The Megyn Kelly Show - Buffalo Blame Game, and Amber Heard Crossed on the Stand, with Jesse Kelly and Mark Geragos | Ep. 323

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Jesse Kelly, host of "I'm Right" on TheFirst TV, to talk about the immediate and politicized Buffalo shooting blame game, the lack of humanity in the response, whether Elon Musk's Twitter deal will go through, middle school boys punished for using the wrong pronouns in school, the press covering for Vice President Kamala Harris, the new press secretary's poor performance so far, equity vs. hard work, and more. Then, lawyer and "Reasonable Doubt" podcast co-host Mark Geragos joins the show to talk about Amber Heard cross-examined on the stand this week in her trial against Johnny Depp, the tone of Depp's lawyer during cross, the "poop in the bed" commentary, Heard being pressed on her alleged injuries, the conclusion of the lawsuit against Don Lemon, the latest in the Sussmann trial, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden arriving in Buffalo a short time ago, visiting the Topps grocery store where 10 people were killed Saturday by a racist, disturbed maniac. The couple also meeting with the victim's families and first responders. About an hour from now, Mr. Biden is expected to deliver remarks. It comes as the rhetoric about the attack grows more vicious and unhinged by the day. Many on the left blaming right wing media for the actions of a madman who

made very clear in his manifesto where he got his ideas from the internet and some racist attacks that had happened overseas. We take a closer look at that. Plus, we are going to get to a pair of trials underway today. Mark Garagos is here to break down the latest in the ongoing very nasty feud between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. And we're also going to dig into the trial of former Clinton attorney Michael Sussman, including who's on the jury. But we begin today with the host of The Jesse Kelly Show. It's a radio show. And also he hosts I'm Right on the first TV. Great name. Jesse Kelly, so good to have you on how are you well it's an honor megan it's great to be here i uh we're not gonna have a shortage of things to talk about i don't think today oh my

god no it's a great day to have you um no relation though i kind of wish there were because i think you're so clever and one of the smartest people on on the internet every tweet from jesse kelly is well worthwhile not to mention his hamburger recipe that That's for later. Okay, so let's get with the meltdown on Buffalo because, you know, yesterday I was saying, can we have two minutes to mourn before we start blaming the cable news hosts? Like, can we have just like two minutes to feel bad about what's happened before everything gets turned into a political blame game. And we're, of course, nobody listened to that. And it's only ramping up, right? It's only ramping up. The left is now, I've seen so precious few remembrances of the victims and so much more blame of Tucker, of Trump, of right-wing

media, of Republicans as an entire party. They're not pulling back on it. They're pressing down. Well, this is why I know this sounds probably a little over the top. This is why we can't heal the divisions of the country, Megan. I wish it wasn't this way, but it used to be in the wake of something horrible, like a mass shooting. Even if we disliked each other, we would just take a day, take two days. Let's come together. Let's pray. Send a text message. Make a phone call. Mourn together. That's part of the human experience. That's part of the way God made us. We are made to mourn. That's why every society has funeral rites of some kind, so people can come together and mourn. That's an important time. And that we're denied that now by the

communists in this country. It really is pulling apart the country. We have guys like Adam Schiff within two hours of the shots being fired. I mean, not to be too vulgar, but bodies are still warm. And he's going online taking shots at Republicans. We don't have a moment to mourn. And since we don't have a moment to mourn, it rips the country apart further. It's awful. It's being exploited. It's being exploited by people who want to tear down their enemies. Like Adam Schiff, does he really spend time watching Tucker and taking in the Tucker Carlson show? What a lie. He just knows that Tucker hits him, you know, and criticizes him from time to time. So he's an enemy. So this is an opportunity, as Schiff sees

it, to hurt a political enemy. How craven, right? How disgusting. And on that same front, Jesse, enter the never to be outdone Lawrence O'Donnell, who is equally bad to Adam Schiff and some of these other commentators who made it about more than just Tucker. Take a listen to him on MSNBC last night. The headline of Renee Graham's Boston Globe piece says,

with the Buffalo massacre, Fox News has blood on its hands again. The article mentions Tucker Carlson nine times and his predecessor Bill O'Reilly once, but the article does not mention Rupert Murdoch under the title Fox News has blood on its hands. Fox News doesn't have hands, but Rupert Murdoch does. White supremacist mass murderers in this country who take encouragement from Fox want to, among other things, stop immigration to this country, as does Fox, a company owned and operated by an immigrant who has done more damage to this country in the 21st century than any immigrant in the world has done to any other country in the 21st century. Rupert Murdoch has supported the Republican Party's abject fealty to the National Rifle

Association. And so it is thanks to Rupert Murdoch, as much as it is any Republican president, that America's mass murderers are still what they have always been, the very best equipped mass murderers in the world. Rupert Murdoch has made sure of that. Every American mass murderer can thank Rupert Murdoch for all the murder tools that Rupert Murdoch has made sure they are able to easily buy over the counter. The murder tools, the murder tools. picture, I'm sure you saw it, Megan, of I believe she was a 77-year-old woman who died in that supermarket shopping because she used to go shopping on Sundays. And then she would go hand out groceries to people in need. And I think she

did this for 25 years, if I remember the story, and she lost her life. And I look at that, and I honestly, I thought to myself, man, what a way for a 77-year-old woman who lived a life of service to end at the hands of a madman. And I'm thinking, man, her poor family. I don't wonder if she has kids. Maybe she left behind a husband. That sick freak right there looks at that and thinks, oh, what a great opportunity to attack people politically I don't like. How lacking in basic humanity do you have to be? And I'm a monster, Megan. And I look at that guy and I think, wow, that guy's a monster. And that's one.

Two is how many people in the country, and I think about this a lot, how many people in the country reside in a world entirely of make-believe? Because they consume Hollywood. They consume the news programs like Lawrence O'Donnell, not that anyone's watching that crap. They read the Washington Post. They only consume traditional news sources where they are fed lies. Everything that guy just said is a lie. Nothing to do with the shooting at all. And yet, if you're a person who only watches that, and maybe you don't tune into the Megyn Kelly show the next day, you live in a world of complete fabrication. How are you and I ever supposed to come together or

relate to a person who lives in that world? There's so many things about it. His attempt at profundity. Fox News doesn't have hands, but Rupert Murdoch does. It's like, okay, that's the best you could come up with. I think you were trying to move us. It didn't exactly work. And the nerve because he actually shares a primetime lineup with a woman whose show actually did drive a man to go out and shoot up a baseball field of Republicans a few years back. That's what the guy who shot Steve Scalise and four others said. He was a big fan of the Rachel Maddow show and her messaging. It's not you can't blame that shooting on Rachel Maddow. People are insane. I was very badly stalked by a guy for a long time who thought that President Bush's ties were sending him messages from me. OK, so there are crazy people out there. There's nothing you can you can do to prevent the fact that there are crazy people. We can try to identify them. do to prevent the fact that there are crazy people. We can try to identify them.

And in the wake of a mass shooting like this, we can stop and we can be honest and say, what were the signs? What more could we have done? How did the system fail? And how could we prevent that from happening again? But this kind of obfuscation, like it's Rupert's fault, prevents us from ever getting there, which is why it's so maddening. It is maddening, especially for people, I'm sure, who listen to your show are in general going to

be thinkers, you know, think for themselves type thing, just by the nature of your audience. And when you look at our response to everything in the country, there's no thought put into it at all. Either it's a mass shooting and we're calling for gun control, or there's a bad police incident in Minneapolis, and all of a sudden we're saying all the cops are racist. That's insane. Or we get a new virus to the country and it's immediately shut down the country. No sober thought, no calm down, no logical thinking, no let's walk through this. Everything has to be some spoon fed bumper sticker slogan, overreaction appealing to the hyper emotional crazy people in the country. And it drives me up the wall, Megan, it's not that I'm horrified by

normal people. I'm horrified by the leaders of our culture across the board, not just politicians, the leaders in the media, politicians, our athletes, actors, I mean, you name people with influence. They're all a bunch of nutballs now appealing to more nutballs. Nobody wants any sober reasoning anymore. I hate it. And by the way, on the subject of immigration, you know, in his comments about Fox, I mean, I was at Fox during the whole years of the immigration debate under Bush and so on. And I can tell you exactly what happened there. There came a time after the defeat of Mitt Romney when the Republican Party looked like it was going to go softer on immigration,

Marco Rubio and others. And Fox took a more left turn on immigration and its primetime hosts started to sound more open minded to immigration and, you immigration and whether we needed more of it and whether we needed to make it easier and so on and so forth, and whether amnesty was the right route. And the audience revolted. The audience was not in the same place as the messaging from above. And the electoral politics would show that within four years, right, when Trump was elected. And Fox swung back. Fox swung back to where its audience and sort of the main sort of folks on the on the right were. That's what happened. It's not some Rupert Murdoch directed, you know, effort to change the national opinion.

It's kind of Fox makes up its mind that back in the day it was Roger Ailes. And then the audience has its say. Yeah, I mean, illegal immigration, you've watched this for years covering it. Illegal immigration, in my opinion, is the biggest wedge issue between our cultural leaders and normal people in the country in both parties. I mean, everyone knows the Democrats want the border open, but Republicans, frankly, are not very much better either. They only want it kind of open, Megan. You know, maybe just on the weekends we'll open the border, whereas normal, sane people, they don't make illegal immigration about race. They make it about, okay, we have a sovereign

country. You can't just come in whenever you want, and if you try, you should be stopped, and if they catch you when you're here, you should be deported. That is somehow some right-wing, crazy person's stance stance now when really every country in the history of the world would simply call that immigration policy. You don't allow people in illegally when you catch them when they are here illegally, you send them back from whence they came. Yet look what's happened to France. You know, look what's happened in Europe where you've had, you know, Muslims coming in from all different Muslim countries and they're changing the culture inside France. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done amazing reporting on

this and she has a whole book out about it. And the culture there is changing as a result. Now, you can say that's wonderful or you can say, I don't think that's wonderful. I want the culture of France to stay French. OK, you're entitled to either opinion. But to deny that it's a factor when you have huge amounts of immigrants coming into the country that the culture will change is to deny reality. Well, I think I think it's hard to deny it's a factor when you have towns in Sweden, Sweden having bombs going off. When you look at the horrific assaults on women that have elevated through the roof with every country that has imported mass amounts of this kinds of immigration. And I should point out,

simply because it applies to us recently, particularly immigration from Afghanistan. Now, countries have experimented with immigration from different countries for a bunch of different reasons. But there is something about Afghan refugees. This is obviously doesn't apply to every individual person, but on a macro level, it does not work out. There is something that does not work out, particularly for the females of the population of the country where they're importing a lot. And why is that all of a sudden a radical conversation to have Megan?

Isn't that a normal conversation to have? I'm a leader of a country. Like you pointed out France. Is this good for the French people to bring these people in? If the answer is yes, bring them. Is it bad? Then no, they can't come. It seems so simple and it is so simple. And yet, because we're led in the West by the worst people in the world, it's not so simple anymore. They make it very complicated. Well, and it's a Tucker took all this incoming because of this so-called replacement theory that this shooter was a fan of. And I'm no expert in this, but my lay person understanding of this is the replacement theory that this shooter was talking about was a longstanding white supremacist racist narrative about how, I guess, aish cabal is trying to get rid of white people by having black people reproduce more i don't okay okay something it's bizarre it's racist and it's national white white supremacist and so on um but whoever's running the cabal the goal of the of this group that believes this is to stop whites from being

outnumbered because they think that's bad. They think the white race is the superior race. What Tucker's talking about, what Fox has been talking about for years, I mean, go back and read any book of Ann Coulter's, is they believe the Democrats are soft on the southern border because they want an influx of immigrants who they think will be more left minded in their politics and will be Democrat voters. It doesn't have anything to do with race. I mean, I've seen you make the point that if the Democrats thought the people coming across the southern border were future Republicans, they would sound a whole lot different on security at the border. No, it's true. And someone else said that I think it was a friend's

father of mine that said if Democrats thought illegal immigrants were going to end up voting Republican, you'd be able to see the border wall from space. And it's a funny saying, you know, but it is 100% true. And it's what's so cynical about the country now, especially the Democrats, is everything is simply about politics and political power. Nothing is done for the benefit of America. Even the various victim groups Democrats will try to appeal to, you know, you have the feminists over here, and of course, the LGBTQ over here, and the illegal immigrants, and the Black Lives Matter. And everything is just a cynical ploy for power. It's not that Democrats actually give a crap about women. You can tell, look at Megyn Kelly's email

inbox every single day. They don't give a crap about women. They give a crap about their politics. Anytime you talk to a black person who has changed their politics or is flat out on the right and they're pitching right, look at the horrible things these people will say to a black person who comes out and says, I don't like this left-wing politics. They don't care about gender or skin color or sexual orientation or illegal immigrants or the plight of people in Guatemala. They care about political power and everything is to that end. And since there's no humanity circling here, back to what we talked about, that's why you can look at a shooting in Buffalo with 10 dead people. And instead of mourning, you take a half a second and you think, wow, I bet I can use this. There's a real sociopathic sickness there. And I

say that as a sociopath, Megan. You call yourself a sociopath and a monster so far. We're only 16 minutes in. Is it the Saul Alinsky, you know, never let a crisis go to waste. Like they're all opportunities. And then Rahm Emanuel pursued the same strategy during the Obama years. And now you see it again, right? Like this has got to be the opportunity for tighter gun control and for shutting up Republican voices and for pulling advertising from Fox News and so on. That's what Anna Navarro said yesterday on The View. I'll play a little bit of Tucker responding in part on his show last night. Within minutes of Saturday's shooting, before all of the bodies of those 10 murdered Americans had even been identified by their loved ones, professional Democrats had begun a coordinated campaign to

blame those murders on their political opponents. They did it, they said immediately. Trumpism committed mass murder in Buffalo. And for that reason, it followed logically, we must suspend the First Amendment. That's hardly an exaggeration of what they're saying. So what is hate speech? Well, it's speech that our leaders hate. So because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views out loud. That's what they're telling you. That's what they've wanted to tell you for a long time. But Saturday's massacre gives them a pretext to justification. That's it. Now you can't even discuss this. Now your objection to our sieve of a southern border is to blame for what happened in Buffalo,

two totally different things. And if you say otherwise, you are a racist. You're basically just like the gunman. It's funny how often they keep using the words Tucker just brought up there, Megan. Hate speech. I saw New York Governor Kathy Hochul said something about that yesterday. Well, free speech is great, but not hate speech. And we're going to we're going to crack down on hate speech. And whenever I hear them say that, I like to tell people, go pick up your cell phone. Go look at the last five or six political texts you sent to your buddies, to your mom, to your wife, to your husband. Do you think Kathy Hochul would look at any of those and say that's hate speech? It is actually a dangerous road we're going down to see them try to criminalize hate speech.

I hate lots of things, and I'm going to continue to say those things openly because that is free speech. And if we start letting them criminalize it, we're heading down a real dark road. It's literally why the First Amendment was born. It was not born to protect speech that you like. That needed no protection. It was born to protect controversial speech that upset people, that would have been labeled hateful. And that doesn't mean that there isn't true hate speech. If this guy read his manifesto out loud, it would certainly qualify as hate speech. What he wrote down in there, there was hate speech. But that doesn't make it illegal. It makes it awful.

He deserved, this is pre-shooting, to be shunned and certainly to be institutionalized. But my point is, you can't call something hate speech and shut it down because it's literally protected by the First Amendment. And I don't think that will ever change no matter how many lunatics get out of Yale Law School and wind up on our courts. Well, Megan, I actually think you brought up a really great point right there. Wouldn't we be better off as a society if all the most detestable, hateful people were actually given platforms instead of constantly censored off of platforms? I've said this forever. I don't want anyone censored off of Twitter. I want Louis Farrakhan on there. Put the KKK on there. Put the Black Panthers on there.

Leave the daggone terrorists on there for all I care. I don't want my enemy in hiding, whispering behind my back. I want him out there announcing his thoughts and his views and his plans publicly so we can all see them. If you're some deranged psychopath in Buffalo, I don't want you kicked off of Facebook because you say you hate, what was it, Jews? Of course it was the Jews. I hate the Jews. I don't want you kicked off. I would like your profile to be public so me and everyone around you can see, wow, this guy is a hateful scumbag, might want to keep our eyes on someone like this. But instead, what? We act like we're accomplishing something by slicing off somebody's Twitter account when really we've

just driven him deeper underground. And now you and me, we don't know who these people are. We might get shot in the dairy aisle because this guy doesn't have any kind of an outlet. Well, now it seems like there's that level, right? The social media will definitely pull your account if they think you've engaged in hateful speech or something that crosses the line in some 20-year-old Twitter employee's view. But now in the wake of this sort of Elon rattling about Twitter and so on, it seems like there was a second level of censorship, which they did to people like you, I'm sure, like me, I now believe, and others where you weren't kicked off, but there was definitely some sort of manipulation of the accounts. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm getting new followers.

By the tens of thousands, they're coming to my account. Like in the course of three weeks, why? Why? That hasn't happened before. I've been much more in the news than I have been this past month. Something was going on there so the the attempt to stifle a connection between audiences and conservative thinkers or people who are not of the left i think has been going on on multiple layers and it is disturbing well yeah it gives you

a dark window into how these people view the world and obviously you're right i mean i've noticed the same thing too picking up all kinds of new followers every day from with no explanation. So I, of course, just blamed it on my own self thinking I was as brilliant as humanly possible, Megan. But we all know, we all know what the deal is. Elon Musk turns out to be some free speech guy, or at least he claims to be that's a good thing, buys Twitter. And the second the deal's done, Elon Musk starts to notice what we all notice, that Twitter seems to be unlocking accounts, stopping the shadow banning. So look, everyone knows what happened. Twitter employees panicked when Elon bought it, and they were going to have to open up the books to him and show him exactly what he bought. And so they had to stop doing a

lot of the things they'd previously done. And again, doesn't it say everything you need to know about your ideology or when it comes to communism, your religion, if you have to constantly silence people who disagree with it? Can I ask you about Elon? Do you think this is going to go through? Because he tweeted out, it's on hold until he can figure out what percentage of the Twitter accounts are fake. And the president had represented, the CEO of Twitter had represented it was no more than 5%. Elon seemed to say, no, I don't believe that. And then he seemed to say, it's tough to figure out. And then Elon tweeted out a pile of poop, like the poop emoji in response to the Twitter CEO's claims. And now you've got Kara Swisher,

who is like the preeminent tech journalist. She used to write for the Wall Street Journal. Now she writes for New York Times saying she thinks it's a terrible deal for Elon Musk, that the price he's paying is way, way overpriced and she doesn't see him going forward with this, not at this price. So what do you make of it? You never know what's in the mind of the guy next to you, right? Let alone some billionaire you've never met before. So I don't know if I can speak for him, but there are a couple of things I can say. Obviously, Elon Musk didn't buy Twitter because it was going to be a moneymaker. Now, that guy probably figured out how to make money with it anyway, but he bought it either as some

kind of, I don't know, proverbial middle finger to the left, or he bought it as a new free speech platform. Maybe he really is some free speech absolutist. So we didn't buy it to make money anyway, in my personal opinion. And when you're the richest guy in the world, I know that sounds vulgar to you and me and everyone else listening, but what's $44 billion to Elon Musk? That's obviously a lot of money to all the rest of us. But to Elon Musk, I mean, that's like me paying an extra 50 cents to have extra cheese on my quarter pounder. It's just not that big of a deal.

And it's not even all his money. I mean, he's getting investments from all different people. So yeah, it was interesting. Today, he made comments, or at least they hit the news, where he was talking. I think he was talking to, oh, who are the guys on that podcast? I've interviewed some of them. Anyway, I'll get to I'll get it. But he was making comments about President Biden suggesting the real president is the teleprompter and saying if somebody happens to like fall asleep on the teleprompter or lean on the teleprompter, Joe Biden's going to start

talking like Anchorman, you know, like just reading ridiculous things, which, P.S., may have already happened. You know, I see I saw that and what I see happening with it, because this is not some this is not some hardcore right winger, right? Elon Musk. I mean, I know you followed him at least a little. This is a guy who very much considered himself a moderate, a centrist. But I've seen this phenomenon with people before where they're not really politically involved or, hey, I'm a moderate, little left, little right. And they say one little thing to upset the communists. And then they get a window, a little window into the world of just how vicious and nasty these people can be. And it pushes them to the right. I've seen this several times. You take somebody who's been a moderate, comes out with a moderate position because he doesn't tow the party line of the communists.

They just attack him viciously. And soon he's further to the right than me because he got a window into how evil these people are. And so it's obvious. I mean, when's the last time you saw Elon Musk trolling Joe Biden? It's clear they're pushing him to the right. It's so true. My gosh, Jesse, you're so right. And this leads me to my hope for your children and mine that the same thing is kind of being done to them in their schools day by day, the indoctrination, the constant focus on skin color, on gender, on identity. These kids, I am convinced, are going to be more right wing or at least get off of me, get off of me and stop telling me how I'm supposed to think than Gen X. You know, I just think I can see it coming.

Forget Gen Z. I'm talking about the young ones, the ones who are like, you know, young double digits and maybe a little older. I think those kids are the hope of the future because they've had it worse than anybody and they're going to rebel. I actually agree with you. I've made this point, too. I think we have some underground generation of freedom fighters that we can't see yet. Right. Because they're just now starting to get pimples.

But they've seen especially the last two years with the COVID lockdown stuff, they've gotten authoritarian government right in their faces. Kids aren't stupid. Kids are not dumb. I have an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old, and they can smell bullcrap a million miles away. Kids have understood, wait a minute, I can't see my friends. Why do I have this stupid thing on my face? I can read statistics. I'm not in any danger at all. Why have I been abused by authority figures for the last two years?

And that makes an impression, and good on them. I hope they grow up and rebel. All right. I'm sorry, but I'd be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity, since we're speaking about kids and crap, if I didn't tell you this story about my Thatcher, my eight-year-old. I said, the other night at dinner, I said to him, Thatcher, why do you spend so much time in the bathroom? You're in there forever. And he said, I don't know. He goes, sometimes I talk to the toilet paper. I said, you talk to the toilet paper? I said, what do you say to it?

He said, you're about to go on a disgusting adventure. You know, Megan, that kid's going to be sitting in your chair one of these days. Here's the epilogue to it. I said, oh, Patrick, that was quite quick and clever of a response. And he goes, it was quick, but it wasn't clever. I really do say it. So there's that. And I'll be right back with more on Jesse with Jesse Kelly, including on what's happening in the latest Durham case against this lawyer, this Clinton lawyer, Sussman.

Jesse, I want to ask you about Kamala Harris because she's done it again. It's amazing the word salads that this woman is able to prepare. They're second to none. I mean, in their length, in their rambling nature. But let me not be a Kamala Harris. I will cut to the chase and play the soundbite of her responding to Peter Doocy. No, sorry, that's a different thing. This is her speaking at the Association of Southeast Nations Special Summit in Washington, D.C. on Friday. Listen.

That is especially true when it comes to the climate crisis, which is why we will work together and continue to work together to address these issues, to tackle these challenges, and to work together as we continue to work operating from the new norms, rules, and agreements that we will convene to work together on to galvanize global action. With that, I thank you all. This is a matter of urgent priority for all of us. And I know we will work on this together. Okay. All right, Megan, I have to tell you, I've thought this for a while because honestly, I'm not trying to be mean for once. I'm really not. That person is the vice president

of the United States of America, and she's the least capable. And I realized that saying something, she's the least capable human being I've ever seen in politics in my life. So how do you get there? I think Kamala Harris is a media failure. I mean, if you talk to people who are well aware of California politics, which is obviously where she came from, because I'll ask them questions. How could she get to a senator? I mean, senator of California is kind of a big deal. I mean, how do you achieve these things? And every one of them to a man to a woman, they've told me the media is so accommodating to California Democrats, even more so than our national media is that they would not only never vet her, they would shun any vetting of her. So she just kept failing upwards

until she fails upwards into the office of the vice president. And Joe Biden is, I mean, what are we supposed to say, Megan? Not doing great, obviously. Everyone can see it. Everyone with eyes can see it. There's an above average chance that human being is the leader of the free world within the next couple of years. What in the world? How does that happen? No, no, we can't. I mean, I think even Republicans are hoping that Joe Biden's help holds out and that he does. You know, they don't want Kamala Harris in there. She doesn't seem up to the job. Look, I'm sure that's true about the California Democrat thing. I mean, that's like the holy grail for Democrats, the California Democrat. That's exciting. That's cool. That's I can be part of the hip crowd and no celebrities, too. She's also a woman. She's also a woman of color. All those things help open doors that wouldn't be open in today's day and age to a Jesse Kelly. That's for sure.

She's not the only one. Now, there's a new press secretary in town and she has taken to the podium, Karine Jean-Pierre. And like one of the first things she declared was that I'm a black lesbian woman and an immigrant. And it's like, OK, great. I mean, thank you. That's the way you do it in Democrat circles now. I remember at our old school, they hired a new DEI director. And the first thing he said was, I never enter a room without being conscious of my blackness, my cisgenderedness. And it was like, oh, my God. OK, so she was asked a question by Peter Doocy. And I'm telling you, it wasn't exactly the picture of competence in response. Listen, he's asking her about inflation, inflation and a Biden claim

that raising taxes on corporations will combat it. Here's how that went. The president's Twitter account posted the other day, you want to bring down inflation, let's make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share. How does raising taxes on corporations reduce inflation? So are you talking about a specific tweet? He tweeted, you want to bring down inflation, let's make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share. Look, we have talked about this this past year, about making sure that the wealthiest among us are paying their fair share. And that is important to do, and that is something that the president has, the president has been, you know, working on

every day when we talk about inflation and lowering costs. And so it's very important that, you know, as we're seeing costs rise, as we're talking about how to, you know, you know, build an America that's safe, that's equal for everyone and doesn't leave everyone behind. That is an important part of that as well. But how does raising taxes on corporations lower the cost of gas, the cost of a used car, the cost of food for everyday Americans? So look, I think we encourage those who have done very well, right, especially those who care about climate change, to support a fair tax rate that doesn't change, that doesn't charge manufacturers, workers, cops, builders, a higher percentage of their earnings, that the most fortunate people in our nation,

and not let that stand in the way of reducing energy costs and fighting this existential problem, if you think about that as an example. And to support basic collective bargaining rights as well, right? That's also important. But look, it is, you know, by not without having a fair tax code, which is what I'm talking about, then all like manufacturing workers, cops, you know, it's not fair for them to have to pay higher taxes than the folks that who are who are who are not paying taxes at all. OMG. In the court, Jesse, you get an objection non-responsive and it would be sustained.

I mean, you just bottled up this theory I've had for a while of it's easiest to think about these communists as if they're robots. And I really, again, I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's hard for people who think to understand there are a lot of people

in this society, in every society, who genuinely don't want to think. They don't have any desire to do so. And she's a perfect example of that. That's a human being who's never thought. She goes up to the hive mind as her robot self does. And she gets new software uploaded every now and then with the new talking points of whatever they're talking about. And then she goes away and she's only programmed with a certain few things. Right. It's not a human being. It's not a thinking human being. It's just software.

And so the second you ask the robots about something outside of their programming, well, the robot can't do that. That's why these communists either just change the subject like that and talk about nonsense or they'll lash out and lie, you Nazi, or they'll just completely go off the rails. She's not capable of getting deeper than two inches because she was asked about something outside of her programming. And so she ends up sounding like an idiot. It happens to all of them. My gosh, that is that brings true because you could see she didn't understand. She didn't understand the question. She wasn't even able to parlay it into something that was just very close, but a one off. She went off into left field about equity when it comes to taxes. OK, great. That's about taxes. He's asking how raising taxes will lower inflation. You're not even addressing inflation. If this is your plan for lowering inflation, we're all effed. So it's an important question.

Megan, I've watched, I've had frustration with this. I'm sure you probably experienced it as well, but I watched regular people have frustration with this when they deal with relatives. You're crazy and at Thanksgiving or something like that, people on the right have this frustration of I can't ever hold them down and get an answer. Peter Doocy could have asked that question a thousand different ways. He could have been given an hour with her, and she never would have gotten to it because it's simply outside of her programming, and it always will be.

It's something people on the right have to accept. Save who you can save. There are a lot of people on the left who are thinking, and they are watching, and they're not liking what they're seeing. But you have to understand when you're dealing with the robot who's beyond salvage. People like that are beyond salvage. It reminds me of my dear old, God rest her soul, Nana. She died at 101 in 2016. And toward the end there, she had terrible hearing and you say, hey, Nan, how you feeling? And she go, huh? No, I don't want pizza.

That's kind of what's happening here. Again, non responsive and embarrassing. I have to say, whenever I see something like that, I feel like womankind takes a hit. You know, you've been given the big job. Step up to the plate. Get off your damn talking points. The answer isn't in your stupid robotic notes. Step up to the plate. Get off your damn talking points. The answer isn't in your stupid robotic notes. Try to think, think and try to figure it out. And if you don't know

the answer of why raising corporate taxes would lower inflation, say, I'm going to have to ask him about that, about the tie he made. But I can tell you why in general we're for raising corporate taxes. Be smarter. Do better, prepare harder. It was day one, so maybe she'll get better. I don't know about womankind taking a hit, though, Megan. I really think it's just the diversity hire in general takes a hit. Honestly, more than anything else, she's been cheated. She's been raised and guided her whole life to think that her sex is what's going to get her ahead and what matters or who she's lesson out with at the moment or or immigrant thing but she's been she's been taught that and so now that's why she listed it you talked about it earlier in the show i'm the first game whatever she's been taught

that she's been cheated by who i don't know her parents the media whoever guided her in that way so now she actually believes those are accomplishments instead of, no, you go compete with a room full of men, women, every different color, whoever they are, you go compete, you be better and win. She'll never have a feeling of accomplishment like you've had a million times in your career. She'll never have that because she's been handed so many things because of whatever, because of things that don't actually matter. So she'll actually never have a feeling in her life of, wow, I did it because I was better.

I was smarter. I worked harder. She'll never get that. She's been denied that her whole life. And that's actually sad. It's so it's what's so objectionable to the whole, you know, sort of DEI heading. I had Christian Walker on the show yesterday saying he can't stand those programs because it says to somebody like him, Herschel Walker's son, and also just a huge social media star. He's only 22. This kid's rocking. But he was saying, it tells me like, I got to get ahead because somebody feels bad for me because of what? My skin color? Because I'm a gay man? Or he doesn't like gay. He says, a man who's interested in other men. He's like, I'm not doing the whole rainbow thing. Anyway, his point is, I'll get ahead. He's like, I'm not doing the whole rainbow thing.

Anyway, his point is, I'll get ahead because I'm smart and I'm working hard and I'll get there based on my own merit, my own brain. It's the whole Democrat program is to make you feel like you can only get there if they give you a hand up. And I think they genuinely believe, you know, that's sort of their own racism and sexism. They genuinely believe you couldn't get there unless somebody gave you a hand up. They do. And how many people in this society think like that now, Megan? That's part of what's so sad. I mean, it's one thing for, as you pointed out earlier, Rachel Maddow, you know, has it obviously makes a great living, MSNBC. It's one thing for her to think that way. But how many young people across the country are we cheating by programming them like this constantly, they're going to grow up. I mean, they're going to hold on to these values, most of them, some will switch and wake up, but they'll hold on to these values. And you're going

to live a life of what 7080 years on this earth, and never have that feeling inside of you of actually, you know, climbing Mount Everest on your own, constantly having an ax to grind, constantly feeling aggrieved by society in one way or the other. It's a very unhealthy way to be. I've said this before. Even if I was a scumbag communist parent, I wouldn't want to raise my kids that way because that's miserable. What a miserable way to live your life. Always feeling cheated by the system or something or somebody always bitter, always, always angry about something.

Why would you want to do that to your children? But they do. Um, even in the bit where she's like, I am a black, whatever, listen, watch even there she's reading. All right. So I'm going to play it. People can watch it on YouTube later to see what I'm talking about. But she even had to read that.

Here it is, soundbite five. I am obviously acutely aware that my presence at this podium represents a few firsts. I am a black, gay, immigrant woman, the first of all three of those to hold this position. I would not be here today if it were not for generations of barrier-breaking people before me. I stand on their shoulders. If it were not for generations of barrier-breaking people before me,

I would not be here. Representation does matter. You hear us say this often in this administration, and no one understands this better than President Biden. Still reading. Oh, there it is, the landing point. Which is why his administration is not only the most diverse in history, it is filled with barrier-breaking women and men, from the vice president to the cabinet secretaries to his Supreme Court nominee to senior

staff throughout this administration. What? She's making it sound like she's the Supreme Court nominee, to senior staff throughout this administration. What? She's making it sound like she's the Supreme Court nominee. You're just a stupid press secretary. No one cares about that stupid ass job. Megan, is there anything worse? I mean, of all the different groups, is there anything worse than the bitter feminist luxuriating in America in 2022? If you're a woman in America in 2022, you do understand you have the highest standard of living of any women who've ever lived in the history of mankind. And yet somehow these people watch too much news or Hollywood shows, and they really wake up

and feel as if they're oppressed in some way. Ladies, you got it real good. And I'm not saying men don't. We got it good, too. But it's time to stop whining. Wake up, look around and count your blessings because there are a lot of them. Well, listen, little boys don't have it so good in certain parts of the country right now. And I'll give you a case in chief. Let me see where this is out of. Hold on. It came to us from Fox 11 News. I'm trying to find the state. But this kid, 13 years old, gets accused of sexual harassment in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Middle School.

This is per the college fix. Fox News also did it. Three male students at a Wisconsin middle school have been charged, charged with Title nine based sexual harassment, harassment for using incorrect pronouns with respect to a classmate. This is insane. They did not use the classmates' requested pronouns of they and them. The mother of one of the students told the Keele Area School District officials, the use of these pronouns is confusing to my little boy, and he has no obligation to use their desired pronouns. And

this is not sexual harassment. He's a little boy. And the school stands by the designation. Here is that mom in an interview with Fox 11. Soundbite 7. I received a phone call from the principal over at the elementary school for warning me, letting me know that I was going to be receiving an email with sexual harassment allegations against my son. He said he's being allegedly charged with sexual harassment for not using proper pronouns. She had been screaming at one of Braden's friends to use proper pronouns, calling him profanity. And this friend is, soft spoken and kind of just sunk down into his chair. And Braden finally came up defending him saying he doesn't have to use proper pronouns. It's his constitutional right to not use. You can't make him say things. Some might say or think that you

or your son are against the LGBTQ plus community. Not at all. Not at all. My children have been raised to love everybody equally. It's insane, Jesse. You know what? Maybe the most insane part of that is, Megan, the reporter's question at the end about, is your son against the LGBTQ community? We are honestly, people have heard me your whole show called them communists. I don't say that to be over the top. We have this cultural Marxism sickness in this country. And that's no different than the struggle sessions people in communist countries have had to go through time and time again for the last hundred years of that sick religion's existence.

Well, you won't say they, them. Do you? You must hate the gays. Tell me how much you love the gays. If you don't love the gays, you're going to get banned and shunned from society. And we're doing this now to kids. I mean, it's one thing to do it to you. I mean, it's water off a duck's back. We're doing this to children. What are we doing to the mental health of children in this country? Real quickly, because I know we're almost out of time. I remember after George Floyd died and all the

BLM Antifa street animals were burning down cities across the country. My kids have never we've never discussed race in the house. We live in an area where there's every different color. My kids friends are of every different color. It's just not something I prioritize. So it's never something we've talked about it. We've never brought it up. And all of a sudden, my kids consume enough news, watch enough things out there. I'll never forget this day, Megan, where my youngest son said to me, dad, do black people hate us? I've never been so taken aback. I don't want to use the word devastated, but it sucked to have to sit my son down and explain, no, there are some people that

are bad and they're using a tragedy. That's what we're doing nationwide to kids with this kind of crap. And it's whatever it's doing to them. It ain't healthy. It's abuse. And that's why shame on anyone who sits back and allows it to happen without I know you've been a big proponent of pay attention to your local school board election. It's more important than the congressional midterms that are coming up. Get off your ass, do a little research and figure out who to back because if you don't, hashtag part of the problem. Jesse Kelly, the burger recipe will have to wait, I guess. I can squeeze in real quickly.

All right. It's the special. Is it the Chipotle hot sauce? That is the magic ingredient. Tell me quickly. All right. World famous fresh buns, fattiest burger. You can find garlic powder, any general seasoning, salt, American cheese, because we're Americans here, and a boatload of chipotle Tabasco sauce. Best burger of your life. It really was. I did it. I followed it to the letter, and it was mouthwateringly great. Jesse Kelly, thanks for all of it.

Great to see you. Thanks, Megan. Amber Heard is back on the stand and facing tough questioning from Johnny Depp's attorney. You recall this is a case in which Depp has sued Heard, alleging that she defamed him because in a 2018 op-ed that appeared in The Washington Post under Amber's name, she said she was a domestic abuse victim and had felt all the consequences of coming forward with that. We now know from her testimony at this trial that the ACLU wrote that entire thing. And now she's actually trying to claim that it wasn't Johnny Depp she was they were talking about. She's back in the stand. And about a week ago, when she went off the stand after just giving her direct testimony, Mark Garagos joined me and we talked about what we thought about it. And we both said, but, you know, she hasn't been crossed yet. So let's just let's wait while that's underway right now.

He's been closely watching this whole thing. He's the managing partner of Garagos and Garagos, and he co-hosts his own podcast called Reasonable Doubt, which is well worth your time. He joins me now. Mark, great to have you back. Thank you. Welcome. I'm glad to be back, Although we caused a little bit of a stir, Megan. Well, that's always fun. Welcome to my world. You've been there all your life. What do you mean? I'm welcoming you. Exactly. I was sure poor Megan got dragged in as collateral damage on this. Even Joe Rogan was weighing in on it on our little segment, which I thought was kind of humorous. Well, that's good promo. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I don't know what Joe Rogan said, but Joe Rogan is not a lawyer and he's never tried a case in his life. And you've tried the biggest and most notorious and I've tried some myself. So I think as good lawyers, we're trying to keep an open mind here. And I do think there are a lot of partisans on this case. It's not exactly, I don don't know it's sort of coming down along gender lines weirdly where like a lot of guys are like everything she says is a lie and um the women you know i don't know where the women are you say they're going to be against her but i but the partisans who are commenting on it it's like they have a horse in the race you know like they need to believe him and they need to disbelieve her because it's

like about male rights. I've been saying on the podcast since the beginning that, that at least anecdotally, it clearly is coming down along gender lines. Although there is a segment of females or those who identify as females, you know, let's be correct who have, who have kind of jumped over to Team Johnny Depp.

And I think it kind of illustrates the point that I've always made is that these cases are won or lost in jury selection. Because no matter what happens, no matter how this unfolds, if you take a look at how people are reacting to it, you're not changing any minds. Maybe you and I have talked about how there's been kind of a pendulum swing in terms of her. But for the most part, people are, as you call them, partisans. I'll call them zealots. And they've made up their mind and they're not buying anything that the other side is

selling. Well, that's what makes you coming on this show and us having this discussion unique because neither one of us is rooting for anybody. Like I'm truly watching the evidence as it comes in like a juror would and trying to figure out who do I think is a truth teller? I don't need to buy into a larger,

overarching societal narrative in order to cover this case fairly. So let's just take the audience through that, right? And our opinions may change. Let me tell you, let me ask you one thing. I want to get your reaction to it. I thought, and I know what they're doing. I know they have a calculation because I've said since the beginning, this 2018 editorial that was in the Washington Post, he did not even name him. So I have always made the argument, and I've done it with you as well,

that why are you rehashing this? It amplifies something that really was not that big of a deal to begin with. Well, they've apparently decided, they, I'm talking about her team, Amber's team, that they're going to run away from that editorial and say it really wasn't about him at all. And I'm not so sure that that makes a whole lot of sense at the same time that you're

testifying that he was a serial abuser. And I was wondering what you thought about that. I totally agree with you. I think we've seen her caught in several lies. As soon as the other lawyers got on her, she's lied quite a few times in my view. And that's the biggest one of all. It's like, well, we know it was him. What are you saying? You're just trying to dodge liability now. And you have a defense to this exposure that doesn't require you to tell that lie. So are you just a gratuitous liar? Are you just, you know, you lie about anything? Because you could easily say, indeed, it was Johnny Depp. And the reason it's not defamation is it's true.

She didn't need to say this BS. Right. You know, my son used to love when Dr. Henry Lee used to call it a shotgun approach. And that's kind of a shotgun approach of the defense. And I don't think jurors like that because I think the jurors say, well, wait a second here. You're telling me that he abused you here. He abused you there.

We're going into details about the makeup. And now you're telling me that it really wasn't about it. Then why didn't you just say it really wasn't about it? Why are we going through all this stuff? Why are you wasting our time? That's right. Why isn't your defense? Oh, it's about my ex-boyfriend, you know, not Johnny, but Frankie.

Frankie was a terrible man. Frankie did it all. Here's my affidavit from Frankie saying he abused me. I mean, like done. Okay. Bye. We all know. And so she's not getting away with it.

It's making her look bad. There's another, sorry to go right back to poop gate but she in my view she lied about that too i actually said a line to my producer canadian debbie that i never said before which is we're going to need a picture of the poop were you were you going to blur it out no we're going to let the poop flag fly fly she's saying it's not blurred because here well let me set it up deb hold on so here's the story for the people who haven't been paying attention johnny depp claims that uh he had a big argument with amber and he left their marital house and he went someplace else and that when he came home the next morning there was poop in the marital bed that the maid

actually found poop in the marital bed and uh that it was amber who left it there amber and her friend and he presented testimony in his case from the limo driver who drove Amber and the friend the next morning to Coachella, where she took a bunch of mushrooms and drugs. This is her life. OK, this is this woman who's like, OK, fine. You have no idea how you have no idea how Hollywood this whole thing is. It's horrific. I don't want to be friends with these people at all.

I'm on the right coast. There's no bad people here. Anyway, so the driver who had Amber in the car testified, he heard them admit it. So Amber takes the stand. And here's what she said. This is soundbite 11. She had eaten Johnny's weed when she was a puppy, her dog had control issues for her entire life, among some other issues was, you know, we

regularly had to take her to the vet to try to figure out, well, what was wrong with this dog? Never met a dog that was quite like this. So she had some control issues, hence why we would, she liked to burrow in the bed. She liked to be in the, you know, by the foot of the bed underneath the covers. And it was customary that they slept in bed with us, but Boo, having the issue she had, we have to leave her in bed so that she wouldn't be encouraged to to go to the bathroom um which would happen almost immediately once you put her down on the floor and sometimes it happened in bed too but um but yeah did you commit any kind of prank absolutely not absolutely not and and why would that not be something you would do? First of all, I don't think that's funny. I don't know what a grown woman does. I was not also in a

pranking mood. My life was falling apart. I was at a crossroads in my life. I was really serious. And I had just been attacked on my 30th birthday by my violent husband with whom I was desperately in love and knew I needed to leave. It was not really a jovial time. And I don't think that's funny, period. That's disgusting. Okay, but here's the limo driver. But disgusting. Okay, but here's the limo driver. But get it, Mark. Here's the limo driver.

I've been following this. Canadian Debbie's really on this stuff. Sound like 12. Did you have any discussions with Ms. Hurd on the way to Coachella that evening? We had a conversation pertaining to the surprise she left in the boss's bed prior to leaving the apartment. And when you refer to the surprise in the boss's bed, what are you referring to?

The defecation. What did Ms. Hurd say about the defecation in Mr. Dove's bed? A horrible practical jerk gone wrong. You know why that's so bad is because this is another thing that you've got to, at certain points, I always say there are going to always be, I don't care what case it is, there's always bad facts for you. So deal with the bad facts. Don't run away from them. Just deal with them. And that's not one way to deal with them. And the reason why is because this presumably, unless you did some damage to this witness and showed he had an ax to grind, a bias, or some reason that he wasn't being truthful, this is presumably a third party with no dog in this fight, pun intended. And why do you get into

this burrowing of Bo or the Bo burrowing? The little dog, Boo, Boo, not Bo. Maybe, yeah, Boo, I'm sorry. I was like the colloquial Bo. I used to have a Bo. But why? I don't understand it. It's not a make or break fact. It's a bad fact. I agree. But you don't need to go to the point where somebody will then argue from the jury instructions that somebody who was materially false on one thing should be disbelieved on everything. Falsest in uno, falsest in omnibus.

You'll get an instruction to that like if you lied on one you could be a judged a liar on all and now we are going to show the poop because this is the poop that was found in the bed that she's now claiming the little dog the tiny little dog did it's i think it's a yorkshire york is, and it's a big poop, and it's not a little dog poop. It's toward the end of the bed, too. Because, like, Boo, I guess. That's where Boo burrows, I guess. It's where Boo burrows.

Now you're like a, I'm going to cross-examine you on the foundation for you to be a poopologist. You know what? I'm going to get my son Thatcher out here and he will spend all day discussing poop with you. Because he's eight and that's his wheelhouse. Anyway, okay, so that's lie number one in my view. Okay, here's the second thing. Let's get into it because there's testimony that she's been hurt by him that he's attacked her repeatedly and what johnny depp's attorneys are trying to do is show pictures of her right after the events at public events looking fabulous and kind of pressing her on

you had a broken nose here where's your broken nose this is soundbite 13 on um right after he allegedly attacked her the night before and broke her nose watch this is a picture of you and mr depp at the event the night after mr depp allegedly whacked you in the face so hard you thought he had broken your nose he did whack me in the face and i did think it broke my nose. And this is you the night after? Yes it is. Just to confirm now that the jury can see it, this is a picture of you at the same event the night after Mr. Depp allegedly whacked you in the face so hard you thought he broke your nose? This is a picture of me after he did whack me in the face. The night after, right? Yes, it is. I believe it was the night after, yes. Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it, Miss Heard?

I'm wearing makeup. Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it, Miss Heard? That's why I'm wearing makeup. Right. And makeup covers up swelling, right? Makeup will not cover up swelling. Ice will, though. Ice will cover up swelling? Ice reduces swelling. Normally, the swelling after that kind of injury is not as bad as you might imagine. And for me, it wasn't that bad. I have a picture of it underneath the makeup.

That's how I know how to reference it. A picture you haven't produced or shown to this jury, right? I have. So I've produced everything, but you haven't shown it to this jury. I would very much like to, it's not my job. You know, the, this, I, you get points for the depth side wanting to go here. I understand that, but going back to what my point is, for somebody who's in Amber's kind of camp, if you will, they're going to say, are you kidding me? Somebody,

you can do amazing things with makeup. You can disfigure, make people look disfigured. You can make them look tremendous, blah, it was there was the uh ability there to have done some damage i thought it landed with uh with without much damage to amber on that here's what i thought was problematic for amber on that if she had said um and that's right after you broke your nose if amber had said yeah i i put ice on it to get rid of the swelling and then the makeup artist came in. That would have been better. But yeah, it was makeup. And the lawyer got her makeup, hide swelling. And she's like, oh, no, ice does. Now it's ice. No, because let me tell you, as a public figure, you break your nose, you're very conscious of it and you're very conscious of how you're going to attack it. Because this happened to me. I did yoga when I was off between NBC and now, and my friend's

like, man, get off the couch. Come on, let's go do some yoga. So I'm like, all right, I'll do it. So we went to the yoga studio. I'd never done yoga, Mark. And I decided to try the little, um, what's it called? It's like, you're in a tripod, tripod, tripod. What's it called? Abby, no, not downward dog. not tree it's called oh shit i can't remember you can see i'm not a big yoga official crow crow crow i tried crow steve crack arrow for the win and i and and i was like i can do this i can do that bam down on my nose i went you could felt it crunch blood started coming out i meanwhile the backstory of this the woman was like is there anybody new i'm like oh crap me, crap me. What's your name? It's it's Megan. Megan. Well, Megan. Megan. Oh, God,

stop calling attention to me. And then I fucking broke my nose. So it's very humiliating. Believe me, I remember everything about it. And the nose was swollen. And you do bring it down with ice. And if you had ever asked me, what'd you do? I would have said I put ice on it. And then it was fine. I didn't actually even do anything because it looked fine. It didn't look out of joint or anything like that. Anyway, you remember. Did you use makeup? No, I didn't use makeup,

but I did use ice because it swelled. So ice brought down the swelling. And I just think separate and apart from my own personal experience, that's what she would have said. And she only got there because she found herself in a corner. And then she's smart. I actually thought Amber Heard was dumb.

She's not. She's smart. She's not dumb at all. She's very wily, I think you can tell. Whether that plays or doesn't play will be yet to be seen. So this is a common theme. Then they asked her, this is soundbite 14, about Johnny allegedly having attacked her, gotten on her back, scratched her back in some way. And then she went out for, I think it was a movie premiere, Mordecai in this backless dress.

Watch. You told this jury that on this occasion, Mr. Depp was kneeling on your back. That's correct. In the closet. You also told this jury that you wore a backless dress to the Mordecai premiere that very same night. I did. And you testified that you were checking for bruises in the car on the way to the event

to make sure that there were, quote, no visible marks, right? I was checking on my phone after the event to see, to make sure that nothing, they couldn't see anything. Your testimony was that you were checking in the car on the way to the event to make sure that there were no marks on your back. Perhaps I misspoke or misunderstood. It was on the way back from it was after I was concerned that there would be marks in any photographs since we were being photographed at Johnny's press event.

You didn't show this jury a picture of you in that backless dress though, did you? I don't know what you mean, I'm sorry. You didn't show this jury a picture of you at the Mordecai premiere wearing a backless dress, did you? I haven't had the opportunity to. Okay. I assume you haven't. I do. This is you in the backless dress at the Mordecai premiere in Tokyo, right?

That is correct. You would agree that there are no bruises or visible marks on your back in this picture? No, not that I could see. What do you make of that one? I thought that was a good cross. I, if she said back or before, she should have had an answer for that. They should have anticipated that. I'm finding Johnny Depp's lawyer slightly annoying.

I don't know if it's just me. I have the same problem and I wasn't going to confess it, but as long as you bring it up. Right? Like, I do. Like, just keep in mind, the jury doesn't want to hear snippiness. They don't know you. They don't like you yet. And they don't know whether you're representing an abuser or not, but just like your goal should just be to be respectful. They know you don't believe her. You don't have to show it in every in every question. You know, they know you don't just be respectful, be the picture of class.

Yeah, there's a calculation also that we're going to use a woman to cross examine the woman. A lot of times I think that's overblown. I, you know, if you've got, I always take the position that I like, it doesn't do well for my associates, but I like to have one lawyer from start to finish be the voice of the case, be the people, the person, their guideposts to go take them through the trial and take them through the narrative. I don't like it when it looks calculated that you've got a woman put up here because you're cross-examining a woman. I think that's to some degree, I think a juror sees right through that. I mean, you've probably been in the position I have. Jurors notice everything. They notice if you wear the same shoes repeatedly. They notice your suits. They

notice what you're carrying in your hands. So their jurors are very adept, and they've got a lot of time to focus in on the lawyers. So you shouldn't be so. For those who are watching who want to practice law or do practice law, don't be too clever by half. You want them to like you. That would be the ideal outcome for your client and you. At least not hate you, right? At the very least. And women are up against it on that too. Like, are you that sniffy and kind of bitchy? Like, they're already ready to believe that about you. And so you, if anything, you want to disabuse them. I'll give you an example. I mean, I have one of the lawyers that's worked with me for almost 10 years. She was in court this morning, and there was a homicide detective who was giving her a tough time. And she said something to him about, well, why don't you go find some real crime or something like that? And his retort was to her, well, I have, it's your a they there there is that kind of culture that still

exists well but the other thing is when you have a witness on the stand you want the jury to like you more than the witness on the stand as the lawyer the the goal is not for the witness to make you look like the hateful one as the lawyer like the less likable so that should be factored in in your performance. It's fine. We're being a little hard on her, but she's just kind of getting under my skin a little. And I think she's doing a good job. It's just tone. Right. And delivery. And as you say, attitude frames everything. I mean, I've had cases where jurors have come up afterwards and discussed the fact that they still tried to be fair, even though they despise the lawyer that

I was up against. And when I've asked the question, what took you so long? Why were you out so long? And they said they almost went overboard to try to compensate for the other lawyer who they disliked. Oh, well, that's fortunate for the other guy, but maybe not for you. Okay, now here's the next one. This is where she claimed he gave her two black eyes and a split lip. And then she showed up on James Corden's show, Soundbite 15. I thought I probably had a concussion and certainly that I had a broken nose. There was a blood everywhere, blood all over the pillows. My head was bleeding from the ripped out hair,

chunks of hair on the floor all over the place actually. So lines nine, that I had a broken nose. Do you recall giving that testimony, Ms. Hurd? Yes, exactly. And you testified that you also had a busted lip from when Mr. Depp punched you. That is correct. From December, yes, that's correct. You appeared on the James Corden show the day after this alleged incident, right? I did. And that was December 16th, 2015?

Yes, that's correct. Let's please pull up a clip of your appearance from that evening. I'd be doing a jump with a back bend and you can see this graceful falling and my hands are like. That's a photo of you opening your mouth on the right, right? That's correct. And again, a larger view of the same photo on the bottom that's correct with a split lip you've seen pictures of it without makeup so you got a split lip when you're moving

your mouth that way i sure did in those photographs absolutely okay and then she like the two black eyes are not visible at all, but I think we have a picture of what she says, you know, shows the damage to her eye. She's got, yeah, so here's one where you can see some swelling around her eye. It certainly doesn't show two black eyes. Right. I'm not sure exactly what it shows. Well, and I think my guesses or my prediction, they're going to get up and they're going to show that picture and redirect. I'm sure they will. But like I and I haven't seen all of Amber Heard's photos, but if she's going to start submitting like bloody face, bloody nose, bloody eyes, swollen eyes, black eyes, that's ballgame.

You know, if she's got that. But what I what I see happening today, this is this happened just this morning, as we were getting on the air, is Depp's lawyer was accusing her of manipulating the photos, that suggesting that she had increased the saturation on one version of the photo to make her face appear more red and puffy. She denied that said she never touched the photo, but that, you know, unless she's got gold in those photos, it's going to be a question for the jury on credibility. Correct. And to some degree, I would assume that Depp's people have done some kind of analysis. I mean, you can get experts who can tell you that they've either enhanced or embellished the photos themselves or that they're not accurate. And I suppose that may be coming too.

I mean, this is an endless trial. So who knows how many experts saw him? All right. Now, here's the sort of moment that grabbed us the most. She, you and I discussed this last Friday or whenever it was before they took the break. She told a horrific story about an alleged rape that she says he committed on her with a bottle. And it was very emotional. It was probably sort of the apex of her direct testimony. And she got crossed on it. I'm actually going to do it in reverse order. I'm going to play the cross-examination and then I'll show you the original

so the audience can hear the difference. Okay, so here's the cross-examination on it. It's SOT 21. because I didn't know if it was broken. I didn't know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken. I couldn't feel it. I couldn't feel it. I didn't feel pain. I didn't feel pain. I didn't feel anything. I just remember being in the bathroom. I remember retching. I remember the sound my voice was making. I remember I lost control of my bladder.

I remember just retching. I remember there was blood on the floor. All right, so we did play him in chronological order there. That's her last week talking about the alleged attack. Right, that was her direct. And now here comes the cross in part on that. Testified to being bent over backwards on the bar, right? That is correct.

And then feeling pressure on your pubic bone like Mr. Depp was punching you. Yes? That's what I thought. And then further down on page four, five to one and onto four, five to two. You testified that you were concerned Mr. Depp was using a broken bottle on you. Yes. That was my fear. OK.

That's what I remember feeling. So folks poking some holes in that saying, that's what you thought? It was your fear? You're a lot less certain on cross-exam than you were on direct. Yeah, but she tamped it down to follow up on your point. I thought that the cross had a toll that, once again, what was your word, slippy? You can be effective without having to kind of inject yourself into it. I don't know.

I feel like there's been, separate and apart from the lawyer, she's doing a good job of slicing and dicing the direct testimony. I mean, she is. apart from the lawyer she's doing a good job of slicing and dicing the direct testimony i mean she is and we didn't even get to the part about the seven million amber heards on tape saying she donated the entire seven million that johnny depp paid in connection with the divorce settlement and this trial has proven that that was a lie she hasn't done that it isn't true she's very wiggly on that i would just overall, the first couple of days of Cross, she's very shaky. I don't feel as good about her testimony as I did last week. And I think Johnny Depp is very much still in this. I still don't think he's going to win his defamation case. Do not think

that. I've never thought that. But on the PR battle, he's definitely scoring points. Oh, I think on the PR battle, he is winning to some degree, but at what cost? But, you know, the cross, I think, is expected. You and I talked about that too. You're never going to win going away. I mean, any case, you kind of take your victories where you can. You chalk up your wins where you can. And this has been a workmanlike cross-examination so far, but I don't think that you're changing

any minds if you're in the jury. If the jury was with her already, I don't think this is going to dissuade anybody. You and I are the only ones left with the open minds. I was going to tell you, we're on a very lonely island. Good, good. It's fine. Well, we'll bring more of our open minds to the Sussman case and a word on Don Lemon right after this. Don't go away. I wanted to update you about the sexual assault case against CNN's Don Lemon.

His accuser, Dustin Heiss, has now walked away from his lawsuit, which was set to go to trial in June. The announcement came two weeks ago, a few months after Dustin Heiss came on this program and described the alleged incident as follows. I decided to approach him and I said, hey, Don, let me buy you a drink. And before he could even respond, I looked at the bartender and I said, let me get two lemon drops. And if anything, that was an attempt at humor. And I didn't mean anything derogatory or, you know, I wasn't trying to harass him or, you know, and Don looks at me and says, I'm just trying to have a good time. And at that time I said, OK, I'm sorry. And I walked away. And I thought that was the end of it. He comes around the bar and comes up to me and he says, pardon my language, but he says, do you like me?

Is that why you're fucking with me? And I said, no, I just wanted to say what's up. And I was just like, what's this guy's problem? And I look at my boss and I look back and he has his hand in his pants, rubbing himself aggressively. And he shoves his two fingers up underneath my mustache, thrust my head back and says, do you like pussy or dick? And he said it like two or three times after that. And I just said, what the hell, man? And I just ran out the back door. Heiss, in dropping the case, issued the following statement, quote,

After a lot of inner reflection and a deep dive into my memory, I have come to realize that my recollection of the events that occurred on the night in question when I first met CNN anchor Don Lemon were not what I thought they were when I filed this lawsuit. As a result, I am dropping the case. It reads like a hostage statement. Now, I have no reportable evidence for this, but I do have 10 years of legal practice under my belt, plus nearly 20 as a legal analyst. And I can tell you that no plaintiff issues a statement like that walking away from a case against a public figure unless they've been paid to do so. Lemon's lawyer, Caroline Polisi, denies it, saying, quote, Mr. Lemon has never

paid the plaintiff a dime. Polisi later went even further, telling the website Mediaite, quote, not a single penny was paid by Don Lemon or any of his representatives. Well, I don't believe her. I believe a check was cut to Dustin Heiss and that it was cut by a representative of Don Lemon's and that Miss Polisi is misleading. And it's not the first time. Earlier in the case, after we interviewed Mr. Heiss, Ms. Polisi told the media that she had sent me a letter, quote, admonishing me for our reporting on this case, for putting him on the air. Typical bully tactic by a lawyer toward the press. But the thing is, it wasn't true. It was a lie. She never sent me a letter or any other correspondence. It would have been fun to have one with her.

She released something to the media, apparently, in an effort to spin them and make herself look tough. Newsflash, lawyers sometimes lie to reporters. She did it then, and I believe she did it again when she said Lemon's reps paid nothing to Dustin Heiss. What does she mean, by the way, by Lemon's representatives, right? How about Lemon's insurance company, Miss Polisi? Did they cut a check? Because that's typically how this would go. Miss Polisi can clear this whole thing up very easily. Will she certify under oath that it didn't happen? Or why not just produce a declaration from Dustin Heiss that no money was paid to him in connection with the settlement of this case? Because Dustin notably does not make that claim in his hostage

statement. And if Dustin Heiss did not get paid off, if he really just threw in the towel after two years of publicly lying about Don Lemon, where's the lawsuit against him? He's besmirched Don Lemon's reputation. Why would Lemon let him get away with that? Why wouldn't he be pursuing a defamation claim right now? Look, Heiss's case was far from perfect. That's true. Lemon's lawyer did a good job of banging up his witnesses at deposition, a fact we covered at length on this show. And after Heiss came on with us, a witness who saw the interview apparently came forward to claim that he, the witness, is gay. And he claimed that when he was in high school with Dustin Heiss, he says Heiss allegedly did something to him very

similar to what Heiss says Lemon did to Heiss. I have no idea whether this man was at all credible, but obviously that would be a potentially bad development for Heiss. So no, Heiss did not have a slam dunk case. But what incentive did Dustin Heiss have to settle this case on the eve of trial if he was not paid off? Let's imagine he really was lying the whole time. Why throw away the game now? Why not roll the dice at trial and see if you can convince a jury? Dustin told a compelling story with disturbing detail. Dustin had a very good lawyer. He definitely had a shot at winning this case. The guy had been through two years of depositions and motion practice and headaches and so on. It would take a check to make one abandon that gamble pre-trial. And that's what likely happened here. So all in all, a victory for both sides. Dustin issues a statement about

misremembering in exchange for what was likely a fat check. Lemon claims innocence and goes back to the news and it's done. But that's not really the whole story, because the media's role in this case deserves a word. Lemon, through his same attorney, has attempted to paint himself as the victim of a dishonest press. Ms. Polisi first reminding us, of course, that Lemon is a gay black man, quote, then whining that the reporting on this matter has been, quote, a case study in unethical and uninformed reporting. What a joke. If anything, the media ran cover on this for Don Lemon. There was a virtual blackout of these allegations. The same reporters who gleefully and unquestioningly reported on obviously flimsy sexual harassment allegations against Tucker Carlson and Sean

Hannity in 2020 refused to even do a blurb on the Lemon case, which, unlike the Fox case, had an eyewitness. CNN ran to the air with that baseless allegation against the Fox anchors, Brian Stelter giving it airtime, Alison Camerota using it to declare Fox News, quote, rotten to the core. But not a peep about the Lemon case from virtually anyone. Remember what the media did to Brett Kavanaugh. The press killed him. They absolutely killed Kavanaugh. Still has fallout for him to this day. White conservative straight guy done. But Lemon's case didn't fit their narrative. Trump, hating, woke Don Lemon. He's one of the good guys. Lemon can't be gross because he's a left-wing hero. Tucker, Hannity, Kavanaugh, not so much. This is why people hate the press. It's agenda

driven, identity driven. It's partisan, it's leftist. It only presents the stories that align with its anchor's worldview, and it buries those that don't. Thankfully, Americans are waking up and have learned to question the mainstream media. They've learned about their inherent bias. They've learned where to find other, more honest news sources, and we're delighted to be one of them. Back with me now, Mark Garagos. Mark, what do you make of it? Well, I was going to say it's an interesting

take that you've got, especially side by side with Chris Cuomo, side by side with all the other obvious problems at CNN, and somebody who's been falsely accused and then had CNN kind of famously cut and run, I've never really been a big believer in what goes on over there. So I'll leave it at that. I think that to some degree, they've tried to course correct. You might remember, Megan, that last time I did about an hour and a half with you back in, I forget when, December or something like that, I had kind of predicted, and I'll pat myself on the back presciently, that there were going to be some big changes. And sure enough, within six weeks, Zucker was gone. And, you know, it had kind of become a cesspool over there. And it's unfortunate. I still have what I consider to be a lot of friends there. But certainly, I don't know what had happened in that place. PR, the new guy running their PR department after the old gal who was having her affair with Zucker was forced out.

The new guy is tweeting at me saying like, Don Lemon didn't pay anything. I think, listen, buddy, you take a seat. This isn't your damn case. This is his case. Your job, we've seen this at so many news corporations. Your job is to represent the people who work at CNN writ large, not Don Lemon, because he's your star. There may be people inside of CNN right now who have potentially been harassed by Don Lemon. And what they don't want to see is you out there saying, no, let me defend Don Lemon. No,

he didn't pay anything. You be quiet. You're not his personal PR representative. You're CNN's PR representative. So you have to think about all the employees there and the reputation of the company and not about him this happened at nbc it's happened at fox these people need to remember what lane they're in right and that they're not they're no one's individual pr hack one of the things that i thought you just said in your is dare i call it a monologue, but the idea that that crafted statement did not encompass an insurance company as drafted. And by the way, obviously, somebody is sued. One of the first things they're going to do is tender it to an insurance company.

The insurance company is then going to either provide the lawyer, or if there's a situation with Cuba- style counsel, they'll do that. But the insurance company is going to be the one who traditionally on the eve of trial tries to settle the case because for the cost of defense, or maybe with some other bonus on top of it. And then you can are free to say, I didn't pay, my lawyer didn't pay, blah, blah, blah. But you didn't say no check ever got transferred. Exactly. Let's see the sworn declaration from Dustin Heist saying he didn't get any money. Let's see that. If I see that, I'll say, okay, I believe it. Because

a sworn declaration is an under oath document, be easy enough for him to produce. They could have negotiated that if he was just walking away. not say we want this too right we want here's what we want well i'd love to see you ask him some questions about his mismemory oh i mean so i first of all i would love to have him back on but you know i'm he's obviously signed a deal that doesn't allow him to speak um but he that hostage statement mark is the tell right like? Like if you are just saying, I don't want to do this, nevermind. You just walk away. You wouldn't give Don Lemon the hostage statement. You wouldn't be writing something out like that. They paid for that. That's the only reason you would write those words about misremembering. I suppose that the lawyer could

say, look, the reason that we crafted that statement is because otherwise we were going to come after him. We were going to go after him and we were going to force it to trial, prevail. And by the way, you would have to survive or not have survived a motion for summary judgment or some other kind of privilege shielding point in the litigation, which does not happen. I'll say this in Don Lemon's defense. His lawyer got a $77,000 judgment against Dustin Heiss for lawyer fees and so on related to discovery that Heiss failed to produce. I mean, in the defense, I could have been, they could have said, we're not going to proceed on executing on the 77 grand, but you've got to read this mea culpa. I can see where that would be a possibility. Yeah, but that's not what happened. I'm telling you, that's not what happened. He would have gone to trial. He would have rolled the dice. That money would have been standing there either way. And it's much better for Dustin Heiss, who made a compelling witness,

to take the stand and say, this happened to me, take his chances with a jury because he could have been looking at a million dollar check. And there's no way, no way Don Lemon is going to take the stand. Trust me on that. There was zero chance of it happening. So this guy, Dustin Heiss, had every incentive to keep going. And the way you stop a plaintiff who wants to keep going from keeping on is by cutting them a check. Anyway, we'll see if they produce a Dustin Hees affidavit. And if they do, I'll come out and say, great, okay, now we have it settled. But the incurious media is what disgusts me, right? It's like, they ran with those Tucker Carlson allegations. They were so flimsy. They were thinner than a piece of paper. And Sean Hannity was swept up in it, too. Ran with it. They were gleeful. So exciting. Don Lemon, crickets from the beginning, right?

And his case developed problems. Dustin Heiss's case definitely did. And we pressed him on a lot of them. But even from the beginning, there was a blackout mark because Don Lemon is not the same in their eyes as a Sean Hannity. One's totally fair game and fun to attack, and one has to be protected at all costs. Well, I can't tell you the number of times that I've been bitching and moaning about this for 30 years. Depending on who I'm defending and what their viewpoint is will depend on the coverage that they get. And it's a very frustrating situation to be in. I mean, one day you could be defending one person

and that ox that's getting gored is unfairly done. It's just an awful situation. It happens every day. You do make a very good point, I think, in that people are starting to do what I've always called source criticism. They're looking at where is this coming from? Who is reporting this? When you read a story, I know I do it almost unflinchingly now, I'll look and see who the news outlet is before I kind of will be able to source it. I know normally you would say that's an ad hominem or a fallacious way to look at things, but I think it's the more anthropological

analysis because if somebody's coming at you and you can't just get a unbiased take or at least an attempt to be unbiased, then there's a problem there. Yeah, that's exactly right. And it's like, I mean, trust me, I've done so many Me Too interviews, you know, accusers. I interviewed Joe Biden's accuser. I've interviewed Trump's accusers. I've interviewed accusers on both sides of the aisle. I've interviewed the accused. I'm totally nonpartisan when it comes to these things. I think people deserve a hearing, a fair, it's sort of like we're doing with Amber and Johnny. They deserve a fair hearing where you try to stay open-minded.

And I can definitely see the points that Lemon's side was amassing in advance of this trial. But Dustin Heiss also made a compelling witness. And if you watch his whole interview on our show, it's the only one you'll see because nobody else would put him on the air. You can make up your own minds. When your producer pitched it, I had to, and mind you, I'm somebody who I would think

has some interest in this. I couldn't find that much on it. Oh, nobody would report on it. It was a total blackout of this guy's case, which was wrong. The media doesn't know what the truth is. Our job is to report on the facts as they develop. And precious few even tried. The problem is that the media, you know, I always hearken back to when I first mentioned 20 years ago, and I was complaining bitterly about what I had seen over 40 years with the media, that they had become going from questioning authority or that kind of mindset to cheerleaders for the prosecution, which has now morphed into cheerleaders for whichever side we happen to be on politically. And that's a very troubling trend.

It's a serious problem. All right, before you go, and I have to wrap, but I just want to tell the audience what happened in the Sussman trial today. They had opening arguments. There were at least a few jurors who are apparently, at least in the pool, I don't know if they made it on, who are big Hillary Clinton and AOC donors. This is a jury. This is a town that's like 94% Dems and only like six, four, whatever percent Republicans. And they are trying to make the case that this guy Sussman lied to the FBI and saying that that's what this is about. The prosecutor is saying this case is about privilege of a well-connected DC lawyer

who lied to the FBI to inject the Bureau into the 2016 presidential election. The defense is saying it wasn't a lie and it wasn't a Hillary Clinton operation. And if it had been, she never would have picked Sussman because everybody knew he was connected to her, which is an interesting prospect. Mark, always a pleasure. Thanks for being here.

Thank you. Good to see you. All right. We'll do it again soon. Tomorrow, we're digging into UFOs and UAPs, unidentified aerial phenomena. After the first ever public congressional hearing today on the topic, Lou Elizondo is back with us. Download the show in the meantime so you don't miss it. Thanks for listening. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda and no fear.