The Megyn Kelly Show - Diddy Sentencing, Robinson Death Penalty Potential, and D4vd Trunk Mystery, with MK True Crime Contributors | Ep. 1163

Episode Date: October 3, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by MK True Crime contributors Mark Geragos, Matt Murphy, Arthur Aidala, Mark Eiglarsh, Dave Aronberg, and Phil Holloway to discuss the breaking developments in the Diddy sentencing, the judge’s decision to factor in “acquitted conduct,” why the judge's statements sound bad for the Diddy defense team, how Diddy’s celebrity status could influence his prison placement, the distinction between jail and prison, Diddy’s legal team making emotional appeals during sentencing, one of his lawyers invoking race and actually crying, the next steps in the case against alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson, whether the overwhelming evidence will lead to the death penalty or life in prison, the high-priced defense team Robinson has, whether the prosecutors might offer a plea deal, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case about Colorado's “affirm only” therapy law, how the law restricts therapists from exploring alternative explanations for gender confusion, the disturbing case involving singer D4vd, the 15-year-old girl found dead in his Tesla, whether he could be getting framed in the crime, and more. Subscribe to MK True Crime:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mk-true-crime/id1829831499Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4o80I2RSC2NvY51TIaKkJWYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime?sub_confirmation=1Social: http://mktruecrime.com/ Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Get 60% off an annual plan at https://incogni.com/MEGYNcode MEGYN at checkout.Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYNto speak with a strategist for FREE todayUnplugged US, LLC: Switching is simple, Visit https://Unplugged.comand order your UP phone today!Golden Age Fats: Go to https://Goldenagefats.com/MK and use code MK for 25% off your first order.  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Today is a mega Kelly's court where we are going to bring in our friends from MK True Crime on the MK Media Podcast Network. If you're not subscribed, go on over to wherever you're your podcast, type in MK True Crime and then hit subscribe or follow. And it, comes out twice a week. It's a, it's a crime podcast, comes out twice a week with all of our Kelly's court stars, and it's doing great. And we begin today with breaking news. The Sean Diddy Combs' sentencing hearing is going on at this moment in a Manhattan federal courtroom. We are live on Series XM at noon east right now. A jury acquitted Diddy in July of racketeering conspiracy and two counts of sex trafficking, but it found him guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. At trial, the music moguls' ex-girlfriends testified that they were pressured

by him to have sex with male escorts in drug-dazed marathon sessions known as freak-offs, hotel nights, and debauchery. They also testified that he beat the living daylights out of them when they didn't want to do it. There are a wide range of outcomes for Diddy today. He could be released for time served. He's served, I think, 13 months so far. He could be, he could get a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. I don't think anybody really expects that. Or the judge could go someplace in the middle. Prosecutors have asked for 11 years and three months. Did he's attorney say he should get a total of 14 months, meaning he would be out of prison in time for Christmas with the 13 months served? And so far this morning is ongoing. At this moment,

moment so far, it does not look great for Diddy. The judge reportedly ruled that he, the judge, can and will consider some of the conduct that Diddy was acquitted of. In other words, the jury didn't say he didn't do these things. They just said it didn't amount to racketeering or sex trafficking. And so the judge is saying he will consider some of these underlying facts that were put in evidence toward those charges, including the accusation that he coerced women. That means the sentencing guidelines are between 70 and 87 months of incarceration. We're talking to seven, eight years. The judge is still free to go above or below those guidelines, though. And he's still in the middle of hearing arguments from both sides. So we begin today with

MK True Crime contributors Matt Murphy and Mark Garagos. Garagos's daughter, Teni, is a chip off the old block. She is one of Diddy's attorneys who got, yes, there was a conviction of Diddy, she definitely got him acquitted of the far more serious charges. You can go and subscribe again now to mKTruecrime, mKtruecime.com, on YouTube and all podcast platforms. If you have ever Googled yourself, you know how many results contain your personal information, stuff you did not know or want out there. It's not by chance.

Your information is available. Your name, your address, your phone number, your financial info, income, legal and health history. It can all be sold and shared publicly without your consent. There are real risks here, including financial scams, identity theft, unfair targeting by insurance companies, and general safety risks. But I want to tell you about incogni. This helps you take control of your online privacy. You sign up, you allow them to act on your behalf, and they demand that these data brokers delete your personal info.

Now they've introduced something huge, custom data removals. With their unlimited plan, Incogni's privacy team gets your info taken down, from any specific site. Right now, you can get 60% off an annual plan by heading to incogni.com slash Megan and use that code Megan when you check out to ensure your discount. It is risk-free with their 30-day money-back guarantee. Take your personal data back with incogni. Get 60% off an annual plan at I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com slash Megan. Code Megan at checkout. guys welcome welcome boy you didn't find another defense lawyer for me today you had to bring prosecutorial backup on as we're talking about ditty i mean talk about a wingman having murphy here

to talk ditty with you it's got to be fair and ballast mark we can't just give you a pass we got to make you sing for your supper um well i do can i say one thing yeah i was just going to say Megan, you hit it on the head. I'm obviously not in the courtroom. I'm sitting right here with you, but if I'm sitting in the courtroom and my poor daughter who's sitting there cooking up my next grandchild, I cannot tell you how bad that decision is by the judge, bad meaning for Sean, because he has now adopted the sentencing guidelines that probation. said he should, which you said 70, 80, 87 months. What that also tells you when he says, I'm also going to consider the acquitted conduct

for people who don't understand. It seems counterintuitive, but in federal court, you can be acquitted. You can be found not guilty on something. I can't tell you the number of times I've had that with clients and then have to sit and explain to the client, sorry, we won that, but you got nicked on one count, and they're still coming after you for the stuff that the jury said you didn't do.

And that's, he's going to get, hey, my prediction yesterday on MK True Crime of an over under of 39 months and taking the under, I think I've lost my bet already. Now you go for the over. What do you think, Matt, of what's happening in that courtroom this morning? Well, I was a little surprised, Megan, actually, when the judge came in, because that acquitted conduct thing was kind of a big deal in federal sentencing circles. If you practice law in federal court, that was something that pretty much every lawyer who practices criminal law in that arena was talking about. And the judge had no problem today coming in and saying, yeah, I'm going to consider this conduct.

Now, he didn't come out and say that it was acquitted contact per se, I don't think, Mark. It was, I'm going to consider these other acts of violence that were related to these things, right? But it, I know Mark thought the same thing I did, that that is, that's going to be fodder for appeal, for sure. Yeah, for anybody who's in the way. Isn't the judge make this point when they were pushing for no bail, when Diddy's lawyers wanted no bail, sorry, wanted bail for him, the judge said to them, you argued in your closing that he committed abuse of these women. And he used that against them to say, I'm not bailing this guy out, like he's going to have to sit there. So the so-called acquitted conduct, I mean, he was acquitted on legal charges, but the jury didn't say he didn't abuse these women. Even the defense admitted he abused the women.

So is the judge on solid ground saying, yeah, so I am going to consider that. What do you think, Mark? Well, what he did in the bail hearing, I was sitting in there when he did it, the government made a very clever point. They said that the man act, even though there were no allegations necessarily of violence, to transport these mail escorts across state lines. It's grouped in the code under a section that is violence. So anything that is in that section of the guidelines is violence, and therefore, he said, I'm not going to release him on bail.

He made the point at that time, and I remember hearing it and saying, well, there's a lifeline, so to speak. He said, this doesn't mean I'm going to ham. He didn't say hammer him at sentencing, but this is with no prejudice, basically, to sentencing. What he did today, though, Matt was spot on. He says, I'm not going to, and it's a fine distinction, I'm not going to say that I'm going to consider it for the factors, but I am going to see, I am going to consider it for the 3553 factors. It's going to inform my decision. It's going to make me not, the way I read it, it's going to make me not go down

and I'm certainly not going to cut you a break is the bottom line. Go ahead, Matt. What do you think? Yeah, it's, you know, it's hard to draw the line, Megan, on a case like this, because we all saw that tape, right? And Cassie Ventura was involved in the Man Act. She was one of the people that's participating in the acts of prostitution. And we've seen this violence that, I mean, we've all watched the video, and it's horrific.

So where is the court obligated to draw that line? He was acquitted of the RICO. He was acquitted of the sex trafficking. But he sure wailed on her. And look, did he? I know Mark- And didn't try to deny it. Like totally admitted that this was him assaulting Cassie in the video we're watching right now.

Oh. Right. And look, he, you know, he has, I read his letter to the court. And he's, you know, Mark could have written that letter himself. In fact, his daughter probably did. It's predictable, given all the sentencing factors that go into that. And I know Mark's got a relationship with Diddy, and I totally respect that. Mark's on him for a long time.

I've never met him objectively. I think at the end of all this, Diddy is a horrible human being, or at least he comes off that way. And this is, there's an old adage, Megan, you probably remember from law school. It's the only thing more powerful than a federal judge on the planet Earth is God himself, right? or herself, I guess, in the modern era. So this judge came out and said some very affirmative things, like Mark just said, regarding the sensing of what he's going to consider. And, Mark, I watched this segment on MK True Crime yesterday.

I would have taken the over on your 39 months, but I thought that was in the ballpark yesterday, and now that is out the window. Well, I agree. It looks like 70-month minimum here. Do you know what the government said, and I haven't been complimentary of the government in this prosecution at all. But she got up today, Slavic got up today. And she said, Your Honor, you want to talk about the height of hubris.

He booked speaking engagements for Miami next week. If that is true, and I have not talked to anybody on the defense to ask about that or whoever did that should be, I'm walking a line as to what I would do. But I, that would be, you wouldn't. just be fired if you were in my office and you allowed that to happen. I'd take a baseball bat to you, speaking of violence. I mean, can you believe that? I don't, because I don't even want to go there. I'm so conflict. They monitor the jailhouse calls, right? Is that, like, everything you say in the jail is recorded. So if he'd booked that while in jail, they'd know. It's exactly.

That's exactly right, Megan. I mean, you're so smart, Jesus. And then if you knew how many times the things were said on those jailhouse calls that you just want to take somebody and get violent yourself. I mean, it's just, it's unbelievable. There's giant signs. There are giant signs in the jail. I mean, it's not like you know it. I mean, these signs say, you are being recorded. I mean, it's unbelievable to me. To me, it's the same thing as like those huge signs on the beaches that say shark attacks here on this beach that people still go in. And it's like, well, then they get attacked by a shark. You know, you can't say you weren't warned. So that's bad.

The judge will probably consider that, Matt. The other thing is this is a relatively young judge in terms of his experience on the bench. So for him to come in first thing and say, I am going to consider this stuff. To me, telegraphs, he's been consulting with the other judges on exactly what he can and cannot do. I don't think he'd be such a, like, gunslinger if he hadn't checked it out and felt very confident that he'll be upheld on appeal for, you know, when it gets, challenge. No doubt. And going back to the phone call thing, Megan, this is something that we've talked about before that nobody is really addressing. That is, remember when he was in jail, the reason why he's felt so confident, or at least in the past, on some of these jailhouse

conversations, is he was using other inmates calling codes. And he was calling witnesses. And Mark and I have both gone through this before. When you have a client or somebody that is, that is misbehaving in that way, that's a personal affront to a to a judge a lot of times and that is when that when he got busted for that that was right at the very beginning right as one of the reasons why the court kept denying the repeated bail motions was this guy can't even follow the rules in jail that's the type of thing that will stick with judges a lot of times and and you're right I mean this judge I guarantee he was very very careful and researching the parameters because no judge wants to get reversed on a high profile case. And he worded it exactly right, I think, so that he would, you know,

limit the amount of appellate challenge for scrutiny that that call regarding the sentencing guidelines and consideration of acts of violence is going to, is going to impact the sentencing because, you know, it's going to go up. They're going to spend the resources to do that. And I guarantee he had a lot of conversations with more experienced sentencing judges in federal court. So we're looking at that 70 months to 84 months, whatever we just said, That's around seven years, six, six and change to seven in change. What happens with that, Mark? If he gets that, how much of that does he serve in a federal sentence?

You know, somebody that I just had a sentencing last week in Matt's backyard and down in the Santa Ana courthouse. And the client got 24 months. Somebody, somebody when I came back to the office and I was complaining about the 24 months and forget about it, they'll be out in five months. 24 months is the new year and a day. That's the, you know, it used to be a year and a day was the way you get out. There are programs now, the RDAP, first step, things of that nature, that greatly reduce your

time. But it is not so that people understand in the federal system, it's starting to get more like the state, but it's not like the state where you get set good time, work time on a five-year sentence, if you're half time, you'll be out and half time. Federal doesn't work that way. If he gets 60 or 70 months, he's going to do real time. And he's going to do, and because of the pending, one of the other things you have to keep in mind is, where does he get designated? What kinds of findings does the judge make? He can, you know, the difference between a satellite camp in Lompoc and someplace that is a level or two levels above is a monumental difference. It's a difference between

going to summer camp and then having to watch yourself at all times. And so those are real big determinations depending on the amount of time and depending on what this judge says when he sentences him. That's what I'm going to be looking for. What is he going to say? How much is he going to invoke violence and things of that nature? Okay, so I may have sort of an answer to that question that just came in. Sort of. In Inner City Press is reporting on this case as they have been from the beginning, very good Twitter account to follow. And some of this is X-rated, so bear with me. Combs's attorney, Driscoll, argues in John's cases, where you're talking about like the guy who paid for the prostitution, the average sentence is 6.7 months.

In this other case, they were discussing, the defendant texted the victim. I meant what I said about making a mold of your, you know what, the rest of you ain't worth shit. So he's trying to distinguish a case that had a hefty sentence by saying that guy was a complete douchebag. And that should be considered an opposite. And the judge responded, but there was no threat of violence in that case. This is, again, bad. This is not what you want to be hearing on team defense. The judge saying he's going to consider, the violence and then arguing with you on how this should be treated like the John cases because, I don't know why, but because they're arguing that these women did consent to being there. And the judge is saying, okay, but I'm not considering those because there was no threat of violence. And there is a ton of testimony about how, while sometimes the women wanted to participate, Matt, you know, his girlfriends, there were definitely times when they didn't. And you had even the prostitutes, the male prostitutes testifying that he heard Diddy beating the hell out of them behind closed doors and then they'd come out, upset, and hurt. And he couldn't perform. Like the one guy testified, he wasn't able to, like, go forward sexually because it was so jarring having heard Diddy just beat the hell out of this woman. The judge has not forgotten that. No, the Punisher was his name, I think. And I found an interview with Ashley Pantfield and that guy. Right. The

Punisher. Well, and he said it was in front of a basketball nickname, and I seriously doubt that that's why he got that name. That's what we used to actually call. We used to call Murphy that when he was in the DA's office, but for other reasons, he was the Punisher, yes. Yeah, very different source. Yes. The, look, the, strangely about that, I saw an interview with that guy. He was one of the only people that I thought personally was all that sympathetic here. I mean, that's another interesting aspect of this case is there's so many. orbiters around Sean Combs that were trying to advance their own career or have now filed civil suits against him. And there was this, I don't know, this kind of almost parasitic elements surrounding him on a near constant basis that the Punisher was one of the most sympathetic witnesses, I think, in the entire trial. And he talked about that, though. He talked about he was,

I think he was inherently credible. And he, I think he undid their entire sex trafficking case because he said this wasn't coerced in any way because of course that way to made him a rapist too um and i i just uh i don't know i was a little i was a little surprised uh at the tenor this morning i really was but going back to the sentencing um the that art out program that mark's talking about i think that that that stands for a residential drug treatment essentially and that can shave up to 12 months off but it's mark's right it's not like state court so you you're still going to tick a substantial federal hit. So if he got 70 months, I was trying to do some of the math on that after I saw the judge say that. Mark's right. He's looking at, you know, two, three, potentially even

four actual years. And depending on placement, and that, you know, that is, he could go someplace super heavy or he could go, he could go to summer camp. And that, I think, is the next step in this. Judge? You know, it works with, yeah, it's federal probation. decides the classification, right, Mark? It's essentially the way that works. It's an interesting, and I hate to get so nuanced on you, but I will. It's up to the judge in the sense of, the judges know how many months get you to where, meaning what you're eligible for, what you're not eligible for.

The judges also know, if they make certain findings, that's going to inform the Bureau of Prisons as well. So there's a dance that is being done right now, and you're, you know, if you're Sean Combs, somebody's going to have to explain to you at the end of this day today that you're either going one place or you're going another and you're going to be designated in the next probably three weeks. Mark, how do you get to what's called club fed, you know, like the Martha Stewart prison where it seemed like more closer to summer camp that you can't leave? than it did to like a Supermax prison? Well, you saw recently with Jeline Maxwell that she got switched from one of those more, what I would consider a harder facility to a kind of a camp-like facility.

And there are camp-like facilities on both coasts. But that would require a sentence under a certain number of months and would require the judge making certain fine, and the judge can make, and he'll be asked, I'm sure, today, to designate or recommend a designation. But it's Bureau of Prisons and Probation who is going to inform that and also going to inform how he's designated. Now, let me stick with you on this one, Mark, since you're the celebrity defense attorney, do they consider that he really is very famous? And, you know,

in his defense would be more the center of attention in any prison than your average prison. Yeah, absolutely. They don't. The last thing they want is for something untoward to happen to him while in custody. I know that that seems counterintuitive because you're punishing somebody by putting him in custody. But no, they're very attuned to that. They take great steps to try to protect people because the last thing they want is to have to deal with the attendant publicity if something were to happen. I mean, you have right now, Matt, him complaining about the conditions where he's at the Metropolitan Detention Center, which is rather infamous in its unpleasant conditions. He's claiming through his lawyers that he only has showers that are extremely cold or extremely hot. He has to use a toilet that's two feet away from other inmates and with no doors. He is claiming that he has to eat meals that may or may not have. have maggots on them, which is pretty extreme. I don't know whether it's true, but that's what he's alleging. And I don't know. He's saying those, the lawyers are arguing those 13 months should count for more than your average 13 given where he has spent them.

Yeah, good luck with that argument. You know, that's going nowhere. Do you remember, Megan, he had a reality show. Did he had a reality show that went on for a while? he had a reality show way back in the day and I watched an episode and an old girlfriend that was really into it and he came into the group and it was like

it's almost like an apprentice type thing where people would come in and they'd work for him for a little while and he was eccentric and all that but there was an episode where he came in somebody was complaining about something and he said there is no bitch-assness at bad boy records no bitch-assness

so he invented a word and when I saw that letter complaining about the conditions that's exactly what I thought it was like dude, you're expressing bitch-assness. And he is, that's going to fall into deaf fears of the court because essentially that sounds like a celebrity complaining about uncomfortable conditions that everybody else in that jail also has to endure. And plus, I'd be very surprised.

Jails are terrible. And you're right, this is a notorious one. But maggots in the food, I don't buy it, actually. And I know it's not great, but I don't buy it. Yeah. The press reached out to MDC for a comment on that, and they didn't get back to them. But, I mean, I don't buy it either. If you had maggots on the food out there, like, you'd never, this would be a big story,

and you'd have tons of lawyers in there, the ACLU, among them, filing claims that this is a violation of civil rights. Go ahead, Mark. Well, the interesting thing, and one of the reasons that they put this in the sentencing document, in the Southern District, in several reported cases, judges have imposed, either a lesser sentence or given kind of bonus points, so to speak, for being housed in the MDC. I've been to that MDC countless times and to see Sean and otherwise. And the people who work it are extraordinarily helpful, but the facility itself is really a challenge. And I'm not eating there other than to buy him stuff out of the vending machine, but the, and I, and I,

But what I usually tell clients when they complain about the food is, you know, well, get away. It's a forced diet. I mean, rarely does somebody go in there very skinny so you can come out in better shape. But it is, and there is a precedent, so to speak, for judges to give you some kind of credit for being housed there. He was talking about how he wasn't being given his pre-diabetic meals, Matt, and how he's not getting therapy for his. knee and his shoulder, which he says he needs. I mean, that's just prison, right? Like, do you get, if you were somebody who was getting physical therapy on the outside, does the prison provide that to you? Do you have to have pre-diabetic meals? Like, what, how much of this

gets entertained by any prison? Well, a lot, believe it or not, as far as the, yeah, going back to what Mark said, they don't want, you know, they don't want anybody famous to get, seriously assaulted or killed, they really do have to take steps. And like you pointed out, the ACLU sues everybody all the time. They sue prisons all the time. So they do have to provide some of that. But one of the interesting things, and this was in the letter too, and I know this caught Mark's attention, he keeps talking about prison. This is not prison. This is jail. This is prison is the next step. Prison is where he's going after sentencing. And prison can be a lot more hardcore, believe it or not, than this place, depending on where he is, ultimately classified and sent to.

So, jail and prison are two totally different things. We interchange those two terms, but this is a holding facility. I know some federal prisoners do their time in local facilities like this. It's no picnic, but there's a lot worse places than where he is right now. I mean, I think they try to make it a deterrent, right? My guess is they don't want it to feel like the Ritz-Carlton. Yeah, but Matt makes a really good point. It's supposed to, ideally, pre-conviction, if you're being held in a facility, pre-conviction has a constitutional different standard than post-conviction. And that's the difference between, at least theoretically and constitutionally, between a jail and a prison. And that's why Matt's point is so brilliant and why you have to think about it. Where he goes, what the judge says once he sentences him is everything. I mean, you, it really, this, if the judge wants to, they know how federal judges to Matt's point, and it made me think of an old joke that I will not repeat here, but federal judges next to sit on the right hand of God, and they know what

they are doing and they can punish you like nobody's business. That's the thing he's got going against him, Matt, is that that judge sat through that entire trial, same as we did, and heard all of the terrible evidence against Diddy as a human, you know, even though he wasn't found guilty on Rico, he heard about how he bribed the security clerks at the Intercontinental to hide that tape so he couldn't be caught. He heard about him with the girls, his lover, his girlfriend throwing up because she couldn't keep going with the freak off saying, oh, good, now that you've thrown up, you can get back out there and finish up strong, like treating her like a racehorse. I mean, the inhumanity with which he behaved toward these women is seared.

And I'm sitting here at a desk. I wasn't the judge in the courtroom looking at the women telling these stories. Well, and let's not forget about the arson as well of Kate Cuddy, right, Megan? And I'll tell you another thing that's in the back of this judge's mind. And I'd be interested in Mark's thoughts on this. But look, the L.A. County criminal system is almost under Georgia. Gascone, it really was almost like a failed state. And you look at some of these crimes of violence that he heard like the Cassie Ventura video that we all saw, like the Arsenal Kid Cuddy. All of that

happened in Los Angeles. And you're talking about, you know, this is the L.A. City Council bought hookline and sinker into the defund the police stuff. Right now there's 8600 sworn officers at LAPD. It's the lowest it's been since 1995. And a lot of cases like this, go uninvestigated, unsolved, unpersewed in L.A. County, all of these, all of these other crimes, these were state cases. And he wasn't convicted of any of those because there was no federal equivalent. They wrapped him in in the RICO stuff. But in that judge's mind, he's got to know that L.A. is a mess under George Gascon, who was recently voted out. And I think Gascon is one of the worst things that ever happened in public safety in Marconized town of Los Angeles ever.

But that's also, I think, in a factor in, all of these crimes that were not properly investigated, that were not properly pursued, that the judge heard all about, you know, that's what was so interesting about his statement today. I'm going to consider these other crimes of violence. And it's almost like, you know, there's an element there that the reason why we're seeing so many federal prosecutions out of LA crimes. And we've seen a bunch of them. Matthew Perry is another example of that. There were state charges all over that case. the feds took it up because Gascon and the former Star Trek, I should say, so we got a new guy now, Nathan Hockman, who's a thousand times better.

I think Mark will disagree on this on recent experience. Now you're really throwing down on me. Nathan Hocker, you want to talk about a failed DA's office, Jesus. Oh, don't be careful. You've got to go in front of these people and deal with them still, Mark. I know, I know. But, you know, Matt and I will agree to disagree here. I've got a, you know, by the way, the intercontinental incident itself, so people understand, took place well before George Gascon was ever voted in.

I mean, that would talk about something that was nine years ago. Well, and it was buried. Interesting. Yeah. And it, well, it was buried for a lot of reasons. I mean, not the least of which, Cassie, you know, the problem with this case is everybody went first to a civil lawyer. Nobody was reporting anything to the police. everybody wanted a paycheck. I mean, to the point where there was even one of the guys who testified at the trial and said, no, I'm not going to sue. What does he do? Two weeks ago, he sues. So, I mean, I am in full disclosure, my office has defended a number of these things. And each one is, frankly, more ridiculous than the other. That's, having been said, I think Matt is spot on when he says, the judge sat through this. This judge, is young and new to the bench. However, he does meet one of the criteria that I like of judges. I like judges who took a pay cut to get onto the bench, as opposed to it's the best job they ever had. And this guy took a massive pay cut to be on the bench. To me, that gives them

street cred in the sense that they're there because they want to do what's right. And so I say that even though I think this is not going to end well today, as we're taking. this, but he's a very thoughtful, incredibly bright former Supreme Court clerk and was at the top of his game when he was in private practice. Well, I know you're talking about L.A. and practice there. This case, of course, is in federal court in New York, but we've had similar problems in New York. I mean, everybody knows the problems. The George Soros-Bacteer here, revolving door of criminals. They don't hold them to account. I mean, it is kind of a miracle that this happened, though it was federal court and it was a notorious defendant. Listen to this, Matt.

Inner City Press reporting, oh no, sorry, this is CNN, that the defense appears to be playing the race card. That's our interpretation. Quote, Mr. Combs, this is the defense, his attorney Nicole Westmoreland. Mr. Combs starting his own record label as a black young male back then was almost kind of jocable, but he had the audacity to do it anyway. This changed the industry and it changed the culture, but more importantly, it changed countless individuals' lives because what people recognize is that if Mr. Combs could do it, then they could do it too, stand by. By the way, this attorney herself is black, she goes on, this is per the New York Times, and started crying. There's Matt, we've been over this. There's no crying in criminal defense practice.

She goes on to say, no, none, no. She breaks down in tears while discussing the mogul's importance in their community via his entrepreneurial work in television, fashion, liquor, and music as a writer-producer, artist, and label owner. Quote, Mr. Combs wearing all of those hats, she said, in tears, sent a message that you can do it. You don't just have to be signed to a label. You can be the label. Okay. Maybe that could work in front of a jury. I'm going to guess Judge Supermanian's like, um, is it time yet? He came out today. Judge Subramanian. And the first thing he said was the government complained that Mia, who was supposed to testify or give a five-minute impact statement, was not going to because of the letter by the defense. The judge chastised the defense for the tone of the letter. So I'm going to take

a page out of the Judge Subramanian book and say, when you were reading that, Megan, your tone seemed to imply something there. match the words that that's thanks to my acting in my blonde origin video mark and my Megan Markle spooves I've honed my my acting skills your tone has to match the words you have you have raised the bar Megan I'm almost I sit here in awe of the tone that you can that you can invoke thank you for you can oh I might be getting an Emmy so you know you're right that the show is among 200 others that might be getting an Emmy for Best podcast, 200, 300. I don't know. They didn't nominate Megan Markle's confessions of a female

founder, so I'm not going to go under protest that she was snubbed. Go ahead, Matt, your thoughts on playing the race card and on crying as defense counsel to the judge. Look, it is a, it's such a trope at this point. I think that's an eye roller for the judge. I hate to say it. But also, let's not forget, the people that were most affected negatively by this, we're also, they were black, right? Most of them. And it's, number one, it's going to fall on deaf ears. Number two, when you do a sentencing, it's not far off in a way from journalism, Megan,

in that it's your credibility is everything. And when you go, you step up and you do these performative things, it's kind of like when Mark and I do bench trials in juvenile court, you know, as a prosecutor, as a defense lawyer, you really have to tone down the performative nonsense. because you're insulting the intelligence of the court when you do that, and you hit the nail in the head. In front of a jury, that might just work with one or two of them. But in front of a sentencing judge, when you do that, you're running the risk of blowing your credibility. And if you do that sort of, you know, crying nonsense, if you really do have an important point and you really

do have something that court should consider, you're going to lose that by going all in on that dramatic BS. And that's what that is. That makes me think of a mutual friend of ours who will remain nameless. I was trying a case in federal court downtown in the old Spring Street building. And my co-counsel got up and did something. And the federal judge peered over the bench at him and said, Mr. You've been in state court too long in front of the jury. And that, you knew at that point, yes. Uh-oh. Oh, that's never good.

Well, I heard there was some drama over on M.K. True Crime, Mark Garragos, that involved you. I don't know if this involves crying or not, but I wanted to show it. Let's see. Here's Sot Zero with Garagos and Mark Iglarsh arguing over Diddy. Looks like I'm playing devil's advocate because I got two people who clearly think that he should walk free with a hug and apology and reimbursement of legal fees. Well, wait a second. How do you get a hug? Apologies, been in custody for over a year.

He hasn't seen his family. You wouldn't turn it down, Gary goes. Come on. Listen to me for one second. I'm going to give you, I'll let you play devil's advocate. I'm going to. I'll actually make it a little bit easier for you. I think the over and under here, you know what an over and under is, Mark?

I know you don't have sex, but do you gamble? What? You go to Vegas. You don't have sex. Do you gamble at least? Two things, okay, as I play devil's advocate. Number one, I do have sex when I go to Vegas, but with my wife. That was the point out of making.

I can see a man. Still TMI. And more I know. This is why we love the MK True Crime Network. That's today's episode. People got to go download that and watch the full discussion. Way to get his goat up there, Garragos. Yes.

Is that this same shirt, Mark? Yes, it is. I wanted to make sure. You didn't change. Megan, they told me. No, they told me. We're the same stuff because you're going to be showing the sod. So I had to go find it.

Well, it's nice. It pops that royal blue. Guys, thank you both so much. You can catch more of Garagos and Murphy on M.K. True Crime. And speaking of Mark Iglarsh, he's up next along with Arthur Idala, who is Galane Maxwell's attorney. Maybe he'll have thoughts on the prison he might go to. If you are stressed about back taxes, maybe you miss that April deadline or your books are a mess, Don't wait. The IRS is cracking down. Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, up to 25% just for not filing.

But there is help. Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse. They have helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years. Messy books, it's not a problem. They've seen it all. Tax Network USA has direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiating, on your side. You'll get a free consultation, and if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe. More importantly, they will help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies. So don't wait for the next IRS letter. Call 800-958-1000, or visit tnusa.com slash Megan to speak to a real expert at Tax Network USA. Take the pressure off. Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.

We absolutely have to keep talking. It's more important now than ever. To cower, to hide, to go silent is not the answer. And all I can tell you is there is no fucking way I am canceling one stop on this tour. Not one stop. I'm going. I'm going to stand on these stages and I'm going to say all the things that we say all the time on this show. We're going to make it safe for me.

We're going to make it safe for my team and my guests and you were going coast to coast and do something really important, which is say what's true and what's real to honor him. I really now more than ever would love to see you all face to face. God, I would love to see you face to face. I need to see you face to face. I am doing this tour, and I would love for you to join me. Megan Kelly.com for the tickets. With me now, Arthur Idala and Mark Iglarsh, the other half of that fun exchange you just saw with Garagos.

They are both stars of MK True Crime as well. Don't you want to download and subscribe MK True Crime? I mean, these are stars. Honestly, you will not find a collection of lawyers that is both super talented and great at communicating, right? Like they're entertaining. They know how to get up and down on a story. Those are very rare combinations in a lawyer, I have to tell you. helps if they're actual trial lawyers like all of our guys are.

Anyway, go to mKtruecrime.com for all the links, podcast platforms, and YouTube. You will love it. It's on fire. Thanks to these two and the last two and the next two and others. Guys, great to see you. Same here. Thanks, Megan.

Very kind of you. That's the nicest things that Megan has ever said about me and Mark. It's usually the two pains of the next. They talk over each other. La la la la. I mean, I got to really sell the channel. We'll get back to react. No, no, it's true.

You know, I mean everyone. I mean, every word. Okay, let's pick up where we left off with the others on Diddy. There's a woman named Nicole Westmoreland, who's a lawyer for Combs. She happens to be black, which is relevant to what I'm going to tell you. She's standing up, like, arguing for his life, basically trying to get the sentence to the bare minimum. It continues her emotional appeal to the judge. I think we're quoting here from CNN still, or New York Times, through sniffles and tears by insisting that her client was indeed remorseful. quote, I will tell you that Mr. Combs has been sitting in a jail cell for 13 months, she said.

He's clear-headed. He's drug-free. He's determined. He's focused. And he's remorseful. I can look the court in the eye and tell you that he's remorseful because I spend almost every single day speaking to Mr. Combs. Your honor, he gets it. Simply put, said Miss Westmoreland. So are you starting to feel a little wobbly? on, you know, a harsh sentence for Diddy, Arthur? Well, the one thing I can tell you is she probably did talk to him every day. You know, Megan, in the very beginning of his arrest, of his legal problems, I was asked if I wanted to go meet with him to be retained on the case. And I was like, sure, why not?

They're like, well, we just got to let you know one thing. I was like, one of his requirements is, and I don't remember he wanted me there four days a week in prison or five days a week in prison. prison to visit him. I said, look, I'm not in prison. You know, he's in prison. So I do know he gets a lot of attention from his lawyers in the MDC, which is just not a very fun place for a lawyer to be, except if you have singles on you, because then you get to go to the sandwich and potato chip machine and buy your client a sandwich and potato chips, and they're very, very happy and grateful for that. That's like the big deal when you go in. What kind of sandwich can you get in there? Not bad. It's a refrigerated

machine and they load it up and then even have a couple of kosher sandwiches for the orthodox plants. What a low culinary bar, Arthur. The sandwiches are disgusting. They're there for a rotating. Especially for an Italian. It's from Brooklyn.

He knows that he. Compared to the food, compared to the food that they're actually getting in the NBC, they're thrilled with those sandwiches. They do shake us down for dollars. I'll tell you this. And, you know, between Mark and I, we've done dozens and dozens and dozens of these federal sentencings.

And because it's really what you do. in federal court now a lot. It's a lot of plea bargaining and then sentencing. And unlike state court where you could cut a deal with the prosecutor, in federal court, you could only cut a guideline range with the prosecutor. And then the judge decides the ultimate sentence. And I don't know how I would feel about having four different lawyers speak to the judge on behalf of the client's behalf. You know, I think it, in my opinion, it's maybe two, if you split one up, like I'll talk about who the individual is and then my partner will talk about the actual crime or what they were convicted of or if they weren't convicted of.

I heard you say earlier, there's no crying in the courtroom. I mean, I have handled some very, very sad cases and I've become very somber, but I've never, I've never shed a tear. There's no crying. Just a league of their own. She's crying, sir. She's crying. One of the few times, the only time I cried, and I waited until I got in the hallway is

when I represented someone who I knew was absolutely innocent, factually, factually innocent. And when I got to hear Not Guilty 43 times, I did go in the hallway and trying. I did this same. Oh, that's nice. Like tears of relief. Well, of course.

I think this is manufactured. I think this woman's playing, she thinks it's 2020 post-George Floyd, and that if she is a black woman turns on the waterworks about how much Sean Combs has contributed to the world and the thought of him going behind bars after being such an inspo, she's hoping to touch something in the judge's heart that I doubt is there.

Well, Megan, let me tell you. If you're scoffing is because you think that maybe he doesn't deserve those words and maybe it's manufactured, that's fair. But what she's doing is ensuring due process. And that is, you know, she's got to do her job. And Arthur and I will do whatever it takes if we think it's going to help our client. In this case, obviously, she is telling the judge, I promise you, I'm there every day and he has changed.

Now, whether that's real or not, who knows? Maybe she does believe it, but believability and accuracy are two different things. Maybe that's what she's relaying to the judge that she's seeing in Diddy, that Diddy's just turning it on. Or maybe he did change. The point is, that's her job. Her job is do whatever she can for the client. I don't think it's going to matter one bit to this judge. I think he's already got his mind made up.

I think that he's heard all of this before. They're used to it. They check the boxes. In all these cases, we make sure our clients accept full responsibility and do all we can to show remorse. Even personal accounts from the lawyers, check that box. We all do it. Ultimately, the judge sat through this trial. He sees the conduct.

He'll include what he thinks is relevant and move that towards sentencing and give him what he thinks is appropriate. And, you know, Megan, you can't minimize. Wait, wait, let me just give you a little bit more color, and then I'll give it to you. CNN reporting that, again, Westmoreland, is discussing charter school. I'm sorry. This is so obvious. It's like this judge is, he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Discussing the charter schools that Sean Combs opened in impoverished communities where she says the public schools were inadequate. Also, a vote or die campaign that Combs participated in, quote, changed the way voting campaigns happened to this day. He basically is responsible for changing the way we vote.

Hold on. Put aside, Diddy. I don't like Diddy at all. I don't like what he's done, all that stuff. But she's doing her job. If God forbid it was someone you love and mocking her. That's fair. All right. So hold on, Mark. But here's the thing.

First of all, I just have to say, because I'm looking at the shot, that verdict I cried on, that's the picture right over my shoulder, right before the verdict was red. The little small one with the orange background? Yep, that's me sitting there. The client is cool as a cucumber. I was a mess. But anyway. And here's mine, by the way.

This is actually me crying when Scott Peters. not the odd not not garagosus peterson but the other one the alleged coward of rowered whatever yeah innocent and finally you get that relief because the jurors who took four days should have taken four minutes and you finally get the outcome one from the stoneman that was the bragging portion of the show for author idolat and mark my gosh i'm telling you but you know it is further evidence you guys are the real deal you both were prosecutors now defense attorneys you're in court all the time that's why you work so well on kelly's court and on mk true crime because you actually know what you're talking about unlike half the legal eagles we see on TV

who never practiced law or who just went to law school for a couple of years. Go ahead, Arthur. Let me address what's going on with her bragging about of Pete Dittie's, you know, accomplishments in life. If he was not a public figure, you would say, Your Honor, I know you've read our 40-page report and all the letters and all that. I'm not here to gild the lily. And I know you understand all that and maybe you do like a little top three list but you know i think what really stands out is he started his own chapter of the boy scouts however and mark and i've both been in this position when you represent a high profile client and there's going to be media in there often

the client says to you can you please say a b and c and that i did this and i helped your cancer and i did st june's children thing because the you know the daily news and the post they're not going to read your 100 page submission, but they are going to be in the courtroom. And please for me, and for the sake of my wife and my children, can you please make sure the media hears all the good things I did? So sometimes folks like, gild away. Here's the lily. Oh, right. Oh, of course. Hey, Arthur, can you mention to the judge that I said, God bless you to someone who sneezes this morning? Whatever it takes. Right. Right. You're talking about jail time. So I get that. Here's, we mentioned this in the first segment, Mark, but what do you make of this?

Because the prosecutor Christi Slavic did get up there, and they're reporting that she earned some wide eyes and opened mouths when she told the judge, Sean Combs, has booked speaking engagements in Miami for next week, seemingly under the expectation that he would be let off with a life sentence. That is the height of hubris, she said to the court. No. No. I don't.

Listen, I would get up there and say, Judge, that is. It was Zoom appearances. That is false. It was Zoom appearances, Judge. Zoom from prison, Judge. Zoom appearances. God. No, you cannot let that happen.

You would have to say that is not accurate at all. Period. Judge. And just neutralize it on tape from his jailhouse call. Oh, boy, that's bad. That is, that is really, that is really bad. I mean, it's really because all of that stuff that she's saying and that he wrote about remorse and I'm back and I'm good and I'm praying.

and that just is like, yeah, and I'm going to get out of here and I'm already got a gig lined up, but I'm going to put some money in my pocket. Yeah, that's, but I give this judge more credibility. I give him more credit than that. That type of stuff is not what he's going to consider when it comes time to make the sentence. I think he sat through and saw a lot of abhorrent conduct, a lot that he was acquitted for. But if he can ever bring any of that in and sprinkle it and label it relevant conduct and get them up to the seven years or so.

that probation is recommending, I think that's where he's going to land. You just, it's better to have him possibly buying your remorseful line than thinking, what a douchebag. They all know it's speaking engagements. They all know that. Megan, my mother watches this, Megan. My mother watches. Mine too.

My mom is congratulate me. Oh, you managed to make it through a show without the F bomb. All right, stand by. There's always next hour. We'll be right back. Let's face it. big tech has gotten too powerful through the smartphones we use every day, they track our every move, decide what we see, and even can censor what we say, as you know. All that data collected about us

sold to the highest bidder. Even more concerning, these platforms now hold more control over free speech than the government itself. America was built on free speech, on privacy, and the right to speak your mind without fear of being silenced or canceled. And this is why the up phone by unplugged was created. It does everything you expect from a smartphone. Calls, texts, maps, we need that, email, and it even includes its own uncensored app store. But here's the difference. Upphone is built to protect your rights. See, it blocks surveillance. It stops the sale of your data, and it gives you the power to step outside, big text control, and reclaim your digital freedom. Switching is simple with a U.S. support team ready to help. This is not just about safeguarding privacy,

It's about taking back our country and the fundamental rights it was built on. Visit unplugged.com slash mK and order your up phone today. Arthur Adala and Mark Eglars are back with me. They are stars of MKTrue Crime. Go subscribe now at mKTruecime.com on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. If you just type in MKTrue Crime, it will come up and you hit subscribe or follow, and then you can watch them twice a week for now. it's a hit so we're probably going to pick that up but they're joining me live on tour as well you can

actually meet these gentlemen go to megan kelly.com to get your tickets for the megan kelly live tour we are selling out in some venues so please go today megan kelly dot com all right guys here's the latest from inside the courtroom his kids are now testifying to the judge emphasizing he is a changed man says cnn ditty combs son quincy brown is now speaking on his behalf we're going to love him unconditionally through his struggles, but in front of you and in front of us is a changed man. Our father has learned a major lesson. Week after week, we've seen him evolve, something we haven't seen in 15 years. He's completely transformed. Justin says he speaks to Diddy every day, several times a day. He said his father is now drug-free and has refound his purpose. I can truly

sincerely say he's changed for the better, Your Honor. I believe my father still has so much more to give to the world, and more importantly, so much more to give to his children. Now they're emphasizing his lessons on how to treat women. Inner City Press, Christian Combs. He told me to treat women like a queen. And I do. Do as I do. Do as I say, not as I do.

No, that was my editorializing. I see in his eyes as his twin that he has changed. Next up, Jesse Combs. I'm 18, says Jesse. Starts crying. When my mother died, I was just a little girl. I remember my dad sitting. sitting us down.

Jesse Combs, it helped me survive when I just wanted my mom. Then comes Chance Combs, his daughter. He's changed, crying. Sorry, he speaks with a clear mind. And then there's Delilah Combs. We watch our two-year-old sister. She cannot grow up fatherlessness.

Ah, this is all par for the course, except for the women part, Arthur. No, but it is just, I want to emphasize what you just said. It is par for the course. Mark and I do this all the time. Like, you go in and you talk about all the good things this person has done

and who they've helped. And like literally, I've had next door neighbors say, look, when I had cancer treatments, you know, he drove me to get the cancer treatments every day and he didn't have to. And then, of course, the prosecutor's saying, yes, but Mr. I Donald's leaving out, he stole $100 million from American Express

and his white-collar fraud thing. So, you know, that's the prosecutor's side. Really sweet in between the beatings. Yeah, right. So, Megan, let me tell you how I handle these things. First of all, by the way, it would be cute if the kid said, my dad has changed so much,

He only uses lube on Thursdays now. So, okay, let me move forward. I'll take the hate mail. They say, don't be funny. All right, listen. So here's how I approach these things, right? I pretend as if we got an outcome that we don't want. And if somehow my higher power allows me to turn back the clock and do it all over again,

how would I do it? I'd include every single kid that is willing to testify if I think that might hit the button on the judge. So you don't know what. buttons are going to work, if anything. So you hit every single thing. I make sure the acceptance of responsibility is perfect that there's nothing more my client could say or do to show that he has changed. You put the kids in there. Every single act of community service is there. Every letter that you can possibly get from anyone it goes. So you press all the buttons and then ultimately you've done everything you could, whatever the sentence is,

you can live with professionally. Cassie, one of his victims, she wrote. a letter asking the judge to weigh her suffering, talking about how she's worried he's going to come after her, a legit worry given his past behavior. And Diddy wrote a letter, I lost my way. He says, over the past year, there's been so many times I wanted to give up. There have been some days I thought I'd be better off dead. The old me died in jail and a new version of me was reborn. Prison will change you or kill you. I choose to live. He's been teaching a six-week program called free game in prison. I don't just teach about my success.

I also teach about my mistakes and failures. I mean, that could cut against letting him out earlier if the judge thinks he could help these guys in prison, learn to, like, come out entrepreneurial. He talks about his 84-year-old mother who needs him, his seven children, who need him. He should have thought about that before. And then here, they're playing an 11-minute video in court,

the defenses. We've cut about a minute of it trying to make him look like, you know, Ward Cleaver Here's a little bit of that I come from New York I grew up in Harlem I used to have to wear

uniform every day had to get up early in the morning and had to travel to go to school I worked hard just like you guys are working this country and this world we live in may have a plan for y'all

he's talking to kids I listen to that and I don't want y'all to listen to it either y'all are great you're the kings y'all are queens y'all are leaders how old are you

two how do you two you got two that's two my name is pookie the bird pokey happy birthday stuff, Megan. Megan, that's good stuff. It is. I agree with you, Mark. It's like, it is, it does

remind you. You softening up, Megan? No, not even a little bit. But I recognize it as good lawyering because he is, even though he's a criminal, he's an extraordinary person. I mean, he's led an extraordinary life. And his crimes are not the only thing he's done. So that's a good video to show. That's the argument. To some kids, he is a role model, which makes it even sadder what he did. To Mark's point about throwing everything in there, and sometimes he could backfire. And it backfired here, right? Didn't the judge say, didn't he start off by saying the letter that the letter that the defense

attorneys wrote was bullying towards one of the witnesses who were going to testify? So today, so there's like this balancing test of what Mark says. You don't want to have any regrets. You want to put your best foot forward. but sometimes you never know what's going to tick off a judge something that you think is benign or even good

turns out to be not so good and I have to say I know he's an extraordinary he's done extraordinary things look the guy's a billionaire I'm not nobody's going to minimize that but here's what judges say because we represent people like this all the time

who have done great things and maybe not to that magnitude and then they screw up they they quote unquote lose their way and here's what judges say at sentencing I agree that he's done great things. I've agreed that he helped many people. I agree that he formed the charter school and he's a great family man, et cetera, et cetera. However, in this, and you want to call it aberrant

behavior, in other words, it's not the way he normally operates, which they can't say that with tough daddy. But then the judge says, however, two of the things I need to take into consideration are specific deterrence to make sure this individual doesn't do this again. And sometimes, like the judge did in the Anthony Wiener case, and a much tougher judge than Supermanian is, she said, I don't think you'll ever do this again. And she was right. But there's general deterrence. And basically, the whole world is watching. And I need to send a message to the whole world that despite the fact, you were a city councilman, you were a congressman, you passed all these bills, you filled all these potholes, you helped all these people. But you did something. You committed a crime.

So I'm acknowledging your greatness in the past. I'm acknowledging the fact that I don't think you're going to do this again. However, by law, I have to address general deterrence. And therefore, I have to give you an incursoratory sentence. I will give you less than probation wants. I will give you less than the U.S. attorneys are. But if I were the prosecutor, I'd get up there and I'd say, I would say all of those kids you just saw are watching. and waiting to see what you are going to do to find out whether there are consequences to abusing

women, to beating them, to forcing them into sex acts they don't want to perform. You hold that messaging in your hands right now to a generation of kids who know his name and who were influenced by him. That's what's at stake in these numbers. That is very compelling. The other thing this judge is doing is thinking, okay, like Aristotle said, justice is like cases being treated alike. So they strive to try to balance out sentences for somebody like this billionaire rat mogul and some white guy in, you know, Wisconsin who may get charged with the same

thing. And so he's trying to balance it out. And where do they start the federal sentencing guidelines? That's why they were created. They're no longer mandatory, but they're persuasive. So the judge will start off, okay, where do we fall within the sentencing guidelines? And probation They don't have, they're not advocating. They're the ones who are, I mean, a lot of times that we think that they are, but they're objective. And they're saying, here's where he falls. And when I heard that he, according to them, falls six seven point three years. Six seven.

I said, yeah, all of a sudden, I see that's where the magic is happening. And the judge can either go upward or go downward. And I generally see judges sentencing people within the guidelines. That's why I predicted six, seven years. I'll go seven years. Are you guys aware of this meme with the young people? Do you have a 14-year-old? You can't do 6-7 without doing this.

I don't know why, but you can't. Go ahead, Arthur. What were you saying? That went right over my head. I'm very lucky here in New York. I've gotten, look, sensing is such a huge part of the federal system nowadays, much more so than when my dad practiced. When my dad practice, you actually went to trial.

Nowadays, everyone plee bargains out because I don't want to get too deep into the weeds, but if you plea bargain and you don't make them go to trial, those guidelines automatically go down significantly. You do get a benefit by not making them, putting them to the test. So now you get into the guidelines and you get a probation, you get a probation recommendation, but then you've got to go all out.

And I've been very fortunate to convince judges here in the Southern District of New York in this courthouse to give them below guidelines, sentence. On a plea, but on a plea, hold on, here's something we're not talking about. Nobody's talking about the trial tax. Penalty. Let's talk about it. I call it a trial tax.

The judges will never say it. But here's the thing. When you go to trial, you actually are going to be that one or two percent that dares to take up that kind of time and challenge a system and not accept responsibility. The hammer's coming down. Now, that's unfair. You say you should get the same and it shouldn't matter. all judges do it why because it sends a message to arthur it sends a message to me that you better

think very carefully you better win your damn case or take a plea because i'm telling you if your client loses oh boy we're going to go for it you're going to get a lot of time what mark is saying what mark is saying is built in to the system if you do not accept responsibility prior to trial you do not get what that's called that three point reduction which sometimes that's years in prison And one judge in the Southern District of New York says that is unconstitutional. You are basically threatening people. You're threatening people. That's why, as Mark says, they don't explicitly acknowledge that's what they're doing to you.

All right, wait, I want to keep going because there's a couple of other cases I want to get to with you guys. Number one is Tyler Robinson, the accused shooter of our friend Charlie. And he had a hearing on Monday. First of all, he was appointed some very seriously experienced defense attorneys. He's got some real lawyers representing him. including Michael Burt now of San Francisco, Richard Novak of Pasadena. One of them, I think it was, is it Michael?

I think it's Michael Bert, represented Lyle Menendez at his first trial in 1993. Then the other guy had, yeah, no, it's still Michael Burt has 47 years of trial experience. Novak's been practicing law since 1990 with a focus on criminal defense for the past 20 years. He's worked on more than two dozen capital cases. So these are real lawyers.

and what they, they're joining a woman who already represented him. And what they said at this last hearing was, could we have some more time to review the large amount of evidence in this case before deciding whether we want a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence to hold this case over to trial. I don't think there's any question, right? Defendants can waive that if they want to, but it's, seems like one of the newly appointed lawyers, her name is Catherine Nestor. They're not waiving it. They did not intend to waive it. So what's really happening here

is they ask for a delay on this decision mark? I'll tell you. Well, first, they want to get all of the evidence so that they can use that to possibly cross-examine the witnesses. But it's just discovery. It's trying to find out more for them. Unless you add David Copperfield to the team, it's not going to change anything. There's overwhelming evidence. The only question is whether he's gonna live or die. Is he gonna get life or is he gonna get death? And they're bringing in these folks to help increase the chances that he'll get life.

And I actually see that as a viable possibility. And this is just a prediction. You've gotta get 12 people. The jury has to be unanimous in Utah. All must say he should die. It only takes one person to say, well, you know what, his life will be worse in prison. I'm gonna let him live or you know what he's got no priors

and it wasn't especially heinous and trotious and cruel in my mind, so I'm going to let them live. It takes one person, and that means you go through all of this for not. Also, you add to that that a plea of guilty, which guarantees a waiver of appeal, puts this to bed, he stays in prison for the rest of the life, and then maybe they'll get him in prison. The question is, will Charlie Kirk's widow be open-minded enough to go along with that?

Because that is very persuasive. She's already said, I'm going to let the lawyer. figure this out. She's already said she just doesn't want this on her moral scorecard. I know. However, she actually has an elevated thought process in that she did forgive him publicly. And I know that was more for her. But when the prosecutors come over to her and say, listen, we're considering, guaranteeing the life sentence. And then there's no issues on appeal. We don't ever have to come back here and do it again. There are no issues. Like, this is just like. Technicalities, Megan. Megan, they grew up in jury selection. Berger, Arthur.

They have got Tyler Robinson dead to rights. They've got the text messages. I mean, like, he's, they've got the gun that was his grandfathers, which the bullets match, the bullet that was used on. Arthur, I mean. Explain how these cases come back on appeal all the time. You've got to redo it over. So Mark, Mark is correct.

A lot of these cases do come back on appeal. But Megan, that's why the judges assign lawyers like the ones assigned here who are known to be excellent lawyers. My dad was one of those. He was assigned by a federal judge. I want you to try this horrible, horrible case because I don't want it coming back on appeal. They got this guy dead to rights. That's fine. But if some lawyer who doesn't know what he's doing messes something up so badly that the guy's constitutional rights were just trampled on and a field court may be like, look, we know he's guilty, but you guys didn't find him guilty the right way. So we have to do it over again. So that's where these cases get screwed up.

With a violation of his rights, nothing so far. And by the way, he confessed. That's how we know it was him. He went to his parents and said, it was me. We have in writing to his trans furry lover, it was me. It was me. Megan, Megan, listen. It's the process.

It's the process. It's not the evidence. Yeah, we're not, it's the process. It's exactly what Arthur just said. We are both, I'm not going to speak for Arthur. I will say there is a mountain of evidence. He admitted it. I read the confession to his roommate lover.

I got it. They can prove this case beyond all doubt. I have no doubt. However, when you bring in the top guns and they challenge every little thing, not just pretrial, but during the trial, all it takes is one mistake for years down the road is to come back on appeal, assuming you can get all 12 to agree to a unanimous verdict. That's why it's appealing sometimes for prosecutors to close it out. I get it. Close it out to a life sentence.

We learned that in the Marjorie Stone. I just think, but I think they're under too much pressure now. They know how the public reacted when Brian Colberger, who they also had dead to rights in Idaho, was given, you know, basically a commutation from the death penalty to life in prison because we knew he was going to be found guilty at trial. And we knew that he'd get death in Idaho. And you've already had Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, say, I want to remind everybody that we have the death penalty in Utah. his first reaction, the top official in the state. Then they caught the guy. Then they said, we are going for death. Like, nothing has happened to mitigate that at all. And they have

confessions. They have the weapon. They have the bullets, the bullet casings, the writings about his bullets and his bullet casings to the lover. The parents to whom he confessed, the neighborhood priest or whatever that guy was, the sort of a youth minister to whom he confessed. This, it's done. I disagree. I don't think they should take a plea. I think they should try the case that they have to. I'm just saying it's very likely that that is certainly the purpose of the defense. That's what they're going to do. I was just wondering. And maybe they don't have all the elements that they have in the Luigi Mangione case.

But how come the feds who obviously are personally involved here, right, President Trump, love Charlie Kirk, come the feds haven't dropped an indictment on him the way they did here in Luigi. Luigi, they said, oh, he stalked him from state to state. Charlie Kirk was in a different state every 15 minutes, I'm sure they could thread that needle in an indictment to command him federally as well. I think the feds were worried in Luigi that the New York lame prosecutors weren't going to handle this well. And I don't think the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors have that concern about Utah. So far, Utah's doing what it needs to do to proceed with an aggressive prosecution against him. So I have no doubt that

if they get a different signal, they will find a way that Pambani and Cash Patel will take another fresh look at this case and find a way of getting it. All right, let's do our last case. This is a civil case. It's an ACLU lawsuit, speaking of Charlie, over a vile post that a Ball State University professor in Muncie, Indiana, posted after Charlie's death. She posted, by the way, this is what she does for Ball State. Her office developed health and wellness programming for university students,

including a program that provides survivor support and victim advocacy for students who have experienced intimate partner violence. So she helps women who are claiming that they've been abused by a partner and things related to that. The day after Charlie was murdered, she posted on her private Facebook page, quote, if you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we cannot be friends. His death is a tragedy and I can do and I can do and feel. for his wife and children. I believe in the resurrection. And while it's difficult, I can and do pray for his soul. Charlie Kirk's death is a reflection of violence, fear, and hatred he sowed. Well, she got fired. There was a bunch of pushback on her. The Indiana Attorney General mentioned it on X,

calling her comments vile. And next thing you know, she got the boot and the ACLU has now filed a lawsuit saying this is a public university, so the First Amendment does apply, and that this is a violation of her First Amendment rights. She was on a private Facebook page saying her private thoughts about a public concern, and that's where you kind of get the most protection, where you're talking as a citizen about a matter of public concern, and that they had no grounds to fire her. Mark, your thoughts on it. Yeah, it's unconstitutional what they did to her. and before the hate mail comes in, I'm not even addressing the message. Let's put that to the side, right? She didn't advocate. Let's kill someone as a result of this. So it's constitutionally protected speech. It's a matter of public opinion. The Supreme Court has made it very clear. You can say outrageous and offensive things. That's constitutionally protected speech. Now, the question is, in the pickering case, we learned that in law school. The three criteria. There we go. Number one, did it disrupt the workplace? No.

Number two, did it interfere with the employee's ability to do their job? No. Did it undermine the instance of the institution's mission? No. She posted this privately. Hold on one second because it didn't happen. She posted this privately and then somebody took that privately the same way as if she would say at a party to somebody's ear and then somebody makes that public.

It is and quite frankly, what they're doing is they're punishing her for exercising her speech. keep the hate mail. I'm not getting into whether it was offensive or not. That's not the issue. Because let's say she said things like, Charlie, hold on. The nasty comments he gets after his comedy. It's part of the job. Wait, I know.

We got your point. Let's go to Arthur now. Come on. We have to have a snappier debate. Go, go, Arthur. No, no, no. I mean, the bottom line is, I mean, we have to be able to speak freely, no matter how stupid it is what we say and how, you know, I disagree.

I think it's a tragedy, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, Megan, you know, they can't shut you down. They shouldn't shut, you know, even though you're in the private sector. But if you're in the public sector, they got to be able to. This is a school. So there's a different, you're not factoring in the balancing test there. I mean, the balancing test, what I say with Mark, so let me start with this. I think it's probably going to be, I think Mark's probably right.

I think the speech is probably too short. Thank God. You agree with me on this. She's probably going to. She's probably. Because they're coming for your speech. If you don't defend her, Megan, they're coming for you. and that's not right.

They're not coming for me, but, well, you know what I'm saying. Any public employee who says the same thing that you're saying, maybe she says something positive about Charlie Kirk, and then they fire that person. Okay, but I don't agree that we know this for sure because under the balancing test, you have to look at whether she disrupted the campus life at Ball State and how severe the disruption was

and whether she was capable of doing her job after this. And you're going to tell me in Indiana, The whole student body is leftist. They're not because it's Indiana. So my point is simply, you've got maybe some percentage, some fair amount of students who are going to go before her and need her rape counseling services or her intimate partner violence services. And they know that this person has written the words. If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we cannot be friends. She can't be around you.

She has a hatred for you that stops her from being able to be in your presence in any sort of a warm and welcoming way. So fuck off, Suzanne Squire. That's her name. Seriously, yeah, we got there. But I'm just saying, you could make the case. No, I'm not done. You could make the case that she is not capable of doing that particular job anymore after that because the students don't trust her and they're already in a vulnerable spot. And you, we don't know whether this has been disruptive, severely disruptive on campus. Go ahead, Arthur. We don't know. No, no, no, no. No, no. I got it. One one second. It's Arthur's. It's Here's turn. Mark, you're so annoying today. I love you, but be quiet. So here's what we're not

factoring in. And it's a known quantity. I have two Facebook pages. My main one is at maximum. It's $5,000. My personal one is like at a hundred. How personal was her personal Facebook page? Does it bleed into what Megan says? Is she friends with people on campus? Is she friends with students on Facebook? So they all heard? Or is it just her aunt and uncle who live in Queens and nobody knows. So that's what, that's a relevant fact here to this balancing test. How now everybody knows about it. Before everybody knew about it, how many people did it actually affect it? Does it affect the people, Megan, just referenced who need to go and seek out her services. That is a fair statement. I'm not comfortable with this woman. That's a fair statement. My guess is, okay, probably she said this.

It became, you know, public. And they just absolutely said that's it. You're out. But Megan, I want to, I want to just turn it around. Let's say her comments were, Charlie, because what a loss it was. He was the best. And everything that flowed from his lips was fair. And then there were some black students who then say, I cannot see this woman about anything because I didn't like Charlie, Chris. I don't like what this woman has said favorable about Charlie. And so she can't do her job and I want her fired. My guess is you would be fighting equally passionate about her keeping her job because the words were favorable. Well, I'd have to show those black students the piece that I am dropping tomorrow, defending Charlie on the absurd allegations of racism against him. I have all the receipts. And after those women or imaginary students see that piece, they would withdraw that objection.

But as I say, I do think this is constitutionally protected speech from what I've heard so far. I don't love it. But that's our country. It's there. The First Amendment is there to protect speech you don't like, not speech that you do. Guys, a pleasure. Everybody check out Mark and Arthur on M.K. True Crime. And also go get your tickets for Megan Kelly live at Megan Kelly.com. So you can meet these guys in person. And then you can tell Mark right to his face how wrong he's been on so many, many things. All right, guys, lots of love. See you soon. Thanks, Meg. Take care. Bye. Bye. Up next, speaking of MK.K. True Crime, we've got Dave Aaronberg and Phil Holloway. And Phil has breaking news on Fannie Willis. Oh, yes, he does. Stay tuned for that. Let's get serious about what you're cooking with at home. You might not know this, but ultra-processed vegetable oils like canola,

they're industrial byproducts, once considered unfit for human consumption. Big food companies push these seed oils as healthy, sidlining the natural animal fats our families thrived on for generations. That's why I want to tell you about golden age fats. They're 100% American-made grass-fed beef tallow, brings back that wholesome tradition. This is the stuff that RFKJ fries his turkey in at Thanksgiving. You ever wonder like, where does one get beef tallow? I'm going to tell you. This stuff makes fried chicken, steaks, eggs, or roasted veggies taste phenomenal. Think McDonald's

fries from the 1990s. It's packed with vitamins, minerals, and healthy, fatty acids. You'll feel light, energized, no sluggishness with seed oils. It's pure, no additives, no preservatives, just Midwest crafted tallow from grass-fed cows. Ready to go back to basics? Give Golden Age Beef tallow a try. Go to golden age fats.com. GoldenAge fats.com slash mk and use that code MK to get 25% off your first order. Why would you pay full price? You don't have to. That's goldenagefats.com slash mk. And use that code MK when you check out to get 25% off your first order. Enjoy. absolutely have to keep talking. It's more important now than ever. This fall, Megan Kelly is taking her show live to cities nationwide. To go silent is not the answer. I'm going. I'm going to stand

on these stages and I'm going to say all the things that we say all the time on this show. We're going to make it safe for me. We're going to make it safe for my team and my guests and you and do something really important, which is say what's true and what's real. And I would love for you to join me. Megan Kelly.com for the tickets. 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, podcasts, and more.

Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK Show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Just letting you know that the ditty sentencing hearing is at lunch, so we're not getting additional updates, but we'll know soon enough. Now we're joined for two more of the stars by two more of the stars of MK. True Crime, Dave Aaronberg, former Palm Beach County District Attorney, and Phil Holloway, star of the Fannie Willis case. He wasn't directly involved, but that's when we came to know and love him.

You can find them at mKtruecrime.com and subscribe on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. podcast, okay? MKTruecrime.com, and that'll give you all the links. Dave, Phil, welcome back. And Phil, happy birthday. Oh, thank you very much. I was telling Dave, I'm waiting for him to sing happy birthday to me in a video and post it on X, and then my day will be complete. Oh, God. We'll do it after the show's over. Stick around, Dave. You and I work on that. Phil, for your birthday, I'm letting you start first and tell us what the heck is happening with Fannie Willis. Well, a couple of things. We just learned today. A friend of mine, Senator Dolesal Greg Dolesall here in Georgia is on the Senate Committee that's investigating this whole fiasco

and looking to see what the legislature might be able to do to maybe rein in rogue prosecutors or to improve the process for funding prosecutors offices. So they've been conducting hearings. They've been trying to get Willis to sit down under oath for some time. She's been fighting these subpoenas in court. But he just texted me earlier, and I posted about this, I think, on X, that he, They've got her to come to, of course, she's coming to the Senate, I guess, in just a couple of weeks here in the middle of November where she will be testifying under oath, answering committee questions, or at least saying something under oath, whatever that may be. Also, this broke a couple of days ago, or maybe a week or so ago, the Department of Justice is subpoenaing travel records for her.

What we know about it has been reported by the New York Times and others is that it has to do with travel records. as I understand it, from 2024. Now, you may remember that the case against Donald Trump and the rest, the RICO case that she had here in Fulton County, she was booted off that case by the Court of Appeals late in 2024. So she was still actively working on it, as was her office throughout most of 2024. We know that there are billing records that suggest some coordination

or perhaps collusion with the Joe Biden White House. my best guess, and I could very well be wrong, but I think probably they are looking at ties to maybe the Biden White House or any involvement or collusion cooperation in that regard. But what the Department of Justice is exactly up to, they've been keeping it fairly close to the vest, and so we may have to wait and see. The Department of Justice is certainly not showing their hand, but we know that they have issued a subpoena, and I imagine it's going to have to be. complied with. I mean, this is what she said famously when she took the stand in the disqualification hearing. Here it is. As he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don't need anything from a man. A man is not a plan. That turned out to be very true, Dave Arenberg. A man was

not a plan for her. It was a plan to get herself booted off the case. And now she's twisting in the wind having to deal with these subpoenas and going to testify before the Senate committee and this case is in limbo never to be rebroad. I think that's what Phil has said. There's no prosecutor willing to take it. And that's all because they couldn't keep it in their pants. Yeah, this was not the finest moment for the prosecutor profession. I was a fellow DA at the time and, you know, you can't appoint someone you're having a romantic relationship with this special prosecutor and getting paid by tax dollars. And then when you put things in court pleadings under oath, you better make sure it's truthful. And so this whole thing

was a mess. And so now this case has gone away. It's not coming back. I do wonder about federal jurisdiction here, considering she's a state official, not a federal official. So if they want to ring her up on... That's enough of that. No offense, but I've lost interest. Okay, let's keep going because we have so many cases I do want to get through with you guys. Number one, okay, let's go to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a case that's coming up soon. It's out of Colorado, and it involves this attempted ban by Colorado, unquote, conversion therapy. This is something they used to do like in the 50s when a kid said he was gay. They try to talk him out of being gay.

You're not gay. You're straight. Be straight. Don't be gay. And, you know, it's really kind of tough to talk somebody out of being gay. And the Colorado law, though, is not really, I mean, it technically does get at that. But that's not really happening in today's day and age. They're really getting at therapists.

Yes. who want to talk to kids who say they're trans about whether they are really trans or whether they're upset because their parents are getting a divorce or whether they have an eating disorder that's manifesting in some sort of bodily, you know, sensitivity that they're mistaking for gender confusion. That's basically banned now. Thanks to this Colorado law, it's a crazy-ass law because it basically stops a therapist from being a therapist. And perfectly in line, by the way, with what the American Psychiatric Society and the paediatrics groups are telling these therapists to do anyway, which is affirm, affirm, affirm, affirm, don't do any good faith searching of the child's actual issues.

It's crazy. But Colorado wrote it down and put it in law and made it actually like a law that you cannot discuss. Possibly telling the kid he is the gender that he was born, the sex that he was born, and not going down the conversion lane of let's do another gender. So, this therapist has filed the lawsuit saying this violates, her name is Kaylee Childs, saying you violating my free speech rights here because that's what I do, talk therapy, and you are telling me, like, as a matter of law, that I can't say certain things and I have to say other things. So I'll start with you on this, Dave. How is she wrong? Well, first, I think the Supreme Court is going to rule in her favor.

And we had experience with this here in Palm Beach County where there was a local ordinance that banned conversion therapy when it came to sexual orientation. And it was found by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in a divided panel that that was unconstitutional and the local county had to pay up. I don't know if that extended to gender identity. I would take issue on, I do think that at least personally, even though the court's going to rule opposite, I do think that when you have. have these therapists out there who are essentially saying you can pray the gay away, I think that's just hooey. I think that's just a quack. And I do think the state can regulate health care like in other areas and can say, no, we're not going to let you do it because at the same time, we're not going to let like a doctor urge a lung cancer patient to take up smoking. And that was actually

in the brief for Colorado. So I think when it comes to that, I actually think Colorado has a good argument there. But when it comes to gender identity, I understand that when you are about to do something that could have a permanent change in your life, had permanent ramifications, then I can see how that would be different. So I do think the court's going to rule for the therapist here, but I would disagree when it comes to sexual orientation. Me too, because here's the status of it, Phil. The district court in Colorado rejected the therapist request to stop the state from enforcing this law against her. And then she appealed.

It went up to a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court ruling. So she lost again. And they said this law primarily regulates conduct, not speech, professional conduct, and therefore it's not constitutional. And the Supreme Court took it up.

The Supreme Court could have said, we let it stand. the Tenth Circuit decision, but they didn't. They said, give us a shot at it. And I totally agree with Dave that they are going to say, you guys got it wrong, and this therapist cannot be hamstrung by the law, telling her she can't therapy as the kid the way she sees fit. So I'm going to break some news to you,

and maybe to the world here, because most people maybe don't know this. There are actually a lot of people who go to work and put on black robes in America who are true nut jobs, and that explains why we have a lot of these lower court rulings that are flat contrary to the law. The First Amendment is really, really clear here. You can't go inside the treatment room or the therapist's office and dictate to a therapist who uses talk therapy. That's the tools of her trade. If a person comes in there and says, look, I have these issues that are, you know, gender dysphoria issues, I don't like feeling this way. I want you to help me feel a different way. The state of Colorado is going to come in and say, no, no, it's illegal

for you to do that. The only thing you can do is affirm their feelings that they say they do not want. So if you're a therapist and someone comes into your office and says, I want you to help me try to feel a different way, to feel like maybe the gender I was at birth, right? My birth gender. I don't like feeling this way. Will you help me? You're going to have to say, no, no, no, I can't because they're going to take my license. They're going to take my livelihood. How that is not a violation of free speech and probably other things, I don't know. I think the Supreme Court is going to obviously rule. I agree with Dave. They're going to rule in favor of the plaintiff here. I disagree with Dave a little bit because I think Colorado's entire argument is specious. Of course,

the states can regulate therapists and doctors. But this goes beyond. mere regulation. This is getting into the sanctity of that relationship between a therapist and a patient. These people can come into the doctor or to the therapist and say, I've got this real issue. I want your help. The therapist has to be able to legally help them with what they state their issue is and what they won't help with. It's just really simple. It's crazy. This is genuinely endangering children, this law. I mean, it's going to be thrown out. Thank God we have the Supreme Court we do. I will say Colorado's argument. that the only thing the law prohibits

therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor's gender identity because they're saying we're only going to come after you therapists if when the kid walks in there you're saying in your head

no way am I letting this kid change genders that's not a thing which is the correct thing to do by the way but I just don't think that's going to be upheld even if the court believes that's all it would encompass and it's going to be very hard for Colorado to prove. That was in her head. She had a predetermined versus she did an open searching examination with the child and then determined this isn't a real case of gender confusion. Anyway,

I think this thing's going away. Let's keep going. Another case involving the trans issue, I think is going up. Dave, you're going to tell me what's going to happen now because there's two cases on the trans athletes boys crossing into girls sports. One is out of Idaho, one's out of West Virginia. What happened in Idaho is there is a law that banned all trans kids, meaning boys pretending to be girls, from participating in or even trying out for girls' sports in the public schools, K through 12. It was signed in 2020 by the current governor out there, Brad Little. Again, this is Idaho. It was the first state to pass such a law, so good on them. And this young boy claiming to be a girl, who's now a freshman at university, says,

I've been hurt by this. I wanted to play the girl's sports and I wasn't allowed. I intended to try out for women's track and cross-country and I couldn't because of this law. And so I'm suing. Now, the district court issued a preliminary injunction against the law saying, this isn't constitutional. Idaho, you can't do this. Then it went up to the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they said, yeah, we side with the district court. You can't do this to young boys pretending to be girls. They have a right to try to. get on the girls team. And then Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and they took the case. Again, that's another good sign for team sanity. And then the plaintiff, the boy pretending to be a girl, requested that the lawsuit be dropped because he knows as well as we know the high court is going to side with us, meaning team sanity. And there is no way they are going to reverse this Idaho law. So Dave, what does the Supreme Court do because the alliance defending freedom, which is a great group, which is defending Idaho in part, has said, oh, hell no, you can't do this. You cannot drop it. You know, this is a live issue that's

going to be coming over and over and over again. You need to hear the case. Right. Well, they also have that West Virginia case. So they're going to hear both, I think. And I think the reason is because the Supreme Court wants to rule in this area, as does Idaho. They want the Supreme Court six of three conserved majority to weigh in here. This was a mistake by the transgender legal advocates when it came to the Scrimetti case. Remember, that was a big deal. There was a press conference. We're going to go to the Supreme Court and we're going to stand up for transgender rights

when it came to Tennessee's gender affirming care. And the Supreme Court ruled six three against the plaintiffs. They ruled for Tennessee that you can ban gender affirming care for underage individuals. And it was a big loss for the transgender community. and they see that happening now when it comes to sports. And so now I do see that as the reason why they're trying to back away from this. They are saying, well, let's give in. Let's not let the Supreme Court rule because that would be a national ruling.

That would have huge ramifications. So I do think the Supreme Court's going to rule on it. I think it will be 6.3 again, just like in the Scrimetti ruling. And I think we'll have lasting implications. I agree. Now, wait, Phel, do you want to weigh in quickly because I do want to get to one other case? Yeah, real quick. I think what's getting lost here, you know, everything these plaintiffs are talking about is

their 14th Amendment rights are being violated. It's the rights of the girls on the team to play same-sex sports, right? It's their choice. They have the right to free association under the First Amendment. They signed up and they choose to be part of an all-girls team. You can't force them to accept a boy on their team because that violates their First Amendment rights. So you have, I think, a very compelling interest here for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and say, you know what, freedom of association means something. And if these women, these girls on these sports teams, if they want to play all girls sports, the government has to protect it. I think that's what's going to happen. I mean, I feel like if you're a transgender activist, you'd rather have the Idaho case in front of the court than the West Virginia one.

Because in the West Virginia one, there's allegations. They're just allegations. we have to hear whether there's a denial. But the allegation is that the trans athlete there allegedly was saying to at least one of the girls who was a teammate of his when he was on her team, you can suck my D, this person said to her that they made many other more explicit statements

like I'm going to stick my D into your whatever and sometimes added, and also this other place as well, that she allegedly told her parents and told her coach and the school's administration the school said it was investigating, but she never heard back. This is, and she, the girl is claiming she can name six students or didn't name who could corroborate her allegations. This is not, this is not a case that the trans lobby wants going in front of Samuel Alito. It's not going to end well.

And Megan also, in that case, West Virginia case, the athlete won the shot put competition by more than three feet, whereas in the Idaho case, the athlete was worse than the women and couldn't even make the team. So, yeah, you're right. I do think the West Virginia case is going to be worse for the transgender community. Okay, so in the limited time we have left, there's this singer and TikTok star named David. They spell it D, the numeral 4 v. D. His name is really David Anthony Burke. He's 20, and he has 3.8 million followers on TikTok, 2 million on Insta, and something bizarre,

happened with him. Officers on September 8th responded to an impound lot in Hollywood for a quote, foul odor coming from a vehicle. They located a body in the front truck of a Tesla that was in a state of decomposition. They said all they found, they described it as a head and torso found inside a bag. Well, they matched that head and torso to a missing teen, 15-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who was from Riverside County, who was reported missing in April at 2024 at just 13, but it was 15 dead in the car. The L.A. Times reported Celeste was reporting missing three times in 2024. Police said the teen may have been dead for several weeks before her body was discovered. Her mother claims before she went missing she had a boyfriend named David.

Following idea of the body in L.A. home where David had been living was searched. The Tesla was reportedly located not far from his $20,000 a month rental home. At least he was staying in the home. TMZ reports that his manager is the person on the lease. But again, this guy, David, appears to have been staying there, not all the time, but frequently. The Los Angeles Medical Examiner has not yet determined the cause or manner of death. It's a pending investigation. And her remains were found a day after her 15th birthday. She was not pregnant. It's being investigated as a homicide. And, And now TMZ is reporting that they are looking in this home for blood evidence using luminal.

Just want to say we only have a minute left on Sirius XM, so we're going to carry it over just a bit onto podcast and YouTube.com slash Megan Kelly. But in the minute we have here, your thoughts on this, Phil, because this does not look so great. Yeah, there's laws obviously against homicide, but there's also laws against concealing a death, and there's laws against mutilating a corpse. So why there has been no arrest made is a head scratcher. I can't quite figure that one out. They can always add additional charges later, but somebody, and I think we know who,

has hidden this death from the public. They've concealed it, right, to the point that it was decomposing and causing people to complain about the smell. So I think there's an arrest that could be made, and they need to do it soon. Who would be so dumb as to put the dead body that they were responsible for, Dave, in their own car and then just leave it sitting there. It's such a good point, Megan, and perhaps that answers Phil's question as to why there is not an arrest.

Maybe they're thinking, this is too obvious, because if we're going to arrest someone for concealing a body, why would it be the guy who owns the car who lives nearby? And that doesn't seem to make any sense. Now, it is telling that the mother of the victim claims that before she went missing, she said she had a boyfriend named David. So this is not good for this guy. I've never heard of them, quite frankly, but I'm not surprised. I haven't heard a lot of these music stars these days.

But I think more evidence will have to come in before the prosecutors will make an arrest. Yeah. I mean, right now, all they have is the body and a possible relationship between these two. Phil, I mean, without physical evidence at this guy's home or, you know, on his person, it actually could be tough to make a murder charge against him. they're going to have to find some physical link or maybe some statements that he made. But look, they're looking at online messaging. They're looking at Discord communications.

They're even investigating the language that he uses for the lyrics in some of his product, whatever you call that. So, you know, they're going to have to tie it up. You mentioned those song lyrics, Phil. And according to TMZ, an unreleased song was leaked on SoundCloud, in December 2023 by David. He sings about a woman named Celeste. When it was leaked, it was titled Celeste Demo, Unfin, like Unfinned. Oh, Celeste, the girl with my name tattooed on her chest.

Smell her on my clothes like cigarettes. I hear her voice each time I take a breath. I'm obsessed. The next verse also features the name. Oh, Celeste, afraid you'll only love me when on dressed. But you look so damn gorgeous in that dress. Missing you so much makes me depressed. But I digress because.

And then TMZ also reports that there are disturbing lyrics about killing in his 2022 song, one of his top songs called Romantic Homicide. And we actually have a clip of that. Here it is. But it's true I hate you. Oh boy. For the listening audience,

it's showing a dead woman bloody on a bed and him blindfolded and you heard the lyrics in the back of my mind, I killed you. I didn't even regret it. I can't believe I said it, but it's true.

I hate you. I know, you were a former prosecutor, Dave. I mean, you were prosecuting these cases about a year ago. How helpful is that? I think it is helpful, and this is why I have always opposed attempts that exist in various states to make music lyrics inadmissible in court, because prosecutors have used rap lyrics to go after violent gangs, and they say, you can't do that.

That's First Amendment, and it doesn't mean anything. Well, it does mean something. A lot of this stuff is a confession. It also is telling that apparently the tattoo, she had a touch on her finger that was the same one that David has. So I don't know about the whole thing on the chest. That red S-H-H-H-H, like be quiet, which is disturbing. Yeah, exactly.

So all that stuff should be admissible. And thankfully, it's still admissible because that's why these laws are so just, even though they want to maybe fair to defendants, they are so misguided because they could set defendants free. We, just FYI, according to TMZ, we don't know when they first met. But there is a photo of them together, reports TMZ at an event in L.A. in October 2023, which would have dated back to when she was 13 and he was 17. That's no boyno, that age difference. And she also, you mentioned this, Phil, appeared in streams of David's Twitch and Discord channels. It's very clear they knew each other. TMZ obtained one video in which the woman next to David appears to be Celeste. I think we've got that cut. Yo, yo, wait, wait, wait, way, way, way. Oh, look, answer that one.

That's so mean if you don't answer that. Which one? What's good? They have a big fan mix by me. Oh, thank you. Mitch O'Conjoio. I got to sound with him if you even. We need to delete this.

Maas, can we delete all vives? And then as soon as the stream ends, delete the stream, too. All right. So there's no question these two knew each other. That seems very clear. The only question is, why did she go missing? Obviously, at some point, somebody killed her. And how did her body parts wind up in his car? Can you speak to the thing about, I mean, look, we all have a suspicion here for obvious reasons. But if you actually have to make the case, it's much better to have some physical evidence on him or in his house, like the luminal. If they find her blood in that house, that's good. But even if they find her blood in that house, inside that car or his fingerprints inside that car, it doesn't mean he did it. Apparently it was his car. He drove it. Maybe somebody was framing him. Maybe somebody, maybe the guy who owns his

house, right? If I'm a defense lawyer, I'm going to cast the stones everywhere. Like, maybe the manager did it. Maybe the maid did it. You know, it's really, really unlikely, and I think it's very, very rare that people in real life are actually framed for things. I'm not saying it can't happen. But I think, you know, you mentioned that they obviously knew each other, in my opinion. I think it's clear that it was much more than simply knowing each other. But to your point about physical evidence, obviously the more evidence prosecutors and police have to make a case, the better off they are when making that case. But there are a lot of people who are rightfully convicted serving long prison sentences on circumstantial evidence alone.

circumstantial evidence when used the right way can be extremely powerful, extremely powerful. And by that, we've got, for example, there are discord messages that say, you know, David is saying that gore is greater than porn. I used to be addicted to watching gore. I love gore. And he's not talking about Al Gore. He's talking about this, you know, something that's essentially a fetish. Yeah. And so, and now we got this video with the knife that's, you know, dripping blood. and all of these things. And the body parts found in his car near his house, even though his name may not have been on it, all the evidence is that he was living there.

And you start putting these things together. And bear in mind, there's obviously going to be things that the police know about that we don't know about. So just taking what we know, and it's already looking very, very bad for singer David. And my wife made me promise not to call him D4VD, so I won't call him David. I almost did it, too. You know, it's one of these things. I think they can make a strong case.

Here's the thing. They found the car. The car was originally on the street, Dave. It wound up in the impound lot because somebody had basically abandoned it. So it was towed to the impound lot. And then after several days, it started to smell. And they reported this foul odor. The police came and they found this head and torso in a bag in the trunk.

And then the remains were linked. back to this young girl Celeste and proven to be hers. Now what we've seen from David is he's stopped with the promotion of his album and he's hired a criminal defense attorney. Now, none of that means he did this. You know, he's getting, I'd get a lawyer too if I were him, whether I were guilty or innocent at this point. But again, I can't get over the sheer stupidity if he did this of just of putting some portion of her remains in a bag, whose bag is it? The cops will figure that out pretty quickly,

will they not, Dave? And then putting it in my own car and then thinking no one's going to link it back to me? I think, well, I think that's his best offense. It's so preposterous. I mean, who would ever do this? Your Honor, members of the jury, this is too ridiculous.

He's not an idiot. Well, that's going to be the argument press. But, you know, he did seem like an idiot in that video. Yes. That's what I'm saying. He has shown signs of. being quite an idiot. So that could come back to hurt him also. Also, he's been going out of his way to lie about his affiliation with the victim. He is denied there was ever any romantic

involvement, which of course he would because he's a lot older and she's underage. But there was a photo of the two of them together at an event in Los Angeles in October 2023, and she would have been 13 at the time he was 17. What is he doing with a 13-year-old girl then? And so when you add all this stuff up, it makes him look really bad. So, So even if you don't have all the evidence to connect them to the murder, but just the insinuation of hanging around with this 13-year-old is going to make them look terrible in the eyes of the jury to at least get him on the concealment charge. Okay, David's friends are saying that they were romantically involved, according to Fox 11,

that they believed that Celeste was a 19-year-old student at USC. Again, a reminder for the audience. she was found dead at age 15, and the relationship had been going on, we believe, for a couple of years, having begun when she was 13 and he was 17, we believe. Again, allegedly, his friends say they frequently saw the two together and believed they were romantically involved. They told TMZ they were shocked. She was underage because she was present at multiple age restricted events. Law enforcement sources previously confirmed to TMZ that Rivas Hernandez had multiple fake IDs, which could have. given the teen access to such events. I mean, and now what they're sniffing around here, Phil, is potential motive, right? That, I mean, I don't know what the statutory rape law is out in California, but that kind of an age difference, four years with an underage with a 13-year-old could definitely, is probably illegal.

That's how the law's work in most states. And, you know, you have one fight in which she says, I'm going to tell everybody. I'm just making this up. This is speculation. But that's a problem. it's a problem to have somebody under 13 in a sexual relationship, potentially. So it is, and yes, that, you know, that's the reason for the, you know, the pinky tattoo saying, you know, don't, that's, that's what that signifies to me is that they've got something going on

and they're wanting to keep it a secret, so secret that they're putting tattoos all over themselves. But anyway, it has been reported, I think, by TNZ as well. If you're trying to keep a secret, you probably shouldn't have written on your finger and the matching finger of the person with whom you don't want to be caught in a relationship? Just pro-tip. Well, also, you don't want to be caught, as TMZ reported, standing 0.3 miles from the home where Celeste Revis was living with her family before she disappeared in April of 2024. And that's where he was standing, according to Google Maps, according to TMZ. So you put all this together. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence. You start putting

it together. And while one piece of it may not look like much, eventually when you start putting these bricks in place, you start to see a wall forming. And eventually that wall can get complete and it can get very tall. And it might be something that's so tall that the defense won't be able to get over it in terms of finding reasonable doubt in a case. So the search for physical evidence is key. It's going to be ongoing. But I have a sneaking suspicion. They're going to find some physical evidence if they haven't done it already. Plus, he's got a lot of stuff out there online that sleuths have been able to come up with. And with the tools that law enforcement has, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a mountain of digital information that they've got that's going to probably lead to some charges in the not too distant future.

You tell me, Dave, as a prosecutor, if this guy really did, again, I assume he asserts his innocence. I assume he's denying having anything to do with this. and they don't have him dead to rights based on what we're seeing here. They really do need to tie some forensic evidence, either in that car or in his home, to him and her having been together in some sort of a bloody confrontation. But you tell me whether they are likely to find that, because if you really are dumb enough to kill your lover and put her remains in your car and then abandon your car on the streets of L.A., you are absolutely dumb enough

to think cleaning up blood in your home with bleach will remove all trace of what you may have done, right? This is hypothetical land right now, to be clear. But I wouldn't be shocked at all to learn he really is straight out of the stupid criminal file. Yeah, and he'd be the type to think that if he erases his cell phone, then all the messages go away. I've got to believe that law enforcement is getting subpoenas

for his cell phone records, and that's where his digital footprint could really hurt him. And going back, we were talking about before, since he was 17 at the time of that picture with her when she was 13, that if they had a romantic relationship then, that could be a felony under California law. It is a crime because it's more than three years. It's a four year difference, even though they're both underage. And so he could be convicted of a felony just for that relationship. So you can see that could be motive, even though she was not pregnant, that could be motive. Perhaps she said something and she held that over his head.

We don't know yet, but means, mode of opportunity, points to one person so far. We'll see if the evidence bears it out. Yeah, and then you look at that person's social media. By the way, would that stuff come in, Dave? Like, if they did charge him, would any of those songs we just played or, you know, the appearances together online, would that come in? It would. You'd have to argue to a judge that it'd be relevant that it's not more prejudicial than it is probative. I would say it is relevant, especially because her name has mentioned.

in these songs. So yes, that's why some states are trying to make it irrelevant, inadmissible entirely. But thankfully, that hasn't become a big force throughout the country yet. Well, Fannie Willis tried that in Fulton County recently when she prosecuted Young Thug, the rapper Young Thug, you wanted to use music lyrics. And, you know, the jury wasn't buying it, but the music industry just is apoplectic about that. Because, look, today's point, I get why prosecutors want to use it. But you really, have to tie that in concretely to your case. You can't, it can't be abstract. It's got to be very, very, I think, specific and focused on the facts of the case at hand because it really does

have to be more probative than prejudicial. And that's a balancing test that courts have to go through. So if you just have something in the abstract that doesn't necessarily, it can be interpreted in multiple different ways, I think there's a good argument to be made that it could very well be inadmissible because it's you know it's just not probative enough or it's too prejudicial if you might be right like that song was from 2022 and that may have been before he met her right now we're only dating it based on what we've discussed to 2023 be all i killed you i didn't regret it i can't believe i said it but i hate you but that's sort of a pattern of uh you know problematic issues um all right well we'll wait to see what happens to david again assuming david asserts his uh

innocence in this case. Before we go, we're awaiting right now at 208 on Friday the Diddy's sentencing. What's going to happen after lunch is three more lawyers will speak, a reverend. And then Sean Diddy Combs himself is set to speak before the judge finally hands down his sentence. Do you guys have any thoughts before we go on whether this judge is likely to throw the book at him or what the sentencing is likely to be? Dave, I'll start with you. I think that Diddy will get more than the defense wants, which is no additional time. and less than what the prosecution wants, which is 11 plus years, I think he'll get somewhere around three to four years, which will be a lot more than did he ever expected to spend behind bars.

I've said that he might get three to five. I'm actually wondering if it might not be closer to the seven, which is what the guidelines call for. He's not going to get the 11 that the government's asking for, but he's not going to get out on time served. And here's why. This judge heard all of the evidence in this case. He saw the video of Diddy beating the hell out of that poor woman in that hotel. And he doesn't, the judge is not required to forget about it. They have this video that they're playing today in the sentencing hearing. It's one of these, you know, what you call mitigation videos. Yeah, we watch one minute of it. You cherry pick bits and pieces of somebody's life to show how great they are, how kind they are, how good of a husband and father they are. But the judge

is like, wait a minute, that's inconsistent with all the stuff that I heard from the witness stand and in this courtroom for weeks and weeks and weeks. So the judge is going to look at that. And by the way, the defense even went so far in their brief to tell the judge that Cassie and the others were not victims in the case. Well, Cassie sees it a different way. She says, I was a victim and I'm afraid of the guy. So the judge is going to remember all that and he's going to give him a significant prison sentence. I think maybe even north of five years now that I think I'll tell you what I'm worried about, Dave. I'm worried that the judge gives him a stiff sentence, which I want to see.

Like seven years, I'd be very happy with seven years. And then it's so severe that Trump pardons him or commutes it. You know, Trump has said he's going to see what the sentence is. So I do think of it is too harsh, then he's likely to get a pardon. So that is concerning. I agree with what Phil said. The judge is a human being too. He saw that video of Diddy manhandling Cassie.

And keep in mind that even though Diddy is now saying, give me a second chance. I won't be a better person. He denied everything from beginning to end. In this case, and in every other matter, he's been involved and he's never taken responsibility except when the video came out of him physically assaulting Cassie. That's when he had to come up and say, I made a mistake. Other than that, he hasn't taken responsibility for a thing. Well, in his brief, in their brief, they said he has accepted responsibility. In addition to saying Cassie's not a victim, which I thought was preposterous, they said that he's accepted responsibility. I'm like, when? For what? When is he accepted responsibility? for a damn thing. Exactly. Well, now in his letter, he's saying, I've learned, I'm a changed man, and now he's going to presumably say that same thing directly to the judge. We'll see.

This judge doesn't seem like a dope, and doesn't, you know, him allowing himself to consider the acts of violence is definitely good for the prosecution, but we'll know soon enough. Guys, thank you. Have a great weekend. Great to see you. Happy to be here anytime. Thank you. See you in Miami.

Happy birthday, Phil. Thank you, Megan. Okay. So I want to tell you, before. we go, I've mentioned it like a couple of times this week that I've been working on this rebuttal to this absolute disgusting hit job the New York Times did on Charlie Kirk this week. I mean, it was truly shameful by Nicole Hannah-Jones. And I really put some time into it because I want her side to watch this, not just side of reason. I want her side to see it and see

exactly what she's done to him, how dishonest she is. And what Charlie actually said in the clips that she's used to bastardize him. I think you're going to find it very interesting. It's under an hour, right about there, around an hour. And we're going to release it tomorrow morning, a special episode. I think you'll like it because there's very rarely new content in the podcast world on Saturdays. You can listen to it then or Sunday or whenever you want, but I think you'll find it helpful in combating the lies being told about our friend, Charlie Kirk.

Thank you for watching you guys, and we will see you on Monday. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda. And no fear.