The Megyn Kelly Show - Classified Docs in Biden's Garage, and Evidence Against Idaho Suspect, with Alan Dershowitz, Sharyl Attkisson, Marcia Clark, and Mark Geragos | Ep. 471

Episode Date: January 13, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Price of Principle," and Sharyl Attkisson, host of "Full Measure," to talk about the classified documents in Biden's garage, the appointment of a special counsel, the relationship to the Trump documents case, whether this could lead to Biden's impeachment, the lack of transparency and leaks by the Biden administration, Biden and the press spinning the story, Rep. Byron Donalds schooling Joy Reid on MSNBC, irresponsible disrespectful coverage of Diamond's death, the Alzheimer's drug being fast-tracked by the FDA, and more. Then lawyers Marcia Clark and Mark Geragos go through the latest evidence against Bryan Kohberger in the Idaho college murders case, the possibility of a "co-defendant," challenges for the prosecution and defense, whether there will be a preliminary hearing at all, and more. Plus, Megyn's tribute to Pope Benedict XVI and the "MK Mailbag."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 and happy Friday. Oh, we've got a great, great show for you today. In just a bit, we're going to have a powerful combo on Kelly's Court. Talk in Idaho, Mark Garagosa, Marsha Clark, the dream team back with me. Plus, Cheryl Atkinson is coming up with a lot of thoughts on these Biden documents, among other things. But we're going to begin today with Alan Dershowitz on this breaking news that we had yesterday into today, continuing developments that a special counsel has been appointed now by the Department of Justice to look into the Joe Biden classified documents mess. Yes, another special counsel for another

classified documents story. What are we doing? What are we doing? We learned yesterday that this has been going on for months in secret, so-called transparency, nowhere to be found. No media reporting. I guess if you're Joe Biden, you get to find your own documents and break the news yourself after managing for three months behind the scenes. So why are we just finding out about this now? And what the hell? Why is it drip, drip, drip? Why is it like, OK, we found one, but then, oh, God, there's another. Oh, wait, no, there's a third. And like, who is managing this? Right. It raises all sorts of questions about the ineptitude of those supporting President Biden on this. And more importantly, what the legal ramifications of all of this are

for Donald Trump, for Donald Trump. Yeah, for Joe Biden, too, I guess. We'll talk about it. Joining me now, one of our MK show favorites, Alan Dershowitz. He's a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Price of Principle. And man, is that a subject he knows a lot about, having lived it personally for a long time. Alan, great to see you. How are you? I'm doing great. Thank you for having me on. I always enjoy talking to you. Good. And I love your podcast. I always listen to it. Very informative. So, OK, I mean, you tell me what you think i think this special counsel looking into joe biden never would have happened had they not been going after donald

trump this aggressively it's i don't think it's going to lead anywhere even though they've gone after civilians for far less than what joe biden has admitted to doing but the thing i'm most interested in is how, in your view, does all this affect the case against Trump? Because now, just to update the audience, as I mentioned in the intro, we have not one, not two, but three discoveries of Joe Biden holding classified documents, including top secret documents at three different places. His Washington, D.C. office that was connected to his work for University of Pennsylvania after his vice presidency, his home in Wilmington, Delaware,

out in the garage next to his Corvette. And now a third disclosure late yesterday of a document, at least coming from inside that same home. What do you make of it? Well, first, I think there will be more disclosures, not only of documents improperly handled by Biden, but by previous presidents. This is something that must have been happening for years and years and years. And it was only the fact that the Justice Department went after Trump so aggressively with a search warrant and with a complete search of the home that has even made this a story. This is a perfect example of tit-for-tat politics. The Democrats go after Trump improperly, unconstitutionally, and now, of course, the Republicans are going to get even. And the victims are the American public who don't benefit from this. In the end, nothing will

happen. I rarely ever make perfect predictions on the media. Here, I'm going to make a 100% certain conviction. There will be no criminal prosecution of Donald Trump or of Joe Biden. They cancel each other out, unless, obviously, more information comes out that shows obstruction of justice or Richard Nixon-type behavior. But this makes it clear as can be that you can't have a double standard of justice, particularly when two people are running each other against each other for president. That's why special counsel was appointed, because they appointed him against Trump. So they had to appoint him against Biden. Everything has to be equal and one will cancel out the other. I totally agree with everything you just said. This is window dressing on the Biden side to make it look like they're both being treated the same for what would normally be a slap on the wrist,

like, OK, give us back the documents. And I realize Trump went further than that and said, you know, kept arguing past the point of return. And now they actually claim that he lied through a lawyer about having given back all the documents when, in fact, he hadn't. They'll they'll fight all that out, maybe. But the bottom line is, in the mind of the American people, this is classified information being kept by a former vice president and a former president. And they're going to see it as the same. And if they get different treatment, you know, it's going to be extraordinary under any circumstance, Alan, but especially when you're talking about the unprecedented act of indicting criminally a former president, which they are thinking about doing to Trump. Look, I think there are very few things that all Americans agree on. But the one thing that

all Americans agree on is that the Trump situation is different from the Biden situation. Half of America thinks that Biden is worse. Half of America thinks that Trump is worse. And each of them has a point. Trump was worse in the sense that he didn't come forward and disclose immediately. There may have been some misstatements. There were materials found after there were assurances they wouldn't be found. On the other hand, we have Trump being the president of the United States at the time, having the ability to declassify material, whereas Biden was the vice president, didn't have the ability to classify material. Also, with Biden, there was this delay. Why a delay between early November and the midterm elections? And then why a two-month-long delay? And there are also speculation

that Biden would never have revealed this information had the media not gotten wind of it. Now the question is, who leaked it to the media? Who's out to get Biden? Who was out to get Trump? This reflects the worst, the worst of American politics. I'm actually starting to wonder, this is a little tongue in cheek, if Joe Biden is behind this whole strategy because he doesn't actually want an indictment of President Trump. He's offering something that would make it less likely because he'd prefer to run against him that he he said publicly. That's the one thing that'll guarantee I run again. And he really believes Trump's beatable. And maybe he's doing so. I don't really think this, but it did occur to me maybe he's trying to keep Trump in the political game. Well, look, this certainly does keep him in the political game. There are

all kinds of machinations in politics. We don't know what the motivations were. I think the most likely scenario is that both of them simply screwed up. They didn't do anything in order to sell classified material to the Chinese. You know, each are claiming a China or a Russian connection. It's very conspiratorial. When there are two options, you know, malice or stupidity or carelessness, you always go for the stupidity and the carelessness. And so I suspect that both sides were careless. I suspect that previous presidents were careless, too, and that before this investigation is over, we will find classified material in the possession or having been in the possession of previous presidents as well. For me, the implication is let's change the law. Let's have far less classification. By the way, Biden could do very interesting as the president. He can now declassify the Ukrainian material that he got

when he was vice president so he can allay all suspicions that he took this material for an improper purpose. He now has the power for purposes of transparency to declassify. Now, there may be some stuff that's very secret and shouldn't be declassified, but much of it can now be declassified. And let's hope that in the future, A, we have narrower classification laws, B, narrower criminal laws, this idea of weaponizing the criminal justice system, each side against the other. It's let's include a willfulness, a specificity requirement in the law before you can charge somebody with criminal behavior. By the way, that should apply not only to former presidents, it should also apply to people in the army, low-ranking officials, many of whom have suffered grievously from having accidentally or

inadvertently taken home a piece of classified material. So the time has come to review this whole mess of criminalizing classified material. Let's make it simple. Let's create a single standard and let's put this behind us. I once again agree with literally every word you just said, all of it. We over classify. I guarantee you, Carter, Obama, George W., Bill Clinton all have classified documents sitting someplace in their homes or apartments right now. And we just don't know about it because they didn't have a nosy national archivist who decided to poke the bear. And in Biden's case, they didn't have lawyers who went back for some reason to take a hard look to see what what's there.

And I there's a lot of debate about what made his lawyers do that. Is it is it just the Trump scandal? Did they want to make sure? I mean, I don't know. Those are some of the questions we have to answer. But here's my my question for you. Having agreed on everything. Here's the sticky wicket. Andrew McCarthy raised this over at National Review. What about people like Kendra Kingsbury, former FBI analyst, who right now is looking at the prospect of 10 years in prison, potentially, for taking classified documents and keeping them at her personal residence? The lead prosecutor in this case, David Raskin, who was subsequently tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland to assist in the Trump document investigation at Mar-a-Lago, he argued Kingsbury knew her personal residence was not an authorized location for such storage and having unauthorized possession of these 20

documents relating to national defense was not OK, he says. She willfully retained the documents and failed to deliver them to an officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive them. Now, he Andrew raises the point that The Washington Post did a report on Kendra back in December trying to say, see what's going to happen to Kendra? That's what should happen to Trump, right? Her case looks an awful lot like Joe Biden's too. And that's what these special counsels, the DOJ, that are going to have to deal with, that they've gone after Jane Doe's much more aggressively than they are likely to go after in particular Joe Biden here. But that's the problem with special counsel, why I generally don't like them. They have a specific person who's targeted by them. They don't look at comparative cases. They just look at the single case and they have to look at comparative cases. Look at Sandy Berger.

Sandy Berger is the best example. He's a good guy. I like him. A terrific lawyer and a very good, you know, aide to President Clinton. But he was writing a memoir and he got lazy and he went to the archives and he stuck some secret material in his socks and maybe his underwear, and he got a slap on the wrist. Now, it hurt him. It was a big slap on the wrist because it hurt his career, but there was no criminal, you know, imprisonment, no search of his home, none of that. And so you have to have a single standard. And these people who are now being investigated or previously have lost their security clearance based on this kind of material ought to have them restored. And we ought to go back in time

and create a single standard based on what we do with Biden and what we do with Trump and what we did with Hillary Clinton and what we did with Sandy Berger. You can't have one standard for Democrats, one for Republicans, one standard for high ranking people, another standard for low people, low ranking people who just want their jobs back. Now, the special counsel appointed to investigate Biden, again, kind of air quotes on this, because I mean, we both agree it's not going anywhere, is Maryland U.S. Attorney Robert Herr, who was nominated by then President Donald Trump in 2017 and recently worked in private practice. Here's the question. And then you have a different prosecutor, a special counsel looking into Donald Trump. The special prosecutor looking into Trump,

I think, was probably on the precipice of charging Donald Trump of indicting Donald Trump prior to this. And I wonder what's going through that guy's mind now, because you say he's not supposed to really look at the comparative cases, right? He's supposed to be looking at Trump only. And in that lane, the Democrats and maybe the special counsel, they're outraged, Alan. They're outraged over Trump because, yes, it's true. He didn't just discover documents that may have belonged to the National Archives and not him and then call them up and say, here, come take them. Several other steps happened. He sort of obfuscated. He said no. He submitted this sworn declaration by his lawyer saying we've given everything. And then it turned out they hadn't given everything. And maybe there are reasons for that. Maybe we'll learn at some point why they did that. And it'll sound less pernicious. political argument. You look over the Biden lane, you say, what's this going to do to the fabric of the country? It's a huge deal to indict a former president. We've never done that before.

And now you're going to, so like all the considerations to make him not do it are political, not legal. That's the point I'm trying to get to. No, it's bad to indict a former president. It's 10 times worse to indict a man running for president against the incumbent who appointed you for office, which is why I never believed even before, and I wrote this, even before these recent disclosures about Biden, I never believed that Garland would accept, even if there was a recommendation from a special prosecutor, to prosecute Trump. You cannot prosecute Trump if you didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton, if you only gave a slap on the wrist to Sandy Berger. And now, of course, with Biden, it's impossible. But I do not believe that Garland would have indicted the man running against the man who appointed him for president. would create such division in this country that it could lead to what happened in Brazil. That's the danger here. And we're already a divided country. Let's put this behind us.

Let's understand that everybody makes mistakes when it comes to classified material. Let's clarify the law. Let's stop weaponizing the criminal justice system. Let's stop doing tit for tat politics as if two rights are wrong. Two wrongs make a third wrong. And here you're going to make a third wrong. Let's talk about how it would play out, because I actually disagree. I think Trump is about to get indicted, but I don't think there's any way they can do that now. Either way, either way, we both agree they can't do that now. So what would happen if the Trump special counsel said Biden documents be damned? I don't care. It's not the same. Biden kept him next to his Corvette.

So it's different. But anyway, he thinks he's got Trump by the jugular. You know, he's like he lied under oath or his lawyer did and all the stuff that may have been exciting him and other Democrats. What happens if he says, I don't care, I do want to indict him? Does he have the final say? Does Garland have the final say? And would anybody be allowed to consider the politics of it? Well, Garland definitely has the final say. He would not say he's considering the politics of it.

He would say he's considering not only justice must be done, but must be seen to be done. And if you have half the country believing that a double standard of justice has been applied, he must be seen to be done. And if you have half the country believing that a double standard of justice has been applied, he's not going to do it. You know, I wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled, What About Ism? That's what the Hillary Clinton people were saying. They were accusing the Trump people of arguing what about ism, because Trump was always saying, well, what about Hillary Clinton? What about Sandy Berger? And I defended what about ism. I think in America, you have to have a single standard of justice. So it's fair for either side to say, well, what about the other side? And so there are two alternatives.

One, indict them all. And the other is indict none of them. And I think the result will be to indict none of them. And I hope by you bringing up these other cases of people in lower level positions who are now subject to criminal investigation or losing their security clearance, I hope we go back and rethink all of those and reconsider all of those and let people get on with their lives and start anew and make it clear what the rules are and apply the rules fairly to everybody, set up procedures for every president when they leave office to make sure they don't have the ability to decide what's brought to Mar-a-Lago or what's brought to the Corvette garage. That becomes something that the government of the United States takes responsibility for

doing. Just as a reminder for our audience, the Justice Department policy is not to indict any sitting president, but that does not prevent them from indicting somebody who loses his run for a second term or somebody who decides not to run for his second term. So Joe Biden in this imaginary world would still potentially be on the hot coals. But again, neither of the lawyers are listening to right now believe that that special counsel investigation is going anywhere. The really interesting threat is what is it? People may very well move for the impeachment of Biden based on this information. And I would be just as opposed to that as I was to the impeachment of Trump. In order to impeach, you have to have treason. It's

not treason. Bribery, it's not bribery. Or other high crimes and misdemeanors. None of this fits that criteria, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republican tit-for-tat politicians will have hearings on this. I hope they're not like the January 6th hearings, which were the worst hearings in American history since McCarthyism. The other side had no chance to cross-examine. The other side had no chance to subpoena. I hope that isn't repeated by the Republicans, but it may be. And so we may see indictments, although I think we won't see them. We may see impeachment. We may see an effort to get impeachment. And of course, there are now enough Republicans in the House to impeach all you need is a simple majority.

But I hope that doesn't happen. And if it does, I will defend Biden as vociferously as I defended Trump, even though I disagree. It's 100 percent going to happen if they prosecute Donald Trump. Joe Biden will be impeached if they prosecute Donald Trump and not go after Biden. Though great, principled and brilliant Alan Dershowitz. What a pleasure. Thank you, sir. My pleasure. Thank you. All right. And coming up next, Cheryl Atkinson, another brilliant principled person, will join us on exactly how this has gone down. She's seen some red flags in the messaging that we're getting, and she's always great on red flags when it comes to our elected officials.

We are continuing the Biden classified documents conversation with Cheryl Atkinson, host of Full Measure with Cheryl Atkinson. Welcome back, Cheryl. So I just want to get to sort of some of the messaging on this, because there is a real question about why this came out, at least the first batch that were found on November 1st, right before the midterms, and why they kept it silent for so long. And then there's a second question about why, when they found this first batch at his office in Washington, D.C., connected to the University of Pennsylvania, they didn't then say, oh, man, we better search every place right now

so we make sure we have all potential errant documents collected so we don't have to piecemeal get discovered and get found out on it. And they're not. It's been a mess. So I have lots of questions. But here on the question of transparency is not. It's been a mess. So I have lots of questions. But here on the question of transparency is NBC News, which is very interesting, right? Just to have the left wing media raising real questions of President Biden on this,

of his press secretary on the promise of transparency he made to us. Do you acknowledge that the fact that the White House did not reveal this to the public, despite the fact that you've known about it for months, undercuts the president's promise of being transparent with the American people? But here's the thing. They were transparent. There was transparency in doing what you're supposed to do when these items were discovered. People, look, I am here standing in front of you answering these questions. Cheryl, is that transparency? Well, it's not, but also I will point out, we're taking the word of the people involved in the alleged misconduct that they did what they said they did when they said they did it. I think they probably did conduct a search. And I'm assuming these sorts of things,

just based on history and what we've seen in the past, I don't think they did wait to discover these other things. I think they probably did conduct a big search. I think it's a mistake to rely upon the things that we're hearing now reported by the media or by the Department of Justice or by Biden's own lawyers. It's a mistake to take that at face value and assume that's an accurate representation of what really happened. But I would suggest when you say they should have conducted a global search at the time, I think they did probably, but that shouldn't have been them. That should have been special, independent people, you know, clear to see classified information that would have been called in so there could be, you know, an ethical sense

to this investigation that we could refer to. And isn't it funny how anything that could be negative to Donald Trump was leaked by the Department of Justice repeatedly, but nothing that could be damaging to Biden seems to be leaked until they're ready for it to come out, whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop stuff or whether it sees these things. We know now Department of Justice officials can keep a secret when they want to keep a secret. Good point. Yes, exactly. So we don't know how we're being spun or misled. What they're telling us this week is the first batch at that office in Washington, D.C., connected to his think tank that they were found November 1st. The second batch was found December 20th in the garage.

And I don't know when batch three was found. They say it's a document. We'll see. But that's another one classified document that was found inside Mr. Biden's home in Wilmington, Delaware. And the thing that's really aggravating, among others, is how flippant Joe Biden is being about this after lecturing us on 60 Minutes about how horrible Trump was. Here's just as a reminder, quickly, let's go back to the way he initially characterized the keeping of classified and even top secret, which is what he's done by his own admission, documents off property or unsecured or not with the National Archives. This is how we saw it, Joe Biden, in September, late September, September 18th on 60 Minutes,

top five. When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago. What did you think to yourself looking at that image? How that could possibly happen? How anyone could be that irresponsible? And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? By that, I mean names of people who helped or etc. And it's just totally irresponsible. And now asked about batch two that was in his garage

at home. Listen to him Satu. Classified material. Next year Corvette. What were you thinking? Let me, uh, I'm going to get a chance to speak on all this, God willing, soon. But as I said earlier this week, people and by the way, my Corvette's in a locked garage. OK, so it's not like you're sitting out in the street. But anyway, yes, as well as my Corvette.

Wow. Suddenly a search conducted by, you know, thousand dollar an hour lawyers of these places right before the election after Joe Biden's been president all this time. There's a reason all this took place. I suspect people knew well prior to the time we're being told they discovered the first batch of documents that there were potentially or maybe definitely classified documents in some locations that President Biden had. And there's even a chance that they knew, someone working with Biden or whoever his minders are, that they knew when he gave that interview in September and when they were attacking Donald Trump, that Biden had committed some violations that could be seen as similar. So the question to that is, why would they not stop him from commenting on these things? Why would they press so hard on the Donald Trump documents? And I don't think the thing I'm about to postulate is necessarily what happened,

but they make us think this way by the scheming that's happened in the past. What if they, whoever they are, already knew at the time they picked the fight with Donald Trump about the documents and decided to go to the FBI raid instead of communicating with him and dealing it in a civil matter. What if they already knew this? They, whoever they are, get Joe Biden to come down hard and say what a terrible violation this is, only to then reveal at a key point in time to them when they wanted out that he did something that could be seen as similar. And now he's in, as I call it, a Kobayashi Maru, Star Trek reference, sort of a no-win situation,

because he's boxed himself in. Who would be engineering that? And who would want all of this to be happening right now? I don't have the answer, but we know nothing happens by accident. And these narratives don't make it on the news. This story's not out because investigative journalists did hard work. This story's out out or even because of leaks, because they whoever they are wanted it out right now in this exact way. like Hamala Karis, maybe some some civilian by, you know, who we've never heard of, like who would have an interest in compromising Joe Biden or hurting Joe Biden. But I was saying with Alan Dershowitz could go the other way. Could be Joe Biden doesn't want to see an indictment of Donald Trump because he he recognizes he'd like to run against Trump. He thinks he can beat Trump. He thinks, you know, I beat him once, I'll beat him again. I don't know if I could beat Ron DeSantis. Why don't I do something to stop the Trump prosecution that doesn't really hurt me that

badly politically? Well, I think if I'm just speculating here, but I think if that were the case, it would be easy enough for Biden to signal that there shouldn't be a prosecution. And I don't think Merrick Garland, even though he's independent, can do what he wants. I don't think he would prosecute if Biden were to send a signal that, hey, this is a president. Oh, come on, Cheryl. He doesn't interfere. Biden does not interfere with Merrick Garland.

OK, so then let's go further. I think Biden could signal to Merrick Garland not to prosecute Trump. And people would buy that based on the fact pattern that we have. He wouldn't have to go to the trouble of setting himself up to create this big ruse to make Garland not prosecute. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. And even like all of it leads me back to that other question, which is under any scenario, whether it's somebody trying to hurt Biden, whether it's Biden trying to get rid of this prosecution of Trump, whether it's just Biden being, you know, inept. I don't get why we're having piecemeal. Guess what? Another big reveal. You know why? Let's give him the

benefit of the doubt for a minute and say, whatever. The lawyers just happen to be reviewing his think tank. And who, by the way, sends their lawyers to go empty out their think tank and you know now they're officially saying oh those documents were found in a locked closet when biden spoke about it personally the other day he said uh in in a closet or maybe in a box and or or may or may not have been locked and now they're like oh but it's only a dozen documents but biden used both the term a box of documents and boxes of documents. So even in his recital, I realize we can't put a lot of stock in the way he speaks, but it was all over the map. And now we're being told second tranche in the garage. And then we are told only one document in inside the home, all of which we question.

But why would it be handled so haphazardly? And so, I mean, it's like the three stooges running this operation. I don't think so, Megan. I think this is, they're not, they're shrewd people who manage information for whoever they're managing it for. And this was thought out. It didn't have to come out since it happened months ago. It didn't have to come out on the day it did. And whoever decided to release it thought this out, how they, in my opinion, based on experience, they knew the first day that they were going to take a certain period of time and release more information the next day or when that happened. And there's a reason for it. I can't say what it is. One bit of speculation would be, we know people who manage information in the past

have taken advantage of the drip drip syndrome. When you get a little bit at a time, you inoculate people past the initial shock. If you put it all out there at once, wow, three different places so far that classified documents have been found, including in his house. Maybe that's a worse bang than they wanted to get or thought they would get if they said, here's what we found one day. Oh, there's a little more. Oh, there's a little more. Someone has, whoever's pulling strings on this story has decided this is the way they want it to be out. I don't get the sense it's as haphazard as I think they would like us to assume. Let me ask you whether that makes sense. And we just to underscore for the viewers, again, we're speculating here on the many conspiracy theories that are out there, like who could have done it?

Because it doesn't make sense as delivered. That's one thing we agree on. We don't know why it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make much sense for the reasons that we discussed. But politically, I don't see how that, if you're Gavin Newsom, let's say, let's go to the crazy place.

Gavin Newsom somehow knew about this and is doing this, or Kamala Harris or just Democrats who don't think they can win with Biden and want him to go because he's too old and he's infeable and he's infirm. can't be the nominee because our best issue against Trump is he stored classified documents inappropriately. And now we've handicapped our ability to argue that because Biden did it. That's how that is weak sauce. This is all a legal dispute. The politics against Trump are he's a madman. He says the crazy things. January 6th. It's not like the documents thing. Well, there's also, let's postulate something else. Again, based on experience, we know to understand that what we're hearing is not the whole story in general, because that's what experience taught us. But what if at some point in time, they were hiding this, clearly they were hiding it from the public, but it came to be understood or believed that it would come out at some point, whether because there's a Republican Congress or because people inside the Department of Justice were saying, if you don't talk about it, we're going

to have to talk about it soon. Pressure was building. Maybe too many people know about it. Who knows? But maybe they felt that they had to put it out in a way that they felt would be least less damaging than if the FBI did a raid or the Department of Justice held a big news conference and said it. They thought this would be a way that would be a softer landing for something that would come out anyway. And let me mention, there's a funny little story of something that happened at CBS about the drip, drip, the idea that you can float a little something out there and then add to it. When Bill Clinton was accused of having the affair with intern Monica Lewinsky,

some of his top people leaked to CBS News' White House correspondent when I worked there that they were going to announce that Bill Clinton kissed Monica Lewinsky, but nothing more. This is before any admissions had been made, but that he kissed her. They were going to float that out there themselves. They gave it to CBS. CBS reported it without saying who gave it to them. They didn't like, meaning the White House, the reaction. They floated that trial balloon. They didn't like what people thought about and how they reacted to that revelation. They then held a press conference saying that it wasn't true. So the same people that planted the story then denied the story,

and CBS was in the position of not saying, or for whatever reason, not wanting to say, hey, the White House is the one who gave us the story. Now they're making us look bad, like we have a false story, but they're the ones who told us. They just sort of ate what sounded like a bad story. I tell that long thing to show how there's all kinds of behind the scenes machinations going on that will say try this out see how people react announce a little bit of this turn it around i i just think there's a lot going on that we don't know about yep and you get used as a reporter at these you know biden friendly outlets a lot we've seen that too where they know they'll just put it on the air. The standards that used to govern journalism are no longer. Do you remember after Vincent Foster's death,

the White House counsel that worked under Bill Clinton who committed suicide, some people thought maybe there was something else to it. But do you remember the Whitewater file that was in his office, a controversy surrounding the Clinton White House. It was taken from the White House right after that happened, which is illegal and improper. Nothing's supposed to be changed or moved. But Hillary Clinton and one of her aides were said to have rooted around in Vince Foster's office prior to the FBI getting hold of it. And then do you remember a Clinton lawyer showed up with the file some days later, turned it over. I don't know if it was in a briefcase or a file folder. We don't know what had happened to the file in

the interim, but he represented it as, oh, here's the file. Nothing's happened to it. No explanation for why I took it for several days, but believe us, this file's exactly as it was the day that I originally had it. I mean, there's just so many crazy things going on all the time that I think the media sometimes accepts. So another little sidebar back then when that was happening, one of the White House people hired to spin the press on all of this came to CBS and met with us, just sort of a behind the scenes meeting and showed us the file and said, you can look at this Whitewater file and you can see there's nothing incriminating in it. And we sat around in this room and I was just this

young journalist, sort of a new kid, but I asked, I was the only one who said, asked the question, we don't have a chain of custody for this though. You're representing to us, this is what was in the file, but we don't know what was in the file the day it was took versus the day it was returned. And the lawyer for the White House actually said, well, that's true. But I'm representing to you that this is how the file was. Right, right. Honor system here. Oh, OK, sure. I do think it's interesting that. NBC, Christian Welker, asked that question, but MSNBC is ready to run cover for President Biden. This is Mika Brzezinski today, Friday morning, with her take on it.

Classified documents in private hands is something Republicans downplayed constantly until the shoe was placed on the other foot. And unfortunately for them, the Trump shoe that dropped was much bigger and entirely different in the key issue of willful intent to obstruct. Many Republicans just aren't smart enough to figure that out, and they can't figure out that this week's developments actually make it more likely. The DOJ moves on Trump. In the end, what is most important here is intent, willful intent to obstruct. What we know is that the Biden administration immediately handed over the documents. We also know that Donald Trump held

off even in the face of a subpoena. OK, so that was this morning. Many Republicans aren't smart enough to figure that out, that this is about willful and intent to obstruct. And they can't figure out that this week's developments actually make it more likely that the DOJ moves under. Last I checked, Mika Brzezinski does not have a law degree. You know, it's been a while since I practiced, but I did practice for 10 years. Alan Dershowitz, way more than any of us. And it is not actually more likely that the DOJ is going to indict Trump. She doesn't know what she's talking about. But clearly she and I'm sure many others in the left wing press will wind up there, Cheryl, running cover for the president.

Go back to her saying what we do know is they turn the documents over right away. I don't know that. You know, it's interesting when the press will take someone's word for it with no evidence and then question everything another side says. We have no evidence that they did turn everything over right away. We weren't there. We don't know when they were truly discovered. We don't know who first may have seen them before the lawyers were called in. We don't have any of that information. So I certainly think, you know, when reporters try to say what we know, if they weren't in the room, stuff should all be attributed. They don't know that that happened. And then I go back to Trump.

What they see is obstruction. I see the argument. But you could see as Trump wasn't hiding anything the way they've had the past couple of months, he was actually negotiating because taking his viewpoint, he didn't think that he had to return those documents or he was negotiating their return. So see that as obstruction, if you will. But there's certainly a different argument that can be made, which was actually being had prior to the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago home. Well, shifting gears now, while we're on the subject of MSNBC, I've got to mention Joy Reid in this disgraceful exchange that happened the other night. OK, Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida was on. He had been one of the possible alternatives to Kevin McCarthy, favored by the more conservative group that held out on some of these requirements

they wanted Kevin to accede to. And he went on to his credit this is a republican again deep conservative you know deep south conservative florida went on joy reed show which you don't see that often right so he goes on there and as there's a great piece in media i'd have to say dot com where they said this this the headline is joy reed's aggressive inept interview of congressman byron donalds demonstrates what her show is all about in addition to being completely flat-footed on the facts when she tried to cross-examine him about things like social security and he just completely ran roughshod over her and she was so it was embarrassing cheryl i don't think we have that part cut, but it was embarrassing because she.

Yeah, we do. Oh, we do. OK, we have a little bit. Let's start there about her. Just trying her caught flat footed on the facts. It's not nine. Do you know that Social Security is going to be insolvent in 20? It is not going to be. That is actually not true. No, it's actually not. It's actually not true. It's actually not. But it's actually not true. Financial community. That's actually not true. Social Security will go insolvent. That's actually not. Those are's actually not true. Financial community. That's actually not true. Social security will go and solve. That's actually not.

Those are the facts. That's not. Should we not? That is not true. Meanwhile, the government's own watchdog is basically saying it's going to be 2030, 33, two years earlier than Congressman Donald said. So if anything, he was being generous to the government. This is what you do when you don't know how your facts.

It's just not true. It's not true. It's not true. Where are your facts? Where where's your knowledge? She wasn't prepared and she was she couldn't argue it. So she just kept trying to talk over him and 11 times said not true, not true, not true. The act of misleading. Let's start there. What are your thoughts? Well, I think it's it's not uncommon. Sadly. I see more examples than I'd like to see of people on the air. I try not to do this myself. I may have been guilty of it in the past, but I try not to comment on stuff and make definitive statements on things I can't possibly know or that I haven't researched or to listen to somebody. But yes, that just sounds foolish. And that's kind of surprising because I think as long as I can remember, we've had projections about social security's insolvency. So I don't think that's even newsy. And it's kind of sad that she wouldn't

know that or at least listen to him and understand that she might not have all the information. Right. And she just doesn't have the humility to admit when she doesn't know something. Right. Exactly right. She just wanted to pick a fight with him and try to represent that her worldview must be correct, even if she's lacking the facts. This was the most disgraceful part, however. Honestly, if it had been a white anchor asking this question of Congressman Donald's, there would would be outrage i guess she gets away with it because msnbc always makes excuses for her racism against black people against white people here's the soundbite that has gotten a lot of tongues wagging um though sadly no reaction

from the bosses at msnbc over this outrage saudi one the things that, I don't know that you said it, but members have said is that they wanted to highlight the diversity of the conference. There are four African-American members in the House caucus, the Republican caucus. There are 56 members

in the Democratic caucus. So just, it's more diverse. So do you not believe that the idea was to make a diversity statement by nominating him? Well, actually, first, that was not the idea because I was in a room that the idea was to make a diversity statement by nominating you? Well, actually, first, that was not the idea because I was in the room when the decision was made by people who chose to nominate me. And you still not explained how you were up and you've never been in leadership. Are you going to let me answer your question?

Sure, tell us. Number two. Now, let's go back. The reality is, is that a lot of members actually do believe in my ability to lead. They do. Am I to be despised for my youth because I've served one term? My members know that I have the ability to engage other members through the conference. But it's even bigger than that. Listen, we were at an impasse last week in our in our speakership elections. We got that done. Kevin McCarthy is now speaker of the House.

At the same time, I was working with members on both sides of our conference to make sure that we can get the job done. And we did. And that's the only thing that matters. Cheryl, just FYI, it wasn't just Joy Reid. Cori Bush just always can be counted on for something hateful and racist. Said he is not a historic candidate for speaker. He's a prop. OK, so this this is what we get from, you know, people like Joy Reid, people like Cori Bush, the diminishment of this guy, because whatever he can be historic, he can be a minority. He says Republican things and therefore when it doesn't apply, have proven the point that when everything's racism, nothing's racism, and then they come full circle and become racist themselves by acting as if everything's racism. I also don't understand the suggestion she made that somehow the Democrat conference was better because of its diversity. And yet, had the Republicans indeed nominated him for diverse reasons, that would somehow be bad. And I do think one thing I heard a lot of people say when that was

going on, maybe this is an aside, that he was too young and too new. And I say as an outsider, a lot of people would love to see somebody come into a position of power that doesn't owe a bunch of people. If you understand a little bit, I understand a little bit about how the power structure works on Capitol Hill. I've had members, both Democrats and Republicans, talk about what they're allowed to do and not allowed to do based on donations and the party and so on. And if you took someone fresher who is not beholden to the same interests, and make no mistake, Democrats and Republicans on the Hill often work for corporations and interests, not us. They're working for who's paying them, not the salaries, but the donations.

It could be a benefit and not because he's black, but because he's young and fresh and coming from an outside viewpoint. And boy, when he talks, he sounds very bright and very well informed on the topics I've heard him comment on. Oh, my God. He crushed her. The whole thing is worth watching. I saw it on YouTube. Kimberly Klasick, who ran for office down in Baltimore, tweeted it out. She came on the show in our infancy.

It was fascinating and brought my attention to the whole thing. It's worth your time if you haven't seen it. Meanwhile, just not for nothing, but his wife has been attacked as well in a racial way. She's white. And people who saw this interview and or other exchanges tweeted out things like, surprise, surprise, his wife is, never mind. Somebody else tweeted, no surprise, he has a snowflake for a wife. Another tweeted, I'm embarrassed and ashamed. Seen his wife, I'm not surprised.

This is what they have to deal with because he is a black conservative. We've seen it time and time again. It's just sickening. All right. Stand by, Cheryl. So much more to get to. So happy to have you here today. Thank you for being with us. And Cheryl stays with us. Pass the break into our next hour. Don't miss that. I've got to ask you about Diamond and Silk. Diamond has passed away, sadly. My God, so did Lisa Marie Presley, which is just, it's hard to get your arms around. You know, it's like this poor family, Elvis. And I think Elvis's mother died at a similar age.

And we can get to that in a minute. But I want to stay on Diamond of Diamond and Silk now. Lynette Hardaway is her actual name. She died earlier this week at just 51 years old and her older sister is silk they were sisters doing sort of their pro-trump thing and became very very popular and honestly like i love these ladies they i was on the receiving end of some of their attacks but they were fun to listen to and it's like their whole gig was entertaining um and became a big hit they got tons of social media subscribers on youtube 2.4 million followers on facebook and so on and they also struck a deal with fox nation uh the streaming platform associated with fox so you know normally when somebody dies

okay you know it's sad people talk about it and then you move on and talk about what their legacy was. Mark Lamont Hill, who, you know, he's bounced from cable channel to cable channel, but is now a Temple University professor. He decides to tweet out the following. Diamond of the right wing Trump loving duo Diamond and Silk has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff. He goes on to add, I have no idea how she died. Right. Remember that. I have no idea how she died. And I don't claim to know her vaccination status. I would, however, find it sadly ironic if Diamond died from anything related to COVID, especially if it was preventable. Like Herman Cain, she would have paid an

unnecessarily heavy price. Unbelievable where this guy's going. And then Silk responds, I will not allow you or any other mofo the opportunity to disparage, slander, and lie on my sister and I. Where's your proof that my sister was ever hospitalized due to COVID and that we were fired from Fox? Investigate before you celebrate. You have until 12 noon today to retract that. Then he responded in a long thread, but basically here's the highlight. I'm not celebrating. I base my tweets about the hospitalization on news reports. As I noted yesterday, some have since taken them down. I have yet to see anyone retract. Media reports of your firing are numerous in numerous outlets. I was also told this by a Fox exec. Then he goes on to say, I haven't actually heard you say the November hospitalization for COVID didn't happen. But if you're saying that, then I accept that. And I happily retract.

Would you leave this poor grieving sister alone? My God, you know, like disengage to say you're sorry and go away. Like, good gracious. By the way, then he claims that he went and he looked at her book and claims that in her book, she made clear that she was fired. Well, Cheryl, my team actually went back and in fact, read Diamond and Silk's book. And Mark Lowenthal is not telling the truth about what he read in there. They did not. Their book does not make clear in any way, shape or form that they were fired. In fact, it talks about how they were told exactly the opposite by all the Fox executives,

that their licensing deal that they had with Fox Nation remains in effect and that these were fake news reports that disparaged them. Right. So anyway, all of it is so distasteful. And I'll add to it this Bishop Talbert, president of the Springfield, Massachusetts chapter of the NAACP, tweets out the following Lyn Lynette Hardaway, aka Diamond, from the MAGA Trump-supporting duo Diamond and Silk, died from contracting what she called a hoax, better known as COVID-19. The irony is palpable. Even the NAACP, their instincts are not to say something kind about a very prominent Black person who has died. We don't know the cause, but to decide it was because of COVID, without evidence, and disparage her.

So what do you make of all this? Well, isn't it similar to the syndrome of the Black conservative representative from Florida? I think this is sort of a script that can be written about a lot of different scenarios, and I do think it's very sad. And then complicated when it comes to Florida. I think this is sort of a script that can be written about a lot of different scenarios. And I do think it's very sad and then complicated when it comes to COVID because as we've learned, it is deemed okay by the information minders to speculate about anything regarding someone dying of COVID, whether they did or not, whether there's evidence or not, but never okay to speculate about somebody who was vaccinated being harmed by

an illness that is known to be affiliated with vaccination. So it's that double standard that people seem to be able to justify however they feel or whatever they want to say accordingly. And it makes no logical sense. But yeah, very sad. That's exactly right. It's like people got hammered when DeMar Hamlin went down on that field with the Buffalo Bills for saying, did he recently have the vaccine? I don't actually find that an outrageous question because myocarditis in young men is a known side effect now. of, in particular, the Moderna vaccine. And we've got really smart medical professionals who are repeatedly saying,

be careful about these boosters, especially if you're in that age group, but for everybody. So asking the question, is that something we should look into? I don't find that as offensive as this, which is, I mean, this guy, Bishop Talbert is saying she died of COVID.

How does he know? I haven't seen, that hasn't been reported anywhere. She called it a hoax. She died of this hoax. Like all of this is so irresponsible and disrespectful. And of course, these leftists who went nuts on people for, you know, questioning whether Damar Hamlin had recently been vaccinated will say nothing in response to this.

Well, you know, I hope this isn't too far off into left field, but if we hadn't been able to question whether people who get lung cancer and smoked, there was an association there, we would never have unearthed that if scientists would not have been able to do the studies or collect the data. These injuries, including the football player Hamlin's, have to be reported under our safety system for this very reason to the Vaccine Adverse Event Database. It's not up to anybody at this stage to say it is or isn't caused by the vaccine because they can't possibly know because we don't know all of the

vaccine effects. And by the way, side effects from vaccines, according to scientists, can occur, people don't, I think, widely understand this, weeks, months, or years later, depending on what it's done to a body. That's why the database collects all reports of these injuries after vaccination if doctors are properly reporting them, and they're not, so that patterns can be discerned that aren't otherwise obvious or didn't show up in clinical studies. But beyond that, as you mentioned, we know there are heart effects and stroke and certain other disorders that have been acknowledged to be part of the vaccines. We're not even just talking about the mysterious ones we don't know about yet. So it's logical to ask the question the same way we ask a question. If someone has lung cancer,

we kind of in our minds say, I wonder if that person smoked. It doesn't mean that's what caused it, but it's a rational, logical question to ask. And it's something that scientists absolutely should be asking and studying and news reporters should be asking. And the fact that it is omitted from virtually every news report I see shows you that there's an information management underway that I think could be very harmful to us understanding, you know, the true profile of these vaccines. Yes. Yes. It's not the same. Mark Lamont Hill had tweeted out, underway that I think could be very harmful to us understanding, you know, the true profile of these vaccines. Yes, yes. It's not the same. Mark Lamont Hill had tweeted out, did she die of COVID? That would be a shame. This wouldn't be a story. But he took it to a totally different place and

saying and suggesting that she may have died of the very thing she did that he was clearly trying to attack her politically, which is just in bad, bad form. I mean, it's just it wasn't anyway. But did you say that DeMar Hamlin's injury or that his injury must be reported under VAERS? I mean, I know I didn't read any reporting on whether he'd been vaccinated or not. I assume he had to be right. Didn't all the NFL players have to go? That's my assumption. If not, then no. But here's the problem. Doctors aren't asking. I have been around, I'll tell you a couple of young people, a 20 something year old pregnant woman, I know who came to a place I was wearing a heart monitor. And I asked her what was wrong. She said

she and she was vaccinated and boosted. She's having all these heart impacts. And I said, did your doctor report this to VAERS as required? Certain illnesses must be reported under the CDC's guidance. And she said, no, he never asked if I was vaccinated. This is, to me, bordering on criminal. The doctors are seemingly looking the other way. Can they be that ignorant of what the rules are? And the FDA and the government and CDC are not cracking down or reminding doctors to report all of these things. And I think almost none of them are being properly reported to the database that finds patterns. And let me say, years ago, for example, I broke the story that Viagra can cause blindness,

based in large part by going through the medicine adverse event reports that are collected after any kind of injury shows up after you take a medicine. That's how these things are found. FDA should have been looking for it and they were on a parallel track, but I saw it. It sometimes stands out like a sore thumb. If this stuff isn't reported, we won't find these new patterns. And maybe that's what some want. That's, I think, exactly what some people want when it comes to the vaccines. Oh, my God, that's just crazy. That's just I mean, it's deeply disturbing to me how we're just not allowed to talk about the adverse side effects from the vaccine. It's it's killing people and it needs to be stopped. You mentioned the FDA. There is news just this week that was celebrated widely.

And I know you've been watching the FDAda and its erosion i think it's an erosion maybe they've always been this untrustworthy um but the the news that was celebrated by the media was that the fda had granted fast-tracked approval to an experimental alzheimer's drug and we of course are all very concerned about alzheimer's it affects way too many americans um we'd love to see a breakthrough. And the news was that they fast-tracked approved a new drug that clinical trials showed can slow the progression of the disease. Licanumab, developed by Japanese drug maker Isai and Biogen, said to be the first treatment shown to delay cognitive decline from Alzheimer's, which affects over 6 million people in the U.S.

But there's more to the story, and you'd have to work pretty hard to find it, Cheryl. Well, you know, I'll be digging into this for my show full measure, but I already reported on the precursor controversy to this, which was what I'm told is a similar drug called aducanumab, which was likewise fast-tracked by the FDA despite all kinds of weird things happening. None of the FDA advisors wanted this drug to be approved, thought it would be effective and safe. There were safety signals. There were questions about conflicts of interest with the FDA and the company that wanted the drug marketed.

There's questions about whether it works at all and the harm that it could do. This goes on and on. And there are currently, as far as I know, unresolved, multiple unresolved investigations about this. And here they go and quickly do another drug sort of in the same way, according to some who are watching it. And I turn to and will be to, Public Citizen, the watchdog group. I think their website's citizen.org. They've already written a letter about this to the government, raising questions about it. And they've been following the Aducanumab case very closely. But I think, again, there's every reason to suspect all kinds of conflicts of interest, because we've had so many of those between our government agencies and the industries that they're supposed to regulate, particularly when things happen that

don't make a lot of sense. And you do have to dig for that information because like you said, the media is not widely covering these controversies the way we used to before drug companies were paying for so much sponsorships and advertisements on our airwaves and on our stations. But, yeah, that's, you know, controversy. Yes. So we can't trust the government. We can't. We've learned during the COVID

thing. Do not trust the American Academy of Pediatrics at all. I'm sorry, but I don't trust them one bit after all the recommendations they made in COVID, despite the science, despite the studies coming out. I mean, universal studies that

would come out and they would just completely discard them. Their advice. I think they still want children to be masked right now. Indoors, outdoors doesn't matter. I'd have to go back and check. But every single recommendation they issued was in line with really the far left, the most covid hawk position you could ask for. And now they're advocating early surgery for obese children, early meds and surgery for obese children. And I get how problematic obesity is. Young, old, I get it. Trust me, we just talked about this last week. But they're now okaying weight loss surgeries like a gastric bypass for 13-year-olds. So explain to me, Cheryl, how we have a country that now is celebrating body positivity and putting women like Lizzo on the front of magazines saying, this is beautiful. Shut up with your fat shaming. This is healthy, literally healthy, they're saying. And at the same time, quietly, they're saying, but we need to cut open

the 13-year-olds who look like that because otherwise they're in grave danger for their health. Well, it doesn't make sense, except you can, I think, logically guess that there is lobbying from whatever industries or device companies or medical companies stand to benefit, hospitals or so on, stand to benefit from whatever procedure is recommended by the guidelines or the divisions du jour. We consistently find conflicts of interest there. And this one, I'm like you, makes no sense from a medical standpoint, from a mental health standpoint. And I think it's in the same genre of a lot of other recommendations we've had over the years from this society and other medical societies. And I've done reporting on, you may have done some of your own with medical

experts like Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, like Dr. Marsha Angel, the former first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet Medical Journal, saying things like, we can't trust most of what's published in medical journals because it's so conflicted. The science has been so taken over and influenced. And I think it's one of the biggest stories of our time that our politics have been taken over, the science and medicine have been taken over, federal agencies have been taken over, the media has been taken over. It's really hard to get a straight story and just straight information on so many topics today. This is horrendous. It's like we put out these magazines celebrating obesity. We really do. Saying obesity is bad and it leads to a lot of health problems and you shouldn't encourage it is now considered bigoted.

And so I'm not saying that a 13-year-old is necessarily reading these magazines that are doing this, but it's the messaging right now in society. And if you say something about it, somehow you're bad. And then when you get some 13-year-old who's morbidly obese, let's cut him open. Let's shrink his stomach down to the size of a walnut. And by the way, I know from not personal experience, but a family member, that surgery can lead to serious complications later in life, serious complications later in life. So you don't proceed into a gastric bypass willy nilly. And to give it to a kid who may not even be in puberty is really crazy to me. In any event, listen, Cheryl and Full Measure are well worth your time.

This is where she does her in-depth reporting and you can take it to the bank. She's always thorough and careful and factual. And this is one of the many reasons we love her. Thank you for being here, Cheryl. Thanks, Megan. Have a great one. You too. Coming up next, Marsha Clark and Mark

Garagos on Idaho and whether this really is an open and shut case. Today, we have an all-star Kelly's Court panel. Marsha Clark is an attorney and New York Times bestselling author. She became a household name after working as the lead prosecutor in the People v. O.J. Simpson murder case. Also joining us today, Mark Garagos. Mark is a trial lawyer and managing partner of Garagos & Garagos. His previous high-profile clients include, oh, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, just to name a few. Marcia and Mark, welcome back to Kelly's Court. Great to have you both. So this was just handed to me during the break. I'm going to put all sorts of caveats on it. It's from our friends over at the Daily Wire.

It seems like a typo to me, not by the Daily Wire, but by Brian Kohlberger's lawyer. But I'll read you what they're reporting. The headline is, Suspected Idaho Killer Requests Documents Related to, quote, Co-Defendant Who Has Never Been Mentioned by Police. I'll read to you from the report. This week, Kohlberger's public defender, Ann Taylor, filed motions requesting, quote, any written or recorded statements by a co-defendant and the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant, whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney, etc. OK, and then, yeah, and as you know, that this particular defendant previously asked members of law enforcement if they had arrested anyone else in connection with this crime. I got to say, this sounds like a it sounds like a typo, like a like a cut and paste by a busy public defender.

But what do you think, Mark? Well, I was just going to say, normally, I would say in a vacuum, I would agree with you. I'd say it's a boilerplate discovery request, cut and paste, as you say, that went have frankly never seen, or I can't remember ever having seen, which was they did, they, part of it was they did not want law enforcement to be exposed to threats or intimidation in and expose the investigation. Now exposing the investigation, I've come across a zillion times, that's standard operating procedure. Threats to law enforcement leads me to believe that there is something that apparently they missed, or a thread that they missed, or didn't, or got out in front of their skis. Remember, the officers had said, we're 100% certain this is the guy, nobody else. I think there is a suspicion that

there is somebody else or someone else in the mix. Whoa, Marsha, let me read what Mark's referring to just to color it in for the audience. This is the search warrant for Brian Kohlberger's Washington State apartment, which has been temporarily sealed. That's been sealed. They haven't shared with us a search warrant. They've shared with us the affidavit that was in support of the arrest warrant. And it was very detailed. But for some reason, they're sealing the search warrant for the guy's apartment, which was

requested on the same day as the arrest warrant, December 30th. But now we see why they're sealing it. They say, and this is going to remain sealed until March 1st, potentially earlier, but as of March 1st for now, this is what they said in asking for the sealing, prosecutors and police. Premature public disclosure of the details in this law enforcement investigation will create serious and imminent threat to effective law enforcement and could result in the premature end of this investigation, which could create a threat to public safety. What are your thoughts? I think there are many. What Mark has said is a potential, but let me tell you about some of the background in the development of this case.

This case kind of went crazy on social media. And a lot of people were in there speculating about others that may be involved, and then out and out dogpiling these people with no evidence, nothing but speculation, imagination, and just putting together two plus two and equaling eight. And so some very innocent people got dogpiled for at least a few moments on the internet. And by moments, that could be days, I'm not sure. So it has been going kind of in its way viral. And people looking for attention, which always happens on the internet, are coming out spewing all of these theories about who might have done it and why they did it. And that is a danger to any investigation. It's a danger to law enforcement because it encourages people to come forward who really have nothing relevant to say. It encourages,

it discourages people from coming forward who actually have something important to say. And it, of course, might subject law enforcement themselves to all kinds of threats and horrible responses on the Internet. This has become now a force in our criminal justice system. It lurks around the edges and sometimes it even invades to the middle. So we have a very serious problem with that. And I think that sealing would be an appropriate way of tamping it down. You just don't want to let out information that could be the way you catch a liar or the way you spot the truth. Those details are the way you test what witnesses say. And if you let those details out, you run a very real risk of skewing the investigation.

But Mark, don't you think, I mean, the warrant in support of the, sorry, affidavit in support of the arrest warrant is 18 pages long. We have so many details from that. Why allow that one out into the public domain, but not this one? Well, I I don't disagree with you at all. I was speculating and that's all we do here, I guess. But I was speculating that the defense might have requested that that be remained sealed. But I, you know, the cynic in me thinks that because the officers and the police department had taken so much heat, as Marcia describes it, that they wanted to show. And the one of the I believe it was the chief had indicated that once it was unsealed, they would be vindicated, so to speak. And I suppose that that's one explanation. I still think there's something else going on here.

I suspect that there is another source profile of DNA or something else that was found at the scene. I just don't think, you know, when you take a look at the timeline of this and you know that there is a DoorDash driver there at 4 a.m. and you know that there is a spotting by DM, as they call the person in the affidavit of somebody in the hallway, there's just, I believe that there is more here than meets the eye and we're just, I believe that there is more here than meets the eye,

and we're just not going to see it. And I think it's one of the reasons that the defense so readily said they would waive time until June on their speedy trial rights to the preliminary hearing. Why? Explain that. What do you mean? Well, look, normally it's a capital case. And in a capital case, you've got to dot all your I's, cross all your T's. You do a parallel investigation. However, to continue the preliminary hearing with no bail for your client for six months is quite, quite a step for anybody to do. And normally you take more what I would call bite-sized chunks. You put it over 30 days for a status conference. I think that there's a lot more going on here behind the scenes

than we're even remotely aware of. I don't think the defense thinks for a second that we're going to continue it for six months because we need to do a parallel, just a parallel investigation of our client. I think that they think they've got a lot more going on or a lot more to work with. And they think that law enforcement is pursuing some threads that may be exculpatory, right? I don't see any other reason why you would continue the preliminary hearing for six months. Because remember, you also give the prosecution the opportunity to take away your preliminary hearing, which is the last thing you'd want to do if you're the defense in this case. They could go to a grand jury, they could indict, then you never get a chance to cross-examine any witnesses.

Marsha, what do you think of that? That's true. Yeah. So here's the thing. Mark's right. But it's also the possibility. What the defense is wanting to do is let the case drop out of the headlines as well. There can be multiple motives for this. And the more you take the heat off the case, the better off you'll be. That's a possibility that feeds into the additional one that the police are going to come up with a lot more evidence. And this is something that I was looking at. A knife stabbing is a very messy way to commit a crime. And you come up with all kinds of hair, fiber, DNA, of course, all over the place. The fact that they sealed the portion of the search warrant that says what they're searching, where they're looking, tells me that that might be a tip to it. And they are going to come up with stray DNA because you can't tell when DNA was deposited. Even if you have an alternate suspect in terms of another profile that shows up that doesn't match the defendant, it may not have anything to do with the case or it may. We don't know.

But I think there's a lot more evidence they're going to be coming up with if they're doing that kind of testing, which I imagine they would be. And six months is probably more than enough time, I think, to at least see if there's something out of the garbage two days before they made the arrest. So it didn't take them long to turn that test around at all and match it, according to what they say, to the button on the knife sheath. And they said that that showed them that the DNA on that knife sheath was 100 percent the son of Michael Kohlberger, the dad living in Pennsylvania. In any event, two days. They've had the bodies of the victims since day one, which was November 13th. And now they definitely have Brian Kohlberger's actual DNA at this point, arrested on December 30th. Here we are January 12th, right? 12th or 13th. I'm constantly off on my dates these days. Friday the 13th. Here we are January 12th, right? 12th or 13th. I'm constantly off on my dates these days. Friday the 13th.

Losing my mind. The 13th. Okay. So they've run that test. How much, why does the prosecution need six months? Well, because there's going to be a lot more. That's, oh my goodness, that room, that whole house, the entry, the exit, the windows, everything you can imagine is going to be tested for everything. DNA, fiber, hair, touch DNA. I mean, it's just the list goes on and on, Megan. They've only scratched the surface at this point. So I think that there's going to, there's this crime scene, I am sure, is going to be

chock full of all kinds of information. And it takes a while to get to analyze it all. And you have to do it carefully, too. You want to be careful about contamination. You don't want to mix samples. So I can see where that would take some time. Six months, I don't know. But I do think that my earlier theory that the defense also would like to get the heat off of this case may play into the amount of time as well. Good luck. Tell us, Mark, what's going to happen. Yeah, go ahead. Say what you were saying. Then tell us what's going to happen at that preliminary injunction hearing. It sometimes happens. In this case, look what's happened just in the last couple of weeks. All of a sudden there's been a shift in the media from Idaho to Massachusetts in terms of kind of the focus and toggling between the cases.

It's a separate murder. And and if you also also to Marsha's point, if you take a look at some of the body cams of the police going there to the location and these kind of ragers or parties that are going on there, you could have a potpourri of DNA and other kinds of evidence there. So I can see that as well. Well, but this is why and I want to talk about the preliminary hearing, but this is why Brian Kohlberger's apartment is probably, if not as interesting maybe more interesting um than the site of the murders because if you find dna from the victims back at his place that's ball game i mean that's that's ball game if you find blood evidence or anything you know so and that's the search warrant that they were after that's being sealed the evidence in support of getting that search warrant is what's been sealed

and they're not sharing with us. Which leads back to the thing, Mark, about what the hell is the co-defendant reference about? And, you know, maybe we're just reading too much into, again, a cut and paste by a busy, ill-paid lawyer. We're actually trying to reach her right now to ask that question. My team is calling. I will know within a day or two because this is going to blow up um but or is there more significance to it as you you know as you put all the jesus together to respond i think she's under a gag order as i remember so okay she could say whether she committed a typo i um i think they're erring on the side of casting a wider net. You know, there's all kinds of to Marsha's point about the dogpiling and the trolling on the Internet. There's all kinds of theories out there and all kinds of other alternate explanations.

This is a field day like nothing. Yes, but there is no co-defendant. There's no co-defendant. There's no co-defendant. The reference makes no sense right now unless they've secretly arrested somebody else and didn't tell us, which seems out of the realm of possibility. And unless there's somebody who's in the crosshairs who they're looking at. So unless not arrested yet. Oh, my gosh, that would be a huge headline. Or let's let's zoom out for a second and talk about some of the latest evidence that's come out in the case and where you think it stands now. Because, you know, I remain where I was a week ago, which is when I'm sure they're going to find more DNA. But right now, his touch DNA on the button of the knife sheath ain't going to do it. And most legal analysts, Marsha, are saying, right. But all the surveillance tapes of what appears to be his car, you know, coming to the crime scene 12 times before the actual day of the murder, seeming to surveil them, showing up on the night in question.

You know, he was clearly seems to have been at least in the very close area between 405 and 420 when the murders were committed. And then right back to Washington Pullman, where he was living. I still feel like, okay, I don't like that doesn't show him walking into the apartment that like in the cell phone tower evidence. That's not a slam dunk either. Well, look, you put it all together, it's going to have to be one of these mosaic situations where you have the touch DNA on the knife sheath. And then you have, by the way, just the fact that that knife sheath is in the bedroom is found where it is. I mean, the other people who live there are going to say, I've never seen that thing before. So don't forget, there's going to be that kind of really basic testimony

about this, this doesn't belong here. So and it's got his DNA on it. That's in itself significant, I think. But then you have on top of that, the car being found in the location and behaving in strange ways, parked there between certain times, but also before them, the car was spotted there by surveillance cameras before the fact, for weeks before the fact, which indicates the possibility of stalking. And then you have the cell phone pings that corroborate the movements of the car. Then you have the observation by DM, the other girl who lives there, that makes it very clear the intruder is there. And also she has the one characteristic of bushy eyebrows that did go along with his appearance. And that's not the strongest thing. And I'm never a big fan of eyewitness identification cases. But when you

start to put it all together, it is starting to look that way. Now, you're right. At this point, it's not a slam dunk. It looks very much like it's moving in that direction. But that's why they're continuing to investigate. And, you know, of course, they're going to turn his apartment upside down. They're going to turn this crime scene upside down. And we're going to see a lot more in days to come. Go ahead, Mark. What are your thoughts on all that? I don't disagree with Marsha.

I think that you've got, to me, it's probable cause all day long. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's so many holes in this. I can't tell you the number of murder cases that have turned out that the cell phone evidence ended up exonerating my client as opposed to showing that he was guilty. sitting right here, I could be using my phone and it could be pinging onto two towers 12 miles away from each other just by virtue of the amount of traffic on one of the towers. So I've never been a fan of the cell phone triangulation. It's a good tool to try to get you there, but I've used it to show that somebody was 40 miles away at the time of the crime and exonerated them. So that's not going to get them there. They also, the fact that the phone was not being used during the two-hour period.

I know law enforcement speculates that he turned it off. There's other explanations, like he wasn't there. So those kinds of things, you get jury instructions to say two reasonable alternatives. You got to pick the one that points towards innocence. They need more evidence. And I'm sure they agree. Yeah, I'm sure they and I'm sure they're going to get it, too. Does all the stuff we're hearing right now, like about his possible online use, like social media postings, and we don't know whether it was him, but certainly, you know, internet sleuths and a former FBI agent has been weighing in on this repeatedly online

saying they believe they've found his presence, his postings in online chat rooms under the name Papa Roger and the name Inside Looking. One in particular stands out where this Papa Roger posted before, before evidence of the knife sheath was made public in that affidavit the following of the evidence released the murder weapon has been consistent as a large fixed blade knife this leads me to believe they found the sheath again i cannot believe this is this is crazy because that does sound like it's from the killer. Talking about it being a large fixed blade knife, I think, makes most of us think about, oh, they studied the wounds on the victims and they have an estimate of what committed those wounds.

Whose mind goes to they found the sheath? And they have other postings by this guy that suggest it may indeed have been Brian Kohlberger. So the cops are going to know this. The D.A., the cops, they're going to know whether he posted as Papa Rogers and inside looking, they're probably searching his computer already having all that. But would that all come in? It can, they have to, they have to establish a foundation to prove that he had the access to the computer. And it also goes to the weight. So the computer that is in his house was the originator of these postings you're talking about. And the one that says they probably found the

sheath is very interesting. I don't know why you would go there. There are people who carry knives around that don't have sheaths. So I don't know. That is, to me, a very interesting possibility. But you have to remember, if they can trace the signal back, they can certainly say it came from this computer. What they probably will not be able to do, but you never know, maybe they can, is establish that he was definitely the at a certain period of time, over there at a certain period of time, home at a certain period of time when no one else was there and had access to the computer. They'd have to find that kind of extraneous information to pin down the fact that he had to be the poster. But it could be done. I got to ask you a follow up that on that, Marsha, because you came on the show not long ago. We just we discussed Casey Anthony and your own reporting on that case where you took a hard look at the the records, the search records and the various search engines on the Casey Anthony computer at

home. And you you felt that you were able to determine it had to be Casey Anthony who made some of those incriminating online searches because you were able to say they were done like minutes before George would have had to be at work. And apparently he showed up, we believe, on time. And you were able to conclude there's only one person who would have gone back and deleted all the incriminating searches. And you could show it was Casey Anthony. You weren't the prosecutor on this case, but you were looking at it as a legal analyst.

So that you are that is something that's admissible and that you would take a hard look at. How can I prove the person was at home near that computer when this search was done? involved. And especially if the mother and father or the people he's living with, let's say, were at work at the time that this message was sent and he was the only one at home, that sort of thing is what can narrow it down and actually turn it into some compelling evidence. Mark, you wanted to weigh in. I was just going to say, one of the ways that you do that, and I've done this in a couple of trials, is if you can show forensically that somebody accessed a particular computer and it was password protected and they entered the password prior to logging on and then you do a reverse engineering of the IP address, that's about as compelling a testimony as you can get to show that it was the particular person.

Mark, as a defense counsel, let's say we go to the preliminary hearing in June and the DA, the prosecution says, we've got his DNA at the crime scene. We've got his touch DNA. We've got saliva, something, hair of his on the victims. And we have their DNA in his car or at his at his home or we found bloody clothing i mean is that ball get like is it over like what happens at that point well there's there there's a couple of different things there that you can kind of mix and match if they find the the toughest things the sheep if i'm the defense lawyer does not bother me because somebody, you can have an explanation for that. There's an innocent explanation for that if it's on the button.

Somebody else had the knife, obviously some other person. The bushy eyebrows, that doesn't bother me. If in fact, as you posit, that there is victim's DNA in his apartment, that's a real problem. I don't know that it's game over, but that's a real, real problem. If he has other DNA of his, other than just the touch DNA on the button at the location, that's also a significant problem. And that's what I guarantee you they're looking for. They're trying to put together either at the house, in the car, or at the location. But of course, Marsha, I don't have to tell you, DNA that the rest of us think is foolproof and is going to lead, you know, guaranteed to a conviction can be manipulated and represented by defense counsel in a very different way.

Yeah, for sure. I mean, they're going to want to say contamination, they're going to want to say mixing samples, they're going to, you know, all of that is going to be in the mix. But don't forget, Megan, today is not back in 1995. And people are very familiar. DNA is not the mysterious question mark box that it used to be. And when people hear DNA nowadays, they do get that largely it goes right. And largely it doesn't tag somebody else, you know, it doesn't tag the wrong person. And I'm sure they're going to be very careful in handling the samples. I would imagine knowing that that's going to probably be the most significant evidence that they get, the kind you're talking about. The defendant's DNA all over the room, the victim's DNA in his room, that sort of thing, that kind of combination is, I think it's a knockout punch if that's what they come up with.

So Mark, what's going to happen at the preliminary hearing? Like what should we expect? Well, if there is a preliminary hearing, and I still have my doubts that the prosecution- Just to explain that. So what you're thinking, the prosecutor may say, ah, forget that. I'm just going to go to a grand jury because there are two different ways you can, I mean, is it, they may be arrest. Preliminary hearing or grand jury are both what are called probable cause proceedings. Is there enough to hold somebody to answer for trial?

I always jokingly say now probable cause hearings have deteriorated to the point where is my client breathing? And but basically you get in a preliminary hearing the ability to cross examine the witnesses that for a good prosecutor, they want that because a good prosecutor is going to say to themselves, I want to see how this witness is going to do. I want to because a good prosecutor is going to say to themselves, I want to see how this witness is going to do. I want to see how my cop's going to do. But if you're leery of your case, if you don't think you've gotten to the point where you've got that, as you guys call it, the knockout punch, you go to a grand jury where there's no pesky

defense counsel in there asking questions. The witnesses are somewhat choreographed in the grand jury. The grand jurors can ask questions, but the prosecutor's in there and the prosecutor can deflect or do whatever they need to do. And then you get a probable cause determination and you don't have to do anything until you get to trial. Hmm. Fascinating. cause determination and you don't have to do anything until you get to trial. Fascinating. Oh, well, it's a little bit skewed to the defense side with regard to grand jury. There are other reasons such as protecting witnesses who are in danger or when you're worried about the news media getting a hold of things and, you know, distorting evidence

or affecting witnesses' memories and testimony. There are other reasons to go grand jury. Why wouldn't they just do it that way in this case, Marcia? Why wouldn't the prosecutor just do that, grand jury? Well, as Mark said, I think that that's always been my preference, actually, to do the preliminary hearing. I want to see how my case holds up. I want the defense to expose themselves as much as possible on cross-examination. Or if I have witnesses whom I'm afraid will disappear, I can preserve their

testimony at the preliminary hearing. And if they are gone at the time of trial, it can be read into the trial before the jury. If you don't have that, if you go grand jury, you don't have that ability to do that. So there are advantages and disadvantages to the preliminary. If you're a really good prosecutor like Marsha was, you don't want to go grand jury. You want to- You're afraid of nothing. She's proven that time and time again. Marsha, Mark, thank you both so much for being here. Let's do it again soon. Okay, great. Thanks, Megan.

All right. We'll be right back. It's been a busy week here on The Megyn Kelly Show, and we've covered some of the best and worst of humanity. But today, as we head into the weekend, we wanted to reflect on these words. The foundation of the world is love. Words spoken by the late Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Just over one week ago, he was laid to rest in the grottos of St. Peter's Basilica. Joseph Ratzinger was born in Germany back in 1927. When he was laid to rest in the grottos of St. Peter's Basilica. Joseph Ratzinger was born in Germany back in 1927. When he was five years old, he presented flowers to the Archbishop of Munich, announcing his intention to one day become a cardinal. He would go on to become a priest in

the early 1950s, Archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s, and true to his childhood wish, a cardinal in 1993. In 2005, at the age of 78, he was elected Pope following the death of Pope John Paul II. Upon his election, Ratzinger took the name Benedict XVI. He then stepped out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square and called himself a simple, humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord. He was known as a brilliant teacher and a social conservative, dubbed God's Rottweiler for his staunch protection of the church's doctrine, never bending with the changing times. In 2008, during his first visit to the United States as Pope, he held mass in Yankee Stadium before a crowd of nearly 60,000. He told the crowd, authority, obedience. To be frank, these are not

easy words to speak nowadays, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom. During his papacy, Pope Benedict found himself handling one of the church's biggest crises in decades, as allegations of clerical child sex abuse piled up. In 2010, the Pope admitted, quote, today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the church does not come from outside enemies, but is born of sin within the church. He met and apologized directly to some victims, but critics always felt his actions were not enough. In 2013, Pope Benedict shocked the world, becoming the first Pope to resign in nearly 600 years.

He would spend the remainder of his days living inside Vatican City, dying on the last day of 2022 at the age of 95. His successor, Pope Francis, overseeing his funeral, calling Benedict a faithful friend to Jesus, saying, May your joy be complete as you hear his voice now and forever. Rest in peace. Before we go, I wanted to bring you one edition of the MK mailbag and let you know what the viewers are saying. This one from Bill is interesting. Says, MK, you've said many times you will not say the name of mass shooters so as not to give them notoriety. I agree with you.

But why are you saying the name of the University of Idaho alleged murderer? That monster should not get any notoriety. So, Bill, it's a good question, but there's a distinction. The experts, psychological experts, have told us that in the case of mass shooters, they are looking for notoriety. The point of the murder is the notoriety. There is no reason to believe that that is true in any random crime, including this one. We don't know what the motives are, but we've seen a pattern in the other lane that urges caution on the part of responsible journalists. And we are in the business of

normally reporting facts, dates, times, and so on. So that's the reason for the distinction. Appreciate the email. You can email me, Megan at MegynKkelly.com and have a great weekend, everybody. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.