The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden Takes Credit for Hostage Deal, and Elon's Media Matters Lawsuit, with Victor Davis Hanson, Marcia Clark, and Mark Geragos | Ep. 675

Episode Date: November 27, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Victor Davis Hanson, author of "The Dying Citizen," to discuss President Joe Biden taking credit for the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas, how the Biden administration is trying to argue it can reason with Hamas terrorists, the media's ridiculous spin about the criminal Palestinians being released in the hostage exchange, the left's nonstop focus on DEI as demographics change the West, how universities are driving anti-Israel sentiment in America, a new push by the Biden administration to make sure border patrol agents use proper pronouns when encountering illegal migrants crossing the border, a scary situation at Hillcrest High School with a pro-Israel teacher, American CEOs giving a standing ovation to China President Xi, and more.  Then former prosecutor Marcia Clark and defense attorney Mark Geragos join to discuss whether Elon Musk has a legitimate chance of winning his lawsuit against Media Matters over claims about X advertisements and anti-Semitic content, the significance of where it was filed, bombshell lawsuits against Mayor Eric Adams, Harvey Weinstein, and more as the New York law waiving the Statue of limitations on sexual assault ends, whether it's fair to those accused, a hockey player being charged with manslaughter over a throat slashing death on the ice, Derek Chauvin being stabbed in prison, and more.VDH: https://victorhanson.comGeragos: https://geragos.comClark: http://www.marciaclarkbooks.com 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, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving, that you enjoyed the holiday with those you love. If you missed our American News Minute last week, that's my email to you. You can sign up if you want. It's just one a week and we bring you up to speed on the week's news. You can sign up at megankelly.com. I recounted our what we call fakesgiving we had with our family right before the real deal and some absolutely hideous food experiences, courtesy of yours truly, over the years. So you'll enjoy the post and I hope your food exchange at least went better than mine always does. Always. Okay. Over

the past three days, there's been a lot of news while we've all been enjoying hopefully time with our families and Black Friday shopping. The world has watched as dozens of innocent hostages have been released by Hamas in exchange for far more Palestinian prisoners, many of whom did absolutely horrific things. One side, you have totally innocent Israelis, and the other side, you have Palestinians in jail in Israel who are being released because it's a hostage situation over there in Gaza. And the Israelis can't get the innocence back unless they release people who have been justifiably accused, have either been convicted or awaiting trials on crimes. See, this is not exactly how the media will present this exchange to you. It'll be more of a tit for tat. You know,

both sides let out sadly imprisoned people. No, that's not what went on here. Keep that in mind. Among those released, the first Israeli-American, little Abigail Eden. Abigail returns to Israel an orphan. Her parents were murdered by Hamas, and she had a birthday while in captivity. Yesterday, President Biden celebrated the news of her freedom. Today, she's free. And Jill and I, together with so many Americans, are praying for the fact that she is going to be all right. So those who are now wrapping Abigail in love and care and the supportive services she needs, She's been through a terrible trauma.

You know, her mom was killed in front of her. Abigail ran to her dad then, who then was gunned down, gunned down as well, while using his body to shield little Abigail. She then ran to a neighbor for help, where they were all taken hostage. That entire house of neighbors were taken hostage by Hamas and held for 50 days. What she endured is unthinkable. She's almost certainly not okay. You're seeing the videos now of these little kids coming out of captivity and being held by their relatives, And you can tell they are anything but okay. One silver lining to this horrible story, Abigail's older siblings, ages nine and six, survived on 10-7 by hiding in a closet. Again, all this stuff is so reminiscent of Nazi Germany

and what was done to Jews then, hiding in the closet to avoid certain death, children. Here at home, we continue to witness deranged protests and anger directed at those who call Hamas what they are, murderers, terrorists. Honestly, these Hamas terrorists are subhuman. What they did to those children and babies is subhuman. One college professor was punished for doing just that at the University of Southern California. And one of the world's highest paid supermodels, Gigi Hadid, cannot stop posting inflammatory and anti-Semitic messages to her 79 million followers on Instagram. Hey, IMG models, any problem with that? Second thoughts at all?

You have any Jews at all working at IMG? Might want to look into Gigi. She's been accusing Israel of abducting, raping, and murdering Palestinian children. Then, because she knows she'll never face any consequences, she goes a bit further, accusing Israel of harvesting organs. Been doing it for years, she says. Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of the book, A Dying Citizen.

VDH, welcome back to the show. Let's just start with the release of some of the hostages now. Some 50 in all have been released, including an American, as we just pointed out. And first of all, it is unbelievable. Like when I listened to President Biden over the past few days, all I hear is I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me. I did it. My team's been working. I did this. I've been negotiating. Here's just a sample, but we could have had four other examples in this one soundbite. Take a listen to SOT2. Under a deal reached by extensive U.S. diplomacy,

including numerous calls I've made from the Oval Office. Today has been a product of a lot of hard work and weeks of personal engagement. I, along with my team, have worked around the clock to secure the release. I've consistently pressed for a pause in the fighting for two reasons, to accelerate and expand humanitarian assistance going into Gaza, and two, to facilitate the release of hostages. What's he doing? What U.S. president, what commander in chief, upon the release of some hostages, just one American, gets out there and uses I, I, I, me, me, me over and over? No, no U.S. president does that. They talk about we, we and our allies.

He's making it political is what he's doing. Yeah, he does because he's afraid of, I guess, a quarter million voters in Michigan. But what gets me about it is that he mentions Hamas almost in neutral terms. He expresses empathy with the hostages, but never does he ever elaborate that there's one side who's taking captives and the other side isn't. And there's one side that have to give over three convicted terrorists for every

hostage as they get back. And that this is a complete violation of war. It's just barbarous. But he talks about it in these neutral terms, and so does the UN, so does Europe. I mean, the Irish president said that one of the Irish captives was lost and then found. So nobody ever really says this is horrific, that this is not a nation state, it's not a legitimate government, it's a bunch of terrorists that take little kids' hostages and murder their parents. And that's what's lost in all of this. And when he brags about the pauses, what he should say is this is a very difficult situation where there's no good solution because the IDF will now lose more soldiers and Israel will be less secure because they're being hijacked by this terrorist group because they value life more than Hamas values death, I suppose.

But there's something wrong about the whole thing. Everybody has lost sight of what Hamas is doing and who they are. Right. I mean, there's, you know, these celebratory headlines, and we'll talk about the media in a second, but these celebratory headlines, all I can feel is horror as we get more details on the individuals who were taken hostage by Hamas. My notes on my packet that my team puts together to me are hostages so old. And then the next page reads, and so young. And I just wrote down some of the ages, 85, 77, 76, 79, 78, 84. Then the youth, 4, 5, 8, 2, 10, 4, 8, nine, nine, 11, 13, three. I could go on. These are little kids. They're babies. A two-year-old is a baby. So is a three-year-old. And the elderly,

Victor, I mean, my mom, my mom is 82. My mom, like there's an 85-year-old, an 84-year-old. My mom uses a walker. She has real difficulty getting around. She has medications she needs to take. I think about these women in their mid-80s or late 70s to put them through this kind of horror. And then, I mean, yes, of course, we're glad that they've been released. But, I mean, it's like the media is ready to move on from the horror that these women were put through. Well, I mean, it's get this feeling. I don't know if it's hyper dramatic or what,

but you're almost get the feeling you're living in maybe 1933 or 1944 in Germany when you're starting to see something transpire that's growing every day, when you look at the United Nations, you see that Iran is the head of the Human Rights Forum, and that the Secretary General, as soon as he heard about October 7th, he said, you can't understand the murdering without listening to the, evaluating the context. And you look at what Europeans are saying, you look at what's happening at our universities, and you look at our own government. I mean, Jean-Pierre, until she tried to correct herself and say she didn't hear it, basically said there was no anti-Semitism. They knew that the problem was Islamophobia. And I think it was the third day after October 7th,

Anthony Blinken and the Turkish foreign minister of all people, were calling for a ceasefire. And this thing is just accelerating. It's like a snowball. And it's scary because no one is saying these people are SS murderers and they're a death cult and they're killing innocent people and they take hostages and they decapitate and they mutilate. And they do every incomprehensible pre-civilizational act and they're abhorrent. And we don't hear that at all from anybody. No, no. What we're hearing is still from the president, there has to be a two-state solution, two-state solution. And I don't know if you saw it, Victor, over the weekend, but

Hamas captured two Palestinians who were believed to be cooperating with the Israelis. I did see them in front of a cheering crowd, shot them and then hanged them from an electrical tower. Cheering, cheering. Yeah. This is the kind of stuff we know from people like Yonmi Park happened in North Korea, happens in North Korea. So this is what Hamas is doing. And I guess Israel and we, as their ally, are supposed to talk to these. We're just going to sit down and chat with these folks who would take two-year-olds and 85-year-olds and string up their own people by electrical wires and talk about how we can all live in peace in a two-state solution now.

The worst thing about it is that when you look at the people who are cheering us on, are making excuses, are contextualizing it, they're university faculty, administrators, politicians, head of states, media people. But they're not the, I mean, it goes on at Stanford and Harvard, Yale and Princeton. It doesn't go on at grade schools. It doesn't go on at communities, colleges. I live in a very impoverished area. 95% Hispanic, working class people. They understand what's going on. This is a sickness and illness among our elite. And it's really sad because we all believe in the Enlightenment, but as a general rule, the more education someone has, the more morally bankrupt they are on the Middle East. And I don't know how to communicate with people in this administration. to restrain the IDF from trying to create an atmosphere where they won't do this every single month, as the Hamas leader in Lebanon promised that he would do, that this is going to go on

and on and on and on. And when you have the first news of it, and the head of the UN says that this murdering has context, i.e. it's justified, where do you turn for sanity? The president of Harvard? The UN? The president of the United States? The press secretary of the White House? No, it's all madness. Yeah. I mean, truly, it's like maybe we should chat with the people who put live babies in ovens about reaching an amicable solution to this. I mean, this is an absurdity. And it's it was President Biden's message all weekend that that's the only possible way out of this, that it must happen. Just looking at my exact notes on exactly how he put it, but he said it over and over. We need to renew our resolve to pursue this two state solution,

where Israelis and Palestinians can one day live side by side in a two-state solution with equal measure of freedom and dignity. Two states for two peoples. And it's more important now than ever. What is he talking about? I don't know. We have a two-state solution for decades. They've rejected it time and time again. And now they're cutting off children's heads. Well, this is an absurd lie. We have a three state solution because we have one group of killers in Gaza and we have another group in the Palestinian Authority that's cheering us on and killing people. And we have Israel. So he never says two state. What does that mean? Is he going to if he really did believe that, would he say to the Israelis, get rid of Gaza, kill them,

kill the Hamas people, and then we'll let the less terrorist, less killing PA take over? He can't even say that. When he says two-state solution, I know there's a lot of naive people who believe that, but even the naive people must understand, and they do understand, that that can't involve Hamas. So the Israelis are the only people who can apparently deal with Hamas. But he wants to let Hamas off the hook and then have a two-state solution when Hamas even has executed the Palestinian Authority people. So he's incoherent. And, you know, and we nobody said to us after 9-11, don't go into Tora Bora and bomb because there might be civilians. We all knew there were civilians

packed all around the Al Qaeda people. And we bombed the blank blank out of Tora Bora. We bombed the blank blank out of houses in Afghanistan where we knew the Taliban heads were. Nobody from Israel, much less anywhere else, said, please, United States, I know you're angry, but don't lash out and you're going to kill innocent civilians. Nobody said that to us. It's only Israel. Every one of these issues, Megan, refugees, settlers, proportionality, they only apply to Israel. Nobody's talking right now about Arab Muslims killing 500,000 people in Tafur, or a million Muslims in Uyghur camps, or Russia leveling Chechnya. Nobody says a word about that. Or refugees, I mean, the Palestinians are the only people in the world who were refugees

80 years after they lost their supposed home. Not the Greek Cypriots, 200,000 of them were ethnically cleansed in 74 by the Turks. Not 13 million Germans that were ethnically cleansed from East Prussia by, you know, for good reason maybe, but same time as the Palestinians. Not a million Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Cairo and Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad. Nobody says a word. It's only this weird group that says we are the only victims in the world and we are the only refugees 80 years after this. Right. Nobody intervenes on their behalf at all when they're not killing people. So that's, you know, further encouragement to them. Yeah now, so far, we've gotten 39 Palestinians released, but there's a proposed list of 300.

They're demanding about three to one in order to release these Israeli hostages. And we believe there are some 10 Americans. They are not just this one little girl. By the way, on my comments about the videos, this is the girl who Gayle King interviewed the father of insensitively, in my view, where she was asking about, oh, it's all just political now. You know, Palestinian children have been, are dying too. And he said, I have zero appetite for this conversation right now for you getting political or you raising politics or the politics of it. So they have video of her being reunited with her older sibling. And you can see, you can see that this girl, it's not normal. The dogs are jumping on her. It's sweet,

but you can see the little girl in VO2. She's clearly traumatized, Victor. Here it is. So that this is her in the red shirt. So she gets down. The older sibling is hugging her, touching her face, pulling her clothes. These two sweet little dogs, they look almost like puppies are coming over, wagging their tails, are obviously very happy to see her. And the girl's not really moving. I mean, we're just never going to know the full trauma that was inflicted, not only on girls like this, but on those who witnessed the killings that day, you know, those, those who witnessed the murder of the parents, like some of these kids did. Um, and I, I just don't know how we're just still pretending that these are people we can bargain with that they're, they're not. Um, okay.

I just want to, I want to get onto the way that they're portraying these Palestinian prisoners who are being released, okay? Because it is so dishonest. I'll give you a couple of headlines. Now, keep in mind, the Palestinians who are being released from prisons, for the most part, committed serious crimes or accused of serious crimes. In a couple of instances, they were relatively small, like throwing stones at officials. But many of these are attempted murders, attempted suicide bombers. And that's who Israel had in prison. So now you get headlines like this from the AP. Palestinian families rejoice over release of minors, comma, women, like just innocent minors and women, you know, Victor, just like the Israelis who were in those Gaza camps. Palestinian teenager dizzy with happiness to be freed. That's the BBC. Tears and joy,

a second batch of 39 Palestinians freed from Israeli prisons. Al Jazeera, Reuters, relief, sadness for Palestinian prisoners freed in hostage deal. Al Jazeera with another one, released Palestinians recount harsh conditions in Israeli prisons. Oh, really? Were they getting raped by the Israeli prisoners or prison guards? I'm going to go ahead and say no. Israeli, okay, Al Jazeera, chocolate cake, loving parents await Palestinian teen Israel might free. And here's here's how it was properly covered by the Times of Israel. Crowds hail second group of freed Palestinian prisoners, including would be suicide bomber. Yes, that's appropriate. Here's here's the one headline from The New York Times. They put out this picture of this Palestinian woman who was freed and that she's

hugging somebody receiving her. And the headline is a disfigured woman whose case has become well known is among the Palestinians released in response to which this guy on Twitter, Adam James, tweets out this disfigured woman is a car bomber who, having blown herself up in an attempt to kill Israelis, demanded that Israelis pay for her plastic surgeries. And yet Times calls her a disfigured woman whose case has become well known is among the Palestinians released. The moral equivalency between three yearolds snatched by butchers, that's how our friend Batya Angar Sargan put it, and people like this poor, disfigured, alleged suicide bomber, is absolutely stomach-turning. You know, when we talk about all this, you want to say, why is this? Why the asymmetry? Why this different standards? Why the suspension of any morality

when we discuss these issues? And then, you know, we were having this conversation in the 70s or the 80s or the 90s, and we did. We could say, well, there's 500 million Arab Muslims in the Middle East, and there's only 10 million Jews, and people are amoral, and they're just going with the numbers. Or maybe we could have said at that time, there's oil, 40% of the world's reserves are in the Middle East, we got to be careful. But this is different now. It's almost, and I'll be very blunt. The BBC is broadcasting from London, where there is a huge number of people who came from the Middle East who live there as resident aliens, first generation immigrant students. And there's also this DEI idea that in the Western world, but specifically in the United States, that you can be racist or you can equate Jews with so-called white settlers or white privilege or white rage or white supremacy. And there's no

downside because you yourself have been declared a victimized, marginalized person. And then people from the Middle East and the hundreds of thousands have fled tyranny and autocracy and violence and poverty. And they come over to the West and they, by voting with their feet from a very different paradigm that gives them prosperity and security and freedom. And what do they do with that? They immediately romanticize the very types of government and social life and culture that they themselves rejected. And that's what's new about all of this, is that fusion between DEI elites and so-called

marginalized people and people from the Middle East in the West. And they are a very vocal, they're still a minority, but they have got a special resonance in the media, in academia, even in the corporate boardroom. It's amazing. And that's what makes us different from these conversations we had in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s, where people would listen to Israel, and they would at least be open to understanding the unique challenges they faced living over there. But now, it's incoherent. It's just crazy. And I think that's because we have so many people who are demonstrating and protesting in universities

here, and they feel they're exempt from criticism. And you can really see, Megan, that the demonstrations in the West mirror image the methodologies in Palestine, because one side who demonstrates wears masks, and they fight with the police, and they deface property, and they occupy public spaces, and they suspend traffic property and they occupy public spaces and they suspend traffic and they scream genocidal chants from the river to the sea and they harass passerbys and the other side doesn't and it's and yet when you mention that people think you're crazy but that's the deep i think that's what's the common denominator to all of these asymmetrical uh stories that we're hearing.

You're so right. My gosh, you're so right about everything you just said. You've got one more from Reuters, which is worth reading the headline. They posted on X, Hamas releases 13 more Israeli soldiers and four foreign nationals to the Red Cross in a second exchange. 13 more Israeli soldiers. What are they? They're talking about that. Well, who do they release? I just read you the ages. Eighty five year olds, two year olds, women. This is these are not they are not releasing Israeli soldiers. And of course, then they got pummeled, including from the American Jewish Committee, tweeting, do better. These are innocent civilians who were kidnapped from their homes. Did you notice some of them were dressed in their pajamas? It's because they were in their beds when

they were dragged to Gaza, tweets out Dr. Alexandria, Alexandra Herzog of the American Jewish Committee. Later, they were forced to delete the post. But this is no accident. This really is just it's no accident that the press has aligned itself. And as you point out, this weird coalition of, you know, the pro-Palestinian crew, the elite university crew, and then just the people who have signed on to wokefication and race essentialism. And I, and that brings me to, uh, this Hillcrest high school. This is unbelievable. So this Hillcrest high school is in, hold on, it's video 11 and it's in Queens, uh, New York where these students basically took over. They were very angry. They caused a mob scene because their teacher,

one of them, had shown up at a pro-Israel rally with a sign that read, I stand with Israel. So she went to one of these peaceful protests. They've blurred her face for her own protection now. So she showed up. It just says, I stand with Israel. That's what it says. She posted it on her Facebook. Well, the students lost their mind. They lost their ever loving minds. They made a group chat, decided to quote, expose her to talk about it. And then to talk. And then they talked about starting a riot from the New York Post and riot. They did Look at this video from their school. It was hundreds of kids rampaging through the halls for nearly two hours. Look, they tore

the sink out of the bathroom facility, ripped down tiles of the walls, chanted, jumped, shouted, waved Palestinian flags and banners. These kids don't know shit about, sorry, Victor, about Palestine. They know nothing. They know nothing about Palestine. And they were freeing, yelling free Palestine, screaming this teacher needs to go. They want her fired. The NYPD got wind of the plans just in time to get to the school. They rushed the teacher into an office and locked the doors. So once again, you have another Jewish, I think she's Jewish, at least Jewish supporter, having to hide behind closed and locked doors so that the angry mob of pro-Palestinian protesters doesn't get to her. They found out where she lives, her address,

her phone number, her family, all of her personal info. And then the videos were posted to TikTok because that's what these young people do. Most of the comments applauded the rioters, jeered the teacher, and to your point of the woke-ification and all that, one calling her a cracker-ass bitch. NYPD had to send 25 officers to this scene. At first, they just suspended three people. Then after backlash, now four arrests have been made. Still not enough. And they're going to get a lot more just like it. By the way, last point before I give it to you, there are 571 public high schools in New York City. This one is ranked 540th. 540th. It's college readiness score of the average graduate out of a possible 100, 23.5.

They can't do math. They're not that proficient in reading, but they certainly understand what cracker ass bitch means. And that's what she got labeled for standing with Israel. What do you make of it? Well, I mean, they're ignorant and they're arrogant and they're ignorant because they haven't been taught anything except that they're special people and they're victims. And so therefore, they feel that they can say or do anything to any other person. But the subtext of all that is, I think there's two subtexts. Number one, they're accustomed to have no consequences.

So when they get together, they say, we're going to go after this so-called Jewish or white teacher. We're going to try. I think they probably would have killed her if they had gotten a hold of her. And they thought, we are victimized, because I think as I read this story myself, about 85% of the high school are so-called marginalized people. And we are victims. And she is a white rage, white supremacist, white privilege teacher. So if we go after her, there will be no consequences whatsoever. And we're going to equate Israel over there with white people here. And that's what's happening. And they do it because they're cowardly, and they know there's no consequences. And there will be very few consequences. If the roles had been reversed, and everybody knows that,

if white students had gone after some Latino or Black teacher, they would have been published, rightly so. But the opposite's not true, as we see here. And that's going to embolden people, because there's no deterrence anymore. Once you say that I'm a victim, and therefore anything I do and say, no matter how hateful or cruel, will not be punished because of my victim status, then you've opened yourself up to just what we see and we're going to see more of it. A friend of mine goes to all the school board meetings at her public school in New York and keeps her finger on the tab of what's happening at the other public schools as well. A couple of weeks ago, she went to the high school board meeting and someone there said, condemning antisemitism, right? Like you and I are doing right now, condemning antisemitism is white supremacy.

It's white supremacy to stand up against antisemitism becauseemitism, because if you're anti-Semitic, it means you're anti-Jewish. And I guess they just say Jews are whites. They're, in their view, they may or may not be, but in their view, they're whites. They're politically white is how they see them. And therefore, anti-Semitism is just fine. Being anti-white is just fine. They've been open about that for quite some time in this country. Yeah, I don't understand, too, the logic of it. And I don't understand the logic of the pro-Hamas protesters. Everybody knows there's 250,000 so-called Arab votes in Michigan. But when you look at the polls, whether it's DeSantis or Haley, but especially Trump, he's way ahead. And do they really believe that what you just saw on those tapes or what

people are doing at USC or my campus or at Harvard are swarming the rotunda or shutting down the Manhattan Bridge and then yelling all of this stuff and trying to kill people? Do they really think that come 2024 that that's going to help them? Because what they're doing is they control the loud institutions and they get all the visibility. But when you actually look at polls, 65% of the people for all the media propaganda don't sympathize with Hamas. And they don't, they're not, they don't like this, even at this late date in American culture and life. And so if the Republicans, whoever they nominate, if they could unite, you're going to see a really big pushback against all this. And you can already feel it, that people are very they're just quietly simmering. Continue down with open borders and importing people from hostile terrorist nations that hate us and not treating everybody on the basis of their character rather than the color. We're not going to survive.

We're going to go. We're going to revert or descend into a tribal chaotic. Everybody against everybody, Hobbesian state. And I think I think 2024 is going to be a landmark election in that regard. You you're so right. And I saw you tweeting about. About what they're doing with the military, they're double in the wake of a recruiting crisis, they're doubling down on pushing DEI on our troops, requiring our troops to be versed in DEI and all the languages of diversity, equity, inclusion, all the terms. And at the same time, who's the other group that's truly in crisis now in America? We're short on our recruits for the military and we're spreading them all over the world,

potentially. And secondly, we have an open border. So they're flooding across the border and we can't handle the number of illegal migrants who are coming in. So the Border Patrol, what do they get? They get a memo from the Department of Homeland Security at the same time when people are seriously considering impeaching Mayorkas, the head of DHS, for this open border. What do they do? DHS orders border agents to use preferred pronouns for illegal immigrants. This is unbelievable. This is per guidance obtained by the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project. DHS guidance titled Guide to

Facilitating Effective Communication with Individuals Who Identify as LGBTQ Plus tells CPB agents to avoid using certain terms. Do not use he, him, or she, her pronouns until you have more information about or provided by the individual. Don't use words like Mr., Mrs., sir, or ma'am. They discourage any pronoun use until you have more info about the individual. Quote, if an incorrect pronoun is used and then corrected by the individual, meaning the illegal, acknowledge the oversight and use the correct pronoun. These Border Patrol agents are getting attacked. These people are coming into the country.

Some of them are rapists. Some of them are criminals. Some of them are carrying drugs. And we have to tell the CPB agents to worry about she, her pronouns and making amends if they happen to call somebody by the wrong gender. You know, that's, besides the insanity,

that's a typical bureaucratic response. When they can't deal with a felony, they focus and fixate on the misdemeanor. Or this isn't even a misdemeanor. It reminds me of Michael Bloomberg, when they couldn't get the snow off the streets of New York, he was talking about supersized Coca-Cola. And they all do that.

And that is they're completely impotent when they have these existential challenges because they don't have, they feel the remedy is worse than the disease. They don't want to be considered illiberal, so they won't touch it, but then they have to have some token that they're, they're doing something to justify their mostly worthless existence in the case, in the case of Mayorkas. So they, they do some, I don't know what it is, a virtue signal performance art little token. And we're all supposed to say, wow, they may have led 8 million people in the country,

and we don't have any idea who they are. We know some of them are very bad people, but at least they got their pronouns right. And that's something. And that's how that strange mind. In the case of the military, you know, it's very funny after driving out the one, I mean, when Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin got in front of the Congress and said, white supremacy, white rage, white privilege, and then they had all of this DEI, and then they got everybody out of the military who had legitimate concerns about the vaccinations and said that natural immunity, even though they'd had COVID, it wouldn't be enough.

So now they're sending out 8,500 letters for people to come back, come back. We're sorry, we kicked you out. And the subtext is that the one, since they talk about demographics, and I don't think I care about demographics, but they do. When you look at the actual number of people who died in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's 75% were white males. And they drove them all out, even though they're only, you know, 35% of the population. They died at double their demographics. And yet when you insulted them, insulted them, insulted them, and then you kicked others out because of the vaccination, suddenly you're 20, 30,000 people short in the military. But more specifically, you're short of the people who volunteer to go to combat units. And then you now have to write these little Weasley letters. Well, we're sorry about the I mean, Joe Biden's poll numbers, they fell after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which let's not forget, included the death of 13 service members because it was so abominably affected. And they've never recovered. If you look back at the polling trends for Joe Biden and his approval and these Democrats scratching their heads, they don't understand why he's getting beaten so badly by Trump, not to mention the others running for the Republican nomination. It all starts there. And then they wonder why people don't want to sign up for the military.

Oh, yeah. It also starts. You're embarrassed. The country. Internationally. Internationally, Megan, we've never recovered because Vladimir Putin took a long look at that in August of 2021. And that's one of the reasons on February 24th, he thought he could go in without consequence. And to be frank, when we did that and Iran looked at that and we were offering, I guess, $1.2 billion per hostage, the Gazans thought, wow, this Biden administration, they had a Chinese balloon go over the United States with impunity. They were humiliated in Afghanistan. They were taken surprise by Ukraine. They're not going to do anything to us.

And Iran can give us all the weapons we want. They won't touch Iran. We lost deterrence globally, and it's really going to hurt us. It's just the beginning. It's not the end. You point out, I mean, right now, most of these candidates, most politicians will admit that China is our biggest concern, the biggest threat. And what happened

last week, we didn't get to this before the Thanksgiving break, but what happened last week was all these business executives gathered out in San Francisco. This was when Gavin Newsom cleaned up San Francisco at the drop of a hat for the Chinese president, but not for his own constituents, not for the people who actually live in San Francisco. And what happened at that meeting? All of these highbrow American chief executives gave the guy now committing a genocide against the Chinese Uyghurs, the Muslims, committing a genocide against Muslims, a standing ovation, a standing ovation. Are the pro-Palestinian workers within their organizations going to try to take them down because of what they cheered on? This man who's committing genocide against Muslims? No, it's just Palestine. Why? Because that's Israel. spectacle, which we never got to, which just I can't believe my eyes. American business leaders giving a standing O to the Chinese president. Watch it. My God, just FYI, among the American executives gathered there, Apple CEO, Pfizer CEO, FedEx CEO, Salesforce CEO, Boeing CEO, Blackstone CEO, BlackRock CEO, MasterCard's independent board chairwoman.

This is, you know, a who's who in American corporate, in our American corporate structure on their feet, cheering the man. And they're probably aware that the Chinese were probably taping it to see who was clapping and who was present, who wasn't. And then when they have a surprise, when China takes over, and we saw that in the Red Sea this week, when there was a hijacked supposedly Israeli ship by these terrorists from Yemen. And the Chinese two frigates just watched the whole thing happen. They didn't respond to any of the SOS calls. It was a United States ship and a Japanese ship that came to the rescue and got rid of the terrorists and saved the ship. And the Chinese were sitting right there and did nothing. And that's what's going to happen if these

executives want to really empower China, because they're spending now more than we are. And of course, the service on our national debt, the interest payments are more than our defense budget for the first time in history. But there's going to be a rude awakening when the Chinese start to replace us as the global enforcer of free trade and free communications and stuff, free transits. And their own corporate culture won't survive under a Chinese hegemon. It just won't. They're short-sighted.

It's really unbelievable. I mean, it's like imagine us doing that with the Russians during the Cold War. They know full well what China's doing with its spying on us and its own human rights violations within China. But Apple wants its money, right? They want their Chinese business deals. They want to continue building their iPhones over there. And, you know, all of these guys, it's like they're asking for whatever crumbs they can get because China is giving money to Americans in order to buy land and buy the movie business and buy this, the bank business here in record numbers. So they want they've got their own hands out.

That's really what we're seeing. And so do the universities. Three hundred and sixty thousand students that pay one hundred pay 110% of full tuition. They're the only people who do. And the universities count on them as cash cow. And they give a blind eye to what the Communist Party does when it surveils its own students. And some of them, maybe 1%, which would be about 3,000 plus, are engaged in active espionage against the United States government.

But we don't do anything because of the money. And that's a good point. It's the money. It's amazing. Mark Cuban came on the show when we first launched. I gave him a hard time for the NBA's and his team's relationship with China, taking money from China, from somebody committing human rights violations. When they're out there protesting BLM, BLM, America sucks, we're racist, say absolutely nothing about China. Look at all those CEOs. He was far from alone. Look at all those CEOs cheering the man behind it. Get a moral compass. Get a moral compass that doesn't point true north on the dollar sign or the yen, people. Okay, so stand by. We're going to squeeze in a quick break and we'll come back

with the one and only VDH who stays with us. So Victor out at University of Southern California, not too far away from where you are in California. You've got a USC professor who, Professor John Strauss, who is Jewish, and early in November had an interaction with pro-Palestinian students. He walked by them and said, people are ignorant, and then added, Hamas are murderers. That's all they are. Everyone should be killed, and I hope they all are. That's what he said in full. And yet a shortened, he says, doctored clip of him was put out and it cuts out all context about Hamas. Take a listen to the SOT that they released on him.

This group trying to make him sound like he wanted students and everyone else dead. SOT 11. So that's what they had him do. killed and I hope they all look at the video. Thank you. So that's what they had him do. But the full thought is all about Hamas saying Hamas are murderers. That's all they are. Everyone should be killed. I hope they are. Long story short, he was misrepresented. And now what's happened to him is he's getting punished. He's got to teach only from home. The students who misrepresented him and doctored the tape and put it out and caused his reputation to be damaged. No, no problem. They've put him on paid administrative leave.

He has to teach his classes online. And he's admitting he's very unhappy about this. The Academic Freedom Alliance has called on the university to immediately reinstate him. But there are two petitions. One has 11,000 signatures saying, please reinstate him. One has 7,000 signatures saying, fire this guy, fire this. The state, it will come as no surprise to you, of American universities today. Yeah, well, the president of USC is making a judgment and he's

thinking in his little brain, who is going to give me the most trouble tomorrow if I weigh a certain way? Is it going to be the students and the faculty who are pro-Israel or pro-DEI, pro-Hamas? And he made a very calculated judgment. And that is, I'm going to have, again, an asymmetrical attitude, because I know the Palestinian students are yelling every day from the river to the sea, which is a call for genocide, and I don't do anything about that. And I know, you know, at UCLA, it's beat the blank Jew with a pinata, and they don't do anything about that there. So they all know what they're doing. And they make a calculated judgment of the path of least resistance.

And they know that if they attack a 72-year-old Jewish professor, and nobody's going to complain, and maybe some donors will call up, but they have a multi-billion dollar endowment. And so that's what they do. And it's moral cowardice. It's happening all over the United States. And somebody who goes to a lot of universities and works at one, I can tell you that that's exactly how they feel. They feel that what is going to be the least path of difficulty tomorrow when I wake up? Is it to side with Israel or to just be neutral?

Or is it to virtue signal your concern for Hamas and Palestine? And they know, they know the calculus and that's how they ask. And by the way, the woman who misrepresented him is this activist Tara Al-Ami, who is the one who, who posted this. And this person has apparently, she apparently lives in Canada. She has actually called for Israelis to die, celebrated their deaths and has been doing it for a long time. In January 22, she tweeted to an Israeli Jew. We said by all means necessary from the river to the sea. Don't give an F whether or not you can swim in December, 2021, she tweeted, they are occupying my land and killing my people. So yeah, I'm going to hope for their death. This is the person we're supposed to be believing.

She accurately edited this video and that she's outraged that he allegedly said everyone should be killed. Now that's not what he said, but even by her standards, that's an okay thing to say. What he actually said was Hamas. Um, then that brings me to Gigi Hadid, another misrepresenter. You remember the youngest Kardashian, Kylie, had to take down her empathy post toward Israel in the wake of 10-7. There was so much pressure on her to pull it. Enter Gigi Hadid, a supermodel of Palestinian descent. She posts, Israel is the only country in the world that keeps children as prisoners of war. And she posts these pictures of these guys, Victor, who are honestly, they went on a stabbing rampage in a settlement in East Jerusalem. They knifed a security guard. They hit a 13-year-old

boy who suffered critical injuries. These poor, it was all on video, but she wants us to condemn Israel. Then she accused them of body harvesting, including present day of innocent Palestinians. I mean, there's nothing you can say to get you fired from IMG, the modeling company, or from Hollywood, apparently right now, if you are bankable and you actually make people money with your face. Yeah, and she knows that as someone whose family comes from the Middle East, she should read the Hamas charter and what they set out as the parameters for female behavior and what the role of women is. It's to get married, stay home, and produce more jihadists for the cause. And they understand about the dress code and what women's rights are

in the Middle East. It's so frustrating to see all of these people who say that they're championing all of these Middle East agendas, and yet they always do it from Western liberality and security and freedom and prosperity. And they never once, just once, just one time say, you know what, I do recognize that I'm in a special place and that my family or I voted with my feet to reject my Middle Eastern connections and to adopt Western connections because of what they gave me. There's no gratitude. They always interpret our magnanimity as weakness to be exploited, never to be reciprocated with kindness. It's really disturbing. It reminds me of 1930s Germany again. It says nobody's speaking out and every day it gets worse and worse and worse. They won't pay attention. Victor, got to run. Great to see you. Thanks

for being here. We'll be right back with Kelly's Court. Now we turn to Kelly's court. Right before we went into the Thanksgiving break, Elon Musk's ex, formerly known as Twitter, sued the vile Media Matters. And there's a disturbing update today in the Derek Chauvin story. My God, did you see, did you hear what happened to him over the weekend? Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court reject his appeal, but something terrible happened to Chauvin. We're going to get to that with some of our favorites, Marsha Clark, lawyer and New York Times bestselling author, and Mark Garagos, trial lawyer and managing partner of Garagos and Garagos. Welcome back, Marsha and Mark, our legal dream team. Nice to see you. How are you? Great to have you both here. I'm great.

I love doing this because I get to see Marsha and you. So thank you. We were just talking about that, Megan. It's the only chance to do a whole home week with each other. So I'm happy to be the source of that. Your post Thanksgiving Day host. All right. So let's start with Elon because he said this was going to be this mega lawsuit, thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters. And just as a quick refresher for those who weren't paying attention last week to this, Media Matters is a disgusting left wing group whose sole purpose in life is to take down conservatives or anyone who says conservative things or leans conservative or allows conservative exchanges of ideas. I can speak to this firsthand. I've been their target many, many times. They take completely innocent comments and then blow them up into a national

story day after day after day trying to ruin you, trying to ruin you. I can't even tell you how many times this happened to me and people I know at Fox. So now their target is Elon Musk. And in particular, they're saying that on Twitter, they found blue chip advertisers ads right next to vile anti-Semitic content. They wrote, quote, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, which is owned by NBC Universal, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity, which is Comcast, next to content that touts Hitler and his Nazi party. They reported that IBM subsequently released a statement saying it has suspended all advertising on X while we investigate this entirely unacceptable situation. So this is Media Matters telling you X is placing ads for these big, big blue chip companies next to content touting Hitler and Nazis.

Elon Musk sues saying this was an intentional attempt to take down my business. You would not have seen such ads next to such content unless you did what Media Matters did, which he says involved them creating a false account, then going on and intentionally liking anti-Semitic content, anti-Semitic content, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, and following the brands, Apple, IBM, Infinity, and so on. And then their ads pop up next to your content. They don't, the ads, it's an algorithm. They're not reading in particular what they're next to. They're recognizing that you like their businesses, you follow their businesses, and then they populate your site. And while Elon Musk and X do a very good job overall of cracking down on truly vile anti-Semitic speech. They're not

perfect. You know, they gave the numbers in the lawsuit of just like, I don't know, it was tens of millions of posts, maybe hundreds of millions. And this small, small number get through and Media Matters blows it up to make it seem like it's everywhere and Apple supporting it. These are the three elements or three claims they brought guys, tortuous interference with contract, the contract being between X and its advertisers saying media matters, tortuously, unlawfully interfered with that contract business disparagement, which is basically defaming a corporation and intentional interference with perspective economic advantage, which requires an economic relationship between

X and the advertisers, the defendant's knowledge of it, and intentional acts on the part of the defendant to disrupt that relationship, and then indeed actual disruption and economic harm to the plaintiff, meaning X. So, Marsha, how do we like these claims in this lawsuit by Elon? He's entitled to make them. Can't say I'm a big fan of media matters myself. I'm not I'm just not a fan of cancel culture in general. And I don't like the idea of people setting others up because they don't like their political views or their sociological views, depending on whatever we're looking at, what issue is at hand. That said, they're making the reports that they are, if they're false, and if they are, in fact, jerry-rigging it, as you've indicated, that is the claim by Elon Musk, then the lawsuit will

expose that, and it would be unfair. I don't like the idea on his part of trying to silence Media Matters. You know, it seems to me like there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in this going back and forth. He doesn't like what Media Matters is saying. Now, if they're doing something nefarious and if they really are corrupt, as his claims seem to indicate, that's one thing. And he is going to expose it with a lawsuit. He's entitled to do that. And let's find out what the truth is here. Good idea. That said, Elon Musk himself has said things that indicate he has a certain tendency to lean on the anti-Semitic side. And so there is a little bit of fire where the smoke exists to indicate that he might want to

put his thumb on the scale in favor of certain kinds of thinking, certain kinds of hate groups. That indicates, perhaps, he did do what Media Matters is saying. I don't know. I don't know what the truth is. But they have, he has a right to sue, and they have a right to fight back. Whether or not- I really, I have to defend, I have to defend him on the anti-semitic content allegation because here's what he did I think you're referring to this tweet he sparked outrage this is according to the hill when he responded to a user on the platform who claimed quote Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. And it went on and he responded

with, you have said the actual truth. And people were like, oh my God, what is he saying? Like, this is clearly an anti-Semitic trope that he's responding to. But then he wrote in another post, which I think was an attempt to clarify this, the Anti-Defamation League, which purports to defend against anti-Semitism, but really is very woke and calls everybody a bigot. I mean, everybody who's not in line with their racist, essentialist views and trans essentialist views and all those views. He said that the Anti-Defamation League unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people in Israel. So that's what he was trying to say. He's a billionaire. He's a little off sometimes socially. And I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this because I don't see other posts. I don't

see like a long history of Elon, you know, flirting with this kind of content. And this is what he says he was trying to raise in the ADL. I mean, there's not a week goes by where they're not calling Tucker Carlson a racist and a bigot and an anti-Semite. Like, I mean, there's not a week goes by where they're not calling Tucker Carlson a racist and a bigot and an anti-Semite. Like, I mean, and any conservative, you could, I'm sure they called me names. I don't know. Anyway. So Mark, how do you like the legal claims? Because this isn't really about Elon's tweet. It's about Media Matters claim that X is posting ads for these brands next to content that touts Hitler and Nazis, which may be factually true. It may have happened in the case of this Media Matters user, but he generated it. He caused it to happen. And no social media platform is entirely foolproof.

Well, I'll tell you about the legal claims. If you look at the coverage of this lawsuit, they talk to the so-called experts. I say that so-called as we sit here commenting on it, but the so-called experts have been kind of diminishing the claims by saying, why did he file in Texas? Why? He's trying. It's got a weak case. So therefore, he's picking or choosing his venue. The fact remains that not only does he have lawyers who are former solicitor generals there in Texas, but he's now got the AG fresh off of his vindication in the house there in Texas, Ken Paxton, opening up an investigation. And I will tell you that there was a similar lawsuit here in California a number of years ago, accusing Facebook of this very same thing and having ads that were linked to ISIS and other kinds of terrorist groups, things of that nature that got legally nowhere in terms of what was said. I think, and I disagree with some of the commentators, I think he's laid out a case

that will survive what's called a 12b-6 or a motion to dismiss initially because he has pointed to what they have done in their methodology. And I think if he's correct to what they have done in their methodology. And I think if he's correct that what they've done in the methodology is to kind of jerry-rig this, to use your term, then he gets past the motion to dismiss. And that'll be interesting once he gets a new discovery. I mean, the thing is, in defamation, you can say something that is factually true within the four squares of the document, but is grossly misleading, right? And that's what he's claiming about their statement. Yes, maybe there was a case in which, thanks to what you did, Media Matters, you were

able to see blue chip brands next to anti-Semitic comment content but your statement about us x lacks the context that you made it it was your goal and going on there to create an account that would like enough of that content that that content would be generated over and over and over and then to follow blue chip brands which would then populate your site i mean and if you look at the vast vast experience of users on x 99 of them do not have that experience. All context left out of your reporting, which was meant to disparage us. And by the way, I'm old enough to remember being a liberal who supported the ACLU when the ACLU was supporting people who were marching in Skokie, Illinois. So you have to wonder what has just happened to this idea of free speech and this idea of basically canceling those who are supportive of free speech.

Here, you've got what is particularly irksome in this case is if it's true that they were reverse engineering this report, then that should be held accountable, and they shouldn't be able to cloak themselves in the First Amendment, so to speak, if they are demonstrably shown to have created the situation that they're condemning. Well, exactly. I mean, that's the problem with this whole thing, is that we don't know. We don't know. We don't know. But if what he's saying, as I said before, if what he's saying is true, he's got a lawsuit there and he could win that lawsuit. And if he's not, I mean, that's a whole different story. And yes, the experts, as Mark said, are saying, oh, he filed in Texas where there's no real connection to the case on a substantive level that's true um he gets himself a champion that i don't know that you would necessarily want in ken paxton who by the way is still facing charges um in civil court even though he won ultimately he was impeached he did not he did get acquitted and that to me is a political thing but he's got a lot of baggage himself i'm not sure he's your best avatar

that said um if he did indeed set that, if Media Matters did indeed set this up, it's a valid lawsuit. Because you're right, Megan. You know, you can be telling the absolute literal truth, but do it in such a way as to make it defamatory because it is so misleading. And that is his allegation.

It's a valid allegation. And as Mark said, you get past summary judgment with it. We'll see what happens. You've got just for that context on that Media Matters is based, I think, in Maryland or D.C. Elon's company X is based in Nevada. So people are wondering why was it filed in the northern district of Texas? And clearly he thinks the law and the forum are good for him. I mean, really, all lawyers do that. Sure. It's not an unusual. I was going to say, since when is forum shopping verboten? I mean, they, by the way, every lawyer I know, that's the first thing they say is what forum and what judge? Yeah. So, I mean, it's not surprising he did that. He wants to hurt them. I'm not going to lie. I'm

100 percent rooting for him. I hope he takes them down. I am in complete favor of cancellation of Media Matters. You know how many people they've gotten canceled with their lies over the years? I mean, the list is longer than Santa's scroll. They're in the business of canceling only people on the right. It was originally an organization founded in connection with the Hillary Clinton crew, this this disgusting man, David Brock, who I cannot stand. And this is their only design, is to hurt conservatives or people on the right or conservative thought. They wanted all of it shut down. And now Elon Musk has found himself in that group because he allows free speech on Twitter in a way, yeah, X, that they don't like. I really, I would love, this would be to me

like when Gawker was taken down by Peter Thiel. It would be a victory. This is not about free speech of media matters. It's about a disgusting, vile organization whose sole business model is to take down other businesses or personalities whose speech it doesn't like. And whether it likes or doesn't like it is based on its politics. The politics of those running media matters. I hope your asses are canceled. Team Elon going to own my bias on that one. Okay. So that's case number one. Let's move forward because there's a lot more to get to. Oh God, this was disturbing.

The hockey throat slashing case. Oh my God. I've been looking forward to talking to you guys about this because it's dark and it has some interesting legal angles. So most of our listeners and viewers probably heard about this. It was an American athlete named Adam Johnson who was killed, excuse me, in a hockey accident incident on October 28th. His neck was cut by the skate blade of a man on the opposing team named Matt Petgrave. Matt Petgrave was playing for the opposite team again in Sheffield, England. That's where this happened. And what happened was Matt Petgrave was he was skating. OK, Johnson, the victim, was skating toward the net and Petgrave on the opposing team skated toward Johnson, collided with another player and Petgrave's legs kicked up. Reading now from Time magazine as he began to fall. Hold on. We'll watch it here.

Legs kick up as he begins to fall, slowing it down. There, Petgrave is in the red and the victim Johnson is in the white. And his neck was slit. Both players fell to the ice. Johnson, disturbingly, rose up after the injury. It's just, he was not okay. There was blood on his Jersey and he was dead soon thereafter. Um, normally you would look at this and say it was absolutely horrible, but a freak accident. We had this happen in Connecticut just last year, you guys,

you know, at high schools nearby where one player did this to another completely accidentally. And there was absolutely no allegation otherwise by anybody. Everybody saw that it was a total accident. So normally we'd look at a case like this and say freak accident. But in this case, people looked at this and said, it didn't look like the freak accident that happened at that Connecticut school. It looked intentional. And you have NHL after NHL player or former player come out to say that looked like an intentional kick. He was trying to hurt him. And sure enough, now he is being investigated by officials over in the UK for manslaughter. As I understand it, an arrest, they won't say it's him, but they say this incident has led to the arrest of a man on suspicion of manslaughter. He's been released on

bail. But to me, it sounds like he hasn't officially been charged or maybe just not yet indicted. This is the defendant, we believe, in the case. So as the former prosecutor, Marcia, how do you like this case? Tough one. It's a tough one. You do have the commentator, as you mentioned, Megan, saying that was a deliberate kick. I'm sure of it. But that's not a bright line. That's one commentator, and we know that accidents happen in hockey a lot. It's a dangerous sport. You have the skating blades, you have the hockey sticks, you have every end speed, incredible speed, and then you have ice to fall on. I mean, all of this is a recipe for all kinds of very nasty injuries. And so it's going to be hard. You have to prove gross negligence,

or you have to prove something, an intentional misdemeanor that created a dangerous, almost fatal situation. And proving that under these circumstances, fast moving game, fast moving action with everybody slipping on the ice, it's not going to be an easy thing unless you get a bunch of experts saying, look at this. That's a deliberate kick. I just don't know. I think it's a tough one. Mark, just to let you know, Peckgrave's former coach, Elmo Atola, said, quote, I coached Matt Peckgrave for a very short stint. I wanted to get rid of him immediately. He has no respect for himself or his opponents. He used to get into a bit of a mess. He's a very dirty player. But then the former NHL general manager, Kerry Kaplan, said anybody suggesting this is not an accident either doesn't understand hockey or was not close enough to the situation.

Last year, Petgrave, for what it's worth, was the league's most penalized player with 129 infractions in 54 games. Right. And I would bet you in those cases that it was clear cut that it was intentional when he was getting penalized. This is anything but clear cut. I kind of I'd even go farther than Martian, just say it is a freak accident. It doesn't look to rise to the level of criminal prosecution in a game like this from my eyes. So unless I'm missing something, I understand that there's a great uproar and it's horrible, it's awful, it's tragic, but that doesn't mean that it's criminal. How do you even prove, like they say that the authorities over there are saying, we've been speaking to highly specialized experts in the field to assist our inquiries. We continue to work closely with the Health and Safety Department at Sheffield City Council.

They seem to be trying to do a forensic examination of hockey and what would normally happen. I mean, is that even possible for police to figure that out, Mark? At least in the United States or in specifically in California, you'd be making a Sargon motion, which is basically this is junk science. This shouldn't come in in a civil case, let alone a criminal case. I don't even know how you get to the point where you're so unsure of whether it was intentional or not, that you're hiring experts to opine in an area that I don't even think you could say it would be acceptable or generally accepted scientific principles. I mean, to me, it's just, it's somebody who's struggling to attach liability where there is none. I mean, clearly, it's horrific, but everybody called it a freak

accident to begin with. Now you're just struggling to make it something else. Yeah, it's kind of hindsight reconstructing and saying, you know, analyzing it second by second, millisecond by millisecond, to look for something that happened so quickly, I don't even know how someone could even think that fast. I mean, I have read somewhere that they were saying, oh, his blades could have been unusually sharp, you know, sharper than most blades would have been on his skates. Well, but that also makes you go faster. So how can you say that that's an intentional act that's creating a dangerous condition or a knowingly dangerous condition?

It seems to me like it's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, looking for something, as we say, picking pepper out of fly stuff, to look for something to build a case on. And I don't see, I think Mark is right about the scientific viability of any testing they're going to do. How on earth are you going to have a scientific test that can reconstruct something like this that happened within two seconds and say that you have something that's reliable enough to even put before a jury? So I think that the likelihood of this going forward as a criminal case seems very slim, very dim to me. It is the UK, so every country has its own standards. But I think I know in California, this probably would not get fought. There was just such outrage over there. And I think, you know, there may be just a need or feeling like we have to respond to the outrage that people are feeling with an investigation. But I mean, he's been arrested. So it's it's more than just an investigation from

from the way it sounds. It would be one thing if they found some motive, you know, like these two had a beef. There had been a threat right before the game. You know, now you're getting closer, but I agree with you too. So far, even if it was intentional, I don't know whether it was or it wasn't. You have to have proof of that. You have to have some proof that there was a decision made that amounted to criminal recklessness. And I just don't know. I will say now they're making the neck guards mandatory, at least at the high school level. Now I know because in our in our school, it's big for hockey, too. And that seems like a good idea. I mean, why wouldn't you? Hockey? Why wouldn't you? Yeah, right. Yeah. Why wouldn't you? So I mean, it's just it's very rare. You know, this one happened in 2022 here.

The last time it happened, I think it was 10 years before that. And the time before that was 10 years before that. Very, very rare. But I mean, if I, if my kids played hockey, I would absolutely want this on this kind of protection. All right. So let's move on. New York state is doing something that is, I don't know, it's, I bet Mark doesn't like it as

the defense lawyer here, but I've never seen anybody do this before, where the statute of limitations has run on all these sexual assault claims, but then they open it. Now I understood when they did that for kids who are the victims of pedophiles, like you're a kid, you may not remember it until you get older, you have flashbacks. You get therapy. Even that was criticized. But that one at least made some sense to me. This is like you were an adult. You didn't do anything about it at the time. The statute of limitations ran.

The door's back open. Walk right through it. And boy, are they ever. Megan, if I told you how much time I've spent in the last week up until Thursday, so the people understand the statute was set to expire. It was not renewed Thursday at midnight. I spent the entire week. What statute? Tell them what you're talking about. The Adult Survivors Act, where they revived the statute for assaults that had taken place in some cases back in the 80s and the 90s.

I spent the last week, I don't want to say babysitting, but I will tell you, engaged, fully engaged with various clients who were either in the crosshairs or thought they would be in the crosshairs for the up until Thursday at 12 15 p.m. or a.m. I should say until they would yeah I know there's no names but I will tell you that um and mind you I you saw what happened with Diddy and I've represented Diddy in the past and that was every every client's worst nightmare is that it would come up, that there were demands that were made, that then you would try to settle or you would try and get it not filed in some fashion. And then what happened in Diddy's case is once it became public, then there was a pile on after that with cases that were decades old, if you will.

The mayor of New York was also one of the late-breaking cases. There's been about five of them with California-based people here. So it was a week to remember in terms of waiting it out minute by minute until that statue kind of sunsetted, if you will. I find it, and I know you anticipated this, I find it horrific that you have a situation that's not kids, where somebody can be accused of something. In Eric Adams' case, it was 1993. Axel Rose, I believe, was 1989. I've got others that were 2001, 2003. How are you supposed to defend? The whole idea of a statute of limitations is you're supposed to be able to timely decide or defend yourself. How are you supposed to defend yourself from decades old allegations? How are you supposed to get witnesses? How are you supposed to get where you were, get a itineraries and put together a defense? To me, it's fundamentally unfair.

You could not do it, by the way, in a criminal case. But when you're fighting over other people's money, you can do it. I have to agree. I think like we saw this done to Brett Kavanaugh and it was like, how the hell did he know exactly where he was? I mean, amazingly, he had that date book that actually did give him some waves of defending himself himself against Christine Blasey Ford. But there is a reason we have the statute of limitations. The defendants are entitled to due process to if you ask me what I was doing 30 years ago, I have no idea. I don't keep date books. I would have zero way of defending myself against any accusations of bad conduct, Marcia. So I do, as much as I feel for these women and their allegations, the due process standard should not allow this past, you know, we set these statutes of limitations for a reason.

Can I ask Marcia a question? Because this is what got in my craw last week, Marcia, and I'd love to know your response. I understand it. If a woman has been wronged and she's between a rock and a hard place and she feels like this has been horrific, and this gives her a new opportunity. My problem with this is why the gold rush in the couple of days before the statute expires? You mean to tell me out of all of the days of the year, the 365 days of the year, it just so happens that on day 360, that all of a sudden, all of this horrific emotional distress comes to a head just as the statute's about to expire. I hate to be cynical, but that was kind of my reaction. I must have said that 500 times in the last week.

Here's my response to it. I feel badly for the women. I mean, former prosecutor, I do feel that way. I feel like I want them to have their day in court. It's not going to be the same as a criminal case. And the points you raise about the statute of limitations and the ability to defend cases that are that old, how do I reconstruct where I've been, what I've done, who I was with, what might have happened in some instances so old that it would be very difficult to dredge up a memory if you're the man. But the woman is much more likely to remember this and be traumatized by it and suffer for years as a result of it. In fact, you guys just pulled up the story of Julia Orman, who just filed. She's one of the late filers that Mark remembered. But she's somebody who suffered a real attack, a real attack, forcible oral copulation by Weinstein and is now suing her agents in court after you have suffered terribly and felt that you were being dismissed. No one would look at you. No one would even file the case. You know, prosecutors were not all that wonderful back in the day. And I mean, quite a long time ago and made it very hard to get a case filed when you didn't have physical evidence and you didn't have corroborating witnesses, they really were responding to the time, the sociological times, where people were very inclined to disbelieve rape claims and very inclined to say she's lying, she's making it up, woman scorned, all that sort of thing.

And so it was very hard for quite some time to get a case filed and then very hard for quite some time to get a jury to convict. And we're finally at a place where I think we're starting to understand that women don't necessarily react in the way you expect and they don't necessarily want to tell a lot of, you know, it's still the most underreported crime. So I want to see these women get their day in court. If they can't make the case, they can't make the case. But we're not talking about criminal sanctions here either. You know, and that's why the concerns about the statute of limitations and the ability to defend are fair concerns, for sure. And, you know, it's going to be a problem in proving the case from the prosecution's side of it, plaintiff's side of it, that they say, you know, this came forward, where would you have been? Why didn't you report it sooner? And why did you wait for his access to the last minute?

To the very last minute. In particular may raise those questions because Harvey Weinstein's been out there as a pariah criminally since 2017. I mean, that's really, the Roger Ailes thing happened in 16 at Fox, but nothing happened for another year. And in 17, when the New York Times

broke the Harvey Weinstein story, that's when everything exploded with the New York Times broke the Harvey Weinstein story, that's when everything exploded with the New Yorker, all of it. So look, all of this is going to come out. I mean, the women are going to be up against it once again, to defend their inability to file earlier and to wait as long as they did. That's going to be brought out. The men are going to have the problem that they do with proving where they were and what they were thinking of who they were with. All of that's going to shake out eventually. But having them, letting them have their day in court, I am not opposed to this. I think that, damn it, finally, we're getting to the place where we're taking women seriously. I'm for it.

So let me, let me walk you through or the public through our audience, some of these allegations that Julia Orman has levied, because they're interesting. She, she was a huge star. You know, she was in legends of the fall with Brad Pitt. She was in, um, what was the movie? She was great. Not Selena, Serena. What was it? You guys remember? I'm Sabrina, Sabrina. Sabrina. That was a great one. Anyway, her star was on the rise. And this is what she alleges. She says that, okay, her career was at a high point in the mid-90s. This is from a Rolling Stone article when the alleged assault occurred by Harvey Weinstein. She had enjoyed success on TV and films. I guess she's British. She said she

first met Weinstein in 94 to discuss some potential projects and he acted appropriately. They remained in touch. He often sent her scripts, et cetera. Around 1995, as her profile continued to grow with movies such as Sabrina, there it is, and First Night, she started working with Brian Lord and Kevin Huvane at CAA. Now, Kevin Huvane was my agent too. In August of that year, according to the lawsuit, Lord and Huvane secured Ormond and her production company a deal with Weinstein's Miramax, even though she alleges they allegedly knew very well about his propensity for sexually assaultive and exploitative behavior. It's relevant because she's suing CAA too. Orman subsequently moved from England to New York, where she started living in an apartment paid for by Miramax by the end of 95.

She was in talks to star in one of their productions. She claims Weinstein was not interested in discussing business at a dinner that happened, I think in 95, December 95, insisting they discuss it later. She claims he purchased multiple alcoholic drinks for her, eventually said they could discuss business back at the apartment he allegedly said, I'm paying for. Ormond recalled being too inebriated to even put her keys in the door to open it when they returned. Inside the apartment, she claimed he agreed to pay for the Africa trip she needed to go on, then disappeared. She eventually found him in the bedroom where he had stripped down to his underwear. Hello, this was a thing with this guy. It's called a pattern.

I've interviewed so many of his victims. This is one of his things. Blindsided, Ormond made clear to Weinstein that she did not want to do anything sexual with him because literally no person on earth who's sane would want to. That was my editorializing. But Weinstein broke down, pleaded, continued to remove his underwear and ignored her protests, says the lawsuit. Lying face down on the bed, he persuaded Armand to massage him. Shortly after he rolled over and started masturbating at that time, she froze. Weinstein then removed her trousers, climbed on top of her and continued to masturbate. He then forced her to give him oral sex. After some time, he got off her and left the apartment.

She says a few weeks later in January of 96, she confronted him. She said your contact was completely unacceptable. She wouldn't tolerate it. He knew what he did was wrong. And then she started to see signs he was retaliating against her. The way that Miramax executives were treating employees of her production company when she reached out to Lord and Huvain at CAA for help. She told them about the alleged assault. She claims neither expressed any surprise nor any empathy, that they focused on the assault from his perspective, asking whether he might have believed she had consented, suggested that it was his perception of the event, not her actual lack of consent that legally mattered. Again, these are her allegations. They deny it, Lord and Huvain and CAA and Weinstein also. Furthermore, the suit says Lord and Huvain of CAA told Armand if she took her allegation to the cops, she may not be believed. She risked further angering

Weinstein and cautioned her against telling others lest she be sued by him for libel. They said you could get a lawyer and seek a settlement, but you should not expect more than $100,000, the going rate for being sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein, her allegation. She didn't pursue any action and said Weinstein continued to retaliate against her. And she said both Weinstein and CAA then ruined her career. That's what she's alleging, that they basically decided she was damaged goods. And that's why we didn't see or hear more from and of Julia since. I mean, she's gotten roles for sure, but she's saying for a good decade plus, they stymied her. And if so, that would be illegal. Again, they all deny it. CAS has hired Paul Weiss, same law firm that looked into the Roger

Ailes allegations, and that they didn't find any there there. Now they, they confess though, they hired Paul Weiss to defend them, not, not to do an independent objective investigation. So surprise, surprise, their lawyers on their payroll exonerated them when, when charged with defending the company. Um, it's dark, it's disturbing. And I have to say, it's my opinion, Marsha, I believe every word of it. Every word, I believe. But I don't know that it goes anywhere. What do you think? Well, that's the question, you know, and a good one. Because yeah, I believe it too. And there's a reason why we believe it. We've heard this is cookie cutter. You know, this behavior, the pattern

on everyone's part that you've just described so well is exactly what happens. Whether they're movie stars or just regular people, they're told they're not going to be believed. They're dissuaded in so many ways. And everybody takes them out. Well, it was just you misinterpreting him and you put yourself there and then victim blaming and all the rest of it. And then, of course, as an actress, your career gets killed. And she did drop out of sight. This was a rising star who was looking like she was going to go all the way. She was phenomenal. And I was a big fan.

And yes, I'm sure it did destroy her in so many ways. And they have the power to do it. What happens in a lawsuit, what happens in court can be a different story. And that's why I was acknowledging the problems with defending this lawsuit for the defense side is going to be brought out. How am I supposed to defend myself now? That is going to get some sympathy

from the jurors. The inability for some of the victims to remember all of the details, to explain themselves, to explain why they took so long to come forward. Some, like Julia Ormond, will have some very good reasons for it

in terms of just her career and all of the people piling on to tell her, stop it, don't do it, don't do it. And that's going to be pretty compelling at the end of the day, though. I don't know how this shakes out. You have to be willing to step up, step forward and take your shot and just say, I'm glad to be able to tell my story. At least I'm not being muffled. At least I'm not being gagged anymore. And that's an important thing, I think, for all of these women. You know, in his case, though, Mark, she's got she's got a decent shot. It's like if he's if he takes the stand, as you know, in New York,

they're letting, quote, prior bad acts come in against you. That's one of the reasons he got convicted in the first place. They're letting prior allegations of bad behavior come in to show pattern, especially in a case like this. This is our pal. Arthur Idol has been representing Weinstein. He represented him in the New York trial trying to say this is bullshit. You shouldn't allow those prior claims to come in, but you definitely can allow prior convictions of sexual assault and rape to come in. He's got a bunch of those now, too. So it's going to be tough with this beautiful actress whose name everybody knows up against this troll, Harvey Weinstein, who's literally now in prison for him to be like, I didn't do it. Well, I don't look, you're never going to get Harvey that the thing that shows you what a nerd I am, the idea that they've hired a firm

that's going to do the investigation that ends up defending you at the same time. You know, that was if that was a small firm or a solo practitioner, they tell you that you were conflicted and report you to the state bar, how how you can hire a firm, have them do an independent investigation, and then defend you. And I've been in that situation, I can't tell you how many times here in Los Angeles, where with friends of mine who are at the big firm, and I'm asking them, of course, I mean, how are you not going to find that the university or that the institution you're representing didn't do anything wrong when

you're now defending them after we filed suit. So that's the part of this that really irks me. I don't think that you're ever going to see CAA and Harvey ever take this to trial. It'll get the insurance companies will jump in and get involved and it'll get settled. I will say this about CAAa to marsh's point a second ago so i mentioned kevin huvain was my agent at caa for a while and he represented meryl streep among many many others um at the time meryl streep took to the Oscar stage, having won one of her many, and said the following about Harvey Weinstein. So, OK, Julia Ormond is alleging that CAA discouraged Ormond from making a claim against Harvey Weinstein, saying really it's his perspective that matters most. And we're supposed to believe their defense that no, it didn't happen. But

this is Kevin who veins probably best known client, Meryl Streep at the Oscars about Harvey Weinstein. Watch. So I just want to thank my agent, Kevin, you vein and God, Harvey Weinstein. This is what she was up against, Marsha. This is what Julia Orman is going to be able to tell the jury she was up against. They were all thick as thieves. And one actress who had starred in a couple of movies didn't count. Well, so didn't count. There was no way she was going to be heard. She was going to be drummed out as, you know, she probably was in many ways, given what she could have been.

So, I mean, you're talking about a career loss. You're talking about a life in so many ways ruined. I really do hope that she has found a way past it. And I hope this lawsuit helps her to do that, as I hope it does for all of these women. But you're right. Look at the debt that was stacked against her. I mean, that's enormous, enormous. I don't know how anyone comes out and says, no, listen to me.

No one would listen to her. So they would turn off her mic. No, she had no power. None. She had no power. And she was up against, quote, God. Before we take a break, others who have been sued on these last minute filings, Eric Adams sued for an alleged sexual assault. He says he literally doesn't even know this woman. He's never met her in his life. Um,

Axel Rose accused by a woman of being raped by him back at a hotel room. She's got details, but 30 years ago, Mark mentioned Sean Combs. He's got, I think by latest count, three allegations of rape or sexual assault against him. Very detailed women alleging a pattern of alleged drugging and then rape. One woman says when he came to visit her to tell her to stop these allegations, he choked her to the point she passed out. These are all allegations, which he vehemently denies. But these are the cases that are going to be in the news over the next year or two, thanks to the extension of this statute of limitations.

When we come back, Mark's neighbor is accused of serial killing. No, it's not. But somebody very well-known accused of killing three people. And it has to do once again with Hollywood agents. Stand by for more on that. Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. Mark your calendars. News Nation, Sirius XM, December 6th in a live primetime event, the News Nation Republican primary debate. Sirius XM's Megan Kelly returns to the moderator seat.

I'll ask the questions you want to hear. Real issues, tough questions, every contender. Because if you want to be the leader of the free world, you better be ready to give America the answers they're looking for. Live from the University of Alabama, the News Nation Republican Primary Debate. Moderated by

Sirius XM's Megan Kelly and News Nation's Elizabeth Vargas. December 6th, 8 p.m. Eastern. Watch it on News Nation, America's fastest-growing cable news network. Find News Nation on your screen at joinnn.com or listen on Sirius XM Triumph's Channel 111. Go to siriusxm.com slash mkshow to subscribe and get three months free.

Offer details apply. The News Nation Republican Primary Debate. See you on the debate stage. To find News Nation on your TV, go to joinnn.com. Derek Chauvin stabbed in prison, and it looks like it was pretty severe. They say he's stable, but they had to use life-saving efforts. EMS was requested. He was transported to a local hospital. Very annoying that the Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who prosecuted him, was notified about the attack, but Derek Chauvin's family was not. And this at the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. So

he's been sentenced. He's going to have to serve out his, what, 23-year-old, three-year sentence. And yet he's a walking target. Is there anything that can be, he can't spend 23 years in solitary, Mark. So what can be done to protect him or any former law enforcement officer who winds up going to jail? You know, I'm actually, I know this is morbid and somewhat cynical. I'm surprised he's lasted as long as he has, frankly. He's a, you know, other than child molesters, police officers, especially somebody as notorious as this, do not have a long shelf life in prison. I had thought maybe because it was the federal system, it would be different. And I think his calculation was one of the machinations they went through in terms of getting sentenced federally was so that he could serve his time federally or in a federal facility

thinking or the expectation that would be safer. Obviously, it didn't pan out. They're not a bunch of nice guys there either marcia is there anything that can be done for former law enforcement you know love him hate him think he was wrongly convicted or not derek chauvin deserves not to be killed while in prison and yet i'm sure he is target number one we profiled the fall of minneapolis the latest documentary offering a lot more to this story than people may know. I'd hate to think that that documentary had anything to do with what happened because in it for the first time gives an interview and he says he thinks this whole thing was a sham. What can be done? It is an ongoing problem. This is not a new

issue that they always face when a police officer gets in prison. They're in incredible danger, incredible danger and from everyone. And you're right, they can in incredible danger, incredible danger from everyone. And you're right, they can't spend their whole lives in solitary. And so you do want to put extra detail on them. You do want to have them in a location that is the most likely to be safe for them. But there's no such thing as perfection. And as you can see, you can take every precaution and still wind up in a situation like this because they're imperiled from all sides. All right. Lastly, real quick, Sam Haskell, Hollywood royalty, I'm told, has a son, right, who was also Sam Haskell. And Mark,

he allegedly killed his wife and her parents and was very bad at hiding the evidence. What's the story? Well, the worst part about this is it looks like he was apprehended, or at least is the subject of the accusations, because he was trying to hire day laborers to take out the garbage bags that were filled with body parts. And then when they protested, he said it was a Halloween prank. This is obviously somebody who's suffering from some extreme mental infirmities. And if any of this is true, it's a horrific story. I mean, I laugh because of what a bungler he is, but this is truly horrific. This is as dark as it gets marcia yeah it is and the

workers were the ones that called 9-1-1 uh it does sound to me like there's mental disturbance here as well it's just so bizarre beyond well we'll see whether he tries to rely on that because he's arrested and in a lot of trouble and those three workers are going to testify against him he tried to say they were they were carrying out something else. And then they thought the bags did not, they were not hard enough to be the other thing he said they were. And they smelled a rat into their credit. They did something about it.

Thank you both so much. And I'll see you all tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.