the usual, well, he told somebody not to talk about the boxes and the usual obstruction stuff and so forth.
	You're trying to set up a guy who's a candidate for president of the United States.
	This is what I object to.
	Because if you can weaponize the Department of Justice this way, the power of the federal government, the power of the central government knows no limits.
January Six Corruption Issues 00:14:52
	That's why Garland was playing rope-a-dope all day.
	He can't defend this, and he's not going to defend it.
	They just do it, and nobody's going to stop him.
	Can you talk to, speak to the consequences of the deteriorating faith we have in the rule of law in the Department of Justice, in the FBI?
	You know, there was a time when we used to believe in these organizations, and it was important that we believed in them.
	But now, between what they're doing to Trump versus Hunter, what they've done to parents, domestic terrorists, the lopsided way that this DOJ goes after cases, not to mention what we had under Eric Holder.
	You can feel it going down the drain.
	Biden, either he or his people, they appointed the most radical senior leadership at that department in American history.
	They're all Obama clones.
	They all worked for Obama in one form or the other.
	The deputy attorney general is truly a radical left-wing political bomb thrower.
	She's running the place.
	Everybody knows it.
	Name is Monica, Lisa Monica.
	She's all the Peter Biden case.
	And she's all over it.
	The head of the Civil Rights Division said so many racist things when she was not obviously the Department of Justice.
	And yet she muscles through on her confirmation.
	She's the one going after 70-year-old pro-lifers and throwing them in prison for daring to protest in front of abortion clinics.
	And they're using the FACE Act in a very, very broad way to round up these people and imprison them.
	It's truly sick.
	You look at the criminal division.
	The guy heading the criminal division is an Obamaite.
	The public integrity section, which is under the criminal division, is run by him.
	The antitrust and civil divisions, I know these like the back of my hand.
	They're using them to go after these corporations and businesses and shake them down.
	You look at the criminal divisions going after Elon Musk now.
	That is the Southern District of New York.
	The U.S. Attorney's Offices coordinate with Maine Justice on major cases involving major public figures.
	And in every instance, again, I know this from my own duties there, the Attorney General of the United States is informed when there is a major public figure, a major corporation involved in a criminal investigation or is going to be involved in the criminal investigation.
	And he gets to, from a distance, oversee these things.
	They're actually going after Elon Musk now.
	They wouldn't go after Elon Musk if he wasn't at least sounding somewhat libertarian or conservative and didn't condemn what had taken place with Twitter and the censorship with the Biden regime.
	They're literally going after him saying that he personally benefited because he's building some glass house and it was supposed to be for SpaceX or Tesla, but he benefited personally from it.
	I mean, who has ever seen anything like this?
	And isn't it amazing?
	Buffett's never done anything wrong.
	Gates has never done anything wrong.
	Soros got Clinton Foundation.
	My God, there ought to be 5,000 charges against them.
	But to answer your question, when your department acts like the old Stasi of East Germany, they're not going to get respect.
	They are destroying law and order in this country.
	And I'll take it one step further, Megan.
	These judges in Washington, D.C., 10 out of 14 of which, I believe it was, no, eight out of 12 of which were appointed by either Obama or Biden.
	And these are radicals, Chutkin and so forth.
	They are destroying even more the respect for law and order because you expect the courts to be the referees.
	The things they say and the things they have done are unbelievable, whether it's to Donald Trump, whether it's to protester January 6th.
	I said protesters, not rioters, protesters who are on the grounds of the department or the grounds of the Capitol looking up at what's going on, happen to be standing there.
	All of them are getting charged.
	All of them are being round up from all over the country.
	And you have the judge, Judge Chunkin, who's a radical leftist, comes out of the public defender's office of the federal office in Washington, D.C., throwing the book at anybody who shows up in her courtroom beyond what even this Department of Justice is proposing.
	And the things that she has said during sentencing hearings are so outrageous that there's no way that this would have passed just what, five, 10 years ago.
	So that's why people are disgusted with the whole thing.
	Do you just get your back of the envelope take on how these four cases are likely to shake out?
	You know, I feel like they're ultimately going to be decided by judges, not juries, because they raise legal issues that an honest judge should be able to dispose of relatively easily.
	And then they probably go against Trump three out of four.
	And maybe the judge down in Florida might go for Trump.
	And then it's going to work its way up to the appellate courts and probably the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But is that wrong?
	What do you think?
	All right, not to bore everybody, but I'll quickly go through each one.
	Let's start with one more question, D.C.
	Yeah.
	January 6th.
	Those four charges are so preposterous.
	You know, to dust off the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act and the irony is a Democrat administration is doing that.
	It has no application here, but it doesn't matter.
	The section 1502 of the criminal code, which was passed after Enron, two of the four charges involve obstruction.
	And what they meant there was you had executives at Enron who were destroying records that were being subpoenaed by Congress.
	This has nothing to do with January 6th, but they've used it widely against protesters on January 6th, and they've gotten convictions.
	But it's been appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which is also lopsided.
	They expanded the D.C. circuit when Obama was president and Harry Reid was running the Senate to add several seats and they loaded it up with Obama appointees because that, as you know, is the second most powerful court in the country.
	Why?
	Because all these government cases work through that circuit.
	And even one of the, in one panel, three judge panel, even one of the panel judges said, this really doesn't apply.
	And so there are now cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And I think the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up whether that's even constitutional.
	And then you have another statute that's been used almost exclusively for financial crimes against federal contractors.
	And so you take these four counts in Washington, D.C. You take the prosecutor, this guy, Jack Smith, who I call Jack the Ripper Smith.
	He's a guy that always pushes the corners of the law, that always rewrites the laws.
	He's had his ass kicked in one courtroom after another across the United States.
	He targeted the Tea Party when he was head of the public integrity section.
	So they bring him back from The Hague.
	You know, they sent him to The Hague, quite frankly, to get rid of him.
	Gets to wear a robe.
	You know, he gets to go after genocidal maniacs.
	They figure, okay.
	So out of the thousands of lawyers, tens of thousands of lawyers Garland could have picked, he picks him to come back because he's a headhunter.
	He's not a real prosecutor.
	He's a headhunter.
	That's why he's got the Klan Act and these other things going on.
	What's going on in this courtroom?
	They know that that city is 94, 95% Biden.
	They know that Trump doesn't have a chance, no chance in hell.
	They know that this judge is probably one of the most radical judges in the United States of America.
	They've studied her sentencing.
	They know what she has said.
	Somehow she gets picked, you know, just out of the lottery to head the case.
	She's already made rulings to me that violate the Sixth Amendment, the right to competent representation in the Fifth Amendment, due process.
	You have 12.8 million pages of documents.
	And I'm not even talking about video and everything.
	I'm not even talking about what the defense might have.
	She gives them four and a half months to prepare.
	This is a woman who has, according to Dave Schoen, a great constitutional lawyer, has a case in front of her.
	He's been waiting three and a half years for her to decide a case that's been set up.
	He said, we're waiting her decision, and we just keep waiting.
	So she takes what she wants to take.
	She moves up, but she wants to move up.
	But here's something that nobody's focused on, Megan.
	She jumped the line.
	First, she calls the Democrat-elected judge in Manhattan and says, I want to go first.
	He says, well, of course, you go first.
	He jumps the line with the judge in Florida.
	How does she jump the line?
	Because that was the first case the government brought, the documents case.
	So when you're docketing these cases, that's the first case.
	And she sets the trial for May.
	I don't believe it'll stay in May.
	She sets it for May.
	The next thing you know, the second case that the prosecutor brings is now the first case because she moves up the trial to the day before the Tuesday, Super Tuesday.
	She moves it up to March 4th.
	So she jumps the line on the first case because she wants her case heard first.
	Now, why?
	Just to clarify again.
	So he's talking about the January 6th federal case is now number one, even though the Mar-a-Lagos document case was filed first.
	Florida's after now.
	Washington, D.C., Judge Chutkin, this committed leftist who said very negative things about Trump and other cases.
	Now she's number one.
	Trial to take place the day before to start Super Tuesday.
	Keep going.
	Right.
	And she moved a whole schedule up.
	She truncated discovery.
	She truncated everything to make it impossible to really prepare your defense.
	And you have a right to a defense.
	She says it's the Speedy Trial Act is a public interest.
	Speed trial act has nothing to do with the public.
	It has to do with the defendant.
	Any moron knows that who's practiced law for 13 minutes.
	So anyway, she's twisting and turning and she's moving calendars because she knows or she believes that a Democrat jury will convict Donald Trump of at least one of the charges.
	And then the question is, does she send Donald Trump to prison right away?
	Does she stay her decision so he can appeal it to the circuit court and eventually to the Supreme Court?
	Well, here's what else she knows: that if she gets what she wants, Donald Trump will be running for president as a convicted felon.
	And that's what Biden wants.
	That's what that judge wants.
	That's what the prosecutors want.
	By the time you have an appeal, even if it's an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal that raises unique issues or constitutional issues that the circuit court should take up or might take up during the course of the trial, she knows that all takes time.
	And so by the time it all shakes out, the election will be over.
	And they're doing this purposely.
	So the Trump lawyers have filed a recusal motion, and they're right, providing all these statements that she's made from the bench, which are absolutely outrageous.
	They're taking a film.
	100%.
	And here's something that happened that I've never seen in all my years.
	So the government files a response to the motion by Trump's lawyers for that judge to recuse herself.
	I have never seen anything like that in my life.
	They don't want to lose her 100%.
	They feel they have her in their back pocket and they're telling her, no, don't listen to them.
	Listen to us.
	We like you.
	I have never seen that in my life, ever.
	It just shows you the corruption that's taking place here.
	Real fast.
	The case in Florida is not, as some legal analysts like to say, a slam dunk to me.
	There are a number of motions that can be filed.
	There are complex constitutional issues in that case.
	And so motions can be filed.
	Depending on how the judge views some of these motions, you could have interlocutory appeals and so forth.
	She doesn't strike me as a bomb thrower one way or the other, quite frankly, although the media have done their very best to undermine her.
	But there are serious issues that can be raised, starting with the warrant.
	I mean, you have a warrant that says you can search for these boxes and anything around it.
	Well, you don't, that's not, that's not a warrant.
	That's not probable.
	And anything around it?
	No.
	So there are arguments to be made.
	There are motions to be made.
	And that's just one of them.
	So I don't agree with Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley or anybody else that this is slam dunk.
	In the end, maybe there'll be a conviction, but that's a long way off.
	The case in Georgia, former Attorney General Ed Mies just filed an affidavit in this.
	He's in his 90s, smart as can be.
	Physical health is deteriorating, but he's a wonderful man.
	He said, this DA, this local county DA is charging federal officials for what they did as federal officials.
	And they have every right as federal officials to give advice to state officials to suggest to state officials that they might want to do X, Y, or Z.
	But you can't have a district attorney.
	There's 15,000 district attorneys in this country, and God knows how many assistant district attorneys now charging an assistant attorney general of the United States for advice that he gave to the Secretary of State in Georgia.
	And by the way, the advice was not, wasn't, wasn't forced.
	They can take it or leave it.
	So now Mies says, not only is this a federal matter, but you're now charging federal officials for giving their opinions to state officials.
	So he says, this needs to be in federal court.
	It really does.
	And the guy that just ruled that it shouldn't be a federal district judge, another one, was appointed by Obama.
	I assume you think as little of the New York prosecution as I do.
	That's a, I mean, it's a nothing.
	But I worry.
	I worry about that judge and I worry about these juries.
	I'm telling you, I've seen some weird things go on here.
	People being convicted for things, and you shake your head and you say, what the hell is going on around here?
	You've got jury knowledge.
	Let me ask it this way.
	Of the four we're looking at, scale of one to 10, 10 guaranteed he's going to prison, zero, no chance.
Dangerous Immigration Laws Undermined 00:11:08
	You know, all in, all four of them.
	Where would you put the chances that he actually is going to prison?
	Megan, it's a question I don't even want to contemplate.
	You know, people say to me all the time in a different context, are you pessimistic or optimistic about the future of the country?
	I said, why does it matter?
	Fight like hell.
	I can't predict the outcome, but fight like hell.
	That's what I tell my radio audience.
	I'm not an Ostradamus.
	It doesn't make any difference what I think.
	I think this is all extraordinarily dangerous to the country.
	I think when you have a state-run media in effect, defending a state-run party that monopolizes the country, that people are gravely disserved.
	And that is what's taking place here.
	And honestly, just to circle back, that's why I wrote the book.
	You have a state-run party that is monopolizing our legal system, that is monopolizing our electoral system.
	It wants to change it in every respect.
	It is trying to monopolize our court system with its threats against the Supreme Court and its independence.
	I've never seen anything like this.
	Nobody has, except with FDR once.
	And you have to have, and I read all these books from these people who have survived Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and Castro's Gulags and all.
	And they all say the same thing about totalitarianism.
	The party comes before the country.
	You have to show allegiance to the party.
	Any disagreement with the party, any debate with the party needs to be punished in one form or the other because your individual thoughts are of no consequence.
	Your individual thoughts, as a matter of fact, are undermining the communal, the effort to put together this fantastic, more perfect, paradisiacal type society.
	And so while free speech might be a great thing, as Lenin said, speech needs to be changed.
	Words need to be changed to support the party.
	We even see that today.
	I wrote a whole chapter on this, the change of language in order to change the way people think and behave and act to do what?
	To support the party's agenda.
	So you can't have debates.
	You can't even have scientists debating each other, medical experts debating each other.
	That's what all the censorship has been about.
	That's what all the scarlet letter stuff has been about.
	That's what woke is, a word I don't like, it's so passive.
	That's what it's all about.
	They want conformity.
	That's what they want.
	They do not want debate.
	It's why, I mean, just to name a couple, we now have to refer to, I have to call myself a cis woman, as opposed to just a woman, because that's them controlling my language about my own gender so that they can stuff a certain kind of man into my gender.
	It's why there was a law passed years ago in New York City that made it illegal to refer to illegal aliens if you had any sort of malice in your heart, because they will police the words that come out of your mouth in the way we're seeing up north in Canada, which sadly is a step ahead of us.
	And by that, I mean down the drain on a lot of these issues.
	That brings me to immigration, which is God knows a mess.
	And it's worse right now than it's been.
	I mean, we just crossed a very dark milestone today.
	I'm going to squeeze in a quick break and pick it up right there with the one and only, the great one, Mark Levin.
	Don't forget, the book is called The Democrat Party Hates America.
	He says the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party hates America.
	And he lays out the case as only Levin can.
	Let's talk about immigration.
	Here's the latest, posted by Fox's Bill Melusian, who's been doing such great work down there.
	Breaking, this is just an hour and a half ago.
	Per CPB sources.
	In the last 24 hours alone, over 10,000 migrants were encountered at the southern border, bringing us back to the all-time record high levels we last saw in May before the end of Title 42.
	And just in case people think it was just today, no, it's been inching up.
	It's been in the 9,000s and change for days, going on weeks on end now.
	I mean, tens of thousands are coming in week after week after week, flooding the southern border in Texas.
	And then, of course, they get bussed elsewhere now, Mark.
	I mean, I used to kind of question the use of the term invasion.
	I'm not sure what other word there is at this point.
	I don't know, five to six million illegal aliens in the Biden administration and God knows how many others are given an official rubber stamp bill of approval.
	I bet we're at the 10 million mark.
	And I want people to think about that for a second, because where are all these people?
	You see them at the border, but now they're in every part of the United States.
	Who are all these people?
	We don't have the same.
	Look at this, by the way.
	It's mostly single males.
	That's what the reporting is too.
	You look at the video, it's mostly single young men.
	And what's the problem with that?
	It's single young men who commit the most crime in the United States and in most countries all over the world.
	We don't have the capacity to know who most of these people are, whether they're friend or foe, whether they're criminal or terrorist or anything of the sort.
	And I want to talk about this in a little bit of a different way.
	When you have a president of the United States who does this to a country, who allows criminals to come across the border, potentially terrorists, he has no idea.
	Fentanyl and other drugs are killing up to 100,000 Americans every single year.
	When you have anarchy and mayhem going on on that border and now in the interior of the United States, women being raped and sold into sex trafficking, same with little kids.
	You have 85 to 100,000 young people from other countries who are now basically indentured servants in various hell holes here and there.
	This is not nature.
	This is man-made because Joe Biden refuses to enforce the existing immigration laws.
	And they say two things in response.
	The border's secure, so they're lying unbelievably, or it's the Republicans' fault because we need comprehensive immigration reform.
	We don't need comprehensive immigration reform.
	We need border security.
	And presidents know how to do this if they want to do it, and presidents know how not to do it if they don't.
	This is the most outrageous assault on the body politic on the American people in modern American history.
	The greatest enemy we have here is not the Communist Chinese, and they are the greatest foreign enemy we have.
	It's the Democrat Party.
	Now, they can whine all they want in New York and New York State, but Biden knows they're all going to vote Democrat anyway.
	So he doesn't care.
	They're playing longball.
	They want to turn Texas.
	They turned Arizona.
	They turned Nevada.
	They've turned New Mexico.
	They've almost turned Georgia.
	They want to turn Texas.
	You might say, well, legal aliens can't vote.
	No.
	But when they're here long enough, their children are American citizens.
	They can vote.
	Or you have chain migration.
	People aren't even thinking about that.
	So when you're talking about six known illegal aliens, almost none of whom, very small percentage show up for their administrative court date.
	So here's my point, Megan.
	I was studying the history of the impeachment clause, and it goes back to Britain, and it goes back to the parliament trying to assert some power over the monarchy and over appointees of the monarchy and then over members of its own body, parliament.
	And our framers looked very carefully all over the world at these different practices and these different rules and so forth.
	So they debated the impeachment clause at some length.
	And they were thinking about using the word maladministration.
	Madison said, that's too weak.
	You know, then we'll have a president impeached every other week.
	So they came up with the phrase treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
	So here's the problem.
	You have, again, these former federal prosecutors who don't know a damn thing about the Constitution and others, like Democrats.
	And they say, well, you can't prove that Joe Biden took any money.
	Well, you don't have to prove that Joe Biden took any money.
	Andrew Johnson was impeached.
	It had nothing to do with money.
	Bill Clinton was impeached.
	That had nothing to do with money.
	Donald Trump was impeached twice.
	That had nothing to do with money.
	So what is it?
	What's the rule?
	So then you got to look at what each delegate said.
	And where you go for that is at the state conventions.
	So I looked at North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and so forth.
	I know I'm a nerd.
	I can't help it.
	I read this stuff.
	I love this stuff.
	And what did I find out?
	The bottom line, the consensus position is political offenses against the society, against the citizenry.
	In other words, it's much broader than a specific piece of the criminal code, most of which didn't even exist.
	It's bigger than that.
	A high crime and misdemeanor, a high crime.
	Have you done something to the country that damages the country in a significant way?
	And so I've said on the radio, hoping that some of these Republicans on Capitol Hill listen.
	In the Senate, they don't listen, but maybe some in the House.
	You go ahead and pursue the financial crimes.
	That's crucially important.
	Crucially important to know if the president of the United States is a Manchurian president, if he's been bought and paid for.
	It certainly looks like it to me.
	And the case is self-evident unless you're watching one of these crazy news channels.
	But what's troubling to me is the greatest reason that Joe Biden should be impeached is what you showed two minutes ago.
	He's violating his oath of office to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the Constitution.
	He is undermining existing laws that prevent what's happening from happening.
	The damage that he's doing to the country is incalculable from a law enforcement perspective, safety and health perspective.
	Our school systems are overwhelmed.
	Our communities are begging for help.
	American citizens are suffering as a result of what Joe Biden is allowing to happen on this border like no president before him.
	None.
	And so this should be impeachment article number one: refusing to protect the American people, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, allowing these horrendous acts of inhumanity taking place on both sides of the border, allowing drug cartels.
	Now they have locations in every state, all 50 states.
	And the mayhem that he's created, this is an impeachable offense.
	The only have a couple of minutes left, but your thoughts on 2024.
	I mean, I know you're voting Republican, but do you have any thoughts on, you know, who's going to be the best person to get that football across the end zone?
Christie on Trump Nomination 00:02:13
	Is it Donald Trump, as the majority of the party seems to believe?
	First of all, let me say this.
	We have a very weak farm team.
	I got to be honest with you.
	I watched this debate.
	Asa Hutchison, the gentleman from North Dakota, seems like a very nice man.
	You'll notice Nikki Haley never runs on a record.
	Eight years as a governor.
	I'd love to know, like, what 10 things did you do as governor?
	We got Chris Christie, who's basically an anti-Trump torpedo.
	Mike Pence does a better Chris Christie than Chris Christie in the last debate.
	So I look at them and I think to myself, who would I whittle it down?
	When Donald Trump ran in 2016, I backed Ted Cruz.
	And when Ted Cruz lost and Donald Trump won, I backed Donald Trump.
	He was far more conservative than I ever could have imagined.
	Far more conservative than either the Bushes ever were.
	Far more conservative than the Republican leadership in the Senate.
	I look at Ron DeSantis.
	I'm a resident of Florida.
	This guy's unbelievable, the things that he's done, the culture wars that he's been willing to fight, and so forth and so on.
	So from my perspective, if Donald Trump is the nominee, I'm all in.
	If something horrific happens and it turns out that he's not, maybe because of one of these indictments or so forth and so on, I'm all in with the DeSantis.
	That's the best way I can answer that.
	Mark Levin, it's so great to talk to you.
	I only wish I had eight hours, but if you want to spend eight hours or more with Mark Levin, just buy the book.
	The Democrat Party Hates America.
	We need to support Mark so he can keep writing books like this because they're always intellectually stimulating.
	He always learns something.
	He has a great way of communicating, as you have heard.
	The great one.
	Thank you so much for being here.
	Let me tell you, it's my great honor.
	I love it when you allow me to actually speak and explain things, you know, rather than sort of the machine gun Kelly types of stuff.
	And I really appreciate the opportunity, Megan.
	You do a great show here.
	Thank you, Mark.
	All the best.
	I hope I get to see you again soon.
	And up next, we have the Mark Levins of the legal world.
	Marsha Clark and Mark Garagos love this.
Retired Passenger Case Explained 00:15:16
	This is like a team legal panel to get into some stunning developments in some of the biggest cases that we've been following from Russell Brand to Brian Kohlberger and the Idaho murders to Alec Murdoch.
	There's another update.
	Stay tuned and we'll be right back.
	Now on to Kelly's court with my all-star panel.
	There are new developments in the hottest cases this week.
	Brian Kohlberger, that's the Idaho murder of those four college students last November.
	Alex Murdoch down South Carolina, and he's seeking a new trial.
	We discussed that a couple of weeks ago.
	There's an update in his push to get a retrial.
	And the consensus of our earlier panel was he's looking good for it.
	Also, Russell Brand will tell you how that's now turning potentially into a criminal investigation and more.
	Joining me now, Mark Garagos, managing partner at Garragos and Garagos, along with Marcia Clark, who's a former prosecutor and New York Times best-selling author.
	Welcome back to Kelly's Court, Mark and Marcia.
	Thank you.
	Hey, Megan.
	Great to have you both.
	All right.
	So let me start with this case that's been all over the news lately.
	And that is this, these teenage boys.
	I mean, I don't even want to use the term boys.
	These teenagers who killed that poor man riding his bicycle.
	For those who haven't seen it, it's disturbing.
	We will show you the video, but a warning that it is deeply disturbing.
	There's two teens in the car there in Las Vegas.
	One is driving.
	One is a passenger and he is filming.
	And what we now know is it was like a joyride in which they were trying to hurt and kill people and not just the man that they actually did manage to kill, whose name was Andreas Probst, 64 years old, retired police officer.
	And this happened in Las Vegas.
	So we now know, I think, that they were 17.
	And after some searching, they managed to find them both.
	They're both now in police custody.
	They're going to be charged as adults for murder.
	Oh, here's the poor man who was killed.
	He was on a 6 a.m. bike ride trying to keep his health going, had retired not long ago, has a family.
	Just have that making the senselessness of it.
	He's just out there minding his own business, getting some exercise.
	And these two come by, and we'll show you the video now.
	All right, we stop it before they hit him.
	There's no reason to replay that.
	And you can hear them celebrating it.
	They're giggling on the full tape.
	One says to the other, ready?
	And the driver speeds up directly behind the retired police officer.
	The other guy says, yeah, hit his ass, says the passenger.
	And after he gets thrown onto the windshield and now we know killed, the one says, damn, that N-word got knocked out as the driver can be heard stepping on the gas.
	I know, thanks to the Supreme Court opinion in 2000, I think, five it was, Mark, we don't have the death penalty anymore for people who commit crimes while under the age of 18.
	But my God, you look at this videotape and I'll tell you what, I would have been fine with that.
	I would have been fine with that penalty on these two guys.
	So how do you see this case?
	Well, I think the defense is clearly going to argue or try to find any soft place to land or going to argue what you generally do with young males that their brains aren't fully developed until they hit 25.
	There's all kinds of scientific evidence to that.
	But as you indicated, for those of us who are of my vintage, you take a look at that.
	It's kind of one of your worst nightmares.
	You know, you assume when you're either out walking, biking, or running, that there is a social contract, so to speak, that people are going to not negligently hit you, let alone intentionally hit you.
	And it's a tough case to defend.
	It's a very tough case to defend, especially with that videotape and the seeming nonchalance.
	So what's likely to happen here, Marcia, when we know, okay, they're upping the stakes by trying them as adults, but everyone knows that the death penalty is off the table.
	Right.
	So Mark has it right that the defense has to be going for the studies, and they are now numerous.
	And actually, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged these studies as showing the unformed brains from the lobe development of young men below the age of 25 and particularly below the age of 18, which I think both of these people were.
	So that will be the tack they take.
	There may be drugs involved.
	We'll see that would have an impact as well.
	Nothing's going to save them, in my opinion, in terms of a not guilty verdict.
	I don't think that's at all in the cards.
	They will be convicted.
	The question is how much they'll be convicted of.
	The fact that they were actually targeting others as well as the man they tragically killed, that will weigh against them, of course, and indicate a definite frame of mind.
	I mean, there's an intent to kill.
	It's premeditated.
	So this is definitely a first-degree case.
	I don't see any real daylight for the defense in this case, no matter what they do with all the scientific studies, given this videotape, it just takes every question off the table about their state of mind.
	So I think these guys are going away for a very long time if indeed the prosecutor does not figure a way to find him with life without.
	But you should know that I don't know whether that particular state has the same laws as California, but in California, minors who are charged, even when they get convicted with life without, if they are under the age of 18, they are eligible for early parole after serving 25 years.
	So I don't know if they have that law in particular, but that is another possibility.
	I have to look that up and it's never the audience knows that the couple reading from the New York Post also allegedly struck a 72-year-old man around 5.30 a.m. that same morning.
	Thank God that man only had non-life-threatening injuries.
	They're also accused of intentionally ramming into a second car traveling nearby before setting their sights on probes.
	They also said that they stole at least four cars that morning to carry out their violent spree.
	They caught the one 17-year-old who I think was driving the car that same day.
	And then now they've just caught the other, which it took them five weeks to track down the passenger who was wearing a mask.
	And the police too, of course, Mark, are talking about the senselessness of this and how their statements make, leave no doubt that everything, quote, was intentional.
	Well, and what I was going to say is, Marsha's right, there is a law in California now.
	And I don't know as I sit here whether it would apply there, but it would not surprise me if there's a race between the two lawyers for whoever it is, if they have court appointed or not, to get one to flip on the other immediately to kind of confess all sins and get some kind of break.
	And I don't know, frankly, what the break could look like, but there will be a fight as to whether it's going to be tried in adult court or juvenile court.
	That's going to be the battle, at least initially.
	You've both spent a lifetime in criminal law.
	You look at this as a civilian and you think, I don't understand.
	I'm like a serial killer has this mentality of just killing for fun with absolutely no compassion or heart.
	I don't know.
	Like, Marcia, does your background as a prosecutor give you any insight into what makes two, not one, two young men like this who can just kill for fun, absolutely they're like sociopaths.
	I mean, just absolutely no empathy on display at all.
	Right, none.
	And actually, Megan, the more, the merrier in terms of the number of people involved, the more likely it is they will engage in more extreme behavior as they egg each other on.
	So what one guy might do by himself is probably less, usually, than what they'll do together, which is why we have gang laws that are so stringent even now with changes in gang laws that we've had recently.
	It's still punished more heavily because it is determined that they will act out in ways that are more extreme.
	And I think this is an example of that.
	You see them egging each other on.
	Ready?
	You know, I mean, it's really sickening to watch.
	It's just awful.
	But I think that that is definitely the mentality.
	As for whether they wind up in adult court, I think it's a kind of a given.
	I think this is going to happen.
	I can't imagine they're going to try them as juveniles.
	I also can't imagine the prosecutor who wants to turn one against the other.
	You don't need to.
	And I've always hated the idea of that.
	Punish them both.
	Get them both.
	If you don't absolutely have to do that, turn one to get the other, then don't.
	I'd rather take that chance because when they both really deserve it, it's tough to justify a deal.
	And especially in a case like this where they seem very much to be equally guilty.
	So it's on tape.
	I mean, it's like we're both equally culpable.
	So I can't leave the case, Mark, without discussing for a moment the race angle.
	The two perpetrators are black.
	The man they killed was white.
	You and I both know if those races were reversed, this case and this videotape would be on loop on every cable station and television station in America.
	The left would be exploiting the racial divide to show us what a white supremacist country we have.
	But as it is, it has to be ignored, you know, because when the races are reversed, not only does it not really get covered, it gets completely ignored because they can't deal with that narrative.
	Well, there's, you know, the, I don't necessarily disagree.
	I think that my experience, though, is that this, this kind of just stupidity or mental infirmity or cuts across all races and all social classes.
	It's common, unfortunately, or all too common amongst teenage youth.
	And I think that the studies that we both invoked are true.
	I mean, the brain just doesn't fully form and the impulse control doesn't form.
	Yeah, but 99% of teens don't do something like this, even though they have unformed brains.
	That's not the reason.
	And I look, I don't disagree with you.
	And I, you know, the empathy is towards somebody, as I said before, whose vintage is of mine and who's out there on the streets every morning.
	So I empathize.
	And at the same time, I don't know that there's any explanation for what gets exploited in the media and what doesn't get exploited in the media.
	All I know is-I do.
	I know exactly what the explanation is.
	I know what the explanation is.
	But to Marsha's point about one on the other or turning one on the other, it never ceases to amaze me when prosecutors choose to do that.
	I sit there defending cases and wondering why it is that they picked a one particular person who seems to me to be ostensibly or at least superficially just as culpable, if not more so, in order to roll over on somebody else.
	It's one of the kind of, I think, unsightly portions of the criminal justice.
	Yeah, but they don't need it.
	They don't need it.
	Now, neither one of these guys should get any breaks for cooperating.
	We don't need their cooperation.
	I'm on Team Marsha, as usual, Mark.
	Okay, let's move on.
	Let's move on to Russell Brand because he's in a whole host of trouble dealing with a PR nightmare at a minimum that may be turning into a legal nightmare.
	So people know the story probably by now, but just in case you don't, three news organizations in the UK did a years-long investigation into him.
	They found four women who, as right now, as of now, remain anonymous, but gave very, very specific accounts of him allegedly sexually assaulting and, in one case, raping them.
	According to their allegations, he vehemently denies them all, though he hasn't said much more since the details of the accusations have broken.
	Now we find out that the police over there in the UK are opening up an investigation.
	I want to get it correct.
	They have a specific unit, some extra tough unit who are that's working with Scotland Yard detectives investigating allegations against Russell Brand, officers from Operation Hydrant, a specialist unit that was set up in 2014, supporting the Metropolitan Police with its investigation, urging anyone with allegations to speak to detectives.
	The reporters on the case say that women are coming forward to them, more new women, day by day.
	And I'm sure they'll have follow-up reporting on this.
	But they say at least so far, one woman has allegedly, additional woman has allegedly come forward to the sexual assault police officers and claims that there was a set she was sexually assaulted by Brand back in 2003.
	I am trying to look for where that happened in London, in London, in Soho in central London in 2003.
	So, I mean, it's 20 years ago.
	Can I just ask?
	I mean, it's, you know, I haven't been defending Russell Brand on this program.
	I've been saying, let's keep an open mind because it certainly sounds like these women have a lot of evidence.
	Maybe they're lying.
	We'll find out.
	You know, big, big celebrity, we'll find out.
	But, you know, there's no reason to knee-jerk just say they're not telling the truth, as I've seen so many do.
	However, it's 20 years ago.
	Very hard to defend against.
	You know, this is what we kind of saw in Kavanaugh, right?
	Justice Kavanaugh, Mark, where it was like, how's the guy supposed to produce his little, you know, schedule?
	He was such a timekeeper, but his schedule and his whereabouts and remember all the events 30 years ago.
	This is why we have statutes of limitation.
	I don't know what they are in the UK for sexual assault or rape, but he's with respect to the criminal investigation right now in a very tough position.
	Well, and you've hit on precisely what is so, I think, offensive about these kind of look back statue of limitations or reinvigorating statute of limitations.
	We have one now in California, as Marsha knows, the look back law, which has sparked quite a bit of controversy.
	You know, there was a case out of California many years ago, Stogner, which involved the Catholic priests and the U.S. Supreme Court said you couldn't do it for criminal or reinvigorate a statute of limitations that had already expired.
	They left it open for civil.
Text Messages and Reputation 00:11:49
	We're coming on the heels of the Danny Masterson second trial after a hung jury.
	We're coming on the heels of Kevin Spacey, both criminally and civilly, being accused, having the criminal dismissed and being vindicated in the civil.
	It's really a very tough situation to be in if you're the accused or defending the accused, because one of the things that you do when you're defending people in these kinds of cases is you do a parallel investigation.
	You look for things that would corroborate, no, I didn't do it.
	No, I wasn't there.
	No, it was in real time.
	There was evidence that shows that there was no complaints.
	And those things are very difficult to find or unearth when you're talking about 20 years ago.
	And so I'm with you that I would keep an open mind on these things and allow them to, at least who's defending them, to try to assemble and marshal whatever evidence they can and try to challenge these things.
	I would tell you that as reading it, I can already see where the defense is taking form.
	The things they're going to have to deal with is whether they're true or not, the text messages and things like that in real time that tend to at least support the accuser's idea that there was an immediate recognition in real time that he had crossed the line.
	That's a tough thing to have to deal with.
	Yes, that's a different case.
	Well, that's one of the four accusers who came forward to the news media quietly, anonymously, not the one who's actually appeared to have contacted the cops right now about 20 years earlier.
	One of the existing accusers in that report says that I think it was 10 years ago, he sexually assaulted her in his apartment.
	They were dating.
	They had had consensual sex at least once prior.
	And she claims he wanted her to have a threesome.
	She said no.
	There was another woman in the apartment.
	He threw her against the wall.
	He had his way with her.
	And she has contemporaneous text messages complaining loudly to him about that exchange.
	And then that same day, she went to a rape crisis center where she reportedly got counseling for the next five months.
	She gave over her underwear, Martha, to the Martha, Marsha, to the rape crisis center and did all the things that you would expect a rape victim to do.
	Doesn't mean it was real.
	Doesn't mean she's got text messages to him saying, how dare you?
	You scared the shit out of me.
	You're very scary.
	That look in your eyes.
	I've told you no means no.
	And him not saying, what are you saying?
	We had a consensual exchange.
	He's writing back, I'm so sorry.
	Please forgive me.
	But anyway, can we just go to, so just to back up, my team just did a quick Google search and it says there is no statute of limitations in the UK for sexual assault.
	So they've made a decision over there to force men to defend these claims whenever they arise.
	I'm thinking about, can you imagine if I said to you, like, you got to go back 20 years and get your text messages?
	Your phone just erases them after a while.
	Like it's, I know the cloud keeps them for some time, but I don't think the cloud keeps them forever.
	So it's very hard to defend.
	It is.
	I mean, text messages can help.
	And I've actually seen a number of murder cases that are proven through in part text messages, proof of intent anyway, because they do try to delete, even if you try to delete messages, message to everybody.
	Deleting does not mean it's gone forever or even at all.
	And so it may come off your phone, but that becomes almost more proof of your intent.
	So text messages are a problem for the defense, and then they can be a really boom for the prosecution.
	When it comes to the criminal prosecution of these cases that are so old, I don't know what actually happens.
	I mean, having no statute of limitations means that a woman can come forward at any time.
	And I'm all for letting the victims be heard and I'm all for justice and, you know, airing these allegations, requiring the defense to come up with their side of the story.
	But I'm also in favor of fairness here.
	And it's a tough thing to defend when it's been 20 years since, and there's no physical evidence to rely on.
	Text messages can certainly help.
	But I'm glad to see the women coming forward.
	I think I go beyond the criminal and I wonder, this is a man who's been working in the BBC and various other locations that were public.
	And you're telling me that these places didn't know what he was doing?
	We all know his kind of reputation, the way he behaves.
	He's an outrageous kind of guy, and that he was running around after women, sexually harassing, possibly assaulting them.
	How could that not have been known to the BBC, Channel 4, et cetera?
	They had to know this.
	The staffers knew it.
	We're getting complaints from them now.
	And they did nothing.
	And now they're cutting him off now.
	I mean, it's been 20 years that this has probably been going on.
	So I wonder where they were.
	Now, that's a civil matter, not criminal.
	The criminal cases, as you both noted, has its problems because of the age of the charges.
	But there's a whole bigger world to think about in terms of the workplace environment.
	You know what's crazy is it broke yesterday, Mark, that the UK government, first of all, the prime minister's office spoke out on this case.
	The prime minister sent a spokesperson out there to say, oh, a sexual assault is terrible.
	Any woman affected should speak out, including on the Russell Brand case.
	My God, what?
	Right?
	We just have allegations.
	We don't, he's, he probably just hired a lawyer two minutes ago.
	And the UK parliament is trying to get Russell Brand canceled everywhere.
	They've reached out, at least we know, to Rumble, I think also YouTube, to Twitter, you know, now X. Like they're trying to make sure that his revenue streams are shut down.
	You could not do that in this country.
	Thank God.
	That would be unconstitutional.
	I don't know if the government couldn't do that in this country.
	Take a look at that Fifth Circuit opinion, which I'm sure you read as to what the White House was doing with the and they haven't tried.
	Right.
	Yeah, but you're not allowed to.
	Thank God.
	You know, the Fifth Circuit said, hello, that's not, that's not appropriate.
	And was really dystopian.
	And the Fifth Circuit was alarmed at what this White House was doing on COVID and so on.
	But it's amazing, right?
	It's just like a gut check when you see the UK government actually reaching out to Rumble to say, we want to make sure he's demonetized and that he's, what are you, what, what?
	And thank God, Rumble said, it's a no.
	It's really, we've reached a point here, and I we find it, I find it at least doing this for almost 40 years, actually more than 40 years.
	I cannot believe the way that this becomes kind of a snowball rolling down a hill.
	I was going to say something else and I stopped myself.
	But the problem that you face now is not only does it go from zero to 100 in time, in the amount of time that it takes to even sign a retainer agreement with somebody, but before you know it, it is just metastasized everywhere.
	And you're fighting what used to be a battle that would be in a courtroom and maybe in print media and maybe in a couple of outlets.
	It now is everywhere.
	And it's a full-scale attack on your ability to make money or to at least survive or your resources.
	I mean, people call it cancellation or cancel culture.
	I mean, it really is just a full-scale assault.
	I mean, it's not just to cancel you.
	It is to obliterate you.
	And that's a, it's a scary place because I've invoked some of the people who end up getting exonerated.
	And it reminds me of that quote from, I think he was the former labor, head of the Department of Labor, Donovan, the original Ray Donovan, as I always say, who after he was acquitted was on the steps of the courthouse saying, now, where do I go to get my reputation back?
	It's a very difficult thing.
	And you don't see people saying, I'm sorry we jumped the gun later on or after the fact.
	You know, Marsha, I've been critical of Russell Brand.
	I think these allegations are so detailed that they really are troubling to me.
	And I will not be subscribing to Russell Brand's Rumble channel at all.
	It's over for me.
	I'm out.
	I personally am demonetizing the Megan Kelly dollars, which actually weren't there in the first place.
	But I don't want to see the guy's ability to make money or connect with his existing audience that feels differently than I do removed, right?
	And that's where we are right now.
	I mean, Rumble, thank God, was kind of born to fight back against this kind of madness.
	And they're holding true to their mission.
	But I do wonder, like, we don't know whether these cases are going to pan out.
	My feeling is they're probably not going to go anywhere because the four main women don't seem to want anything done.
	They do not want their names dragged into this for all the obvious reasons.
	So Russell Brand, I don't, he's in a tough position to rehabilitate himself, but I don't see many legal consequences coming his way.
	And there really, there'll be nothing for him to do to, quote, get his reputation back.
	People will be left with the original reports and they'll make up their minds one way or the other.
	True.
	And this kind of stuff really, it always bothers me when you have allegations that can't be proven or disproven and then it just kind of hangs in the air.
	And, you know, if you're going to bring out this kind of these accusations, then they should also have the right or the demand to prove them or disprove them and let people have a conclusion one way or another.
	I don't like and I deplore, I think as Mark does, the notion that you have an accusation floating around.
	It eventually is disproven and then nobody reports on that.
	So you have this big accusation and it's very inflammatory and it gets lots of press.
	And at the end of the day, it kind of dribbles out and the press goes away.
	And the ultimate determination is it wasn't true, but nobody publicizes that.
	And that, I don't like that injustice.
	I don't like that unfairness.
	I also am not a fan of this kind of piling on where, okay, everybody run and cancel so-and-so.
	And so you have, as you've said, in the UK, that's kind of surprising that you actually have prime minister saying, you know, demonetize this guy.
	Do not put him on the air.
	Don't let him, you know, speak publicly.
	Now you're getting into free speech.
	Now you're getting into an area where you're not even allowing the accused to defend himself.
	So, you know, I like balance.
	I like fairness.
	I want the victims to be able to be heard.
	I want the defendant to have his say as well.
	I want us to be able to decide what we think and make our, you know, and put our money accordingly into whether we want Rumble or whatever.
	If you want to listen to Russell Brand, you should be able to listen to him.
	No one's forcing you to subscribe to Rumble.
	Nobody's forcing you to listen to his apology, but you should be able to if you want to.
	And I think that's where I draw the line.
	You know, everybody should.
	Megan, for the very reason that you talked about the BBC knowing or Channel 4 knowing, that is the very reason why there are going to be civil lawsuits.
	There are going to be lawsuits that are going to attack the entities for not doing more or saying more or stopping.
	And that's where the immediate battle-free field is going to be.
	There's definitely going to be more.
	But shouldn't it be?
	But shouldn't it be?
	I mean, to me, that's the bigger and more serious issue in terms of what's really going to happen in litigation in terms of really, you know, airing the truth here on both sides is, you know, what was going on in these networks?
	They're all piling on now.
	Where have you been?
Minor Problems in Litigation 00:05:50
	Are you really telling me that you didn't know he was chasing women around the dressing room before, exposing himself, doing whatever?
	This is not something that just happened yesterday and you knew about it.
	So I want to see them.
	One of the allegations, Marcia, was that he took out like some sort of a Coke bottle or whatever and peed in it right in front of the staff.
	That's why he exposed himself and urinated in front of his staff.
	So it's a problem.
	And the minor, it's a problem.
	And the minor.
	Yeah, the minor is the one that where he lost me.
	If that's true, if he had sex with a 16-year-old when he's 31, I couldn't care less whether it's legal.
	It's disgusting.
	It's dishonorable.
	And it's over between the two of us.
	If that is, I wait to see what he has to say.
	If he doesn't deny that wholesale, I am done with this scumbag.
	That's where I am on it.
	But I'll say this.
	Now, I understand the women's need for anonymity because 100% they're going to be raked over the coals if they come out, especially now.
	He's very popular.
	He's got a very vocal base of fans.
	So I get their fear.
	But I was in a not totally dissimilar situation years ago when, you know, Roger Ailes was under question.
	They didn't, you know, an allegation had been made against him.
	And the question was, is he this thing?
	Is he a sexual harasser?
	And I had information about that question.
	And I chose to speak to my boss, Lachlan Murdock, about it.
	And then he asked me if I would speak with Paul Weiss, the lawyers who he got in to investigate.
	And I remember asking, will it become public?
	Like, will he know that I spoke to them?
	And he said, probably.
	And I talked to my own lawyer about it.
	And my lawyer said, he's going to know.
	And my lawyer said to me, this is my lawyer said, and that's what's fair.
	He deserves to know who his accusers are.
	He deserves the chance to say, it's not true.
	I didn't do it.
	Here's my proof that none of this is real.
	And even I, as somebody who felt like I was betraying a boss I cared about by this point, understood if I was going to make these allegations, I had to attach my name to them.
	That they're, you know, anonymity from him, from the press is a different story.
	Okay, whatever.
	But anonymity from him was not an okay place to land.
	He deserved the chance to hear I was saying tribute to your lawyer, by the way.
	Yeah.
	Willis Goldsmith, Jones Day.
	He was my old boss.
	And to you, Megan.
	Oh, thank you.
	Well, it is to make it to make it for listening.
	And it's a tribute to the lawyer to understand that we have a system and you get to, you get a presumption and you have due process, as opposed to sometimes when you see lawyers who kind of are a cheerleader for the rush to judgment, for lack of a better term, and do not counsel their client appropriately.
	Yeah.
	You know, one of the ends of the title.
	And in that case, Marsha, you, you, as like a prosecutor, you would have been thrilled because they, Paul Weiss, they wanted all the evidence.
	They came to my house.
	They came to my apartment and they wanted to see the journal, because I'm a journal keeper.
	And I had tons of entries from that time.
	It was a very unsteady period for me professionally.
	I was very scared about what he was going to do.
	And they wanted to see all the journals because they wanted to see, they didn't show them every journal I ever wrote, but they just wanted to see them to see if in fact I'd been keeping them regularly or if I had just been, you know, trying to make a record to get him.
	And I did show them all the entries that revolved around Roger and they copied them and they took them.
	And that same lawyer at Jones Day, I had called him the moment after Roger, now I wrote about it in my book, whatever, but he tried to kiss me three times in his office.
	And when I wouldn't let him have me asked, when is your contract up?
	And before I had even left the building, I called my lawyer and said, holy shit.
	So like, I did make a record and any woman in this position should make a record.
	You know, it's not like it's going to sink you or not or sink him, but better to have it, Marsha.
	Better to have it.
	Oh, for sure.
	You know, anything you can, you can put together, you know, in the moment, you know, that's why we have fresh complaint witnesses here in the states with respect to all the any kind of sexual assault charge.
	If you have someone that you spoke to immediately afterwards, um, while you're distraught, crying and in pain, whatever, um, that witness is a very important corroboration, you know, who says within minutes or within an hour, she was on the phone to me and she was a wreck.
	These things are very helpful.
	A journal, even more so, that, you know, showing that you wrote it down immediately shows that this was not just, oh, Bider's remorse.
	He wasn't nice to me the next day.
	You know, I mean, that shows the, you know, the authenticity of it.
	And I think it is brave of you to come forward when you know your job is on the line.
	You know, it's not, it's not only that, you know, you get, you get your name pulled into something that is not pleasant, but it's also that your very career is in jeopardy as a result of coming forward.
	And that is what it takes, that kind of bravery to hold someone accountable who is, you know, an assaulter, who is somebody an attacker.
	That's a dangerous person to have around.
	And a very, it's bad for every, it's bad for morale in general for everyone, but particularly for women.
	Well, and this one woman we talked about who went to the rape crisis center did produce multiple female friends, I think, who she told about this immediately.
	So it wasn't, she did have contemporaneous witnesses, not eyewitnesses, but witnesses, the rape crisis center, the evidence she had turned over, five months of therapy.
	She gave them the notes.
	I mean, it's a pretty lengthy record.
	What actually happened, that's to be explored.
	She says it was a rape.
	The text message exchange could lead one to say it was sex without a condom, which he very clearly had not consented to.
Cameras in Courtroom Debate 00:13:49
	That also could be problematic legally.
	You know, we're down a deep, dark rabbit hole that I don't want anything to do with.
	I just like, I'm over Russell Brand.
	I've heard enough to know I'm not his fan.
	Good enough.
	Okay, next we're going to get into Kohlberger and Alec Murdoch.
	Don't go away more with Marsha and Mark right after this.
	There is an update in the Idaho quadruple murder case against Brian Kohlberger, a couple of them actually.
	48 Hours did a good piece this past Saturday.
	And Howard Bloom was on there.
	He's the one who's been writing for Airmail on this case.
	He was spent on this program, just very good reporting on the whole thing.
	But in any event, there they spoke with the parents of Kaylee Gonzalez.
	And they came out to say, contrary to what we'd heard from the defense, who'd been saying there was no connection between Brian Kohlberger, who's been accused of the murders.
	They happened last November on the Idaho campus.
	He was at the neighboring campus, Washington State, studying criminology.
	His lawyer says no connection between them.
	They're saying there was a connection in that they figured out he was following them on Instagram.
	So there's Kaylee Gonsalves and her best friend, Maddie Mogan.
	They were the two who were killed in the bed together.
	They were lifetime close best friends.
	And here's what they said to CBS.
	They just told us the name and we immediately started Googling.
	They believed they had found a possible connection through Instagram and immediately took these screenshots.
	From our investigation out of the account, it appeared to be the real Brian Kohberger account.
	Among the people this account was following were Maddie Mogan and Kaylee Gonzalvez, in addition to several people with the name Coburg.
	You would go to Maddie's Instagram account and look at her pictures and he liked them.
	Brian's name was under a lot of Maddie's pictures, like that picture and that picture and that picture and that picture.
	So he was actively looking at the Instagram account.
	And the importance of that is what?
	Just digital evidence that this particular account had some type of connection with the victims.
	Marcia, it's very creepy, especially when you know he killed those two young women allegedly.
	Found them in the same room in the same bed.
	They said that Maddie was on the outside, that Kaylee was on the inside, and that it looks like, you know, these girls had no chance.
	I mean, he basically snuck up on them in their sleep and they had very little chance, although Gonsalvez tried to fight because it looks like her friend Maddie, who was on the outside, was killed first.
	I mean, you just think about the terror that these poor two girls and the one knowing her best friend is being murdered next to her.
	So I do think that it matters that those were the two he was allegedly following online.
	What do you think?
	Yeah, any connection you can show that somehow begins to explain why he wound up at that particular location in that room going after those particular women is going to be helpful because this is one of these bizarre no motive, no obvious motive murders.
	And so anything you can show that shows a pre a pre-existing attraction or interest in the victim is a connection that's a very important one.
	And I think that if this pans out, and it turns out to be that the Instagram post that they're, the handle that they're looking at is actually Kohlberger's, that will be some very important evidence, I think, showing the connection.
	Do you agree?
	No, I was going to say, Marsha hit the nail on the head if it pans out.
	I mean, number one, we don't know when it was that they saw this.
	We don't know.
	They took screenshots, which should suggest that it's no longer there.
	We don't know if it was his account.
	We don't know if there was somebody on the internet forming an account or starting an account and then liking the pictures and then having the account removed later on.
	It wouldn't surprise me that that could happen.
	And I think you just got to wait and see if this is in fact legit or not.
	All right.
	Now this trial is supposed to begin October 2nd, you know, right around the corner, but it's been all been delayed indefinitely.
	He's waived his right to a speedy trial, so he wants more time to prepare.
	But one of the things that's really interesting is they're debating whether there should be cameras in the courtroom.
	Marsha Clark, of all days to have you.
	This is the day.
	The norm would be, yes, they have them.
	That's why we've seen all the videotape of Brian Kohlberger in the courtroom on his arraignment and so on.
	And the defense, Kohlberger, is seeking to ban the cameras to stop the media.
	I mean, it's very strange.
	He's saying the media has been focusing on his crotch, according to his lawyer.
	Okay.
	They want the cameras banned.
	And the prosecutor joined saying we too want the cameras banned, but the families of the victims, at least the Gonsalves's and the Cranutle families say we want the cameras there.
	The public deserves to know, especially in a death penalty case, what the evidence is.
	So this was a post-trial discussion that I had with Fred Goldman, because I had been very opposed to having cameras in the courtroom.
	The downsides are huge.
	You know, the problem that you face, of course, is that it turns into a circus.
	Now, in fairness, if you have a judge who knows how to keep the guardrails on, it can be fine.
	But if he doesn't and he just lets the cameras, you know, be turned on 24-7, it's a nightmare.
	And you wind up having people come forward who just want the limelight and really have nothing to say.
	Or you have people that are afraid of the limelight and have something to say and don't want to come forward.
	You have lawyers who are stumping for camera time and FaceTime and extending things interminably with no real argument to make because they want to be famous.
	You have prosecutors who probably do the same thing in some instances.
	And you have a judge who sits down for a six-part interview with the news anchor to talk about his life and his past.
	So I don't know where I pulled that one from.
	So I do.
	So, I mean, it causes these kinds of distortions and it does cause a circus.
	So, you know, I understand the problem.
	Fred Goldman said, and he changed my mind, but the world would never know what the evidence really was.
	The world would never know and bother to read the newspapers after the fact about all of the evidence that we were able to produce.
	Huge, huge, overwhelming amount of evidence of guilt.
	He was right.
	You know, if you have the people moving around in the courtroom, people pay attention in a different way.
	So, you know, I've come down on the side of having a certain kind of thing where you allow the cameras in the courtroom when the jury is in the courtroom, so that what is disseminated to the public is what the jury sees.
	But when the jury is not there and you're having hearings about the evidence that should and should not come in, et cetera, that kind of thing, then you should not have cameras in the courtroom.
	You can have print reporters, that's fine.
	But having the cameras in the courtroom should be banned when the jury's not there.
	And with that kind of caveat, I think it's a good thing.
	Mark, the judge was looking at Marsha's most famous case, People versus O.J. Simpson, when she was the prosecutor, and saying whether having asking whether cameras in the courtroom is a dignified way to have a trial, referring to the OJ Simpson trial, calling it, quote, a circus, as she just said, and then adding, it's not the same media it is now as it was 10 years ago, thanks to social media.
	So I don't know if that means the judge is leaning against having the cameras, but you can bet there's a bunch of news outlets in there arguing, oh no, the cameras need to stay.
	You know, it's so funny.
	As long as I've known Marsha, which I won't even say how long, I've never heard her talk about Fred Goldman's reaction to it because I, during Peterson, Marsha and I sharing our notable cases here, I joined in the prosecution saying who did not want cameras in the courtroom.
	I have said to you, Megan, that was one of my biggest mistakes.
	I wanted the public to see what that trial looked like after the fact, because during the trial, I thought that there were people sitting in New York City commenting on the trial who had no idea what was going on in the courtroom.
	And if they had seen it, it would not have been the kind of critical mass that he's guilty, so to speak.
	And that was one of the biggest mistakes I made in that case, I think, that not having cameras in the courtroom.
	And to your point, how does the judge taking this in Kohlberger?
	I think the judge is clearly leaning towards not having cameras in the courtroom because it's a lot to manage for a judicial officer.
	But just definitely guilty.
	Yeah, that's, you know, he mentioned social media.
	That is a fear because social media becomes kind of its own mouthpiece.
	And then it can be a very distorting mouthpiece.
	So somebody repeats on social media, let's say their substat, their blog, whatever it might be, and puts out, this is what happened in court today, but it's not.
	And they don't get it right.
	And they don't necessarily understand what they're watching.
	And that creates a distortion that actually disserves the public.
	So there's that to worry about now that wasn't true in Simpson times or even Peterson times as much.
	I'll tell you, I've said this before recently.
	I watched quite a bit of the Paxton impeachment trial, which was televised.
	I mean, you couldn't, it wasn't being covered as extensively, I think, as you might have expected.
	But I thought it was fascinating to actually watch that because the way that trial was portrayed in the media and actually watching what happened on the floor of the Texas Senate, I thought there was a disconnect.
	And it was just wild to me to watch what was happening in social media versus what was actually happening on the floor of the Senate there.
	How did you think?
	I mean, he was acquitted.
	And I mean, maybe I just followed social media, but on social media I saw, I was like, his lawyers are crushing it.
	Did you think they did crush it?
	I mean, obviously, you're acquitted.
	You've got a different feed than I do.
	So I'll give you that.
	My feet was not obviously people who were not watching it because his lawyers were crushing it.
	Mind you, I know most of the lawyers involved.
	And it was an all-star cast of Texas legal luminaries, but the defense, I think, just decimated the prosecution in that case.
	I clicked on just a couple of the cross-examinations and they were effective.
	Now, before we go, I got to touch on Murdoch.
	Alec Murdoch may get a new trial because the court clerk in the case is alleged to have messed with the jurors, telling them, these are the allegations.
	Don't be fooled when Alec Murdoch takes the stand.
	Don't get drawn in.
	I mean, obviously blatantly inappropriate things if in fact she did it.
	She was like this cheery court clerk who sort of became a star with the lawyers.
	Well, apparently she was a little too friendly, a little too close to the jurors, or so says the defense, and a couple jurors who've signed sworn affidavits saying she did this stuff.
	Now you have the prosecution weighing in saying it's not true.
	They've apparently found some, I don't know, four other jurors who are now represented by this guy, Eric Bland, who's not a prosecutor in the case, saying she was totally appropriate.
	That doesn't necessarily mean she was not inappropriate with other jurors, but he may or may not get a new trial.
	So I'm wondering whether you think he will.
	And will it be impacted the judge's decision by the fact that he just pleaded guilty to, I think, 22 federal charges in connection with his financial misdeeds.
	And they each, I think, carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison.
	So, I mean, does that make the judge say, we're not retrying this?
	Forget it.
	Or what?
	I don't know.
	You tell me quickly in the time we have.
	Marcia.
	Yeah, he may.
	I don't think so.
	I don't think that the charges have to do with fraud and defrauding his personal injury clients and probably commingling of funds, stealing from them, et cetera, but not murder.
	So it may not have an impact.
	We'll see.
	I mean, this is really, we've got to see how these jurors' affidavits shake out.
	It doesn't help that the clerk also wrote a book about the trial.
	So kind of inappropriate.
	Go ahead, Mark.
	He's got enough to get a hearing.
	And then when somebody's under oath, we'll see what actually happens.
	I'm with Marsha, though.
	I'll tell you, the fact that she wrote a book, I think, gives a lot of people pause, especially when you're an elected clerk.
	And the fact to you, Megan, there is something maybe in the back of a judge's head that says they're going to get a ton of years anyway.
	So what the heck?
	I might as well do the hearing.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So he's like, this guy's going to jail forever.
	Might as well look like I'm fair, give him the hearing and then let it be somebody else's problem.
	Mark, Marcia, so good to see you.
	Thank you both so much for being here.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Now, I want to tell the audience before we go, big guest tomorrow.
	So excited to welcome back to the program, Dan Fongino.
	Yes.
	Can't wait for that discussion.
	What a week.
	Hope you'll join us.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:03 Streaming for 79 Kroner
00:04:14 The Democrat Party's History
00:10:13 Wilson and the FBI Act
00:22:55 January Six Corruption Issues
00:37:48 Dangerous Immigration Laws Undermined
00:48:56 Christie on Trump Nomination
00:51:09 Retired Passenger Case Explained
01:06:26 Text Messages and Reputation
01:18:15 Minor Problems in Litigation
01:24:06 Cameras in Courtroom Debate