The Megyn Kelly Show - Dangerous DOJ Overreach, and Adnan Syed Released, with Matt Taibbi, Arthur Aidala, and Mark Eiglarsh | Ep. 398

Episode Date: September 26, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Matt Taibbi of the TK News Substack to talk about the problems for Americans with an empowered DOJ and FBI overreaching, how it relates to the Trump raid, the epidemic of intel agencies leaking to the press, the "filter teams" which harm American freedom, the taint of the original Rep. Matt Gaetz coverage as the case against him falls apart, a filmmaker who was a liberal darling with her terrorism film until the left turned on her, the latest example of cancel culture and our culture of silencing art, Hillary Clinton compares Trump to Hitler, and more. Then defense attorneys Arthur Aidala and Mark Eiglarsh join the show for a Kelly's Court segment on whether Alec Baldwin might get arrested over the set shooting, the debate over the original Adnan Syed trial tactics now that he's released, the truth about Marilyn Mosby, whether the migrants suing DeSantis actually have a case, Letitia James suing the Trump family, a "Central Park Karen" update, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram:http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook:http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Monday. We are kicking off our two-year anniversary week today, launched two years ago, with some of our favorite guests from our first two years of shows. Later in the week, I'm going to be joined by old pals like Ben Shapiro and Bridget Phetasy. Yay, looking forward to that. And new guests. I'm so looking forward to this. Like Father Mike Schmitz of the huge hit, the Bible in a Year podcast. I've been listening to this and let me tell you, I got questions. I got a lot of questions, people. This thing is like on fire. Everybody loves this podcast and it's because of him. He

makes it so easy to digest and also just makes you want to be a better person. And we're also going to have an old friend of mine who used to come on the Kelly file. He actually broke some big news on it. His name is Mike Rinder. He's out with a new book about Scientology. He was at the top of this organization. He was a part of Sea Org. You know, they run Scientology. He's been, he claims, stalked by Scientology, surveilled by them, totally disassociated by the members of his family who are still in Scientology. Scientology denies all of this and attacks him as a liar.

It's ugly and it's interesting. And we'll have him on. Today, we've got Kelly's Court OGs, Arthur Aydala and Mark Iglar coming up. It's hard to get the OGs together sometimes. They're busy men. They've got successful legal practices, but this is our anniversary week, so they're here. Yay. And we're going to take a deep dive into the Adnan Syed case that was made famous in Serial. You know, that podcast has over 100 million downloads that took a long, long look at this case in which Adnan Syed was ultimately convicted

of strangling his 17-year-old girlfriend to death and then disposing of her body. Now, Syed has just been released and many have celebrated this because they listened to Serial, which seriously suggested that the guy was not guilty and had been railroaded. And guess who was responsible for his release? Marilyn Mosby. Remember her? Prosecutor in Baltimore, severely corrupted and compromised and is facing federal indictment now. And it was just bounced out of office. And this is the woman who, after Freddie Gray, and remember the rough ride that was alleged by those cops who were exonerated, went out to the cameras and said, this is our moment. No, it's not. It's not your moment. Shut up. Either prosecute the case or don't, but it's not your moment. It's not about you.

That's Marilyn Mosby. She's the one who let him out. Well, case gets a little bit more complicated then, doesn't it? Why'd she do it on her 11th hour in office? And is this actually a case of a potentially innocent man? Or is this left-wing politics potentially at play? We'll look at it. Okay, but we begin today with the great independent journalist Matt Taibbi. He's been writing about the implications of the Trump raid at his TK News sub stack. That's what it's called, TK News. And the state of civil liberties in America in a really unique way.

This is actually a really important topic. You should be concerned about this Trump raid, even if you hate Trump's guts, all right? And most liberals would have been. The people who are jumping up and down about torture and the Justice Department's overreaches of yesteryear don't seem to care. Why? Because Trump, orange bad, man bad. Right? Well, Matt Taibbi is able to see clearly despite whatever his politics may be. and we're going to watch this closely because what's also happening this week is we think we're approaching the series finale a series maybe the series finale or just a season finale unclear of january 6 theater with what they say is the final committee hearing coming

on wednesday i guess it depends on how the democrats polls look in advance of the midterms. Matt Taibbi, welcome back to the show. Thanks so much for having me, Megan. Great to be back. Could be series finale, could be season finale, depends on what those poll numbers look like and how badly the Democrats need yet another January 6th hearing after this week. Yeah, it could be. I'm skeptical that those hearings do a whole lot for their poll through. And then Trump popped back in the news, thanks to the Mar-a-Lago raid. But all of that is Democrat-originated. You know, I mean, a lot of us believe the Trump raid wouldn't have happened

if we weren't facing these midterms where their electoral prospects look so weary. Right. I mean, I think you could throw Roe v. Wade in there, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dobbs. We'll turn around. But certainly, I think, you know, that's the concerning thing about the Trump raid from a long-term point of view is, was it politically motivated and could they do this to anybody?

And I think that's the underlying question. As you mentioned, even if you can't stand Donald Trump, there are a whole lot of concerning issues about this case and some other cases. The use of the Espionage Act, the use of filter teams, these are all things, as you mentioned, that all of those sort of ACLU style liberals, 15 years ago, they would have been freaked out by this kind of stuff. But there's dead silence now because it's Donald Trump. And Trump has turned out to be like the greatest PR campaign for the intelligence community and for federal law enforcement that they've ever had. They were so unpopular heading into his election,

and now they're getting away with stuff that they never would have before. Now, their fortunes with the right have gone down, certainly with the hardcore MAGA, right? And for those of us who are, I don't know, right adjacent, I don't know. I don't know what we are. It's just like open-eyed. I think you and I have something similar going for both of us, which is we're not under Trump's spell, but we don't suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. You can sort of see facts clearly, even though they may have Donald Trump involved in them. Yeah, I mean, for me as a journalist, I just look at Donald Trump as another politician. I don't feel one way or another about him. I feel

like it's my job to not particularly feel emotionally strongly in any direction about him. Yes, yes. So, you know, when I look at the case, I think several things can be true. It could be true that he's technically guilty of mishandling these documents. But then you also have to, you know, think as a journalist, what does that mean exactly? And go back and look at the other cases that were similar. And, you know, I remember the General Petraeus case where, you know, they allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor count of what was clearly mishandling secret documents. And he clearly knew it was a crime. I mean, he's telling his mistress about these secrets that are going into a book. And that's a misdemeanor, and now we're going to use the Espionage Act and the former president, which is a much more serious law where you can get basically

any amount of time in prison for that. So you have to think about those things. No matter what you think about Donald Trump, could they do this to somebody else? Well, they've already used this law with lots of other people who may not have deserved it, from Julian Assange to Trump. this to somebody else. Well, they've already used this law with lots of other people who, you know, who may not have deserved it, you know, from Julian Assange to, you know, John Kiriakou, the whistleblower who disclosed the torture program. So those are things I think you have

to think about. Okay, so you've made a couple points recently, your substacks about this that are interesting, because you zoom out from the Mar-a-lago raid and trump to patterns uh by the doj and the fbi that are concerning to you as a citizen as a journalist and some of them you just alluded to let me start with a smaller point then i'll build to your bigger point your smaller point on the fbi has been because you just made the point about they're saying he disclosed or he had and mishandled classified information. One of the points you've been making is that's the FBI's bread and butter. The FBI and the DOJ pretty much daily these days disclose secrets that they're not supposed to disclose. And that prior to about 10, 12 years ago, they were not disclosing in the

press. It used to be that you could not get a leak out of those organizations if your life depended on it as a reporter. But there's been a shift. And now their bread and butter is to disclose stuff, secrets that they shouldn't be disclosing, the very thing they're now accusing Trump of doing. Yeah, exactly. Whether it's leaking grand jury material, which is the most recent, you know, they've done that quite a lot, but they did it recently with the Trump case where somehow political reporters knew ahead of time that a whole bunch of Trump affiliates were going to be getting subpoenas from a grand jury. of whether it's something much more serious. I think the story that really caught my attention was the one involving the Washington Post and Michael Flynn in early 2017, where they basically busted him for talking to the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. That was leaked signals intelligence. That's a felony crime.

It's one of the few kinds of leaking, few types of leaking where they can actually implicate the journalist in addition to the leaker. And they started to do that regularly, like around that time. You started to see news stories where you would see an attribution that was like people familiar with the matter or four current and former U.S. officials said. And then there would be this leak that would involve something like FISA material or signals intelligence or intercepts. Remember the story about Eric Prince and the Seychelles having the back channel meeting with Russians like that was a leaked story. Yeah, there were a whole bunch of them. You know, there was the New York Times story about repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Another one. There were dozens of them. I had a congressional league call me up at one point and say to me, how come you guys never noticed this? Are you going to do a story about this? Because this has become an epidemic. And it's just interesting that nobody's really picked up on this. And honestly, that's worse than what Trump was doing by any measure, because they're taking this information and putting it in the Washington

Post, in the New York Times. Trump at worst, unless you're some lunatic theorist on the internet, at worst so far what we've seen about Trump is he didn't protect these documents to the extent the National Archives would have liked, right? Or somebody at the DOJ would have liked. But it's not like Trump was leaking them to the New York Times. He hasn't been accused of publicizing any of this stuff. To the contrary, he had it behind lock and key at Mar-a-Lago. Yeah, exactly. And so they're going to say that he is guilty of the Espionage Act because that act says that you can be guilty of a very serious felony just for possessing or conspiring to possess what they call national defense information, which doesn't even need to be classified, by the way.

It can be anything they say it is. That's why this law is so dangerous. They can say, well, you have national defense information and you conspired to obtain it, which as you know, Megan, you're a journalist, that can be almost anybody who covers national security is guilty of that on a daily basis, right? If you're trying to get something they think is important, they can call that a crime now.

So there are implications for the potential conviction of Donald Trump for everybody, right? And that's what I think you have to think about with this case. It'll be interesting. I mean, I don't want to see Trump charged. I think it crosses a line that we should not cross as a country on very weak facts. But it would be interesting if they charged him to see the defense, you know, to see his defense attorneys put the system on trial and put the FBI on trial and call into, you know, the light what they've been doing and try to sort of point out the absurdity of this kind of government prosecution of a former president who may have had a couple files down there that arguably he shouldn't have had. I'm

still not convinced that that's even true. I don't, I'm not sure. I know everybody's mocking his, I can just think about it and it's declassified. I have to tell you, now having listened to so many lawyers on both sides and having looked at the case law myself, I'm genuinely still uncertain of what the law is. He might actually win on that defense. It's murky enough. He might actually win on that. There's a real question about whether Congress can sort of handcuff the president's ability to declassify and make him jump through certain hoops to declassify because he's the executive. So anyway, my point is it's a weak case and it might be interesting to see it get fought just as it tears the country apart.

All right. So let's go back out to the 30,000 foot and talk about the pattern that you've been seeing, that you've been noticing with the DOJ and the FBI, almost trying to elbow the courts out of the legal process altogether, almost trying to make these alleged crimes into just an administrative matter where you will freaking plead guilty. You will trust us. You're going to or will make your life a living hell and not just yours, but everyone around you that you hire to protect you. Yeah, absolutely. And this this is something the first time I started to think about this was when I covered a story involving a drone case. unsuccessful drone attacks and basically asked the courts, asked the federal courts to provide evidence of why he had been targeted for lethal action. So I went into a courtroom and I saw a federal judge sit there with a lawyer for the DOJ who refused to name what agency he represented. He would only say that he had a client. And the government successfully asserted that this was what they

called political question. It was a matter not for the courts. Of course, you're not supposed to decide political questions. I mean, it is true that if it's a political question, they're not supposed to decide it. Right. But one would think that whether or not you are guilty of a crime punishable by death would be something that you could litigate as an American citizen. You know, it was a little bit shocking to see that. And so this is all part of the war and terror machinery where they've progressively removed more and more processes out of the courtroom and into the sort of administrative sphere. And that is what they're doing when they bring in a filter team to vet information, because

rather than having a court rule on questions of privilege and admissibility, they basically say, well, we have our own department that does that. Wait, wait, stand by, stand by, stand by, stand by. Let's take two steps back and explain what happens because there's a great quote in one of your pieces of one of the courts saying, this is like the government fox guarding the defendant's hen house. So explain what they're doing. saying this is like the government fox guarding the defendant's hen house. So explain what they're doing.

They're going in these huge, broad brush searches. And rather than saying, I think Matt Taibbi robbed Bank of America on 63rd and Lex, they say, and rather than getting a search warrant to say, give us all the documents that might pertain to your relationship with Bank of America and where you were on this date. They take everything in Matt Taibbi's files. They go back 20 years. They take your marital records. They take every single thing they can get their hands on, like the widest grab.

And then the taint team or this filter team explain what they've been doing. Yeah, so typically they bring out these teams when they're rating an attorney or an attorney's office. And so I went back and I researched kind of the history of these cases. And one of the first big ones was an attorney named Lynn Stewart, who represented, if you remember. I do. I covered that you covered that okay right yeah so she's very unpopular if you remember at the time because she was she was representing the blind chic and they raided her office they raided this attorney's office and they didn't just

take the files pertaining to that client they didn't just take the files pertaining to that client. They didn't just take her files. They took all the files of all the attorneys at the firm involving all of their clients. And they just had this separate Justice Department team, this what you call a taint team or a filter team, decide what's inadmissible, what's privileged, what isn't. And then they would pass on the material they would say that the actual investigators could look at. So they just completely bypassed judges. It's actually their province, it's the judicial branches um province to rule on these matters and they've done this uh over and over and over again involving either law firms or big corporate

clients where they'll go in they'll just take everything uh and they get a free look at the most interesting uh secretive valuable stuff and they say well, there's a Chinese wall. We would never use that. But do you feel comfortable about that? Like I wouldn't, you know, as the client of a law firm, if the FBI went in and took everything because there was some unrelated case that they were investigating, that doesn't make me feel very good. And so that's what those filter teams are for. They're there to bypass judges. They don't have a legitimate use. This is why the James O'Keefe case is so interesting. We got into this last week because we took a deep dive on the Ashley Biden diary and what's going on here. You've got the FBI and the Department of Justice going after

two losers who took the president's daughter's diary and she he wasn't even president when they took it he was running um and that there's a there's a reason they did that right like what's going on it seems like abuse of the justice system frankly because this would not be a federal case in any other circumstance but in the connection with this because these two guys these two a gal and a guy who stole it or took it they say they stole it they pleaded guilty tried to sell it to james'Keefe for 40 grand. And ultimately, I believe he did pay the 40 grand, but he decided not to publish it. But James O'Keefe got swept up in exactly all the things that you are just talking about, that you were just talking about. They

raided the journalist's home at like five in the morning and the homes of the guys who worked for James in this journalistic operation. They took his attorney-client privilege stuff. They took all the stuff he was working on in other cases having nothing to do with Ashley Biden. Then they said that they... Sources. Sources, exactly. Then they said that they were going to filter it. They decide what was attorney client privilege, but he, he filed a motion right away saying, Hey, you know, this is not okay. And, um, they, um, was the other piece of it. So they, they wanted to look through the documents. There was one other similarity that they had. They also leaked about it. Oh, that was it. They leaked it to the New York Times.

They leaked it to the New York Times. Like who James was involved in a litigation with at the time. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Right. And so you have exactly the people that you don't want to be looking at your stuff, you know, who are clearly in an adversarial position to you, assuming this would be neutral role of the sorter of privileged material. But that's just devastating. I mean, it's horrible for lawyers. It's lethal for a law firm. I mean,

think about trying to stay in business after you've had to explain to every one of your clients that the government has seen all of your privileged communications. Forget it. Yeah, but it's even worse for journalists. I had one of my sources on this story chew me out and say, what's wrong with your colleagues? Like, don't they realize that when they raid us, they're going to find journalists in the email boxes of every lawyer in this country, right? And, you know, your sources are going to get outed and you're never going to be able to work again. And, you know, this is a serious problem for us.

Like, it's not, it's really not okay for the government to go in and find out who your sources are, but promise not to use that information. They're not going to tell, but they might. They might tell The New York Times something that's really damaging about you if you're involved in a litigation with them because they're friends with The New York Times. Right. But they promise they're not going to tell the other lawyers within DOJ. Don't worry, that would be a bridge too far. Well, right. Yeah, exactly. That's what that's why these secrets are so closely held, right? You know this.

When you make a promise to a source and you say, hey, it's just between you and me, I promise, I will keep my mouth shut. If they threaten to throw me in jail, I will go to jail for you. That's the bond that you have to make with a source and it's serious. That's why this job is serious, right? And if it can be broken just like that, if the government can just walk into an office or access your computer files

and find out who your sources are, then those promises are meaningless and you'll never be able to do journalism. I mean, forget about all the other stuff involving laws like the Espionage Act, you know, that come into play with cases like the Assange case, right? Like, you know, if you if you are actually trying to learn secrets, national defense secrets and you and you succeed in doing so and you have a secret source and they're upset about that and

they want to prosecute that because they they think that you've leaked something that's dangerous to national security. I have a lot of questions about that, but this is worse. They can just come and find out your sources and that is very dangerous. Mm-hmm. So we have a DOJ that's gotten larger and more aggressive and more leaky and more political and feels very much out of control, run by a guy who's been very partisan, in my opinion, since he took over this office. I mean, the fact that he didn't just dismiss out of hand this attempt to label parents as domestic terrorists when it was brought to him shows that he's a partisan guy. And he's got a son who's pushing this critical race theory for a bunch of dollars.

Son-in-law, I think it is, which he refuses to talk about. Yeah, he does. I think it's his son-in-law is making millions off of these critical race theory classes and all this agenda that's been pushed on schools. Meanwhile, Merrick Garland refused to even discuss whether that appeared to present a conflict of interest for him. So there have been a few examples. And most recently, the thing with Trump was egregious, too. I won't talk about it. I'm going to get up here in front of the cameras and I'm going to be this stoic, guarded attorney general, let the justice system do its job, and then runs and leaks to the Washington Post. Nuclear secrets in Trump's arsenal. Bullshit. We haven't really seen that, right? Like,

so far, no proof of that. But now it looks like Matt Trump is going to be indicted. I mean, that's how pretty much everyone I trust sees it, that he's going to be indicted and that we're going to get article after article about what a dirtbag Trump is, how he endangered the country. He had nuclear secrets or who knows what else, without putting it in the context that you just did. Yeah. And you can expect a cascade of these leaked stories by people familiar with the matter, right? That's the name du jour, right, of the anonymous source, where they hint at, you know, this kind of illegal

activity or that. And before long, next thing you know, in the next round of stories that you see written about the subject, it's written about as fact. This has been the pattern throughout the Trump years, whether we're talking about, you know, his alleged help, his alleged collusion with Russia's interference activities, right? So they'll have somebody who is close to the investigation, leak a bunch of stuff that becomes assumed by the rest of the press corps ahead of time. And then before you know it, you know, they're arguing for prosecution and the potential jury pool has had six months or eight months of listening to journalists tell you absolutely 100 percent for a fact that something something happened. As you mentioned, like, you know, you always have to, as a journalist, keep a little bit of doubt in your mind about what the basic facts are until it's actually come out in court. And we've seen this over and over again in the Trump years.

Remember the indictment of the GRU officers by Mueller, and you had all these journalists say, oh look, finally we have proof that they did this or that. And then one of the defendants actually tried to appear in court and they immediately dropped the case because they didn't want to have to give discovery to the other side. So, you know, accusations are not proof. Leaks are not proof. Proof comes in a court case after a jury has decided. And we've just forgotten that.

Well, I thought I saw you. Two points. One, insurrection versus riot is another example. I know you called attention to that, and I've been noticing it too. Every single media person now just calls January 6th an insurrection, as if it's established fact that was an insurrection. Bullshit. That has a specific legal meaning. And what happened on January 6th, in my view, did not come close to meeting it. But at least it's a matter of dispute. And so a journalist shouldn't be using that term unless if it's not charged politically the way that one is, they shouldn't be using it. If it is charged, they is a good example of what you just talked about,

where Matt Gaetz, I mean, he was all over the news in fall of 2020, sex trafficking. He had paid for sex with a 17-year-old girl. And now that case has totally fallen apart. And they've said that the witnesses who came forward in that case against him are not credible and no prosecution could be based on these alleged people or these these people and their allegations that's not going to be front page news every place right he's already been tarred and feathered right and that and that's why there used to be such a prohibition in this business about going to certain places with accusations against people even if you can't stand them. This is the key point. You can't make certain kinds of accusations against somebody or even hint at it without

an enormous amount of confidence that this is actually going to be proven to be true because the damage is already done by that time. I mean, if you start doing stories about how so-and-so is alleged to have had relationships with a 17-year-old or is alleged to have committed rape or, you know, alleged to have done something terrible, now in the social media age, what happens instantaneously is that 50 000 accounts you know many of whom might be anonymous or pr accounts whatever they start circulating this as though it's fact oh well he had sex with a 17 year old and then what happens two years later you know it comes out that the key witnesses aren't reliable and you got to drop the case you can't just turn around and say i'm sorry at that point it's over. I mean, that

people are going to think that's true forever, no matter what. And that's, that's what we don't want to happen as journalists. That's why that's why, especially if you don't like the subject that you're writing about, you got to be careful because extra, extra careful, extra careful, exactly. And that's, that's what hasn't happened in the Trump years. Yeah. Honestly, this is one of the reasons why I'm so resentful of the mainstream media, corporate media, whatever you want to call them. Because at a time when I was getting needled by then candidate Donald Trump on a daily basis, I did my level best. Every night before I went out there, I reminded myself on the Kelly file, this is not about me. This is about something much bigger than me. And many nights I defended Trump. A couple of nights I hit Trump when he did

something crazy, let him get to attack that judge as not able to hear his case because he was Hispanic. That was one time. But, you know, it's you really have to challenge yourself to check your ego and remind yourself it's not about you and your feelings about this guy. And they just won't. They're just disgusting. Matt, stand by. I want to talk about so much more with you, including this film about Gitmo detainees. It was supposed to be this media darling at the Sundance Film Festival where this woman tracked their rehabilitation and so on.

And then the left turned on her hard once they got a look at her film. We'll talk about that much more with Matt Taibbi right after this. But first, we are bringing you some memorable moments over our first two years of The Megyn Kelly Show all week. And we begin with a powerful conversation I had with Marcus Luttrell and his twin brother, Morgan. It was August of last year. You know, Marcus, of course, lone survivor and his battle. It's been well documented. This was episode 149. This part in particular stood out on making the most of every day. Listen. I got one day down here tomorrow. You don't have any

idea if you're going to see it. Yesterday is gone. That's why we say the only easy day is yesterday. You wake up in the morning, see what you can do. The further you travel away from your day, the further you're traveling away of what you're supposed to be doing. And the day is too heavy. It's like fish get carried by the water. The birds get carried by the air. You're actually supposed to get carried by your day. You're meeting some resistance. You're in the wrong spot. And the people in our lives are, we talk about like stones and we're blades. And they're either going to sharpen you, polish you or dull you out. If your life starts to get dull, look around you. And people who say they don't love this country or they hate that's the town or whatever the environment they're living

in. I heard something like 50 something percent of all people on either the planet or the country don't leave the town they're raised in. So think about that. So just change your environment and everything will change. That was one of my favorite interviews. It was right after Afghanistan and our disastrous exit. So we were so lucky to have him. That is well worth your time. If you're taking a trip, you just want to sort of go through something interesting, listen to a fascinating guy, 149. Check it out. Matt, this was all over Twitter yesterday as people were losing their minds i love pretty much everything there is to love about the story uh there's a filmmaker named meg smaker smaker

and she made she smade a film inside of a saudi rehabilitation center accused terrorists. So I guess we're in favor of this idea in general. I mean, if you're going to start releasing people from Gitmo, I'd rather they go through the Saudi rehabilitation center for accused terrorists than just like back to business. And she made a documentary called Jihad Rehab. They invited her to present it at the 2022 Sundance Festival, one of the most prestigious locations in the world, quoting from the New York Times. Her documentary centered on four former Gitmo detainees sent to a rehab center in Saudi Arabia who had opened their lives to her speaking of youthful attraction to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, of torture endured, and of regrets.

Film critics warned that conservatives might bridle at these human portraits but reviews after the festival screening were strong but attacks would come from the left not the right arab and muslim filmmakers and their white supporters accused miss maker of islamophobia and american propaganda some suggested her race was disqualifying a white woman who presumed to tell the story of arab men i can't wait until we get to the point where only white people can tell the stories of white people because you realize white people have dominated this country for a good 200 plus years like if we if we're gonna do that there's not gonna be a lot of stories left right okay so is this how we really want to go

sundance leaders reversed themselves and apologized they're sorry they filmed her screen. And then here's the capper. Abigail Disney. God, this woman's a pain in the ass. Grand niece of Walt Disney had been the executive producer of Jihad Rehab and called it freaking brilliant in an email to Miss Smaker. Now she has disavowed it. She has, there's some, I don't know, what did she say? Hold on, I want to find the exact quote where she said she underestimated how much they were going to hate it. And I failed, failed, absolutely failed to understand just how exhausted by and disgusted with the perpetual representation of Muslim men and women as terrorists or former terrorists or potential terrorists the Muslim people are. So what do we make of this? I mean, where do you even start? There's so many issues here. So many, so many.

So I should just disclose, I've personally dealt with a little tiny bit of this. I co-wrote a book with a black author called The Business Secrets of Drug Dealing. I basically ghost wrote a book with an anonymous, uncaught drug dealer. I caught a lot of flack for putting my name on the book of the story of a black person, even though we're close friends and this was basically just me being a ghost writer. It wasn't cultural appropriation. I got criticized for that.

And so this is now a factor that you have to consider apparently when you're doing reporting. I also wrote a book about the Eric Garner case and I think that would be difficult to get that kind of book contract these days because of the tension of a white reporter covering that story. to the place and from the stories I liked the character and I felt like I could connect with it and try to tell that story. But that's not the only consideration now for journalists. You have to think about all this other stuff. And then there's the other crazy thing where now we don't want... We're worried about people seeing documentaries about questionable characters just because,

um, you know, we're trying to learn about them. Like that's somehow bad. And we saw this with Alex Lee Moyer's movie, Tida, uh, that feeling when no GF,

you know, um, about, uh, you know, in cell culture, uh, apparently that was bad

because we got to see these people but they weren't just brutally criticized. We actually learned what they were all about. I think that's what journalism is for, isn't it? We're supposed to be learning why things happen. Suddenly,

that's dangerous. I don't know what you think. I think that's crazy. What's crazy is it sounds like this film is rather sympathetic toward these accused terrorists who are now reforming themselves thanks to their rehab. And they were worried that the right was going to think it was too sympathetic. Meanwhile, the right's like, we don't give a shit. Do your thing. We're not the ones who are censoring.

That's yesteryear. Now it's the left who censors and the left doesn't seem to be saying you've misportrayed these guys the left is saying just the fact that you would highlight them having you know being reformed terrorists is somehow wrong and the color of the filmmaker is wrong. It's like, I'm sorry, but they are apparently admitted terrorists trying to reform themselves. And there's no question who attacked us on 9-11 doesn't mean all Muslim people are bad, but sorry, they did come from Saudi Arabia. And this is a piece of our history. There's nothing, we're not going to whitewash it.

Next thing you know, we're going to see reformed movies where the 9-11 hijackers were all white. That's going to make the left feel better. That can air at Sundance. Well, first of all, if they're saying that, I caricature of Arab people as terrorists, my understanding of what this film is, now I should admit I haven't seen it, but what it does do is it presents the argument of these people and shows why they were attracted to this cause,

which was very taboo in our culture for, for a long time. I mean, we went 20 years, um, in the United States really without hearing, well, why do people join groups like Al Qaeda?

I mean, there's no good reason that you would do that, but there are reasons, right. And we have to know what they are. It's like, that's important. And,

um, and so if, if you're some kind of leftist and you're saying this is a bad film because it inaccurately portrays people as terrorists, when actually from the sound of it, what it was doing was putting, sort of a neutral face on the argument for terrorism. They didn't seem to have a problem with that. That was strange to me. Nor did they pick like some cab driver in New York and say, here's the Muslim man. Let's talk about how he's likely linked to terrorism. That's not what happened. These

are Gitmo detainees who admit, according to what I read in The Times, that they were part of they were attracted to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They received torture and so on. They regret it. And so what Abigail Disney says is people are disgusted with the perpetual representation of Muslim men and women as terrorists or former terrorists or potential terrorists. I don't it doesn't sound like that's what this film actually does. It talks about people who actually were potential terrorists and now regret it. So sorry if you don't want attention being called to one of the darkest chapters of American history, which was a mere 21 years ago. But it happens to be part of it. You have no problem calling attention to, you know, 1619 in American history. This one's a lot more recent and needs to be explored. Right. And by the way, there are movies about the innocent Muslim men who were targeted by,

you know, the military. I mean, think of I think of Alex Gibney's movie Taxi to the Dark Side, where they, you know where they did make mistakes and put people in Gitmo who didn't belong there, right? That's a story. That's a real story. But there are people who did belong there, right? I mean, or belong somewhere. I mean, I think I have a little bit of a problem with the whole concept of an enemy combatant

without the Geneva Conventions and the trials, but whatever. There are are, there are people who are admitted terrorists and this movie is about them. Right. So it's very valuable to learn what they have to say. You can't, like the fact that this Abigail Disney turned on these folks just as soon as, now she's not, she's not supporting this filmmaker. This filmmaker is now broke. She has no money. More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary.

A majority had not seen it. The head of the festival demanded to see consent forms from the detainees. She demanded to see the filmmakers plan to protect them once the film debuted. How the hell is that Sundance's concern? Okay. She, she required an ethics review of the plans and she gave the filmmaker four days to comply. Now she's not answering calls. This Tabitha Jackson from the Sundance Film Festival from the New York Times. She won't even talk to them. So anyway, it's, it's crazy. All right, let me shift gears.

How many elements of that story have you heard like 500 times in the last five years? First of all, there's the mandatory apology, right? Yep. Then there's the group letter that's signed by a bunch of people who didn't actually read or watch the offending material. And then the apology doesn't help anyway, right? That's the other thing. The person who tries to make amends ends up with their career wrecked anyway. It's the same story over and over.

Can I tell you, just as an aside, I was at this event a couple weeks ago, and General Michael Hayden spoke. And General Michael Hayden actually went out there and started to speak to the crowd on what is and is not disinformation. And I was like, you've got to be kidding me. Like, you were one of the people who signed the absurd letter on the Hunter Biden laptop for which you have not apologized. And you were literally on Twitter two weeks prior to this comparing Trump to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who sold secrets to the Russians and were executed. So I think you should not talk about disinformation

publicly, maybe just to your family and your friends. But this is not your area of information or expertise anymore. But to your point, we keep doing this over and over and over. And of course, there's the well-meaning liberal like Abigail Disney walking face first into like the garden hoe, which steps on and smacks her in the face. I was just trying to do a wonderful thing for the Muslims and I just didn't see it. And then the left eats her alive. Okay. Let's talk about Hillary Clinton. So we got Hayden comparing Trump to Julius and Arthur Rosenberg. Okay. And we've got Hillary appearing to compare Trump to, wait for it, well, and his supporters, to Hitler and Hitler's supporters. Listen. drawn in by Hitler. How did that happen? And I'd watch newsreels and I'd see this guy standing up there ranting and raving

and people shouting and raising their arms. I thought, what's happened to these people? Why did they believe that? You saw the rally in Ohio the other night. Trump is there ranting and raving for more than an hour, and you have these rows of young men with their arms raised of course in in the i guess presumably the heil hitler sign which they were openly doing at a trump rally no the only story i saw was a group in prayer um raised their hands as you do often in church or religious settings where a prayer is being said. Right.

That's what I saw. And it was misrepresented repeatedly by the media and people like Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I've been to a lot of Trump rallies and, you know, in not always friendly circumstances. I mean, as the media, they don't tend not to like you too much. And I've never seen anything like that. So I don't know what she's talking about. But that was like the meme du jour last week that the Ohio rally was Nuremberg. It was like everybody passed out a memo that this is what we're going with this week. And it's just ridiculous.

Like, you know, Hitler is Hitler. Let's stop with that, you know. Can I tell you, the Heil Hitler sign, however, is a little too common. Like it's, this is a gesture that like you get asked to make in your life and you're like, oh my God, I look like I'm heiling Hitler. Like we were at our friend's vow renewal and the priest asked us to all hold up our arms in like a, for a blessing over the couple. And like like you look around the crowd it is a little close to the heil hitler but no sane person would ever look at this beat

looking at this thing and say oh they're all heiling hitler there was this one time i did one of those um zip lines matt you know you do the zip line and um they said oh the photographer's going to be at the last zip line so make sure you do your supermodel pose you know and they you know, you can put your hand behind your head and put your arm out, you know, like I'm swimming in. And I tried that in every single picture. Look like a Heil Hitler. I was like, holy shit. Not only do I not want to buy these, you need to destroy the negatives. Zip lining Hitler.

That's new. Yeah, that's right. Zip lining Hitler. That's new. Yeah, that's right. Zip lining Hitler. It's hard. Like the OK sign now means you're a white supremacist. Your arm up in prayer or you can't do anything anymore. Matt, it's been a pleasure. Come back soon, would you? Of course. I'd be glad to. Congratulations on your two years. Thank you.

The show's been great. Thank you. And thanks for being a part of it so often. All right, coming up, the OGs, Arthur and Mark are here for Kelly's Court. We have so much goodness for you. Breaking news, by the way, on Alec Baldwin.

We're going to get into that Adnaz Syed case. And the woman, so-called Central Park Karen, she just had a big court ruling. We'll tell you what happened. Remember, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show

live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video show and clips when you subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, that's what we launched two years ago. Follow and download on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. There you'll find our full archives with almost 400 shows. And if you've got thoughts on any of them, you can now email me at Megan, M-E-G-Y-N, at megankelly.com. We could not celebrate our two-year anniversary without Kelly's Court and two of my all-time favorite lawyers, Arthur Aydala and Mark Eiglarsch, both former prosecutors, now defense attorneys on the docket today.

Several big cases making headlines today, including a deep dive on the case of Adnaz Syed. He's the man featured in the popular 2014 podcast Serial. He was released last week from prison after spending 23 years behind bars for killing his ex-girlfriend. Prosecutors now asking for a new trial. And there's a real question about whether they'll even pursue that. Is he really innocent or is this left-wing politics at play? We'll discuss it. But first, there is breaking news on whether Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin is about to be charged criminally in connection with the shooting death of the cinematographer on his film Rust. We're going to talk about it with Arthur Idalla, trial attorney, managing partner at Idalla, Bertuna and Kamens, and Mark Iglar, as I said, former prosecutor, now defense attorney. All right, guys, Alec Baldwin is back in the news.

And here's the story. All right. This is from the New York Post. Alec Baldwin could soon face criminal charges for allegedly firing the round that killed cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the set of Rust as the Santa Fe Sheriff's Office prepares to release its final investigative report. The Santa Fe D.A., Mary Carmack Altwise, filed an emergency request for more than $600,000 from New Mexico's Board of Finance, or her office would have the funds necessary to prosecute,

she says, up to four people in connection with the incident, citing the Santa Fe New Mexican as its source for the reporting. She did not disclose who the four people would be, but noted in the request, quote, one of the possible defendants is well-known movie actor Alec Baldwin. Oh, so it's well, hmm. So, yeah, let me see if I can divine. And they're saying the prosecution could require up to four separate jury trials. The only thing she's waiting on,

she says, is FBI reports, phones, phone reports and interviews that they've been waiting on for the last year, but they're expecting them right now. And the sheriff's office final report is expected within a week. She says we're ready to move forward immediately once we get the data that we're expecting. So it looks very much like Alec Baldwin could be charged and he could be charged soon. Before I toss it to you, one other piece of color. His Instagram post this morning was pretty cryptic. Quote, my heart has been broken a thousand times

this past year and things in my life may never be the same. Lots of changes coming, but my family has kept me alive. So do we think he will be charged with some sort of potentially gun violation, something as bad as negligent homicide? Or do we not? And what are the odds of him actually being convicted of such a charge? Mark, you want to take it first? Yes. Okay. This is outrageous. He's an actor. I can't imagine if somebody hands him a prop that it's his obligation to look through it and make sure that it's safe. That is clearly someone else's responsibility. But what gives me pause is I think that I read that he was saying that it went off accidentally. Yep. Wait a second.

If I'm his lawyer, I say, you don't need to say that. Shut up. Hold the trigger. You aimed it and you pulled it because you believed that someone whose job it was made sure it was safe. Yeah, you are so right. Arthur, before you weigh in, here is that moment in which Alec Baldwin told George Stephanopoulos he never fired the gun, the gun

that killed Helena Hutchins. So I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I'm not going to pull the trigger. I said, do you see that? She goes, well, just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that. And I cocked the gun. I go, can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that? And she says, and then I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off. At the moment? That was the moment the gun went off. Yeah, that was the moment the gun went off. It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well, the trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger. So you never pulled the trigger? No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them.

Never. Well, Arthur, the experts have all come forward and said that's not possible. In fact, a recent FBI forensic report concluded this particular firearm could not have gone off unless someone pulled the trigger. That sounds like it's logical and makes a lot of sense. I just want to back up to the request for the money. Having worked with a particular district attorney's office in their request for here in the city of New York for additional funding, they always exaggerate what they need the money for. In New York, you're asking for millions of dollars. Here, you're asking for $600,000, but I assume that's a

tremendous amount of money for a small district attorney's office. So they're going to like blow out what they know. We have all this thing and it's going to be a famous person. Of course, they want to give the idea that it's going to be an international case because let's face it, Alec Baldwin gets arrested for homicide, any form of homicide. It's going to be an international event. And they want to have the money so that New Mexico looks good and looks very professional. So I wouldn't be shocked if arrests are made. And ultimately, after the prosecutor has secured the funding for the office,

Alec Baldwin does not turn out to be a defendant in this case. Because I totally agree with Mark. It's not his responsibility. And there's anything we've learned through the coverage of this case, that there were people who it was their exact responsibility to make sure it was a cold gun. That's not that it's not that clear. Yes, there were people whose responsibility that was.

However, we've had lots of actors. I think George Clooney, wasn't he one of them, came forward and said, I would never, never, ever handle a gun on a movie set without checking it myself. I don't care how many people tell me it's a cold gun. It's what you do. It's George Clooney. Hello. How does he know? How does he know which bullet is a live bullet versus a blank bullet? And also what value is that? So Clooney knows, you know, the guys who handle the guns get high. Maybe Alex doesn't know that, you know, so he just trusts. That's not criminal. Understand

that to reach a level of criminality, you're talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. OK, he was negligent in hindsight. Now he knows you check the gun, make sure you don't trust anybody. OK, but wrinkle, wrinkle, counselor, wrinkle. He was the producer who's the executive producer of the whole movie. And the movie was said to be riddled with security problems, safety problems, I should say. One guy resigned in protest. They weren't running the shop well. And clearly, if the girl, the armorer, who was responsible for the guns, and she didn't hand the gun, somebody else, the handed him the gun but she was in charge of guns so here's the people that they could be looking at the assistant director is the one who handed alec baldwin the gun and said cold gun alec baldwin's one who fired the gun without checking inside um then there's the armorer who was responsible for the guns on the set but she's been pointing her finger at the ammunition guy because the problem, according to the armorer, is she was given what were supposed to be blanks that were actually live rounds. And the person who gave her that ammo should have known that. And there's also a question about whether there was some sort of

subterfuge on set with somebody actually messing with the gun for some reason. Are you shaking your head for it? You added the wrinkle is that he's the executive producer. Okay. And in a criminal setting, that has to me a little bit of relevance, but in a civil setting, it has a lot more than you're responsible civilly. My question is, does he even know the difference? Is he an expert? Is he supposed to open up whatever it is, look inside, and he's supposed to know whether it's a live round or not a live round. That cannot be his responsibility.

Well, especially if it was missed, if it was missed by the armorer who is the gun expert. And we'll see whether there is she missed. She she didn't she couldn't tell the difference or she she failed to check. I believe it's that she saw and she couldn't tell the difference. Go ahead, Arthur. It's whether it rises to a crime versus a civil liability, whether this is about people

forking up a whole bunch of money to her family or should they be going to jail. And look, it just sounds like there were so many hands in this puzzle, in this pie or soup, whatever you want to call it. I don't think it rises to the level

of criminality that any actor, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, or some extra has that. They have the duty, the criminal, they're bound by criminal, by the penal law to make sure. Okay, but that may not be true. But it said it's cold gun.

They're told it's a cold gun. No, no, no. But I'm backing up. OK, I don't I don't see right now. I don't see the criminal liability of Alec Baldwin. I agree. But I do see the civil liability through the roof. And I also see his failure to keep a safe set as a defense the others are going to use.

You know, they're going to point the finger at him and say, I was overworked. I was stretched too thin. I raised the alarm saying I can't handle all of this. I need help. It's him. He's the one who wouldn't fork out the dough because he wanted to maintain his little house in the Hamptons and his house here and the big star and F him because he wanted to save dough. Somebody died. That's what they'll say. But I do think that there is somebody like if what the armorer seems to be saying is true if the guy who is responsible for funding for putting the ammo on the set gave a box of live rounds that was mislabeled dummy rounds that definitely could be criminal no yes that's criminal i would say i would say you can make a strong case for criminally negligent homicide.

Yeah, reckless conduct, willful and wanton disregard of human life and property. I would like to hear more, but now we're getting into that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, just to make a clarification, because I looked at this when the case first broke, the difference between dummy rounds, excuse me, and blanks is blanks you put in the gun because you want them to do smoke and make a sound and make the gun look like something just happened. Dummies are just lookalikes. They're just like little imposters of actual bullets. So if you have a gun like a Colt 45 that shows the bullets, the movie audience

sees bullets. You know, sees bullets. They think they see bullets. Really, they just see imposters, but they can't do the smoke and the noise and all the stuff that blinks. And I think the allegation here is that these were supposed to be dummy rounds to just make the gun look real, like it was loaded. And in fact, it had at least one life. I have one more thought, and it's really troubling me. And I think Arthur could speak to this, too. There seems to be and I see it happening more lately where you've got civil liability, but then you've got a lot of public protests, people who are outraged. You've maybe got a dead body and a family who gets a lawyer. And then that all of a sudden gives rise to the prosecutors to say, you know what, we need now to charge this criminally when it falls short of criminality. That seems to be happening more often. It's happened with some of my clients, and I take exception to it.

It's kind of happening with Donald Trump. But Megan, we've covered, the three of us have covered cases regarding police officers that he actually pulled the trigger when probably the overwhelming evidence shows that he did pull the trigger or someone had to pull the trigger. 100% he pulled the trigger. Right. So I don't know how that fits into this conversation that we're having. He's a liar. He's now lying about what happened. It hurts him. I don't, whether it's true or not, he's now narrowed down the factual focus to that. It shouldn't be that. His best argument is it's not his job. Someone else is hired. You're right. That's his ego. As Mark always says, it's not his amigo because he needed to do a PR

splash with George Stephanopoulos like, I'm cool. I'm Alec Baldwin. I would never hurt anybody. I was totally in control and I did all the right things. And the gun just magically went off as the magical gun. And he was too stupid to realize when you're talking about potential criminal charges, keep your mouth shut. Say nothing. Your only goal should be not to get charged. And once all those decisions are made, you can go out and talk to the cameras again. OK, let's shift gears because I really want to talk about and we will get to Trump if we have time. But let's talk about Adnan Syed, because this is I mean, everybody's talking about this. I don't know, people who even didn't listen to

Serial when it came out. I just re-listened to it because of the update. But here's the story. So Adnan Syed was 17. He was accused and then found guilty of murdering another 17-year-old, his girlfriend who had recently broken up with him. And there were cultural barriers that didn't allow them to be like open with their relationship. His family, he was Muslim and his family didn't want him dating her. And I think she was Asian and her family didn't want her dating or dating at all, not even necessarily the other. So they kept it on the down low, but then she broke up with him. And the theory was that he was so angry, he killed her. He strangled her.

And the linchpin to the case was his friend, this guy Jay, came forward and said, Adnan told me he was going to kill her. And then he called me up and said, come outside, take a look at what's in the trunk. And it was her. And she was dead. And he had just strangled her, he claimed to his friend Jay. And then Jay helped him bury her body. And he led police, Jay did ultimately, to the location of the car, which they had disposed of.

She was allegedly strangled in the back of her car. So those are the basic facts against Adnan. And Adnan basically said Jay made the whole thing up. None of that happened. And he did not kill her. And Serial, which is by, it's like this reporter for the New York Times, put together this fascinating look at it. And she led us down a road where she did acknowledge facts that were bad for Adnan. You know, she didn't sound like she was in the tank for him as she did the reporting. But she didn't cover every fact that was bad for him. And she definitely seemed to want to believe in him. And, you know, as a reporter, even as a lawyer,

you can get sucked into the, like, I'm rooting for a certain result as opposed to, I just want to know what's true. Right? Yeah, right. And especially as a prosecutor, you're not supposed to do that you're supposed to not get sucked into narrative you're supposed to get sucked into truth and justice

anywho uh now he's been released because marilyn mosby on her way out this woman's facing her own criminal indictment for taking illegal advantage of the tax laws uh in connection with covid she just got booted out of office by the city of Baltimore, whose murder rate has gone up like 300% every year for the past several years. She's soft on crime. She's one of these DAs who doesn't like to prosecute crime. And in this case, there have been allegations of the fact that Adnan is Muslim, is Pakistani, was used against him. And on her way out of office, she says, we, the prosecutor's office, didn't do right by this guy. And we need to walk away from this case. And so he got out of jail.

They have 30 days to say whether they're going to retry him. I don't believe anybody thinks that's going to happen. But what is your take as to people who have steeped themselves professionally in the criminal law for your entire adult lives? Arthur? When I read over the research packet that your staff so diligently put together, and I say that with all sincerity because it really was very thorough, here's what stuck out for me in terms of guilt or innocence. If you, Megyn Kelly, got a call today from someone in the world of your good friend, Janice Dean, and said, we haven't heard from Janice in two days. Have you spoken to her, Megyn? I can tell you because this happened to me last week. The first thing I would do is pick up the phone and try to call that person myself.

Maybe she's mad at Sean, her husband. Maybe there's an issue, but she'll accept my call. And that's exactly what happened to me. And the individual who they were looking for picked up the phone immediately and said, hey, Art, what's going on? This guy who spoke to this woman every day, every day gets a call that he hadn't spoken to her

in a day and a half or something like that, and they can't find her. And he never, ever dials her number again. And for me as a prosecutor, that's what I would be driving home more than any Brady violation, more than any story or anything that just does not make sense. That is a devastating fact. I have to say, Mark, that's what jumped out at me too, of all the bad facts against him. I mean, it's not quite as bad as Jay saying, he showed me the dead body in his car and then I helped bury the body. That's pretty bad, but that's another bad one. First of all, no one's vouching here for the credibility of Jay. We don't know

him. We don't know his motivations. We do know he's human. And Arthur and I know in our business, humans lie. What I do know is that the prosecutors have said that we're not requesting a new trial because he's innocent. So I can't say that the guy is innocent. Prosecutors can't say that. But what it seems like occurred here is he was denied fundamental due process. When you rely upon cell phone tower technology and evidence that somehow wasn't proper. I don't know exactly why it was junk science. No, I know. I know. I know. I, I looked at this. So one of the things, so Jay gets up there and Jay had changed his stories a couple of times. He changed the location at which he was allegedly shown the dead body, the victim. And so first he said it was one location and then it turned out it was another location. And now he says, look, it happened in front of my grandmother's home and I just didn't want to get my grandmother involved.

And I'd been dealing drugs out of my grandmother's house and I just didn't want anything to come back on me or her or anything there. That's why I didn't say originally where it happened okay but but he also says that um he had adnan's phone that day anyway let me try to boil it down there was a question about whether adnan had been at the site where the body was disposed of and the prosecutors use cell phone records to say look you can see adnan's phone at this site this site was it's called leaked leaked in or leaking park it sounds like lincoln park but it's not and they said you can see his cell phone right by this park adnan so we can so jay has corroboration the cell phones of adnan adnan's cell phone record show he was there. And what they're saying is that if Adnan made an outgoing call from his cell phone from that park, it would be reliable.

But that quote, according to The Times, all experts agree, incoming calls to one's cell phone may not be used as corroborating evidence of the location of the person holding the phone and receiving the call and that it was allowed at this trial. So you add that to the fact that there were two at least potential other suspects that prosecutors knew about and failed to disclose to the defense, a clear Brady violation, a clear violation of due process. And so why should we care about this guy? Even if he's guilty, why should we care about him? Because any of us, if we're ever accused of anything or someone we love or know is accused of a crime, we must hold prosecutors

to following the rules so that this doesn't happen to us. We don't have failures or miscarriages of justice, which apparently occurred in this case. So I applaud the prosecutor. That's truly what happened. I applaud her for doing the right thing. If there's a Brady violation, Brady is the rule that requires you as a prosecutor to turn over all evidence that may be potentially exculpatory, meaning it may suggest the guys didn't do it to his defense lawyer. And they're saying in this case, that wasn't done, that there were two potential other suspects, and the prosecutor had them and knew of them in his files and her files, and did not turn them over to the

defense. Go ahead, Arthur. In terms of due process, and in terms of echoing what Mark said, and it is a lot of I just lectured the other night to, you know, a law school class asking about the role of the criminal defense attorney. And a lot of it is to making sure, we're making sure that everyone's kind of playing by the rules. And one of the debates that I'm in right now regarding Brady is, although the prosecutor turned the Brady material over to me, they did not disclose it to the grand jurors who indicted my client. And my argument is, no, you have to tell the grand jurors that there's someone else who the police looked at as a potential suspect and all of the information regarding that. They're saying,

the prosecutor's saying, no, no, no, no. We don't have to just tell you that. We don't have to tell the grand jurors that. And we're in litigation over that. And these little battles that Mark and I do, they overall have an effect on our life and our criminal justice system in the United States of America. Okay, but let me ask you something on this alleged Brady violation, because I do think that's the best argument for a new trial, right? If the prosecutor had information that there were two other suspects and didn't turn it over to the defense, that's bad. That's, that's pretty clear ethical violation that exactly of the kind that could get you a new trial. But if you're a prosecutor and you guys have both been, and you just get some random name called into you and you scribble down the name, Joe Schmo, you know, potentially connected question

mark, and you send a cop out to go run down Joe Schmo and you're like, oh, it's bullshit. That wasn't a real tip. I don't, not credible, whatever. Do you have to turn that over? Why not? Like, why not? What's the harm? What's the harm here?

We sent our guy, you go send your private investigator over. I don't know. It's not why not. I get best practices, but could that be the kind of thing? Yeah, I just took Garth on that. Megan, the way you worded it, it was very carefully worded. It's not why not. I get best practices, but could that be the kind of thing? The way, Megan, the way you worded it, it was very carefully worded. The way you worded it, I would say, no, I don't know that that's a Brady violation. If I mean, because there's, look, when you show up at a scene, there could be, you know, hundreds of potential people who did it. And, and as you go, you know, you narrow it down. I don't know that you have to keep, you know, sending over all this person still don't know that you have to keep, you know, sending over

all this person still included as a possibility. I think this was if you're a prosecutor and your phone rings at your desk and it's someone who sounds like they're not high or drunk and says, listen, I don't want to get involved, but I'm telling you, I know who did the murder. I know who committed the crime. And this is what they're wearing and this is where they're located. If I'm the prosecutor, I'm giving that over. Not Megan's hypothetical. It seemed like she was suggesting, correct me if I'm wrong, you know, you got some names, but, you know, there's no real validity to it. It's more like work product. You know, you're, you know, there's not. You run it down. You're like, this is not worth our time. But is that what happened here? I understood. I don't know. Here's let me buy suspects.

You're 100% right on it. They said this was a major reason why he was denied. Let me read it to you. Okay. No, I just wanted to get sort of the basic rule established. Like if there's any name that comes up to you as a prosecutor, do you have an obligation to turn it over? And I think I side with Mark on that one. You do not have any name, any number, anybody saying it could be this person. That's not necessarily a Brady violation if you don't turn that over to the defense as a prosecutor. You have to, I think it has to rise to, no, this could be a potential suspect. It doesn't have to be an actual other suspect. So here's what the Times is reporting per Sarah Koenig, who's the girl who did, the woman who did all the reporting. She said the headline of the state's motion.

This is the prosecution's motion to to get Adnan out is that they've developed more evidence about two people who might have been involved in the crime, but whom they say were not properly ruled out as suspects. They don't name these people. They just call them the suspect or the suspects because they say the investigation is ongoing. They might have been involved together or separately. They don't know. Both were known to detectives at the time. The handwritten notes that they found from prosecutors in the prosecution's file, because keep in mind, this is the prosecutors going back and looking at their own old files,

a new set within the same office of prosecutors. They found handwritten notes that appear to be written by a prosecutor memorializing two different phone calls from two different people who called the state's attorney's office to give information about the same person. The notes aren't dated, but as a prosecutor telling the story could tell, the calls came in several months apart and before Adnan was tried. The gist of the info from both calls is that a guy the state had more or less overlooked had a motive to kill Heyman Lee, the victim, that this person was heard saying he was upset with her and that he would, quote, make her disappear. He would kill her, unquote. In court, the prosecution said the state had looked into this individual and found the info in those notes to be credible. And the suspect had the, had the quote motive opportunity and means

to commit the crime whether he did or did not though legally speaking this would be a major breach and they talk about how this would be a brady violation i'm picturing arthur's veins protruding from his neck and from that bald skull he found would have found out about this. Whatever. He'd be livid the same way I would. How dare they do that? I'd want sanctions. I'd want a hug and then I'd want an apology. I have to tell you, though, Arthur, I remain skeptical

because the woman pushing this whole narrative, her name is Becky Feldman. She works for Marilyn Mosby. Becky Feldman, described by the New York Times as follows, pretty new to the prosecutor's office, pretty new to being a prosecutor. She'd been high up at the public defender's office for years. Her sense of alarm was cultivated on the defense side.

Keep in mind, this is a prosecutor's office that doesn't like prosecuting crime. And there's a narrative here, pushed byah tkanik at the new york times that maybe there was a anti-muslim bias in this case that the word honor had been mentioned too many times in this case like honor killing potentially though that doesn't appear to be what was actually argued and by the way that is a thing within some extreme segments of uh you know, ardent extremist Islamist communities. We've covered that, too. But that's not a claim that was openly made against Adnan. Anyway, I've got my doubts. And just to take you down memory lane, here's Marilyn Mosby.

OK, here's Marilyn Mosby talking about why she why she did this in the Adnan Syed case two minutes before she was kicked out of office. Here she is. My sentencing review unit is responsible for the year long collaborative collaborative investigation into this case and today's motion to vacate the conviction of Adnan Syed. The vacature statute, which was drafted, lobbied, testified to in Annapolis by my office, despite the opposition of almost every one of my colleagues across the state, with the exception of Aisha Brave Boy, this vacature statute is responsible for today's outcome. Becky Feldman subsequently led a year, nearly a year long exhaustive

investigation, revealing the substantive facts of this case, where several problematic issues were presented and thereafter leading my office to file a motion to vacate the conviction of Adnan Saeed. So first of all, that to me sounded like a victory lap my my my my my my my my critics didn't like this vacature statute by the way that's a statute that lets you take a look at the conviction of people who are underage when they committed the time the crime to see whether the sentence is appropriate that was she was in favor of me me me me me and of course who could forget 2015 this is the same woman when freddie gray who allegedly got a rough ride by six Baltimore cops, wound up dying. She she indicted those cops. She prosecuted all of them, all of whom were found either not guilty or the case completely found apart, fell apart.

Right. Those cops were exonerated. She was not able to make the case. This was Marilyn Mosby, that woman we just listened to back then. To the youth of this city, i will seek justice on your behalf this is a moment this is your moment and as young people our time is now oh my god she's an identity politics memories again me you and arthur we took turns trashing her after we heard that. Remember? That was us. So there she is again. I'm just saying I don't trust her. I don't trust her judgment. And Becky Feldman sounds like a lefty who doesn't much love prosecuting crimes. And I'm just wondering whether identity once again is rearing its ugly head in this case, or whether there really is a Brady violation. Well, I mean, Megan, the only way that we'd have a real big problem here is if Becky Feldman created this document. And I don't think any lawyer, I'd like to think, I should say, I'd like to think that any lawyer is not going to put their whole career on the line and fabricate

this document, these handwritten notes that are in that file. If what's written on those notes is authentic, and they were in the file all the time at some point, I think we can all agree that that is a textbook Brady violation. And they did the right thing by bringing it forward. And then they took the extra step. Look, they didn't have to move for the case to be that verdict to be dismissed. They could have left it up to the judge and the judge can make that decision as to whether it should be dismissed or not. But they took the extra step to say we're asking it for it to be dismissed. And that basically handcuffs the judge to do what they want. I think there should be another trial. This guy should be tried again. I'm not convinced he didn't do it. I'm not. And I realize, by the way, the audience

should know, to your point about did they really not turn over notes. Again, Sarah Koenig of the New York Times reporting that one of the two main detectives on the case was accused of misconduct in another murder case that went to trial the same year this one did. In that case, the detective was accused of manipulating evidence, fabricating evidence, not disclosing exculpatory evidence. And the guy convicted in that case was exonerated in 2016. Okay, so she's suggesting he railroaded somebody else who was later exonerated. Don't know how much stock we put in that or not, but that's not a good fact for the prosecution.

I think that they should have another trial, Mark. Am I crazy? You're not crazy. You're just not informed. I mean, you're not close enough to the fact like they are. You've got it. I'm sorry. You've got it.

That was sweet. That was sweet. I meant that with love. And I knew what I was saying. And I knew I'd get that reaction because you haven't sat down with this guy, Jay, to look him in the eyes and confront him with his inconsistencies. You don't know what the evidence truly is. Yeah, I don't trust Mosby, but I've got to trust people who work at that place who wouldn't let a murderer go. I think that they believe that the evidence falls short of being

able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they don't seek another trial, you've got to question whether they've got the goods. Yeah. I think also, Megan, you have to, from a prosecutor's point of view, any prosecutor's point of view, and any judge's point of view, he's done 23 years. I know he was given life, but it's not like he's done 23 months. And sometimes that does factor into a prosecutor's decision-making process in a city where crime is running wild, where they need every resource they can. I think we just said it

went up 300% every year. They may say, look, we're not going to spend our top two prosecutors on a case where the guy's already done 23 months. That's a good point. That's a good point. But I have to say, if she actually would start to prosecute crime, that'd be one thing. But I don't think Becky Feldman or whoever's taking over for her is going to do. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the new prosecutor is a little bit harder on crime.

I think that's one of the reasons Mosby got booted because she wouldn't prosecute. So we'll see. But I think the family of the victim deserves, they deserve a new trial as stretched as they may be for Haley for Hayman Lee, the victim in this case. Stand by much, much more with Arthur and Mark. We got to talk about Central Park, Karen and Trump. But first, here's another memorable moment from the first two years of our show.

Do you remember it was this time last year when a bird, a bird showed up in the studio during a show about ghosts. First, we heard the activity. We didn't know what it was. I thought my staff was punking me. It was October of just last year, episode 192. Just watch how Abby and yours truly reacted. I'm only in here with Abby, my assistant. What? There's a real bird in here. There's a real bird in here. Abby, my assistant. What?

There's a real bird in here. There's a real bird in here. There's a real what? There's a real bird in here. There's a bird in here? There's a real bird. I'm sorry. I reacted like that.

Oh, my God. We're hearing something down the hall in the closet. Are you messing? I thought this was like a setup. Is this a setup? There's a real bird in here. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Oh, my God. Can we close the door? There's a door down there. And that's a real bird in here oh my god can we close the door there's a door down there and that's where like the brain of the and we heard something and we're like she's making the big eyes at me and i'm making the big eyes at her and she went down to investigate and there's a bird it's in this situation a crow i believe that's usually a crow

well that's uh that's holy as long as it's not like a raven. I mean, bring our dads. Go get done. This is his job. That was amazing. My mom made jokes for a year about like what kind of bird soup she was going to get me. I mean, I guess every... By the way, I've been letting my hair get darker and I think it looks a lot better now. I don't know.

Let me know your thoughts. Megan at megankelly.com. It was a lot blonder back in that clip 12 months ago, but I've been working on something with my hairstylist. In any event, we're having so much fun having our retrospective and our look back on fun, memorable moments. If you've got one, you can email them to me,

Megan, M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com. And maybe we'll queue it up and play it this week. He's like corn pop. Some guys in the world, you just can't. Yeah, you can't trust him, man. Hey, hey, did you shit my pants or did I?

What's going on here? I'm dying. What happened? Kagan Milley, the classiest gal in the news. Just it's trans Trump. So do a new campaign. Okay. Trans Trump.

It's so stunning. So terrific. Trans Trump. No. So stunning. Look, you got gotta vote for me. You got no choice. Oh my god, that is literally one of my

favorite episodes we have ever done. I went back and listened to it. I've showed clips from that to my kids repeatedly. He does a great one of Kim Kardashian that I quote all the time. PayPal need to work. They need to work. His

imitation of Joe Biden and that thing with trans Trump was hilarious. It was Kyle Dunnigan. And it was episode 291. And if you want to laugh, go to that episode. Remember, we started the impressions in the second hour and it was gold. 291. I promise you'll laugh. And if you're smart, you'll do it on YouTube because you see he's got this technology where it's like face swap. He's got Biden's face on his face and he puts on a wig. It's good stuff. Anyway. Okay. We're back now with Arthur Idalla and Mark Eichlarsch. I have so many great cases that I want to get through. So let's just bang through some of these things. The migrants who were sent by Governor DeSantis, who's in Florida, from Texas to Martha's Vineyard, have now begun their time in the United States by doing the quintessential American activity, and that's representing them. They're from Venezuela, and they're claiming that they were induced by DeSantis to board a plane in Texas to go to Martha's Vineyard,

that they felt helpless, defrauded, and desperate, that they felt anxious and confused, lack of sleep, vertigo. And this is all thanks to Ron DeSantis' alleged fraud in giving them $10 McDonald's gift certificates to get them on board this plane and promising them that if they got to Massachusetts during the first 90 days, they would get basic needs support, including assistance with housing, furnishings, food, other basic necessities, clothing, transportation, etc., all of which comes from the Massachusetts Refugee Resettlement Program, which is a government program with highly specific

eligibility requirements, which were not disclosed. What do we make of this? Arthur? Actually, I think in the long run, they actually did get all of those things that DeSantis promised, even though it wasn't the way that they were told that they were going to get it. Apparently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has opened their arms to these people. Look, I know that that was a political stunt by Mr. DeSantis, but I did applaud it because I think it opened the eyes of a lot of people that this is a real problem in America. And it's a problem that I feel needs to be shared by all of America. You know, the NIMBY, not in my backyard. It's easy when you're in a state that

has no real immigration issues to pound your chest for immigration. But when you're Arizona and Texas and Florida and have real issues that cause financial hardship to your tax base, then you know what? We are the United States of America. And I mean, I pay a lot of money to go to Martha's Vineyard. It's not exactly like they said he sent them to some place that, you know, people don't want to go to. Then they got booted out to the military camp. Mark, two problems for this case, at least. Number one, they signed waivers before they got on that plane, releasing the defendants from all liability. And number two, we've got NBC News footage of them saying,

it's great. Thank you, Governor DeSantis. I'm so glad I did this. Yeah, those are two big problems I was going to mention. I still am not throwing this out as meritless. I do want to hear from the individuals. I'm certainly suspect about their long term permanent challenges of not being able to sleep over this and whatever. Over this.

They're from Venezuela. But this was a bridge too far. Yeah. But I disagree with Arthur. I don't like the idea at all. I understand about proving that point. But I don't know that you do it by lying to people, assuming that that's true and telling them they're going to get something when they're not. Sounds like there might be some truth to that. But aren't these people who are here without obeying the laws? I don't think these are the people who came over who filled out all the appropriate paperwork to be here. So they lied, my understanding is, to get here. So we're lying to put them somewhere else. In Brooklyn style, that's okay. Unclean hands. That's the unclean hands defense. All right, let's move on.

Speaking of political actions leticia james attorney general of new york has sued donald trump and all of his children in a civil case this is not criminal claiming it's so convoluted that he i'll just quote um engaged in a sprawling decade-long fraud scheme to obtain lucrative business accounting benefits by inflating the value of his assets and net worth. He overstated the value of his assets to get more favorable bank terms and loans and so on. Not a single bank is complaining about this. But Letitia James is. She's saying whether the banks were or were not actually tricked isn't relevant to the legal case.

Trump's a bad person and I want to hurt him is basically what she's saying. So, Arthur, you're you're in New York. Hold on. Hold on. Go ahead, Mark. That's not what she's saying. Hold Mark. That's not what she's saying. Hold on. That's not what she's saying. Short for me.

And she is right. It doesn't matter if there's a loss. I have a client who's charged in federal court right now, and the PPP loans that he clearly obtained by committing fraud, he invested in real estate. He's making millions. So he'll be able to pay back everything. The government's going to get more. That doesn't mean that the charges can't be brought. So it's not whether there's harm to the banks in this instance. Is Trump's residence 11,000 square feet, which the government claims it is, or is it

33,000 square feet like he claims? Is it worth 3227 million? Or we're hearing that the most expensive unit there is $16.5 million. You can't do that. So put politics aside, factually, did he lie? Yes or no? Then we'll move on. Yeah, that's not a bad point. Go ahead, Arthur. There are a couple of issues here. Number one, and disclaimer, I know Letitia James, we're very friendly, but I did not think it was appropriate for her. When she ran for attorney general, her platform was, I'm going to get Trump. That is against everything you're taught as a prosecutor, whether you're the lowest prosecutor or you're someone running for high office as a prosecutor. You're not supposed to pick the target and then find the evidence to go after him. We agree, but can you focus on what she's claiming he did? Yes, what she's claiming he did, I'm going to agree with Mark. Megan, I have a guy right now who he lied on his bank forms. The bank never complained.

He paid back the loan. He's totally in compliance. But when he was being investigated for something else, the FBI people who looked at all his records found that he lied the same way that Trump did. And they prosecuted him. To Mark's point, though. Because the the falsehoods in these documents were tremendous. The way Mark said, doesn't the bank have some due diligence to just look up how big his apartment is? They do. And that's what Trump's been saying. Trump's been basically saying that the banks have the obligation and the banks pursue that obligation. And the banks came to understand exactly how big his apartment was and wasn't, and therefore no harm, no foul. He did try to settle this case. She would not accept the offer. So we'll see whether

how far down the road this gets could it get could it be over past the midterms we'll see um okay let's move on because amy central park central park karen sorry amy cooper but that's what she's known as she had the confrontation with the angry bird watcher and she said he said get your dog out of here they're supposed to be on a leash and she didn't comply and he said uh you're gonna do what here. They're supposed to be on a leash. And she didn't comply. And he said, you're going to do what you're going to do. And I'm going to do what you're going to, what I'm going to do, but you're not going to like it. And she said, I'm going to call the cops and tell them that an African man, African American man is threatening me. And he said,

go ahead and call the cops. That's how she became known as Central Park Karen. She looked pretty douchey, but then so did he, because it came out, he's got this long pattern of harassing dog owners in the Bramble, in the park, including another black man who had exactly the same encounter with him, who he threatened that guy too, where he said, you leash your dog.

They can't be off-leash in here. And said, according to that man, Jerome Lockett, and I quote, if you're going to do what you want, then I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it. So the guy, Christian Cooper is his name, no relation to Amy, has a long history from the sound of it of being kind of an asshole. But it doesn't excuse her threatening to tell his race to 911. Right. Okay, this is kind of the background to what happened here. She sued her employer for firing her when this became a national firestorm, saying, you said publicly you did an investigation, that you found me guilty of being a racist and you fired me, and you didn't do an investigation. You just looked at a snippet of videotape and you lied and you defamed me. And now her case has been thrown out. She's lost her case filed in the

Southern District of New York in a 17-page ruling where the judge said watching a video of the incident and discussing her conduct meets a reasonable interpretation of internal review. Of course. Come on. Go away. Learn from the thing that you did, which isn't the worst thing, but it's not the right thing. Just learn from it. To double down and try to go after your employer at every legal rate. what left out in the prologue is she also identified in her suit that there were three men who worked in the same firm one had a domestic violence incident he didn't get fired one was was doing things financially at the financial firm inappropriately he didn't get fired irrelevant by other people in her firm and they did not meet the same fate that she did which was termination and her argument was it was only because it made this big splash. And all I was doing on 9-1-1 was I was identifying the individual. So if the police show up, they know at least they have some parameter of identifying. You are not going to pull the naive card and not look at this for what it is, Arthur.

She pulled the racist card. She lied and tried to suggest that he was threatening her. And he did threaten her. That wasn't a lie. But I will grant to you her mistake was not even telling the 9-1-1 officer that he was African-American man. You do have to identify the person. It was she threatened to use his race against him. She said, I'm going to tell 911 an African-American male is threatening me. That's where Amy Cooper went off the rails. In any event, she's lost a lot. And they've thrown out, including this lawsuit, they've thrown it out.

But her employer was kind of douchey as well. And just getting rid of her and publicly calling her a racist because they were just too, I don't like the P word. I'll say all the other words, but I don't like the P word. But they were kind of P words and not like, well, she'd behave like an asshole outside when he was being threatening and she did something bad, but she didn't have to lose her job, get fired. I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with their behavior. You're a genderist. You don't like the P word? You're a genderist. I know. I kind of am. I don't know. I don't like that one. My mom would never say the F word and she would never say the other P word, P-I-S-S. She never would.

And I feel differently. I'll say those words, but not the one that means cat. Why are we discussing this? Love you guys. Thanks for coming on. Happy anniversary. Thank you. Great as always.

Thanks for joining us today. Tomorrow, we'll have more memorable clips, and we'll also have Father Mike Schmitz of the Bible in a Year, the mega hit podcast. Excited for that. In the meantime, download the show so you don't miss it. Go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.