The Megyn Kelly Show - Alec Baldwin "Rust" Movie Set Deadly Shooting: Deep Dive Into All Legal Angles, with Viva Frei | Ep. 441

Episode Date: November 23, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Viva Frei, lawyer and YouTuber, to talk about all the details in the "Rust" movie set shooting, all of the looming legal battles ahead, who might get charged and who likely won't, the various parties blaming each other for the awful accidental death,  Alec Baldwin continuing to speak out over the "Rust" shooting, how he's losing the PR battle by trying to justify his actions, the fact that he won't admit he has any "guilt" over the death, the bizarre circumstances that have led to the "Rust" movie going back into production after the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Alec Baldwin back in the lead role, Hutchins' widow producing the film, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. On October 21st last year, police and EMTs were dispatched to the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The call to 911 relayed that two people had been accidentally shot on the Rust movie set and they needed help immediately. Cinematographer Helena Hutchins' injuries would soon after prove to be fatal

and director Joel Souza thankfully only suffered an injured shoulder from the very same bullet that passed through Helena. More than a year later, no one has faced criminal charges in connection with the accidental death of Hutchins. But one fact remains clear. Actor Alec Baldwin was holding the gun that killed this up-and-coming filmmaker. Shortly after we taped this episode, the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office released a 551-page report into the Rust investigation. The report did little to answer the crucial questions a year later. There are still no answers as to how live ammunition made its way to the Rust set,

nor did the report make any judgments on whether criminal charges should be filed. That's in the hands of the DA. It did, however, release some text messages from Alec Baldwin to Hutchins' husband, insisting that he and the cinematographer believed the gun was empty. Baldwin also suggested that there may be a sabotage angle and also told an assistant, quote, I have to delete my archive. By the way, that's never something you should put in writing. But Baldwin's lawyer says that was in reference to his Twitter account and unrelated to the case. Lawyer turned YouTuber David Freiheit, better known to his audience as Aviva Fry, has followed this story quite closely. He joins us to discuss it all in

this special episode. But first, a little background on David, because he's fascinating in his own right. David was on track to make partner at one of the most prominent law firms in Canada when he left to start his own practice. Shortly after he struck out on his own, he got a GoPro for Christmas, which changed his entire trajectory. I love this. He now has over 500,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel where he dissects the latest news through his unique and fair legal perspective. And somewhere in there, he even found time to run for the Canadian Parliament. David, welcome to the show. Megan, thank you for having me on. Oh, the pleasure is all mine. So it's amazing to think that this was only a year ago that this happened.

And this was like just to set the stage. This was a small movie production. This was not like, you know, big superhero type budget. It was relatively small. Alec Baldwin is not as big a star as he used to be. And he was, in addition to the star the executive producer which will become relevant legally oh yeah no no it's well it feels like a lot more than a year ago we celebrated there was the year anniversary i remember where i was when this happened

where the news broke that it has since become a a sad internet meme alec baldwin uh killed a woman on a set and it hadn't happened in a long time. And it at first, you know, people were jumping on it for the firearm safety aspect of it or the gun control aspect. But my goodness, has it evolved into something much deeper and, you know, infiltrated by politics, to put it mildly. There's video of Alec Baldwin right after the shooting. I want to make sure I don't mischaracterize it, but it was obtained by TMZ.

And you can see him sitting with Dave Halls, the movie's assistant director, associate director. And Baldwin asks a question about Helena and how she's doing. Here's just a bit of that moment. Stand by. It's not one. Is he okay? He is. Here's just a bit of that moment. Stand by. It's not one. Joel's doing okay.

He is. It's her story. A little bit rougher. Oh, I'm not seeing. It was the shoulder, though. On Joel? On Helena? Where did it?

So hers appeared to look, it went through her right underarm. Yeah. And the exit point was on her back left shoulder blade. She went across it. It went through. Life threatening? My God. Yeah, enough to get air flight, so.

Oh, I mean, he seems distraught. And I don't think there's anybody accusing Alec Baldwin of intentionally hurting Helena Hutchins. The question is whether there was negligence or recklessness in this case, but not is what it is. People were hypothesizing about sabotage, deliberate, you know, placing live ammunition on set. People jumped down some very deep rabbit holes, make some connections because Hollywood and politics intertwine. But by and large, no, nobody's suggesting this was deliberate sabotage, an attempt to get someone hurt. And it would have been so astronomical to even get that to happen

in the first place, because in the ordinary run of things, people are not pulling triggers, even if they are on prop guns. And I'm putting the word prop in quotes, because people think prop guns mean fake guns when they just mean real guns, functional guns that happen to be the property of the set. The idea that this would have been a malicious sabotage, at the time there were some ideas that the crew were upset, people were angry, maybe someone threw in a live round here to sabotage. But deliberate act, no. The question does become, is it criminal negligence? Although I think that question is obviously answered in the affirmative, and to the extent it's answered in the affirmative, who's criminally negligent here under the legal sense to suffer some consequences or get charged with something? shooting Alec Baldwin with her camera. And he was using a gun, a prop gun that he did not think was

loaded with actual live rounds. And he'd been told it was a quote, cold gun. But eventually, they're in support of the lawsuit that they ultimately filed. Lawyers for the family of Helena Hutchins family submitted this video. It was a simulation of what they believe happened. I think it's probably helpful if we show it to the audience now and then we can talk about it. Here it is. It's SOT7. It's disturbing even to see in a simulation, but it shows him. It shows Helena Hutchins a little bit to the side of the camera, like she's kind of cheating the side of the of the camera. He takes out the gun and pulls the trigger.

Now that is what we believe happened, despite what Alec Baldwin would later tell the world, right, that he did point the gun in her direction and did pull the trigger. But Baldwin's one of his bigger curses is the inability to not make public statements at critical junctures he's made a lot of conflicting statements uh but his initial defense was i never pulled the trigger uh he did make some subsequent statements that he pulled the hammer back i am not a firearm aficionado i've learned a fair bit about older guns and guns in this context, but there is the question about whether or not you could pull back the hammer and then release it without pulling the trigger. But most people agree that with a two lock system, as was the case with this firearm,

you would have to have the trigger compressed in order to release the hammer and have it potentially strike the figure with the part of the gun of the bullet to release it. He said he never pulled the trigger, but yet admitted that he pulled the hammer back as per the instructions of Helena Hutchins. But just with respect to that graphic, that graphic was undoubtedly generated to create the image for, I'm not going to say not shock purpose, but so people can visualize how horrific it was. But that graphic is effectively what everyone stated occurred from the beginning. They're doing some scene. Helena is telling Alec what to do with the gun,

how to frame it. And it goes off, but it would always be Alex point of defense that he never pulled the trigger to suggest that maybe there was some malfunction, but that, that theory implausible as it was at the very beginning in any event, seems to have been debunked by the FBI investigation, which concluded someone had to pull the trigger given the nature of this type of gun.

And even if someone pulled the hammer back and released it and it struck the primer and discharged a live ammunition, the trigger would have had to have been compressed in any event, in which case I think we might be getting into a bit of semantics as to whether or not he pulled the trigger versus compressed the trigger, then pulled the hammer back and released the hammer. But separate discussion.

Either way, no, but it was interesting because I think the fact that he lied is going to be very relevant. So I don't think anybody, and I don't think a jury is ever going to believe him that he did not pull the trigger once they get experts on the stand who testify, as you just said, that this is Colt 45 cannot like the law enforcement. The FBI looked at it and said, you cannot fire this gun without pulling the trigger.

There's too many fail safes on it. And they looked at this gun that he used. But notwithstanding all that, let me play the soundbite. He told George Stephanopoulos, among others, that he did not pull the trigger. His top four isn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well,, among others, that he did not pull the trigger his thought for. It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well, the trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger.

So you never pulled the trigger? No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them. Never. Honestly, can I just say, David, that to me is he's a good actor. He actually is a good actor. And you can see it in that clip because I do believe he's lying. I do believe that the law enforcement's correct. He had to have pulled the trigger. And you can see he in that clip because I do believe he's lying. I do believe that the law enforcement's correct. He had to have pulled the trigger.

And you can see he's a good actor. He's selling that story pretty well right there. Well, it's the me thinks he doth protested too much. It's I may be wrong in my body language analysis or behavioral analysis, but I've been a lawyer for long enough, a practicing attorney to have come to certain conclusions that no, no, no, no, no, no. And he does it multiple times in that interview. I think that's a telling no, no, no, no, no. That's like sort of trying to deny something that he feels to be true, just to give Alec Baldwin the

absolute benefit of the doubt and to play devil's advocate, possibly literally, when he says I didn't pull the trigger in his mind, there could be a difference between pulling the trigger to activate the hammer versus you know in a subsequent interview i'm not sure if you're going to have it but he talks about feathering uh the hammer feathering a gun you ever heard of feathering he said with his cuomo interview in his mind there could be a difference between uh compressing the trigger while pulling the hammer back and then releasing the hammer and in his mind it doesn't feel like he pulled the trigger to cause the hammer to snap back i i that's conceptually possible so it might be that he doesn't think he's lying i happen to have a very different theory about all this

my underlying theory i i put it in the video it's my humble opinion so let that be known is that uh i think he might have pulled the trigger on purpose out of frustration or something thinking there were only blanks in there uh i i put together a whole 15 minute analysis breaking down various interviews he gave um i think that's probably more plausible just thought there were blanks uh and didn't mean for any of this to happen the question then becomes how did live rounds get into that gun and onto that set? We're definitely going to get into that. That's the heart of the whole case. I mean, but I'm sort of starting at the beginning, which is the incident, him pulling the trigger. He's the one we all focused on.

Why did he fire a live gun? Did he fire a gun with a live round in it? Did he do that? And I believe I do. I believe he pulled the trigger and he fired a gun thinking that there were only blanks in it or, you know, dummy rounds and that nobody was going to be in danger. He now is denying it because a woman died and he accurately foresaw he was going to be the subject of litigation. But does it matter? Is that is he is he more potentially liable if he actually pulled the trigger? Because his main defense is who the hell knew it had a live round in it?

Well, see, that's now again, I'm a civil lawyer in Quebec and not a criminal lawyer, let alone a criminal lawyer in New Mexico. But there are there are various charges that can result from this deliberate, deliberate act. You know, no negligent homicide or I think it'd be involuntary manslaughter under uh new mexico law yeah i mean when his reaction was why the hell was there a live round in it um and not how the hell did this thing go off that's that's telling to me from an interpretive perspective and it's always good why the hell he said it in many interviews the question that has to be answered is why was there a live round in that gun nobody's going to believe he didn't pull the trigger because from my understanding from the physics of it the only way that that could have

gone off without the trigger being pulled is if it's in you know the the the hammers down and something bangs the hammer into the primer to trigger the primer nobody's going to believe he didn't pull the trigger and that his point that he keeps bringing up over and over again in every interview, we need to find out the only question that's relevant is how did live rounds get there? To me, that confirms the idea that he pulled the trigger. He might be trying to pretend in his own mind retroactively he didn't, but he did. And then the question does become, well, he pulled the trigger on purpose, no idea that there was a live round in there although even pulling the trigger on purpose thinking it's blanks or there's another word i'm looking for this there's different types of dummy rounds even pulling the

trigger then still has risk there was uh someone i forget the name a lot of my information by the way i get from watching these guys eric hunley and mark robert on america's untold stories grobert has a history of life in in in hollywood and he knows you know other cases where there was an individual who put a gun to his head as a joke it was it was a a dummy um it was a didn't this happen with bruce lee's son bruce lee's was different bruce lee's was uh apparently uh something got lodged in the actual gun. I think it was a projectile of some sort. A projectile from the previous shot. And then the dummy round or the blank had enough projection to cause the piece that was stuck in the gun to go out and kill with enough force.

But one actor put a blank gun to his head, pulled the trigger, and the concussive force of the blank going off caused him to die from the injuries a couple days later. So even pulling the trigger thinking it's blanks is a different degree of negligence. It's not like a cap gun. But my theory aside, the FBI confirms that gun didn't go off on its own. Someone had to pull the trigger. And then it's just going to be a question of what types of charges and who

bears the responsibility. How did live rounds get there is one question. But anybody with Baldwin's experience with guns, and it conflicts with some of his statements earlier, he knew you never pull the trigger of a gun, you never point a gun at a person. And he seems to have done both of these things. So there might be shared responsibility. But if it doesn't come down at the very least to Alec Baldwin, in one way or another, we can probably add something else to the list of what politics ruins. Yeah, I mean, we can definitely talk about the fact that he was an executive producer on the project and whether he should have been overseeing a safer work site for all involved. That's definitely one of the theories against him. But here we're still debating whether he could be subjected to civil or potentially criminal liability. Forget the EP role for the

guy as the guy who fired the gun and whether he had a greater obligation to make sure it really was a cold gun, because some of his own fellow fellow actors are saying that, you know, George Clooney came out and said, I never rely on the assistant director to tell me it's a cold gun. It's fine to have him say that, but I always look myself and make sure now that's presuming you would be able to tell. Um, but there are other actors and it wasn't just Clooney coming out to say, we all, we, we all check ourselves and we would also never fire the gun if the armorer were not on set and here the armorer was not on set and Alec Baldwin did not check the gun

himself. So even if you don't expand it to he was an executive producer, even if you just keep it at he shot, he fired the weapon. You know, there's some incremental evidence that he may have behaved negligently. Well, Megan, I've been corrected multiple times in referring to it as a weapon and not a firearm. So I've been conditioned now to refer, and rightly so, to these things as firearms. There's a number of things there in what you just said. George Clooney, Will Smith. First of all, everyone's going to, you know, when something like this happens, come out and show how much smarter they are and how much more responsible they are. To some extent, I understand Baldwin's position, which is I'm not the last line of defense here. That's why we hire an armorer.

I'm not the one to be relied on to open it back up and say, OK, these are dummy rounds. I understand that defense. Baldwin's biggest problem, because he can't he can't stop talking, is that he comes out and says in the George Stephanopoulos interview, I would never point a gun at someone I know better than that. But he did. I would never pull the trigger, even if it's empty,

because pulling the trigger causes minute damages to the firing pin, so you don't do that. But he did. George Clooney coming out and saying, fine, I like to double check, triple check, and look at it. That's good for George Clooney, and I'm probably sufficiently neurotic that I would always do the same thing myself.

Look at the back of the dummy rounds and say, how do I know that this is not a live round? So I can forgive Alex, or at least understand that argument, Alec, that it's not his last line to say, am I the one to decide this versus the armorer? But can you get over the fact that the reason why the armorer wasn't in the church for that scene was because of COVID restrictions? I mean, they're shooting a Western using real, real guns, not supposed to be using real ammunition, but because of safety protocols for COVID, the armor is not in there to inspect for the final, for the final say, and she's not allowed to be on scene. I mean, it's, the world's gone mad. Risk has gone mad and this could very well be chalked up as a

covid accident at its core but what kind of an insane lunatic did not think that she was an essential worker that the armorer uh hannah gutierrez reed was was an essential worker to that scene i mean that's the person it's probably uh this person's been sued she's one of the one of the players she's probably i can't remember what her name is, but there was a woman, hold on, I'll find it, who was overseeing safety on the set. There's too many names in this, Megan. You got the names of the people suing, the names of the armorer, assistant director. I know.

Then you got the investigators. It's nuts. I'll get it. She is one of the people who's been sued in the most recent round of lawsuits. I'll find it. But in any event, okay, so that's Alec Baldwin. I don't think he's going to do very well on a civil lawsuit against him. Already.

Matt Hutchins, the widower of Helena has filed and settled a lawsuit against Baldwin and the, and the production company, um, which we can talk about more later, but he's going to, he's on the receiving end of others. Uh,

there was a woman who I think she, uh, did she write the scripts or she, she brought the scripts in, uh, who's represented by Gloria Allred. Mary, what's her name? Mamie, Mamie, Mamie Mitchell, script supervisor. She's suing the producers, including Baldwin, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She's the one who called 911 after it happened and sounded absolutely distraught um and she's suing him so other people are going to be suing him and trying to sort of pin it on him and he has already

brought in in that case filed a motion to dismiss it got denied um he's brought into that case the armorer and the assistant director who yelled cold gun um and and i understand that and the assistant director who yelled cold gun. Cold gun. And I understand that. And the armorer, meanwhile, is pointing at that, I think, at her boss, who I think she's alleging did not run a safe set. This is the woman who I was trying to get to before, who if you didn't let the armorer on the set during COVID because of COVID restrictions, you're an idiot.

There shouldn't have been a scene with a gun without the armorer, period. But secondly, I think it's very interesting because the armorer is blaming the ammo guy, Seth Kenney, right? That's his name. And his company, PDC. Well, everybody's going to go after everybody. But the armorer versus Seth Kenney is where the game is at, in my legal opinion. Yes. And and I mean, I say yes, there's not yes and no, because if the armor, not the armor, sorry, if the if Seth Kenny and PDC actually provided live ammunition to the set when they were not supposed to, it's conceivable that Seth Kenney and PDC provided live ammunition

for a totally legitimate reason. I mean, you could use live ammunition for firing range off offset. But if they were mixed in with dummy rounds, well, that's that's I mean, that is that's where you get negligence per se. That's that is the definition of negligence. That's why at the end of the day, there's going to have to be a criminal trial for this. And then the only question is going to be, you know, how do they apportion the responsibility? And what does the evidence bear out? And there's a concept, at least in Canadian law, I don't know if it's going to be the same under the US law, but actus novis.

Even if someone had done something negligent, did someone else do something further down the line that severed any responsibility that could have ever been attributed to the initial actor? I'm imagining people are going to say that. Like, okay, Seth Kenny says, look, I sold you live rounds. Maybe he has a defense that it wasn't for the set. It should never have been there. If

indeed it comes out that live ammunition was mixed with dummy rounds that were sold and delivered by PDC, Seth Kenney. OK, well, then I definitely see a connection in law. In fact, then the issue is going to be, well, if nobody pulls the trigger, this never happens. Or if the armor does their job properly, this never happens. Why didn't you spot it? So let's I want to get to that.

Yes, because everybody's doing one of these. Like it was it was her. It was him. It's a Spider-Man meme on the interwebs. It's everybody's fault. I'm not responsible and if i'm responsible i'm the least responsible only give me 10 of it um so so here's she's gonna say seth kenny gave her a box or boxes of ammo that had both dummy rounds and live rounds in them something she never expected and would never expect and would never expect.

And just for the audience, I've had this explained to me. The difference between a dummy round and a blank is a blank actually produces smoke and makes a sound. And it's sort of like an imitation bullet with like imitation things about it, like the smoke and so on. A dummy round is just like, it's just a lookalike. It's just a pretty little lookalike. It doesn't do any of those fancy things. And these were supposed to be dummy rounds because you can see them in a Colt 45. All you needed to do was see the bullets in the gun so that you would believe this was a real loaded gun. Yeah, well, that's it.

The blanks have reduced projectile capacity. Dummies are pure prop. There's a number of distinctions which are not necessarily, you know, you don't need to flesh them out in detail. The gun aficionados definitely know the difference in detail. But if it turns out that live ammunition was mixed in with blanks. Dummies. Bls are dummies. There's still apparently it's not all that easy to tell the difference. Either you have to look at the back of the bullets to see what color you have to shake them.

Even yes, you do. Trust me, I have this from a very good source that this armorer was placed in the position in that truck of trying to decide whether these were, you know, putting loading up these firearms firearm. And she's claiming that she was given a box that had both in it. And the way that you would tell is you shake it and it makes a noise or the real one makes a noise, but that's how you check. And you have to make sure everything going in there does what the dummy does, which is either they all made the noise or none of them made the noise.

Forgive me for not knowing the difference. Oh, the aficionados are going to be, you know, yelling at their screens for both of us here. I can understand, you know, if they have reduced projectile capacity, there's going to be a less gunpowder, so it will shake.

Okay, either there's a way to tell the difference. If that's going to be the defense, however, there should never have been live rounds on set to begin with. But then the question is, whose fault is that? Seth Kenny for delivering it, armors for accepting it, producers for allowing it to happen. Everyone will share responsibility in this at the end of the day. The only question is apportionment and whether or not people can say this is where the buck stops in terms of my responsibility um but no i mean baldwin's lawsuit makes some allegations um which they're allegations but look you know pretty damning in terms of what was delivered to the set but it's it's you have to see

defenses there could be the defense that someone ordered the live rounds for offset shooting. And so then Seth Kenney's off the hook, I mean, in theory. But the reports are that what was in the gun, it was a mixture. You had the live round, and I think the rest of them were dummy. So it's not like she loaded a gun with all live rounds from the wrong box that was on set for a legitimate purpose of some sort. You know, that's not possible. She loaded one dummy round and I think, I'm sorry, one live round and the rest of them dummy rounds. And they said that they retrieved the boxes from the

armorer's truck and they did find more of this combination. And so, and that's why she's pointing the finger at the at the the ammo guy, Seth Kenney, saying you gave me those boxes like that. You put me in a position to endanger everybody. And he's going to say, hey, no, I didn't. And B, if I did, it's literally your job to tell the difference. That's why you're there to to be a fail safe just in case an accident like that happens or something fell over and they in a hast safe, just in case an accident like that happens. Or something fell over and they, in a haste, put all the bullets back together in a box and mixed them up. I mean, that would be an actus novus. They were separate at the beginning.

Something happened and then they just put them all together in a box. There's conceivable defenses there. But true, at the end of the day, it's the armorer who's supposed to know the difference apparently from from baldwin's lawsuit there was also a live round in the rifle so but bottom line what the hell is going on on that set and then bottom line uh how the heck do you make a movie where you have a scene like this but because of covid protocol in the middle of the new mexico desert uh you don't allow the armor to go in. Can she, can you get policymakers involved in this? I mean, this is a question of policy

that's having real life impact, but end of the day, and most people are of this opinion, the buck stops with the person who pulled the trigger of a prop gun pointed at a human. Now, you might have- Before we get back to him, back to Alex, Alec, you got the the the ammo guy, Kenny.

You got Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer, who is the daughter. She's young, but she's the daughter of like the most respected armorer in all of Hollywood. And so presumably was well trained, though she's very young. So we don't know for sure. And then from her, it goes to David Halls, the assistant director, who is the one who handed the weapon to Baldwin and yelled cold gun, indicating that it did not contain live rounds. Now, this guy, he's also being sued. In the chain so far, to me, he's the least culpable. This guy doesn't he has no squat. The assistant director doesn't know.

How is the armorer going to make a mistake of not knowing the difference between the dummy round and the live round? And the assistant director, whose job encompasses way more than the guns, he's supposed to know? This is not to point fingers or try to get people in trouble, just conceptually. If if hall is not expected to know the difference and in fact does not know the difference it could be argued he then has no business declaring a gun a cold gun a safe gun a prop gun um and so by we don't we don't know what the standard is what the industry standard well i i i don't know what the industry standard is but i can tell you the legal standard is if he's if he's reass reassuring someone of something that he has no business reassuring them of, there's definitely

going to be some blame game in the attribution of responsibility. But that's true. If the industry standard is the armorer gives you the gun and we all rely on the armorer and really the armorer is the last line of defense, and that's what every movie set accepts, then I don't think this guy is going to he would he wouldn't be found liable for not knowing himself independently well on the set now as it goes where the armor is not allowed there and then the obligation is passed on to the assistant director who then makes an affirmative action to say cold gun and gives it to alec you know at the bottom the end of the day it's none of this should be happening but uh they're all they're all contributing in one way or another to an ultimately uh the death of

a human but i mean what can you say that he he had an action that he proactively did declared it a cold gun and then handed it to alec and then alec uh thinking it's a cold gun and then handed it to Alec. And then Alec, uh, thinking it's a cold gun because the AD says it is, uh, should still be treating it like an actual firearm and obviously wasn't. So Paul's going to say, look, I didn't know. So why did I say what I said? I don't know. But at the end of the day, Alec should have treated like a real gun as is the protocol ended.

Yeah. Here's one thing. Um, now he, I think this is from, I'm not sure where we got this. I think it may be L.A. Times, maybe Santa Fe County Sheriff. Dave Hall is the guy we're talking about. Assistant director told an investigator that he had not checked all of the rounds in the gun. So he did not open it. He did not check. Or if he did open it, he didn't check each round. And he says, as he should have, according to an affidavit, he said the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, had opened the gun for him to inspect. He advised that he should have checked all of them, but he didn't and couldn't recall if she spun the drum. People who are Second Amendment supporters are going to say, this is exactly what happens when people are totally ignorant as it relates to the functioning of firearms. Like, okay, fine. I should have done it. These are people treating guns like toys, like props on a set

without fully appreciating that they are tools that can cause death, that they're intended to do certain damage by their essence. They're just willy-nilly, flippantly, cold gun here, I flipped it, and now I hand it off to you. And now Alex is like, I got a cold gun. Oh, the director's telling me to point it at her?

I mean, I have become much more sensitive to Second Amendment arguments, and even with my own family. If it's a Nerf gun gun you don't point it at someone let alone a real functional firearm uh even on set and it's not because someone says point it at me because i want to know if i got the shot that you do it everything about this was dangerous a to z but how did live animation get there i like this point because you're right. Maybe I'm giving this assistant director too much of a pass. It's like,

if I were placed in charge as the AD, if I were the last person to touch the gun before it goes to the guy who is going to be handling it and pointing it at people, which is another question about whether he should have done that, I'd take a bunch of classes. I'd make sure I got whatever certification was necessary. I would make myself as knowledgeable, if not more, than the armorer if I accepted that huge responsibility. So I take your point. That's a good point about him. But that also brings into – yeah, go ahead.

Just one other thing. I'm known to be somewhat neurotic. If I'm Adam, if I'm Hull, and I'm known to be somewhat neurotic. If I'm Adam, if I'm Hall and I'm taking this gun, I go outside and a chain of custody. I say, Hannah, look at the back. I don't know a dummy round from a live round. Look at this one last time. And I, after getting the okay, carry it myself and then give it to Baldwin. And the idea that this gun was actually the chain of custody of this of this

prop uh there were big gaps in it i think there was an issue of them going to lunch and another issue which we might want to remember to touch on is um hannah guterres reed saying that one of the bullets she was having trouble fitting it in and she cleaned it off to make it fit um the idea that there's uh open windows of of the chain of custody of the thing is a big issue. But if I'm Hull, and hindsight is 20-20, but neurosis is 20-20 going forward, I take this out. Armorer can't come in. I go out, make sure that she sees it, gives the okay, and uninterrupted, bring it to Alec. But that's not a question of saying what you should have done. It's a horrible tragedy. Hindsight is 20-20, but sometimes foresight is as well.

The other person that we haven't yet talked about is the person who oversaw safety on the set, props on the set. Hannah Gutierrez reads direct report. What kind of an environment was this person maintaining? What kind of environment were her bosses the producers of the whole show maintaining because there were reports of at least two accidental discharges with the guns prior to this there was a guy i think it was a cameraman who complained that this was not a safe set prior to this he was it was more of like a union complaint but still he was saying this is not a safe set. And if there's any

evidence at all of this person not providing, let's say, the actors with appropriate training on how to use the gun and what's expected of you because of budget constraints, because of COVID restraints, because of time constraints, that person, too, could very well be on the hook. Absolutely. And this is why also Baldwin in his interview with Cuomo was trying to draw, I think, a legal distinction that won't actually be recognized in law between the producers. There's various types of producers. And Alec Baldwin was only an artistic, creative, you know, creative type producer. Didn't have any say in hiring, firing production, et cetera. Was there maybe by name only, et cetera. At the

end of the day, they're all, they're all producers and responsible for safety on set, whether or not within the industry, one only takes care of artistic direction and not hiring and firing. Um, the idea though, hold on. I just, I lost my lost my thought there oh but i was saying they're gonna go after this safety issues yeah no the safety issues apparently they were known and you know even according to i think alec baldwin said it in one of the interviews i didn't hear about any safety issues until someone mentioned it in passing but it was mostly about the hotel accommodations and before i could fix the hotel accommodations they all walked off set the day before this happened um to say that there were no warnings i don't think anyone's going to believe

when an accidental discharge occurs twice of a of a blank not of a live ammunition a live round everybody knows and if we're going back to not to make theories more solid but the idea that it might have been known to some people that there were two accidental discharges and it's no more serious than that. People's ears ring for a few seconds. You might get into the sort of behavior where it's not that big of a deal if there's another accidental discharge or maybe even a deliberate discharge of a blank for whatever the reason. So it's yeah, the past is prologue in a sense. And they knew that there were issues. There were complaints, whether or not Alec was fully aware, fully in the thick of it.

I think even by his own subsequent statements, he was made aware of it shortly before the incident and people walked off set the day of, and then you continue to do this. It's just, it's schlock, schlocklock business schlock safety control from beginning to end. And unfortunately, one person has bore the brunt of that that negligence. Well, obviously, Helena Hutchins. But I will say watching this from the outside, I feel bad. I feel bad for everyone. Honestly, I even feel bad for Baldwin.

It's such a terrible tragedy. And I do believe while they behaved negligently, this was an accident. I mean, it was not intended by any of them. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. But I also really feel bad for this young armorer because I see Alec Baldwin with his multimillion dollar lawyers and PR teams hanging her out to dry. And she has no money. And she's very young. And I can just you can see what's happening. His PR machine has decided she's to blame and not him. And what does this girl have to defend herself? Nothing, right? She's got nothing. Well, I'll second one thought I feel bad for everybody involved as well. And even alec baldwin he he might be a loathsome human he might be a political uh you know he might be a detestable political person

as well i don't think well i don't think anybody intended this to happen uh period and and it's it's devastating and disastrous for everyone involved even even uh mitchell who's who's suing as well you know it's not just because nothing happened to them that they're not suffering trauma from having witnessed this and having been in his presence. But from a legal perspective, obviously, if I'm Baldwin being sued, I'm obviously trying to not pass the buck in an irresponsible sense. He might still be to blame for having pulled the trigger. But I would obviously, as his attorney, tell you're going after the people who you think, you know, should have known that those live rounds were there, or who may have brought them

in on their own. Because typically, the truth comes out at trial when evidence is presented, there might be really stupid reasons for which that live ammunition was on set. And it might have to do with negligence by or even worse, in the sense that it was brought on deliberately when they were having fun, you know, during off hours shooting live rounds in the desert, you know, got to kill time, if that, that might be the case. Or it might just be the case that she should have known and she should never put Baldwin in that position, even if he should never pull the trigger. As his attorney, I'd be I'd be doing the same thing. Money aside,

this is actually one of those issues where it's a question of principle and clearing one's name in as much as one's name can be cleared. But at the end of the day, he still pulled the trigger. So even if she were negligent and he succeeds partially there, he still pulled the trigger himself of a real gun pointing at a real human with real tragic consequences. Well, and also doesn't seem to feel any guilt about it. That's what he told George Stephanopoulos, which wound up getting him in some hot water with Helena Hutchins' widow, widower. Here's Alec Baldwin with Stephanopoulos on guilt, top five.

Your emotions are so clearly so right there on the surface. You felt shock. You felt surface. You felt shock. You felt anger. You felt sadness. Do you feel guilt? No, no. I feel that there is, I feel that someone is responsible for what happened. And I can't say who that is, but I know it's not me.

And then Mattutchins comes out stand back as well i want to talk about this admission the husband was upset but not just by that but by everything he said in that stefanopoulos interview and this is what he said over on the today show afterward watching him i just felt so angry Just so angry to see him talk about her death so publicly in such a detailed way and then to not accept any responsibility after having just described killing her. He said essentially he felt grief but no guilt. Almost sounds like he was the victim. And hearing him blame Helena in the interview and shift responsibility to others and seeing him cry about it, I just feel like, are we really supposed to feel bad about you, Mr. Baldwin? What do you make of that whole thing?

I don't believe Baldwin when he says, I don't feel guilt. It's the no, no, it's, it's the, it's, he's trying to reassure himself. And I think this is self protection, sort of psychological defense mechanisms. He's trying to convince himself he doesn't feel guilty. I think he does setting that aside to say that he doesn't feel guilt optically is terrible. Uh, messaging wise is terrible. He should feel guilty now whether or not he feels responsible is different than guilt but of course he should feel guilty as far as what uh hutchins husband said he said i i have 100 i agree with it giving this interview is is rubbing the trauma in the face of the family um in the interview suggesting it was her fault well she told me to do it

she told me to do what i said i would never do because i have such experience with firearms is a mutually uh a lot incompatible defense but it's it's it's insensitive he should he would have been better off just shutting up legally and also from the perspective of the grieving family to see this guy doing you know doing interviews with ge George Stephanopoulos, the softest softball of an interview you can possibly imagine, to effectively paint himself as a victim. Yes, the husband is grieving and right to be pissed off. And I know, and Stephanopoulos, let him. I mean, at least act the role of an impartial interviewer to say, what do you mean you don't feel guilty? This is outrageous. You killed a woman. I understand you're saying it was unintentional, but how can you not feel guilt?

Like at least act it if you're not actually feeling the indignation. I mean, this is the problem with GMA when it came to the Jussie Smollett case too. And Robin Roberts gave him the biggest butt kiss in ever given in all of interviewing. And they wound up embarrassed because we all know that that was a hoax with so said a jury. So in any event, just more media malpractice there. I I wonder, though, what's going to happen with Matt Hutchins, the widower, because he did file a lawsuit. It's been settled. That one was taken care of quick. And undoubtedly, Alec Baldwin's insurance company on the movie set paid it i don't know what the settlement was but i'm sure it was a big one and weirdly one of the terms of the settlement was that matt hudgens would be an executive producer

of the revived movie rust as it continues shooting and gets made and then released with this same cast i i can't i don't i got nothing david i don't know i don't get it okay i'll um there are theories floating around some are mine and some are not mine um the the settlement is to be expected i mean the settlement is the admission of guilt that you know he could say i'm not settling this i want to go to i want to go to civil trial and get a judgment it'll make me feel better than the settlement settlement is as good as admission of responsibility from what i understand finances are not uh you know a meaningful consideration here so it's not as though this was about the money from hutchins family from what i understand very well to do regardless um it's the executive producer aspect which will raise a number of

eyebrows now and not to be too cynical and to give uh the benefit of cynical doubt to the husband it's conceivable you know internally he says i don't want my wife's death to be in vain at the very least this should be her legacy finish the project um and maybe in his mind he says okay the way the way to commemorate her is to be executive producer and make sure that this happens um i i don't know there are some people baldwin i mean that's the thing that's like okay maybe it's one thing it was like we're gonna start anew we're going to start anew. We're going to have different actors. We're going to, you know, it's the same cast. He's going to oversee some set with Alec Baldwin. I mean, people are going to go see this out of a voyeuristic, ghoulish desire to see the

scene in which the woman was killed. Like, I just can't understand. God forbid I ever knew somebody who suffered a tragedy like this. My advice would be run, run. this is not something you want to revive i i don't know anything about i think the law the guy the husband's a lawyer he's not even in the film business yeah and i won't get into too many things theories that can neither be proven nor disproven i can understand the idea that he wants his wife's memory to live on and this project should not end with her with her death. OK, executive producer, from what I understand of the industry, and this is coming from people who are smarter than me or know it better.

It's typically they call it a sort of an honorary title. It's about somebody. Yes, it's to show someone raised money for the movie. So maybe maybe he thinks or just to show you're important. Yeah, or just, you know, to honor, and maybe that's the way he's visualizing this in his mind.

One of the theories, and again, this is a shout out to Eric Hundley and Mark Robert, some of the theories about politics in this is that they sort of, if you want to protect Alec Baldwin, for whatever the reason,

political connections, stardom, whatever, a way to try to put some pressure on prosecutors not to prosecute settle between the two main parties and so that you say well look there's been some justice here but not only is there a settlement we're going to continue production of the movie it would be very bizarre if you started pressing charges against the people who are now making the movie together in the to the extent that some of them stay in the same production i suspect some of them would not be in the continued production others would so if they settle the plaintiff in the civil suit and the uh extended victim in a criminal suit says well now we're partners in this

so it'd be very weird if you actually prosecute my partner in this project well that you know that could be sort of the wink wink nudge nudge let's not press charges against baldwin um that would be a more sinister way of looking at it for the time being you know hutchins is a grieving widow he's got he's got a kid who's going to grow up without a mother now i i'll go to the side of he wants to see this project come to fruition he doesn't want his wife's death uh to be the you know to you know be extinguished with with this her project which was you know she was in love with this project as well uh but people will have theories and they're not going to be wrong for hypothesizing as to what the heck is going on the whole thing is shocking to me it's shocking to me that he would want the project to go forward with Alec Baldwin and that he would want his name on it.

I just, you know, God bless this man. He's been through a horrific tragedy. I just, to me, it's like all this is happening so fast. I do wonder whether he's going to regret that someday because he's, he suffered the loss. He sued. He watched this guy go all over television, defending himself and smearing his wife. And then he settled all within this like eight month period it's too too much too soon for this guy and and now they're going to resume the production i assume they're not going to have the same armorer

and the same ammo provider and the same ad i mean you you assume but i mean who the heck knows there's got there's continuity issues not only in terms of actors, but in terms of style, et cetera. I suspect stylistically it's easier to have a shift or not notice a difference, but obviously with the actors, you can't. But yeah, it's bizarre enough that people will ask questions. I don't know if there was, in the settlements,

if there's a portion of revenue splitting from the movie, but as an executive producer, one can assume or imagine that that might be sure there is although yeah revenue might not be the big issue but it is true megan it's a good point like some people are going to see this because they want to just see the horror others are going to you know i think most people are not going to say i want to see this movie would have been otherwise it's i want to go uh live a piece of this this tragedy um and so it's going to be sort of a gawking rubberneck. Yes, exactly. I was just going to use that term, rubberneck. It's the same reason we rubberneck. You know, God forgive us all. We do it. We want to see what's there. We're all fascinated by our

own mortality. We all know it's going to come for us eventually. We hope it's not going to come in a gruesome way like a car accident or an accidental shooting. But there's something very human about wanting more information about a situation like this. And then it can veer over into exploitative. And this will because there will be people not wishing any of these characters well, who will be like, yeah, yeah. Oh, you know, I mean, it's just going to be, it's going to be gross. Bottom line, you still have investors and you still have interests that don't want to see this end now because it's a non-monetizable waste as is. So you even have economic interests, which are very sinister, which are like, okay, forget the tragedy. And by the way,

or even exploit the tragedy. It'll make it even more marketable. We'll make more money off of this and we'll get back our investments. That sounds more like Hollywood. That sounds more like them. But now, as we divvy up the responsibilities between the guy with the ammo, the armorer, the AD, Alec Baldwin, the woman who oversaw the props on the set and sort of ran herd on the crew, who gets rehired could be potentially relevant. Like, who makes that decision? And is it an admission by the production company if the if the armorer doesn't come back they think it was her if the ammo guy doesn't come back they think

it was him right like that could be interesting too well i as far as that there's an easy answer to that i don't expect uh maybe mitchell to come back uh and and i don't think anyone she's the one suing the script she's the one supervisor yeah i don't expect the armorer to come back uh and and i don't think anyone she's the one suing the script she's the one supervisor yeah i don't expect the armor to come back because i think some of these people are going to have experienced professional trauma to such a degree that they're going to find other lines of work right now um yeah so i i i've heard people you know discuss that like okay if this person doesn't come back they're tacitly blaming them i think that the people behind the camera are probably not going to come back just because it would be too traumatic. The question is going to be with Sousa.

Is he going to come back as the director? That I could see happening. Definitely a different armorer, if only for insurance purposes. I mean, who's going to insure this movie going forward if the person who was responsible for a death or involved in it, culpable or not, is back on? No, a new armorer, I don't know what the other positions would be that you'd have to fill for liability insurance reasons.

Stylistically, I could see the director coming back, not the assistant director, and Baldwin obviously has to be there. But no, you could easily explain away not coming back without it meaning any form of culpability i can't imagine joel seuss is going to come back to wounded by the same bullet that killed helena but who the hell knows now wait so let me let let's talk a little bit about the civil suits and what's going to happen criminally because now the sheriff's investigation is complete he's handed over uh his file to the da mary carmack

altwise santa fe county da i don't know if i'm pronouncing that correctly a-l-t-w-i-e-s and she's going to have some assistance brought in because they sought extra funding saying that he may have as many as four people to indict that could have just been puffery to try to get as much of a budget as possible for the da's office we don't know no one's been charged yet um but looking at it yourself we'll do the criminal then we'll do the civil all all all of the above likely to get charged they say as many as four so that that's we did um ammo armorer ad alec and maybe prop gal that's five so well five and six if you include the company no you wouldn't criminally we won't do the company um so i'd say prop gal is the most she's probably the first to

be eliminated from the chain of potential criminal charges though she could be involved civilly depending i see i'm not totally clear on the evidence that um about the intermingling of live rounds with dummy rounds on set so depending on that factor i might be inclined to think that um kenny might not face criminal charges just because i don't know what the evidence is in terms of what was delivered what was it well yeah the ammo guy was it intermingled when it was delivered in baldwin's lawsuit you know they show some pictures of a messy looking business, but that's, that's neither here nor there. And four pictures does not characterize a business, but I don't know what the evidence there is. We know that there were live rounds on set. The question is, we know the armor is saying it, but we don't know whether it's

true. Uh, I think it's definitively known that there were a lot. Oh, the armor was saying that they were intermingled. Yes. She's blaming him. She's she's definitely blaming the the M.O. guy, of course. For sure. But in terms of criminal charges and probable cause, Seth Kenney, that's one where I have a big question mark. But it does depend on the evidence that they have in terms of what was delivered, what was ordered, what was delivered. But criminally, I would be hard-pressed to not think, and we're talking like involuntary manslaughter in this case, where the negligence comes in under New Mexico law, under my cursory understanding

from what I've looked up or heard as well from others. The negligence comes in with involuntary manslaughter. Baldwin, it should be a no-brainer in terms of the most obvious charge. The armorer, the AD, you know, potentially. I mean, this is all contributive to a death. So involuntary mass slaughter. I'd go with four and possibly five.

But my biggest caveat is with Seth Kenney, the production guy. Interesting. is a good point because she's definitely going to allege that the armorer is definitely going to say it was him him him he's patient zero seth kenny if it weren't for him and his screwing up of the ammo none of this would have happened but it's one thing to say it's another thing to prove it and how does she prove that he delivered mixed rounds in the same box to her? That's a tall order. Even more. It's what evidence they would have to charge.

So it wouldn't even be what she has to prove. It's what evidence do they have to even charge Seth Kenney? So, I mean. Well, her testimony. Her testimony is evidence. True. And so, well, that's true. But there has to be harder evidence in terms of purchase orders, delivery.

Maybe somebody, or maybe somebody was in the truck with her. Maybe somebody after the accident went back to the truck and saw exactly what was there, like mixed, you know, boxes and boxes. If there were boxes and boxes of mixed, you'd be much more likely to blame it on the ammo guy than there was a spill and this ridiculous armorer completely blew off every responsibility and just threw them all in there. It's if that's the case that one would deserve to get charged if they delivered blank and dummy blank and live rounds in the same case, the same box. I don't see how they cannot charge anybody. At the end of the day, someone got killed through an accident.

It's not up for the prosecutors to say, oh, you know, people feel bad and let's move on. Someone died. There was clearly negligence somewhere. And it might just have to come out through the evidence who bears what portion of the responsibility. But yeah, four or five charges seem realistic and probable at this point in time. Criminal.

What role is Alec Baldwin's celebrity going to have in all this? If he gets charged, you know, both with the DA. DAs are human. You know, they tend to be bowled over by big names and certainly juries.

You know, it's New Mexico is not LA. They're probably not as used to seeing big name defendants come through courts. I don't know. I just worry that his celebrity may have an outsized role in the charges. I'm tainted by how much I've seen politics infiltrate and ruin everything. I think the political side of it might have the bigger impact. That's a good point too. It's a known fact. He's a, it's a known fact. He's a pretty vocal Democrat supporter, Democrat donor,

from what I understand, but that politics and celebrity are, you know, basically the same thing with different angles. Yeah. That could come into play. There could be some sympathy, but at the end of the day,

also from my understanding, the involuntary manslaughter, I think it's like either a minimum, a maximum of 18 months. So it's like at the end of the day also from my understanding the involuntary manslaughter i think it's like either a minimum a maximum of 18 months so it's like at the end of the day they might it might be short sentences that are symbolic of sorts but that some form of justice has to occur at the criminal side but we'll see if no charges it's um in it'll be mind-blowing flabbergasting and i will say yet again politics ruins everything because politically speaking, if this were the other way around, they would be using it and exploiting it for the purposes of making a point about firearms and Second Amendment issues.

They would weaponize it to make the point. If they decide not to press charges here, one can only assume that they are invertedly weaponizing another aspect of politics. That's a good point. You're saying if this were an open Republican actor like a Clint Eastwood. James Woods. What would be the sympathy if it were James Woods? And I like James Woods. I'm not saying this because I don't like him. Imagine if it were James Woods. I mean, this would be a media field day. John Boyd. Can't think of another one. They don't really come out. I don't know. John Boyd. Can't think of another one. Well, they don't really come out.

I don't know. Tina Carano. Who am I thinking about? The Dirty Jobs guy. Mike Rowe. Oh, Mike Rowe. It would be a field day. But it's Alec Baldwin.

And so, you know, George Stephanopoulos, the cleanup guy, interviews him. Yeah, no, it's the same way that they're covering for this FTX guy who donated all this, you know, these billions. Well, he raised billions and he donated tens of millions to Democrats. And the New York Times writes about him like, good guy, hard in the right place, may have made a sad little mistake in a difficult industry. Gets it gets even worse. I don't know if you saw the Washington Post, but the Washington Post, it's not even a puff piece. It's outright propaganda. The headline or at least one of the persons tweeted um the ftx crypto going bust or collapsing frustrates this individual's

ability to prevent pandemics something along those lines like like he was he because he was donating so much money to preventing pandemics that the collapse is going to frustrate this philanthropist's uh desire to prevent the next pandemic it's it's it's it's in your face at this point. But just imagine what would have been the different angle from the media had the politics of this situation been different. If he had donated millions to figure out whether this came from a lab and the side effects of the vaccine, can you imagine how they would condemn him? It's nuts.

But it's also that the FTX is a rabbit hole for another day. But my guess. No, it's a good one. I will say I love the fact that the guy admitted to the Vox reporter that it was all bullshit. All the woke nonsense was just to tell the left what they wanted to hear. He said it. He said it out loud. He was like, great.

I'm so glad that like he basically mocked them. Like, you're so stupid. You and all your dumb puff pieces i was never on your team i was using you assholes to cover up my shit and you bought it hook line and sinker i am like what's worse than that is like someone said um who was it or just ask the question you know how did these two dweebs dupe people into investing they didn't do people they there were people celebrities celebrities, investors, who were, for whatever the reason, vouching for these two people who couldn't convince an

ordinary investor to put money in. What was going on here? There's a deeper story to all of this, but as the evidence unfolds, we'll see where that goes. All right, let's talk about Gloria Allred mamie mitchell who we've mentioned a couple of times here who is the script supervisor uh suing the producers as i said alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress intentional infliction here's gloria from a november 2021 press conference mr baldwin should have assumed that the gun in question was loaded unless and until it was demonstrated to him that it was not or checked by him that it was not loaded. Even if the assistant director made an alleged statement to Mr. Baldwin that the gun he was handing to Mr. Baldwin

was a, quote, cold gun, end quote. Mr. Baldwin should not have relied on such a statement. Mr. Baldwin chose to play Russian roulette when he fired a gun without checking it. And this, she went on to say in her claim, again, filed November of last year, because now it's been upheld after a motion to dismiss, that there was nothing in the script about the gun being discharged by Baldwin or any other person. They're saying it was not in the script for him to fire.

Once again, if he fired, he did it on his own. It was like a joyride. Well, he didn't mean to. He says he didn't pull the trigger, which would necessarily imply he did not mean to pull the trigger if he did or he didn't. I don't think that's the salient point. First of all, from that, that was a zoomed in or cropped in image from that interview when she was presenting the case with Mamie Mitchell next to her. Behind them was a big banner of the name of the law firm, which I thought was...

I thought it was... It's classic Gloria. Yeah. It wouldn't give lawyers a good name to begin with if we ever deserved it, but it was very in your face. But her arguments there are pretty even poorly described because she says it was up to alec to check the gun to make sure it was it was empty well no because if you're using blanks or dummies because when you're have an extreme close-up an ecu as they say in the industry it has to have bullets in so that you're not having a close-up of a gun that doesn't have bullets in it nobody's going to buy it so even by her own statements it wasn't up to Alec to make sure it was empty. It's going

to be arguable as to whether or not it was at the end of the day, bottom line up to Alec to make sure that the rounds in it were dummy or blanks. But one thing for sure, at the end of the day, it was up to Alec not to ever pull that trigger. Certainly, certainly if it's also true that nothing called for it in the script, which by all accounts, nothing did because this was a rehearsal just to get a close up of the gun. So she had some too bad or weaker arguments that I think she tried to correct in that longer interview by saying, you know, even if Hall said it was a cold gun, he shouldn't have relied on it. He could have relied on Hall that it was a cold gun, but he still should never have pulled the trigger, period. And so now that the FBI has concluded, it didn't go off on its own as if we needed an eight month FBI investigation to conclude

that he should not have pulled the trigger, period, even if he were within his rights to conclude or assume that it was a cold gun with blanks because he was assured of that. So this is the big civil lawsuit right now in which everybody's pointing the finger at each other because it's just withstood a motion to dismiss which is very very bad news for alec baldwin um that's that was the big his big chance to get rid of it was on the papers and the judges said no i'm not getting rid of it on the papers so he's going to have to go through discovery and he's going to have to either settle or go to a jury and now he's brought in the armorer she she's bringing in the ammo guy and um a little bit of color on that too just to add to our earlier discussion they're saying uh she she is accusing um seth kenny the ammo guy of supplying her with mislabeled

dummy ammunition that included live rounds that's what it says uh and then also describes a rushed and chaotic environment on the set which created created a quote, perfect storm for safety breaches. Again, that goes back to the executive producers. It goes back to her immediate supervisor and what that person did to make sure that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was able to do her job safely and train the actor safely and do all the things that you're supposed to do. There's also been a series of text messages released between Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and Seth Kenney, the armorer and the ammo guy. The sheriff's office released a trove of documents. She asks Kenney whether she can shoot hot rounds on a movie set. Sounds almost like, you know, for fun, like in our downtime. Kenney

warns her never to shoot live ammo out of prop guns, calling it a serious mistake that, quote, always ends in tears. But Gutierrez-Reed brushes him off, telling him, quote, I'm still going to shoot mine. The records indicate an email from Lane Looper, a camera assistant to production manager Roe Walters about gun safety concerns, saying, quote, during the filming of gunfights on this job, things are often played very fast and loose. So far, there have been two accidental weapons discharges. To be clear, there are no safety meetings. And just one other thing, as I mentioned, the armorer's dad is Thel Reed, and he's like the most legendary armorer in Hollywood. He told investigators that he once brought live ammo to a training session for Seth Kenny, who kept some of that ammo, according to the affidavit.

So this is him trying to help his daughter by saying maybe Seth got the ammo from me and mixed it in there. I don't know whether it's going to be helpful or not, but we're starting to see potentially the chain into how those bullets got on set, how it wasn't intentional, but it was very negligent, and how if this armor really did do shooting with the live rounds someplace on the set for fun like her liability just went through the roof it's um if this is the unfortunate thing like in law it's not a question of who you like who you feel bad for i mean it's it's a game of chess where you just can anticipate the

arguments or the next moves. It's one of two things. And a good thing you brought up that text thread because there were rumors of, I think it's called plinking, where they were shooting live rounds on set. You're in the desert, time to kill, have a little fun. But even by Hannah's own, let's just take it at its word. She discovered that there was live rounds mixed in with the dummy rounds a lawyer my question is going to be when did you discover that because if you discovered it at any moment prior to the incident that's when you shut everything down

that's what she's gonna say after for sure she's gonna say i had no idea well yeah i went back afterwards and then noticed that she'll say afterwards, but then you got to reconcile that with her asking Seth Kenney about shooting live rounds or hot rounds on set, where it sounds like people knew that there were hot rounds on set. They might have just gotten mixed up. They might have forgot that they left one round in the gun after they were having target practice. Oh, my God. But the question is, when did anybody know that they were mixed in? If it was any time before that you shut everything down, the absence of, of,

of, or the lack of security meetings and all this stuff, it's going to be a set issue. It's going to be a production issue, but also, you know, that doesn't absolve the armor. It's going to be an armor issue.

If they're not having safety meetings, someone's got to speak up and say something. And if it's your job to ensure safety on that, on that aspect of the film, and you say nothing production also, but people are hired to do their jobs. So you can anticipate the arguments and what the evidence is going to have to be one way or the other. But that text thread and that question is very damning. And there were rumors that people were firing live rounds or plinking. All allegations, and everyone has to bear in mind, Baldwin's allegations are not proven fact, nor are Mitchell's in her suit. But yeah, there's serious questions as to what and when. Well, and Alec Baldwin's countersuit really lays out what we're discussing. He has sued

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film's armorer. He has sued Dave Halls, the first assistant director, who said cold gun and gave him the gun. Sarah Zachary, the crew member in charge of props, who we mentioned, and Seth Kenney, who was the primary supplier of guns and ammo to the film set. And he alleged they did not fulfill their professional duty to maintain safety on the set. Now, Alec Baldwin previously, when he was looking at a

lawsuit and he hadn't yet fired back, forgive the pun, he didn't much like it when you sue somebody who has no money, which I think none of these people does. Here's what he said about lawsuits in general getting filed in this case at SOT 8. What you have is a certain group of people, litigants and whatever, on whatever side, who their attitude is, well, the people who likely seem negligent have no money. And the people who have money are not negligent. But we're not going to let that stop us from doing what we need to do in terms of litigation. So we have people that are suing people that they think are deep pockets litigants or they're going to be able to well why sue people if you're not going to get money that's what you're doing it for

good question why are you doing it alec no it's it's it's pathological he's he's he just needs to shut up i mean i i made a a a i produced an analysis a little while back. Just shut up, Alex. Like, do what those pot brother lawyers do. Shut the blank up and stop talking. He's portraying himself as the victim for being sued because he's got deep pockets. He pulled the trigger. Like,

understand that, Alex. You pulled the trigger. You're not the victim for getting sued because someone died as a result of you pulling the trigger. And he keeps coming out with these statements publicly as though he's the victim at the end of this. And it's just such a stupid thing to say. But he's like, I'm rich. That's the reason they're suing me because I'm rich. That's it. Well, I mean, everyone has insurance. All these people are going to be covered by insurance in the civil suit. They should be covered by the insurance that was provided to the movie set unless they did

something intentional, which would take them outside of the coverage. But in any event, none of them has any money. So they're judgment proof. It's really about if these people get criminally charged, they're going to take a lot more seriously. But a civil suit, that doesn't mean anything to these people. They don't have two nickels to rub together, I presume. Well, and that's my understanding as well, is that, you know, they're young, they don't have assets. And even if they did, it would require a lot of assets to settle or pay for a judgment on this if one is rendered. But I mean, I just say from the legal perspective, Baldwin turning around and countersuing people who are already defendants to Mamie Mitchell's lawsuit, it doesn't change much from their perspective. They're going to have to defend regardless.

But from a legal perspective, it's obviously the thing that Alec Baldwin should have done. Sympathy be damned. They might have no money. If someone put a live round in Baldwin's prop gun, even if he pulled the trigger, legally

speaking, he might be partly responsible, but they are certainly also partly responsible and i i would have i would have done the same thing and also recommended he do the same thing forget the optics it's it's not about me i would do but i probably wouldn't have gone out there and said oh you know you don't sue anybody how did what was the last line i forget but it's just he just he just can't be quiet and and it's it's just terrible all these things the internet's forever the the people piece these things. And it's just terrible. All of these things, the internet's forever.

The people piece these things together. And it's just, they're dumb things to say. Just be quiet. There's an investigation going on. But he cannot, I guess, to some extent, can't stay out of the limelight, can't stay out of the spotlight. That's probably part and parcel of what it means to be a celebrity or want to pursue that life. But man, silence would have been gold. Why would you sue people who have no money? That's you just did that's what i wouldn't have said that i

would have said if i'm if i get sued i'm gonna point the finger at the people who i who really did the wrongdoing um and it wasn't it wasn't yours truly but really the number one lesson is shut that you shut up stfu stop talking i don't know if you've ever seen this ad by these guys called the pop brothers at law and they say if you get pulled over by the cops, the brothers shut the F up. Just shut the F up. Just don't talk. You can't say anything wrong if you don't say anything. But Baldwin, Stephanopoulos, roadside interviews in Maine.

It's his narcissism. I'm not a psychiatrist. I cannot clinically diagnose without having met anybody. But it sure looks like that. It looks like he's in love with himself and he thinks he's going to succeed in convincing others of what he has already convinced himself. But my goodness, you piece together some of those statements. They are mutually contradictory and they will certainly be used against him at a later point, civilly or criminally.

All right. So at this point, awaiting the final decision, do you think if indicted for these charges, you know, criminally negligent homicide, unintentional involuntary manslaughter, do you think that there is a realistic chance any of these people could be convicted criminally based on what we know now? I know I couldn't venture that far out uh what that case about the twilight zone guy who who got killed under the helicopter him and two kids back in the day uh and the director got acquitted um i mean that's if anybody knows if you have a producer who can pull up the name i think guy's name was morrow or marrow um but it was it was

another death on on a hollywood set and they they got acquitted but by a narrow narrow margin uh this this is this is big this is in the spotlight people will be shocked and appalled if they you know i forget who said it recently no one's above the law but uh we've seen people locked up for years for much less. We've seen people in pretrial detention for nonviolent charges. Someone is going to have to be pushed on a sword here. But whether or not they serve lengthy periods of time, someone has to get convicted of something. Otherwise, people are going to say two-tiered system and that no one is above the law is absolute rubbish. Although I think a lot of people are already thoroughly convinced of that in any event.

Well, how about that? That female cop in Minnesota who got convicted after she shot a man driving his car, Kim Porter, and she thought she was reaching for her taser. Very clearly, no one even disputed that she did not mean to shoot him with a gun, but she she made a mistake. It was an accident and made a mistake in a circumstance where she would have, from my understanding, otherwise been entitled to use lethal force. Right. So, right. It's she's sitting in a prison right now. So, yeah, it will be very much like a two tier system of justice, one for the rich and famous and wealthy and hard left Democrat and another for cop moms who have never gotten in trouble their entire 27 year career and one night make a terrible mistake, which is what Alec Baldwin did. Right. Terrible mistake. Best case scenario for him. terrible mistake when there was no lawful reason to be doing what he did what he ultimately did in the first place the kim porter one is is atrocious i mean derrick chauvin

much more nebulous case the kim porter everyone acknowledged it was it was a bona fide legitimate mistake and anybody who has seen those taser guns could understand how they could get confused arguments that they're supposed to know which side of the body the taser's on versus the real. Admitted mistake, pulled the trigger, killed someone's life in a circumstance where she would have been entitled to use lethal force by all accounts in any event, to jail. And Baldwin pulls the trigger by accident

or pulls the trigger on purpose but doesn't think there's any live round in there. Kills someone and walks. Yeah, politics ruins everything. We shall see. David, thank you so walks. Yeah. Politics ruins everything. We shall see. David, thank you so much. Thank you very much for having us. It was great. All right. TV continued. See you soon.

Thanks for joining us today. We're taking a couple of days off now for Thanksgiving, as I hope you are as well. And I hope you have a wonderful, wonderful family holiday with your friends, with your loved ones, with your turkey. And don't forget those who are in need this holiday season. It's been very challenging, I know, for a lot of homeless shelters and other places that help families struggling during this time of year, like with the inflationary prices and so on. So if you have a despair, consider giving to help your fellow human beings. In the meantime, all the best to you. Have a blessed Thanksgiving. I'll talk to you Monday. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.