All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 17, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:15:31
20240417_get-to-know-trump-trial-jurors-and-absurd-media-co
|

Time Text
Trump Hush Money Trial Romance 00:04:12
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at noon.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
I'm Megan Kelly, viewer advisory.
This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.
Parental discretion is advised.
Not because of anything we will say or do, but because of the perverted press corps.
A special edition of the show today, as we bring you all the coverage of the Trump Hush Money Trial, which has morphed into something closer to a hot and heavy romance novel.
So we have adjusted our set background accordingly.
Yes, what we thought was going to be a criminal trial with some salacious testimony from porn stars and Playboy models has indeed kicked off with something X-rated.
But it's not the testimony, it's the reporting about Trump sitting bored in the courtroom.
Not kidding.
The tedium of jury selection, an infamously boring process, has turned into foreplay for the nerd reporters whose beat is normally covering Elizabeth Warren and Mitch McConnell.
And let me tell you, they are leaning in.
And so now we bring you the first installment of 50 Shades of Orange: Trumping Hard.
First up, we'll read from the literary works of the Washington Post's Isaac Arnsdorf, a Yale grad whose colorful updates on the former president might just make even Larry Flint blush.
But first, a sip of my martini to get us started and in the mood.
Off we go.
Quote: Trump appeared to close his eyes and tilt his head from side to side.
He then removed a paper from his breast pocket and started examining it.
End quote.
His eyes closed, you say?
Head tilting back, writhing from side to side.
Did you mention a breast?
Go on.
Quote: Trump at one point looked at something on his lawyer's phone.
Later, Trump's eyes closed again, and his head occasionally dipped slowly.
Yes, Isaac, yes.
Now, this from Politico's Erica Ordin.
While Trump entered the courtroom, he winked at one of the court officers and mouthed, What?
He mouse something?
He mouthed something.
What?
Tell us.
He mouthed, How are you?
Yes, yes.
The New York Times tells us Trump shifted around in his seat and whispered to his lawyer.
A moment ago, it reported, he looked bored, but now he's engaged.
Oh, yeah, he's into it.
Don't stop.
He's engaged.
Now, chapter from the great Frank Runvian of Law 360.
Quote, Trump is sitting at the defense table as his attorneys whisper in his ear.
One attorney, Frank tells us, twice referred to when Trump lost his election.
Lost his what?
Now, Frank continues, Trump's head slowly dropped.
His eyes closed.
It jerked back upward.
He adjusts himself.
What?
Then his head droops again.
He straightens up, leaning back.
His head droops for a third time.
He shakes his shoulders.
Eyes close still.
His head drops.
OMG.
What in the actual F is this drivel?
Frank's Eyes Close in Court 00:15:02
The Trump trial or Cinemac's latest Trump Does Downtown?
All of which reinforces a media lesson we have learned time and time again.
There is no porn for the media quite like Trump porn.
They can take a head nod, a glance at a phone, or even a catnap in the middle of a mind-numbing jury selection and turn it into Trump and grind.
Hide the children.
And this is before we've gotten to Stormy or the Playboy Playmate or the X-Con.
Just wait until we get the case on the Trump insurrection.
Joining me now, Vinny Politan, lead anchor at Court TV and a former prosecutor, and Jonas Bilbor, criminal defense attorney and founding attorney of Jonas Bilbor Law.
Vinny, Jonna, welcome to you both.
Vinny, I apologize.
You don't know me that well, so that's a lot to dump on you.
John, you're not surprised.
Simmer down.
Simmer down, Megan.
Simmer down.
You tell me, am I wrong?
I mean, have you ever heard such accounts of freaking jury selection?
They're so over the top.
At Court TV, we cover jury selection from time from time to time.
Usually we don't because it's kind of slow moving.
It's absolutely important for the lawyers.
These are the people who will decide the case.
But in terms of like, what are you taking from it?
There's not a lot to take from it.
And what you just read and the description of it is the same description you could have at any jury selection moment with any defendant in any courtroom from coast to coast.
So perhaps making it out of the way.
Normally, Jonna, the way it would read is the defendant appeared tired.
He conferred with counsel.
Period.
Like only in the case of Donald Trump do we have to go motion by motion.
He jerked the breast pocket, the whisper.
There was an actual tweet yesterday from Newsweek, and it wasn't just Newsweek.
The Hill, no, The Hill, forget me, and it wasn't just them, as follows.
Trump just looked at something on a cell phone before handing it to his attorney during his trial.
Oh, stop the presses.
He looked at a phone.
Like, what are we doing?
Right?
They're just desperate to fill their 24-7 cable news cycle.
And everything Trump does to them, it is like porn.
They can't pull themselves away.
When you cover jury selection on Court TV, it's about who's making it onto this jury.
What are they saying?
There's very little attention paid to the defendant unless there is something noteworthy happening.
And this is not noteworthy.
What's noteworthy is, what are the answers that these jurors are giving?
What are the rulings the judge is making about whether or not people should be bumped off of the selection because of whatever bias they may or may not have?
Those are the issues that we generally cover during jury selection, not glances at phones or head nods or whispers.
Or mouthing, how are you to a court guard?
Hello.
So he behaved like a human.
Look, this is only news in this bizarre Trump obsession media cycle.
I do want to talk about the jury so far.
So they've seated seven, Vinny, so far.
They need five more and then they need six alternates as well, 18 in total.
And let's talk about the profile of the ones who they've seated so far.
And you tell me what you think about how this is going for Trump and the prosecution.
One, the four person, which I guess is just juror one, works in sales.
Let's talk about him one by one.
Works in sales, some college, enjoys the outdoors.
He's originally from Ireland, married no kids, lives in West Harlem.
He reads the New York Times and the Daily Mail and watches some Fox News and MSNBC.
This has got everybody chatting.
He put down both Fox and MSNBC.
And I heard CNN saying, don't panic if you're against Trump that he said Fox News because he might just be referring to Fox Local, which, you know, that's not the Fox News.
What do you make of that profile?
Well, the first thing that's shocking me about the whole process is how quickly it's moving.
I mean, we've got seven already.
I cover trials with people who are not celebrities, people who are not known by anyone.
And it takes longer to find jurors.
And in this case, we're finding jurors who don't have a strong opinion about one of the most famous men in America, one of the most divisive men in America that everyone has an opinion on.
And don't tell me that New Yorkers don't have strong opinions.
They have strong opinions on everything from pizza to bagels to obviously President Trump.
So how quickly this is going, seven in one day shocked me.
But with this particular juror, and this is one thing I know a lot of attorneys talk about, which are in high-profile cases, are stealth jurors.
Jurors who will say what they need to say to make sure they get on the jury.
Like who watches Fox and MSNBC that is not in television news?
That's exactly right.
You're nailing it.
I completely agree with that.
I said this to my team.
I'm like, we're the only ones who watch both of these.
No normal human watches both Fox and MSNBC unless it's the occasional hate watch of one or the other.
And, you know, this guy's profile to me that he reads the New York Times.
He says the Daily Mail.
Okay, that's just, that's a fun, newsy online site, but it's not, it's more right-leaning, but I, you know, you go there for other things.
A lot of people go there for other things like celebrity news.
And nothing about the Journal or the New York Post suggests that the one he's lying about is the Fox News and that anybody excited on the Trump team should probably calm down.
Living in West Harlem, originally from Ireland, married no kids, New York Times, MSNBC.
I don't know.
I would say not ideal for Trump.
What do you think?
No, probably not.
And this is why they need somebody who's immediately checking all of these jurors, regular social media accounts and all the fake social media accounts.
See, that's another thing that goes along with being, you know, a stealth juror, or they sometimes call them a Trojan juror.
Like these people could have 18 different social media accounts.
Fortunately, they probably didn't know that they were going to be part of the pool for Trump until they got to court.
So they couldn't maybe delete some things.
But this is why you have to go behind the scenes to figure out who these people really are.
And listen, I've been saying this all along.
Donald Trump cannot only get a fair trial in New York, he can't get a fair trial on the planet.
So how the heck could they have already seeded seven as of yesterday with one saving grace, two saving graces being two of them are attorneys.
And that might be very helpful to Donald Trump.
You know, to your point, one, the defense attorney, Mr. Blanche, confronted a potential juror here.
I'm not sure who we're quoting this from, but forgive me because I don't have the news source in front of me.
But they said that he confronted him about a Facebook, a Facebook post in which he celebrated that Trump lost a court battle over his travel ban and said, referring to Trump, get him out and lock him up.
The judge agreed with Todd Blanche that this person, albeit years ago, had already expressed a desire for Trump to be imprisoned.
This juror was dismissed for cause.
But keep in mind, these jurors didn't even get in front of the lawyers for questioning unless they said, I can be fair.
Half the jury pool said, I admit I can't be fair.
This guy was like, I can be fair.
Get me in there.
Okay.
This is why we have one deer to figure out who's a liar.
Let's move on to the next one.
Next juror selected for the Trump trial.
A young black woman who has friends with strong opinions about Trump.
He has friends with strong opinions about him.
She says she is not a political person, though, and she appreciates that the former president speaks his mind.
She teaches English language in a public charter school system.
She has a master's degree in education.
I'd want her off if I were Trump.
They don't want master's degree.
Okay, but sometimes you don't have a choice.
She's not married and she doesn't have any kids.
She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news.
Per CNN, she said she wasn't aware that Trump is facing charges in other criminal cases.
Now, can I just say, Vinny, I actually know people like this.
I know people who are just not news consumers, black and white, who are not political, who just kind of go about, you know, it's not our world, but it's there.
I believe such a person may exist, but I don't believe such a person would generally be favorably inclined to Trump.
What do you think?
Yeah, this is, look at the overall pool, though.
I mean, where you're coming from.
You come from New York.
So it's a problem to begin with.
So it's like you got to pick the best of the worst or allow the best of the worst on.
Charter school.
I think the charter school thing was probably huge for Donald Trump's side saying, well, maybe there's just a little bit of hope, you know, there, but anyone in education and, you know, generally speaking, though, right?
When I was a prosecutor, my fellow prosecutors, when I was a young attorney, said, get the teachers off your jury.
Get the teachers off your jury.
They see the good in everyone.
But I don't think that's the case.
Well, in criminal defendants, right?
So get rid of the teachers.
But in this case, I think it works in the inverse for this particular criminal defendant.
Yeah.
You got to, you're not supposed to consider race or gender or age in striking a juror, but there's zero chance both sides didn't factor in the reality that she's a black woman and that overwhelmingly in America, black women don't like Trump, though there are many who do.
Those are the exceptions, not the rule if you look at the general polling, but she must have balanced out at least to be not terrible in the Trump team's view.
Okay, let's do number three, an Oregon native.
Out.
No, no, no.
Oregon native who works as a corporate lawyer.
Okay, rehabilitating, corporate lawyer.
You could be more right-leaning.
I don't know.
You know the system.
You make some money.
Once you start to earn money, the government takes half of it.
You get a little bit more conservative, some people, at a big firm.
He says he enjoys hiking.
I think it's, yeah, it's he, hiking and running.
He's lived in Chelsea for five years.
You can live a lot of places in Manhattan.
Chelsea is a much more liberal, very gay area, but not all.
I used to live in Chelsea.
I'm not gay.
Not that it matters, but it might see something about politics.
He also appears to be a man who likes to hike and run.
Okay.
He says he reads the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and Google for his news.
Younger man, never married, no kids.
Johnna, what do you make of him?
All right.
The only thing I like about this guy is that he's a lawyer, which means maybe he will be able to actually follow the law, which in this case is very favorable to Donald Trump, which I'm sure we'll talk about in a little while.
Other than that, everything else to me screams, get him off.
And that's another thing.
You know, when a lot of these jurors are saying they get their news from Google, like I'm confused.
Were they just given a list and they checked boxes or did they actually kind of fill in the blank?
Yeah, here's where I get my news.
So I don't even know how reliable that part of the screening process is.
But I do like the fact that he's a lawyer.
Maybe he can go back to his law school roots and figure out that, you know, look, prosecutor is not always right and the defense isn't always wrong and might be the one, might be the one holdout on this jury, which is all Donald Trump really needs.
I wouldn't feel good about his Wall Street Journal reading, Vinny, if I were Team Trump, because he works in corporate law.
You have to keep an eye on what's happening in the market and in the business world.
And of course, if you live in New York, you're going to read the journal, but his subscription to the Times may or may not say something.
I am also subscribed to the New York Times and the Journal and the New York Post.
And I'd be looking for the new, like we all love the New York Post.
Most New Yorkers love the New York Post, even if they don't love its political bent.
It's just a fun paper to read.
There are some who not only don't read the Post, but actually read the New York Daily News.
Oh my God, I would use a peremptory on such a person, person, Vinny, but what do you make of Mr. Oregon native?
No, not great for the defense, not great for the defense at all.
And I would say this about lawyers in general.
Like I have, I have a lot of lawyers on my show every night, night after night.
And I would say 90% of them do not like Donald Trump, just period.
They just do not like him.
It doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat.
They do not like him.
So I think lawyers in general are bad for this defendant.
Lawyers on juries basically take over.
But now you have, if you have two of them, how does that work?
But the problem is they get a little extra power inside that jury room.
And I would be very, very scared of this guy if I was the defense.
Can I just ask you a follow-up on that?
What do you, does the rule hold that lawyers, you know, in your experience, generally don't like Trump in a case like this, where we three as lawyers know this is a big stretch legally to well, I think this is right.
Right.
I think some criminal defense attorneys are being honest with themselves, right?
And looking at this case and saying, well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
This isn't, this isn't the way it should go.
And I'm hearing that a little bit more from criminal defense attorneys.
But I think the profession in general is almost as liberal as our profession in the media.
I mean, they're almost one in the same.
It's true.
If you had to pick a lawyer, I guess a corporate lawyer at a big firm would be better, but yeah, not ideal.
Okay, next, a female software engineer at a quote large broadcast company, Alert.
The speculation, though not confirmed, is that it's Disney, who recently graduated from college.
No, recent college graduate and a female hard no, if you're Team Trump.
The Native New Yorker Profile 00:15:27
She lives with three roommates in Chelsea, says she has no strong feelings about Trump one way or the other.
I don't believe that.
I don't, not with this profile, not fresh out of college.
She is not married, has no kids, gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok.
He's effed.
That's a bad juror.
Vinny, am I wrong?
No, that's, I'm picturing, what was that show called?
Girls?
Is that what it was called?
Years ago on HBO?
Yeah.
That's who she is.
That's who she is.
Would you put any of them on your jury?
No way.
Fresh out of college, Johanna, and no, not married with female roommates.
No.
She's Biden's base.
That's who he's, you know, stumping to every day.
Don't have to pay back your student loans.
Disney, you know, no, this is a really hard.
That's why I wish there were cameras in this courtroom for jury selection.
Like, what is Donald Trump's attorney doing?
Is he jumping up and down?
Is he just, has he given up?
Like, hard no on this one.
He's showing Trump his phone and they're whispering.
Okay, here is the next one.
We've got two more.
Two or three, three.
An IT consultant, lower Eastside resident who said he found Trump, quote, fascinating and mysterious.
I love those words.
I'll tell you why in a second.
So many people are set off one way or the other, and that is interesting.
Some have described him as 40 years old, others as an older, older, like older than 40, Puerto Rican man who's married with adult children.
So we don't know.
We're not exactly clear on how old he is.
He says his hobby is his family and did not indicate any strong feelings about politics.
So a friend of mine once told me that in liberal circles, like she went to this elite school and she sees all these people from the school still, and she's conservative.
In these liberal circles, when she wants to say something about like someone political, but she knows she'll get burned if she gives her true opinion.
She just says, fascinating.
He's fascinating or it's fascinating.
And here is this guy who asked his feelings about Donald Trump.
And he's like, he's fascinating and mysterious.
Well played, I.T. consultant.
Well played.
I'm having difficulty reading this one.
Vinny, thoughts?
I think it's a good potential juror for the defense.
It's someone who's a wild card.
And I think in any criminal case, because prosecutors have to prove it to all 12 jurors, right?
So he's not getting 12 to say not guilty.
I can't imagine that happening in New York.
So you're looking for wild cards.
And to me, this is a wildcard.
We don't know.
But he's living a very, as conservative a profile as you could have in Manhattan, being sort of like a family guy.
So I think it was a good choice to not bounce this one for the defense.
And if he's a Hispanic male, which again, we're not sure, but they tend to like Trump in the same way we can kind of, if we're just playing the odds, black women, probably not so much.
Choosing between a woman and a man, you'd probably go for the man if you're Trump.
And IT consultant, that's a good job, but it's not, you know, corporate lawyer.
You're not so highbrow that you don't have to worry about money or your paycheck, Vinny.
Yeah, you're working hard.
You're a hardworking family guy.
And I think that's the best you can get in Manhattan.
John, it's like they used to say outside of the Grateful Dead concerts.
I'm looking for a miracle.
Just need one.
You know, just one ticket.
Looking for a miracle.
That's what Team Trump is looking for.
Just one miracle in this sea of liberals to get somebody who might be more right-leaning.
I don't know whether that's it, but let me ask you about the next one.
You tell me whether she is his miracle.
A female oncology nurse at Memorial Sloan Kettering who lives on the Upper East Side.
She has a fiancé.
She's a native New Yorker.
Uh-oh, that scares me.
She reads the New York Times and watches CNN.
Oh, God.
Oh, no, no.
So, you know, she was going good.
It was all going well until New York Times and definitely not CNN, unless she travels a lot and she spends a lot of time in airports.
That's really the only time that I watch CNN.
So, yeah.
And here again, like the whole news thing, it's amazing to me just how much of the liberal media this jury pool so far is consuming.
And I guess, you know, going back to my previous point, I guess Trump's attorney has to be like, all right, well, I got to do what I got to do.
And regardless of what news they're consuming, let's look at some of these other factors.
I like the fact that she's an oncology nurse.
I like the fact that she's a native New Yorker because, you know, she might be more familiar with Donald Trump, the pre-president Donald Trump, than some of the other people that might help him, the apprentice Donald Trump.
I don't know.
That may fair point.
Fair point.
Can I say something else about the native New Yorker that I think is important?
I think, and I'm with John on this, is native New Yorker.
So you're born and bred here, right?
Versus the people who come to New York.
And the people who come to New York come to New York for a reason.
So I would, as a general rule, say, native New Yorker, perhaps you have a better chance than someone who purposely left wherever they were from to come to New York.
Why?
Well, we know what's in New York.
Like we know that the people who leave where they are to come to New York want to be in the city.
They want to be there.
It's like you're not born into it.
You want to be around that atmosphere.
You want to be in that air of politics.
That's where you're more comfortable.
You know, you could be from Georgia, where I'm living now.
And someone who's born in the country in Georgia, not comfortable there, wants to move to the city.
And I think someone who purposely makes that choice to be there and wasn't there as sort of a birthright, I think is slightly better opportunity than someone who purposely moved to New York City.
Okay, last but not least, another lawyer.
This guy is a civil litigator.
So it's a trial attorney for civil claims, like you, Jonna, who in his spare time likes to spend time outdoors and with his two children, lives on the Upper East Side, originally from North Carolina.
That's good for Trump.
He told the court that he reads the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post.
And before you get too excited for Trump, the Washington Post.
He said, and he's living in New York and he's not from D.C. and he's reading the Washington Post, which again, that's only media people do that unless you're a lefty, in my experience.
He says that he has political views as to the Trump presidency.
That's it.
And that he thinks there were likely Trump admin policies with which he disagreed.
So somewhat opaque.
I'm not sure I'd be lured too much in by the New York Post.
It's a high and low because who the hell reads both the New York Times and the Washington Post that isn't a liberal, Vinny?
Yeah, this is not a good one.
In terms of being a civil litigator, I'm more interested in what type of civil litigation is he doing?
Is he doing insurance defense?
I would be more comfortable with someone doing insurance defense than a plaintiff's attorney necessarily.
Or defense in general.
Right, right.
I think I just think that I would want to know that.
But everything else is not looking great for this.
And again, attorneys in general, they take over those deliberations.
The other 10 are going to be leaning on these two to lead them through the process.
So you've got to be very comfortable with a lawyer, I think, because of the power they have in that room.
The problem, John, for Trump is that, and I, you know, many of our audience members are probably already know this, but Trump today was out there saying, I can't believe we weren't able to strike more jurors.
But the problem is you have these peremptory challenges and then you have challenges for cause.
And your peremptory ones where you can just bounce them for no reason.
You don't have to tell the judge why you're bouncing them are limited in number.
And I think each side has used six and they only get 10.
Do I have my numbers right?
Correct.
You are correct.
They can only bounce four more without telling the judge why they're bouncing him or her.
All the others have to be for cause.
And you tell me, John is saying, like, judge, they read the Washington Post and the New York Times.
That's not going to do it.
That's true.
And when you're selecting a jury, you don't want to waste your challenges because you don't know who's coming in the room.
You don't know who's going to be seated in that box that you're going to question.
So you kind of have to hedge your bets a little bit.
And that's probably what's going on here.
And based on what this judge has ruled thus far up to this point, not just in jury selection, he's not going to err on the side of Donald Trump.
And if I could talk about this last juror specifically, I'm all for attorneys being on the jury panel.
I think attorneys should take over if they get seated on a jury.
But this guy, this guy is a little scary because he knew how to stay middle of the darn road.
And those are the juries, the jurors that are trying to be jurors.
What attorney do you guys know?
Both lawyers.
What attorney do you know who'd want to be on any jury unless it's Donald Trump or maybe Johnny Depp?
Nobody wanted to be on a jury.
I just served on a jury.
I just served on a jury.
I served on a jury too.
You did not.
Oh my God.
Greatest experience ever.
What kind of case was it?
I had a plaintiff's case, and it was a man who had three fingertips severed and was suing the doctor who successfully reattached two of them, but they were transposed.
So his middle fingertip was on his pointer finger.
Oh my God.
No liability.
No liability.
You voted for the defense?
No, I ended up being an alternate.
Oh, won't want.
That's alternates.
Like, it's like going to the prom with your cousin.
Like, yeah, I like my cousin, but I don't want to go to the prom.
Like, it was horrible, but they found my fellow jurors found no liability because the two fingertips survived.
And they still worked.
Oh, my God.
It makes it so much harder to give somebody the finger.
Which one do you lift now?
What's the dominant part of the middle finger?
It's unclear.
I served on a jury years ago.
I was co-anchoring, John.
You and I were together back in these days.
I was co-anchoring America's newsroom with Hemmer.
This is back.
We launched that show in 07 and it went through 10 with the two of us at the helm.
And I got called for jury duty like we all do.
And I got seated and I disclosed that I had just done 10 years at Jones Day.
And normally they'd say a corporate litigator at Jones Day.
That's bad for the defense.
This is a criminal trial.
Somebody like me would get bounced.
The prosecution was like, she's good.
We're good.
And I've been very more much more prosecution oriented in my commentary anyway.
So I would have thought the defense would have bounced me, but you know what happened?
The defense lawyer, when he got up there to do the vaudeville of the prospective jurors, including me, said, Ms. Kelly, crossing his arms, if I put you on this jury, will you put me on TV?
Sense of humor.
That happened.
That happened.
I remember just laughing.
And in my head, I'm thinking, kind of depends on how you do.
Are you a good talker?
Like, you know what?
Anyway, I.
We all found against his client and found his client guilty because it was very clear he was.
It was a drug case.
Anyway, this so far is not looking good for Trump.
I agree with you guys.
He's doing the best he can with this jury pool.
There's like at least some ambiguity about each one of them or at least one thing to hope for, but I don't know.
Just keep mine, audience.
Need one miracle, just one miracle in order to set this off.
Last but not least, he was accused of juror intimidation by this judge yesterday.
I thought this is rather extraordinary.
We pulled a sound bite of the New York Times' Suzanne Craig on MSNBC explaining what happened.
Take a listen.
Soph five.
The juror, juror number one, had taken a video at a distance of what looked like a celebration in the streets of New York for Trump lost in 2020.
I think that was it.
And it showed that she was biased and there was some language that suggested that she might have a bias.
She said she happened to take the video.
She thought it was a very New York moment and she posted it.
We didn't have the cameras on, so we didn't have a visual of Donald Trump at this point from the overflow room that I sit in.
We have close circuit TVs, but the judge had through some back and forth between the lawyers and then the judge actually admonished the former president because he was huffing and puffing and gesturing towards the juror.
He said it was, the judge was completely inappropriate.
And he said, I won't tolerate it.
I won't have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.
And his lawyer had to go speak to him.
So that was like a moment.
Johnna, what do you make of that exchange?
You know, what I take away from the exchange is just how much I do not have respect for the judge presiding over this case.
And maybe that's not a popular opinion, but, you know, look, I've sat next to clients during jury selection.
They have to talk to you.
Sometimes they're too loud in any sort of trial situation.
Sometimes they're not, you know, this judge needs to get off Donald Trump's back.
Like for God's sake.
So I don't think it really was a moment that this reporter was talking about.
It was just another way that this judge could wield some sort of weird power over Donald Trump in his courtroom.
What's weird, Vinny, is so just to clarify, it appears that this woman trying to get on the jury, it was found that she had made two Facebook posts the day of the 2020 presidential election.
And she had previously said she had no biases against Donald Trump, but the posts were of people celebrating the fact that he had lost.
And she tried to say to the judge, the juror perspective, she just wanted to capture, quote, a New York City celebratory moment, likening the cheers to the nightly celebrations for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
She was dismissed appropriately, but that's another instance of somebody, in my view, lying to get on the jury.
And Trump, when she was being cross-examined, all this allegedly uttered something who was 12 feet away from him.
And the judge said to the Trump lawyer, your client was audibly uttering something.
Legal Expense Admission Confirmed 00:04:03
I don't know what he was uttering.
So if you don't know what he was uttering, why are you accusing him of witness or juror intimidation?
Yeah, that's problematic.
Now, part of our system of justice is that criminal defendants are supposed to participate in their own defense.
It's their life that is on the line, their liberty that's on the line here.
So that's why they're there and that's why they have to be there.
Now, the level of how loud your voice can be when speaking with your attorney, I don't know.
If he says something directly to a juror, I get it.
But if you're communicating with your attorney, I don't know.
I don't know.
I'd have to see it.
And we need to put cameras in the courtroom and broadcast it.
Yes.
But the state of the- At least audio of any right?
At least audio.
No, no, video and audio.
New York used to permit cameras.
The law, there was a sunset provision, and then they never allowed them back in.
To me, it's about transparency.
And in a case like this, this is the exact case that needs to be broadcast because of the nature of it.
You're getting secondhand reports about it, number one, so no one can actually see it.
Number two, you want to trust the system.
How do you trust a system that hides what's happening?
Right?
So I don't understand that.
To me, that's another big problem in all of this.
Okay, one other thing on the Trump case.
So Trump, at the end of the day, keeps coming out and making statements, John.
And yesterday he made a statement about, he was trying to say, how is this turning into like, you know, I doctored my corporate books?
What he did was he or his team paid Michael Cohen the $130,000 that Cohen had paid to Stormy Daniels to get her to not speak out about their alleged affair.
And it was marked down on the books as a legal expense.
Trump was, you know, or someone on his behalf paying this to a lawyer who represented Trump.
Now, one of the questions in the case is who actually authorized the payment and made the payment.
And then who wrote down in the books that it was a legal expense?
Because the odds are it wasn't Donald Trump who wrote that down, you know, in the books.
Well, he made this comment after court yesterday that now has people saying, oh my God, it was an admission.
He tried to fix it, but he admitted it.
Take a listen and saw three.
Was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense.
Some accountant, I didn't know, marked it down as a legal expense.
That's exactly what it was.
And you've been indicted over that?
Okay.
So he started to say that he, I was paying a lawyer and we marked it down as a legal expense.
And then he corrects himself.
An accountant did.
And now there's speculation that'll be played in court to prove to this jury, and they don't have this proof otherwise, that Trump knew and authorized and maybe even participated in how it would be recorded.
Any criminal defense attorney will tell you, just don't say anything, right?
Ever, ever, ever, ever, right?
But you're not going to be able to stop him.
Now, the question is, are they going to play, they have to play the whole thing, I would think, the whole thing.
So if the prosecution puts this in, are they also allowing him to testify without being cross-examined?
It's a double-edged sword.
As much as they want to say, oh, here he is making an admission.
Well, he's also got the complete explanation, which means now he can give his side of what happened here without getting on the witness stand and without being cross-examined.
So I would be a little less anxious as the prosecution to necessarily put that in.
I mean, I always say this, and it was in the George Zimmerman case, it was the same thing where the prosecution in that case put in all of George Zimmerman's statements and they were self-serving, but they believed that, oh, the jury is not going to buy it.
Refusing to Leave Private Property 00:09:57
But he never had to testify because his whole story through the videos brought in by the prosecution told his story.
So as a prosecutor, I would not put that in.
But if they do, we'll see what happens.
Very good point.
And plus, like when you speak colloquially, sometimes you say, you know, I or we, and you don't necessarily mean yourself.
It's like I'll say, oh, you know, I have this soundbite.
It's like, well, who gave me the soundbite?
My team.
I didn't cut the soundbite.
I don't mean that I personally cut the soundbite.
All right, stand by.
We're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back because there's other big cases in the news, including this crazy alleged second degree murder case that is on camera, this case.
And it's fascinating.
The Karen Reed murder trial coming to us now out of Massachusetts.
Stand by.
Vinny and Jonna, stay with us.
All right, before we get to this murder case that I teased, let's talk about what happened in Bakersfield, California, where this protester, this pro, you know, Justice in Palestine protester named Riddy Patel showed up at a town meeting and decided to threaten the town council members in explicit terms.
It was not ambiguous.
It's amazing to me because listening to her voice, it's very kind of high and squeaky and almost friendly sounding as she calls for them to be murdered.
Take a listen.
I don't have faith that you'll do this.
You guys are all horrible human beings and Jesus probably would have killed you himself.
And I hope one day somebody brings the guillotine and kills all of you motherfuckers.
Because the only escalation in violence has been by you all.
And so there's no need to continue.
In the last five years I've attended city council meetings.
There's never been metal detectors.
There's never been more cops.
The only reason you're doing it is because people actually don't care if you guys don't like them and they're actually resisting.
So you want to criminalize them.
You guys want to criminalize us with metal detectors?
We'll see you at your house.
We'll murder you.
Oh, just the casual murder threat, John.
Bye.
Say, bye-bye.
So now she got charged.
She got charged with 18 felony counts, eight of threatening a public official, 10 of making terrorist threats.
Initially, her bail was 1 million.
It's been reduced to 500,000.
And you tell me whether the prosecution has overcharged the case.
No way.
First Amendment doesn't protect that.
You can't threaten to kill somebody, regardless of the reason why you're upset.
This is not a First Amendment case.
Of course she should have been charged.
This is the one time I agree.
She has not been overcharged.
You know, 18 counts.
I don't know exactly where they're getting that number from.
Maybe one for each utterance.
I'm not sure.
But she's not.
I think it's all the people who are up there too.
Well, here's the other thing.
She got up there.
And, you know, Vinny, you've seen it a million times on court TV and in your legal practice.
Now she's really sad.
Now she's very sad about what's happened to her.
Here she is in court.
Look at her.
She's for the listening audience.
She's there crying, crying, crying, wiping her eyes.
This is, I assume, when she got arraigned and she feels, I guess, bad about all the murder threats she casually dropped on the city council members.
What do you think of this?
Well, it's a reality check.
It's a reality check.
Like, I think we're at a point now in society where people believe that there won't be any sort of repercussions for their actions.
And while we spend a lot of time trying to limit what people can say on social media, people who are passionate about whatever their issue is have gotten to such an extreme level of being unhinged that they don't understand how an orderly society works.
And then when the cuffs go on and you're put in the jail, oh, wait a minute, this is real life.
This is real life.
Oh, okay.
Now I get it.
Now I get it.
It reminds me of the story.
Remember during some of the protests when you had, I think it was a lawyer, maybe been two lawyers that firebombed a police car?
Like, I don't get where all this is coming from.
And these are people who should be living very normal lives.
Yeah, you can be. loud and passionate about your issue, whatever it is, and do whatever you want, raise money, make speeches, vote in people that you believe in.
But there's a limit.
And I think some people have lost sight of where that is.
And you can't engage in unlawful activity to try to stop whatever you think you're going to stop.
And I think there's a mentality that we have to do whatever we can to stop this because it doesn't matter.
We won't get in trouble anyway.
Okay.
Another quick one I want to squeeze in before the break.
Did you guys see by chance what happened at Berkeley when that Students for Justice in Palestine representative stood up and threatened, well, not threatened, but and started speaking in her microphone about Palestine at this private event the dean had invited her to.
There were 60 students.
She gets up, she gets a little microphone out, had a great, if you guys have missed this, you got to go back and listen to my Friday show with Adam Carolla because we spent a half an hour on it.
It was like my favorite half hour of the week.
Anyway, now this woman is demanding that the dean and his wife be fired because of her bad behavior and them kicking her out after it.
The dean of the dean's wife, who's also a law professor at Berkeley, grabbed her microphone to try to escort her off of the property after telling her to leave many times and she wouldn't.
And now this woman, this protester is saying, I have been assaulted.
I've been battered, is demanding that both professors be fired, is saying that she was nearly strangled, that she was put in a headlock.
Hopefully we'll drop in the video here of what actually happened.
Do we have it?
And that she was caused great pain by literally this woman just grabbed her microphone to get her off the property.
Here it is.
Okay, she's protesting.
Well, she's lecturing.
She's speaking in Arabic.
They hosted her for a nice dinner.
And now the wife of the dean, again, independent law professor there, Catherine Fisk, is going to come over.
And you'll see her hand go on the microphone from over the woman's shoulders.
10 people walked out with her.
As we watch it, Vinny, is there any, here's there.
She's got the microphone.
She's got the other arm around on the shoulder.
That's all that happens.
There's no headlock.
That incident right there is being characterized by the woman in the hijab as she as the headlock that cut off her air supply.
She was almost strangled.
Yeah, not happening.
That's not what I saw.
That's not what I saw.
And the video is what the video is.
And I can't believe you bring a microphone and a speaker to a party.
It's not like the microphone was there, right?
She brought it herself.
No, she's the traveling microphone, Mr. Microphone.
No, I don't see an assault there.
What I see is someone refusing to leave private property after being asked to leave.
That's what I see.
John, if I were this dean or his wife, I would sue them.
I would sue her for defamation.
They're being defamed by the day by this girl.
And I would also see about trespassing charges.
You tell me when you tell somebody 30 times to leave your property and they don't, can't you go to the police and say, I want to file a trespass claim against them?
You would ordinarily think so.
This case reminded me of, do you remember the phrase from law school, officious intermeddler?
Somebody who intentionally injects themselves into a situation.
This is like me going to the dentist for a filling and then suing the dentist because he put a hole in my tooth.
The only thing that was confusing about this, though, is apparently the school paid for the dinner, though it was clearly not on school property.
It was on private property.
And yes, they should countersue.
This person went to this party for the purpose of disrupting it and now wants to sue for damages.
That's a hard no from me, and they should fight back.
Yeah, and she's demanding that they be fired.
Although I will say right now, amazingly, even at UC Berkeley, they are holding the line.
The board, at least one of the board members, came out and spoke saying she's the one who crossed the line, not them.
She's the one who crossed the line by doing this on private property.
And meanwhile, of course, because this is, you know, modern day America, this young woman continues to organize protests outside of their home, claiming they assault and batter pro-Palestinian students here.
I mean, this is ongoing defamation.
They should sue her.
They should do it quickly and they should make it hurt.
All right, Vinny and Jonna, legally, that means stay with us because we're going to get to that big case next, which I think the audience is going to find really interesting.
You guys don't go away.
I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.
It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.
You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
Great people like Dr. Laura, Feynman, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
Bizarre Drunk Driving Circumstances 00:15:05
Go to seriousxm.com/slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.
That's seriousxm.com/slash MK Show and get three months free.
Offer details apply.
Okay, so the case of Karen Reed, it's a murder trial in Massachusetts, and this one will be before the cameras.
It's just getting underway.
Vinny, you guys, I'm sure are going to be all over it at Court TV.
Outline what it's about for us.
Well, there's a Karen Reed is dating a Boston police officer, Officer John O'Keefe.
They go out for a night of drinking in Boston, but it's a cold night and there's a storm that's coming.
So they meet a bunch of friends at the bars where they're kind of bar hopping around.
And there's an after-party at one of the officers' homes.
So when they're done at the bar, Karen gets behind the wheel, John O'Keefe gets in the car and they drive to that friend's house.
And this is where the story, one of two things happens, depending upon whether you believe the prosecution or defense.
According to the prosecution, John O'Keefe gets out of the car.
They're having some sort of an argument.
And Karen Reed, while she's doing a K-turn to kind of turn around and head back where she came from because she decided not to go to that party, purposely runs over her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, and leaves him on the front lawn of that home in the cold to die.
That's what the prosecution says.
What the defense says happened is that Karen Reed dropped him off.
He went inside the house.
Something happened in the house.
There was a confrontation.
There was a fight.
He was beaten up.
He was attacked by the dog and they dragged his body out onto the front lawn.
And they framed Karen Reed for murder by taking pieces of her broken taillight and putting it on his body.
So those are the two versions of what happened.
So it's either murder, according to the prosecution, or she's being framed and it's a police conspiracy cover-up from the defense perspective.
And in the middle is she was drunk and accidentally hit him, but she's not charged with that and she's not admitting that, although that was the original charge against her before they upped it to murder after they found some voicemail messages that were left and they tested her backup camera and found that it was working.
So based upon that, the prosecution believes it's murder.
But that's just half the story.
That's just half the story.
The other story is what's happening outside the courthouse, because this case was picked up by a local, he's on YouTube.
He's a former teacher and he picked this up.
His name is Turtle Boy, and he has all these followers who are called Turtle Riders, Megan, Turtle Riders.
And a couple hundred of them have been showing up at every hearing, protesting the charges against Karen Reed, carrying free Karen Reed signs and believing that there's a police conspiracy here.
So this has completely divided the town.
And right now we're in jury selection and it's not moving as quickly as the jury selection for the most famous man on the planet.
It's amazing, by the way, how fast the Trump trial is moving.
I'm like, I don't, the judge says we're going to have a jury picked by Monday and opening statements will be on Monday.
He expects in the Trump trial.
You're right.
Karen Reed's going to take longer.
John, what's your initial impression of this case?
Because I went both ways.
I'm just getting up to speed on it, but it says the medical examiner ruled the cause of death was blunt impact injuries to the head and hypothermia, as though he'd been attacked and then left outside to freeze to death.
That doesn't necessarily tell us who did it, right?
But then when you get to all the taillight DNA, they found the taillight.
Her DNA was his, it was her taillight is basically what the prosecution says it can prove right by him.
I don't know.
Does that get us there?
What else is there?
Well, the case is bizarre, if you want to sum it up in a word.
And I don't know how much direct evidence the prosecution is going to have to show.
Like you think if the backup camera is working, you might see the actual crime in progress.
So she might, Karen Reed might have some there there.
I mean, her defense is really, I am too drunk to remember if I killed my boyfriend.
So I've got plausible deniability.
On the other hand, why?
If the police are framing her, not why would they frame her?
Why would they kill their friend?
Right.
Is this some, remember that case that wasn't that long ago where the friends are watching a football game and they all froze outside in the backyard?
Like, was it one of those weird situations?
That was that.
Yeah, that could have been drugs.
And the police were like, I'm a police officer.
I don't want to get, let's frame the girlfriend who was drunk, too drunk to know any better.
Was it that?
Or is she just in such complete denial that she doesn't remember running over her boyfriend when she was blackout drunk and having some sort of drunken fight with him?
And the jury is going to want to know, like, if they're framing her, how did he actually die?
And I don't know if Vinny might know better than me at this point, whether the prosecution is going to have evidence in support of exactly how he died.
Well, the prosecution is...
The prosecution is saying he ran her over.
So they've got the taillight is broken.
Her rear right taillight is broken.
Their medical examiner obviously will say what he's going to say.
But again, it's the taillight.
So he also had a cocktail glass in his hand, John O'Keefe did, that he brought from the bar.
And they say a piece of the cocktail glass was inside her rear bumper.
So you had the glass from his hand in her bumper and then the taillight from the rear of her car on John O'Keefe.
Now, what the defense is going to say is there's some peculiar things here.
Like why?
Because the snowstorm happens after Karen Reed leaves.
She's there just after midnight.
The snow starts around two o'clock.
So by the morning, you've got snow on the ground.
They're going to say, why is the taillight and the blood on top of the snow?
Why isn't it beneath the snow?
They're also going to point to a police chief, a local police chief, who a week after this said that he found another piece of the taillight on the front yard.
He happened to be driving by.
And there's alleged connections between the officers at the party and the officers who were investigating the case.
So that's what they're going to allege.
I don't know.
I think it's a tough sell, the whole conspiracy thing, but I think it's also a tough sell to say that she murdered him.
I mean, in the middle is two people driving, drinking, one person getting out of the car, the other person doing a K-turn, and maybe he got hit.
But the thing is, Vinny mentioned this, Johnna, they have angry voicemails from Karen Reed to him, like on the night in question at 1.30 a.m. saying like, you're an effer.
I can't, I hate you.
I think was in there.
But they were clearly having an argument that was very passionate that would support, you know, the argument that in the heat of an argument, she might have done something very drunk that led to his death.
And they've charged second degree.
They're not charging first degree murder.
So if that's, if that theory proves out, she got angry, she was drunk, and she intentionally ran him over.
That is second degree murder, isn't it?
That would be unless those, is she leaving him angry voicemails after he's already, you know, in a snowbank and she has no clue that he's in a snowbank?
That would almost help her.
She might, you know, she might be able to say, look, I got home.
I had no idea that he was, I thought he was at the party.
That's why I'm calling and leaving him drunk messages and drunk texting him.
That could be one way that the defense wants to go with this.
And the other thing is, and it might not be part of the defense, did he freeze to death or did he die from the block frost forced trauma?
And if you're freezing to death at your friend's party in a snowbank, how does nobody know that you're out in the yard again freezing to death?
Like there are some very bizarre circumstances surrounding this case.
Well, what about the injuries that were shown in his body, Vinny?
Because there's, we have a picture of some of the injuries.
And I understand the defense is saying this was from the alleged dog attack.
This is where she starts to lose me.
Bullshit.
I don't, it's all these.
Well, here's the thing.
Not even a little.
No.
Well, here's what they're saying.
Those are consistent with dog scratches.
And they got rid of the dog afterwards.
Like the dog is nowhere to be found.
So they can't test any doggy DNA.
That was part of what they were alleging in all of this.
And his attorney, he has two attorneys.
He's got a local attorney and then Alan Jackson, who you may or may not remember, is coming in from LA to do this.
He is a big time attorney.
He ran for DA in LA, lost, but he's the man who prosecuted Phil Spector successfully when he was on the other side.
And now he represents big time cases.
And this is one that he has latched onto and has been very, I mean, literally on the courthouse steps.
They are pointing the finger at specific people in the house.
But a big ruling by the judge yesterday that the defense will not be able to mention any of their allegations in their opening statement.
The third party culpability judge not allowing any mention of it in their opening statements.
The judge says she's going to need this is this is like you guys, of course, watch the practice, right?
The practice, David E. Kelly's the practice.
By the way, that's such a fun one to go back and just put on your TV if you want to get old episodes of it.
I've done it, but they called it plan being somebody.
You're not allowed to braise it in your opening statement that you're going to say somebody else did it, but there are several witnesses who are going to take the stand and you're going to plan B them, where little do they know, or maybe they will know in this case, you're walking them right into a trap to try to blame the entire murder on them.
You don't have enough to say it in your opening, but by the time you get to closing, you'll have done enough to be able to argue it to the jury.
That's the judge is going to allow that, Vinny, right?
You can't say it in the opening, but you can test it on cross.
Well, yeah, they have to develop enough evidence.
And the judge, I'll tell you what, the judge is leaning towards not allowing any of this.
We'll see how it plays because all the buildup, every pretrial motion has been about this.
And the protests outside have been about this.
There's one other really big, important piece of evidence, which was a Google search on how long to die in the snow.
It's a Google search on one of the phones of one of the women who was at the party.
And initially, when this information was taken from the phone, it appeared that the search had been done at 2.30 in the morning.
So if it's done at 2.30 in the morning, it has nothing to do with Karen Reed.
Why would this woman inside the house be Googling how long to die in the snow unless the people in the house were putting someone outside to die in the snow?
Now, the prosecution is going to say, no, your expert's wrong.
It was really searched at 6.30 in the morning.
So this is a huge piece of evidence.
And that Google search was really what triggered all the support for Karen Reed and has been one of the big things that started the free Karen Reed movement up there in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, where it's no longer a wicked cold.
Here's Karen Reed in May of 2023 speaking about a little her defense.
We know who did it, Steve.
We know.
And we know who spearheaded this cover-up.
You all know.
Yes, we do.
And no, she didn't do it.
No, she didn't do it.
This is an innocent woman.
She didn't do it.
I tried to save his life.
I tried to save his life at 6 in the morning.
I was covered in his blood.
I was the only one trying to save his life.
Why'd you admit to it?
He didn't.
She didn't admit to it.
She didn't admit to anything close to that.
Nothing close to that.
And you should know that.
That was like three or four times.
No, she didn't.
That's not true.
She asked a question.
She asked a question, which is very different.
She didn't admit to anything.
What did she, what do they mean by it?
If any all smiles.
I've got it.
Do you remember my cousin Vinny when Ralph, Ralph Macchio, right?
And what did he say?
He said, I shot the clerk.
I shot the clerk.
That was the confession.
What Ralph Macchio actually said was, I shot the clerk.
I shot the clerk.
So that's what they're saying here is that Karen Reed is saying, I hit him.
I hit him versus I hit him.
I hit him.
So thank you.
It's unbelievable.
Any reference, always welcome on this show in any context.
I identical.
Vinny, so far, from what I've seen, I think she did it.
And I think she's going to get away with it.
That's my, that's my initial take.
It's a tough case for prosecutors because the other thing that's been taking place during all this, there's an investigation by the Department of Justice of the investigators in this case.
So there's a federal investigation of the local investigators who ended up bringing, getting the evidence to charge Karen Reed.
So I look at all of that and I say, I can see where a jury could find reasonable doubt.
Does that mean that there was a police coverup?
Does that mean that she was framed?
Not necessarily, but there's a lot of issues that could absolutely bubble up during the course of this trial in front of this jury.
But again, and I'm wondering if at the end of the case, the jury will have a choice of something in the middle, which is she accidentally struck him because she had been drinking too much.
I don't know, Jonna.
That's my initial take anyway.
What do you think that she to me, like I stay open-minded because I say, frankly, I haven't taken too close a look at her case.
But to me, it seems it's a big stretch to think these cops inside just decided to kill their buddy for no reason on the same night he had this explosive fight with her in which she was yelling all the profane, hateful things at him.
Her, she was drunk.
Her taillight was broken.
It just seems like a stretch, but that there's believing something and then there's proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Church Responsibility for Abuse 00:10:20
So far, I think they're going to have trouble.
I think they're going to have trouble with murder.
But Vinny just said something very interesting.
And that is, why can't it be something in the middle?
What if she didn't kill him?
But what if they're not framing her?
What if, what if this guy, I don't know, he went to this party, he had a few two drinks, he went outside, he met some mistress and fell down, broke his glass, died, and nobody knows.
Like, what if that's what actually happened?
And it's neither of the two theories.
But I don't think the problem is the defense is going to hang their hat on a third party culpability, even though they're not allowed.
I didn't know they weren't allowed to say in an opening statement.
Maybe for that reason, they'll waive their opening statement.
We'll see.
But maybe it's somewhere in the middle, or the jury will be confused enough that they won't be able to find guilt of anything, whether it's a lesser included manslaughter or the murder charge.
All right.
Well, we'll continue to follow it because that one's going to be on cam.
Here's the other thing.
We talked about Ruby Frankie on this show not long ago, who is this mother who abused her kids along with her friend, who was like her therapist.
And the therapist agreed, somehow convinced the dad, Kevin, to leave his children, to move out of the home.
And the therapist and Ruby, therapist's name is Jody Hildebrandt, were raising these two young children.
And they were both severely abused and both women received prison sentences.
This woman, Ruby Frankie, was very popular on YouTube, had over 2 million subscribers, made some headlines for her, quote, very strict parenting of her many children and actually was reported for alleged abuse repeatedly, then pulled the YouTube channel, then went down some rabbit hole where things got very, very bad.
Now, the husband, who has not been charged, he's now ex-husband of Ruby, Kevin, has filed a lawsuit against Jodi Hildebrandt, seeking a judgment and special damages, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of it, and negligence as a claim for all of the harm that she did to his children.
Jonna, to me, this seems like a no-brainer.
I mean, clearly this woman was a nightmare.
She's serving a criminal sentence for it.
But can he recover?
It's not on his children's behalf.
It's in the first person for his emotional distress.
I look at it.
I'm like, where were you?
Where were you?
Oh, I know.
It was so sick what happened to these children.
And, you know, I don't blame him for filing a lawsuit.
Thing is and his children can file their own lawsuit that the statute of limitations will be told until they become adults.
But what are they going to get?
You know, now you got a woman who's in prison any assets she may have had and probably protected, or you know she's going to be making license plates, so earning whatever 30 cents an hour.
What is he going to get?
It's going to be a very pyrrhic victory, you know, do you just move on?
But I, I don't blame him for wanting to go here so that she can't get out one day and write a book and make some money and not pay him and eventually his, his children.
So, but it's just, I don't think he's going to actually get see a check.
I don't know if this is for our benefit.
Vinny, to try to make himself look like he's really distraught.
You know he's very, very upset that his children were being serially abused and he allegedly didn't know anything about it and he he's just going to prove it by filing this lawsuit.
Um, he did, when he was being interrogated by the cops, say he hadn't seen them in over a year.
Many people doubted that and said okay, we don't believe it.
And if?
If we do believe it.
The question is my question, why not?
What kind of a responsible parent just says, oh gee, this therapist Jody, told me to leave the Meryl home and not to come back and I did it without a court order, without anything, just ceded their upbringing to some stranger and my estranged wife.
Here he was.
When they confronted him making that claim, sat 17.
So are they all living with you or no?
I haven't seen them for over a year.
Any of them?
No, not.
For a year, over a year i've been in a separation from from my wife and family.
To be honest, I don't know.
I I know that she's there with um.
Four of the children and our two older children have moved out.
Have you communicated with your wife regarding like discipline with your kids or their care or their physical well-being?
No, so.
Is she doing this on her own and just telling you how your kids are?
She's not telling anything about the kids.
I mean, it's at least contributory negligence, like you ceded all parenting to a stranger.
This is why the rest of us don't do that kind of thing.
Vinny yes, but I I will say this because i've spoken and interviewed other victims of Jodi Hildebrand and it's a.
It's a.
It's a complicated scenario because she was intertwined with the local UM family courts and with the church okay, and they're they're all Mormons, okay.
So the way she acted with this family, she had a very similar mo with other families and other men who are taken out of the lives of their family and families are imploded and I I need to learn a little bit more about that, but what was described described to me by another victim was, she goes in,
the first thing she does, and this is with the blessings of the church, is separate the man and take him away from his family and convince everyone that he has some level of usually a porn addiction.
And it's really a lot deeper. than even I've been able to get into on my show where I've done hours on this.
And I don't know Kevin Frankie that well, but as we watched him speak with one of Jody Hildebrand's other victims, he was trying to explain to me that he had gone through this similar thing and it had really, you know, distorted his life.
So I think once we learn more about Jodi Hildebrand and what connection and power she wielded in conjunction with the church.
And I think that's what makes it a little different than just anyone going to a local therapist.
She wielded a little more influence and power.
Would I as a father allow that to happen?
No.
And I don't know Kevin Frankie.
I don't like, I understand that that is an interesting story and explains somewhat his decision making, but it doesn't excuse you from your parental responsibilities toward your child, John.
I mean, he, they were being abused day in, day out, and his lawsuit spells some of it out, that his 11-year-old son was getting hogtied by sets of ropes around his ankles and his wrists and then tied together, that he was made repeatedly to jump into a cactus, that he was made to spend long, like scorching summer days outside with no sun protection and looking, made to look into the sun, like all these very strange, not to mention the open wounds that were all over his body.
He was emaciated.
He was clearly starving when he escaped out of the house and ran to a neighbor and said, please help me and his little sister in the same condition.
I don't like, I got to be honest, I have almost no sympathy for the father.
Almost no sympathy.
Like, where were you?
I don't care.
If my church told me I needed to leave my house because some porn addiction or let's say like an alcoholic, I'd say no, no, that's not what God wants from me.
I'm still a sane person.
Is he saying he was like a cult member that he lost all independent ability to think?
I mean, this woman's being held to account by the criminal justice system, but I just don't get that he's like, poor me, I had intentional infliction, emotional distress against me.
Yeah, maybe he should add the church as a defendant in his lawsuit, though.
Maybe, maybe is the church responsible if all this is happening with their blessing and somehow the family courts are like okay with it, which that boggles my mind.
I, you know, I have seen circumstances where parents are sort of banished, for lack of a better word, from rearing their children for whatever reason.
And they have to go and get therapy and get counseling and do all this, jump through all these hoops before they can get back into their children's lives.
I don't know if that happened here, but the fact that these kids, I mean, they were horribly abused and for him to be clueless is terrible.
But I guess the real question is, you know, what Vinny alluded to is, well, why?
What was really holding him back?
Was it something other than him just being a clueless parent?
Or was there more to it?
Well, the way they sell it, the way she sells it is you need, you need to, you need to fix yourself before you can come to the family because you are the problem.
And these men.
An educated guy, right, Vinny?
He's, he's like, it's amazing how this woman sucked these people in with her absolute nonsense and they ceded their child rearing to her.
Yeah, have you seen the house that she was living in, by the way?
She was making a lot of money doing it as well.
Yeah, it was nice.
It was beautiful.
I mean, beautiful, sprawling, brand new home.
And it was a prison and torture.
It was a torture.
You know, pro tip: don't just give your children over to a stranger, whether your spouse or a strange spouse is involved or not.
Just don't do it.
There's you have independent legal responsibilities to them, and you better hold them up no matter what your church or some quack therapist tells you.
Pro Tip on Child Custody 00:00:51
You guys are great.
Minnie, Jonna, thank you so much.
What a ride we've taken from the Trump porn through the juris election and all of this.
Really appreciate your insights.
Thank you.
Thank you.
See you soon.
Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
At my moment, I'm going to go to the next step.
Export Selection