The Megyn Kelly Show - 20231030_media-spreading-hamas-propaganda-and-covid-vaccine

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Oct. 30, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:37:22

20231030_media-spreading-hamas-propaganda-and-covid-vaccine

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
War Against Jewish People 00:14:52
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.
	Jewish students at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
	This is a stone's throw away from where I lived the first 10 years of my life as a child and went to college, Syracuse University.
	This is unbelievable to me.
	You know how I'm always saying?
	I like people from upstate New York.
	They make sense.
	This is a little bit more central/slash/Western New York.
	Same rule applies, though, but not at Cornell.
	Because, as you know, on university campuses, anything goes.
	The left is unrecognizable, even to most of the left these days.
	Jewish students there threatened with messages calling for them to be hunted and to have their throats slit.
	In just minutes, I'm going to be speaking with one of the most important voices on what we are witnessing right now: Israel's former ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren.
	He was born in New Jersey, wound up going over to Israel, staying there, and became their ambassador to the U.S.
	And he's got a lot of thoughts on what we're seeing these days.
	But first, I'm going to walk you through the developments that happened this weekend.
	In Brooklyn, New York, on Saturday, some 7,000 protesters took to the Brooklyn Bridge as Jewish people were warned: avoid the area.
	Again, I have to pause.
	This is New York.
	This is America.
	The answer from the NYPD or the authorities at Cornell or the authorities at Cooper Union, that other college incident we saw last week, is not avoid the area, Jews.
	It's all hands on deck when it comes to the cops and security.
	And Jews are welcome here just like anywhere else in any square foot of America because this is America.
	I don't understand this.
	Jews stay home.
	That's not the way forward.
	That's not the way forward.
	According to Fox News, one demonstrator told the crowd, We are going to liberate Palestine.
	We liberated parts of it already.
	So get ready to get barbecued.
	The protesters scaled a statue of George Washington waving the Palestinian flag.
	This video, courtesy of a friend of the show, Julio Rosas, he's been on before, who, like he always is, was on scene to document it all.
	The crowd chanted Allahu Akbar, and at least one protester was heard saying, Long live Hamas.
	Look at this.
	Hamas cheerleaders in Brooklyn, New York.
	Allahu Akbar.
	Really?
	Okay.
	It was all too much for one Israeli man who confronted the protesters in a fiery exchange.
	They murdered my family, these fucking assholes.
	They murdered our people.
	They murdered babies.
	They cut their heads off.
	This is what is your best.
	The Muslim countries, nobody wants to open the border to take this garbage, right?
	Open the border to take this garbage.
	Nobody wants to sign up.
	Nobody wants those people.
	Jewish, proud Israeli and all these supporters.
	Whatever they did in Israel.
	This is more worse than the Holocaust.
	And they will do it here if they can.
	And they did it on September 11.
	Don't forget that.
	Overseas, the images were just as dramatic.
	In London, around 100,000 protesters.
	Look at this in front of Big Ben.
	I mean, it's shoulder to shoulder.
	Flooded the city for the third consecutive weekend.
	A sound system led people to chant, stop arming Israel, stop bombing Gaza, and we are all Palestinian.
	And look at this video.
	It shows a masked man walking and waving the jihadist flag used by al-Qaeda and ISIS.
	Stay on message, sir, or wait.
	Are you?
	Are you?
	Journalist Andy No posted video showing protesters chanting Allahu Akbar near the statue of Winston Churchill.
	Watch.
	In total, 11 people were arrested, including two for assaulting police officers.
	This was the scene in Istanbul, Turkey, where President Erdogan told the crowd, Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
	Israel is an occupier.
	Look at this film.
	My goodness, it's a sea of people.
	Erdogan then declared Israel, quote, a war criminal.
	And late last night, truly terrifying videos began to emerge out of Russia when a flight from Tel Aviv landed in the Republican of Dagestan.
	Pro-Palestinian rioters there stormed the airport and began searching, openly searching and running after people they believed might be Israeli passengers from that Tel Aviv flight.
	They demanded to see people's passports and documents, breaking down doors, hoping to find the Israelis or Jewish citizens hiding in fear.
	I think about this They're yelling, Allahu Akbar.
	It means Allah is great.
	Can you imagine?
	Can you imagine?
	I mean, look, I'm a Catholic, so I understand Christianity.
	I can't imagine committing this kind of an atrocity or trying to hunt down a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist, trying to hurt them, kill them, yelling, God is great.
	Yeah, my God is great.
	My God wants this.
	Think of this.
	This is so sick and twisted.
	It's not all Muslims.
	One of my best friends, literally in New York, is Muslim.
	She's absolutely lovely.
	They don't all feel this way.
	What's happening here is an abomination.
	In the name of God?
	Okay.
	Last night, there were reports that no Israeli citizens were on that flight, which seemed odd since it was coming from Tel Aviv.
	But overnight, the Jerusalem Post reported that indeed there were, and that the Israelis were hidden within the airport complex until police could control the riot.
	They were then evacuated by a helicopter to an undisclosed location.
	I mean, that is actually quite impressive.
	And one wonders how that happened.
	Who was helping them?
	Apparently, this is a heavily Muslim area into which the Tel Aviv flight was flying.
	And as you know, you know, the Russians and the Muslims have had their own problems.
	And so who helped them?
	Was it employees at Tel Aviv there understanding that they were in danger?
	We'll find out more in the coming days.
	Here at home, Jewish students also forward forced to hide in fear inside their dorm rooms.
	This is unbelievable on an American campus in the state of New York.
	Cornell, this is another Ivy League.
	We got Harvard.
	We got Yale.
	We've seen UPenn, all Ivy League, Cornell University in Ithaca, another one.
	Ithaca, New York, now on high alert after deeply disturbing messages found online.
	One message calling for Jewish students to be followed home and their throats slit, saying rats need to be eliminated from Cornell.
	This is outrageous.
	I have a young friend who's at Cornell right now.
	She's Jewish.
	She and her mother cannot believe their eyes.
	She wanted to get a great education.
	That's why she wasn't expecting to be targeted for her religious beliefs, for something happening a world away.
	A separate message calling for Jewish students to be raped and killed, quote, before they birth more Jewish Hitlers.
	It's been over three weeks since the October 7th terror attack on Israelis.
	The terror inside the border kibbutz and at the music festival is now being felt worldwide by Israelis, by Jews.
	And just when you think you know what happened that awful day, horrifying new details emerge.
	I did something this weekend that I've never done with my team before.
	And that is before I sent them this news link, I actually said I need to include a viewer warning, like to my own team.
	I mean, we're all news people.
	We've seen the worst of the worst.
	But you can't just share something like this in a group text without a heads up that something terrible is coming.
	And if we start doing that, we've lost some of our humanity.
	It's not okay, just these casual references to the inhumanity of Hamas.
	Like we need to pause before we just dump this stuff on you.
	And you need to pause while you're reading X or reading online the disturbing details of what Hamas did, because it's soul shaking.
	That is the story I'm about to bring you.
	So if you care not to hear it, now's the time to turn out.
	It's a story told by Ellie Beer.
	Ellie's the founder and president of a Jerusalem-based emergency response organization.
	By all accounts, he has a stellar reputation.
	He's appeared on CNN, Fox, countless other media outlets over the past few weeks, and recently met with President Biden when Mr. Biden was in Israel.
	On Saturday at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference in Las Vegas, Beer took to the stage and talked about the horrors he says he and his rescuers saw, which included, forgive me, a baby found in an oven.
	I saw little kids who are beheaded.
	We didn't know which head belongs to which kid.
	I was crying for five days straight.
	I couldn't get out of it.
	I couldn't stop crying.
	See, little children, some of them had grandparents who were Holocaust survivors, and they were murdered in a Holocaust in Israel in 2023.
	Little babies, little children, you couldn't even recognize if they were kids.
	We couldn't even recognize.
	We saw a little baby in an oven.
	They put him in, these bastards put these babies in an oven and put on the oven.
	We found the kid a few hours later.
	There's just, there are no words to describe what the Israelis went through.
	And all of this explains what we're seeing right now as they try to take out Hamas, the group behind that terror attack.
	Joining me now, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
	Ambassador, thank you so much for being here.
	I mean, the horrors, they continue to come out to the world, and yet my fear is they're not going to change anything.
	They're not going to change these protests on the street.
	The college students aren't going to listen.
	It's already turned into a both sides kind of thing.
	How does Israel get out from under that?
	Whoa, Megan, good to be with you.
	Thank you.
	You know, full disclosure, I actually serve as an advisor to Ellie Beer's organization, Batsala.
	It's an amazing organization.
	It's almost 8,000 paramedic volunteers who, free of charge, treat Jews, Arabs, Christians, and they themselves are Jews, Arabs, and Christians.
	Two of these volunteers were killed during the attack of Hamas.
	So, and I know Ellie well, he's an extraordinary human being.
	But just listening to him talk, and I've heard him say this to me personally, it just brings us back because in so many ways, we in Israel are still on October 7th.
	We have moved beyond it because we're hearing these stories all the time.
	Just several hours ago, for the first time, Megan, I saw pictures of those bodies and babies' bodies.
	And I can't describe it.
	You know, I'm an old warrior.
	I've been in the army for many years in war many times.
	I've never seen one of them.
	I just haven't.
	And barely recognizable as human beings, as babies, adults, you can't really tell.
	We have between 100 and 200 bodies that we can't identify.
	You know how rare that is?
	You can't identify a body.
	They can't get DNA out of them.
	That's how thoroughly they were incinerated and mutilated.
	You know, we've compared the Hamas to animals.
	I think it's an insult to the animal kingdom.
	Animals would never do this to another living creature.
	Never.
	So there, in top of everything out, is what's going on in Cornell.
	Last night I had a conference call, a Zoom call with the pro-Israel community at Cornell.
	They are living in panic.
	They've had to shut down the Center for Jewish Living.
	People have been barricading themselves in libraries at Cooper Union in New York.
	And what's almost as bad as the assaults on American Jews, and it's going on around the world, not just in America, is the silence.
	It's the anti-Semitism of silence, the silence of Hollywood stars and silence of university presidents, as those Ivy League colleges that you were mentioned.
	Silence is horrible.
	And there's a deep and profound moral failing.
	And I've written, I have a substack called Clarity when I write about this, but I actually wrote an article this week on Barry Weiss's substack on honesty.
	Barry's an old student of mine.
	I wrote a book called The Second War Against the Jews.
	The first one, of course, being the Holocaust.
	This is not a war against Israel, though.
	This is a war against the Jewish people globally, whether it's in Dagestan or London or in Paris or in Ithaca, New York.
	It's a war against the Jewish people.
	And we've been here before.
	We've suffered before, but we have prevailed before and we have survived and we thrived.
Ceasefire Means More Rockets 00:03:30
	For Israel, this is clearly a war of survival.
	This is a war, an existential war.
	And one of the biggest threats we face, forget the face of Hezbollah from Iran, from Hamas, the hostage situations, the number of hostages keep on going up because we're finding out more and more.
	They're now topping 230, going up to close to 240 hostages.
	The great fear, the great threat we're facing, believe it or not, is a ceasefire.
	Now, Hamas is very smart.
	They're going to release hostages or videos of the hostages one at a time.
	They're going to talk about how wonderful they're being treated by Hamas, and their one demand will be for a ceasefire.
	And in the international community, they're going to say, Well, what's wrong with ceasefire?
	Ceasefires are good.
	Look, it's an ameliorative word.
	It's good.
	People are going to shoot each other.
	People are going to die.
	Why can't we have a ceasefire?
	Megan, a ceasefire for Israel is death.
	Simply put, death.
	And I'll explain why.
	Ceasefire means that Hamas gets away with mass murder of the worst, most heinous type strike.
	Mass murder.
	A ceasefire means Israel will never be able to restore its internal security.
	We have 300 evacuated evacuees living in hotels, living in other people's houses.
	They won't be able to go back to their homes.
	You have children?
	Would you bring your children back to a border community that has sustained that type of carnage?
	And Hamas is not deterred.
	Hamas is allowed to restore its arsenals, make new plans for the next attack.
	And a ceasefire means we can't restore our deterrence power, not just against Hamas, but against Hezbollah, against Iran, against all our enemies in the region.
	The word was gout: Israel is vulnerable.
	You can attack Israel with impunity.
	When Israel goes to defend itself, the international community will impose a ceasefire and you'll get away with it.
	That's what ceasefire means.
	So, you know, I don't carry a gun anymore.
	Alas, I mean it.
	But my job is to go out to try to explain to the world why the ceasefire means death for the state of Israel.
	It's a hard job.
	We'll be doing it tonight again.
	News.
	But that has to be our message.
	We need time and space for our army to undertake perhaps the most difficult missions ever undertaken, fighting in the streets, alleys of Gaza, which are booby-trapped in mind, but it's also what's beneath the streets: the hundreds of miles of tunnels and bunkers, some of them hundreds of feet beneath the surface.
	That's where the real war is going to be fought.
	And somewhere down there are our hostages.
	Imagine that.
	And all the time, with 150,000 rockets in the hands of Hezbollah pointed at our heads, Iran, rockets pointed at our heads, rockets in the hands of shet militias in Iraq, rockets in the hands of Houthi rebels in Yemen, backed by Iran.
	We are very grateful for the help we've been given by the administration, by the United States, at a time when I'd say there's bipartisan support for not getting involved in foreign military attacks again, particularly not in the Middle East.
	We have these two very large naval carrier strike forces in our region, and we're very appreciative of the deterrence that they are affecting against Hezbollah and Iran.
	At the end of the day, Israel has to defend itself at great cost of our own soldiers.
One-State Solution Without Israel 00:07:18
	Last thought, last night I went down south near Gaza.
	The light, the sky was lit up by rockets.
	And I visited my old paratrooper unit.
	These kids are 18 years old.
	And to me, they looked like children with guns.
	But this unit had been one of the first units to respond to the attacks on October 7th at Kibbutz, Beri, near Tzak, Kraza.
	The things they saw there, no human being should ever witness.
	And they fought and suddenly didn't come home.
	And I saw in the faces of these children, I saw aged faces, aged faces, children with very old faces with guns.
	And they're going back into battle.
	They're going back into battle, and they know it.
	And I saw the same fear on the faces of those Cornell students I spoke to last.
	It was unnerving.
	I say unnerving.
	The age, the age of the Israeli soldiers.
	I mean, it's just, I have a 14-year-old boy.
	I cannot imagine in four years him having to go into a place like Gaza and fight and fight for his life and for the life of his countrymen.
	I will say this.
	A friend of mine and a Jewish American just wrote me a long, thoughtful email about the whole conflict.
	And she was raising a good point.
	She said, in Israel, mandatory military service takes place, I think, for three years, starting at 18.
	And she said, and that's what the Israelis do.
	They go, they learn about defending their country, about honor, about working as a team, about what it means to be an Israeli.
	Here in the United States, what do we do when our kids turn 18?
	We send them to college for four years of indoctrination in radical far-left thinking.
	We try intentionally to drive wedges between them and their parents, them and their country.
	We try to have people with a radical agenda imprint their beliefs on our children as opposed to helping our children figure out how to critically think for themselves.
	It's such a diversion between the way Israel treats its young teens and the way we treat our teens.
	Not that anybody wants to see their 18-year-old go off to war.
	And yet, what choice did Israel have?
	Yeah, I know.
	It's one of the reasons that wokeism hasn't taken root really here is the fact that our young people, by the time they hit universities, they have flown F-16s, they have commanded tanks.
	Many of them have seen action.
	Some of them are married already.
	And so when a professor gets up there and talks about these things, you know, about critical race theory or microaggressions, they look at them and say, well, you're going to be kidding.
	It's very different if you're a very impressionable 18-year-old.
	And this is the first major authority you're seeing telling you these things.
	So it is a bulwark against that.
	It is.
	But Megan, I don't have words for these kids, for these young people.
	I don't.
	They're beautiful and they're brave.
	And I think just about all Israelis understand that we have no choice here, that they have to go forth and defend us.
	Well, like you said, I mean, if for no other reason than deterrence, if you don't, you're going to be seen as an even bigger target than you already are.
	That's Israel's only way forward.
	If they don't, if they do not eliminate Hamas right now, others are going to see an opportunity.
	I know you've written about this in the past.
	Let me ask you a question coming from the other side, the other argument, you know, from people who are pro-Palestinian.
	I'll put it that way, to be charitable, who say there's no military solution to be had.
	That we've seen these skirmishes, you know, mowing the lawn over the past 20 years or however long it's been since 2005, since Gaza was returned entirely to Hamas.
	And nothing ever gets solved with rockets or return rocket fire, death begetting death on small scales or large scales.
	And, you know, you listen to these pro-Palestinian advocates and they basically say, I don't even think they want a two-state solution exactly, Ambassador.
	I think they want one.
	They want a one-state solution that doesn't involve Israel.
	But what kind of peaceful resolution could there possibly be?
	So again, citing my old age here, I started off my public career as an advisor to the Ishaq Robin government in 1993 at the time of the Oslo Awards.
	And I've been through every peace process.
	I actually participated in the last round of discussions, negotiations with the Palestinians.
	And one of the big problems is we talk in terms of solutions.
	There are not a lot of solutions for many problems in the Middle East.
	Not a solution for Syria.
	not a solution for Egypt.
	The solution is not going to be had, but there are better ways of managing it.
	One of the big impediments to managing it better is the belief that there's a solution.
	And that's not going to happen.
	But certainly there is a solution to the grave damage done to Israel's deterrence power, to our internal security, and to the relationship between the people of Israel and the state of Israel, because to say very frankly, on October 7th and 8th, the state kind of let us down, right?
	Whether it be the military, please let us down.
	So we have to restore that relationship.
	We have a social contract, just like every other state.
	This social tactic was a very particular social contract because Israel was created three years, almost to the date after the end of the Holocaust.
	And the promise this country made to the Jewish people was that the second Holocaust couldn't happen, the Jews would be secure here.
	And that social contract sustains some pretty significant shredding on October 7th and 8th, those two horrible days.
	We have to restore that.
	We cannot do that without a military response.
	Hamas can be uprooted.
	It can be driven out of its tunnels.
	It can be mowed down.
	If you, whatever adjectives, whatever verb you want to use, it will no longer be in control of the Gaza Strip.
	And you can say you can't get rid of the idea of Hamas, and it's Jew, and any more than you can get rid of the idea of ISIS or al-Qaeda.
	Anymore, get rid of the idea of Nazism.
	But the fact that there is no Nazi Germany today means that neo-Nazis do not have the power that they had, the Nazis had in the 1930s and 1940s.
	The fact that the United States degraded ISIS and Al-Qaeda greatly reduced the threats of those two terrorist organizations.
	You know, there's no solution by bombs and bullets.
	Tell that to Nazi Germany.
	Tell that to Imperial Japan.
	I think there were some solutions there, don't you?
	Are they perfect solutions?
	No.
	But in our region, we want to be able to manage the conflict, to make progress where we can make progress.
	But in the meanwhile, we want to live.
	We want to develop what has become one of the most successful countries in the world in every area.
	And we can only do this if we have basic security.
	And that's what we have to restore.
Civilian Casualties and Accusations 00:10:32
	Right now, things are changing militarily in Gaza.
	This is according to Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, the chief military spokesperson in the New York Times, saying the current stage of the operation, a combined force of infantry tanks and armored units are now attempting to move toward groups of armed Palestinian operatives inside Gaza.
	He said overnight dozens of terrorists were eliminated, declining to specify how many Israeli troops were inside Gaza.
	Israel's defense minister this month outlined three phases of a battle plan.
	One, intense airstrikes.
	Two, eliminating pockets of resistance.
	Three, creating a new security reality for the citizens of Israel, we presume by ending Hamas's rule.
	And they are, it's not a full ground invasion from what we can tell into Gaza right now, though what we're able to observe is limited.
	They've cut a lot of the communications, but definitely Israel has stepped up its attacks on Gaza.
	And I'll tell you, one of the things, and you know this better than anybody, that you're up against is not just Hamas and its evil, but the media, which enables it.
	This morning, I turned on NPR's Up First, a podcast, a short podcast that many people listen to to start the day.
	It's one of the top podcasts in the country, actually, news-wise.
	And one of the first things I heard was all about the devastation of the poor Palestinians, said something, I think they said 6,000 dead, a number that has not been verified.
	They didn't even bother to source it.
	I mean, at least the other papers said, oh, according to Palestinian Health Ministry, which we now know is Hamas, and all these papers were embarrassed having run with that hospital attack.
	But even today, she didn't even bother to source it on NBR on NPR.
	Just 6,000 Palestinians dead.
	Really?
	Are there?
	According to whom?
	Who says who?
	So you have the media working against you, and the Hollywood crowd here in America working against you.
	And this growing leftist belief on college campuses and beyond that Israel is an occupier, that Israel's created an apartheid state, that this boils down to skin color.
	And so there is a PR war that needs to be waged.
	And Hamas is very good at it.
	So what does Israel do on that front?
	First of all, I think, let me just say something about the unrest on campuses and some of these protests around the world and some of these media outlets like the BBC.
	I can't help but see beyond or beneath the anti-Semitism to locate a deep self-loathing.
	These people not only hate Israel, they hate their own country.
	They hate their own civilization.
	And they understand something that should be understood by everybody: that this is not a war between Israel and Hamas.
	It's a war between civilization and evil.
	Their problem is they view their own civilization as evil.
	And somehow in a Christian universe, Hamas becomes good.
	And that's precisely what's going on on these campuses.
	Ask these same people who are protesting for Israel's destruction, whether they think America is a force for good in the world, whether America is an exceptional country, whether America stands for anything worthwhile.
	I think you'll get a very similar answer.
	That's my gut feeling.
	You agree with me, Megan?
	I agree with you.
	100%.
	Yeah.
	As for the media wars, that's something I've been dealing with for a very long time.
	And it works like this.
	Hamas knows, even with the horrendous attacks of October 7th, 8th, with all the rocket fire.
	And I'm sitting here in Jaffa, and we are hit by rockets pretty much every day.
	Last month, it's a particularly heavy barrage.
	With all of their rockets, with all of their massacres and tortures and mutilations and burning, they can't destroy us.
	They'll come close to destroying us.
	So what's their plan?
	Their plan is to have a military tactic that serves a media, a diplomatic, and legal strategy.
	I shall explain.
	So they break their border.
	They kill our people.
	They shoot rockets.
	At the end of the day, their rockets can't cause much damage.
	We shoot back.
	And they don't invest a penny in civil defense.
	There's no bomb shelters in Gaza.
	There's no sirens that go off that warn people, right?
	Unlike in Israel.
	I'm actually talking to you from inside my bomb shelter here.
	I don't know if you can see the books behind me.
	Don't let them fool you.
	It's a bomb shelter.
	And we all have bomb shelters.
	They're not investing.
	That siren system is very advanced.
	It's on our cell phones.
	It's outside.
	They don't have any of that.
	So Hamas wins twice.
	It gets to kill our people, and then it gets us to kill their people and get those, get NPR talking about it.
	Now that creates protests around the world, particularly in Europe.
	And that in turn translates into pressure on government.
	So the media strategy then turns into a diplomatic strategy.
	And the diplomats put pressure on their governments to vote for, for example, condemnations in the Security Council, which in the end can leapfrog from the UN into the National Criminal Court, where they could find Israel guilty of war crimes.
	They're already investigating us for war crimes today.
	And then the International Criminal Court announces that there's a boycott and blockade of Israel, which will deny us the right to defend ourselves and actually ultimately deny us the right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state.
	So that, see how it leaps from a military tactic to a strategy, which is about media, diplomacy, and ultimately the legal system.
	These guys aren't stupid.
	And they do this again and again.
	And they chip away at our legitimacy with each round.
	I guarantee you, there's going to be more and more resolutions in the Security Council.
	I hope the United States keeps on vetoing those resolutions.
	Not easy.
	And then the accusations of war crimes.
	They're coming already.
	There's going to be many, many more.
	Ultimately, this is a great time.
	How we responded after 9-11, we started bombing Afghanistan.
	You didn't have reporters going into the villages in Afghanistan to talk about the plight of the innocent Afghanis who got swept up in the crossfire.
	Nor do we believe that they were using civilians in the way that Hamas uses them over there.
	But only with the Israel-Palestinian conflict does the media rush in to try to talk about the effect of each and every bomb that Israel launches.
	Each and every bomb is a war crime because of this, because of that.
	Without giving the context of the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, Israel does everything within its reasonable power to stop civilians from being targeted.
	Hamas does the opposite.
	That context is missing from 90% of the reports.
	Just, it was just, what was it, a couple days ago, October 26th, the Hamas leader, Haniyeh, Hanai, H-A-N-I-Y-E-Hania, Hania, Hania, came out and said very clearly that the blood of women and children and the elderly being spilled is a good thing for Hamas, that they need it.
	Here is that soundbite number nine.
	I have said this before, and I say it time again: the blood of the women, children, and elderly.
	I am not saying that this blood is calling for your help.
	We are the ones who need this blood.
	So it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit.
	So it awakens within us resolve.
	So it awakens within us the spirit of challenge and pushes us to move forward.
	And yet, Ambassador, what you have again is are the Western reporters going in there like another civil Israel.
	Israel's killed this many civilians in Gaza, not verifying the numbers, not including any context, not acknowledging this is all part of Hamas's plan.
	Yep.
	So listen, again, I've been involved this many years and I serve on an inter-ministerial committee on this.
	I'm sort of the hard guy on this committee because people talk about, well, we've got to invest more in trying to convince this campus or trying to convince that newspaper of the righteous of our cause.
	And I said, okay, we should do that.
	We also have to keep in mind that to the end of the day, we are the Jewish state, which means we will be judged by a completely different set of standards.
	United States, in its wars, Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan killed tens of thousands of civilians.
	Even the New York Times reported about that.
	And the rules of engagement were much more lenient than our rules in terms of trying to avoid civilian casualties.
	America's not held to that standard.
	Nobody is.
	We alone are held to the standards.
	And, you know, I have a, if you look at that, the Barry Weiss substack, that's why I call it the Second War against the Jews.
	I go into the press handling of Israel and show how the press's treatment of Israel, particularly in this conflict, reflects medieval anti-Semitic tropes.
	It's the innocent Jew is an oxymoron.
	Jews are guilty by birth belief and ancestry of deicide.
	Jews are guilty of the massacre of the innocents in the book of Matthew.
	Jews are, you know, every blood libel, the classic blood libel of the Middle Ages played out on these pages.
	And our ability to fight hatreds that are hundreds, in some cases, thousands of years old is very difficult, extremely difficult.
	On top of that, all of these hatreds are amplified exponentially by the social media.
	They are now being amplified by AI because people are saying, well, those massacres really never happened on October 7th because they were all fabricated by Israeli AI.
	We all know how good Israel is in AI.
	And all those pictures of dismembered bodies and incinerated bodies, they're all fabricated.
	And even the hospital incidents, the Alahi hospital bombing, which both the United States and Israel proved unassailable, was not Israel's bombing, but a Palestinian rocket.
	They had a poll today that came out that majority of Generation Z people don't believe that evidence.
	They believe that Israel fabricated the evidence.
	Nor do the members of the so-called squad who continue out to go, oh, we may never know.
Ruins, Glass, and Fear 00:10:53
	Or the New York Times, New York, which paid it, which paid it.
	You can't make this up.
	New York Times, which paid experts a week, a week and a half after that bombing to keep on trying to prove that Israel did it.
	It was jaw-dropping.
	Jawdropping to see this stuff.
	You saw, of course, the New York Times just hired a Palestinian reporter who openly praised Hitler.
	You are so great.
	Hitler, you are so great.
	It wasn't like you didn't have to really separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out whether this guy actually is a fan of it or it was a right.
	I think that even for the New York Times, that was quite exceptional to hire experts to really try to prove that Israel did it.
	And this is what we have to deal with.
	At the end of the day, Megan, you know, we've been dealing with this hatred for a very long time.
	We're still here.
	And I'll tell you an interesting story, if I could, I don't have time.
	You know, last part of my family, believe it or not, from marriage is Sicilian.
	And last year, just about a year ago, we went to Sicily and we had a great time with the Sicilian branch of the family.
	And we went to Syracuse, not Syracuse, New York, but the original Syracuse.
	And in Syracuse, if you walk down these steps about 20 feet, there are the oldest mikveh baths, ritual Jewish baths in Europe.
	They're about 1,500 years old and they're still full of water.
	You can still use them.
	And you're down there and there are no Jews left in Syracuse.
	They were all evicted in 1492 during the expulsion and the Inquisition.
	And you come out to the surface and you see these magnificent ruins.
	There are Roman ruins and Greek ruins.
	Oh, Sicily.
	If you get a chance to go to Sicily, if you've been there, it's amazing, especially if you haven't, you like ruins and Byzantine ruins and Ottoman ruins and Arabs and Crusader ruins every rule of the world.
	All of these civilizations are gone.
	And we're still here.
	We're still here.
	And so we will be here.
	We're going to win this war.
	It's going to cost us great.
	It already has cost us great.
	We will deal with the hatred.
	You know, a thousand years from now, the New York Times won't be here, but we will be here.
	And we have to keep that in mind all the time.
	I appreciate the optimistic message.
	I know a lot of Jewish people and they're the people who love them, like yours truly, are very worried.
	It's good to hear the larger perspective just for a minute because people are scared.
	I know Jewish parents even here are scared where this is going.
	Let me take a quick break and that's where I want to pick it up when we come back, your message for Americans and people outside of Israel who are dealing with this and what they should be doing.
	More with Ambassador Oren right after this.
	Hamas releasing a new video just a short time ago showing three Israeli women who are being held hostage by the terror group.
	In the video, the women criticize Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and call for a ceasefire.
	I mean, obviously, these women are under duress and are more than likely being told exactly what to say by their captors.
	The prime minister's office slammed the release of the video as cruel psychological propaganda.
	As we've been covering, people are trying to spread awareness of the hostages all over the world by putting up flyers so people can see their faces and their names, only for them to be ripped down in many cases by pro-Hamas activists.
	It happened again in Queens, New York last week.
	Oh my God, this went so viral and for such good reason.
	This time, however, the man ripping down the posters got more than he bargained for, thanks to New York's hero, Pauli.
	And if you know Queens, when a Pauly shows up, you better be ready for a smackdown.
	Pauli works construction.
	He's not Jewish, but he didn't like what he saw the man doing and handled it New York style.
	Watch.
	All right.
	I'm a veteran.
	I'm telling you.
	All right.
	Don't worry about it.
	I'm not pushing Jewish.
	He's not Jewish.
	I don't know if he is or not.
	Doesn't fucking matter.
	This is fucking the U.S. New York City.
	You don't have a fucking right to touch that shit.
	This is a free country.
	You can wave your Palestine flag and say death to the Jews of America whenever you want, but we can put a fucking sign.
	Okay?
	Then don't rip that down.
	You are doing something.
	You're offending us.
	Yeah, you are.
	When you throw that on the floor, you're literally.
	And in a minute, I'm going to litter the fucking floor with you.
	You're going to move the fuck on.
	Do you have proof that you're not getting up?
	No, so shut the fuck up.
	I know that's what you want.
	I don't like dying a fucking way in the hospital.
	Come on.
	Paulie, Paulie, we love you.
	He's now being hailed by many as the new king of queens.
	Back with me now, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
	Ambassador, what I love so much about that clip is that he, the guy gets everything.
	He gets that you have a right to say the stuff, even if the stuff is hateful, because this is America.
	But I have the right to come yell at you and get in your face about what you've just done.
	And you don't have the right to tear down my posters.
	I mean, it was just to me, Paulie and the Paulies of the world are the answer.
	And I get very nervous about Jews, don't come to the dining hall.
	Jews, barricade yourselves in the library.
	Jews, stay home.
	You know what the truly horrible thing is, Megan?
	I heard repeatedly today that there are charges that that video, which has gone viral, was fabricated day out.
	No, that's from people who have never been to New York.
	Who knows?
	Anyway, disturbing.
	You know, I spent for many years, I was one of my first jobs in government was being Israel's ambassador to the Christian world.
	And there are about 60 recognized churches in this country, many unrecognized churches in this country.
	And as preparation for that job, I sat down and studied the New Testament very carefully.
	And it was a very important tool for me.
	But one of my favorite lines of the New Testament comes from the book of Corinthians, and where Paul says, you know, the world is a very confusing place.
	It's full of fog.
	And we look at the world as if through a glass darkly.
	And I think that the greatest quality of human beings like Pauli are people who can look through the glass, even if it's dark, and actually see clarity, see clearly.
	And that's a rare quality.
	Look how clearly that man saw things.
	That this apparently the Muslim gentleman has the right to fly a paragraph on the Palestine flag.
	He has a right to say what he wants, but he doesn't have the right to assault another per-human being.
	So the Haws.
	And he saw this as an assault.
	He didn't have that right.
	That's so rare.
	That's seeing through a glass darkly, but really seeing them.
	And it's amazing.
	What about the Americans out there right now?
	Because I understand Israel has a mission and it's a righteous mission right now.
	100% get it all.
	But I do worry as we see these pro-Palestinian mobs growing across the globe and domestically here in the U.S. about, you know, the Hamas talents in the propaganda war that we just discussed.
	And as Israel's incursion ramps up, as things get worse for Hamas, I think that that swelling of support for the Palestinians will get even bigger.
	And I worry about the backlash to Jewish Americans here, Jewish people around the world, you know, more college campuses getting the nonsense that we just saw at Cornell or at Cooper Union.
	What's your message to them?
	Well, I mentioned I spoke to these Cornell students last night and I spoke to them, you know, after meeting these paratroopers and I saw the same expressions on their face.
	I said this earlier, but I said the students at Cornell, you know, these paratroopers are preparing to go in Gaza, but you're also in the port.
	You're in a war against the Jews.
	The front lines is Cornell University is an Ithaca.
	And your weapons are your knowledge and making sure that no one can distort the history of Gaza, which includes Israel's withdrawal from Gaza Strip in 2005.
	Ripped up 21 settlements.
	We yanked 8,000 of our own citizens out of their homes in order to give the Palestinians a chance to build a peaceful state.
	And they turned it into a terrorist state.
	And these are just one of the many facts you have to know.
	There's no water in Gaza.
	You know why there's no water in Gaza?
	Israel is only responsible for 7% of the water in Gaza.
	There's no water in Gaza because Hamas ripped up all the pipes to make rockets.
	They dug tunnels through the aquifer and drained the aquifer.
	That's why there's no water in Gaza.
	But the people are also going to blame Israel, denying Palestinians water.
	You got to know these things.
	That knowledge is the equivalent of a gun on American campuses.
	But at the end of the day, what these young paratroopers and these young students have in common is their spirit, is their unwillingness to surrender, their willingness to fight, to stand up.
	And my advice to these Cornell students was do not let them, don't let them lock you into your Jewish center, Center for Jewish Living.
	Do not let you be intimidated.
	Fight back.
	Your president of your college doesn't say anything.
	Accuse that president of being complicit, being complicit in racism.
	And the standard must be if people say this about Jews, if they had said the same thing about black people or about LGBT people, what would be the response?
	If the response is anything less, less total, less categorical than what they'd say in those cases, then that is racist.
	And accuse your president, your faculty of racism, because it is.
	Stand up.
	Be strong.
	Here, I'm not quoting the New Testament, but our Bible, the Torah, Moses says to Joshua again and again in Hebrew, be of strong heart and good courage.
	And that's the best I can tell.
	Yeah, now more than ever.
	I mean, I have a lot of Jewish friends right now who are for the first time are buying guns.
	They're worried about the mezuzah outside of their house, you know, the marking that a lot of Jewish people put on the outside.
	And that shows that you're Jewish.
	They're worried about their kids wearing their Star of David necklace.
	I mean, it's just crazy.
	It's crazy.
	I mean, I understand the fear.
	That's not crazy, but that we're at this point, even in America, I can't imagine being a Jew in Israel right now.
	It's genuinely terrifying.
	But we have to remember that we're Americans too.
	I mean, we're Americans first over here, and we don't cower.
	We don't cower.
	You get in our face?
	We get a Pauly.
	If we're not strong enough to do it ourselves, we get ourselves a Pauli and it's on.
	All right.
	I grew up among Pauli.
	I grew up in an entirely Italian neighborhood.
	I know Pauli, believe me.
Americans First Over Here 00:15:10
	You know what I mean?
	That's right.
	You're from Jersey.
	It's the same.
	It's the same as Queen.
	Paul, Italian.
	I love it.
	Listen, all our best to you, Ambassador.
	Thank you so much for being with us here today.
	And we're praying for you guys.
	Thank you, Megan.
	Be well.
	Thanks for your support.
	All the best.
	Wow.
	Can you imagine?
	It's great.
	It's like, you know, Pauli probably didn't see himself becoming a hero on the internet or elsewhere, but that's all it takes.
	As he points out, moral clarity, that moral clarity that he had, that a lot of you have.
	And you know what?
	So many of these people, they're cowards.
	They're cowards.
	You get in their face.
	They're going to back down.
	They're afraid.
	They're counting on the anonymity of being able to pull down the posters or wave their Palestinian flag.
	And 90% of them know nothing.
	They know nothing.
	Now we turn to Kelly's court with two of my favorite legal minds joining me today.
	Jonathan Spilbore, criminal defense attorney and founding attorney of Jonas Bilbore Law, and Arthur Idala, trial attorney and managing partner of Idala Bertuna and Kaymans and host of the Arthur Idala Power Hour radio show on AM 970, the answer in New York.
	All right.
	So there's a lot to get to, you guys.
	We got Derek Chauvin.
	We got Brian Kohberger and more.
	Welcome back to the program.
	Let's start with Derek Chauvin, the man, the cop convicted of second degree murder in connection with the death of George Floyd.
	Of course, everyone remembers the story.
	That's what he was convicted of, among other charges.
	Now he's serving a 22-year sentence.
	And there's news on this case.
	At the moment, his lawyers are trying to be to get the case heard at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court of Minnesota decided not to hear their appeal.
	So now they're going to the court of last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court trying to say, please, please, please hear our appeal and give us a new trial.
	So we'll get to that in a minute.
	But in that context, like as that's happening, something else is happening, which is Amy Sweezy.
	She's our age.
	I think the three of us are about the same age.
	She's a 1995 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School.
	And she was a prosecutor in this district attorney's office that went after Derek Chauvin in Minnesota for 28 years.
	She's tried over 100 felony jury trials.
	So she knows what she's doing, including first-degree murder cases.
	She specializes in, among other cases, police use of force cases.
	She teaches law school, all this stuff.
	Now, she is suing her old boss at the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, alleging, I think it's sexual harassment that he sexually harassed her, sex discrimination and retaliation.
	Right.
	And yet, in the context of this civil litigation, she has made some extraordinary allegations on the record about what kind of behavior he's guilty of and what he was saying and doing while running, in particular, the George Floyd case, the case against Derek Chauvin.
	She says at her deposition, which is sworn, she's under oath, that this guy, the DA, was aware of a conversation she had with the medical examiner, whose name was Andrew Baker.
	And that the day after George Floyd's death, she, Amy Swayze, had a conversation with the medical examiner, Andrew Baker.
	And Andrew Baker said the following, quote, well, this is her describing it.
	He called me later in the day after I'd asked him to perform the autopsy.
	And he told me after doing the autopsy, there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd's neck.
	There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation, said Ms. Sweezy.
	He said to me, she went on, Amy, what happens when the actual evidence does not match up with the public narrative that everyone's already decided on?
	And then he said, this is the kind of case that ends careers.
	Andrew Baker responded, the medical examiner, saying, I cannot comment, but his representative says that he stands by the autopsy report and his televised testimony, both of which are publicly available.
	Now, many are saying this proves that Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd in any way, that this medical examiner knew it, that there were no signs of asphyxiation nor any injury to the vital structures of his neck, no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.
	And that last comment is the killer.
	What happens when the evidence doesn't match up to the public narrative?
	So, Jonna, what, if anything, does this do to the case and specifically to this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to get Derek Chauvin a new trial?
	So much to dive into here, Megan.
	This is really bombshell evidence because on a number of levels, it proves, if true, a malicious prosecution.
	It proves, disproves the fact that there was any sort of, that this was basically a homicide.
	So it proves that Derek Chauvin and others and company should not have been charged at all, certainly not the way they were charged.
	And it proves that this was going to be a conviction at all costs kind of prosecution based on the climate of what was going on across the country, based on the climate about how people all of a sudden had to hate all police, especially white police.
	It proves that Derek Chauvin, if true, was absolutely railroaded.
	Now, the interesting thing is that really didn't come out.
	I mean, Eric Nelson did, the defense attorney did try to raise that in the course of his cross-examination, didn't really hit a home run with it.
	It will be part of the appeal to the Supreme Court, even though it wasn't part of the trial.
	They can bring up this new evidence when they make their pitch to the Supreme Court.
	But at the very least, I don't think to stop there.
	This is new evidence, and they should probably try to reverse course and start all over again to the extent that the Minnesota allows them to do that, because this is really huge.
	So she raises a good point, Arthur, that they did try.
	They knew, as I read the transcripts, some of this.
	They knew from the medical examiner's report some of this, but they didn't know all of it.
	I don't see anything where they knew he was saying the actual evidence does not match up with the story that they're telling the public.
	That's devastating.
	You know, as a defense attorney, if you found that coming from another DA talking to your medical examiner, as the defense attorney, you'd be like, I'm doing cartwheels.
	You'd be so thrilled.
	But as far as I can tell, they did not, Derek Chauvin's lawyer did not have access to that because it's only been unearthed here in this civil lawsuit.
	I don't think it's going to be enough.
	I mean, what they write in or what they're basing part of their appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on is that the jurors were in a position when there was not a change of venue, that if they found Chauvin not guilty, there would have been riots in the street again.
	So they really had no choice, which is a pretty powerful argument.
	Just.
	But what an appellate court could say to get themselves out of it is, look, the jury heard substantially significant evidence that that the medical examiner said, yeah, I don't think, I don't think he was choked to death.
	I, you know that that was.
	He died of a, of asphyxiation, but there's no injury to the neck.
	What I found very interesting by the did not die of asphyxiation and the medical examiner testified to that.
	And what I found very interesting though, Megan from the packet your team gave me, was that he said he never watched the video before he committed the autopsy.
	Uh, did the autopsy because he didn't want it to be to influence him and what his outcome was, which that like really was like wow, that's interesting.
	So he doesn't even know, or he hasn't seen it with his own eyes until, I think, after the fact.
	But look, the three of us know the Supreme Court of the United States OF America takes less than a hundred cases a year.
	There are certain cases with that they have to take, like when two jurisdictions, like two different states in federal court, are ruling differently.
	The Second Department, the Second Circuit, has a different ruling than the third circuit.
	They kind of have to take that here.
	They have to find four justices to say okay, we're going to take this case because it has such a profound influence, uh impact on the laws, the United States Of America, that we're going to take it.
	I don't see that burning legal issue here that they're going to put their neck, put their neck in the middle of this.
	You know, you know, I will say i'll make an argument of why they should.
	And I understand I that they probably won't because they don't want to be particularly bold.
	The?
	U.s Supreme Court, they they like to not touch the hot buttons if they can get away with it.
	But this is a growing trend in America, trial by media, you know trial, but for social justice, not for actual justice.
	And if they actually took this case and reversed it, saying this guy did not get a fair trial, the court of public opinion had hanged him before he ever stepped foot in that courtroom.
	And this was a Da and an a g on a quest for social justice, not actual justice.
	That's not the United States Of America.
	It actually would send a very powerful message down to all, all courts, criminal and civil, on, don't go this rude, this road, we're not going to support you and we don't care if people don't like us but John, let me jump back to some of the evidence that was admitted before the jury, because this is not going to be helpful to Derek Chauvin's request for a new trial or trying to use this woman's deposition as, like you know, the new holy grail.
	As you pointed out, his lawyer uh, Eric Nelson, Chauvin's lawyer, did get some of these points in before the jury.
	Now, that's the kind of stuff any appellate judge will look at, and because the appellate judges want to wiggle out of changing the verdict, they don't they don't like changing verdicts.
	So if they have any reason to say this is all brought up in front of the jury and you blow, you muffed it, then they'll do that.
	So here's what happened when they had Andrew Baker on the stand, the medical examiner and uh, Nelson was cross-examining him.
	April 2021 uh, here it is thought, 20.
	Let's play it in terms of the placement of mr Chauvin's knee.
	Um, would that explain anatomically why, mr Floyd?
	Would that anatomically cut off mr Floyd's airway?
	In my opinion it would not.
	So that was a great admission that Nelson got, that the knee would not have cut off airflow to George Floyd.
	The jury didn't care right, which goes along The very basis, the very basis of the appeal, is that, right?
	The very basis of the appeal is because you didn't allow us to change a venue, this was a conviction was a foregone conclusion because the jurors did not want their houses burned down.
	They didn't want their families stoned.
	They didn't want any of that.
	And the fact that a jury can ignore solid evidence from an ME, this isn't even a hired gun, so to speak.
	This isn't a quote unquote expert that any side can hire.
	This is the guy that works for the state that does this for a living, that works for the state, giving information that is basically contrary to the state's case.
	And the jury still rejected it.
	What does that tell you about the tenor?
	And you know what I find very interesting?
	If we believe the information and the deposition that's ancillary to all of this, where the ME was basically saying without saying it, don't make me do this because I still want my job.
	Don't make me say what really happened here because it's not a safe environment if I do.
	Do you think 12 strangers aren't going to have the same fear?
	If a professional, if a seasoned professional is afraid to tell it like it is, do you think 12 jurors are going to be bold enough to find Derek Chauvin not guilty?
	No way.
	Because he ended it just as a reminder.
	He did end it according to this woman's deposition, again, Amy Sweezy's deposition.
	The medical examiner ended it with.
	The evidence doesn't match up with the public narrative.
	This is the kind of case that ends careers.
	He was scared.
	He was worried about his paycheck.
	And you could argue those jurors were worried about their safety, their lives, their jobs as well.
	Go ahead, Arthur.
	That's why I think, to everyone's point, both of you that just made, their stronger issue is the lack, the fact that they didn't change the venue.
	That there was so much.
	It feeds in.
	Right.
	It feeds in.
	But, but wait, before you make that point again, because I heard that point the first time, before you make that point again, there are other issues that came out, but I want to and I want to get your take on it because you, Mark and I had a big debate on the Chauvin case, Arthur, back when it was all going down.
	And this was one of the issues, the drugs and whether George Floyd died from a fentanyl overdose, not from anything Derek Chauvin did.
	Now, if you look back, because I went and looked back, what did the medical examiner say about how George Floyd died at the time?
	Like in his report, well, he came out with some very squirrely language.
	He said, I'm really getting a homicide, but quote, not a legal determination of culpability or intent.
	So he's basically trying to say he was killed as a result of actions of another, but I'm not saying whether someone intended to kill him.
	Then he said, Floyd died of cardiopulmonary arrest.
	Okay, this is squirrely.
	Listen to this.
	So far, we understand cardiopulmonary arrest, like something happened with a heart in the lungs that caused me to stop breathing.
	Complicating law enforcement, subdual restraint, and neck compression.
	Complicated his cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement, restraint, and neck compression.
	So in other words, the fact that his heart and his lungs gave out complicated the cops' restraint of him.
	What in the actual F?
	Nobody understands that choice of phraseology.
	If you reversed it, we would understand the restraint complicated his heart, his lungs, his ability.
Complicated by Police Restraint 00:14:33
	That's not what he wrote.
	And then he was asked about it on the stand, and it still didn't make any sense to me, but he did expand on what he tried to mean in SOT 22.
	So what I clarified for the U.S. Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was my opinion as to what happened to Mr. Floyd.
	And that is he experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest in the context of law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression.
	It was the stress of that interaction that tipped him over the edge, given his underlying heart disease and his toxicological status.
	Not what his report said, Arthur, as you as a defense attorney would be quick to point.
	That's not what he, the way he phrased it when he was a squirrel.
	Right.
	But so it's instead of saying complicating, it should have said complicated by the cops on him.
	And that's what brought on the heart attack.
	Many, I just have to get this out of my system.
	The more we talk about this, like the United States Supreme Court is not going to take this case based on anything we're talking about.
	I mean, I would be shocked.
	No, no.
	I mean, they have ruled in cases that actual innocence does not require reversal.
	If everything was done the right way, procedurally, everything was done the right way.
	And they're going to say, you know, what you and John are talking about.
	Like, how can we let juries, juries do this?
	Like, the Supreme Court is not going to come down with a ruling saying if there's too much public pressure on juries, you know, we have to do X, Y, and Z. They're just going to look at the Constitution.
	They're going to look at precedent and say, was there anything here that violated it?
	It's got to be of the magnitude that affects the country.
	And I just don't see that happening here.
	What they're going to say is, look, the jury heard all of this stuff.
	They heard that testimony.
	They heard the defense attorney's opening where he brought it up and his summation where he brought it up and his cross-examination.
	It is not newly discovered evidence.
	Like hypothetically, you know, they really found something new in the toxicology report that took months to come out.
	And now it's brand new and nobody knew about it.
	So, you know, I think Mr. Chauvin is, I mean, the place where he got it shot was in the Minnesota appellate court.
	Once you know that, and then their higher court said no, and now you're in the Supreme Court of the United States, it ain't happening.
	But these are points, these soundbites that I'm playing, these are soundbites that will be quoted by the prosecution in arguing Mr. Chauvin's had his day in court.
	Mr. Chauvin's lawyer raised these issues when cross-examining the medical examiner.
	Maybe not as effectively as Arthur Idala or John Aspilbohr would have, but he did raise them.
	And so even if you're 10 points down from your main argument of there should have been a change of venue, even those points aren't persuasive, nine justices.
	So don't take a look at this case.
	It's just, it's very unfortunate that this medical examiner, Johnna, did not have the balls to come forward as a whistleblower and yes, I understand.
	It's balls.
	Did you miss that day?
	It's in Black's Law Dictionary under B.
	I go with Hutch, but you can go with that.
	It's fine.
	But seriously, like he had to say, he said it to the DA, who later resigned, but he didn't have the guts to say it publicly.
	And honestly, she should have come forward with it sooner, too.
	She didn't bring it forward until she sat for her deposition.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I mean, really, this is akin to a Brady violation because what we're hearing in this deposition is only part of it.
	I guarantee you, there were conversations that no one is privy to other than the participants where this ME said, what in the hell are you doing?
	And they said, make it happen.
	Say what you got to say.
	Phrase it the way you got to phrase it because this guy's going to get prosecuted and all his buddies are going to get prosecuted.
	And this is the way it's going to happen.
	And, you know, I liken this to sometimes when you have civil cases, right?
	And you're trying to get to the conversations that occurred behind closed doors, you always got to ask for the post-it notes, right?
	Everybody who doesn't want this information to ever be public, they don't put it in their notes.
	They don't type it in the computer.
	They put it on post-its.
	And when they're done discussing it, those post-its go in the garbage.
	And what this ME did was really untoward, if not just fully illegal by not, he's again, not a paid expert.
	He's an ME.
	He should have just said what it actually was and let the DAs deal with it, let the jurors deal with it.
	But they essentially have hidden valuable exculpatory evidence that's not okay.
	And I don't care what court needs to hear it next.
	It's not okay.
	This man is serving 20, 21 years in prison for his job.
	No, it's true.
	It's very dark what happened.
	You know, Tucker came out.
	He did a show on this.
	And he said that according to a recent court deposition, the one we're talking about, it proved that Chauvin did not murder George Floyd.
	And Newsweek gave him a false rating for the show.
	I mean, I have to tell you, I'm on Team Tucker.
	It did prove that Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd.
	And what it proved to me was maybe not as beyond a reasonable doubt, but it certainly gave us new evidence that this was not a murder and that the ME knew it and that the ME used squirrely phraseology to please his boss because that's what you do when the actual evidence doesn't match the story being told to the public.
	You squirrel your way out of it with mealy mouth language that nobody understands.
	And then you get brow beaten by a number of bosses.
	And then by the time you take the stand in the actual criminal case, you say, oh, as I have since made clear, what I meant by my weird language was he wouldn't have died had it not been for that knee, even though he didn't, he wasn't asphyxiated.
	He wasn't strangled.
	The guy had a heart attack.
	So in any event.
	I respect, I respectfully disagree, Megan.
	I'm going to disagree with you.
	I know that I'm at my own peril, but I don't think it proves that Chauvin didn't do it.
	I think what would have proved it is if someone said, any medical expert said that he walked out of that store that day and no one called the police.
	He was his, they said his artery was 90% blocked.
	Clinton's artery was 90% blocked.
	He took him to the hospital and they fixed him.
	If it was 99% blocked, like had he walked out of the store, he was going to just collapse and die there no matter what.
	If he had a contact with the police, if he didn't have any contact with the police, his time was up.
	He was ready to go.
	I think, but for the interaction with cop that day, he would have at least lived to see dinner that night, if not breakfast the next morning.
	So you can't say that, oh, he was in really bad shape.
	He had an enlarged heart because he had years of high blood pressure.
	He had a 90% clogged artery.
	He had some drugs in his system.
	And therefore, he was going to die anyway.
	And Chauvin not been there.
	But then, Arthur, wait, hold on, counselor.
	Okay, I take your point.
	But then at that point, you have to start asking, okay, at what point did it switch into murder?
	Because George Floyd was the one who invited interaction with cops that day.
	George Floyd resisted arrest.
	Long before George Floyd wound up on his stomach on the ground under Derek Chauvin's knee, he was in trouble with the cops.
	His nose was bleeding in the car before he went down.
	So like what the Emmy is basically saying is the stress of the event pushed him over the top.
	Here he is when he was asked about the amount of fentanyl in George Floyd during the confrontation and sought 21.
	Listen.
	Do you recall describing the level of fentanyl as a fatal level of fentanyl?
	I recall describing it in other circumstances.
	It would be a fatal level, yes, in other circumstances.
	Had you found Mr. Floyd under different circumstances, you would have determined this to be a fentanyl overdose.
	So I don't recall specifically what I told the county attorney, but it almost certainly went something like this.
	Had Mr. Floyd been home alone in his locked residence with no evidence of trauma and the only autopsy finding was that fentanyl level, then yes, I would certify his death is due to fentanyl toxicity.
	So John, I mean, what's really happening there is, once again, he's saying what he actually believes, that the guy drug overdosed.
	I'm sure he did get stressed out by his interactions with cops.
	But where is the evidence, the actual evidence that the nine minutes underneath the knee caused the death?
	The most he could come up with after the fact was it was the stress of the interaction that tipped him over the edge.
	I played you that sound bite, tipped him over the edge, giving his underlying heart disease and toxicological status, given those two things.
	So look, it's, I mean, look, I'm being exacting because before you put a man in jail for 22 and a half years, especially a police officer, you better be damn sure it actually was murder.
	And what we're seeing here is an ME who was not sure and further confirmation from the deposition of this prosecutor, who's now very angry that no one believed it, that the ME didn't believe it, she didn't believe it, and that we had a chief DA with an agenda.
	Let's take it a step further.
	This conversation shouldn't even be happening in the context of is this a crime, let alone is it murder?
	This is a great conversation for the civil lawsuit when you're trying to prove, you know, the eggshell plaintiff that we all heard about in law school, you know, but for the knee on the neck, Mr. Chauvin would still be alive because you have to take him as you find him.
	And how you found him that day was high on fentanyl with a 90% clogged artery with high blood pressure and with whatever host of other ailments that he had.
	The civil context is where this is relevant.
	This should not have even risen to the level of a crime, let alone the highest crime, that being murder.
	So it's offensive all the way around for me that this is now coming out.
	Ansler, this isn't even coming out for the purpose of this former DA trying to help Chauvin.
	She's trying to help herself.
	And here it comes.
	Somebody ought to do something about it.
	It's not fair.
	But John, we've all tried enough cases to know that our system is far from perfect.
	There are cases that I've tried that has to do with if a person was underage and he testified.
	I don't really know when it took place.
	I don't know if I was 16 or I was 17.
	That's total reasonable doubt.
	They finally got guilty.
	And the appeals court said, well, the jury heard it.
	They heard that he didn't know if he was 16 or 17.
	They found him guilty.
	Here, the jury heard what the medical examiner said, and they still find him guilty, even though Megan's man at me for repeating myself.
	I think the stronger issue is it should not have been a jury that if they found him not guilty, they went outside their house.
	It would be burned to the ground because they were volatile area.
	Well, and I agree with that point that this case never should have been tried there.
	What a nightmare.
	And obviously the result was baked in.
	And you had the AG Keith Ellison, a man on a mission to put this guy behind bars.
	He's a very political animal and he got his way.
	I've told a story before.
	I just want to mention it one other time because in the context, it's just so telling to me.
	One of the reasons we left New York City schools is because of their crazy obsession with race essentialism and the trans obsession.
	And our daughter Yardley was in school in this fancy tony New York City private school, fourth grade after this happened.
	And the teacher got up.
	They gave the girls a New Zilla article to read about this case, about Derek Chauvin being convicted or being tried.
	I think it was right after the conviction.
	I'm trying to remember exactly where we were in the case.
	But in any event, gave him the article and said, we're going to talk about it.
	Then the teacher stood up and said, this country has a massive problem with cops killing unarmed black men.
	And one of the little girls had the temerity to say, wasn't George Floyd resisting arrest?
	And the teacher's response was, they always blame the victim.
	And then Yardley raised her hand and said, wasn't George Floyd on a lot of drugs at the time he died?
	And the teacher responded with, this conversation is making me uncomfortable and I'm shutting it down right now.
	Look at this.
	Yes, Jonna, those girls were zeroing in on exactly the right two things and they weren't allowed to explore it in front of their classmates because the damn teacher was growing uncomfortable.
	Shameful.
	It's supposed to be the other way around, right?
	Like maybe the teacher would make the kids meal upgrades, but the fourth grade is already supposed to make the teacher.
	The teacher is supposed to be able to act and react to that and have maybe a conversation about it.
	Although, I don't know, in fourth grade, I'd rather them be learning like long division or whatever they do in fourth grade than about a murder trial.
	I mean, I think that's a parent's role if you want to discuss the current events.
	They raised it because they wanted to indoctrinate our daughters into their left-wing thinking, which is why we left that school.
	And I'll tell you a happy story on the opposite end.
	Now we moved to Connecticut and our kids are in new schools.
	And of course, we checked them out before we selected them.
	And I heard a story about, this is not my daughter, but my son and his history teacher.
	I heard this story that a few years back during the height of the Me Too movement, they were reading some text or I don't know what it was, but it was something from yesteryear.
	It wasn't a current text.
	But the text veered toward demonizing boys.
	And this is an all-boys school.
	And one of the boys got up and ripped the pages in two and threw them on the ground and said, I'm sick of this.
	It's everywhere.
	Boys are being demonized.
	It's unfair.
	And let me tell you, at that New York City school, you would have been in a shit ton of trouble.
	They would have called your parents about ripping up school books.
	You would have been explained about toxic masculinity and why you may not know it, but you are a secret feminist and all the stuff, right?
	You have to accept.
	And at this school, the teacher said, so interesting.
	Let's talk about it.
	Why do you feel that way?
	And then said, who else feels the way this kid does?
	And I said, who disagrees with him?
	And then they had a debate and the kid won some people over to his side and some people went over to the other side.
	And the teacher just allowed critical thinking and discussion and exploration of ideas.
	That's the way it ought to be done.
	All right.
Pfizer Immunity and Liability 00:15:07
	Quick break, coming back with this lawsuit that's now been filed about the COVID vaccine allegedly killing a teenager and how parents are now finding a way to challenge the legal system, which says they cannot sue, but they are.
	Stand by.
	Back with me now, Jonas Bilbore of Jonas Bilbore Law and Arthur Idala of the Arthur Idala Power Hour Radio Show.
	All right, guys.
	So a pair of lawsuits now in connection with the COVID vaccine, in particular this time, the Pfizer one.
	One is at our evil top hat neighbor, Canada.
	That was Michael Knowles' description.
	That makes me laugh.
	And one is right here in the United States.
	Okay, the first one, God bless this poor dad.
	An Ontario man files a $35 million lawsuit against Pfizer over his son's vaccine death.
	This is new Tecumseh, Ontario.
	The dad's name is Dan Hartman, has initiated a wrongful death lawsuit, wrongful death against Pfizer because his son Sean died from the COVID vaccine.
	There is an American pathologist named Dr. Ryan Cole who has determined as of this past summer, indeed, that is what caused the son's death.
	They went to the vaccine injury support program in March.
	He was denied money.
	This father was.
	His son died 33 days after receiving the Pfizer second vaccination.
	His poor son, Sean, was found deceased in his bedroom by his mother.
	They said that he had problems after the first shot, and then came the second shot, and 33 days later, he died.
	Now, in the United States, there is a similar case, but a different defendant.
	He's suing Pfizer, this Ontario dad.
	But here in the U.S., there's a lawsuit against the Department of Defense for its relationship to this vaccine and pushing it through.
	The family of 24-year-old George Watts of Lockwood, New York has filed a lawsuit accusing the Department of Defense of willful misconduct in the death of their son by deceiving millions of Americans into taking the COVID vaccines, which they say were unsafe.
	After taking two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, he died.
	And yeah, after the first dose, he experienced complications, which he chose to keep to himself.
	After the second dose in mid-September, he experienced flu-like symptoms and so on.
	And shortly thereafter, died.
	He began coughing up blood.
	He had pain in his feet and his hands and his teeth, extremely sensitive to sunlight.
	And by October 27th, 2021, he was dead.
	Absolutely awful stories.
	So what do you guys make of it?
	Because as you know, they're supposed to have immunity.
	Pfizer is supposed to have immunity.
	The federal government is supposed to have immunity from lawsuits like this.
	So how do these parents get to bring these claims?
	Who wants to start?
	I'll start.
	Can I start?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So a couple of things.
	First, that people need to understand is that what our government did when they rolled out these vaccines, they had to bake into the cake immunity against the vaccine manufacturers or else nobody was going to manufacture these vaccines.
	Everybody knew from the get-go that they were going to get sued.
	People were going to die.
	Things were going to happen.
	So you have to bake that into the cake.
	And just like they did with the nursing home cases, they granted nursing homes during COVID immunity from civil lawsuits for a period of time.
	And typically when that happens, the government plans to roll out some sort of fund to help compensate the people who are damaged by whatever conduct the government has created.
	Now, it sounds like they're trying to do that in the COVID cases, but some families are saying that's not good enough.
	And in order to get around the governmental immunity, which governments have against their negligent acts by and large, and the federal government has that too, with the Federal Tort Claims Act, you can't get around immunity or a plaintiff can get around that provision if they can prove that the government's conduct was reckless, that it violated your civil rights, and that it wasn't a matter of mere negligence.
	And so these cases are saying, look, it was reckless.
	It violated our civil rights because we have a right to lights, liberty, and happiness.
	And well, if you're dead, your civil rights have been violated and you did so recklessly for whatever your agenda was to roll out these vaccines without the proper protocol or what have you.
	It's a good avenue, Megan.
	I know it sounds like it's going to be a long shot, but it is a good avenue to get around the government claims of immunity and it just might work.
	And if it does work, it could be big.
	It'll be a large class action.
	That's my prediction.
	And we're absolutely right to go.
	Arthur, let me just clarify because I made a mistake in describing the cases.
	The first boy, the one in Ontario, he died after the first shot.
	It was the second young man out of New York, Lockwood, New York, who had some symptoms after shot number one, but that he kept to himself, as says the lawsuit, including blood in his urine, and then went on to get the second shot anyway and died thereafter.
	So just to clarify, one died after the first shot, one died after the second.
	Go ahead.
	So if I could be pragmatic for a second, if I was the dad of either of these tragic deaths, I would just go to Pfizer privately and say, hey, how do you feel about setting up a foundation in the name of my son?
	Knowing that three people, there's some fund of people, the vaccination fund, and all three of them together have been gotten a total of $5,000.
	One got $1,000, one got $2,000, one got $1,000.
	So I don't think there's really a lot of good law on this for these plaintiffs, especially since, yes, I understand these two boys died tragically and how many millions and millions and millions of Americans had no reaction, if any.
	So I don't see them, and God forbid this happens again.
	And, you know, some sort of a pandemic.
	Do we really want to set precedent to the manufacturers of the drug saying, yeah, we know at the time when we really needed you, we said you were going to have immunity.
	Three years later, we changed our mind and you don't.
	And now anyone who had any kind of reaction to the COVID vaccine is going to be able to sue you.
	You can't have that precedent.
	You have to actually have to protect the manufacturers.
	Here's how clever the government is, though, Arthur.
	They grant immunity to the drug companies for a period of time so that the statute of limitations will have run for any wrongful death claims by the time they lift that immunity.
	So the government looks like they're, oh, we're lifted the immunity.
	Great.
	But the people who actually need to sue the companies for wrongful death will have surpassed their statute of limitations.
	So it's a win-win for the government and for the drug companies and not for the people, which is why they have to sue the federal government under a civil rights violation.
	And that's how I think they can get in under the wire and get some sort of actual relief that these families obviously deserve.
	There, but can't you get look, it's, but the standard right now, even if we don't change anything, the standard right now is if you can prove willful misconduct, you can get after them.
	You can get them.
	Willful misconduct.
	So what they're alleging, like in the first case out of Ontario, they're alleging that Pfizer owed a duty of care to Sean Hartman, the young boy, to accurately inform him of all the risks associated with this vaccine.
	And that, hold on, let me get to it.
	They provided an incorrect characterization of the efficacy data, discontinued results of adverse events on vaccinated people in the study and on from there.
	That's true.
	We had an episode.
	It was number 201.
	The guy's name was Brian Dressen, and he was talking about this exact experience when it came to the AstraZeneca trials.
	So right after she got the shot, we were driving home and she said something doesn't feel right.
	She had tingling down her arm where she got the shot.
	She started to notice that her vision was changing.
	Her ears became very, very sensitive to sound.
	They didn't offer any help to you.
	You were on your own in dealing with the fallout from it.
	And then it seems like, you know, the other shooter drop was when you saw her negative outcome was not included in the results of the clinical trial.
	Right.
	The test clinic sort of didn't seem super interested.
	The feedback we were getting from NASFAZENECA was essentially, we need a diagnosis, we need a diagnosis, anything that would essentially absolve them of any responsibility.
	If they can get there and they're going to be able to get their hands on people like that.
	To say it was willful.
	This was a willful attempt to mislead by companies like Pfizer and Moderna.
	You know why?
	Because it was worth billions, billions to them.
	Right, and there's your exception to the governmental immunity boom.
	That that's a, that's a home run right there and I think that's going to be very provable and the government's going to have to step up and do the right thing.
	I mean, it wasn't that long ago, guys.
	Remember, we were forced.
	You were forced to get vaccinated depending on where you work.
	You couldn't go to a restaurant in New York City without showing your vaccine for it.
	Like you couldn't do anything without showing your vaccine card.
	That's forced.
	And to do that without the proper testing or lying to us about the results, which I'm positive the government did is just flat out wrong.
	And now it's time to pay the piper.
	And I feel very sorry for these families who lost children.
	It's bad enough.
	We have plenty of families who lost elderly people.
	No, death is okay.
	But the people who especially lost otherwise healthy children, it's not acceptable.
	And there is okay.
	But it really wasn't force.
	In other words, in the lawsuit, in the lawsuit, they say one, well, one kid wanted to play hockey.
	That's why he got the vaccine.
	And another kid had the option of going to school online, but he didn't want to.
	So he got the shot so he could go in person.
	That's not a legal definition of force.
	And you know what, John?
	We're being lawyers now.
	We're not being like what it should be.
	We're talking about a Supreme Court of the United States looking at the law, being a strict structuralist like Amy Comey Barrett is the way she was taught by Justice Scalia.
	Nobody was forced to get the shot.
	There were some circumstances, like in the city, you were going to lose your job, but these particular cases to go play hockey or to all our kids did online learning.
	They were not forced.
	You can't use the word force.
	They were not forced to.
	Go ahead, John.
	Well, I think we probably will redefine force then, because otherwise, if we had listened to the government and didn't want to get vaccinated, then you were going to be shut in in your house with scare tactics daily.
	Plenty of people were, John.
	Plenty of people.
	I don't think you were.
	Not only were you going to die, but you were going to kill other people if you didn't get the vaccine.
	I mean, come on, that was manipulative.
	Because that's the thing, Arthur.
	She has a point.
	She's like, well, are we really going to be at the point where unless you had a gun to your head and you were told, get this vaccine or you get the bullet, it doesn't count as force because it was you, you're losing your jobs.
	People were fired from the military.
	They were fired from teaching jobs.
	They were fired from hospital jobs.
	They couldn't play sports.
	They couldn't go to school if they refused to get the vaccine.
	At our own school, it's been great on the woke stuff, but not so great on the COVID stuff.
	These kids were going to be expelled unless they got that shot at age 16.
	Thankfully, our kids were younger, so they didn't have to face that yet.
	But that is a form of force that was exerted.
	And it's not just going to be these two plaintiffs who suffered negative consequences.
	Okay, expelled is a lot different than I can't play hockey, right?
	I mean, getting expelled from school.
	Okay.
	The bottom line is there's got to be precedent on this, right?
	Kids all have to get vaccinated to go to school, at least here in New York.
	And, you know, my daughter, who's two, she's got a shot every six months of something.
	So there's got to be some legal precedent on how these cases have played out through the years that we can rely on.
	I just don't see that the government here is going to say, let's let manufacturers of a drug that saved people's lives.
	Let's have them now be liable when we told them you weren't going to be liable because the next time this comes.
	We told them they wouldn't be liable for negligence.
	We didn't tell them that they would not be liable for willful misconduct.
	And by the way, if they had tried to say that, it would not be upheld by a court.
	You can't, you can't immunize Pfizer or Moderna for willful malfeasance behind the scenes for knowingly endangering people, which is what is being alleged.
	If they can go to court, Arthur, and show plaintiff after plaintiff who is who knows somebody who we have witness after witness who was dumped from the trial because their participation would make the results look bad, they're in a shit ton of trouble.
	But Pfizer didn't approve the drug.
	FDA approved the drug.
	So you're saying the government.
	That's true.
	But Pfizer has no consequences as a result?
	Listen, here's my drug.
	You guys are going to test it.
	We think it's good.
	But you make the last call.
	You make the ultimate decision.
	We think it's okay.
	Pfizer made representations.
	Pfizer made independent representations about the safety and efficacy of its drugs.
	So did Moderna.
	This other kid, or this other young man, George Watts, 24, he took Pfizer, but he died, according to the autopsy report from the Bradford County Coroner's Office, of myocarditis, vaccine-related myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart.
	We've seen this over and over and over.
	It wasn't acknowledged in the early days by any of these vaccine companies.
	And then when smart doctors started to talk about it, it was all deny, downplay.
	There's that sinus medication we've all been buying.
	It's supposed to clear you up that they said it works, it works, it works.
	The FDA just said, you know what?
	We realized it doesn't work.
	Yes, we approved it.
	We made a mistake at CVS and Righty.
	They all pulled it off the shelves because it doesn't work.
	It's the government's job.
	That's why we're paying all these taxes to the FDA.
	The government sucks all that.
	Yes, I agree.
	The government sucks and they should pay.
	But it doesn't get Pfizer off the hook.
Grand Jury Indictment Issues 00:03:40
	What nasal spray are you talking about?
	What is this?
	It's all over the place.
	It's got a long, long word.
	I know the one that is good is pseudo-fluconazine.
	I know I shouldn't say names that I don't know whether there's a problem.
	I don't know.
	There's two of them that sound different, that sound very similar.
	One of them works and one of them does not work.
	They did this long-term test with the placebo and the placebo worked just as well as the drug.
	And it's been on the shelves.
	I don't know which one it is.
	Phenolephrin.
	The one that does not work is phenolephrin.
	And the FDA has approved it.
	The drug companies have said, yeah, it works.
	I don't think anyone died from it.
	How about all the money we've spent on it?
	It's just not a negative effect.
	Yeah, that's different.
	Yeah, that's different if it didn't have a negative effect.
	My apologies to fluconazine or whatever that other one is called.
	The nasal sprays bring back like childhood trauma.
	My mom was a nurse.
	She was always trying to shove one of those up my nose.
	I ran.
	I hated it.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	Afrid, I got to finish with Kohlberger.
	So the court in the Brian Kohlberger case out in Idaho has said cameras will be allowed.
	Great, because I do believe that we have a right to see what happens there.
	And also has rejected his lawyer's attempt to have the entire indictment dismissed.
	They claimed that the grand jury should have been using a standard before deciding whether to indict him of beyond a reasonable doubt instead of a preponderance of the evidence, which is a very weird argument.
	And to me, just underscores the desperation of the defense attorneys here, Jonna.
	I mean, like, what kind of an that's just a specious argument?
	It underscores the duty of the defense attorneys, Megan, because look, they're creating a record for when this guy gets convicted for the appeal that will follow.
	You have to do this.
	It's, you know, standard operating procedure that you're going to challenge the grand jury indictment.
	You're going to make any plausible argument that you can make.
	And there's a 99.99% chance that the judge is going to, you know, shut it down.
	So we didn't expect that to work, but they do have to create their record along the way.
	And that's what, that's what they did.
	And many of you have to do it.
	Sometimes the Hail Mary, I apologize, but sometimes the Hail Mary works.
	My firm filed five of these types of motions, rejected by five judges.
	After the conviction, the Court of Appeal, the lower court, the appellate court said, no, actually they were right.
	And they threw the whole case out because they said the grand jury proceeding was ineffective.
	So you never know, but I would definitely classify this as a Hail Mary.
	New York is so weird because they call the trial court the Supreme Court.
	Then they call the intermediate appellate court the appellate court.
	Then they call the top top court the court of appeals, which is not the top top court at the federal level.
	That's the immediate appellate court.
	And of course, at the federal level, the Supreme Court's the highest.
	How are people like lay people supposed to follow that nonsense?
	I know not.
	What do you make of cameras being allowed in the courtroom?
	Because it will likely be another grounds for appeal if and when Brian Kohlberger gets convicted.
	His lawyers did not want it.
	They think that he's already been misrepresented.
	They think they complained that screen grabs have been like misused by tabloid media genre.
	The judge says he's going to try to control it more.
	I don't know how, but have we seen cameras in the courtroom ever used as an effective grounds for appeal that you know of?
	I can't think of a case.
	And look, the people love this stuff.
	We do have a right to know.
	This may end up helping him.
	How many times have we gone into a big trial with preconceived notions that the defendant is guilty or Johnny Depp is guilty?
	And then all of a sudden, cameras in the courtroom, we change our minds.
	It's a good thing, not a bad thing.
	It's not going to be a ground for appeal.
	I respectfully disagree.
Cameras Change Courtroom Minds 00:01:11
	Megan, if you or someone you love was having open heart surgery, would you want the surgeon to be on the learning channel doing the open heart surgery, adding yet another distraction to that room?
	Or do you want him to be laser or her to be laser focused on the open heart surgery?
	There's enough things you got to deal with in a courtroom when you're trying a case and someone's life is on the line.
	I don't need a camera in my face.
	I'll just go on Kelly's court, get all the camera out of my system, and I'll be happy.
	It's scary being on with the two of you.
	The two of you women just scare me.
	You know, it's, I'm used to being here with eyeglass.
	You know, I got this, you know, but you, gorgeous, dynamic, intelligent, charming.
	It's too much for me.
	I'm scared.
	I'm scared.
	Go on, go on.
	We only have 16 minutes to break, but continue.
	16 seconds.
	Panel, it was a pleasure, as always.
	Two of the OGs from Kelly's Court.
	You speak Kendall's court.
	That's how long ago we started this when I was married to a different person.
	Love you guys.
	See you soon.
	Thank you.
	Be well.
	And thanks to all of you for listening today.
	I enjoyed Kelly Scornak.
	I have to say, we needed that.
	All right.
	See you tomorrow.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:30 War Against Jewish People
00:15:23 Ceasefire Means More Rockets
00:18:53 One-State Solution Without Israel
00:26:11 Civilian Casualties and Accusations
00:36:44 Ruins, Glass, and Fear
00:47:38 Americans First Over Here
01:02:49 Complicated by Police Restraint
01:17:22 Pfizer Immunity and Liability
01:32:30 Grand Jury Indictment Issues
01:36:10 Cameras Change Courtroom Minds