The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden’s Border Wall, Ex-MLB Pitcher Trevor Bauer’s Lawsuit Drama, and SBF Trial Begins, with Former VP Mike Pence, Arthur Aidala, and Mark Eiglarsh | Ep. 641

Episode Date: October 5, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by former Vice President and current 2024 GOP presidential candidate Mike Pence, to discuss President Biden’s about-face on border wall construction, the battle over who will be the next Speaker of the House and if he thinks former President Donald Trump should fill the role, his plan to turn around poor poll numbers, criticism over recent GOP debates, and more. Plus, Kelly’s Court. Attorneys Arthur Aidala and Mark Eiglarsh join Megyn to discuss Sam Bankman-Fried’s federal trial involving FTX’s collapse, the opening arguments and charges against him, the possible ways to defend the case, MLB pitcher Trevor Bauer and accuser Lindsey Hill settling their lawsuits over sexual assault claims, the incriminating text messages and videos that have emerged in the case, and more.Pence: https://mikepence2024.comAidala: https://omny.fm/shows/the-arthur-aidala-power-hour 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. In a stunning turn of events, President Biden now supports building a wall along the U.S. southern border. When he was running for president, he declared there will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration. Now his administration is willing to toss aside the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act because there is a, quote, acute and immediate need for a wall. Oh, really? What finally clued you in? We have the perfect guest here today to react to this major development, and that is former vice president and current 2024 GOP presidential candidate Mike Pence.

Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for being here with us today. What do you make of this 180 by the president, who has been, since he took office, steadily dismantling even the border wall parts that you and President Trump had allocated for the remaining part of the border that you did not get to cover? He's been selling them off. And now he's seen the light. Well, Megan, thanks for having me on.

And what a difference a crisis makes, right? I mean, from the first day of the Biden administration, he shut down construction of the border wall. We had built hundreds of miles of border wall. He committed himself to undo the Remain in Mexico policy that I negotiated with the Mexican government on behalf of the administration. And then he committed to rescind Title 42. The combination of those things, Megan, as you know, had reduced illegal immigration and asylum abuse by 90%. Joe Biden threw open the southern border of the United States. I've been down there four times, which I think is four times more than the current vice president, and standing along the border, seeing literally steel girders stacked like a parked railroad car rusting in the sun because Joe Biden refused to allow anyone to build any further border wall.

Just again, this decision today, it feels like too little too late. But for heaven's sakes, let's just get on with it. Right. I mean, a nation without borders is not a nation. I saw last night where Secretary Mayorkas is requesting all the necessary waivers you just described to get going on building the wall. But it's just part of the equation. We absolutely have to see Remain in Mexico back into effect. We absolutely have to deputize courts and prosecutors around the country to process the over 6 million asylum applicants that are now strewn all over the United States.

But people need to know that this today is, to me, this is a confirmation that even the Biden administration has come to realize that this is a manmade crisis at our border. And that man's name is Joe Biden. And we've got to get back to what was working during our administration. It's amazing because it's only going to be even given this crisis, we're literally at unprecedented levels of migrants crossing that border, even at this stage with him saying he's going to now build the wall. He's talking about, I think, 26 miles of it. I mean, we have a lot more to go. So even this feels like a fig leaf under this president meant to what? Do you think this is a politics thing? He recognizes even the Democrats are turning on him.

Well, well, they are. I mean, you've got you got Mayor Eric Adams in New York, who I was actually on on Fox one day. They asked me about Mayor Adams, who had come to be critical of the Biden administration. He must have gotten a memo from Washington because the next day, Mayor Adams, he didn't reverse his criticism, but he somehow blamed what was happening in New York with this avalanche of illegal immigrants and asylum applicants on the Trump-Pence administration. But now you've got the governor of New York, you've got the governor of Illinois, who actually is now complaining about this. So it feels like a fig leaf.

It feels like too little, too late. But I think the American people deserve to know that what they announced late yesterday is tantamount to an admission that Joe Biden was wrong from day one when they shut down construction of that wall. It's one of the reasons why we need a new president. We need a wider majority in the Congress. We need a Republican Senate that will secure the southern border of the United States. And as I hear about it everywhere I go, not just people, Megan, as you know, but the scourge of fentanyl, most of which flows into our country through the southern border

of the United States, is claiming lives in every community in this country. And whatever Joe Biden does today, whatever 20, 30 miles of wall he calls for to be built, we need an administration that's absolutely committed to put into effect the policies that we had put into effect that secure the southern border. And if I'm president of the United States, I promise you we will. Yeah. Just yesterday, there was a report after Congress held a hearing on how the Chinese are buying up a bunch of American farmland. More and more states like Florida and others are trying to stop this, but they're buying up a bunch of American farmland and then creating marijuana plant farms where they lace the marijuana with fentanyl they've gotten from Mexican drug cartels. This is what we're dealing with. It's not like

the 60s where, you know, people used to have a joint and it wasn't the end of the world. Your kid could have a joint now laced with fentanyl and die because we're allowing all of this to happen. It's just one of the many things that we need to worry about. Let me switch topics while I'm on the subject of Congress, where you used to work. Things I think it's fair to say are in a bit of disarray right now. There's no speaker McCarthy's fired. Uh, what do you make of the insurgency that Matt Gates led to boot Kevin McCarthy? Well, I, I must tell you, I was, I was deeply disappointed, uh, to see Congressman Gates and seven other members of Congress partner with every single Democrat in the house of

representatives, uh, to fire the Republican Speaker of the House. Look, as you know, Megan, you know me a long time. I was a backbench conservative. I led the House conservative caucus when I was in the Congress. We had our share of fights with our leadership. We had our share of fights with the Republican administration, but it would never have occurred to me or any Republican that I know to partner with the Democrat minority to throw out the Republican leadership in the Congress. It seems to me these eight Republicans represent the chaos caucus. And I am wishing well to all of my former colleagues and so many of my friends in the House as they go through the process of choosing a new

speaker. But I honestly believe that they also have to amend the conference rules and require a higher threshold so that you can't see a small number of members move to essentially hold the Speaker of the House hostage as he's moving forward. The last thing I would say to you, too, is I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm one of the few candidates for president that's been talking about the $33 trillion national debt that we have and the fact that we've got to be willing to have a conversation with the American people about reforming Social Security and Medicare to deal with it. But that's why I couldn't understand why the same congressmen that partnered with the Democrats to throw out the Speaker of the House were among the 21 that

voted against a short-term bill that actually had border funding in it, had budget cuts in it, and actually created a committee to begin to look at entitlement reform. I mean, when I was a leader of House conservatives, I always took a strong stand, Megan, but I always used to remind people, sometimes you got to take yes for an answer. And the chaos caucus in the House of Representatives, those eight members wouldn't take yes for an answer on Friday. And so come Tuesday of this week, they partnered with the Democrats to throw out the Republican speaker of the House. But I got a lot of confidence in our team to come together, choose good leadership and move our country forward. So the Democrats were having a really rough couple of weeks in the press. And then I guess Matt Gaetz decided he'd had enough of that.

And now the Republicans are back in the press for all the wrong reasons. On the subject, before I leave it, President Trump tweeted out, he posted. On the day that eight Republicans partnered with every Democrat in the Congress to fire the Republican Speaker of the House, a new poll came out that found that Republicans have the largest advantage on dealing with a struggling economy of any time in modern history. I mean, there's a gigantic gap. The American people know Bidenomics has failed. And I have to tell you, as I said that day when I found out about it, chaos on Capitol Hill is never a friend to a majority. But more importantly, the chaos on Capitol Hill is doing nothing to secure our border,

nothing to get this economy moving again. And I am hopeful that my old colleagues and my friends will come together and find a speaker that'll be able to bring the conference together, focus back on the American people's challenges. I always think you could probably relate to this, given all the time you spent in Iowa. My imaginary viewer has always been a woman named Madge in Iowa. And she works all day. She takes care of her kids. She turns in, you know, at night and she maybe watches the news or listens to the show. And she needs it explained to her.

You know, she's smart, but she needs it explained to her because she's paying attention to her life. She doesn't care about a vanity project by some congressman from Florida who would like to be governor. You know, she cares about her life. She does care about the economy. She can see how badly it's going. I don't know why you would try to change Madge's perception of the chaos on the left into her paying attention to the chaos he's creating on the right. Anyway, that's my own take on it. Sorry for the editorial. Trump shares a

post pitching himself for speaker, which Hannity reported the other night he believed could happen, that Trump would be, quote, willing to serve. Is that a good idea? I think there's enough talent in the Congress of the United States to find a principled conservative who can lead this conference. And but I can't say I'm terribly surprised to see my former running mate injecting himself into this conversation. You know, I sure would have liked to seen him step up and speak in support of the former speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, he actually was critical of Kevin, who I think by most accounts, Megan, has been exceptionally generous toward the former president in his public posture. So, no, I don't think that'd be a good idea at all. I think the elected representatives of the American people in the Republican majority, with maybe eight exceptions,

have many good candidates who would be better Speaker of the House than the former president. Just for the record, you're not throwing your hat in the ring, because you can do it from outside Congress. That's what Trump would be doing. You can do it from outside Congress. I will tell you, I think it was on about the 10th vote a year ago that I had got a couple of texts from people asking if I was coming back. But no, I'm running for president of the United States of America. And that's where my family and I feel called. Can I just ask you about that? I feel like so much of Congress has become a vanity project. You know, so many people who are looking, I think, to want to be famous instead of to serve. It doesn't feel to me like it's always been this way. Is this a product of

social media, of, I don't know, times move on and people have different side gigs that they want to nurture? What is happening in your view as somebody who's served the country in a number of different offices? Well, I think there's been a breakdown in the Congress over my season of service. I arrived in Washington, DC in the year 2000 and was sworn in in 2001. 9-11 happened a half a year later. And I will tell you after that terrorist attack on American soil, there were no Republicans in Washington, DC. There were no Democrats. There were just Americans. We found a way to work together. But clearly, with fault on both sides, Megan, there's been an erosion of civility on Capitol Hill. And I got to tell you, you know, when I'm out there in Iowa talking to Madge and talking to lots of people and we're back in Iowa tonight, I hear people longing for a return

to a threshold of civility that would make it possible for us to really take on some of these major, major challenges facing the American people, whether it be the crisis at the border, whether it be a struggling economy, whether it be America's challenges in the world a breakdown in civility. And frankly, that is the precursor to an environment where it seems like the more caustic people are on either side of the spectrum, the have encouraged me about since we announced our campaign back in June for the Republican nomination is they appreciate the fact that, you know, I'm a conservative, but I'm not in a bad mood about it. People that know me from my years in Congress as a governor, as vice president, know that I hold very strong views. I often am criticized for those conservative views, but that always try and show respect for people, whether they agree or disagree. And that's the environment that we have to have if America is going to meet this moment in the 21st century. You know, you've you've been so demonized by some on the right because they see you as having been, quote, disloyal to Trump.

And it's, in my view, very unfair to you. You were a very loyal vice president. You diverged on the January 6th thing and you were in the right. He was in the wrong. But people are so blindly loyal to Trump. I mean, I get it. He's definitely a better option than what we're seeing over on the left, where they're transing kids and they're creating, you know, weaponization of the DOJ and all the stuff that people are concerned about. But why do you think is it just because of Trump's messaging? Why, why has there been this change in sentiment toward you among the MAGA base?

Well, look, thanks for saying, I was always loyal to president Donald Trump. He was my president and he was my friend. We had a great working relationship that I recounted in my autobiography that came out last fall. It's been actually described as the most fulsome defense of the Trump-Pence record that's been in print. We accomplished so much, not just at the border, but in the economy and our military. Of course, appointing three conservatives to our courts that gave America a new beginning for the right to life. These were all great accomplishments. But in the waning days of the administration, I knew that I had a higher loyalty, and that was to God and my oath to the Constitution of the United States. And I will tell you that while I continue

to have my detractors among some of the president's most ardent supporters, over the last several years, Megan, I've been deeply moved as I was. I was in Centerville, Ohio this last weekend. I know you're sorry you missed it. It was the Pancake Festival. Drew about 10,000 people to the Courthouse Square in Centerville. It was a great event. I just about couldn't get through the crowd because people wanting selfies and thanking me for my service. And I had the occasional sideways look, but the overwhelming majority of people were expressing their encouragement, their support. And many more times than once on every day, I have somebody stop me and say,

thank you for keeping your oath to the Constitution of the United States. So I'm always humbled by that. I always answer it the same way. I say it was God's grace that day. But I think as time goes on, more and more people understand that we stood strongly with the former president all through our administration. But at the end of the day, with God's grace, I kept my oath to the Constitution and the promise I'd made to the American people. And I'll never see it any other way. You absolutely did. There's just no two ways about it. And everybody understands Trump has difficulty with losing. We get it. No one's saying the election was fair or perfect. It was definitely, I accept the term rigged. I don't accept the term, you know, stolen in terms of the vote flipping, but you, you had no part in any of

that. You had no part in any of that. It's unfair to hold that against you. People like you or don't like you as a candidate, that's their business, but not over this. Um, let's talk a little bit about campaign politics because the polling, as you know, is in Trump's favor right now, not just against you, but against the entire GOP field. His polling average right now, 49 percent in Iowa. You're at three in New Hampshire. Trump's at 45. You are at one point four percent. What what's the plan to turn that around? I see your role in the race. I really do. I see why you're there and that it's important for the Republican Party. But to be honest, I don't see the path to victory. So help walk me through it.

Well, first off, I'm very grateful for the support. You look at some of these national polls and anywhere from 4% to 8% of Republican primary voters say that I'm their first choice. And that's very humbling for a small town guy from Southern Indiana to have that many Americans see me as a first choice for president of the United States. So I never want to gainsay that. But, you know, what I'm told is that you look at the history of the Iowa caucus and we've been spent a lot of time in Iowa. You look at New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary state, and they are well known for deciding late. And in fact, there have been in the last 20 years have been a few Republican candidates that won in Iowa, for instance,

that were essentially where I am in the polls right now. And so, you know, our approaches, we're just going to keep our head down, keep working hard. And, you know, Megan, you and I have known each other a long time, but I like to say I'm well known, but I'm not known well. And a place like Iowa and New Hampshire are tailor made for people to actually get to know me and get to know my wife, Karen, and see that, you know, I'm always struck by people being surprised that I have a sense of humor, but I get it. I mean, when I was vice president- Well, this version of you is so conversational. The debate stage version of you is much more serious.

Well, yeah. Well, that's, yeah, I tend to, you know, I tend to armor up when we're heading into debates. You've had your experience on that stage, too. But town hall meetings and living room meetings that we've been having, I mean, you know, I talk to people about my Christian faith, what I think you implied is understanding my calling to this, my deep commitment to the conservative agenda that's defined the Republican movement over the last 50 years. I mean, that's my great concern right now is less about the polls, but it's more about the choice that I think Republicans are facing. And I spoke about it in New Hampshire a few weeks back, Megan, at St. Anselm College, where I said, essentially, we're at a Republican time for choosing, where you have candidates like myself who are offering that

conservative mainstream agenda, American strong defense, American leadership in the world, less government, less taxes, right to life, traditional values. And then you have not only the former president, but some of his imitators in the race that are talking about walking away from America's role as leader of the free world with war raging in Eastern Europe that are actually talking about raising taxes. The president's talking about a 10% tariff on all imports into the country. And then there's others that are shying away from the right to life right at the beginning of a new era for life in the country. So I'm going to continue to make that case in the days ahead that for the sake not just of our party, but for the sake of our country, staying

true to that broad mainstream conservative agenda that's defined our movement from Reagan through the Trump-Pence years, that was the agenda we governed on, Megan, is still the pathway toward a stronger, more prosperous America. Ukraine has been a problem on many levels, and the support for it is falling within the Republican Party and among independents. It's still very high amongst Democrats. This has led to some people breaking away from you, breaking away from Nikki Haley, who have more of what I'd say is a traditionalist Republican approach, which is the Reagan approach. We can do it all. You know, I've heard you say that we don't have to choose between border security and Ukraine. We can keep Putin in check and take care of ourselves. I think the problem

so many Republicans have right now is we're not doing it. We're not. And we're bankrupt. So how could we? And so kind of too bad. Sorry, Ukraine, but you've been a hot mess for a long time. So we're out. We're going to focus on ourselves. So those people looking at you thinking that, what say you? Well, I tell them, and I understand after that disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, Megan, the lack of confidence in Joe Biden as a commander in chief. And frankly, I think Joe Biden's done a terrible job explaining what our national interest is in Ukraine. Look, I've been to Ukraine. I've stood at the site of a mass grave. I've heard about the atrocities.

But look, you make decisions about military resources on the basis of national interest. And I think our national interest in supporting the Ukrainian military is simply this. I have no doubt that if Vladimir Putin overruns Ukraine, it will not be long before that Russian army crosses a border of a NATO country where our men and women in uniform would have to go and fight under our. I want to ask you why. Why do you believe that he's been upset about Ukraine and the West, including us, messing in Ukraine for a long time.

But what is our evidence that he's then, you know, after this disaster that Ukraine has been for him, if we pulled out and he got some, you know, I realize this is controversial, but if he if he got, you know, the borders as they now are after his success is there, that he's then going to say, I want Poland. I'm going, I'm going to start it up again. I mean, his, his army's weakened. What is, what is your evidence that he would take it beyond Ukraine? Well, his army is weakened, which is another argument for what we're doing. Remember with a 5% investment of our national defense,, Russia's gone from the second most powerful military in the world to the second most powerful military in Ukraine. That's what we used to call progress back in the day.

But no, people point at Poland and shrug their shoulders. Look, Poland's got a strong military. I'd keep an eye on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. And I'd also look really hard, Megan. Look, you're an intellectual. You're a scholar. People know you do your homework. Go look at what Vladimir Putin has said about the Baltic states. Look at the ambitions that he has never hidden for the last 20 years. You know, in our first year in office, they had 100,000 troops on the border of the Baltic states. And I was detailed to go and visit the country of Georgia.

I visited Estonia. I gave speeches about our strong commitment to our allies in the region because that Russian military, they said they were just doing a military exercise. It was called Zapad, but we didn't want them to get any ideas. And so I went, I flew the flag. Others in the administration did the same. Russia stayed on its side of the border. Look, I just think if the United States falters in our leadership of the free world in this moment, I really do believe it will simply embolden Russia's ambitions in Eastern Europe. And just as importantly, and I said this in that very sporty debate that happened a week ago, Megan, look, if we let Russia take Ukraine, I believe that's a green light to Xi and communist China to take Taiwan.

I think Xi's announced his unlimited partnership with Putin and they're supporting that effort. But I guarantee you, and I've met both of these men, I've talked to them, standing toe to toe, and looked them in the eye and size them up. I will tell you, there's no doubt in my mind that President Xi is watching what is happening, watching if America and the West falter or flag in our support for the Ukrainian military. And I believe if Putin prevails in Ukraine, it will not be long before we see that Chinese military moving against Taiwan. I think we can deter that by standing firm in Eastern Europe today.

I believe it with all my heart. I do wonder, I wonder if we had a Republican president in there right now who actually was funding the border to protect it, so we had one one and spending money on Ukraine, whether the attitudes would shift. I think one of the frustrations on the right and amongst independence rising, right, is that it's a sieve down here. So they- Megan, I don't wonder about it at all. I don't wonder about it at all. I mean, look, plus during our administration, I will tell you that disaster's withdrawal from Afghanistan never would have happened if we'd have gotten four more years because we had demonstrated a willingness to use American hard power, whether it was cruise missiles in Syria, whether it was our armed forces against ISIS, whether it was Qasem Soleimani. I mean, Russia and in Afghanistan, the Taliban knew when we told them, if you break the deal, the deal's off and we're going to hit you harder than we've ever hit you before.

That was a credible threat of the use of force. Joe Biden flagged, faltered, utterly, you know, mangled that withdrawal from Afghanistan, claiming 13 precious American service members, including one from here in Indiana, a great young Marine named Humberto Sanchez. But he also, he greatly diminished American credibility. And I think it's emboldened the enemies of freedom around the world. And if we had a strong Republican president in the White House, you bet we'd have a growing economy. We'd have a secure border. We'd be dealing with these renegade prosecutors in our major cities that are fueling this crime wave that's besetting our families. And I think the American people would say, you bet, we're the leader of the free world. We're not going to let Russia or anybody else redraw international lines by force. But it's the failures at home that's undermined American

confidence. And that all lands right on the doorstep of President Joe Biden. A couple of quick questions for you in the time we have. The debates, I've been watching them. I was surprised to see a young guy from Young American Foundation stand up and ask about climate change. Now we know that's because Fox News made him. They gave him the question and wanted him to ask it. Then we see this Calderon from Univision coming at all of you like MSNBC was out there. I mean, it was like Rachel Maddow was sitting on the debate stage, which we've had for years. But this this time around was supposed to be for Republican primary voters, right? They don't care about DACA. They don't care about some of the issues that she was coming at you at. So

what do you make of how the debates have gone thus far and of Trump saying we should just cancel the rest of them because I've clearly already got it? Well, well, I liked the first debate better than the second one. You know, we actually had we had closing statements. It was a little bit more orderly. I tried to be in the fight on the second one, but above the fray, it just seemed to me. We missed you up there, Megan. I mean, I've never- Oh, thank you. You ask tough questions, but you're one of those people that actually lets people answer the question. But to have one of the moderators interrupt me while I'm answering the question,

and to your point, not just in my direction, but many of the questions began with a kind of a provocation to each of the participants, calling them out and then asking them to respond. Look, I think this is a very serious time in the life of our nation. I think the reason I'm running for president is not because I want to know what it's like to work in the West Wing, Megan. I know that. It's because I truly do believe that having been a vice president, having been a governor of a successful state, having been a leader in Congress among conservatives and led the conference that I'm the most qualified, the most was a disservice to the country. But I say, let the debates continue. Let's continue to have them. I'd like to see podcast and debate Donald Trump just one-on-one.

You know, people have asked me what I think about debating Donald Trump. And I say, I've debated Donald Trump a thousand times, just never with the cameras on. Maybe we can fix that. So what would be your number one debate issue you want? If it were just the two of you, or if you get him on the stage, what's the number one thing you want to debate him about? Well, look, I'm pro-life. I don't apologize for it. I knew it. Yeah. It's abortion, right? And I would really want to know why someone who led the most pro-life administration in American history would call a heartbeat bill passed not only in Florida, but in Georgia and in Ohio and states in Iowa. Why President Trump, former

President Trump called that a terrible mistake? Why was it a terrible... I'd like to know why he thinks that election losses in 2022 were because we managed to see Roe versus Wade sent to the ash heap of history. I mean, I really do believe the president needs to share with voters whether or not he is going to be a champion for the right to life in states across the country and in our nation's capital. The economic philosophies, we have separation. And of course, with regard to America's role as leader of the free world. But everything for me begins with the unalienable right to life. All right. Last question before I let you go. Glenn Youngkin, a lot of buzz about whether he could swoop in

and sort of take over or consolidate all the anti-Trump voting. It'd be a little late, but he hasn't totally ruled it out. What do you make of that possibility? Well, I mean, the water's warm. Come on in. I mean, you know, he's a genuinely good man. So that's my view. If he wants to get in the fray, jump in the fray and we'll let the voters decide. You two are a genuinely good man. Thank you so much for the time, Mr. Vice President. Great to see you. Good to see you, Megan. Thank you. Up next, an unbelievable and spectacular Kelly's Court. We are going to get into Trevor Bauer, the baseball player who was me too. And now he's producing receipts on the case. We're going to get into Sam Bankman Freed and this crazy trial that started with him

and much, much more with the O.G. Kelly's Court. Great panel. Arthur and Mark are here. Wow, do we have a jam-packed show of court cases for you today. We were going to do Kelly's Court the whole show, but had the opportunity to sit with the former vice president, and we're very happy to have had him. But we got a lot to, as we used to say at Fox, we got a 20-pound bag of potatoes to get into a 10-pound bag, so let's go. We're going to talk about the boy genius turned alleged multi-billion dollar crypto criminal, Sam Bankman Freed. His criminal trial started this week to the wild sex case involving one of the best baseball players in the world. Is this all a big fake me too situation? Is she the Jussie Smollett of me too accusers? We're going to get into it. Two of my very favorites are back. Arthur Idalla is a trial

attorney and managing partner of Idalla, Bertuna and Kamens. Mark Iglish is a criminal defense attorney at Iglish Law. Guys, so happy to have you here. My God, we had a lot of homework to do for today's show. I mean, there was a lot. There's complex cases. So I have the right panel with me. Let's talk about S.B.F. So the trial is finally taking place of this guy who was said to be a crypto criminal. He, um, was one of those boy geniuses. He worked at this very successful Jane capital, and then he decided he could do it on his own. And he went out there, he formed this, um, investment fund, Alameda research and Alameda was making investments. Then he's like, you know what? I'm going to do crypto myself. I'm going to create a crypto trading fund and I'm going to create a cryptocurrency.

And I'm going to do this other thing under FTX, under the label FTX. Well, long story short, people were investing in FTX by the billion. And it turns out Sam Bankman-Fried, darling of the celebrity world and of the left in particular for all his donations, though he made some to the right too, mostly mostly to left, was taking all this money out of the Alameda part, which was supposed to be investments of people's money and covering his shortfalls on the FTX or reverse that he was taking money from the FTX exchange and using it to put in the into the Alameda hedge fund. And that's a no, no, you're not allowed to do that. I'll read to you the way Bloomberg put it, which is pretty simple. He said the essential charges

against Sam Bankman Freed are customers deposited billions at his crypto exchange FDX to buy crypto. Then Alameda Research, his trading firm, secretly took that money to gamble on crypto tokens and made weird, illiquid venture investments. A lot of the money also seemed to be siphoned off to make political donations by celebrity endorsements, pay for Bahamas real estate for Bankman Freed and his family. And when customers started to ask for their money back last November. It wasn't there. It's not good. So he's at trial starting today. Arthur, you tell me, how would you defend this case? Well, I know this judge very well.

I've appeared before him many times. And the reason why I bring that up is he puts a lot of handcuffs on you. I was in the courtroom when Joe Takapina was just trying Donald Trump's case in front of this exact same judge and I can't tell, I lost count how many times he warned Mr. Takapina during cross-examination that he was either gonna sit him down or sanction him and as Mark will tell you a lot of that goes into your strategy. What will the judge allow you to do? What can't you do?

What arguments can you make? What arguments can't you make? One of the arguments they want to make is they want to blame a lot on lawyers. One of the hugest law firms, as you know, Megan, is Sullivan and Cromwell. And they were there and they were advising him. And they want to blame the lawyers. And I believe the judge has already ruled. Nope, you can't do that. Well, does that take a bullet out of your arsenal if you can't blame the people who are giving you legal advice that, oh, it's okay

to make the transfers of money from X to Y and the judge is like, no, no, you can't argue that to the jury. That's devastating. That is a problem. I mean, Mark, the way I see it is the prosecution, they opened yesterday saying this guy deliberately lied to the world. That's a quote. They said, quote, he was taking these customer deposits and spending them for himself, not only for his place in the Bahamas, but his parents, who we'll get to in a minute. They were cashing in big time. These revered Stanford law professors. Oh, well, as it turns out, they were all too gleeful about taking all these people's deposits. As far as I know, they haven't given any of them back. But the defense got up there and said, this is a well-intentioned guy. He acted in good faith.

There was no intention to defraud. And you can't, you know, can't make a criminal out of somebody who just kind of screwed up a business. That's the defense. Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, my client screwed up, but it doesn't meet the elements of the crime. And when people invest in businesses, there's no guarantees. Things can go belly up because things happen. And in this case, they're going to explain how each allocation, like to a condo in the Bahamas and other things that he spent money on for the benefit of the corporation. And even if hindsight's 20-20, and maybe he wouldn't do those things moving forward, at the time, that was the

decision he made. And maybe it wasn't the best one. It ultimately led to the failure of the company, but it wasn't criminal is going to be the argument. Do I buy it? Not necessarily, but that's the argument. It's also the excess, Megan. You mentioned his parents. They bought some, I don't know how much it was, multiple, multiple million dollar house, 50 maybe million dollar house in the Bahamas. His dad was on the payroll. His girlfriend was the CEO of the corporation. I mean, that's the guy. By the way, I know the prosecutor, Nick Rosa. He's the one I was dealing with on Rudy Giuliani's subpoena in the Southern District. I know Chris Everdell, the criminal defense attorney. He also tried the Ghislaine Maxwell case, which I'm working on the appeal as we speak.

They're very fine lawyers in front of a very experienced, tough judge. Bill Clinton, a pointee, he knows his stuff, the judge, but he plays a role in the trial, in my opinion, more than he should, which is going to restrict, if only the defense, more than the prosecutors. Here's just a word on the parents. So Barbara Freed and Joseph Bankman are their names. They, according to Bloomberg were active participants in and beneficiaries of Bankman Freed's quote generosity. Um, they were, let's see, just to give you a

couple, cause FTX Bankman Freed's firm just sued both of them, alleging they siphoned millions of bucks from the exchange for their own personal benefit. They said that the father here, Bankman, portrayed himself as the proverbial adult in the room. But instead of raising alarms about misconduct, he stayed silent and actively worked to suppress efforts to expose the fraud. He denies all of this. They allege that he enriched himself and so did his wife, including a $10 million cash gift and a $16.4 million luxury property in the Bahamas, that the dad also wanted a million dollar annual salary for himself, complaining when he only received around $200,000 a year, and that he received a cameo appearance, which he demanded in that Super Bowl ad that featured Larry David because he wanted to see himself on screen. There he is.

And finally, he then funneled five point five million to Stanford because he wanted to look like a big shot. So the dad and the mom, they deny this. But if true, they sound disgusting, too. All right. That's my take on it. Meanwhile, though, Mark, what they're saying is the defense lawyer got up there and said something important, which we did hear earlier in this case. The defense is arguing. Well, he put it in question form, but there is a question about whether it was written into the code that Alameda, the investment arm, right? It's not the crypto exchange FTX. Alameda, the investment arm, was allowed to borrow an almost unlimited amount of money from FTX. They argued that far from being a secret, the defense claimed, this bit of information was open and transparent and any senior developer at FTX could see it, that you were allowed to take money out of FTX and use it over at Alameda.

I mean, if that I don't know how that works, whether it was disclosed to investors or just FTX employees, that would be important to know the difference of. But that could be ballgame potentially. Yeah. Yeah. Let me break this down for you. If some of your viewers are confused because they're not even sure what you just said and or they don't know if money is supposed to go here or there. Then they're no different than the average juror who has no comparison for the most part intellectually with some of the prosecutors who need to dumb this down really simply. What they do benefit from are the things that you said earlier, parents making millions of dollars that these jurors won't see in a lifetime. For what?

Those types of scenarios really resonate, plus the victim stories. We have to emphasize, if you're the prosecutor, you've got to emphasize how people were hurt. That's how they opened their case. They opened their case by putting a victim. They opened their case yesterday after openings. You got to do that. You got to get them to care. What do they care about this? You got to get them to care and you got to show that what he did was so outrageous. So beyond any realm that they're used to, that it equates to this emotional reaction that could potentially be criminal. But the flip side of the cross-examination of that victim is you knew that there were risks involved. You signed paperwork when you made the investment with us

talking about there was nothing guaranteed. You signed paperwork that you had to give us your net worth that you were investing money that you could lose, and you would still be able to pay the mortgage and the kids' college tuition. And it was just a deal that went bad. What you'll be complaining about the $16 million house in the Bahamas if you made $16 million from your investment? I don't think you would. And that's, I think, the way you have to attack those victims. Well, I wouldn't have known about it, but for this thing going kaplunk and learning about the fraud. You're right. I wouldn't have complained. But, you know, what I learned after disturbs me and clearly exchange thinking that I was going to be betting and buying on crypto and that when I found out there might be a problem at the crypto exchange in terms of its solvency, I went and knocked on the door and said, I would like my money back. I'm kind

of done with this whole experiment. I'll take it back even at a loss, but I no longer want to keep the bet on the table. And the answer was, oh, it's all gone. I know what the bank statement said, that you had some in there, but sort of made off like it's gone because we took all this money out of the FTX crypto exchange and we used it over here in the Alameda Investment Fund because we were losing over there, too. We wanted to cover our losses. Oh, and we also gave fifty five million dollars to Tom Brady to appear in an ad for us. And we paid Larry David ten million to appear in that Super Bowl ad. And we paid for a sixteen point four million dollar condo for my parents down in the Bahamas, never mind mine as Sam Bankman Freed and my girlfriends. Like, sorry,

that's what how we took it out of the crypto line. We put it over here in Alameda. Then we either blew it or we spend it in the Bahamas. And sorry, that was just good business investing. I just feel like if you can explain it simply to the jury, they're going to get Arthur that I don't care whether he had an evil mind in doing it. He was at a minimum criminally reckless with billions of dollars. But the argument maybe Judge Kaplan would allow them to make is, in summation, is like, ladies and gentlemen, do you know how much the president of General Motors makes? $29 million. Do you know how much General Motors loses every year? Mixed amount of dollars.

Do you know how much the stock went down last year? Y amount of dollars. Do you know who invests in General Motors stock? All the pension funds, all the civil servants. You know what? They all lost money. Do you see the president of General Motors in this courtroom in front of Judge Kaplan being charged with crimes? No.

So when you're the head of a corporation, you're entitled to whatever compensation that board has awarded you, the same way General Motors has. They're targeting this young man. And then you have to figure out some angle of why this administration particularly is targeting him. All right. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. All right. You know what? Actually make your comment. We're going to have to continue this across the break because there's too much more to go over. Go ahead, Mark. I will. I will say this very briefly. I'm salivating if the prosecutors make the argument that you just made that. Look, if he was just criminally negligent, if he. Listen, prosecutors are banking on this being intentional, willful fraud. If you retreat as a prosecutor to a softer position like, all right, maybe just screw things up.

That's exactly what the defense wants. But you don't have to. Does he actually have to prove that the prosecution that Sam Bankman Freed knew in his mind this was wrong, that the money wasn't there and that he was making false representations to the people over in the FTX crypto exchange, that the money was there? Or is it enough to prove he was a reckless manager who did not oversee the staff, who was completely out to lunch as they were making these massive purchases and transferring money between the two as though they were interchangeable and that all these people got hurt. That's not a criminal fraud case that you can't sort of you can't get recklessness up to the proper standard. I don't think that my jurors are going to convict, you know, that's what I want. I've

had clients where I say, look, he screwed up. It wasn't intentional. And regardless of what the law requires, most jurors want to see that kind of level of criminality before they strip someone of their liberty. I don't know. I'm not sure that's going to do it in these financial cases. They don't always have the smoking gun of like I knew like Madoff. I knew the whole thing was a fraud. They have just one level down, which is I was completely reckless with your money. I really wanted the beautiful Bahamian mansion and I thought I'd make it back. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. You know, I thought this line in the agreement covered me. A lot of people have gone to jail for less than this. But wait, there's more because Michael Lewis was with Sam Bankman Freed for the past few years,

was doing this in-depth story on him and happened to just get very lucky. I mean, from a journalist perspective, when everything blew up, he gave an interview to 60 the other night. We're going to talk about what he said, and then I'll play you the piece of testimony that they think could be critical to the prosecution. Stand by. So, guys, we just went back to check and it does appear that even the defense is not arguing that this disclosure was made to the customers or to any of the investors or depositors that they thought they had the ability at Alameda and FTX to just take the money out of the one pot and move it on over to the other pot at any point. There was something in the code that might have clued in FTX or Alameda senior

executives, but not the customers, not the people making the deposits. So that's the problem. That's where we get into highly criminal behavior. And he's now arguing, I just had so much money in all the accounts. I didn't know. I was a busy guy. I was playing my computer games. I was doing my investments, my whatever they called it, kind of donations. Can't remember that weird term. What was it? Oh, my effective altruism. And this led to Michael Lewis discussing the core of Sam Bankman's defense and problem on 60 Minutes. Michael Lewis was following the whole thing. I don't think he realized he was in the midst of a potential criminal case. But, you know, sometimes as a reporter, you step in it and it's gold.

And that's what happened. So here he is talking about it because he's got a new book out on it. What's the toughest question you think Sam's going to have to answer? How do you not know that $8 billion that's not yours is in your private fund? I mean, really, how do you not know? Explain. $8 billion is in your private fund that belongs to other people, and you're saying you didn't know. Please explain how that's possible. Did you do that? Yeah, I did. What did he say? He said, you have to understand that when it went in there, it was a rounding error, that I felt like we had infinity dollars in there, that I wasn't even thinking about it. Okay. So Mark, pursuant to your belief that being a dumb ass businessman

is not illegal. Could that work? One, you got 12 jurors in federal court takes one juror to say, you know what? Yeah, he was dopey. He was young. He didn't have the requisite experience. He made mistakes. As long as you concede that, like a good lawyer would, Arthur out of the gate is always conceding his client's shortfalls, how he could have done things differently. But it's just not criminal. But Mark, I would agree with you if it was $8 million. $8 billion. I mean, I look I love that term, Megan, I've never heard the term infinity,

infinity money like that's really, that's a lot of money. I six year old just learned about infinity in school. And now he's like, Daddy, I love you infinity, which is beautiful. But money is usually not infinity. So I don't know, Mark, how we could stand in front of jurors. And these are jurors who are, you know, electrical workers, school teachers, you know, maybe an accountant here or there and say, oh, $8 billion was just something that slipped through the cracks with a straight face. I don't know how you say that to them. Whether it's a building.

He's getting ready to blame the girlfriend, right? This girlfriend, Carolyn Ellison, who is a very bizarre, but very interesting figure in all of this. She too was at Jane Capitol. She was sort of wooed by Sam Bankman free to come with him and do this thing. She thought he had all the magical answers. Then there impossibly, she appears to have developed a physical attraction for him. And they had some affair. And she didn't know if she should continue with the affair. She didn't know if she should continue running Alameda, the investment firm, because she didn't really have the qualifications. She had only felt like a middling employee at the Jane Capital. But she's

like, what am I doing running this? But she was running. And maybe that's why he didn't know that, you know, they were going to lose all this money that then he would have to borrow from his crypto exchange to, you know, fill back up. She's turned on him. Many of the executives have turned on him. This is his biggest challenge, right? The top execs are all like he did it. He knew this is fraud. And here is the New York Times, the daily, you know, the daily podcast called the Daily of the New York Times and their reporter, David Yaffe, Melanie, talking about the one key piece of evidence that he thinks is really going to sink Sam Bankman-Frieden. It revolves around the girlfriend. They have a recording that somebody made of a company-wide meeting, an Alameda staff meeting that Caroline held just as FTX and Alameda were collapsing, where she explained to her employees, this is what's happening.

A few months ago, we had this massive hole in our accounts. We needed to fill it. And Sam and I and a couple of other people authorized the decision to fill that hole using customer funds. And this recording sounds like an admission of guilt. And it's pretty clearly going to be a powerful bit of evidence in the courtroom. Right, because, Arthur, the prosecution is going to say he knew it wasn't infinity money. He knew there was a big hole in Alameda. He chose to steal from the FTX

crypto exchange to cover the losses so that people wouldn't know. And he banked on being able to make it back over on the FTX crypto exchange before anybody noticed and before anybody looked at the Bahamian estates and all that crap. And he failed. He failed because some other guy kicked the tires at that FTX crypto exchange. He was thinking about buying it. And he was like, oh, wait, this thing stinks to high heaven. Not only am I not buying it, everybody else should be aware this is a hot mess. And then there was a, quote, run on the bank or the FTX crypto exchange and it imploded. But that's going to be the prosecution's. He knew he went to his girlfriend. He said, move the money. Holy shit. That gets to knowledge and intent. And that tape gets to like, what do you do with that? I mean, today's day and age,

there's tapes everywhere. And you have to, as a defense attorney, you have to try to grade it down into like a word by word and see if there's any way that you could use. You know, we just heard it outright. Right. But when I was in this position about on a homicide case, I took every word and I broke it down into piece by piece to the jury. And, you know, Mark says it only took one in that particular case i got three so i it would turned out to be a hung jury where my client absolutely admitted on tape that he paid seventy five thousand dollars to a hitman to kill his business partner so he could get money from him and somehow or another breaking down word by word yeah he gave him seventy five thousand dollars to kill mr stall

so what somehow or another by forcing every, I got some jurors to think that there was reasonable doubt. And that's the only out they're going to have. I mean, she took a plea. I don't know if there's a cooperation agreement where she's going to now testify and where they can cross-examine her about the tape. But for the people watching here or listening here, Megan, he was never offered a plea. Because you may be thinking, like, why is this guy going to trial? He really has no choice but to go to trial. And where the other people did get pleas and did take them, you know, he's hanging in the wind. He could get put behind bars for life. By the way, to my audience, this is how Arthur and Mark spend their days. People who are hiring hitmen allegedly to have people killed, but it's

an important role in our constitutional system. So you didn't do that Jones day, Megan. That was one of the kind of cases you handled. No, no, no, no disdain. Come on now, people. Come on. We were only handling the noble cases like defending RJ Reynolds on the cigarette lawsuits. It was noble work. Oh, I did. I never worked on those cases, but that was a big Jones Day paying client. OK, so here's my other thing. All the celebrities that are getting caught up in this. So I already said Stanford got five million dollars from the dad, the adult in the room who was like, I want a million dollars a year, not just 200,000.

And the dad who insisted that he be in the Super Bowl commercial. Well, Tom Brady, I didn't realize it was this much, got paid $55 million to advertise for FTX, $55 million. And Michael Lewis was asked about Tom Brady because he interviewed him after everything collapsed. And here's what he had to say about that. How did Tom Brady react to this? The first reaction was very sad. It was sadness. He clearly really liked him and he really liked the hope that he brought.

I mean, a lot of people wanted there to be a Sam. You know, there's still a Sam Bankman-Fried shaped hole in the world that now needs filling. Like that character would be very useful. What he represented. What he wanted to do with the resources. you know there's still a sam bankman freed shaped hole in the world that now needs filling like that character would be very useful what he represented what he wanted to do with the resources and brady was i think crushed and i think his time has gone by and he ceased to get a really good explanation about what's happened um i think he's just like he tricked me i angry. I don't want to have anything to do with it anymore. It looks like from what we've been able to glean, most of that money was paid in FTX stock or crypto. So he lost most of it, but not all of it, according to what we've read. So I wonder,

because there is a lawsuit now, I think against Brady, against Steph Curry, against Larry David, claiming you shouldn't have got out there and pushed this stuff on us, we unknowing investors, before doing your homework. Because I never knew who Sam Bankman Freed was, but I knew who Tom Brady was. And when I saw Tom Brady, Mark Iglish, I went and invested because I trusted him. So what do you make of that piece of this case? This isn't on Tom Brady and Steph Curry. They're not experts. And when you start scratching the surface, even the government, it takes a while before you get to the fraud. So I don't like that

standard at all. That is an outrageous sum of money, but it's Tom Brady. And he was able to command that. Good for him. You know. A guy who threw an intercept first pass ever in college turned out to be a guy who then later became someone who's worth $55 million, allegedly, for pushing this stuff. But listen, if he knows that he's involved in a fraudulent company and promoting that, that's one thing. And meeting with the guy and doing his due diligence, okay, that's one thing. But if he doesn't know that there's fraud, I think that you don't take money away or condemn celebrities for simply using, you know, their celebrity to promote a product. Yeah. I mean, we did that. Everyone promoted Nutrisystem or any of these weight loss things. I mean,

that probably don't really work. I mean, you know, we, everyone would be in big trouble. Yeah. I don't, I think it's just interesting because he's such a worldwide celebrity that he's involved in this in any way. That's why people focus in on him. Megan, is it accurate that Stanford is going to give back the money, the $5 million that they gave?

That's what they say. That's what they say. I mean, I got to tell you, I know exactly the resort that they built all these houses at, that they bought all these houses at for Sam, for Caroline, for Sam's parents. It's the Albany Resort in the Bahamas. You can get there directly from JFK.

It's a two-hour flight. Boom, you're right there. It's absolutely beautiful. We've been there. It's great, especially if you have little kids. They have fun water slides. And in all the times I went there, I never knew that there was a crook right over there, right around the corner, And his parents, too.

I was watching my kids go down the water slide. He was watching his kid hose all of his guests. So kind of kind of the same in any event. Shocking. And I'm going to have to look into whether I can buy real estate down there real cheap now. Real cheap. OK, let's talk about this baseball player, Trevor Bauer. I'm going to be honest.

I had never heard of this guy before this story. I'm not a sports person, but apparently he was extremely successful in the world of baseball. And then he got me too. And this story has dominated over the news over the past couple of days. He was an MLB pitcher for anyone, anyone? The Dodgers. Yes. See, they don't know either. Yeah. The Dodgers. Thank you. He had a hundred and $2 million deal, three year, a hundred and $2 million deal. So this guy was big. Um, then along comes a woman named Lindsay Hill. She's 29 now. I think she was 27 when she made the accusations.

And she's from San Diego, not far from LA. And she accused Trevor of sexually assaulting her. She went in court. She tried to get a temporary restraining order against him. Did not get it, which is interesting and important. But went on accusing him of sexually assaulting her. And ultimately, he sued her for defamation, saying it's not true. And the case has just wrapped up after a couple of years where he did not pay her one dollar. She did not get she didn't get money from him, but she got a three hundred thousand dollar payment from an insurance company and she did not pay him any money. But he is out there now basically accusing her of being the Jussie Smollett of Me Too accusers. And if you listen to the four minute video he posted, it's very compelling.

I'll play you just a little on what he is saying. He's talking about the texts that he unearthed in the discovery process that she was sending around before she ever met Trevor, before she would come to be in his bed. Here's Sat 17. Next victim,

star pitcher for the Dodgers. A text Lindsay Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me. What should I steal, she asked another, in reference to visiting my house for the first time. The answer? Take his money. So how might that work? I'm going to his house Wednesday, she said. I already have my hooks in. You know how I roll. Then, after the first time we met, net worth is 51 mil, she said. Bitch, you better secure the bag, was the response. But how was she going to do

that? Need daddy to choke me out, she said. Being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million, read another text. I can only imagine the field day you would have with that one, Arthur Aydala, had you been representing Trevor Bauer. Yeah. With that being said, though, Megan, because I saw this video, not even preparing for this, but I'll tell you who sent it to me, my co-counsel on the Harvey Weinstein trial, because we did have similar emails like this in the Harvey Weinstein trial, not necessarily about getting money, but about the love affair that they had and how much she loved him and you can't wait to meet it's my mom etc the fact that there's a minimal amount of money exchanged here and a guy that's worth this amount of money or was I should say

worth this amount of money shows that her lawyers, who as your viewers would know, they only make money off of what she gets. So they work their tail off. And under a best case scenario here, they worked for years on a case where at best they're getting $100,000, which sounds like a lot, but for a big law firm, it's not a lot. They were looking to add at least another zero to that for $3 million where they would get a million dollar legal fee so obviously they lost faith in her ability to continue this lawsuit and to go forward uh although on the flip side of the coin the medical records here lean pretty heavily in her favor as someone there's a reason for that there's a reason for that and we'll get into that so first i want to just correct something i said she got temporary restraining order, which you can get basically for nothing. But they

denied her the permanent restraining order where you actually have to prove more of a case. She was able to produce documentation showing black eyes and a busted lip and some medical records showing injury to her mark. But what he produced was text messages showing, forgive me, this isn't a nice way of putting it, but it's literally true that she asked for it, that she wanted rough sex with him. They had two sexual encounters and that she literally was asking for him to beat her up, to choke her out, to slap her, to punch her. And that is why she was denied the original restraining or the permanent restraining order. Let me read to you what the judge said when denying the permanent restraining order. The judge said, uh,

Ms. Hill's injuries as photographed are terrible. And under most circumstances, merely seeing photographs such as these would serve as a per se condemnation of the perpetrator of such injuries. But the judge went on to say that she believed Hill, quote, had objectively voiced consent to specific acts of rough sex and the injury she suffered could be viewed as a natural consequences of the acts to which she consented. Petitioner had and has the right to engage in any kind of sex as a consenting adult that she wants with another consenting adult. She was not ambiguous about wanting rough sex in the party's first encounter and wanting rougher sex in the second encounter. The judge ruled, adding that Mr. Bauer did not pursue the woman or threatened to coerce her into sexual activity. And before I give you the floor, I'm just going to read for the audience those texts, OK, that the judge was looking at that did not make their way around all the publications that condemned Trevor Bauer like that when they saw the pictures of the injuries.

Here's number one. He writes, we only have segments, but he writes to her. Yes, ma'am. Whatever you want. She writes, but off when, but off when it's time to choke me out. Thanks. You're the best. He writes, you want to go out, huh? She writes, see, that was a game changer. This is clearly after the first interlude. He writes, tell me more. She responds, never been more turned on in my life. Give me all the pain roar. Um, then on page two, she writes, now that I know what it feels like to wake up from it, uh, though it'll probably feel just as good to wake up from that. She's talking about getting choked out. He writes, God, you just turned me on so much. She writes mission accomplished. Then he writes. Now I just want my arm around your neck from

behind. She responds, do it harder. And they keep going like this. I mean, I could keep I could go on. But this is the woman who's claiming now she goes to court to try to get a restraining order against the guy saying he's posing a physical threat to her. I mean, how does that even happen when you've got text messages like this? Okay. First of all, please don't read anymore. I already need a shower after that. I have a problem, obviously, with what you just talked about. That said, I'm not in the bedroom. I don't know if there were acts that crossed the line that she did not consent to. I can assure you of one thing, and I speak for Arthur also as a zealous criminal defense attorney. There is no way in hell that she would ever get a jury to convict him of anything or pay out a dollar to her if I'm zealously defending him in that case. There's so much to work with

that her testimony wouldn't mean much after all of that. Right. But kudos to the judge, because I'll be telling you, Megan, I can only speak for my jurisdiction here in the five boroughs. I think in a high profile case like this, to cover their own butt, I think a judge would issue a, we call them an order of protection, an order of protection here. And just to say, you have to always stay away from her. If you go anywhere near her, you know, it's a felony violation and you can be punishable up to seven years in jail. That just has been, as of late, the fallback position because this way a judge is protected. Because 99% of the times nothing's going to happen. There's that 1% of the time where a guy will violate it and the judge winds up on the cover of the paper.

This judge allowed this person out or gave them what's called a limited order limited order protection which means you're allowed to be with the person but you can't hurt them um so i just want to commend the judge for having the intestinal fortitude for doing the right thing here so she says she claims that he physically hurt and traumatized her after the first incident and by the the way, this applies to everyone, male and female. Don't do this. Don't go home with somebody you don't know. Don't bring somebody home who you don't know, especially if you're a MLB baseball player with $102 million. That's fucking stupid. Sorry. It's stupid. Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. It's stupid. Hold on. Megan, Megan, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Hold on. I'm playing Arthur. Hold on. Hold on. Megan. Wait, wait, wait.

Hold on. Everything I said is right. What's your problem? I'm 25 years old. I'm 25 years old. I need to go. Go ahead. What did you say?

No, I'll let Arthur go first. I feel the same way. Go. I'm 25 years old. I'm a healthy, young, single male. And I meet a young lady. And we start making out at the bar. And she's like, where do you live? And I live three blocks from here. I want to come to your

house. I'm supposed to say no. Megyn Kelly said, don't do it. Yes, you are. You are. Oh, my God, Megyn. What we call in the law a target, a big old target. I'm back to Albany. What do you want me to tell you? Oh, no, no, no, no. This is why I know I'm right. This is why I know I'm right. I know this from somebody who knows. I don't think I've ever said his name publicly, so I won't hear either, but he's literally one of the biggest baseball stars we've ever had. And this guy, before he brings a woman back to his apartment, the woman comes to the door. There is a security guard at the door. The security guard films the woman on camera to say,

are you here of your own volition? Do you feel okay? Are you intoxicated about it? No, I'm good. I'm here. I'm ready. They go, they do the thing. And when the woman leaves, the guy videotapes her again, asks her all the same questions, gets her on tape. That's what they do to protect this guy who is literally one of the most famous people in the world. And I understand why, because he knows he's a target. There are women like this who are willing to hurt you. All right. So if Arthur and I are being intellectually honest, we would tell you you're right. The perfect way to be is to make your big money, stay in your house, never go out, don't have any interaction with the opposite sex. That's ideal.

All right. But that's love, commitment, then sex. But if you're going to do it that other way, get the guard at the door. Okay, but the next best thing, the metaphoric guard at the door is texting with a woman, having a record that we're going to be choking each other, all that horrible stuff. Oh my God. I don't mean to judge it. That's another thing. You're winning my argument for me. No, you're winning my because I don't think you should do it at all at all. But I really don't think you should have rough sex where you choke a woman out with a fucking stranger. That's insane. Objection. That's judgment. That's what you're not

into, allegedly. If he's into it, he's into it. Stupid. That's judgment, baby. I do care a little what he's into because this is messed up. He's gross. I'm sorry. But like, who would go to bed with a woman on night one and choke her out and then say the next time, I can't wait to get my armor on your neck so that you pass out.

And there's no question that you're up. She asked for it. What kind of a man? That's bizarre. I don't have to like him. I don't have to like him. And I don't. I don't like him.

Doesn't mean I think he should have lost his baseball contract. But we'll get to the other women who came forward against him. I'm just saying it's stupid ass practice for somebody like that to go home with a stranger and quote, choke her out. What do you think is going to happen? I just, as long as you're talking about people of that caliber who are targeted, you're not talking about like a regular male and female who meet in a bar and they have fireworks. I don't, I don't, I hope you're not telling us that that young man can't take this young woman home. Is this a confession? What'd you do? No, I'm more of the Derek Jeter guy. He used to give them the care package when they left, an autographed ball, an autographed jersey, with a car waiting for them downstairs

to take them back to their house, which was very well thought out there, Mr. Jeter. Ladies, he's not going to put a ring on it if you go to bed with him on night one or night two. Oh, here we go. They're all looking for a good Catholic. Nana would be so proud of you, Megan. Nana would be so proud of you right now. I am a good Catholic girl. Don't give it up that easily, ladies. That's how you wind up with a Doug Brunt. Okay. Yes, I'm passing my own values on. But I think it was stupid of him. But I also think this woman was incredibly dishonest. Now, she had medical records showing a nurse saying that, for example, the injuries around her genitals were the worst she'd ever seen this nurse. But that's only half the context,

because the woman was asking to be hit and to be hurt and so on. And so I think in the end, they really got to the truth. Here's just a little bit more of the evidence that Bauer is now presenting, because keep in mind, this woman has not come out and said, I'm very sorry I made it up. I should have given the full context. She's not. She's remaining steadfast in her accusations, though the lawsuit's gone away, his death against her and then her counterclaim, I think. Here's him talking about after their, this is after the second sexual encounter where she claimed she was incredibly traumatized and beaten up. But he got his hands on this video, which you're going to see. Watch. In August of 2021, Lindsay Hill's claims were

heard in court. And during those legal proceedings, critical information was deliberately and unlawfully concealed from me and my legal team. Information like this video, which was taken by Lindsay Hill herself the morning after she claimed she was brutally attacked, emotionally traumatized, and desperate to get away from me. And now we have the metadata, so there can be no dispute. It was taken mere minutes before she left my house on the morning of May 16th, 2021, without my knowledge or consent, of course. In it, you can see her lying in bed next to me while I'm sleeping, smirking at the camera without a care in the world, or any marks on her face. I think it paints a pretty clear picture of what actually happened the evening of May 15th, and why the video was originally concealed from us. Megan, I'm glad you brought the ball. Yeah, no, no, no. And we'll,

and while you talk, we're going to put the split screen of what her face looked like when she went for like medical services versus what we see in that video, which was the morning after the alleged beating. Keep going. Okay. So there's a couple of things. One, I still buy into, okay, maybe possibly theoretically those bruises could have shown up later. That's her argument, but that's not my concern. My concern is number one, that the look on her face is worth a thousand words. It's very difficult for any reasonable person to believe that she was brutally beaten and raped by this guy with that video. But what troubles me the most is that the attorneys held on to it. They didn't provide it in discovery.

And that, to me, is problematic. Another interesting fact, though, is usually in these types of situations where he said, she said, and they reached some sort of settlement, even when there's no money exchange, there's almost always some sort of a confidentiality, some sort of, and we won't, none of us are going to talk about this, but obviously she was in such a weak position that she was not in the position to be able to insist on that. And therefore he's able to tell his story in a way that we usually don't hear, even from people who are cleared in a civil matter. You don't usually see them going out there telling their story the way

he is. It's true. By the way, my dog Thunders in the studio with me sort of growling. I don't know. She's having a dream. Here's Lindsay Hill, who went on The Blaze's show with Alex Stein, and he asked her about some of these texts and about that video. It's two separate soundbites. Let's play 19. Well, but what the hell does that mean, next victim? Yeah, and this is, you know,

exactly what Trevor wanted to do, was random pick three or four texts and weave it into a narrative where I just look horrible. But so, you know, when I explain that and, you know, my deposition and different things, I'm like you, I like to joke. I'm very sarcastic, sometimes inappropriate. Anyone who knows me will know that. And these are private, you know, text messages with my friends and agreed victim is not the word there. But what I, you know, my past, I've been involved with other baseball players.

That was my world at the time. And it was a funny way. You know, I had already dated baseball players and it was a funny, sarcastic way to say, oh, here's the next one, you know, that I'm going to try to get attention from. OK, and she's talking about that text exchange where she wrote to a friend next victim star pitcher for the Dodgers before she even met Trevor Bauer. And then she responded, what should I steal? Uh, she allegedly asked that of another friend in reference to visiting his house for the first time. The answer take his money. Then after the first time they met a text allegedly said net worth is 51 mil response, bitch, you better secure the bag. Uh, and then Trevor asked in the video, how would she do that? And then she texted to the friend, need daddy to choke me out, need daddy to choke me out.

And then writes being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million. I mean, that is just absolutely devastating. Like if that's actually what she was doing through this whole thing, it's absolutely disgusting. It's disgusting. She's obviously a very troubled person, very troubled. She's talks about she's an alcoholic. Go ahead, Mark. Even if you believe her explanation of it. Well, that's my sense of humor. Well, that's really dark and troubling to a jury. So I am. I'm sure that her lawyers felt that those were so damaging in conjunction with that video laying in the bed, you know, with him wearing that black night thing over his head, which was weird that the whole thing

does for a while, you know? No, she, she, his question is, but she's clearly got some mental issues. There's no doubt. You want to talk about mental issues, Megan? She just, they showed us split screen, right? Split screen is her in the bed uninjured. And then she's in the hospital, totally injured. So how did she get those injuries? I'm assuming that she spoke to that. Here it is with again, the blaze primetime with Alex Stein, SOT20. That video the next morning, you know, when I'm still trying to, I hadn't't seen everything that had happened in my body. I really had no idea. Just full of emotion. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist to know what happens after the body takes that kind of experience. My cousin had Snapchatted me and he knew I was over there and he had said, hey, how's it going? In my mind at

that point, that was probably 20, 30 minutes before I left Bauer's house. I, you know, was thinking like there's no way I can tell anyone what happened. First of all, it's so embarrassing because it ended up with me crying and shaking. And it was just so embarrassing. And so I record that to just send back to my cousin like, hey, everything you know is fine. I don't know. She looks off and smug in that video. She's someone who gets easily embarrassed. I don't see that. I don't get that. How'd she get those black eyes though if he didn't do it? How does she look so damaged? The thing is delayed. Arthur, she's doing that in time to get there. Can we see the split screen of the of the injured face

and the video face again? So, yeah, you can see she's got the black marks underneath the eyes on the on the right. She doesn't. In both stories, the injuries were inflicted on her prior to this photo. It looks like even the lip on screen right and the injured face has some damage, but on her morning of face has no damage. And I don't even the nose ring is a different nostril. I guess you can switch that around. I don't know. But like the whole thing stinks. But she did have injuries. So, yeah, how'd she get him? Did she self inflict? But yet she's admitting that they had rough sex and she asked him to beat her up, that he punched her. You know, his defense wasn't I didn't punch her. I didn't choke her out. His defense was she asked me to do it. Right. So it's like I don't exactly know, but I want to talk about the other accusers,

OK, because this is getting kind of ignored by his defenders. And I think it's important. So there was an Arizona woman who in June. Well, it happened in 2020, but it just hit in June of 2023, accused him of raping her. The woman claimed she got pregnant. She claimed he held a jagged steak knife to her throat. He denied it and he countersued her, alleging fraud and extortion and a fabricating her pregnancy. They had one encounter. He said the condom broke during sex. Don't don't take women home who you don't know when you're worth 100 million. Did I mention that? He said after the encounter, the woman claimed she was pregnant and demanded 1.6 million to terminate her pregnancy.

Hello. So this is where Mark Iglish takes out his dangling dangling 20 and tries to grab it. Money grab, money grab. OK, that's this woman. She wound up getting eighty seven hundred dollars from him for the expenses related to her alleged pregnancy and its termination. And ultimately, she filed an amended complaint saying she decided not to terminate the pregnancy, but had a miscarriage in April of 2021. Who the hell knows what happened with that one?

I'm going to move that one off to the side. Let me get to number two. Columbus, Ohio, April 2022. This is per the Washington Post. Just as MLB was suspending Trevor Bauer, a woman came forward about an incident that allegedly took place in 2013. She said, Bauer, this is post the other woman's allegations. I should notice that note that Hill's allegations. This woman alleges he choked her unconscious without her consent during sex. She alleged that she was having sex with him. And then months later, she again passed out with his hands around her neck. As their years long sexual relationship continued, the woman said they agreed

that he would stop choking her before she passed out. But he frequently ignored her warnings. And then she said he also slapped her around without her consent. And forgive me, but this is also alleged by Hill, the troubled woman we've been discussing, alleges that he penetrated her from behind without her consent. In fact, while she was unconscious, that is what this Hill woman, Thunder, be quiet, also alleges. One screenshot shows a text message bearing Bauer's name in which he allegedly wrote, I want to F you while you're completely unconscious. All right. So, and then one more number three, separate Ohio woman. This came out in August of 2021, Washington post and Ohio woman sought a protective order in June,

2020, after repeated threats from Trevor Bauer photographs independently obtained by the post show bruises on the woman's face, blood in her eyes. Her attorney says were caused by Bauer punching and choking her during sex without consent. They obtained copies of messages that Bauer allegedly sent the woman, which her lawyers said prompted her to seek an order of protection. He wrote, quote, I don't feel like spending time in jail for killing someone. And that's what would happen if I saw you again. Now, we don't know the context of that. It could be you're making up false claims about me. So I'd really like to kill you. Not like I'm actually going to kill you. And these other women, it appears best case scenario for him. He's a big fond of choking women out

and punching them in the face in name of a sex act. Well, you got to attack them one at a time. In other words, you know. Well, that's his philosophy. Oh, oh, nice one. Okay, Mama Kelly over there. Well done.

Well done. You know, you just have to address them. I think you said one of them was in 2013. Now, I don't know how old Bauer is now, but, you know, he must have been a very young person because, you know, usually you're not a pitcher in baseball into your 40s. So, you know, I'm always suspicious of these accusations that come out after someone else made an accusation and now they're a decade old.

Like, oh, really? Well, where have you been for a decade? You just have to look at the details. But the fact that they haven't gone anywhere with someone with such a high net worth, who a lot of these guys, Megan, they'd rather just write a quick check and get out of Dodge and fight these things. Bauer, to his credit, seems to be fighting them over and over again without giving it any money. He's 32 now, so he would have been 22 then. Go

ahead, Mark. Listen, he's getting killed in the court of public opinion. You can dismiss- And in the pocketbook. All of that, but you can dismiss each one of these. But collectively, there's a lot of smoke here. And the average person, not me, believes that at a minimum, he liked it really weird. And at a maximum, he went over the line because that's his thing. But no D.A. is charging him. No, no D.A. or law enforcement is charging with going over the line. And you

know how quick they are to do that, Mark. If a woman walks into a police station and says a man laid a hand on him, in New York, there's a zero tolerance policy. It's like arrest now and we'll deal with it later. That's never happened. And when you're talking about getting hurt, from a dollars and cents point of view, he went from $104 million or $10 105 million to 4 million dollars a year now he pitches in japan and he got the highest suspension of any major league baseball player including those who like were cheating playing the game uh and got caught and admitted cheating playing the game in my opinion if you get caught cheating playing the game that you're being paid millions of dollars to play, that should be a more severe penalty than anything you've done off campus and having nothing to do with your job.

Some are saying he should sue MLB. He should sue MLB for bouncing him out of there, given all the evidence he has in this case that it was unfair. Although the MLB, my understanding is the MLB had multiple complaints from some of these women, including Ms. Hill, when they decided we no longer want to do business with Trevor. That'll go nowhere. The burden of proof in the major league baseball industry is low as can be. It's not proof beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. So I want to address Arthur's point. Yeah, prosecutors do bring a lot of these cases. But when Megan was reading the facts of the case, you know, we've been doing this long enough, Arthur, you could just tell right away,

yeah, that's not going to go anywhere. In other words, the first one I think she read, the woman continued to have this physical relationship with him that also involved choking and bonding and all this type of stuff. Jurors are not sympathetic to that. Even if it might have happened, it's so difficult to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why a lot of these guys, maybe they did it, maybe they didn't, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such a high burden and very hard to reach. I don't know. I'm glad he had the text messages to show that she literally did ask for these injuries, weirdly. But I think you're playing a very dangerous game when you engage in this

kind of behavior with a damn stranger. You really think so, Megan? Is that how you really feel? I do. Yes, I round back to my correct last word. So in any event, I can't agree. I can't disagree with MLB's decision to not stay in business with the guy. He's like a walking lawsuit waiting to happen. But whatever, that's for him and them to figure out. Arthur and Mark, stay with us because we're not done. We actually have a couple of other very juicy legal cases to get into. So stand by. Guys, I just want to ask you about this one quickly because there's that judge in the Trump civil case. His name is Arthur Angeron. I don't know if you saw this, but Arthur, since this is your court, I mean, you're in this court all the time. Have you ever seen

a guy enjoy the cameras more in a courtroom? My God, the way he mugged for the camp. Look at him. He's like, oh, oh, I'm on camera. Oh, let me take my glasses. I look better. I look better without my glasses. Look at me. Oh, here I am. The one who entered summary judgment against Trump. What'd you make of it? It's so rare that this is allowed. I mean, so rare. I have no recollection of a judge in this jurisdiction allowing a live video, even though it was for a brief amount of time. They'll allow a camera in the very beginning just to take a picture of who's where but it's the first time I've ever seen a live video and obviously him mugging for the camera

is beyond ridiculous but this guy has his thumb on the scales he I mean he said it you know the Trump's a bad Trump's a bad guy see why they're going after him and he really short-circuited the cross-examination of the accountants yesterday right by Trump team. I mean, the accountant is the main person who created, who was involved with creating these documents. And to short-circuit that cross-examination is for a judge to do. I mean, I'm lecturing on Tuesday to the Judicial Institute here in New York. And that's one of my biggest points is like, take your fingers off the scale, let the lawyers try their case

and just stay out of it. And if you'd like to see your face on camera, you can come get my job, but you shouldn't be a judge. Go ahead, Mark. And you got millions of people listening to Trump's accusations that you're not being fair. And this is a political witch hunt. You want to avoid everything that could potentially give the image of impropriety. When you look like that, when the cameras are around, it creates some discomfort. It does. Okay. Speaking of discomfort, Disney getting sued by a woman with, I don't mean to laugh because she got really hurt from the sound of it. She went down the water slide. What a hell of a segue. That was great.

My God. I mean, well, October 2019, Typhoon Lagoon Water Park, part of Disney World in Florida. The woman was celebrating her 30th birthday. She went on the Humunga Cowabunga water slide. And according to Disney, riders taking closed body slides down a 60 degree angle, 214 drop. It's five stories in the dark and spray their way to a surprise ending. Well, it was a bigger surprise than she had been counting on. Uh, this woman, Emma, who, um, claims that even though they told her to cross her ankles, they didn't say that the future safety of her vag was going to depend on it. And she was jostled into the air.

She, um, well, the force of the water pushed loose garments, uh, into her anatomy is what she's alleging causing a wedgie, but not in the traditional spot. We think of a wedgie going.

And just as I was like, kind of giggling about her clothing being painfully forced between her legs, I mean, it was like, what? What is she? Come on. Sounded like a bullshit. And she she had blood rush out of her and she went by ambulance to the hospital where she needed surgery, surgery from the water slide. I'm horrified. So Mark Eichlar, I'm thinking given the pockets of Disney, this actually is a pretty good lawsuit. I don't know. I mean, I got two and a half strikes against her for many reasons, but she's not out.

I'd want to know more. I want to know, did she have any pre-existing injury that might have caused her to bleed the way that she did? Well, she could have had her period. Ooh. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. What kind of show is this? What kind of show is this?

It's a show where the very famous host says vag. That's the kind of show. I didn't sign up for this show. This is dirty. I didn't know. This is dirty, girty. Right. But my point is that it seems like a bit of a money grab, but I'd like

to know where the injuries came from. If it's exclusively as a result of the ride, what did she do to cause her injuries? Again, they tell you to close your legs. And then here's the biggest question. How many millions of people went down the slide with no injury? Are there any other reported cases? That's what I'd like to know. All right. So here's what she's alleging, though, Arthur. She writes her lawyers claim she suffered from severe and permanent bodily injury. That's a legal term. We all say that, including severe vaginal lacerations, a full thickness laceration causing plaintiffs bowel to protrude through her abdominal wall and damage to her internal organs. Now, I don't know.

Like that, that could be made up. I mean, just in fairness to Disney, it is possible that that is just a lawyer grossly overstating an alleged injury, but it's also possible it's true. So what do you think? Are you reading from the back? I think you have to go back to what Mark just said.

Yeah, I have to go back to what Mark just said. Yeah, I have to go back to what Mark just said. And, you know, you stand in front of a jury and you say, listen, we estimate that 8 million people have gone down this slide over the last X amount of years. And no one has had any type of injury, anything close to this. We think that this person came to the ride with a pre-existing weakness in that part of her body and ladies and gentlemen she's told and it's the sign right there says cross your ankles and she's admitted she didn't cross her ankles and the reason why we tell people to cross their ankles is so that the water doesn't rush up all into your private parts whether you're a man or a woman i mean i'm sorry but like haven't we all had the water slide experience where it's

like, whoa, Nelly. I mean, everyone's had that men have it in a different way than women have it. But it's like, you do know when you go down like the especially forceful water slides, it can, it can be unpleasant. This is why I don't do it. One of the many reasons. What? I just feel like I don't, you know, you expect something awful. You don't expect protrusion of your bowel, which I admit is hard to believe. We'll see how it how it pans out, though. My crack team has flagged that, according to the Orlando Sentinel, Bush Gardens, separate property, reported two vaginal injuries similar to McGinnis's alleged claims at its Adventure Island water park in Tampa in 2003. Unclear if there were lawsuits, but both incidents happened on

water slides, which have since been shut down. Ladies, the water slide may not be for us, depending on just how steep it is and how forceful it is. We went to the one down in the Bahamas. What's the one at Atlantis? It was hell on earth. It was horrible. It was like being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I felt like I was waterboarded. I couldn't have hated it more. My children had exactly the opposite reaction. I'll leave it to the viewers to decide. Guys, such a pleasure. I think we've solved all the world's problems today, no? Thank you so much, man. I'll be happy now.

All good. We'll make sure I don't bring home any strangers from the bar to Marianne and just say, hey, we're going to have some fun tonight. So I'll- You guys found yourselves some nice ladies who you wooed the old fashioned way. I was there for the Marianne business, right?

I mean, I watched that. You act tough, but you're a softie at heart. You're a lover. You're a traditionalist. I'm a romantic. You and I, Glarge, same. We're not chokers. Not chokers.

Not chokers. Not in any way. Not professionally. Not personally. Thank God for that. Great to see you guys. Bye. I want to tell you that tomorrow, our guest who could not appear yesterday because he wound up in jail is coming on.

He's out of the clink and he's coming on. Lawrence Fox will be here to talk about his arrest and firing from GB News. First interview. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda and no fear.