The Megyn Kelly Show - Dems Struggle to Connect with Men, and Diddy's Former Assistant Speaks, with Batya Ungar-Sargon, Viva Frei, and Phil Holloway | Ep. 1081

Episode Date: May 27, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Batya Ungar-Sargon, 2Way host and author of "Second Class," to discuss President Trump fighting Gov. Gavin Newsom on the issue of men and boys playing in female sports, how the elites who pushed the radical trans ideology are losing, Trump’s effect on bringing the working class over to the GOP, how predominantly Latino and black counties are shifting red, the "triple trending" counties trend that should worry Democrats, how Democrats are spending millions to study "syntax" so they can learn how to talk to men, their attempt to demonize masculinity that has backfired, and more. Then attorneys Viva Frei and Phil Holloway join to discuss the shocking testimony from Diddy’s former longtime assistant today, the disturbing violence she says she witnessed while working for him and alarming behavior, whether the prosecution is proving its case of criminality, why Diddy may get convicted on lesser charges, how the Diddy defense team is attempting to undermine the witnesses, the new details of the Bryan Kohberger case revealed in the latest episode of Dateline, whether the revelations might delay the trial, who could have leaked the info to Dateline, Taylor Swift's involvement in the Baldoni-Lively case, and more.Holloway- https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsqFrei- https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/Ungar-Sargon- https://www.amazon.com/Second-Class-Betrayed-Americas-Working/dp/1641773618Everglades Foundation: Learn more about President Trump’s Everglades support project at https://www.EvergladesFoundation.orgByrna: Go to https://Byrna.com and order their all new Compact Launcher.Hungryroot: https://Hungryroot.com/MK | Get 40% off your first box PLUS a free item in every box for life!Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I hope everyone had a nice Memorial Day weekend with your friends and your families. Loved the feedback to our show yesterday. It was a new show. We taped it the previous week with the sheriff of Baghdad, John McPhee. Can I just tell you, the feedback on this was so great. Keep it coming. Thank you. I did, as I often do, went on YouTube and I was scrolling through some of the comments and I loved them. Somebody said, John McPhee is the break glass in case of emergency guy. That's what you say sitting there when you break it. Totally agree. Somebody said he's equal parts adorable and terrifying. I totally agree with that too. I have never interviewed somebody like him and I absolutely

adored him. When it was over, this is for our listening audience who didn't listen to this yesterday. It's only like an hour long and it's highly entertaining. He is a fascinating dude. He was a ranger, special forces, fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, large portions of it by himself, which is part of what we got into. Crazy childhood, which in an inadvertent way, I think, led to this warrior that we now know. I don't know if he could be John McPhee, special forces, if he weren't John McPhee, only kid in South Chicago who was white and was on a bus every morning getting the shit kicked out of him. Just a fascinating guy. And then went on to serve our country honorably and has a totally different way of looking at his service as a warrior.

Just all of it was so fascinating. And then when it was over, um, he was, he was adorable. Like he was at parts terror and like, I wasn't terrified of him, but I was terrified for our enemy in a good way. Um, and he gave me a bag of goodies. That was great. It has all this like stuff that can kill people. I was like, terrific. This is so fun. It's got a bunch of stuff for my AR-15, which I'm definitely going to have to get now. Anyway, I loved him, and I think you guys are going to love the 55 minutes that he and I spent together. So check it out when you have a minute. Okay, but let's get to the news today. There's a lot of it. The New York Times reporting that

the Democratic Party has so far spent $20 million to try to figure out how to speak to men. I kid you not. The plan, it has its own code name. It's called SAM, Speaking with American Men. They had to come up with a code and a code name and a plan, and they needed $20 million to figure out how to just talk to them. Because they're still sitting in a room being like, why didn't the Tim Walz camo hat work? I don't get it. Plus, President Trump fires a new warning at California Governor Gavin Newsom over biological males in girls' sports. You know, I was so annoyed after we ended our show on Thursday, was it? I don't know. It was the Thursday or Friday about what's happening with the biological males out there.

And this AB, uh, Fernandez, who's, who is winning all the girls medals, Hernandez. And, um, I just did like a personal plea to people and got, got a lot of great feedback on it. So thank you for watching that. But then I took it to Twitter and on X, I addressed Gavin Newsom personally. He follows me. So I tagged him and just, I'm going to be honest. I begged, I begged him, begged him to please stop this for all the reasons stated on our YouTube feed. And he didn't get back to me. But I think I was shooting at the wrong public official who follows me because President Trump is so fearless in this battle. And President Trump, I mean, Gavin Newsom ignored me, but President Trump took up the mantle. Big Daddy got out there with his bazooka and was like, I solved this problem and you governors better freaking go along or you're going to get it.

And I'm not kidding around. I'll read you what he what he posted. Stand by. It's amazing. Okay. He posts the following. California, under the leadership of radical left Democrat Gavin Newsom, continues to illegally allow men to play in women's sports. This week, a transition male athlete, meaning a male pretending to be a female, at a major event won everything and is now qualified to compete in the state finals next weekend. As a male, he was a less-than-average competitor. All true. As a female, this transition person is practically unbeatable. This is not fair and totally demeaning to women and girls.

Please be hereby advised that large-scale federal funding will be held back, maybe permanently, if the executive order on this subject matter is not adhered to. The governor himself said it is unfair. I will speak to him today to find out which way he wants to go. Three question marks. In the meantime, I am ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow the transition person to compete in the state finals. This is a totally ridiculous situation. God bless you, President Trump. God bless you. We've never had a president this strong on this issue. We've only had presidents who are bending the knee. And when peak wokeism hit under Joe Biden, I mean, he was just totally out to lunch. He was having trannies showing their fake boobs on the White House lawn.

He was not on the team of reality, sanity or wellness, like in any way. That's what we're going to start today with Batya Angar Sargan. She's a free press columnist and author of the book Second Class, How Elites Betrayed America's Working Men and Women. Since President Trump's election, the eyes of the nation have been on Mar-a-Lago and the free state of Florida. It's a thriving, booming place. South Florida is a special place too because of its amazing water. It's so blue and clean and gorgeous. They boat, they swim, they fish, they drink. Today, that clean water, well, sadly, it's endangered by toxic algae. Did you know that? You may have heard of red tide or blue-green algae. Well, it can be dangerous and

it can be gross. In his first term, President Trump signed a law to solve this problem with a new reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee to keep clean, fresh water flowing constantly to South Florida. President Trump said after years of rebuilding other nations, we're finally rebuilding our own. Washington can finish the job in next year's budget and keep President Trump's promise. The Everglades Foundation, our advertiser, says that would be very good for Florida and good for the Everglades. Learn more about President Trump's Everglades support project at evergladesfoundation.org. Batya, welcome back. And so it's like Trump comes in there with the bazooka, right? Like, you know what? You're going to lose everything.

You're going to lose all your federal funding. I issued an executive order and I expect you to comply. I love what a fighter he is. Your thoughts on this now reemerging chapter in what's becoming a very old story. Thank you so much for having me, Megan. And I have to tell you, my YouTube algorithm knows that when new episodes of With Love, Megan come out, there is nothing I click faster on on this planet than your amazing show with Maureen. I'm sure your listeners and viewers are all watching it as fast as I am, but it is so incredible. You're just doing amazing things on so many fronts. So thank you for that, for the information, for the joy and for everything. Very welcome.

This is such an important moment because it's not even just with this. I can't remember the last time a president felt this strongly about anything, right? Forget about the things I care about. Donald Trump has a theory of the case, how to protect and defend this country, the values that it was founded on, the working class, women, gay people. I mean, everybody who's being impacted by the trans insanity. And it gets back to the Democrats' problems with men. You know, I think a lot of people are probably wondering, you know, we know that trans athletes in women's sports is unbelievably unpopular. It's not even an 80-20 issue. I believe the latest numbers are 86% of Americans oppose trans athletes

in women's sports. So how do we end up with an entire political party devoted to protecting that? And this is basically what happens when your entire identity and your entire moral system was built for you at a place like Harvard or some other elite institution where your whole identity is built around the idea that you are better than the average American. You are more virtuous and smarter and more credentialed and more deserving than the working class people who work much harder than you. And if you are a person like that in the top 10%, top 15%, what happens to you when suddenly the average American is no longer racist, but actually wants Dr. King's vision. What happens to you when the average American, including the average Republican, now wants every gay person

to live in dignity and wants women to have the ability to really thrive and shine? What gives you the right to feel like you're better than everybody else? Well, Megan, they move the goal post. So that's how you end up with a left that doesn't want Dr. King's vision where everyone is treated equally, but wants to see every white person as inherently racist. That's how you end up in a system not where the left is pushing for equality for everybody,

for gay people included, for women, but a situation in which they want to turn on all those values and say, no, this trans person's rights should outweigh every woman they ever compete against, all of the girls, right? I mean, that's effectively what happened. The left moved the goalpost because the average American was somebody that we could all be proud of. This country finally arrived at the place that the founders wanted it to be, that Dr. all be proud of. This country finally arrived at the place that the founders wanted it to be, that Dr. King was pushing for.

And what Donald Trump did was he realized this. He realized that the platform that the Democrats had used to win for 100 years, which came out of a respect for the average American, a respect for religious people, a respect for labor, a love of the American people rather than a contempt for them and a hatred of them, that that platform had been left on the table. And so everything we're seeing now with the Democrats basically floundering is because he sort of kicked them off of the board by simply loving the American people when their entire identity was

built around the view that they are better than the average person. Oh, gosh, it's so good. I love hearing you talk about that, this issue. I'm going to go with that. But before we before I do, let me just show this soundbite. This A.B. Hernandez is headed to win states, as Trump points out, and no one's stopping him. And his mother's at every meet cheering him on as though he's a girl, as though he deserves his spot at the top of the podium. Recently, when he won this past weekend, the third place finisher chose not to show up. And by the way, as he barrels towards States and the championships, uh, it's, I don't blame the third place girl for not showing up. You can see for the listening audience, he's on

podium. Number one, the girl who came in second, who's actually the winner, uh, is on number two and number three is not on there. Uh, didn't show up. And it doesn't look like, I can't tell where the four and five are there either, but somebody has written XX over the girl in the number two spot, who's really the winner and XY over Hernandez. And, um, so it's, I don't blame the third place, uh, person for not actually posing for the photo because our listening audience wrote in, cause they're very fired up about this too. A A lot of Californians saying if you're third, you don't make it to states like it's one and two will go because of the way that the rules out in California work. But number three should be going. But she's not going because a boy is going in her stead and will probably win. And here is even in California, leftist,

woke, progressive California. It's got to be one of, if not the most progressive state in the union. One of the moms out there confronted the mom of A.B. Hernandez, who just is absolutely loving seeing her son steal all of the medals. So take a listen here. I'm going to listen. I don't have to. I have a right to speak truth. Boys and girls are girls this guy did not belong competing against those girls period what a coward of a woman you are allowing that what a coward of a woman telling our women telling girls to go and compete against a boy how embarrassing how would mother you're a mother stand up like a mother i am a mother

i'm protecting girls you want a boy how I am a mother. I'm protecting girls. You want a boy. How many people support the boy competing against the girls? Nobody. Don't tell me to shut up. I was respectful to you. Okay. No, girl. We are the ones that need a real mom.

You're a coward. Your mental illness is on your side. I'm sorry, but there's a sea change underway. And it's not just in the numbers that you mentioned. It's reflected in moments like that, where on the site, people are feeling, I hate this term, but I'm going to use it, righteous anger over what they're witnessing. There was, this is from March, but you can feel it here too. He did the triple jump as a girl, again, proposing as a girl, and he's crushing them. He's a boy. His wingspan is different. His leg span is different. His ability to jump, his height, all of it is so much different and advantaged versus girls. And just listen to the crowd as he jumps. It's only 10 seconds long. Stop two.

That's just wrong. That's just wrong. What somebody said, the girls aren't even coming close to him, but yeah, not even close. It's so hard to watch and really God bless you, Megan, for putting this on the agenda and for getting through to the president, although I think he does feel this very deeply. What's so funny is someone like me, who was always on the left, a feminist and what have you, I remember after the Me Too movement thinking like, well, we kind of like, you know, OK, do we really still need feminism at this point? Certainly in the workforce, women seem to have even more power than men because there was this sea change and this culture in which men were certainly very afraid of getting on the wrong side of that movement and the energy

that came out of it. And now it's so amazing to see it's not even just the right, but it's just the average American realizing that there is a threat to women. And it's coming from the left, from these vanity morals that people who have had every advantage and every privilege are now effectively saying to people who have much less than them, sorry, you don't come first. We have another, you know, victim group that we're going to cater to. And they are going to be the people who deserve everything and get everything. And it's just, you hear the pain in that mother's voice, who, you know, you could tell the way she's talking. This is not her natural, you know, way of speaking to somebody, addressing somebody, her personality.

But she's just so devastated. It is so unfair. And I think, you know, fairness is something that for the American people is extremely important. I think it's why, you know, in a conversation like about Medicaid and work requirements, you know, it's why work requirements for able-bodied men who don't have any dependents, which is, you know, what the bill is sort of pushing to introduce. This is the kind of thing that normal people would say, well, obviously, like, why is it fair for somebody to just decide they're not going to work? And that fairness principle here is a very unifying one. And once again, the Democratic Party in its entirety pretty much is on the wrong side of 86% of Americans. Well, it's so interesting because they're not actually, but they're pretending they are and

they're voting like they are. It's crazy because they know those stats that you just rattled off. They know what the polls say. They're just freaking terrified. They're terrified of their farthest left flank coming back to call them all bigots. And they should spend $20 million on how to shore up their spines against that, and they might win back some voters. And by the way, I know that a lot of these leftists listen to this show, especially politicians now, because they're trying to figure out how to message more accurately to reach wide swaths of voters. And they should listen to me. Stop with your wasted $20 million on how to talk to men. If you can get this issue right,

you actually might earn back some voters. Because if you don't get this, then you're too far left. You're too crazy for anybody to vote for. And the sports issue really does encapsulate a lot. But you're losing people. The whole trans lobby is not the place to plant your flag. Okay. There was this other, um, video that hit this weekend. This is of some influencers, a trans influencer who goes by Lily Tino and Lily, who's a man loves to go to places and get misgendered, which is not the right word. Gets accurately gendered as a man and then pretends to be a victim and asks for donations and wants, you know, all sorts of attention. When you look up this guy's name, he goes to these restaurants. He wants, he waits to be misgendered. We've definitely shown video of him in the past. And he kind of sets people up to call

him sir, which is a natural instinct when you look at him and then plays the victim. But this is who's parading around, who the Democrats, this is the hill they want to die on. Let's watch. He's at Disney. That is fancy looking. Cool. The bottom is from Thailand. Coconut bread from Thailand. Yes, cool. Ma'am. My bad, sir. It just like totally sucks the joy out of this bread tower. It makes me want to immediately like leave because I no longer feel like safe here. It's like, oh, my guard now has to be up. I'm not going to enjoy this bread as much because my guard is up.

We should be able to go places and not have to worry. I don't think I really want this bread tower, actually. I think I'd rather have to check if that's okay. I think that's the training. You're supposed to say friend or just not use gender language check if that's okay. I think that's the training. You're supposed to say friend or just not use gender language. It's like a pretty big thing that Disney has done. Nothing was wrong with bread.

I just don't want it anymore. Just because they apologize doesn't mean she doesn't feel sad or offended. Yeah. Exactly, right? Like, do you accidentally ever hurt someone and say, I'm so sorry, it was an accident? Do you expect them to be like, oh, it was an accident? Of course. No problem whatsoever. All of that hurt is now undone. That's not how it works. I'd love to pay for the drink, please.

We get it. This is a freak. I'm sorry. This is a man wearing a woman's like little Disney costume with little blue straps, spaghetti straps, almost for the listening audience with a bear arms and sort of a chest exposed and I guess fake boobs and like a mini mouse ear situation via a headband up above him. And that was his voice. You're hearing his voice and he's upset that somebody misgendered him. Literally nobody in this listening audience thinks they just heard a woman speaking. But when your natural instincts, pronouns are rehypnol, pronouns are rehypnol, pronouns are rehypnol, they want us to dull them. They want us to give our natural instincts rehypnol, the date rape drug, which dulls our senses so that we won't act on all of our instincts

telling us this is a man and say, sir, that we will dull them. We will go along with the lie and we will say, ma'amam and she and play along to the point where there, there is no much more women. There's no such thing as women anymore. I'm sorry, but these two issues go hand in hand. You can, you know, not you, Batia, but like others can try to make it just about female sports as much as they want, which is a huge issue, but it goes well beyond female sports. It speaks to the erasure of women and men who want to cosplay as women, which is not possible. You may be unwell, but putting on a dress does not make you a woman. I am not a dress. You, Batya, are not a dress or a bunch of fake inserts in a bra. And it is demeaning to us as a sex to pretend otherwise.

I think what bothers me the most about that clip is that in a healthy society, that clip would be recognized as a person with a lot of mental health issues, bullying a waiter, bullying a working class person who really needs that job and is now gonna get written up because they were being polite

to a mentally unwell person. That is how a healthy society that cares about the vulnerable would have read that scene. And anybody who sees in that the opposite is participating in this mass psychosis, this mass delusion. If you are trying to get a waiter fired at Disney, you've lost the plot. And yet there are many people in power in the Democratic Party who, you're right, Megan, they don't really believe this, but they will act like that mentally ill person in that video trying to get a waiter fired who needs that job is the victim there.

And I got to say on Gavin Newsom, this is what bothers me the most. He will actually go out there and say, oh yeah, we went too far on the trans thing. Or like, oh yeah, he'll go on to Charlie Kirk. Exactly. And he'll say the right things, but then when it comes to the actual power he wields, he will do nothing. So he wants the plaudits from the right. He wants to be seen as the moderate, but at zero cost to himself and in a way that only helps him and doesn't help any of the actual women or waiters who are being bullied and abused in this manner. And I think that fundamentally is the problem at the core of the Democratic Party right now,

is they desperately want power back, the Democratic Party right now is they desperately want power back, but they have no idea what they want to do with it. They have nothing to offer the American people. They don't want the power back to make the country better because they have no theory of the case of how to do that. They don't know what they seem to be kicking around is like, how can we hide our real instincts long enough to get into power and unleash our full freak flag selves? So the Democrats want to look at that man and say it's a woman, not even just a trans woman, a woman. Trans women are women. That's it.

That's the tweet. We've seen that a million times from these lefties. It's a lie. Every word of it is a lie, but they want to look at that man and say, that's a woman. And that that woman quote unquote can, can chest feed her baby, which she will adopt. And then this innocent child will come from an actual woman and be handed over to a man like that, a very ill, sick man, obviously. And that if we don't like it, we're bigots. And then that man, if he wants to run in our daughter's race or swim in her pool and see her in the locker room, totally undressed,

that's fine. And we need to like it or there's something wrong with us. And then those same Democrats who are going to endorse all of that are going to spend $20 million to figure out why men don't like them, why men won't vote Democrat anymore. This is just one of the many issues, but it's, it's an utter waste of money. Um, so before I get to that though, let's just talk about what you're saying about Trump and how the Democrat party has lost working lost working class voters entirely. Very interesting piece in the New York Times by Shane Golmacher over the weekend. It was on Sunday. How Donald Trump has remade America's political landscape. And here are a couple highlights from it. One of the clearest way to see how he's transformed the political landscape is to look at what we're

calling the triple trending counties in America. Those that have steadily marched in each party's direction in the Trump era. The results are stark. All told, Trump has improved every single election in 1,433 of the nation's 3,100 counties, even as he lost in 2020. He was improving his margin in these 1,400 counties, almost half of the counties. Democrats have expanded their vote share continuously in 57 counties. So Trump has done steadily better in 1433, the Democrats in 57. Look at all this red for the listening audience. It's a map of the United States covered in red. Just you take a red can of paint and you throw it at an empty map of the U.S. and you'll see that. The blue looks like a couple of chicken scratches that like if you gave a rodent and told it to run across the United States and make a mark wherever it could, you might you might get the same result. Like I can count the number of blues I'm looking at. And it's just a couple of the fourteen hundred thirty33 triple-trending Trump counties, only three had a median household income above $100,000. Only three.

It was the opposite for the Democrats. 18 of the 57 triple-trending Dem counties had an income over $100,000. And in not one of the triple trending Trump counties did a majority of adults have a college degree. The opposite is the truth for the Democrats. Trump has entirely remade the Republican Party into the party of the working class. And the Democrats are throwing money at how to speak to men. It's so amazing. And not just because a lot of the journalists sharing this article were the people who tried to cancel me for saying this exact thing in 2020. So if you knew this five years ago, it was a cancelable offense. Now they're finally coming around and admitting it. And the maps there, I really encourage people to look at them. The three categories that were most represented in these triple counties that have been moving

towards the right, towards the Republican Party under Trump, are Blacks, Hispanics, and as you said, Megan, people making under $100,000 a year. This used to be the Democrats' stronghold because that is the working class right there. And when Trump first won in 2016, they said, oh, he won the white working class. But the trend had already started. Donald Trump, they call him divisive. the elites and the multiracial American working class who are very united around the things that Donald Trump is offering, which is socially moderate positions on social issues, anti-war on foreign policy, and protectionism when it comes to economic policy. A real idea, a theory of the

case for how to actually improve the lots of the working class, not the elites. And this is the real reason that I believe the Democrats hate him with so much gusto is because he was the first president in 60 years to improve the lot of the working class more than he improved the lot of the elites. And in the last hundred days, you have seen that on steroids. This man is laser focused on how to improve the lot of the working class. And this is why I think it's really important that they take seriously this idea

that the president has floated to raise taxes on the rich, not just because this is wildly popular with the working class. It's also very popular with Republican voters. And my God, Megan, can you imagine making every single Democratic politician vote against raising taxes on the rich because it was Donald Trump who proposed it? This would help balance the budget and it would signal the truth. I don't agree with that. I don't know. I don't think it would help balance the balance. I really don't. I'm old school Republican on this issue.

The so-called rich are the job creators and the small businesses who file and look like individuals in their filing and they get pinched. I mean, I'm one of them. I have a small business and if my taxes get raised by 5% on top of what they already are, somebody's probably going to lose a job or somebody's not going to get hired for a job. And I'm just one small business owner. But my brother, he runs a, like a, he just sold it, but he had an engine company down in Atlanta and he got hit repeatedly. And every time, you know, the business owner is not going to take it on the bottom line.

They're going to lay people off or they're not going to hire. And we've seen it time and time again. That's why these Republicans are giving Trump a hard time. I know it sounds good on paper. I know tax the rich is favorable. But what you're really talking about is taxing the job creators and they will they will not be the ones to bear the cost. Well, I think they should keep lowering the corporate tax rate. So for businesses, the business itself, which is hiring people and giving people jobs, that should be, I think, as Trump was saying, anybody who's doing that 39 percent. You know, the idea that this is not something that a party devoted to the well-being of the working class should consider seriously. I think it doesn't really it's not the kind of it's the kind of thing that maybe it gives

Democrats certainly ammunition to further the lie that Trump and the GOP are not serious about this as an agenda. I mean, I agree with that. Politically, it sounds great to tax the rich, but it's just not. I mean, the rich already pay the vast majority of taxes. They pay the 1% pays almost the vast, almost all taxes in this country. The top 10% do pay all of the taxes. And it's like, okay, this sounds like 37 to 39, but really on top of that, plus your state taxes, you're pushing over up to 55 percent potentially of your of your income. And the people who get pinched are the people who generally have like a salary paid to them. People like Trump who are real estate barons who know how to hide money and claim losses that may or may not exist. They don't pay it. I spoke with this big real estate baron in New York City a couple of years ago, not Trump, who said he's never paid taxes in his life. He's never had to because they have these portfolios that can move it around,

these alleged losses. So it looks like they didn't earn anything when they did. But it's people who get a hefty paycheck through their own hard work who have to pay up, you know, upwards of 55% in taxes who get pinched when you do that. And it's just like, do you want to talk about fairness? It's like those people tend to be very hardworking people. They, why should they have to pay another two to 3% of their income to support people like the Medicaid guy you just mentioned, who is just sucking up the government dole, not fucking working like no, you know? So I will make the defense of the so-called rich because they already pay so much and not one of us wants to entrust government with more of our money. And I don't care whether it's Trump,

Biden, J.D. Vance or Rahm Emanuel. That's how I feel. I hear that. I have been talking to a lot of people and I think this is really influenced my thinking on it. Working class people like truck drivers and janitors and people who stock shelves for a living who have been very supportive of the president's tariffs agenda. And when I say that, well, what if it raises prices? What they'll say to me is this one truck driver said so eloquently. He said, wait, so you're telling me that I'll pay a little bit more for things now, but my children will have a better future, better job options, be able to achieve the American dream in a way that I couldn't. And you think I'm going to turn that down? My whole life is about sacrificing for my children. And I hear this so often from people who have so little.

And so I think this is really what Trump is pushing is this idea that we're kind of all in this together. And I just feel that often the people with the least are asked to sacrifice the most. And I hear you. But my own take on it is, yes, we are all in this together. And, you know, I didn't do a Dave Portnoy. But if you look at my stock portfolio and saw what I lost when Trump did the tariffs, your jaw would drop. I mean, it was millions, millions, millions of dollars. But I sat on the air then and I say again now, like, I just don't look at it. I try not to look at it. My husband looks at it.

He knows what the numbers are. And if you don't sell that, you haven't lost anything. Right. But I'm just saying, like, those people will lose a lot and they'll lose less than somebody who's working class will lose. But we do have to find a way that all of this is not a way of saying we don't have to help the working class. We do. That's why I'm in favor of things like no taxes on tips. And I'm actually pretty warm to the tariff idea too. And I understand that can come back as a tax. Most Americans oppose a sales tax. This can in effect be a sales tax,

but it's up at least the consumer about whether he or she wants to consume, uh, with prices potentially elevated for the good of the long haul. In any event, um, I didn't mean for this to side rail into a tax discussion. I just, it's been, it's in the news, so it's on my mind. Um, but I do want to get to the, the, uh, what the Democrats are doing now because they really have no idea. They don't understand any of this. They don't get why they've lost the working class. They just think it's a guy, a guy thing, by the way, they've lost working class women too, that no one in the working class is voting Democrat anymore. So yes, they have a male issue, but it's, it's separate and apart from their working class issue because rich men don't like them. Poor men don't

like them. Middle class men don't like them. Only the super high educated rich men are voting Democrat. Okay, so here's their handbook on men. Same reporter, Shane Goldmacher. The headline, six months later, Democrats are still searching for the path forward. They start off with this opening. One longtime Democratic researcher has a technique she leans on when nudging voters to share their deepest, darkest feelings about politics. She asked them to compare America's two major parties to animals. After around 250 focus groups of swing voters, a few patterns have emerged. stand there and you see the car coming, but you're going to keep standing there and get hit with it anyway.

Okay, they go on to talk about what the Dems are now doing. They've gathered at luxury hotels, to discuss how to win back the working class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places. The luxury hotel they recently gathered at in February was the Lansdowne Resort in Leesburg, Virginia. It's nestled into 500 acres overlooking the picturesque Potomac River. 45 holes of championship golf, water sports, tennis, and the 12,000 square foot spa Mineral, which offers an enriching restorative environment that emphasizes wellness and a deep connection to nature. That's how they're going to try to win back their working class by their, their luxury retreat

with their enriching, restorative environment, emphasizing wellness and a deep connection to nature. Um, the prospectus for one new $20 million effort obtained by the times aims to reverse the erosion of Democrat support among young men, especially online. Codename SAM, short for Speaking with American Men, a strategic plan. It promises investment to, quote, study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces. They're going to study the syntax, Fatia, and Bob's your uncle in the midterms in 2028. What do you make of it? It's just too good to be true. It reminds me of the DNC where you literally had millionaires sitting in like the box seats looking down on, you know, the regular people. And then, of course, the stage was just a parade of multimillionaire after multimillionaire after multimillionaire talking about their joy. And it was like, let them eat the joy of Oprah Winfrey, right? Like,

this is what working class people are supposed to put in their chicken pot at the end of the day. These people have no idea what regular people sound like, no idea what their concerns are. And I just keep coming back to it stems from contempt. They do not love the American people, but they believe they have the right to rule over them because but the power is very self-serving. It's just because they believe they should be in that position. They have no idea what to do with it. And so they have no idea what to offer the American people to get elected. And honestly, it is very, very simple. It doesn't cost $20 million. I'll tell it to them for free. Like if you moderate on immigration, you moderate on trans issues, you just get back to the center, you embrace tariffs, because that is what working people like because it reshores manufacturing, you will be, you know, cooking again, it's so obvious, but their donor

class, and their activist class, who they are all terrified of, are on the totally wrong side of all of this stuff. They support open borders, environmental extremism, trans extremism. And so because they cannot bear to say no to the people they're terrified of, they end up wanting to trick working class people or men into giving them power again so they can keep pleasing the elites in the donor class and in the activist class rather than loving the American people, which is honestly, that is Donald Trump's secret sauce. He loves the people and he wants to give them what they want. Yeah. And he's been a player in this rigged system for a long time when he knows exactly how it's done, which is why people trust him. He owned that both times He owned that all three times he ran and seemed to have an authentic message around it, which is like,

I've paid them all. I know how this works, but I'll be in there beholden to no one. Chris Arnott, who's been on this show, he worked on Wall Street for 20 years, and then he decided to kind of chuck it and begin traveling and to try to better understand the country. It's a great story. He reacted to this story online with a great post saying like in the first person heading to the local twin peaks, going to ask around, uh, of the men, what syntax language and content gets your attention until I get punched out. What syntax gets your attention here? He was when he came on the show, just by way of context on somebody who actually has made the effort to understand the working class like yourself, who's written a whole book about it. And what his messaging was,

they should spend some time with you. They should spend some time with Chris Arnott. Here he is. Listen. The only answer they ever have is the old, you know, learn to code or move. We've destroyed your community. We shipped your jobs overseas. Then we tell them, oh, I'm sorry. I guess just now that your drug town is filling up with drugs and despair, I guess just move or learn to code.

And that's extraordinarily offensive. Place matters to people. It's some of the few things they have that really, you know, it's meaningful to them in a way that's not meaningful to the front row. Forcing people to become economic migrants in their own country because the policies that benefit the wealthy, that's just offensive. And so, you know, the other solution is, you know, just get more education. And, you know is, you know, just get more education. And, you know, not everybody wants to just get more education. It's not, it's not how everybody thinks is that we should just, you know, be careerists running around building resumes.

Some people just want to live life and, you know, and define themselves through things like family, faith, and nation. It's so refreshing to hear it said so clearly. I don't know that the Democrat Party can get back to that. They've run so far afield. Yeah. And if somebody was going to pick up the mantle, now would be the moment. Chris Zarnotti is amazing. I call him the Rebbe, which in Hebrew means like, you know, the one who influences in a positive way, who you look up to as a teacher. He's so incredible. And his book, Dignity, is so beautiful. And he really got there even before I did and was canceled for it even before I was. There's a lot of people like him and me who were trying very lovingly from within the left to say, guys, you're missing the real

story. Like, this country is not a white supremacy anymore. It's a country with a huge class divide between the elites and the working class. And we shouldn't be talking about working class people with contempt. We should be talking about them with respect and gratitude and making sure that they can achieve the most modest version of the American dream, stuff that we take for granted in the elites. And they just did not want to hear it. And it's a really good question. Can they pull it back? And I think even someone like Ro Khanna, for example, who will often say really smart things about economic populism from the left, like he's given Trump like a fair shot. He's less aggressive. And then he'll turn around and on

trans be completely insane. Or you'll have other. What happened to Seth Moulton. Seth Moulton came out. Exactly. It's not fair what's happening to the girls from Massachusetts. I don't want my daughters playing against boys. Then he got rained down on by the left and quickly changed. Never mind. That's not my issue anymore. Forget it. Just kidding. Just kidding. Right. And, you know, on the men thing, it's like when I first read this story, you know, my first instinct was you mean to tell me that calling young men rapists for 10 years didn't drive them into your arms and into your party? Or I'm just going to say it, putting like enormously obese women on the cover of Sports Illustrated or men posing as women on the cover of Sports Illustrated, like, or 80-year-old women. I'm sorry, like, there's just like an attempt to denormalize being a red-blooded American male. Yeah, exactly. And of course, you can't have a functioning society without a healthy respect

for masculinity. I mean, it's like, what are women supposed to do? Like, women also want men to be like that. And I think that's where you're seeing the sort of the normie, the erosion of normie support, like normal ideas, like that, you know, the ideal for a man is to be a defender and a protector and strong and strong in his family. And that none of that is violent or vile or disrespectful to women, that this is actually something that women themselves want and crave and respect and love. And, you know, the idea that somehow that is evil or bad, this idea of toxic masculinity is very tied to the economy that the Democrats built first with Bill Clinton and NAFTA shipping all of these jobs that require physicality and

masculinity and brawn overseas. And then with President Obama, who defunded vocational training. And then with Joe Biden, who opened the border, suddenly you have 5 million, 10 million illegals competing in construction work and devaluing the wages in those jobs. The language of toxic masculinity was an alibi for the dispossession of the working class American male. It justified it. It allowed Democrats to say they don't deserve good jobs because masculinity itself is poisonous. And of course, nothing could be further from the truth. John Hasson online, he's written for the Daily Caller, for the Spectator. Very clever. He put it as follows as the Dems try to figure out how they lost men.

Working out is right wing. And then he offers the MSNBC headline. The far right's obsession with fitness is going digital. And he says liking hot girls is right wing, a Newsweek headline. How hot girls became the right's new obsession. Eating red meat is right wing, the Nation headline. How red meat became the red pill for the alt-right. Then Dems Today, we need $20 million to understand why young men hate us. You can't, working out, liking hot girls, eating red meat. That's all Republican stuff. I mean, so now, okay, we need more money to figure out the syntax of these beings we used to call men and figure out how to talk to them. Okay. There is an interesting wrinkle though, having said all that. Rahm Emanuel is coming into focus as a possibility for the left, um, and gave an interview and basically didn't deny it. Now I actually find this very interesting and I realize he's very establishment.

He worked for the Clintons. He worked for Obama. He was there when we bailed out wall street under Obama and was his chief of staff, uh, under Obama. Um, so he is like as establishment Dem as they come, but he, and he was mayor of Chicago back when it was still a city and not just an absolute nightmare like it is now. I totally resent the current governance. Um, but he has swagger. He's a fighter. He's a ball buster. He doesn't take shit from anybody. And so I have to say, like, he's definitely not going to get my vote, but he's interesting. If I were a Democrat, I would definitely be spending some time hovering over that target because he's not the weak. You know, sad little soy boy type that Trump or his successor could run roughshod over. He's also loathed by the left. So he is very much, as you point out, an establishment centrist

Democrat who the left absolutely hates. So we're going to see whether a Democrat who can truly sideline that left wing, the activist wing and the donor wing, who are all very radical on the social issues, whether somebody like that has a shot. What I predict is he will be very centrist on social policy. But when it comes to foreign policy and economic policy, he's going to sound a lot like a Republican from before Trump than he will like what that sort of consensus in the in the middle wants, which is protectionist economic policy and more isolationist. It's not really isolationist, but a more America first foreign policy. He probably will do that sort of handshake agreement that they had between the rhino version of the Republican Party and the Democrats under Clinton and Obama, where it was very aggressive

in terms of foreign policy, but then actually quite free market, free trade in terms of economic policy. And I think that would be sort of the kiss of death for him. That's an interesting point. Yes, because he's going to be much more, you know, the 2010 Democrat Party and Republican Party. You know, when the Republicans went through the same same soul searching effort after they lost the 2012 election, their big solve was to push for amnesty. That there had to be comprehensive immigration reform, which meant amnesty or they'd never get another Hispanic vote. And they completely misread the message that was given to them. You they completely misread the message that was given to them. They had the wrong man running for office. With all due respect to Mitt Romney,

they needed a warrior like Trump, a fighter for the people, not an elite Bain Capital type, sort of more effete, white shoe, Chamber of Commerce Republican. And the Democrats could take a lesson, but they're in serious chaos right now. And, oh, well, your life is the way it is because you set it up that way. Baja, love talking to you. Thank you so much for being here. God bless. Thank you so much for everything you do. Ah, talk to you soon. Okay. Up next, Kelly's court, and we'll tell you the stunning testimony from Diddy's assistant, former assistant. She was like the most important one who took the stand this morning. Don't go away. These days, personal safety is not something that can be left to chance. Whether at home,

on the road, or just living everyday life, having a reliable way to protect yourself and your family is crucial. That's why Burna is the choice for so many. Burna is a game-changing, less lethal self-defense tool. Compact, powerful, and easy to use, it provides the confidence to act in any situation. Burna uses non-lethal rounds, tear gas, pepper, kinetic projectiles to effectively stop a threat from a safe distance. And the best part is Burna can be shipped direct to your door and it's legal in all 50 states. Burna is proudly American with products hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Look, sometimes a firearm is not the right option for you and Burna provides a powerful alternative or supplement to your self-defense plan. Protect what matters most with Burna. Visit burna.com, that's B-Y-R-N-A.com slash Megan to receive a 10% discount and learn why thousands of people and law enforcement agencies are adding Burna's less lethal protection. Burna, non-lethal self-defense, always ready.

Just wanted to give you a little update on my tax numbers. I did look it up. The bottom half, in terms of earnings, pay 2.3% of federal taxes. The top 1% pay about 50%, 45.8% in federal taxes, even though they earned 22% of the revenue, but paid more than double that. The top 10% pay 72% of all federal taxes. In 2021, it was closer to 72% of all federal taxes in 2021. It was closer to 76% of all federal taxes. And the problem with just lowering the corporate tax is it doesn't help individuals who file as S corporations, like a big corporation, you know, like a Google, that's a C corporation, but the smaller businesses tend to file as S corporations, in which case the income passes through to the individual. Then you have to pay individual taxes. So it's those that is who the Republicans raise every time somebody tries to increase taxes and just says tax the rich.

I can speak to this as a business owner. That's how I do it, too. And it's not that I want to punish anybody working for me. But when you're running a business, you don't make your bottom line take the hit. You you decide to scale up your efficiencies. And that either means not hiring a new person that you were going to hire, or in the worst case scenario, firing somebody who's already on board because they have a budget to make. And you don't alter your budget by just saying, oh, we'll make less profit. We'll get a narrower margin. You tend to figure out how can I lower my expenses? And that would include staff. And it's not just for, you know, my company,

it's for every company that's a smaller company. So in any event, that's the argument. I get that it works the other way. And, you know, people love to say tax the rich is a very popular thing to do. And I understand why so many Democrats and now Republicans and Trump have held it out there, but I don't think it's going to happen because there's too many Republicans who feel about it the way I do. I don't think he has the votes to push that through. In any event, okay, she's not wrong that it's a very politically savvy thing to say. Okay, we got to do Kelly's court because there's unbelievable stuff going on. We're going to start with Diddy, and I'm going to give you the latest, but I'm going to bring in my legal panel so they can listen to the latest too. Former litigator and Rumble creator

Viva Fry is here and legal analyst and host of Inside the Law on YouTube, Phil Holloway. Guys, great to see you. Thanks for coming back on. All right, I'm going to bring the audience up to speed on what's happening in the Diddy trial, and then I'll get you guys to weigh in on the significance to this. I won't list it all, but I'll just give an update perhaps on Capricorn Clark, who took the stand today. She was Diddy's assistant for several years from 2004 through 2012. So I think she's probably the most significant assistant that he's had over the years. We've heard her name a lot from Cassie Ventura, the Star Witness, and from others. And so she takes the stand for the prosecution today. And I was telling my team, all I can think of when I hear that name is from trading places, Billy Ray Valentine, Capricorn.

But this woman's name is Capricorn. I don't know whether she is also a Capricorn in the astrological world. And she hurt him for sure. She hurt Diddy, in my opinion, but the cross is just beginning. So open mind. Here are some of the things that she said. Okay. That he told me he was going to kill Kid Cudi over Kid Cudi's affair with Cassie. He came to my apartment livid with a gun. He said, get dressed, quote, we're going to kill this N-word. That's pretty on the nose. He, um, hold on, let me get more of it. Uh, okay. He allegedly broke into Kid Cudi's home in December of 2011. We had Kid Cudi testifying that somebody broke in and did some weird things. And now we have Capricorn saying it was Diddy. And I was there and I know he did it. And it was exactly the time that Kid Cudi said somebody

broke into his home and she described what was done inside. And it perfectly aligns with what Kid Cudi said he came home to, um, that he, uh, opened up the presents that were there. Uh, his Christmas presents were there. He opened them up that he locked the dog in the, uh, closet or some, some small room and, um, that he, he moved cameras. Okay. So he's, that testimony lines up. Then she talked about how, um, after he broke into Kid Cudi's home, uh, she, uh, Diddy, I would want to get my facts straight. Hold on. Capricorn Clark and Ventura, Cassie Ventura, went to see Sean Holmes at his Los Angeles homes. This is after he had broken into Kid Cuddy's. Combs was in a robe and underwear and immediately began kicking Cassie. This is right when he's finding out that she'd been allegedly having an affair with Kid Cuddy. Not allegedly. Cassie

says it's so, and so did Kid Cudi. And he immediately began kissing, kicking, kicking Cassie. Capricorn Clark says she and a security guard stood by as Combs repeatedly kicked Cassie Ventura. Capricorn said Combs threatened to hurt her too if she tried to stop him. Capricorn Clark said she left after the security guard told her to leave and Cassie Ventura was still on the ground while Combs continued to kick her. Capricorn said she called Cassie Ventura's mom, Regina, as she left saying, quote, please help her. I can't call the police, but you can. Regina Ventura said she would handle it and hung up. All right, let's just start there. So you've got corroborating testimony to what we've heard

earlier in the case. And now you have, because you know, this conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, they need to show it was more than just Diddy. And the prosecution had alleged in its opening, he had staffers who helped him commit crimes, crimes that aren't necessarily charged, statute of limitations expired, et cetera, but that he committed as part of this overall criminal enterprise. Phil, let me start with you on whether the prosecution is making its case. Well, it sounds like, Megan, they're finally getting into some of the meat of the matter because up until now, we've heard a lot of emotionally charged testimony.

We've heard about domestic violence. We've heard about third-rate burglaries and things like that, like you were just discussing. But we haven't heard much about how this was some type of criminal enterprise related to sex trafficking. We're starting to hear now who these people are that are the other racketeers. You've got other employees, security personnel. And so the government is starting to make its case. They've got a long way to go. But until today, I had a lot of reasonable doubt that things that I was thinking about, because these witnesses all seem to have some degree of kind of affection for Combs or maybe had affection in the past. And it may be that they

all had some kind of an angle, some incentive to testify against him, maybe sour grapes. So the defense has been doing a pretty good job on cross-examination, but let's see if they can sustain that momentum now that the prosecution is really getting into the heart of the matter. Well, exactly. So what's happened so far on Cross, well, I'm going to pause there because we're still talking about the direct and I want to get Viva to weigh in on what we've heard there.

And then I've got more from the direct. Go ahead. Megan, I'm starting off this entire process with the premise that once you view this prosecution as the cover-up and this trial as the cover-up, the entire trial takes on a whole different meaning. Diddy is a criminal.

I mean, I say this, by the evidence, by what we know, by the video of him beating Cassie, we know he's a criminal. Which is undisputed. He does not dispute that that was him in the video beating her. We know it. We know that this is abject degeneracy of the highest order that has spanned

decades. You go back and watch Get Him to the Greek again and you see P. Diddy's character in that movie and you understand it was based on reality and not comedic writing. It takes on a whole new meaning. But once you look at this and say this is supposed to be a trial about criminal sex trafficking, Rico, as in there's an infrastructure, there were cameras all over P. Diddy's apartment. He was running effectively a blackmail extortion ring. And this entire prosecution has been reduced now to two witnesses, Cassie and Jane Doe. Once you start viewing this prosecution as the cover up and not the exposing of the criminality, it'll take on a whole new meaning. Covering up what though? What do you mean? Yeah, you're going to explain. There is an extortion ring that involves other people

that is not being fleshed out here. And it's sort of like the movie The Titanic, where you have this entire backdrop of the crisis of the Titanic. And it is reduced to Billy Zane chasing the woman, I forget her name, around the boat. Rose. Well, I forget her name. Cate Blanchett. No, Cate. Winslet.

So you have this entire blackmail extortion ring. They went and raided Diddy's house. There were cameras there. We know that it involves, you know, the higher ups in the entertainment industry, if not the world of politics as well. And this entire prosecution is reduced to P. Diddy and what we know of his abuse of Cassie and potentially Jane. And then once you flesh out the fact that for whatever the reason, Maureen Comey, James Comey's daughter is still involved as one of this trial. This trial is a show trial because we're going to get him on something. It might just be the, you know, trafficking for prostitution purposes, which seems undeniable. Send him away for 10 years.

Maybe he gets out after eight. And then you've successfully covered up the entire extortion ring that P. Diddy was running, much like what they did with Epstein. Oh, that's very interesting, because where are all the tapes showing these well-known celebrities allegedly at these parties, you know, who knows, doing who knows what? That's speculation on our part. But I have yet to hear anybody put it that way. Viva, one of the many reasons we love hearing your legal perspective. Let me continue going with the direct testimony of Capricorn, Billy Ray Valentine. Ain't cool being no turkey so close to Thanksgiving. Okay, sorry. I love that movie. She goes on. So let's just go back to December 2011. Okay, so December of 2011 is when she says he learned about this relationship between Kid Cudi and Cassie. And he, he went, he showed up at

Capricorn Clark's home with a gun, threatened to go kill Kid Cudi. I read you the quote, get dressed. We're going to kill this N word. She said, she put a lot of detail around it saying when he showed up at my house, Capricorn did. Cause for some reason he wanted his assistant to go with him for his hit. Abigail Fine and how good do you have it? I'm sorry, but like when I do my own hits, I leave my assistant at home. I do not show up at her home and insist she come with me. Um, he said, she said she looked at the people. She could see his pants were split up the inseam from the knee upward, exposing his underwear. When she opened the door, he was holding a gun. He was furious. Why didn't you tell me, he said, and asked her about Kid Cudi. Clark testified that Sean Combs, still holding the

gun, said, get dressed. Yeah, we're going to go kill him. The New York Post reporting that he used the N-word. When she tried to protest, Combs said, I don't give an F what you want to do. Go get dressed. Clark said Combs was livid, furious, mad at me. I had never seen him with a weapon. I had never seen him making me do something like this. She said she called Cassie to tell her Diddy was in Kid Cudi's home, which is where she and Diddy went next. They drove to his home. Combs and his security guard entered the home. She was still out in the car. She stayed in the car. She called Cassie Ventura on a burner phone. She testified, she told Ventura that Combs had come to her house with a gun and then they'd gone to Kid Cudi's home to kill him. Just a day in the life as Diddy's assistant. She said she changed Ventura's contact name in the phone to the name

Stormy so that Combs would not know that she had just called Ventura. Clark said she could hear someone yelling in the background of her call with Cassie Ventura, he's in my house? And that was Kid Cudi, according to Cassie. This all dovetails with Kid Cudi's testimony. When Combs got back into the car, he asked who Clark had been talking to. He called Ventura's burner phone, which was the last recorded call in Capricorn's call log. Combs, furious, said, bitch, what the F is this number? A short time later, Kid Cuddy pulled up next to Combs' Escalade outside of his home and then accelerated away. Good call, Kid Cuddy. Good call. Combs' vehicle followed in pursuit. Capricorn testified it felt like forever, but couldn't have been longer than a minute that they followed. She goes on, hold on, that he once ran at her.

He was very angry because he heard that she said she didn't like working for him. Another thing she testified to was he kept her like slave wages. She made 65 grand a year, but that was supposed to be for a normal eight hour shift. And she said he had her working literally 9am to 4am. That if she had a four hour overnight rest, it was a lot. So she was complaining about the job. And one of his other staffers told Diddy she was complaining. And she testified he once ran at me after that, shoving me 25 to 30 yards. Now, I don't know if that's an exaggeration, but if that's true, think about a football field. I mean, that's a third of the way down the field. My God, that would be some shove. After I said I hated working for him,

he ran at me, hands open. He charged at my shoulders. If you hate it here, get the F out of my house, he said. Security intervened and told me to leave. I quit after that. She testified she helped with the freak-offs, providing the baby oil, a camera bag, clothes, lube, drugs like ecstasy. She testified she saw Diddy doing drugs, ecstasy and Molly among them, also prescription drugs. She also offered this, Phil. She was once forced, I think it was her first. No, no, this is, I'm conflating two things. This is, I don't know when this happened in the employment, but she was once forced to take a polygraph after Combs' diamond jewelry disappeared. She was told she would be thrown in the East River if she failed. His bodyguard, Uncle Pauly,

can't make it up, I'm sorry, Uncle Pauly came to her, to her home, and forced her to go with him to an abandoned skyscraper at 1710 Broadway. These are all important details to be believed by a jury where after diamond necklaces, bracelets, and watches, or perhaps it was in the singular, went missing while she was transporting them. She said for five full days, she was interrogated and given a polygraph, which I suppose she passed because she was not thrown into the East River and was allowed to continue working for Diddy.

Okay. Phil, what are they proving with this? What is the prosecution trying to show us? Well, you know, this whole testimony from this particular witness is a head scratcher. I mean, first off, who lives like this? You know, I'm a former police officer, prosecutor, criminal lawyer. And I can tell you that when people are aware of a burglary in progress or when they get physically assaulted and thrown yards and yards down a football field or that length. Anyway, people call the police. People complain in real time. And there's other things that a jury could look

at to corroborate their testimony. This whole business about working 20 hours a day straight with maybe four hours of sleep day in and day out without meal breaks or restroom breaks, that's just not the kind of thing that's really believable in my view. And it strains credibility to believe that this has actually happened. So what it looks to me like is that she's exaggerating a little bit, maybe because she's got some kind of sour grapes, maybe because she is some victim in some capacity. I don't know. But when she's seen to be stretching some of it, putting in and that the head of HR allegedly told Diddy, you owe her $80,000 with a written notification and that Diddy ripped it up. Yeah. Well, again, how are we going to corroborate and prove that other than accepting her and her work? If they have the paper and they can produce it, great. But if not, it's just another in the whole laundry list of things that just makes me wonder that if she's

not just exaggerating a little bit. I don't know if I agree with you. I don't know if I agree with you because we've had two other assistants take the stand. They were both males and they testified to hours like this too. I mean that working for him was around the clock thing. One of them complained of being tired and the bodyguard in the car with him said, what rhymes with tired? Well, I mean, look, I mean, it's obvious this was an abnormal workplace. I mean, this is not the kind of way that normal people live. And so I'm sure that where there's, you know, where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm sure they did work long hours. But when you say that you only got four hours of sleep just all the time and that you never took a restroom break, I mean, come on. That's just the kind of thing that makes it look to me like she's stretching the truth just a little bit. And what the problem is, if a jury thinks that she's stretching the truth about

one thing, the judge is going to tell them at the end of the trial they can be free to disregard the entirety of the testimony. Yes, true. I agree with all of that, but Kid Cudi had no reason to lie about what happened to him. Well, he certainly has a beef with Combs. That's the problem. None of these witnesses are exactly unbiased. They made up. Well, you don't need an unbiased witness in order to win a case. There's very rarely that you have a witness who has absolutely no bias whatsoever. I mean, there was, but Kid Cudi has, he was open about the fact he wasn't happy that Diddy was dating Cassie when he was dating Cassie, but he didn't blame Diddy for that. He blamed Cassie. He said, she played me. She told me they had broken up. So his beef wasn't with Diddy, but he was upset that his car was bombed, he believes, by Diddy.

And there's the beef. There's the beef right there. Oh, come on, Phil. That's like, he tried to murder me. Well, you can't believe the word she says because he tried to murder her. Of course she's out to get him. I mean, come on. If Viva tried to burn my car down or let my car blow me up, I'd probably have a little bit of a heartburn that might linger through the years as well. So, I mean, I just question whether or not there's really. Everybody who comes on the stand is a little Mother Teresa type with absolutely no negative experiences with the defendant. This guy's being called because the prosecution says Diddy fire bombed his home.

And now you have a second witness coming forward to say, yes, he he hated Kid Cudi. And I was with him in the car as he went over on a separate visit to try to kill him with an announcement, quote, we're get dressed. We're going to kill that N-word. Go ahead, Viva. I was going to say, first of all, if precedent means anything, Megan, you can use the N-word and then rake in three quarters of a million dollars by way of give, send, go on social media. Ha ha, jokes aside, can we that they have an H.R. department at P. Diddy's place of employment where they have drug-free costs. I'm sort of with Phil on this in that it sounds so absurd. Fine. What's the prosecution trying to portray here? That he was a bad boss? That he was doing no good gangsta things? No, I'll explain it to you. I'll tell you,

and then I'll give you the field. They're saying there are multiple crimes as part of this criminal enterprise, and violating labor laws is one of them. They're just ticking, ticking, ticking, ticking, ticking down the crimes. That there was kidnapping, there was assault and battery, there was arson, there were labor law violations, there were drug violations, there were prostitution violations. This is all part of the criminal enterprise. This is just as much, if not more, than you'd see in a mob case, Viva. But that's the reason they're bringing all this in. Yeah, I mean, potentially.

The RICO violations of labor laws, I think when it's in the context of alleged sex trafficking, you almost weaken the case by diluting it down to say, yeah, the RICO enterprise involved. I don't think so. They're just trying to show he was disrespectful of the law at every turn. There wasn't anything he respected. He was told, there's been witness testimony that the assistants were told, this is Diddy's kingdom. And our job is just to make him happy that somebody called him like, he's a true icon. It was like a cult around Diddy. They were all expected to do what he asked, whether it was legal or not. Well, that much is true. My problem is that if we're going to expand

the Rico to this type of criminality, like when you're talking about the mobsters, you're talking about an organization that operates in the criminality. This is a music industry which has what we know of the music industry levels of violence, intimidation. I don't know that this is well, the rap industry. I think you should be more. I don't like as much as I dislike Taylor Swift. Nobody thinks Taylor Swift is running an operation like this. It's him and it's the rap world, but it's him in particular. I mean, there's some reason like all these people he know got killed, got shot, got murdered in his industry. And there are questions about what, if anything, did he knew about all of that? He was accused of shooting a

woman in the face. He's a thug. So let's not pretend, oh, you know, it's impossible he could be running a criminal enterprise because I beg to differ, gentlemen. It appears very much to me that's exactly what he was doing. Go ahead, Viva. That there's criminality within the industry. I don't know that that is what people understand when you talk about Rico sex trafficking criminal enterprise. And again, like when I say I'm viewing this through the eyes that what they want to do is muddy this entire thing to get away from the actual to not to bury the lead, to hide the lead. OK, they were involved in every I would say not every rapper, but within a certain industry, everyone's going to be involved in criminality. If that's what's going to be now Rico for the purposes of criminal prosecution.

I just don't agree with that. I don't agree. This is extreme. This is extreme behavior. I mean, I would give you that most bands, if you really like looked under the hood would have a long list of me too problems. I'd give you that one and probably drug problems too. But this is something like threatening murder, again, allegedly shooting a woman in the face, though that's not coming in, that's separate. That's the whole J-Lo thing back in 2000 that somebody else took the rap for, but the victim says it was Diddy. But he's just got, there's a lot of smoke around Diddy, which can lead a jury to find a fire. And there's actual hardcore proof of criminal acts. There's no question about the prostitutions. There's no question that he beat Cassie Ventura,

and not just that once. The evidence is overwhelming of serial beatings of this woman. And not surprisingly now, the supporting cast, the assistants, the sex workers, you know, we're going to have others who are supporting this field of criminality like this act and that act and the other are not the most upstanding people. Go ahead. Well, I'm viewing it again through what they are not disclosing or what is not coming up by way of the RICO sex trafficking. Yes, this is a it's an organization that involves criminality. I think many people would understand that's what the rap industry is. That's how they market it. That's how they label it. If you're going to expand Rico prosecutions to within the music industry, there's criminality that you're not far off from going to drug addiction and telling people to shut up and don't talk about

this or whatever. You're going to prosecute them for RICO. This was sold as Diddy's Mansion being raided because of a network of cameras that rivaled Epstein's blackmail extortion in terms of that. And now it's been reduced to, OK, gangsters acting like gangsters. He's going to get convicted. And my prediction was when the defense. I agree with what you're saying. When the defense starts off with, yeah, he gets violent when he gets jealous, but he's not a sex trafficker. All right. Good, good luck with that. He's going to get something, but it's my virtual buddy. I agree with you. I agree with you. And I

will also add to that by saying I have been so far underwhelmed with what they found in these raids, which means they either didn't find a lot or we're not seeing all of what they found in these raids, which means they either didn't find a lot or we're not seeing all of what they found to your point, because it's mostly lube and baby oil and some guns, which this is America. You're allowed to have guns. I don't know if these were illegal guns. There was some testimony that some had the serial numbers, um, shaved off of them and that could be potentially problematic. So all of that is allegedly part of it, but it's not the Epstein tapes by, by far. All right, Phil, let me give you this. There was cross has begun of Capricorn and it's going pretty well for Diddy the cross.

Now I, from this, I don't know whether it wipes out all of the direct, but let me read you what happened so far. On cross, this is via CNN, defense attorney Mark Agnifolo began by confirming with Capricorn Clark that they had met before. Agnifolo, Tenny Garagos, that's another player. So on the prosecution side, you've got James Comey's daughter, and then Garagos, sorry, she's on the defense side. Ten've got James Comey's daughter and then, um, Garagos, sorry, she's on the, uh, defense side. Tenny Garagos is the daughter of Mark Garagos. It's like these legal giants offspring faring, uh, squaring off against each other. So anyway, defense attorney, Magnifilo defense attorney, Tenny Garagos and another attorney for Sean Combs

met with Capricorn Clark on April 10th of 2024. Agnifilo asked Clark to confirm that she told them at that meeting that Combs, quote, wouldn't be in this mess if he had kept her around. She acknowledged that she did probably say something like that, as they discussed the possibility of her returning to work for him as his chief of staff. She also told the lawyers at the meeting, Cassie Ventura was not good for Combs. By the way, not for nothing, but the attorney who accompanied Clark to that meeting was the Waldo now of High Powered Cases, my own lawyer, Brian Friedman. He's everywhere. He's got Baldoni. He had me. He had Gabrielle Union, Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon. He had to do that one. And now, yeah, now he's in the Menendez case and he was with Capricorn Clark at this meeting. But

you see what they're going for, Phil, that she appears to, as of April of last year, been angling to get rehired by this terrible, terrible man who almost committed a murder in her presence. Yeah, and this is why I was saying earlier that, you know, the jury has plenty of reason not to believe this woman. Look, she's saying that Cassie was not good for Combs. I mean, my God, it's Combs that was not good for Cassie or anybody else, apparently. And yet she's saying that she would be, I mean, my God, it's Combs that was not good for Cassie or anybody else, apparently. And yet she's saying that she would be, I guess, willing to go back to work as the chief of staff for this rapper. I don't understand how the prosecution is expecting the jury to even

take this woman seriously. My hope is that they're going to strengthen their case with some witnesses in the following days and maybe weeks that you cannot impeach in this way. Because clearly this witness has some reason to have some kind of an emotional investment in Combs himself or in the overall enterprise or maybe even in her testimony. And so the jury has plenty of reasons to question it. So I really think that, yeah, like you said, there's plenty of smoke and maybe the jury can find a fire, but the prosecution, they must clean this up. They must get into some more hard, and I hate to even say this, hardcore criminal proof of crimes, because otherwise the jury— Why do you say that? What about the multiple beatings that he gave to Cassie? And you don't think the jury has enough to credit Kid Cudi's suspicion that Diddy dropped a Molotov cocktail in his car?

Now it's been backed up by her and by Cassie and by Kid Cudi himself. That alone, seeing the beating with your own eyes, hearing from Cassie's mother, his assistants, security. Now this witness and Kid Cudi, too, about the abuse that Cassie endured over the years. Like there's been multiple, multiple submissions of proof on repeated criminal acts. Yeah, look, I tend to agree that that he probably is guilty of all things, all these things. But my point simply is that from a trial tactics perspective, I think it's bad form for prosecutors to muddy up their case with witnesses that can be impeached this easily. And one thing that a good lawyer can do is at the end of the trial, they can go through this and they can say, look.

They needed her because of the December of 2011 day. She both went in the car to Kid Cudi's house and saw Diddy go in there and said, and can testify, he said he was going to kill him. And she could testify about the beatings that she saw of Cassie, which she also supported, and that he attacked her. So I think they needed her. And they figured it was worth it to take that hit on her wanting to go back to him. And I don't know how they're going to handle that and redirect. Go ahead, Viva. I'll just add this as a Canadian attorney who never practiced criminal law. But, you know, when you think of criminal organizations, we are seeing evidence of criminality and cover-ups. And there's already laws dealing with that, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, whatever. When we're visualizing criminal organizations, what we

are visualizing is mob organizations who's- True. But the law is, as an American lawyer who did practice law for nine years, the law is you only need two predicate acts. That's it. You just need two, two acts of illegality, and they don't have to be within the statute of limitations. And they've got it. They've got it. You may not like the law, but that's a law. And you do have to have a conspiracy, however. So they have to show that he had an agreement with other people to do some of these criminal acts, which is why the staff now taking the stand and saying, I had to clean. I gave the drugs. I stood by while she was beaten. I went with him to kill Kid Cudi. It's crazy, crazy testimony. Go ahead, Viva.

I just want to know, they're reducing these freak offs or these sex things to just P. Diddy getting his rocks off, pun intended. That's what they've reduced these things down to when they were so much more than that. I know that they started naming some names or some celebrities, but when Diddy got arrested and people started going back in the Internet time and pulling up videos that now, in retrospect, look highly suspect, the idea that they're reducing these sex parties to Diddy's own personal satisfaction is laughable. And I think it's not realistic that what they're not revealing or what they're covering up is much more sinister and much more wide reaching than just Diddy looking to get his own... Let me ask you this, Viva. I wouldn't be shocked by a verdict that finds him guilty of the RICO count, the racketeering conspiracy, and guilty of transportation of a prostitute,

and not guilty of sex trafficking because they amassed enough evidence, the defense did, that Cassie kind of went along with the freak-offs, at times said at least she wanted the freak-offs, or at least, because let's not forget that the sex trafficking by force count requires not only that he forced her by coercion or fraud, it also requires that he knew she didn't want it, that he knew she was being forced. And so the defense is introducing like emails from her, like, I can't wait to freak off again. You know, when do you want it? And that she was the one who called all the sex trafficking, all the sex workers and paid all the sex workers and that she testified she stayed because she

loved the lifestyle. You know, so the defense has got, I don't know, I could see that that count not going their way. But the whole Rico count is kind of like he built this criminal enterprise and did all these terrible things in order to enable the freak offs. So could you have a conviction on Rico and not on sex trafficking? Would that make sense? I wouldn't venture any sort of professional opinion there, but my prediction would be the exact inverse, that he's going to get convicted on the transportation for prostitution, maybe on the trafficking, because I think it's very easy. It will be not very easy, but the evidence is there now to lend credibility to the argument that Cassie was definitely physically beaten, extorted into it and coerced into it. So I think that's

there. Then I think, you know, you get an acquittal or a non-conviction on the Rico, but he still goes to jail for 10, 20 years. I don't know if they run them concurrent or, or, or what's the other consecutive, but no, I think they get them on the easiest one right off the bat. The evidence is there. And I think it's not hard to show the coercion. Nobody wants to have a freak off when they're having a urinary tract infection. She was physically all they need to know. And if it happened once, it happened more than once. To say that she freely did anything, I don't think any reasonable jury member has been involved.

And the other thing that we're not counting for here, Phil, is by this point in the trial, the jury hates him. Hates him. Hates him. Look, I think they've done, look, whether or not they've proven each of these counts beyond a reasonable doubt, time will tell. I think they're going to have some chances to clean it up. I think that two or three weeks from now, not only will the jury hate him, but I imagine they will have heard from some witnesses that don't have this type of, let's just call it colorful cross-examination that the defense can get into. And two weeks from now, if we come back and do this again, I think we're going to look at this trial in a completely different light. But it's absolutely possible you could have inconsistent

verdicts. It's possible you could have a mixed verdict. I don't think it's likely that he would walk on all counts, but it's certainly going to be interesting to do a retrospective look at what this jury was thinking about at each step of this particular trial. I'll give you guys one more thing and then we'll take a break. The superseding indictment, the most recent indictment, alleges there are three victims of his in this sort of sex trafficking lane. And then we believe the jury would hear from them. Now we understand only two will be heard from. We've been reporting this, but now it's confirmed that victim three is not expected to testify. Uh, she's been identified as a victim three, three sources familiar with the case told CNN. This is the woman who's been

referred to as Gina throughout the trial. She's an ex-girlfriend of Combs. The defense's theory is that he was cheating on Cassie with Gina and possibly others, and that Cassie was blind with jealousy. And most of her complaints about him related to the fact that he was with Gina and she was very angry and yelling at him. In any event, what we believed was that Gina was going to take the stand. Now we think she's not because the source is saying to CNN, she just didn't want to do it, did not want to take the stand. But she was referenced in the indictment as part of the racketeering conspiracy count. It says that Combs and his associates wielded his power through his business empire to intimidate, threaten, and lure at least three female victims, one, two, and three, under the pretense of a

romantic relationship and coerced them into engaging in commercial sex acts. Prosecutors allege some of these sex acts known as freak-offs involve male sex workers who are transported across city or state lines. Here is that woman. Now, there is a belief that they can still get some of this in, this testimony. I don't know how, because you have a right to confront your accuser and to cross-examine. So I'm not sure if they can get this in or not. But I did read somewhere that the prosecution aims to get some of her allegations in there, even if she doesn't take the stand. Here she is. She gave an interview on a show called Unwine with Tasha Kay on June 14th of 2019. And, um, let's play Sot 31 first. He had caught me texting another man. We was in Miami and it got really crazy that time we was upstairs and he

he had like we were in his closet and he like pushed me and I fell to the ground and um and then he got he like stood over me so I was to the ground and, um, and then he got, he like stood over me. So I was like laying on my back and he stood over me and he started like punching me like this. Like he avoided my face, but he like started punching me like on the side of my head and I was just like covering my face. And, um, he did that. He did that did that and then and then after he got done doing that he like because he was standing his legs were like stay in between me so he like he like stomped on my stomach like really hard and I like took the wind out of my breath I couldn't even I couldn't breathe and he kept but he kept hitting me and I was like pleading to him, like, can you just, can you stop?

To the point we just made, like if the jury gets wind of that, like, it's just, it's a pattern. First of all, she looks eerily similar to Cassie Ventura, doesn't she? Obviously, he had a type. And like, I don't know if they get that in any way, Phil. I don't think there's any way of getting that tape in, right? But if the jury hears any of that, it's going to be tough to discard. Well, if you look at what she's saying, I mean, there's evidence and testimony that, you know, he punched, you know, Cassie in the stump. This seems like a pattern, a specific pattern of behavior. It's almost like his criminal signature. And there are ways under the rules of evidence to get in hearsay if the declarant is unavailable, if there is like sufficient indications of believability and truthfulness and veracity when the hearsay declarant is unavailable. And unavailability might mean

a refusal to testify or the fact that she's under subpoena and she's just not cooperating and showing up to court. So what we don't know is strategically how they're going to offer this evidence, what specific evidence they're going to offer it, and then under what theory of the federal rules of evidence they're going to offer it. and then under what theory of the federal rules of evidence they're going to offer it. So it's possible the jury could still hear some of that, but we just have to wait and see how they do it. I'll give you one more, Aviva. Here she is talking about, well, let's just play it, South 30. Well, I told him, and he was like, he was like, you're going to get an abortion, right? And then I was like, I don't know.

I don't know yet. And then he offered me $50,000 to get rid of it. But I turned it down because I just loved him and I just, and I wanted, I wanted to, I was like trying to prove that I wasn't the girl that was wanting him for money. When I had the second abortion, he, I had to go home like the next, I had to go home two days later because he had to go on, like, the next... I had to go home two days later because he had to go on a trip to Burning Man. To Burning Man?

To Burning Man, which is in Nevada. It's, like, a festival in the desert. Okay. So I had to go through that, and then he went to Burning Man, and he just left me left me like fucked up. Oh, just just want to make clear, we believe that's Gina and it's victim number three. The New York Times says victim number three is shown there and we believe that's Gina.

So just to be clear on where we got that information from. Go ahead, Viva. To state the obvious, abject degeneracy. But set that aside. And again, Canadian lawyer never practiced criminal law, but we know the standard. Very smart man. Probit of value needs to outweigh the prejudicial nature or the unduly prejudicial nature of the evidence. One would argue what's unduly prejudicial about another woman explaining exactly what we already see on camera of him doing to Cassie. And I would also imagine maybe there's a way of subpoenaing the podcaster to have it admitted as evidence, not as the truthfulness of the statements made, but rather just that it happened. This is what she said, and you can take it at its face value or not. But it's again, I would argue if you want to get this in as admissible hearsay and the argument is going to be, does the probative value outweigh the unduly prejudicial nature of it?

It's on video. We know that this is his M.O. It's part of his defense. He gets angry and violent when he gets jealous. OK, maybe the defense will submit it as an exhibit because it supports their evidence. He gets violent and angry when he gets jealous, but he's not a Rico sex trafficker. Good luck with that defense. I hear those testimonials and I want someone in prison to do that to him. I really do. What kind of a man beats a woman like that? And she beats any woman, but these women are half his size. I mean, he actually has himself convinced if this is true, he's some sort of a tough guy. He's going to put them in their place. They couldn't have defended themselves unless they had a gun. Literally, these are very thin, gorgeous, young, obviously not physically strong, and frankly, maybe not mentally strong women whom he clearly

exploited and got off on torturing. I mean, they are painting the picture of a sadist sitting there at defense table with his little gray hair now and his reading glasses and his Bible and his little sweater with his crew neck. It's a lie the way he's being presented by the defense. And I have heard enough to never want to see this man run free again. That's my own opinion on it. All right, guys, stand by. We're gonna take a break back with Phil and Viva right after this. This spring, everyone has a lot going on with limited time for grocery shopping or cooking healthy meals at home, Hungry Root offers a great and convenient solution. Hungry Root acts as a personal shopper and nutritionist, handling weekly grocery shopping and recommending healthy groceries and meals

tailored to individual tastes, nutrition preferences, and health goals. It simplifies eating high-quality, nutritious food and achieving various diet or health goals, such as anti-inflammatory, gluten-free, and more. Most of Hungry Roots recipes can be prepared in just 15 minutes or less. And with over 15,000 recipes shipped each week, there's something for every taste and nutrition preference. Take advantage of this exclusive offer for a limited time. Get 40% off your first box, plus get a free item in every box for life. What? Go to HungryRoot.com and use the code MK. That's HungryRoot.com slash MK code MK to get 40% off your first box and a free item of your choice for life. HungryRoot.com slash MK code MK. This July, there's a global summit of BRICS

nations in Rio de Janeiro. The bloc of emerging superpowers, or so they hope to be, including China, Russia, India, and Iran, are meeting with the goal of displacing the U.S. dollar as the global currency. They're calling it the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, some worry global demand for U.S. dollars could decrease, bringing down the value of those dollars that are in your savings. While this transition, if it happens, will not happen overnight, the Rio Reset could mark a pivotal moment. So learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard-earned savings into a tax-sheltered IRA and precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting MK to 989898. With an A-plus rating

from the Better Business Bureau and thousands, tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold arm you with a free, no-obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. Text MK to 989898 today. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Let's talk about Kohlberger, Brian Kohlberger, because the shit hit the fan in that case after that Dateline episode. So we talked about the Dateline episode on this show after it hit, which was two weeks ago now. And they had all sorts of amazing scoops. And I mean, I've told the audience, which is to let you guys know, it's fine to like Dateline. You cannot watch the Today Show. I forbid it. You cannot both watch the Today Show and this show, but you're allowed to like Dateline because those are good people. And they got amazing scoops, amazing scoops, including videotape of his, well, of a white Hyundai Elantra on the night of the murders of those four Idaho college students, Brian Kohlberger,

who was getting his PhD at nearby Washington State University as a suspect and had a white Hyundai Elantra. And the belief is that the prosecution will argue that's his, but Dateline got the tapes of the white Hyundai Elantra going past their house over and over and over. It looks like he was casing the joint just moments before the murders were committed. One could presume he was waiting for all the lights to be turned off because it was like in the 3 a.m. hour, but these are college students, so they're out late and the lights were on, and we believe at least two of them were still up even when he entered the house. Anyway, they got, hold on, there's so much more. I'm just going to give you a couple of lists.

Standby. Search history on the internet, looking up porn. Search history. Look at that. Viva knows. He checked out. He had to look up those same searches for research. The funny thing know, I didn't see the deadline. I don't watch TV anymore, but I read what they had. They've convinced me that he's guilty. And I say that. Yes. They convinced because it's a one sided expose of leaked information. And then the flip side, I'm getting cynical. All right. So the dude's looking up porn. Add him to the list of 98 percent of men out there. He's looking up Ted Bundy. He's studying criminology at university. They have some footage of a vehicle that's that's getting there.

But the the the the the the say the killer evidence, the the best piece of evidence is that speck of DNA on a on a knife holster. That's all they guess. An evening of a That's not all they got. The guy was shoving his trash into little plastic baggies to be disposed of in the neighbor's trash fell when the cops burst into his parents' home and raided it. Yeah, sure. There's a lot of, you know, and circumstantial evidence has put a lot of people in prison in the United States over the years, and it will continue to do so. So you put all this together and it does paint a very damning picture. But here's my concern. If somebody violated the gag order, what if this judge says, okay, we're not going to let the jury hear this because that's going to be my remedy for violating my gag order. It could very well happen that because of this leak, somebody who's a guilty murderer walks free. That's exactly right. That's why we can hate

Dateline. No, it's not the reporter's fault. It's whoever leaked. It's that person's fault. It's not up to Dateline to protect the integrity of the prosecution. We in the press have no obligation to do that. If we get a scoop and if somebody had given me the scoop, I would have run with it too. It's up to the leaker to protect the investigation. And there's far more that they revealed. And Ann Taylor, the name of his Brian Colbert defense lawyer, is saying that she wants remedies. She says the violations could warrant remedies more serious than delay. Because what's, I kind of bury the lead. She's, this has come up because she's pushed for a delay of the trial, which is set for this

August. And she's saying, we can't do it. This is too much was revealed in too high profile a manner for us to A, just run to trial. It's still in people's heads and it shouldn't be. The court ruled that it shouldn't be. The court put a gag order on this case including the evidence and there's a reason for that he didn't want to prejudice the defendant before trial it's a death penalty case and yet somebody violated it so it would appear and he is prejudiced so we do not agree to this august trial and you should you should bounce it, she says to the judge. And then she says that line in her motion saying, these violations could warrant remedies more serious than delay. And that's teeing up what Phil just said, which is maybe the prosecution should not be allowed to use these things. Like if they find out that a law enforcement officer

or somebody in the prosecution's office, my money would be on the, on the former. I just don't think the prosecution would do it, but I, law enforcement is tend to be, they tend to be kind of leaky, um, that you should punish the prosecution. Like don't let them introduce, for example, the videotape of the white Hyundai Elantra circling the murder house over and over and over in the hours immediately leading up to the murder. And here is not for nothing, but Keith Morrison on the new card car footage in that now problematic Dateline that aired May 9th. Listen to SOT 33. Or is this just, yeah, is this a SOT you guys or is this video? This video obtained exclusively by date line shows a white

car on king road in moscow idaho on november 13th 2022 at the wheel the state will allege was brian kohlberger making repeated passes near a house where minutes later four students were stabbed to death here's a little bit more on his internet searches which we touched on just a bit, but here's a little bit more on his obsession with Ted Bundy. In late December, six weeks after the murders of Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Zanna Cronodal, and Ethan Chafin, record show Kohlberger, a criminology student, was again on his phone playing a clip from a YouTube program called Ted Bundy, The Essence of a Psychopath. Within 24 hours of that, two selfies, Kohlberger dressed the same way Bundy is pictured on that program.

Exactly, exactly the same. Very creepy. And on top of that, Dateline revealed we had heard this was possible before the Dateline episode. This is the first I know where it was confirmed by anybody, and it's about that K-bar knife. Keep in mind, for the listening audience, the murder was committed, they said, with a K-bar knife that they never found. But they did find a knife sheath that appears to match the murder weapon on site. That's what Viva referenced. One spot of touch DNA was recovered from the snap on that knife sheath that was ultimately matched directly to Brian Kohlberger. But they never did find the murder weapon. But they revealed, again, we had heard that this may have been the case, but this is the first I heard it actually confirmed and reported

that Kohlberger went to buy another K-Bar knife on Amazon right after the murders. SOT 36. After the murders, investigators discovered a sheath from a K-Bar knife apparently left by the killer in one of the victim's beds. DNA found on that sheath has been linked to Brian Kohlberger. Dateline was the first to report that Kohlberger bought a K-Bar knife seven months before the murders. And now we've obtained records showing that after the murders, Koberger was back on Amazon looking at K-Bars. He even clicked buy now and began the checkout process before exiting. Okay. And that was new information, guys, because what had been reported earlier

was that he may have gone on Amazon and was looking at, I think that was the term, was looking at K-Bar knives. And somebody defended him by saying, well, or he had reportedly said or his lawyer had said, Amazon serves that stuff up to you. You know, like you don't control. And it might have been somebody even in his family account who was looking for knives. And now we hear from the Dateline that he clicked, like that he was going to buy, click to buy. So like, that's, he definitely got this from law enforcement guys. Who, Phil, who else would have this amount of detail and turned over evidence, gave him surveillance video? Well, my instinct is similar to yours. I don't suspect it was any of the attorneys related to the prosecution team. Law enforcement, as you

mentioned, does tend to be leakier as a general rule. Of course, we don't know until the investigation reveals who the leaker is in this case, but my money would be that it's somewhere in the sort of investigative team on the law enforcement side. But here's the problem. The judge is between a rock and a hard place because on the one hand, somebody clearly violated this gag order and there's got to be a penalty for that. On the other hand, if the judge completely guts the prosecution's case and excludes all of this very, very powerful evidence, that remedy would be very extreme because it probably would lead to the acquittal of someone who killed probably four people. So the judge is not going to want to necessarily do that. So he's certainly not going to, the judge is not going to throw out the indictment. That's not

going to happen either. I think what's going to happen is they're going to find the judge is not going to throw out the indictment. That's not going to happen either. I think what's going to happen is they're going to find out who did this and they're going to throw somebody in jail for contempt of court. And there may be other less severe things that are related directly to the prosecution's evidentiary presentation. But if we had to guess, I'm going to say that they're not going to completely throw this evidence out of the case. It can be used, but somebody is going to pay that they're not going to completely throw this evidence out of the case. It can be used, but somebody is going to pay a price for this leak. Somebody played with fire, Viva, because this is good evidence for the prosecution. And if it's somebody on Team Prosecute, whether it's cops or investigators or the DA's office, they're playing with fire.

This is great stuff that you would never want excluded as the DA's office. They're playing with fire. This is great stuff that you would never want excluded as the DA. I think Dateline's playing with fire with this. I mean, you know, we refer to it as a leak. This isn't a leak.

This is the whole thing. Like, someone had access to the file, and I question whether or not someone stole the file. Forget whether or not it was leaked. And Dateline...

KMO? KMO didn't steal the file. He would never. Dateline running this three months before. No, it's two months before jury selection. They have to know what they're going to do to the trial on this. And I'm all for freedom of the press if there's no but to that. I just say after they've gone after James O'Keefe, you know, you know, investigated him for having accessed Ashley Biden's diary. You know, there's some serious questions as to whether or not journalists might have partaken in criminal activity in order to obtain this entire file and then make a one-sided

expose on the eve of the trial. I think this case was one that had a change in jurisdiction as well because of how, uh, yeah, yes. So this is like, this is almost sabotage of the trial. Maybe someone's got a crush on Kohlberg, you know, for those who study Ted Bundy, there's a bunch of people who fall in love with serial killers. But I think Dateline is playing with fire by having published this because this this is the trial before the trial. Very, very attracted to the story that casts NBC in a bad light. But I have to defend them here. I just think it's not their responsibility.

Somebody gave me that evidence. I would 100 percent air it. It's not their responsibility. If somebody gave me that evidence, I would 100% air it. It's a huge scoop. And it's not the journalist's job to look out for the integrity of the trial. That's the job of the people who have access to the info. Now, I normally would have thought, Viva, that it was a family member. You know, like usually when there's leaks about something like this, and because the family's upset about the gag orders,

the families are, or at least some of them are, they think they should be able to talk about anything. But there's no way this is a family member. They don't give the surveillance evidence and the search evidence in great detail with the exact quotes to the family members. And like the Ted Bundy photograph, it's identical, by the way, for listening audience, the one, the selfie he took of himself and the one that appeared in that Ted Bundy documentary he was watching on YouTube. It's like he styled it immediately after that's him in his dark charcoal gray. It looks like sweatshirt. He looks so disturbing. I just, I can't get past how scary this guy is. It looks like the grim Reaper in this picture. Like literally, it was so effective

because the evidence on the one hand circumstantial, but also on the other hand, some of that evidence is damning, like damn damning. Having bought the knife and then having bought another one after where he presumably disposed of the knife. I mean, that is that is pretty damning circumstantial evidence to have broadcast this on the eve of jury selection. Knowing the nature of the case, it looks like something of overt sabotage or, you know, someone got the scoop. Okay. I like it. Just keep talking. I mean, it's fine if I disagree. I want the audience to go your way. I have to own my bias. Wait, I just want to tell him a couple more of the things that were on there, the Dateline episode that resulted in this problem, that he not only watched the

Ted Bundy, uh, documentary, but, you know, research Ted Bundy that he kept bikini pictures of students from, uh, the Idaho university of Idaho and Washington state, uh, on his phone. I mean, I don't know. I don't think random, I'm just not sure. Like it's not weird for a college age guy to have bikini photos of girls, I guess, but like, it's a not sure. Like it's not weird for a college age guy to have bikini photos of girls, I guess, but like, it's a little creepy when you know, this guy had a lot of trouble with women. A lot of women who were in his class where he was a TA getting his PhD said he was a total misogynist that he definitely had a problem with women. And yet he's on there with like little bikini photos with very large breasted women from his university and the neighboring.

And he said he looks like a disgusting pervert. OK, going on that in late September 2022, the murder was in December. Sorry, November 2022. In September, he searched terms including sociopathic traits in college student. Okay. It's not, not great. And porn containing the keywords drugged and sleeping, which is a particular kind of freaky porn where people get off on having sex with people who are incapacitated. Um, in October, the very next month, this now we're one month before the murders, he searched, can psychopaths behave pro-socially? In the days following the murders, he searched for University of Idaho murders.

Well, so did everyone in the country virtually because we wanted to know. So that's not as damning. After the murders, took that jarring, creepy selfie inspired by the video of Ted Bundy. And, oh, the final one. He searched for the song after the murders and the day before being arrested. He searched for the song Criminal by Britney Spears. He wanted like the extra creepy, slowed down version. So it's all that, plus the Hyundai Elantra tape, plus the details about Ethan Chapin appearing to have been the last of the four targeted. And by the way, the sequence of the killings that was revealed by this Dateline

episode, how they believe Maddie Mogan was the primary target and he killed her first. Then he did Kaylee, who was, this is an accusation, he denies all guilt, who was sleeping in the bed with her, then went back down to the second floor where Ethan and Xana Cronodal were still awake that he killed Xana. I believe they said he chased her down the hall and killed her in the bedroom, and then Ethan was asleep. And they said he carved his lower legs with a blade. All of that, extraordinary, Phil, and brand stinking new. You know, what this looks like to me is he's maybe becoming, maybe by design, maybe he wants to become the next Ted Bundy, because why else would he even consider buying another knife like that? Because is he trying to duplicate? Is he

trying to do it again? That's what makes this whole thing so really, really frightening. It's obvious this man was disturbed. The evidence, if you look at the individual parts, maybe the pictures of the college girls in bikinis, if you just had that in a vacuum, maybe it would not mean much. But when you put all of it together, I think it really paints an overwhelming picture of a guilty person, a guilty mind, and quite frankly, a very, very disturbed, deranged mind. This is an individual who, in my opinion, knew what he was. He knew that he had psychiatric issues. He knew he had maybe sociopathic tendencies, and he was researching it and ultimately got to the point where he just felt like he was going to

have to just act out on these things that may have been fantastical in his brain, but it became to the point where he just needed to go ahead and do it. And that's what's so frightening is that there are people like that out there. a quadruple murder in 12 minutes without leaving behind one strand of his hair, any of his own skin, apart from that one dot on the knife sheath, I'm going to get to that, that he didn't transfer blood that must have gotten on him out of the house into his car at all. And they dissected that thing like a seventh grader with a frog in school when the frog was already dead. Anyway, they poured through that car, they ripped it apart, compartment by compartment, not a speck of hair evidence, blood evidence,

nothing back at his apartment. I mean, the meticulous planning he would have had to engage in to pull that off. And yet if the prosecution's right, and this is our guy, it's the same guy who left behind the knife sheath with his DNA. So clearly he hadn't rubbed it down to the point where he got rid of that. The same guy who turned off his cell phone as he left the Washington State for the University of Idaho, just for those like four hours. It was always on, you know, the nights before. It didn't magically go off for four hour periods overnight. Like some of us put it on airplane mode every night we go to bed. No, those patterns are not emerging. Like there was an anomaly where he

turned off the phone just for the four hours of around the murder. He drove his own car. He didn't factor in neighboring surveillance cameras that would show his car circling over and over and over and over and over again. He didn't protect his Amazon search. He did it obviously under his own name. He didn't think that they could find this stuff. They could find that he bought a K-bar knife before and that he went after, that they would be able to find his searches after the fact. I don't quite understand how you can have that level of brilliance and carelessness in the same criminal. Well, I don't believe that he was brilliant. I think that the things that you just talked about showed mistakes that were honestly very amateurish.

I mean, who doesn't know that everybody's got a ring camera? And who doesn't know that law enforcement can't see everything that you do on your smartphone, including what you buy and look at on Amazon? So it's like he planned this to a point, but he was sloppy. He did not plan it as much as maybe the perfect criminal would need to have planned it. I think he was honestly not as smart as he thinks he is. He's not as smart as he would like others to believe that he is. And he made foolish mistakes. And these are the things that ultimately are going to send him to prison for the rest of his life. But one thing we can tell from all this is that he planned this. He put a lot of thought into it, and that shows he's got an abandoned and malignant heart, one that's not capable of being rehabilitated. And there's nothing else that

makes sense other than for him to never breathe free air again. This was a pre-planned, premeditated, horrific killing, snuffing out the lives of four young Americans who had everything in their future just waiting for them. And he stole it from them. Okay. Well, more as we get it on whether the judge does postpone the trial and or, you know, God forbid, worse, like deprives the prosecution of using some evidence. I think she, I don't know if she'll be able to get to the bottom of who did it. you know, God forbid worse, like deprives the prosecution of using some evidence. I think she I don't know if she'll be able to get to the bottom of who did it. You know, no one's going to admit it. I think the people who leaked it would probably lie under oath to if given a declaration or an affidavit.

They're not just going to roll over. Go ahead, Viva. You wanted to say something. It's going to be some paper trail there to the leak if it was a leak or to the theft, if it was a theft or someone left a briefcase and it was picked up. But, you know, just to the element of, you know, him being super smart and ingenious or what was the word? Well, intelligent. Oh, yeah. Brilliant and careless. Brilliant and careless. You know, to the extent that he has been, I don't know if officially diagnosed as on the spectrum, he was, you know, described as being a very bizarre person. You can have lawyers say he is. Yeah, and it might make a little sense. I'm not trying to write anything off in terms

of mental conditions. It could explain the incredible insight or the preparation for certain things, and then in so much as he couldn't read social cues, recklessness with respect to others. Oh, yeah, they're going to search and know that you were on Amazon buying a knife if indeed

this was your plan. Maybe he thought he'll leave a signature if indeed he did it. The only question I have is given now what has been revealed of the extent of the fight, at least chasing down the third victim. And apparently from what the report said, he sat in a chair and there was evidence of that there had been a struggle. To the extent there's not one speck of DNA other than the speck on that sheet, which is also weird to have found at the crime scene, to the extent there's not any other DNA there, anywhere, in the car. I mean, there's methodical cleaning

and then there's impossible-to-explain levels of cleaning. So that's the, from the defense perspective, where I have my biggest question, how is it even conceivable that there was no DNA other than that speck on that knife? But, you know, someone can be extremely intelligent in certain respects and then absolutely clueless in others. I mean, I think that's what we clearly have here because someone committed those murders and it's not like they found some other guy's DNA all over those bedrooms. And, you know, now the defense is reportedly getting ready to argue that there were two spots of blood. They don't know whose blood it was and that those are our real

killers, but okay. I mean, we'll see what happens with that. I don't believe it, but anyway. Okay. I want to move on before we go to Baldoni and Livelypoenaed Taylor Swift. They wanted Taylor Swift to, I guess, produce documents and release her texts, at least those between Taylor and Blake Lively. And Taylor's team objected. And then some other stuff happened, which I'm going to get to, but the long and the short of it is back to Brian Friedman. He withdrew the subpoena for Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift's lawyers came out. A spokesperson said, oh, we're pleased that Baldoni's legal team has withdrawn their harassing subpoenas to Taylor Swift and her law firm. We supported the efforts of Taylor's team to quash

these inappropriate subpoenas directed to her counsel. And we will continue to stand up for any third party who is unjustly harassed or threatened in the process. Uh, let's see. Oh, that was a spokesperson for lively. Forgive me. That was a spokesperson for Blake Lively. Okay. Now the interesting twist, however, comes from a Daily Mail report. The worm turns. The Daily Mail reports that the reason the subpoena was withdrawn is that Taylor Swift's own father, Scott Swift, reportedly went to Justin's team with the bombshell claim that Blake Lively threatened to leak his daughter's texts if Taylor Swift did not publicly support her. Quote, Scott Swift did not want his daughter, Taylor, to be dragged into this

any further, and he voluntarily gave up this information as part of a deal that would include Baldoni's team withdrawing their subpoena for Taylor, an insider alleged to the Daily Mail on Friday. Baldoni's lawyer, still reading here from the Daily Mail, Brian Friedman, may be alleged threat public in a court filing this month, claiming a source, now believed to be Taylor Swift's father, informed him that Blake Lively's lawyer brought the demand to Taylor Swift's law firm, meaning demanded to Taylor Swift's people that she needed to support Blake Lively or see her texts revealed. Friedman also said the source said that Lively once requested that Taylor Swift delete all of

her texts with Lively. Lively's attorney denied Friedman's allegation in a statement to the New York Post. This is categorically false. We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources. They're going to have to work on their statements. And completely untethered from reality. Okay. So that's a very interesting story, Viva. And I got to say, very believable.

Well, I can tell you, my wife is more interested in this story than I was. And she was more up to speed with the Justin Baldoni thing. What's very interesting, look, as having been a lawyer for 13 years, civil, there's nothing. Everybody thinks it's harassing to get a subpoena, but me thinks the lady doth protest too much. These harassing subpoenas and these cowardly deeds. My goodness, the five months of email exchanges between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively could certainly be relevant to the machinations of the manufacturing of these sexual harassment allegations or the threats. You'd better defend me. I read these things now, so now I know more than I ever wanted to know that Taylor Swift and Ryan Reynolds were the dragons of Blake Lively, which means like her guard dogs. I think that someone would say it's harassing.

Blake is the Khaleesi figure and Taylor is just a mere dragon who has to protect Blake and do what Blake tells her. Never seen any of these. I have no idea what those words mean. I just know the relevance of the content. The idea that it's nonsense. Nobody likes getting a subpoena. But my goodness, the fact that they've already gotten the texts that are in the subpoena might lend a little bit more credence to the allegation of the accusation that there were demands made to delete these. What I just don't understand, and maybe both of you can explain it. The judge really came down hard on the lawyer threatening sanctions if they abuse of the judicial process again, which I thought was

mildly uncalled for because I didn't think everything was abusive in the first place to issue a subpoena just because it's Taylor Swift doesn't mean she doesn't get subpoenaed. Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure why the lawyer or the judge was so mad. That piece of the story is U.S. District Judge Louis Littman granted Blake Lively's motion to strike the letter. And I believe this is Brian Friedman's letter and supporting affidavit that speaks to some of these issues.

He said that they were improper and irrelevant to any issue before this court. Counsel's advised that future misuse of the court's docket may be met with sanctions. It transparently invites a press uproar by suggesting that Lively and her counsel attempted to extort a well-known celebrity. Well, if that's what actually happened, and I realize we don't know, then it's fine. Then it may be relevant. And it certainly makes me want to see them even more if they're going through these links to try to hide them. Look, all I know is Taylor was subpoenaed and Brian Friedman withdrew the subpoena and appears to have cooperated here on the record, suggesting that there's been correspondence between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift about possibly deleting all the text messages or making a public statement in support of Blake Lively, which Taylor Swift has not done, Phil. Well, the reason that a lawyer would file something like a letter in the actual record, you know, the court's records in the case, is because they want it to become public record. And so, at least to that extent, I can kind of see where the judge is coming from. But look, there's only really two main reasons why you would ever withdraw a subpoena. And Viva's

right. Nobody likes getting these things. And just because you got one doesn't mean you've been harassed or anybody's abusing anything. But there's two reasons I can think of, two main reasons to withdraw a subpoena. One is you believe that a motion to quash might be successful and you don't want to have egg on your face. That doesn't seem to be the case. These lawyers have not shied away from contentious litigation, so I doubt that would be the reason. So we're left with the other reason is that they got what they needed, or most of it, through some other way. And of course, now we know about Taylor Swift's father. So it all makes perfectly good sense to me now why this subpoena was withdrawn, because they've

clearly got what they want. Now, whether or not any of that's actually going to be admissible in any trial, well, that remains to be seen because pretrial subpoenas, this is all discovery. It doesn't have to lead to evidence that's directly admissible, but it can be in the search for evidence that would be admissible at a trial. So the discovery rules are pretty broad. They have the right to go on something of a fishing expedition, and I think they simply got the fish that they were seeking. He has not ruled, no one's ruled out deposing Taylor Swift, and Viva, that could still be coming, even if it's true that Taylor Swift's dad

intervened here to spare her having to turn over all of her text messages. And I'm sure that would be embarrassing to Taylor Swift. Probably Taylor Swift doesn't want that either, right? Like this is some dispute between these other two. She probably wants no, no part in this. Um, so maybe the dad is trying to save her that embarrassment, but in a litigation, if they get to this point where they need somebody to verify correspondence or that Blake Lively was allegedly putting a pressure campaign on her to either make a public statement and or to delete all their texts, he has every right to call her. You're right. There's no exception to discovery rules because you're rich and famous.

Especially if you got the text now, you know, some might say, well, they need Taylor Swift to admit them as evidence, but they wouldn't if it's between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively, they've got Blake Lively there. So if they got the documentation that they wanted, they don't necessarily have it admitted as evidence because Blake Lively was the recipient and the interlocutor. I think. Good point. OK, so maybe the dad did save Taylor from having to be dragged in for a deposition. And honestly, I'm sure that the dad, if he's trying to spare Taylor, is looking to make it worth Brian Friedman's while to move on from Taylor.

Like, here are all the texts. Goodbye. Please leave us alone. Go ahead, Viva. Also, if it indeed is the case that she was asked to delete her text message, are you going to get Taylor Swift involved in destruction of evidence. I mean, the dad might not like what's your face, Blake Lively.

And Blake Taylor might not like Blake Lively because it's one thing to have. From what I understand, Blake Lively is not the innocent one in all of this, and she might be the culprit. So if you have a bad woman who might have been using some form of blackmail over Taylor Swift or extortion, coercion, whatever, if she's asking Taylor to potentially delete evidence, my goodness, the dad is doing what a good dad would do, protect his daughter. Way more to lose at this point than Blake Lively. Again, the Lively team says none of this is true. And the judge was unhappy about the letter that was submitted alleging it. But we'll see. The proof will be in those text messages. If Brian Friedman has them, we're going to find out. So it's not

going to stay a mystery for very long. That case continues forward and is set for trial in March of 2026. We'll see whether it ever makes it that far. Viva, Phil, a pleasure, gentlemen. Thanks so much for being here. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure. Always happy to be with both of you guys. Ah, it's great to see you again, Phil. You too, Viva. All right. We will be back tomorrow. We actually have more legal tomorrow because Alan Dershowitz is here. There's a lot to go over with him. His accuser in that whole Epstein thing died. And they're like, they said she died by suicide. Some of our family are saying, we don't accept that. Anyway, I don't know that Dershowitz has spoken to it, but we'll ask him about it and all the legal machinations around Trump right now,

including his massive fight with Harvard. It's getting bigger by the day. We'll go deep tomorrow. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.