The Megyn Kelly Show - Dems Politicizing and Undermining Institutions, and Cameras in Kohberger Courtroom, with Mark Levin, Marcia Clark, and Mark Geragos | Ep. 632

Episode Date: September 21, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Mark Levin, author of "The Democrat Party Hates America,” to discuss Trump’s prosecutions and the hypocrisy in how it is being handled, the deterioration of faith in our institutions, Biden politicized Justice Department, the details of each of the four Trump cases, the breaking news of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the border each day, what's behind the Democrats' long game on immigration, why Biden should be impeached, the history of the Democratic party in America, the racism and anti-Semitism in the Democratic party's past, and more. Then lawyers Marcia Clark and Mark Geragos join for an all-star Kelly's Court panel on the horrific random killing of a former police chief riding his bicycle, the racial angle for why it's not getting more media coverage, the new revelations and accusations in the Russell Brand case, police in the UK opening a criminal investigation against Brand, if the timing of this case 20 years later makes it hard to defend, the U.K. government weighing in on the accusations, whether Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger actually followed some of the victims on Instagram, the debate on whether cameras should be in the courtroom, the latest on the potential for a Murdaugh re-trial, and more.Levin: https://www.marklevinshow.com/the-democrat-party-hates-america-by-mark-r-levin/Geragos: https://geragos.comClark: http://www.marciaclarkbooks.comFollow 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. I am so excited, so excited about today's program. It is a packed show with our all-star Kelly's Court panel and just a bit on Russell Brand, on Alec Murdaugh, on Brian Kohlberger, all new developments in all of those and more. But we begin with someone I have long admired. I've never interviewed him. I mean, like in all the time that we've been in the same circles, I've never interviewed him like an in-depth interview. And he's here.

I kind of thought like it might not happen, but we didn't even promote it because it's like it was too good to be true and maybe couldn't do it in the end. He's here. Mark Levin, the great one, a legend in the media, host of Fox News' Life, Liberty, and Levin, and a best-selling author.

He's got a new book out right now. It's called the Democrat party hates America. And it's out this week. It is currently numero uno, uh, the number one book in America on Amazon. A few decades ago, private citizens used to be largely that private. Hello. What's? The internet. Think about everything you have browsed, searched for, watched, or tweeted. Now imagine all that data being crawled through, collected, snooped in, and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record, yours. And in an era where everyone is online, everyone's a public figure. Did you know that there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data? The worst part is they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or even

get your consent. One of these data points is your IP address. But with ExpressVPN, your connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server and your IP address is masked. Love that. And the best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use. No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, or smart TV, all you have to do is tap one button to get protected. So if you believe that your data is your business,

secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market. Visit expressvpn.com slash MK and get three extra months for free. E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash MK. Go now, expressvpn.com slash MK to learn more. Mark, so great to have you here. Congrats on the book and welcome. First of all, it's a great honor. I better not screw this up now with an introduction like that. But I really want to thank you.

You know, I've admired you for a very, very long time. I've never understood why we never talk to each other, but it doesn't matter. Here we are today. Thanks to you. And I appreciate it. Oh, it's truly an honor. It's like I there are certain people and it's a very small list who I consider appointment viewing. And it's like

whenever I see you, I stop whenever I see Mark Levin clip. I stop whenever Mark Levin has a book I read. It's just there is such a small collection of people who are truly brilliant and honest and honest. That's you're honest to a fault and you're not just some partisan hack. You you chart your own way. You've been there. You were in the Reagan administration, chief of staff for the attorney general at the time, expert on the Supreme Court. So I want all of our listeners. I'm sure they already know that. But pay attention. You're going to learn something over the next hour. So the new book I love. I love the title. The Democrat Party hates America, which he's never afraid of putting too fine a point on it

and has, has done the same for us here. Give us the overall thesis of the book. The overall thesis of the book is if you look around the country, whether it's the border, whether it's classrooms, whether it's the economy, whether it's law and order in our cities, all these things are going wrong. It's not because of nature. It's not because it has to be this way. It's because of the Democrat Party. They run the cities.

They're in charge of the border. The unions of the Democrat Party are attached at the hip. They're destroying our schools with their propaganda and so forth. And I decided, you know, I write these books about Marxism and Americanism and so forth, but we have a real problem in this country right now. And I think it's time to take it to the entity, what I call the Monopoly Party, the Democrat Party that's doing this to the country. And then I decided to do a deep dive into their history. They have a very horrific, bloodlust, racist, anti-Semitic history, unlike the Republican party. And I'm not always a fan of the Republican party. As a matter of fact, I think the Republican party is anemic. I think that people tend to vote Republican because they don't want to vote

Democrat and that the Republicans don't really have a positive agenda for the country. And that's part of the problem when they fight with each other the way they are. But that said, they also don't want to fundamentally transform America. Biden says he does. Sanders says he does. The two Obamas say they do. Hillary Clinton says so. So what do they mean by that? So I felt like I needed to explain exactly what they meant by that. A lot of us don't want to fundamentally transform the greatest country on the face of the earth. Of course, the nation's imperfect. Human beings are imperfect. But it's one thing to be imperfect, and it's another thing to be systematically racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-American.

And that's the problem we have with the Democrat Party. It's an autocratic party like autocratic parties all over the world. It doesn't want to lose elections, so it tries to change the election system with H.R. 1 to eliminate the electoral college, so half the country has no representation, to try and pack the courts, and this is constant, to get rid of the filibuster. All these things are traditional, they're custom, they're constitutional, to prevent exactly what the Democrat Party is doing. The Democrat Party wants to replace the country, that is, as all these autocratic parties do. So you give allegiance to the party, not to the country. And so you have to destroy our history. You need to rewrite it. You need to push these outrageous, stupid books and essays on Americanism. You need to destroy the framers and the founders and the declaration and the

constitution and on and on and on. So that's what the book does. It's a deep dive on that. One of the things that jumped out on me was the openness of the Obamas in stating that they wanted to do over on the United States of America. And I remember living this, you know, when they were running, when he was running, she as his wife, they both made these comments over and over. And just a couple of weeks ago, I said, I don't believe Michelle Obama loves this country. And I trended on Twitter for three days because of that. Well, I don't believe that. I do not believe she loves America.

And if you look back at her history, it's pretty easy to conclude that, which is why this piece of the book jumped out at me. And we went and found the sound bites in part that you cite. Here's just a flavor of one of the jumping off points for Mark. We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. We're going to have to change our conversation. We're going to have to change our traditions, our history. We're going to have to move into a different place as a nation. It's all there. I mean, they laid out exactly how they feel. They don't want the America that exists.

They want something totally different. What does she mean, change our history? You can't change your history. History is a fact. And yet in every totalitarian regime, that's what they do. They rewrite their history. And it's an amazing thing about the Democrat Party. Slavery, segregation, the Klan, lynching, these horrible, horrible things.

The country didn't do this. The Democrat Party did this in the areas of the country that the Democrat Party controlled. And so when they talk about our history, they're really talking about their history. And somehow they've managed to accomplish the greatest con in American history, that is to project their history onto the Republican Party, because the Republicans are too stupid to know their own history and the history of the Democrat Party, and they're too gutless to stand up for themselves. And that's just the beginning. I mean, Woodrow Wilson, they loved Woodrow Wilson because he was the first two term Democrat since Andrew Jackson.

He was one of the earliest intellectuals for the so-called progressive era, which I call the beginning of the American Marxist era. And Woodrow Wilson was a out of the closet racist segregationist. He bragged that when he was president of Princeton, not one black kid was admitted into Princeton. He resegregated the military. He resegregated the federal civil service, such as it was, after two Republican presidents desegregated them. And for the first time, when you applied for a job in the federal bureaucracy, you needed to provide a photo. That way they knew if you were black, and then they knew you weren't going to get a job. And I can go on and on about Wilson, but I spend time getting into Franklin Roosevelt because he's the great Democrat icon.

He is the one that they lionized. He is the one who they consider the greatest president in American history. Bernie Sanders talks him up. AOC talks him up. All Democrats talk him up. Why? If you look into Franklin Roosevelt's history, and I do a tremendous amount of research for these books, you will find that Franklin Roosevelt was a racist. He never lifted a finger for the black community. In fact, in 1940, as I've been saying, there was a bipartisan bill put on his desk, a federal law to outlaw lynching all across the country, and he wouldn't sign it. He wouldn't sign it because he was running for an unprecedented third term, and he wanted to win the South.

Jesse Owens, the Berlin Olympics, famously, 1936, he was the star. And so FDR invites all the Olympiians who are white. He excludes Jesse Owens. And Jesse Owens, in his own biography, he's asked, well, did Hitler snub you? He said, I never met Hitler. He didn't snub me. Franklin Roosevelt snubbed me. He didn't even acknowledge that I'd been at the Olympics. Joe Lewis, the great boxer, he voted for Wendell Willkie against Franklin Roosevelt because Roosevelt didn't sign that anti-lynching bill. I can go on and on with Roosevelt. I mean, for instance, the Federal Housing Authority, the FHA, a lot of people watching

have benefited from that program and the New Deal. But when it was passed as really the first big New Deal project, the purpose of the FHA is to subsidize mortgages, to help protect mortgages so people don't lose their homes and they can buy homes. This was considered a great feat. I even saw a liberal on cable TV say this is one of the examples of the great civil rights leader that Franklin Roosevelt was, but there's a problem with that. No loans were to be given to any black communities or any communities that are outside black communities because they thought they were a bad investment. And so what did the New Deal, the Roosevelt guys do? They took out big red pens and they would put circles around the black

communities. That's where you get redlining from. Redlining comes from the New Deal. And so, when it came to- Linda Johnson too. Linda Johnson. I mean, there's another guy who was a racist till the day he died. He didn't have any kind of epiphany. And these are what his biographers say, who like him. Linda Johnson voted against every single civil rights act that ever appeared in the U.S. Senate, and he participated in every filibuster to kill anyone that did, except in 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower wanted to push forward a very aggressive civil rights bill in 1957. And Lyndon Johnson meets with Ike, and he says, I'm going to kill your bill. And Ike was furious. But three months

or so later, he said, I can't get this through because this guy is the Democrat leader in the Senate. He'll filibuster. So he says to Johnson, OK, this is a start. We'll do this. And then Johnson goes back to his segregationist friends, and they were his friends. And he says, don't filibuster this thing because it has no teeth. Now, why did Johnson do that? Because all of a sudden, he was some kind of civil rights leader? Obviously not. He did it because he was playing both sides against the middle. He decided he wanted to run for president. And so he wanted to be able to say that he helped Shepard through the 1957 act. And of course, most people don't say that he helped Shepard through the 1957 Act. And of course, most people don't know that he took the teeth out of that act. You've got audio in the Oval

Office back then. You've got all kinds of eyewitness testimony and people writing books, the endless use of the N-word. When he nominated Thurgood Marshall, the first Black to be nominated and then serve on the Supreme Court, he made an outrageous statement. He said, I want to be remembered for putting the best N-word on the Supreme Court, and I want them to remember that he was my N-word. This guy, 64 Civil Rights Act, 65 Civil Rights Act, these were all Republican notions, Republican ideas that had been pushed in the past. And it's just awful. I mean, he and, by the way, Robert Kennedy, they were tapping the hell out of Martin Luther King's phone. Lyndon Johnson, I wrote about this in another book, he even tapped Hubert Humphrey's phone. His own vice president is running in the Democrat primaries for president because he wanted to know where he stood on Vietnam.

His own vice president at the Democrat convention in Atlantic City. Martin Luther King's phone was tapped. All the civil rights leaders who were there, their phones were tapped. He had Hoover send in FBI agents to spy on some of these people to see what they were doing. This is why, Megan, to be perfectly honest with you, I look at this stuff about Trump and documents. And I say to myself, what the hell is going on here? Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS against every one of his leading political opponents, against newspaper publishers, Annenberg, against Timothy Mellon, the former secretary of the

treasury under Coolidge. For 10 years, he chased him. And even Morgenthau, who was his secretary of the treasury, said, he's clean. We don't have anything on him. And even a judge who finally, I think he had to pay some de minimis amount in fines after 10 years, said, why are you pursuing this guy? And he used the FBI. Lyndon Johnson used the IRS. He used the FBI and he used the CIA. I just point these things out. You have Biden today who's Mr. Censorship. We haven't had censorship like this since Woodrow Wilson in the Civil War going on in this country today. Anyway, I'm being long winded. That's that's sort of what the book's about. Yeah. I would love to talk about the Trump indictments. I listen to you religiously on this. I'm I don't

know if I can say I'm as outraged as Mark Levin about these, but I'm in your neighborhood. They're absurd. And we were covering the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday with Merrick Garland, where it was obviously just one long exercise in obfuscation. And I don't know. I don't you know, I don't talk to him. I'm I'm hands off when it comes to this investigation. You know, that's a question to him. I'm I'm hands off when it comes to this investigation. You know, that's a question for Mr. Weiss. That's a question. And we all know when David Weiss gets before the Congress, he's not going to answer these questions either. And what's clear is they slow rolled the whole investigation against Hunter and until the statute

of limitations expired on the most serious crimes. And now they're left with just crumbs, which who knows if they're going to pursue or they're not. The gun charge. All right, whatever. The tax charges. We'll see. But the meat of the case is already gone. This while they've been incredibly aggressive against not just the former president, but obviously the leading candidate for the Republican nomination against Joe Biden, their boss right now. So give us your take on how things are developing when it comes to the criminal prosecutions against Trump versus Hunter. You know, I don't actually, on the politics side, you won't find me going on Fox or anywhere else saying, I support this guy. No. I look at this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general, Ed Meese. If somebody had come to Ed Meese and said,

we're going to get a criminal warrant against Jimmy Carter. We've gone to him two, three times. He won't give us our documents. And we're going to send a SWAT team down there when he's not home. We're going to go into his home and we're going to search his bedroom. We're going to search his wife's drawers. We're going to go into the closet. This was really a general warrant, to be perfectly honest with you. But we're going to do it. You know what Ed Meese would have said? Get your ass the hell out of my office. What are you, nuts? And he would have said that primarily because do you know what this is going to do to the country? Now, look, you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. Other lawyers out there, they could have pursued this civilly. They could have gone to a court. They could have gotten an order for Trump to turn over the documents. If he didn't turn over

documents, the court could hold him in contempt and you follow that civil trail. But they didn't want to. Even though there were some FBI agents who apparently were appalled at this whole track they were following, well, they were basically squelched by senior leadership. One of the guys who's a senior leader is in the national security side. He's this little guy who's very aggressive. In my view, he's got issues, with the judge saying that basically extorted him. He said, if you can get your client to flip against Trump, then you may have a better shot at a federal judgeship in Washington, D.C. That still hasn't been resolved. And he's still in court in Florida arguing case. I've never seen anything like this in my life. But just let me tell you a secret.

I don't care what these former presidents say. They've all taken documents home. You don't even have to keep them. If you take a document home and you don't deal with it properly, that is technically a violation of the Espionage Act. But here's the problem. The Espionage Act was passed in 1917. It was passed by Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats to go after his political opponents who opposed World War I. There are very broad sections in that act. It was used against W.E.B.

Du Bois, as a matter of fact, and it was used against others who were planning on running against Wilson for president. That's the law they're using. But what they didn't have back down there was the Presidential Records Act, which was passed in the 1970s and was implemented during the Reagan administration. And under the Presidential Records Act, no longer can a president take documents and keep them personally. In other words, you can buy, for instance,

signed documents by presidents, official documents. I've had many of them. I had the first appointment of a Supreme Court justice signed by John Jay, who received it as the chief justice. George Washington made the nomination. I donated it to Hillsdale College. You can't, as a president, do that anymore. You can't take those documents with you and keep them. That statute actually protects Donald Trump. It's the Presidential Records Act. And why does it protect Donald Trump? Because it trumps, in my view, the Espionage Act. A president, it was never intended for a president to be charged under the Espionage Act of the United States any more than it was Hillary Clinton. But Hillary Clinton didn't have the Presidential Records Act.

She was not protected under the Presidential Records Act. And yet they didn't bring charges against her. And they bring these charges against Trump and they do these things that no administration before this would ever do. And so you have the potential, put aside all the rest of the cases, that, he told somebody not to talk about the boxes and the usual obstruction stuff and so forth. You're trying to set up a guy who's a candidate for president of the United States. This is what I object to. Because if you can weaponize the Department of Justice this way, the power of the federal government, the power of the central government knows no limits. That's why Garland was playing rope-a-dope all day. He can't defend this, and he's not going to defend it. They just do it, and nobody's going to

stop him. Can you speak to the consequences of the deteriorating faith we have in the rule of law, in the Department of Justice, in the FBI. You know, there was a time when we used to believe in these organizations and it was important that we believed in them. But now between what they're doing to Trump versus Hunter, what they've done to, you know, parents, domestic terrorists, you know, the lopsided way that this DOJ goes after cases, not to mention what we had under Eric Holder. You know, you can feel it going down the drain. The Biden, either he or his people, they appointed the most radical senior leadership of that department in American history. They're all Obama clones. They all worked for Obama in

one form or the other. The deputy attorney general is truly a radical left-wing political bomb thrower. She's running the place. Everybody knows it. Name is Monaco, Lisa Monaco. She's all over the Hunter Biden case. And she's all over it. The head of the civil rights division said so many racist things when she was not, obviously, the Department of Justice. And yet she muscles through on her confirmation. She's the one going after 70-year-old pro-lifers and throwing them in prison for daring to protest in front of abortion clinics. And they're using the FACE Act in a very, very broad way to round up these people

and imprison them. It's truly sick. You look at the criminal division, the guy heading the criminal division is an Obamaite. The public integrity section, which is at the criminal division, the guy heading the criminal division is an Obamaite. The public integrity section, which is under the criminal division, is run by him. The antitrust and civil divisions, I know these like the back of my hand. They're using them to go after these corporations and businesses and shake them down. You look at the criminal divisions going after Elon Musk now. That is the Southern District in New York. The U.S. Attorney's Office is coordinated with Maine Justice on major cases involving major public figures. And in every instance, again, I know this from my own duties there, the Attorney General of the United States is informed when

there is a major public figure, a major corporation involved in a criminal investigation or is going to be involved in a criminal investigation, and he gets to, from a distance, oversee these things. They're actually going after Elon Musk now. They wouldn't go after Elon Musk if he wasn't at least sounding somewhat libertarian or conservative and didn't condemn what had taken place with Twitter and the censorship of the Biden regime. They're literally going after him saying that he personally benefited because he's building some glass house and it was supposed to be for SpaceX or Tesla, but he benefited personally from it. I mean, who has ever seen anything like this? And isn't it amazing?

Buffett's never done anything wrong. Gates has never done anything wrong. Soros, God forbid. The Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation. My God, there ought to be 5,000 charges against them. But to answer your question, when your department acts like the old Stasi of East Germany, they're not going to get respect. They are destroying law and order in this country.

And I'll take it one step further, Megan. These judges in Washington, D.C., 10 out of 14 of which, I believe, no, 8 out of 12 of which were appointed by either Obama or Biden, and these are radicals, Chutkin and so forth, they are destroying even more the respect for law and order because you expect the courts to be the referees. The things they say and the things they have done are unbelievable, whether it's to Donald Trump, whether it's to protesters January 6th. I said protesters, not rioters, protesters who are on the grounds of the department or the grounds of the Capitol

looking up at what's going on, happen to be standing there. All of them are getting charged. All of them are being round up from all over the country. And you have the judge, Judge Trunkin, who's a radical leftist, comes out of the public defender's office, out of the federal office in Washington, D.C., throwing the book at anybody who shows up in her courtroom beyond what even this Department of Justice is proposing. And the things that she has said during sentencing hearings are so outrageous that there's no way that this would have passed just, what, five, 10 years ago. So that's why people are disgusted with the whole thing. Do you, can I just get your back of the envelope take on how these four cases are likely to shake out? You know, I, I feel like they're ultimately going to be decided by judges, not juries,

because they raise legal issues that an honest judge should be able to dispose of relatively easily. And then they'll probably go against Trump. Three out of four, maybe the judge down in Florida might go for Trump. And then it's going to work its way up to the appellate courts and probably the U.S. Supreme Court. But is that wrong? What do you think? All right. Not to bore everybody, but I'll quickly go through each one. Let's start with the 101% you see. January 6th. Those four charges are so preposterous. To dust off the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, and the irony is a Democrat administration is doing that. It has no application here, but it doesn't matter. The section 1502 of the criminal code, which was passed after Enron, two of the four charges involve obstruction. And what they meant there was you had executives at Enron who were destroying records that were being subpoenaed by Congress. This has nothing to do with January 6th,

but they've used it widely against protesters on January 6th, and they've gotten convictions. But it's been appealed to the dc circuit which is also lopsided they extended the dc circuit when obama was president and harry reid was running the senate to add several seats and they loaded it up with obama appointees because that as you know is the second most powerful court in the country why does all these these government cases work through that circuit. And even one of the, in one panel, three-judge panel, even one of the panel judges said, this really doesn't apply. And so there are now cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I think the U.S. Supreme

Court will take it up with that. That's even constitutional. And then you have another statute that's been used almost exclusively for financial crimes against federal contractors. And so you take these four counts in Washington, D.C. You take the prosecutor, this guy, Jack Smith, who I call Jack the Ripper Smith. He's a guy that always pushes the corners of the law that always rewrites the laws he's had his ass kicked in one courtroom after another across the united states he targeted the tea party when he was head of the public integrity section so they bring him back from the hague you know they sent him to the hague quite frankly to get rid of him gets to wear a robe you know he gets to go

after genocidal maniacs. They figure, okay, so out of the thousands of lawyers, tens of thousands of lawyers, Garland could have picked, he picks him to come back because he's a headhunter. He's not a real prosecutor. He's a headhunter. That's why he's got the Klan Act and these other things going on. What's going on in this courtroom? They know that that city is 94, 95% Biden. They know that Trump doesn't have a chance, no chance in hell. They know that this judge is probably one of the most radical judges in the United States of America. They've studied her sentencing. They know what she has said. Somehow she gets picked just out of the lottery to run to head the case. She's already made rulings to me that violate the Sixth Amendment, the right to competent representation in the Fifth Amendment due process.

You have 12.8 million pages of documents. And I'm not even talking about video and everything. I'm not even talking about what the defense might have. She gives them four and a half months to prepare. This is a woman who has, according to Dave Schoen, a great constitutional lawyer, has a case in front of her. He's been waiting three and a half years for her to decide a case that's been set up. He said, we're waiting her decision, and we just keep waiting. So she takes what she wants to take. She moves up what she wants to move up. But here's something that nobody's focused on, Megan. She jumped the line. First,

she calls the Democrat elected judge in Manhattan and says, I want to go first. He says, well, of course, you go first. He jumps the line with the judge in Florida. How does she jump the line? Because that was the first case the government brought, the documents case. So when you're documenting these cases, that's the first case. And she sets the trial for May. I don't believe it'll stay in May. She sets it for May. The next thing you know, the second case that the prosecutor brings is now the first case,

because she moves up the trial to the day before the Tuesday Super Tuesday. She moves it up to March 4th. So she jumps the line on the first case because she wants her case heard first. Now, why? Just to clarify, he's talking about the January 6th federal case is now number one, even though the Mar-a-Lago's document case was filed first. Florida's after now. Washington, D.C., Judge Chutkin, this committed leftist who said very negative things about Trump and other cases. Now she's number one. Trials take place the day before to start Super Tuesday. Keep going. Right. And she moved the whole schedule up. She truncated discovery. She truncated everything to make it impossible to really prepare your defense. You have a right to a defense she says it's the speedy trial act is a

is a public interest speed trial act has nothing to do with the public has to do with the defendant any moron knows that has practiced law for 13 minutes so anyway she's twisting and turning and she's moving calendars because she knows or she believes that a Democrat jury will convict Donald Trump of at least one of the charges. And then the question is, does she send Donald Trump to prison right away? Does she stay her decision so he can appeal it to the circuit court and eventually to the Supreme Court? Well, here's what else she knows, that if she gets what she wants, Donald Trump will be running for

president as a convicted felon. And that's what Biden wants. That's what that judge wants. That's what the prosecutors want. By the time you have an appeal, even if it's an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal that raises unique issues or constitutional issues that the circuit court should take up or might take up during the course of the trial. She knows that all takes time. And so by the time it all shakes out, the election will be over. And they're doing this purposely. So the Trump lawyers have filed a recusal motion, and they're right, providing all these statements that she's made from the bench, which are absolutely outrageous. They're disqualifying.

100%. And here's something that happened that I've never seen in all my years. So the government files a response to the motion by Trump's lawyers for that judge to recuse herself. I have never seen anything like that in my life. They don't want to lose her. They don't want to lose her. One hundred percent. They feel they have her in their back pocket and they're telling her, no, don't listen to them.

Listen to us. We like you. I have never seen that in my life ever. It just shows you the corruption that's taking place here real fast. The case in in Florida is not, as some legal analysts like to say, a slam dunk to me. There are a number of motions that can be filed. They're complex constitutional issues in that case. And so motions can be filed depending on how the judge views some of these motions. You could have interlocutory appeals and so forth. She doesn't strike me as a bomb thrower one way or the other, quite frankly,

although the media have done their very best to undermine her. But there are serious issues that can be raised, starting with the warrant. I mean, you have a warrant that says you can search for these boxes and anything around it. Well, you know, that's not a warrant. That you can search for these boxes and anything around it well you don't that's not that's not a warrant that's not probably and anything around it no so there are arguments to be made there are motions to be made and that's just one of them so i don't i don't agree with any mccarthy and jonathan turley or anybody else that this is slam dunk. In the end, maybe there'll be a conviction, but that's a long way off. The case in Georgia,

former Attorney General Ed Meese just filed an affidavit in this. He's in his 90s, smart as can be, physical health is deteriorating, but he's a wonderful man. He said, this DA, this local county DA, is charging federal officials for what they did as federal officials. And they have every right as federal officials to give advice to state officials, to suggest to state officials that they might want to do X, Y, or Z.

But you can't have a district attorney there's 15 000 district attorneys in this country and god knows how many assistant district attorneys now charging an assistant attorney general of the united states for advice that he gave to the secretary of state in georgia and by the way, the advice wasn't forced. They can take it or leave it. So now Meese says, not only is this a federal matter, but you're now charging federal officials for giving their opinions to state officials. So he says, this needs to be in federal court. It really does. And the guy that just ruled that it shouldn't be a federal district judge, another one, was appointed by Obama. I assume you think as little of the New York prosecution as I do.

I mean, it's a nothing. But I worry. I worry about that judge and I worry about these juries. I'm telling you, I've seen some weird things go on here. People being convicted for things and you shake your head and you say, what the hell is going on around here? You've got jury nullification. Let me ask it this way.

Of the four we're looking at, scale of one to 10, 10 guaranteed he's going to prison, zero, no chance, all in, all four of them, where would you put the chances that he actually is going to prison? Megan, it's a question I don't even want to contemplate. You know, people say to me all the time in a different context, are you pessimistic or optimistic about the future of the country? I said, why does it matter? Fight like hell.

I can't predict the outcome, but fight like hell. That's what I tell my radio audience. I'm not Nostradamus. It doesn't make any difference what I think. I think this is all extraordinarily dangerous to the country. I think when you have a state-run media, in effect, defending a state-run party that monopolizes the country, that people are gravely deserved. And that is what's taking place here. And honestly, just to circle back, that's why I wrote the book. You have a state-run party that is monopolizing our legal system, that is monopolizing our electoral system, that wants to change it in

every respect, that is trying to monopolize our court system with its threats against the Supreme Court and its independence. I've never seen anything like this. Nobody has, except with FDR once. And you have to have, and I read all these books from these people who have survived Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and Castro's gulags and all, and they all say the same thing about totalitarianism. The party comes before the country. You have to show allegiance to the party. Any disagreement with the party, any debate with the party needs to be punished in one form or the other because your individual thoughts are of no consequence. Your individual thoughts, as a matter of fact, are undermining the communal, the effort to put

together this fantastic, more perfect, paradisiacal type society. And so while free speech might be a great thing, as Lenin said, speech needs to be changed. Words need to be changed to support the party. You even see that today. I wrote a whole chapter on this the the change of language in order to change the way people think and behave and act to uh to do what to support the party's agenda uh so you can't have debates you can't even have scientists debating each other's medical experts debating each that's what all the censorship has been about that's what all the scarlet letter stuff has been about that's what woke ism a word i don't like. So passive. That's what it's all about. They want conformity. That's what they want. They do not want debate. It's why, I mean, just to name a couple, we now have to refer to, I have to call myself a cis

woman as opposed to just a woman, because that's them controlling my language about my own gender so that they can stuff a certain kind of man into my gender. It's why there was a law passed years ago in New York City that made it illegal to refer to illegal aliens. If you had any sort of malice in your heart, because they will police the words that come out of your mouth and the way we're seeing up North in Canada, which sadly is a step ahead of us. And by that, I mean down the drain on a lot of these issues. That brings me to immigration, which is God knows a mess. And it's worse right now than it's been. I mean, we just crossed a very dark milestone today. I'm going to squeeze in a quick

break and pick it up right there with the one and only the great one, Mark Levin. Don't forget, the book is called The Democrat Party H hates America. He says the Democrat party, the Democrat party hates America. And he lays out the case as only Levin can. Let's talk about immigration. Here's the latest posted by Fox's bill. Malusion. Who's been doing such great work down there breaking just as just an hour and a half ago. Per CPB sources, in the last 24 hours alone, over 10,000 migrants were encountered at the southern border, bringing us back to the all-time record high levels

we last saw in May before the end of Title 42. And just in case people think it was just today, no, it's been inching up. It's been in the 9,000s and change for days going on weeks on end. Now, I mean, tens of thousands are coming in a week after week after week flooding the Southern border in Texas. And then of course they get bust elsewhere. Now, Mark, I mean, I, I used to kind of question the use of the term invasion. I'm not sure what other word there is at this point.

I don't know, five to six million illegal aliens in the Biden administration. And God knows how many others are given a official rubber stamp bill of approval. I bet we're at the 10 million mark. And I want people to think about that for a second, because where are all these people? You see them at the border, but now they're in every part of the United States. Who are all these people? We don't have the foggiest- Look at this, by the way.

It's mostly single males. That's what the reporting is, too. You look at the video. It's mostly single young men. And what's the problem with that? It's single young men who commit the most crime in the United States and in most countries all over the world. We don't have the capacity to know who most of these people are, whether they're friend or foe,

whether they're criminal or terrorist or anything of the sort. And I want to talk about this in a little bit of a different way. When you have a president of the United States who does this to a country, who allows criminals to come across the border, potentially terrorists. He has no idea. Fentanyl and other drugs are killing up to 100,000 Americans every single year. When you have anarchy and mayhem going on on that border, and now in the interior of the United States, women being raped and sold into sex trafficking, same with little kids.

You have 85,000 to 100,000 young people from other countries who are now basically indentured servants and various hell holes here and there. This is not nature. This is manmade because Joe Biden refuses to enforce the existing immigration laws. And they say two things in response. The border is secure. So they're lying unbelievably. Or it's the Republicans fault because we need comprehensive immigration reform. We don't need comprehensive immigration reform. We need border security. And presidents know how to do this if they want to do it. And presidents know how not to do it if they don't. This is the most outrageous assault on the body politic on the American people in modern American history. The greatest enemy we have here is not the communist Chinese, and they are the greatest foreign enemy we have. It's the Democrat Party. Now, they can whine all they want in New York and New York State, but Biden knows they're all going to vote Democrat anyway. So he doesn't care. They're playing long ball. They want to turn Texas. They turned Arizona.

They turned Nevada. They've turned New Mexico. They've almost turned Georgia. They want to turn Texas. You might say, well, illegal aliens can't vote. No. But when they're here long enough, their children are American citizens. They can vote.

Or you have chain migration. People aren't even thinking about that. So when you're talking about six million illegal aliens, almost none of whom, very small percentage show up for their administrative court date. So here's my point, Megan. I was studying the history of the impeachment clause. And it goes back to Britain. And it goes back to Britain and it goes back to the parliament trying to assert some power over the monarchy and over appointees of the monarchy and then over members of its own body, parliament. And our framers look very carefully all over the world at these different practices and these different rules and so forth. So they debated the impeachment clause at some length. And they were thinking about using the word maladministration. Madison said, that's too weak. Then we'll have a president impeached

every other week. So they came up with the phrase, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. So here's the problem. You have, again, these former federal prosecutors who don't know a damn thing about the Constitution and others, like Democrats. And they say, well, you can't prove that Joe Biden took any money. Well, you don't have to prove that Joe Biden took any money. Andrew Johnson was impeached. That had nothing to do with money. Bill Clinton was impeached. That had nothing to do with money. Donald Trump was impeached twice. That had nothing to do with money. So what is it?

What's the rule? So then you got to look at what each delegate said. And where you go for that is at the state convention. So I looked at North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and so forth. I know I'm a nerd. I can't help it. I read this stuff. I love this stuff.

And what did I find out? The bottom line, the consensus position is political offenses against the society, against the citizenry. In other words, it's much broader than a specific piece of the criminal code, most of which didn't even exist. It's bigger than that. A high crime and misdemeanor, a high crime. Have you done something to the country that damages the country in a significant way? And so I've said on the radio, hoping that some of these Republicans on Capitol Hill will listen. In the Senate, they don't listen, but maybe some in the House. You go ahead and pursue the financial crimes. That's crucially important. Crucially important to know if the president of

the United States is a Manchurian president, if he's been bought and paid for. It certainly looks like it to me. And the case is self-evident unless you're watching one of these crazy news channels. But what's troubling to me is the greatest reason that Joe Biden should be impeached is what you showed two minutes ago. He's violating his oath of office to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the Constitution. He is undermining existing laws that prevent what's happening from happening. The damage that he's doing to the country is incalculable. From a law enforcement perspective, safety and health perspective, Our school systems are overwhelmed.

Our communities are begging for help. American citizens are suffering as a result of what Joe Biden is allowing to happen on this border like no president before him, none. And so this should be impeachment article number one, refusing to protect the American people, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, allowing these horrendous acts of inhumanity taking place on both sides of the border, allowing drug cartels. Now they have locations in every state, all 50 states. And the mayhem that he's created, this is an impeachable offense. The only have a couple of minutes left, but your thoughts on 2024. I mean, I know you're voting Republican, but do you have any thoughts on, you know, who's going to be the best person to get

that football across the end zone? Is it Donald Trump? Is the majority of the party seems to believe? First of all, let me say this. We have a very weak farm team. I got to be honest with you. I watched this debate. Asa Hutchison, the gentleman from North Dakota, seems like a very nice man. You'll notice Nikki Haley never runs on our record.

Eight years as a governor. I'd love to know, what 10 things did you do as governor? We got Chris Christie, who's basically an anti-Trump torpedo. Mike Pence does a better Chris Christie than Chris Christie in the last debate. who would I whittle it down? When Donald Trump ran in 2016, I backed Ted Cruz. And when Ted Cruz lost and Donald Trump won, I backed Donald Trump. He was far more conservative than I ever could have imagined, far more conservative than either the Bushes ever were, far more conservative than the Republican leadership in the Senate. I look at Ron DeSantis. I'm a resident of Florida. This guy's unbelievable, the things that he's done, the culture wars that he's been willing to fight and so forth and so on.

So from my perspective, if Donald Trump is the nominee, I'm all in. If something horrific happens and it turns out that he's not, maybe because of one of these indictments or so forth and so on, I'm all in with DeSantis. That's the best way I can answer that. Mark Levin, it's so great to talk to you. I only wish I had eight hours, but if you want to spend eight hours or more with Mark Levin, just buy the book, The Democrat Party Hates America. We need to support Mark so he can keep writing books like this because they're always intellectually stimulating.

You always learn something. He has a great way of communicating, as you have heard. A great one. Thank you so much for being here. Let me tell you, it's my great honor. I love it when you allow me to actually speak and explain things, you know, rather than sort of the machine gun Kelly types of stuff. And I really appreciate the opportunity, Megan. You do a great show here. Thank you, Mark. All the best. I hope I get to see you again soon.

And up next, we have the Mark Levins of the legal world, Marsha Clark and Mark Garagos. Love this. This is like a team legal panel to get into some stunning developments in some of the biggest cases that we've been following from Russell Brand to Brian Kohlberger and the Idaho murders to Alec Murdoch. There's another update. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. Now on to Kelly's Court with my all-star panel. There are new developments in the hottest cases this week. Ryan Kohlberger, that's the Idaho murder of those four college students last November. Alex Murdoch down South Carolina, and he's seeking a new trial. We discussed that a couple of weeks ago. There's an update in his push to get a retrial.

And the consensus of our earlier panel was he's looking good for it. Also, Russell Brand will tell you how that's now turning potentially into a criminal investigation and more. Joining me now, Mark Garagos, managing partner at Garagos and Garagos, along with Marsha Clark, who's a former prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author. Welcome back to Kelly's Court, Mark and Marsha. Thank you. Hey, Megan. Great to have you both. All right, so let me start with this case that's been all over the news lately,

and that is these teenage boys. I mean, I don't even want to use the term boys. These teenagers who killed that poor man riding his bicycle. For those who haven't seen it, it's disturbing. We will show you the video, but, uh, a warning that it is deeply disturbing there that there's two teens in the car there in last Las Vegas. One is driving. One is a passenger and he is filming. And what we now know is it was like a joy ride in which they were trying to hurt and kill people and not just the man that they actually did manage to kill, whose name was Andreas Probst, 64 years old, a retired police officer.

And this happened in Las Vegas. So we now know, I think that they were 17. And after some searching, they managed to find them both. They're both now in police custody. They're going to be charged as adults for murder. Oh, here's the poor man who was killed. He was on a 6 a.m. bike ride trying to keep his health going. Had retired not long ago. Has a family. Just out there. I mean, it's just like the senselessness of it.

He's just out there minding his own business, getting some exercise. And these two come by and we'll show you the video now. All right. We stop it before they hit him. There's no reason to replay that. And you can hear them celebrating it. They're giggling on the full tape. One says to the other ready. And the driver speeds up directly behind the full tape. One says to the other, ready? And the driver speeds up directly behind the retired police officer. The other guy says, yeah, hit his ass, says the passenger. And after he gets thrown onto the windshield and what now we know killed, the one says, damn, that N-word got knocked out as the driver can be heard stepping on the gas. I know, thanks to the Supreme Court opinion in 2000, I think five it was, Mark, we don't have the death

penalty anymore for people who commit crimes while under the age of 18. But my God, you look at this videotape and I'll tell you what, I would have been fine with that. I would have been fine with that penalty on these two guys. So how do you see this case? Well, I think the defense is clearly going to argue or try to find any soft place to land. They're going to argue what you generally do with young males, that their brains aren't fully developed until they hit 25. There's all kinds of scientific evidence to that. But as you indicated, for those of us who were of my vintage, you take a look at that and it's kind of one of your worst nightmares. You assume when you're either out walking, biking, or running that there is a social contract, so to speak, that people are going to not negligently hit you, let alone intentionally hit you.

And it's a tough case to defend. It's a very tough case to defend, especially with that videotape and the seeming nonchalance. So what's likely to happen here, Marsha, when we know, okay, they're upping the stakes by trying them as adults, but everyone knows that the death penalty is off the table. Right. So Mark has it right that the defense has to be going for the studies, and they are now numerous. And actually, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged these studies as showing the unformed brains from the low development of young men below the age of 25 and particularly below the age of 18, which I think both of these people were. So that will be the tack they take. There may be drugs

involved. We'll see. That would have an impact as well. Nothing's going to save them, in my opinion, in terms of a not guilty verdict. I don't think that's at all in the cards. They will be convicted. The question is how much they'll be convicted of. The fact that they were actually targeting others as well as the man they tragically killed, that will weigh against them, of course, and indicate a definite frame of mind. I mean, there's an intent to kill. It's premeditated. So this is definitely a first degree case. I don't see any real daylight for the defense in this case, no matter what they do with all the scientific studies, given this videotape. It just takes every question off

the table about their state of mind. So I think these guys are going away for a very long time, if indeed the prosecutor does not figure a way to find him with life without. But you should know that I don't know whether that particular state has the same laws as California, but in California, minors who are charged, even when they get convicted with life without, if they are under the age of 18, they are eligible for early parole after serving 25 years. So I don't know if they have that law in particular, but that is another possibility. We'll have to look that up. And it's never the audience knows that the couple reading from the New York Post also allegedly struck a 72 year old man around 530

a.m. that same morning. Thank God that man only had non-life-threatening injuries. They're also accused of intentionally ramming into a second car traveling nearby before setting their sights on Probst. They also said that they stole at least four cars that morning to carry out their violent spree. They caught the one 17-year-old who I think was driving the car that same day. And then now they've just caught the other, which it took them five weeks to track down the passenger who was wearing a mask. And the police, too, of course, Mark, are talking about the senselessness of this and how their statements leave no doubt that everything, quote, was intentional. Well, and what I was going to say is Marsha's right. There is a law in California now, and I don't know as I sit here whether it would apply there.

But it would not surprise me if there's a race between the two lawyers for whoever it is, if they have court appointed or not, to get one to flip on the other immediately to kind of confess all sins and get some kind of break. And I don't know, frankly, what the break could look like. But there will be a fight as to whether it's going to be tried in adult court or juvenile court. That's going to be the battle, at least initially. Can I just ask you, like, you've both spent a lifetime in criminal law. You look at this as a civilian and you think, I don't understand. I'm like a serial killer has this mentality of just killing for fun with absolutely no compassion or heart. I don't know.

Like Marsha, does your background as a prosecutor give you any insight into what makes two, not one, two young men like this, who can just kill for fun, absolutely, they're like sociopaths. I mean, just absolutely no empathy on display at all. Right, none. And actually, Megan, the more the merrier in terms of the number of people involved, the more likely it is they will engage in more extreme behavior as they egg each other on. So what one guy might do by himself is probably less usually than what they'll do together, which is why we have gang laws that are so stringent. Even now with the changes in gang laws that we've had recently, it's still punished more heavily because it is determined that they will act out in ways that are more extreme. And I think this is an example of that. You see them egging each

other on ready. You know, I mean, it's really sickening to watch. It's just awful. But I think that that is definitely the mentality. As for whether they wind up in adult court, I think it's a kind of a given. I think this is going to happen. I can't imagine they're going to try them as juveniles. I also can't imagine the prosecutor who wants to turn one against the other. You don't need to. And I've always hated the idea of that. Punish them both, get them both. If you don't absolutely have to do that, turn one to get the other, then don't. I'd rather take that chance because when they both really deserve it, it's tough to justify a deal. And especially in a case like this, where they seem very much to be equally guilty. So yeah, it's on tape. I mean, it's like we're both equally culpable. So I can't leave the case,

Mark, without discussing for a moment, the race angle. The two perpetrators are black. The man they killed was white. You and I both know if those races were reversed, this case and this videotape would be on loop on every cable station and television station in America. The left would be exploiting the racial divide to show us what a white supremacist country we have. But as it is, it has to be ignored, you know, because when the races are reversed, not only does it not really get covered, it gets completely ignored because they can't deal with that narrative. Well, there's, you know, the I don't necessarily disagree. I think that my experience, though, is that this kind of just stupidity or mental infirmity cuts across all races and all social classes.

It's common, unfortunately, or all too common amongst teenage youth. And I think that the studies that we both invoke are true. I mean, the brain just doesn't fully form and the impulse control doesn't fully form. Yeah, but 99% of teens don't do something like this, even though they have unformed brains. That's not the reason. And I, look, I don't disagree with you. And I, you know, the empathy is towards somebody,

as I said before, who's vintage as of mine and who's out there on the streets every morning. So I empathize. And at the same time, I don't know that there's any explanation for what gets exploited in the media and what doesn't get exploited in the media. All I know is- You don't? I do. I know exactly what the explanation is. I think we all know what the explanation is. But to Marsha's point about one on the other or turning one on the other, it never ceases to amaze me when prosecutors choose to do that. I sit there defending cases and wondering why it is that they picked one particular person who seems to me to be ostensibly or at least superficially just as culpable, if not more so, in order to roll over on somebody else. It's one of the kind of, I think, unsightly portions of the criminal justice system. Yeah, but they don't need it.

They don't need it. Neither one of these guys should get any breaks for cooperating. We don't need their cooperation. I'm on Team Marsha as usual, Mark. Okay, let's move on. Let's move on to Russell Brand because he's in a whole host of trouble dealing with a PR nightmare at a minimum that may be turning into a legal nightmare. So people know the story probably by now, but just in case you don't, three news organizations in the UK did a years long investigation into him. They found four women who as right now, as of now remain anonymous, but gave very, very specific accounts of him allegedly sexually assaulting. And in one case, raping them according to their allegations,

he vehemently denies them all though. Hasn't said much more since the details of the accusations have broken. Now we find out that the police over there in the UK are opening up an investigation. I want to get it correct. They have a specific unit, some extra tough unit who are that's working with Scotland Yard detectives investigating allegations against Russell Brand officers from Operation Hydrant, a specialist unit that was set up in 2014, supporting the Metropolitan Police with its investigation, urging anyone with allegations to speak to detectives. The reporters on the case say that women are coming forward to them, more new women day by day.

And I'm sure they'll have follow up reporting on this. But they say at least so far, one woman has allegedly additional woman has allegedly come forward to the sexual assault police officers and claims that there was a set. She was sexually assaulted by Brand back in 2003. I am trying to look for where that happened in London, in London, in Soho, in central London in 2003. So, I mean, it's 20 years ago. Can I just ask, I mean, it's, you know, I haven't been defending Russell Brand on this program. I've been saying, let's keep an open mind because it certainly sounds like these women have a lot of evidence. Maybe they're lying. We'll find out, you know, big, big celebrity. We'll find out.

But, you know, there's no reason to knee jerk, just say they're not telling the truth, as I've seen so many do. However, 20 years ago, very hard to defend against. You know, this is what we kind of saw in Kavanaugh, right? Justice Kavanaugh, Mark, where it was like, how's the guy supposed to produce his little, you know, schedule? He was such a timekeeper, but his schedule and his whereabouts and remember all the events 30 years ago. This is why we have statutes of limitation.

I don't know what they are in the UK for sexual assault or rape. But he's with respect to the criminal have one now in California, as Marcia knows, the look backagner, which involved the Catholic priest and the U.S. Supreme Court said you couldn't do it for criminal or reinvigorate a statute of limitations that are already expired. They left it open for civil. We're coming on the heels of the Danny Masterson second trial after a hung jury. We're coming on the heels of Kevin Spacey, both criminally and civilly, being accused, having the criminal dismissed and being vindicated in the civil. It's really a very tough situation to be in if you're the accused or defending the accused, because one of the things

that you do when you're defending people in these kinds of cases is you do a parallel investigation. You look for things that would corroborate, no, I didn't do it, no, I wasn't there, no, it was in real time, there was evidence that shows that there was no complaints. And those things and allow them to, at least who's defending them, to try to assemble and marshal whatever evidence they can and try to challenge these things. I would tell you that as reading it, I can already see where the defense is taking form. The things they're going to have to deal with is whether they're true or not, the text messages and things like that in real time that tend to at least support the accuser's idea that there was an immediate recognition in real time that he had crossed the line. That's a tough thing to have to deal with. Yes, that's a different case. Well, that's one of the four accusers who came forward to the news media quietly, anonymously, not the one who's actually appeared to have contacted the cops

right now, about 20 years earlier, one of the existing accusers. And that report says that I think it was 10 years ago, he sexually assaulted her in his apartment. They were dating. They had had consensual sex at least once prior. And she claims he wanted her to have a threesome. She said, no, there was another woman in the apartment. He threw her against the wall. He had his way with her. And she has contemporaneous text messages complaining loudly to him about that exchange. And then that same day, she went to a rape crisis center where she reportedly got counseling for the next five months. She gave over her underwear, Martha, to the rape crisis center and, um, you know, did all the things that you would expect a rape victim to do. Doesn't mean it was real. Doesn't mean she's got

text messages to him saying, how dare you? You scared the shit out of me. You're very scary. That look in your eyes. I've told you no, no means no. And him not saying, what are you saying? We had a consensual exchange. He's he's writing back. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me. But anyway, can we just go to so just to back up my my team just did a quick Google search and it says there is no statute of limitations in the UK for sexual assault. So they've made a decision over there to to force men to defend these claims whenever they arise. I'm thinking about can you imagine if I said to you like you got to go back 20 years and get your text messages? Your phone just erases them after a while.

I know the cloud keeps them for some time, but I don't think the cloud keeps them forever. So it's very hard to defend. It is. I mean, text messages can help. And I've actually seen a number of murder cases that are proven through, in part, text messages, proof of intent anyway, because they do try to delete. Even if you try to delete messages and message to everybody, deleting does not mean it's gone forever or even at all. And so it may come off your phone, but that becomes almost more proof of your intent. So text messages are a problem for the defense,

and they can be a really a boon for the prosecution. When it comes to the criminal prosecution of these cases that are so old, I don't know what actually happens. I mean, having no statute of limitations means that a woman can come forward at any time, and I'm all for letting the victims be heard, and I'm all for justice. And be heard and I'm all for justice and you know airing these allegations requiring the defense to come up with their side of the story but I'm also in favor of fairness here and it's a tough thing to defend when it's been 20 years since and there's no physical evidence to rely on text messages can certainly help. But I'm glad to see the women coming forward. I think I go beyond the criminal and I wonder, this is a man who's been working in the BBC and various other

locations that were public. And you're telling me that these places didn't know what he was doing. We all know his kind of reputation, the way he behaves. He's an outrageous kind of guy. And that he was running around after women, sexually harassing, possibly assaulting them. How could that not have been known to the BBC, Channel 4, etc.? They had to know this. The staffers knew it, getting complaints from them now. And they did nothing. And now they're cutting him off now. I mean, it's been 20 years that this has probably been going on. So I wonder where they were. Now, that's a civil matter, not criminal. The criminal cases, as you both noted, has its problems because of the age of the charges. But there's a whole bigger world to think about in terms of the workplace environment.

You know, what's crazy is it broke yesterday, Mark, that the UK government, first of all, the prime minister's office spoke out on this case. The prime minister sent a spokesperson out there to say, oh, a sexual assault is terrible. Any woman affected should speak out, including on the Russell Brand case. My God, what? Right. We just have allegations. We don't. He's he probably just hired a lawyer two minutes ago. And the UK Parliament is trying to get Russell Brand canceled everywhere. They've reached out, at least we know, to Rumble, I think also YouTube, to Twitter, you know, now X. Like they're they're trying to make sure that his revenue streams

are shut down. You could not do that in this country. Thank God that would be unconstitutional. I don't know if we couldn't do that in this country. Take a look at that Fifth Circuit opinion, which I'm sure you read. Yeah. As to what the White House was doing with. And it's not that they haven't tried. Right. Yeah. But you're not allowed to. Thank God. You know, the Fifth Circuit said, hello, that's not that's not appropriate and was really dystopian. The Fifth Circuit was alarmed at what this White House was doing on covid and so on. But it's amazing. Right. It's just like a gut check when you see the UK government actually reaching out to Rumble to say we want to make sure he's demonetized and that he's not. What are you, what, what? And thank God Rumble said, it's a no. It's really, we've reached a point here and I,

we find it, I find it at least doing this for almost 40 years, actually more than 40 years. I cannot believe the, the way that this becomes kind of a, um, uh, uh, snowball rolling down a hill. I was going to say something else and I stopped myself. But the problem that you face now is not only does it go from zero to 100 in time, in the amount of time that it takes to even sign a retainer agreement with somebody. But before you know it, it is just metastasized everywhere. And you're fighting a what used to be a battle that would be in a courtroom and maybe in print media, maybe in a couple of outlets, it now is everywhere. And it's a full scale attack on your ability to make money or to at least survive or your resources. I mean, people call it cancellation or cancel culture. I mean, it really is just a full scale assault. I mean, it's not

just to cancel you, it is to obliterate you. And that's a, it's a scary place, because I've invoked some of the people who end up getting exonerated. And it reminds me of that quote from, I think he was the former Labor, the head of the Department of Labor, Donovan, the original Ray Donovan, as I always say, who after he was acquitted, was on the steps of the courthouse saying, now, where do I go to get my reputation back? It's a very difficult thing. And you don't see people saying, I'm sorry, we jumped the gun later on or after the fact. You know, Marsha, I've been critical of Russell Brand. I think these allegations are so detailed that they really are troubling to me. And I will not be subscribing to Russell Brand's

Rumble channel at all. It's over for me. I'm out. I personally am demonetizing the Megyn Kelly dollars, which actually weren't there in the first place. But I don't want to see the guy's ability to make money or connect with his existing audience that feels differently than I do removed. Right. And that's that's where we are right now.

I mean, Rumble, thank God, was kind of born to fight back against this kind of madness. And they're they're holding true to their mission. But I do wonder, like, we don't know whether these cases are going to pan out. My my feeling is they're probably not going to go anywhere because the four main women don't seem to want anything done. They do not want their names dragged into this for all the obvious reasons. So Russell Brand, I don't he's in a tough position to rehabilitate himself, but I don't see many legal consequences coming his way. And they're really there'll be nothing for him to do to, quote, get his reputation back. People will be left with the original reports and they'll make up their minds one way or the other. True. And this kind of stuff really it always bothers me when you have allegations that can't be proven or disproven and then it just kind of hangs in the air. And, you know, if you're going to bring out this kind of Mark does, the notion that you have an accusation floating around.

It eventually is disproven. And then nobody reports on that. So you have this big accusation and it's very inflammatory and it gets lots of press. And at the end of the day, it kind of dribbles out and the press goes away. And the ultimate determination is it wasn't true, but nobody publicizes that. And I don't like that injustice. I don't like that unfairness. I also am not a fan of this kind of piling on where, okay, everybody run and cancel so-and-so. And so you have, as you've said in the UK, that's kind of surprising that you

actually have prime minister saying, you know, demonetize this guy. Do not put him on the air. Don't let him, you know, speak publicly. Now you're getting into free speech. Now you're getting into an area where you're not even allowing the accused to defend himself. So I like balance. I like fairness. I want the victims to be able to be heard. I want the defendant to have his say as well. I want us to be able to decide what we think and put our money accordingly into whether we want Rumble or whatever. If you want to listen to Russell Brand, you should be able to listen to him. No one's forcing you to subscribe to Rumble.

Nobody's forcing you to listen to his apology, but you should be able to if you want to. And I think that's where I draw the line. You know, everybody should be heard. Megan, for the very reason that you talked about the BBC knowing or Channel 4 knowing, that is the very reason why there are going to be civil lawsuits. There are going to be lawsuits that are going to attack the entities for not doing more or saying more or stopping. And that's where the immediate battlefield is going to be. There's definitely going to be more. But shouldn going to be more but shouldn't it be but shouldn't it be i mean to me that's the bigger and more

serious issue in in terms of what's really going to happen in litigation in terms of really you know airing the truth here on both sides is you know what was going on in these networks they're all piling on now where have you been so you you really telling me that you didn't know he was chasing women around the dressing room before exposing himself, doing whatever? This is not something that just happened yesterday. And you knew about it. So I want to see them held accountable. One of the allegations, Marcia, was that he took out like some sort of a Coke bottle or whatever and peed in it right in front of the staff. That's we exposed himself and urinated in front of his staff. So it's a problem.

And the minor. It's a problem. And the minor. Yeah, the minor is the one where he lost me. If that's true, if he had sex with a 16-year-old when he's 31, I couldn't care less whether it's legal. It's disgusting.

It's dishonorable. And it's over between the two of us. I wait to see what he has to say. If he doesn't deny that wholesale, I am done with this scumbag. That's where I am on it. But I'll say this. Now I understand the women's need for anonymity because 100% they're going to be raked over the coals if they come out, especially now he's very popular. He's got a very vocal base of fans. So I get their fear, but I was in a not totally dissimilar situation years ago when, you know, Roger Ailes was under question. Uh, they, they didn't, you know, an allegation

had been made against him. And the question was, is he this thing? Is he a sexual harasser? And I had information about that question. And I chose to speak to my boss, Lachlan Murdoch, about it. And then he asked me if I would speak with Paul Weiss, the lawyers who he got in to investigate. And I remember asking, will it become public? Like, will he know that I spoke to them? And he said, probably. And I talked to my own lawyer about it. And my lawyer said, he's going to know. And my lawyer said to me, this is my lawyer, said, and that's what's fair. He deserves to know who his accusers are. He deserves the chance to say, it's not true.

I didn't do it. Here's my proof that none of this is real. And even I, as somebody who felt like I was betraying a boss I cared about by this point, understood if I was going to make these allegations, I had to attach my name to them, that they're, you know, anonymity from him, from the press is a different story. Okay, whatever. But anonymity from him, that was not an okay place to land. He deserved the chance to hear. I was saying. That's a tribute to your lawyer, by the way. Yeah. Willis Goldsmith, Jones Day. He was my old boss.

And to you, Megan. Oh, thank you. It's to Megan for listening, and it's a tribute to the lawyer to understand that we have a system, and you get a presumption and you have to process as opposed to sometimes when you see lawyers who kind of are a cheerleader for the rush to judgment for lack of a better term and and do not counsel their client appropriately yeah you know one agenda and in that case marcia you you as like a prosecutor you would have been thrilled because they paul weiss they wanted all the evidence.

They came to my house. They came to my apartment and they wanted to see the jerk because I'm a journal keeper. And I had tons of entries from that time. It was a very unsteady period for me professionally. I was very scared about what know, trying to make a record to get him. And I did show them all the entries that revolved around Roger and they copied them and they took them. And that same lawyer at Jones Day, I had called him the moment after Roger. Now I've wrote about it, my book, whatever.

But he tried to kiss me three times in his office. And when I wouldn't let him have me asked, when is your contract up? And before I had even left the building, I called my lawyer and said, holy shit. So like I did make a record in any woman in this position should make a record. You know, it's not like it's going to sink you or not or sink him, but better to have it, Marsha, better to have it. Oh, for sure. You know, anything you can put together, you know, in the moment, you know, that's why we have fresh complaint witnesses here in the States with respect to all the, any kind of sexual assault charge. If you have someone that you spoke to immediately afterwards, while you're distraught, crying, in pain, whatever, that witness is a very

important corroboration, you know, who says within minutes or within an hour, she was on the phone to me and she was a wreck. These things are very helpful, a journal even more so, that, you know, showing that you wrote it down immediately shows that this was not just, oh, buyer's remorse, he wasn't nice to me the next day. You know, I mean, that shows the, you know, the authenticity of it. And I think it is brave of you to come forward when you know your job is on the line. You know, it's not only that, you know, you get your name pulled into something that is not pleasant, but it's also that your very career is in jeopardy as a result of coming forward. And that is what it takes, that kind of bravery, to hold someone accountable who is, you know, an assaulter, who is somebody, an attacker.

That's a dangerous person to have around. And it's bad for morale in general for everyone, but particularly for women. Well, and this one woman we talked about who went to the Rape Crisis Center did produce multiple female friends, I think, who she told about this immediately. What actually happened? That's to be explored. She says it was a rape. The text message exchange could lead one to say it was it was sex without a condom, which he very clearly had not consented to.

That also could be problematic legally. You know, we're down a deep, dark rabbit hole that I don't want anything to do. I just I'm over Russell Brand. I've heard enough to know I'm not his fan. Good enough. OK, next Next we're going to get into Kohlberger and Alec Murdoch. Don't go away more with Marsha and Mark right after this. There is an update in the Idaho quadruple murder case against Brian Kohlberger. A couple of them actually 48 hours did a good piece this past Saturday. Um, and, uh, Howard Bloom was them actually. 48 Hours did a good piece this past Saturday. And Howard Bloom was on there. He's the one who's been writing for Air Mail on this case. He was spent on this program, just very good reporting on the whole thing. But in any event,

there they spoke with the parents of Kaylee Gonzalez. And they came out to say, contrary to what we'd heard from the defense, who'd been saying there was no connection between Brian Kohlberger, who's been accused of the murders. They happened last November on the Idaho campus. He was at the neighboring campus, Washington state studying criminology. His lawyer says no connection between them. Um, they're saying there, there was a connection in that they've figured out he was following them on Instagram. So there's Kaylee Gonsalves and her best friend, Maddie Mogan. They were the two who were killed in the bed together. They were lifetime close best friends. And here's what

they said to CBS. They just told us the name and we immediately started Googling. They believed they had found a possible connection through Instagram and immediately took these screenshots. From our investigation of the account, it appeared to be the real Brian Koberger account. Among the people this account was following were Maddie Mogan and Kaylee Gonsalves, in addition to several people with the name Coburg. You would go to Maddie's Instagram account and look at her pictures and he liked them. Brian's name was under a lot of Maddie's pictures, like that picture and that picture and that picture and that picture. So he was actively looking at the Instagram account. And the importance of that is what? Just digital evidence that this particular account

had some type of connection with the victims. Marsha, it's very creepy, especially when you know he killed those two young women, allegedly, found them in the same room, in the same bed. They said that Maddie was on the outside, that Kaylee was on the inside, and that it looks like these girls had no chance. I mean, he basically snuck up on them in their sleep and they had very little chance, although Gonsalves tried to fight because it looks like her friend Maddie, who was on the outside,

was killed first. I mean, you just think about the terror that these poor two girls and the one knowing her best friend is being murdered next to her. So I do think that it matters that those were the two he was allegedly following online. What do you think? Yeah. Any connection you can show that somehow begins to explain why he wound up at that particular location in that room going after those particular women is going to be helpful because this is one of these bizarre, no motive, no obvious motive murders. And so anything you can show that shows a pre-existing attraction or interest in the victim is a connection that's a very important one. And I think that if this pans out and it turns out to be that the Instagram post that they're the handle that they're looking at is actually Kohlberger's, that will be some very important

evidence, I think, showing the connection. Do you agree? No, I was going to say Marcia hit the nail on the head if it pans out. I mean, number one, we don't know when it was that they saw this. We don't know. They took screenshots, which should suggest that it's no longer there. We don't know if it was his account. We don't know if there was somebody on the Internet forming an account or starting an account and then liking the pictures and then having the account removed later on, it wouldn't surprise me that that could happen. And I think you just got to wait and see

if this is in fact legit or not. All right, now this trial is supposed to begin October 2nd, you know, right around the corner, but it's now been delayed indefinitely. He's waived his right to a speedy trial. So he wants more time to prepare. But one of the things that's really interesting is they're debating whether there should be cameras in the courtroom. Marsha Clark of all days to have you. This is the day they the norm would be. Yes, they have them. That's why we've seen all the videotape of

Brian Kohlberger in the courtroom on his arraignment and so on. And, um, the defense Kohlberger is seeking to ban the cameras to stop the media. I mean, it's very strange. He's saying he, the media has been focusing on his crotch according to his lawyer. Okay. Um, they want the cameras banned and the prosecutor joined saying we too want the cameras banned. And the prosecutor joined saying we, too, want the cameras banned. But the families of the victims, at least the Gonsalves and the Cronutal families, say we want the cameras there. The public deserves to know, especially in a death penalty case, what the evidence is. So this was a post-trial discussion that I had with Fred Goldman, because I had been very opposed to having cameras in the courtroom. The downsides are huge. You know, the problem that you face,

of course, is that it turns into a circus. Now, in fairness, if you have a judge who knows how to keep the guardrails on, it can be fine. But if he doesn't, and he just lets the cameras, you know, be turned on 24-7, it's a nightmare. And you wind up having people come forward who just want the limelight and really have nothing to say. Or you have people that are afraid of the limelight and have something to say and don't want to come forward. You have lawyers who are stumping for camera time and FaceTime and extending things interminably with no real argument to make because they want to be famous. You have prosecutors who probably do the same thing. And in some instances, and you know,

you have a judge who sits down for a six part interview with the news anchor to talk about his life in his past. So I don't know where I pulled that one from. So I do. So I mean, it causes these kinds of distortions, and it does cause a circus. So, you mean, it causes these kinds of distortions and it does cause a circus. So, you know, I understand the problem. Fred Goldman said, and he changed my mind, but the world would never know what the evidence really was. The world would never know and bothered to read the newspapers after the fact about all of the evidence that we were able to produce. Huge, a huge, overwhelming amount of evidence of guilt. He was right.

You know, if you have these people moving around in the courtroom, people pay attention in a different way. So, you know, I've come down on the side of having a certain kind of thing where you allow the cameras in the courtroom when the jury is in the courtroom so that what is disseminated to the public

is what the jury sees. But when the jury is not there and you're having hearings about the evidence that should and should not come in, etc., that kind of thing, then you should not have cameras in the courtroom. You can have print reporters. That's fine. But having the cameras in the courtroom should be banned when the jury's not there. And with that kind of caveat, I think it's a good thing. Mark, the judge was looking at Marsha's most famous case, People v people versus OJ Simpson when she was the prosecutor and saying, um, whether having asking whether cameras in the courtroom is a dignified way to have a trial referring to the OJ Simpson

trial, calling it quote a circus, as she just said, and then adding, it's not the same media. It is now as it was 10 years ago, thanks to social media. So I don't know if that means the judge is leaning against having the cameras, but you can bet there's a bunch of news outlets in there arguing, oh no, the cameras need to stay. You know, it's so funny. As long as I've known Marsha, which I won't even say how long, I've never heard her talk about Fred Goldman's reaction to it.

Because I, during Peterson, Marsha and I sharing our notable cases here, I joined in the prosecution saying who did not want cameras in the courtroom. I have said to you, Megan, that was one of my biggest mistakes. I wanted the public to see what that trial looked like after the fact, because during the trial, I thought that there were people sitting in New York City commenting on that was one of the biggest mistakes I've made in that case.

I think that not having cameras in the courtroom. To your point, how is the judge taking this in Kohlberger? I think the judge is clearly leaning towards not having cameras in the courtroom because it's a lot to manage for a judicial officer. But just for the record, Scott Peterson was definitely guilty. Yeah, that's, you know, he mentioned social media. That is a fear because social media becomes kind of its own mouthpiece. And then it can be a very distorting mouthpiece.

So somebody repeats on social media, let's say their sub stack, your blog, whatever it might be, and puts out, this is what happened in court today, but it's not. And they don't get it right. And they don't necessarily understand what they're watching. And that creates a distortion that actually deserves the public. So there's that to worry about now that wasn't true in Simpson times or even Peterson times as much. I'll tell you, I've said this before recently, I watched quite a bit of the Paxton impeachment trial, which was televised. I mean, you couldn't, it wasn't being covered as extensively, I think, as you might have expected. But I thought it was fascinating to actually watch that because the way that trial was portrayed in the media and actually watching what happened on the floor of the Texas Senate, I thought there was a disconnect. And it was just wild to me to watch what was happening in social media versus what was actually happening on the floor of the Senate.

How did you think? I mean, he was acquitted. And I mean, maybe I just followed social media, but the social media I saw was like, his lawyers are crushing it. Did you think they did crush it? I mean, obviously he was acquitted. You've got a different feed than I do. So I'll give you that. My feed was not, obviously people who were not watching it because his lawyers were crushing it. Mind you, I know most of the lawyers involved in it was an all star cast of Texas legal luminaries. But the defense, I think, just decimated the prosecution in that case. I had clicked on just a couple of the cross examinations and they were effective.

Now, before we go, I got to touch on Murdoch. Alec Murdoch may get a new trial because the court clerk in the case is alleged to have messed with the jurors, telling them these are the allegations. Don't don't be fooled when Alec Murdoch takes the stand. Don't get drawn in. I mean, obviously blatantly inappropriate things. If in fact she did it, she was like this cheery court clerk who sort of became a star with a lawyer as well. Apparently she was a little too friendly, a little too close to the jurors, or so says the defense and a couple jurors who've signed sworn affidavits saying she did this stuff. Now you have the prosecution weighing in saying it's not true. They've apparently found some, I don't know, four other jurors who are now represented by this guy, Eric Bland, who's not a prosecutor in the case saying she was totally appropriate. That doesn't necessarily

mean she was not inappropriate with other jurors, but he may or may not get a new trial. So I'm wondering whether you think he will and will it be impacted the judge's decision by the fact that he just pleaded guilty to, I think, 22 federal charges in connection with his financial misdeeds. And they they each, I think, carry a maximum maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. So, I mean, does that make the judge say we're not we're not retrying this? Forget it. Or what? I don't know. You tell me quickly in the time we have, Marsha. Yeah, he may. I don't think so. I don't think that the charges have to do with fraud and defrauding his personal injury clients and probably commingling of funds, stealing from them, et cetera, but not murder. So it may not have an impact. We'll see. I mean, this is really we've got to see how these jurors at the Davis shakeout. It doesn't help that the clerk also wrote a book about the trial. So kind of inappropriate. Go ahead, Mark.

He's got it up to get a hearing. And then when somebody's under oath, we'll see what actually happens. I'm with Marsha, though. I'll tell you, the fact that she wrote a book, I think, gives a lot of people pause, especially when you're an elected clerk. And the fact to you, Megan, there is something maybe in the back of a judge's head that says they're going to, they're going to get a ton of years anyway. So what the heck, I might as well do the hearing. Yeah, exactly. So it's like, this guy's going to jail forever. Might as well look like I'm fair, give him the hearing and then let it be somebody else's problem. Mark, Marcia, so good to see you. Thank you both so much for being here. Always a pleasure. Thank you. All right.

Now I want to tell the audience before we go, big guest tomorrow. So excited to welcome back to the program, Dan Fongino. Yes. Can't wait for that discussion. What a week. Hope you'll join us.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.