The Megyn Kelly Show - Fani Willis Trump Case Done, COVID Bombshell, and Attacker Caught, with Chamath Palihapitiya, Dave Aronberg, Phil Holloway, and NYU Students | Ep. 1205

Episode Date: December 3, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Chamath Palihapitiya, co-host of the “All-In” podcast, to discuss the state of the Trump administration as 2025 comes to an end, ways he can focus on fixing the economy for different groups of Americans, what his plans should be ahead of the 2026 midterms, the viral clip about rich tech wives who focus on fighting for equity and climate change, whether they could better serve society by taking on other sorts of jobs, bombshell new reporting about the dangers of COVID vaccines, a potential cover-up of COVID vaccine-related deaths in children, and more. Then Dave Aronberg and Phil Holloway, MK True Crime contributors, join to discuss the Fani Willis criminal case against Trump officially ending, the drama of the case and how Ashleigh Merchant helped bring down Willis, the January 6 pipe bomber mystery, the Blaze report that's getting major pushback now, Will Smith's alleged friend suing Jada Pinkett Smith for millions, the wild lawsuit allegations, and more. Then NYU students Amelia Lewis and Summer Armstrong join to discuss the assault against Amelia on the street in NYC in broad daylight, how Summer helped find the video footage, the way Megyn and the X community helped get the alleged assailant arrested, his lengthy rap sheet, and more. Palihapitiya- https://x.com/chamathAronberg- https://substack.com/@davearonbergHolloway- https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsqLewis- https://www.tiktok.com/@amelia.lewis506 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/ Geviti: Go to https://gogeviti.com/megynand get 20% off with code MEGYN.Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYNto speak with a strategist for FREE todaySelectQuote: Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS. Save more than 50% at https://selectquote.com/MEGYN  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 New East. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Coming up today, an exclusive interview with a family friend who was assaulted in New York City. Two young women who were assaulted, actually. And amazingly, there is a happy ending to this story. Thanks to the power of, you know, social media and X and all of you, and we'll tell you about it. Plus, the Kelly's Court on Luigi Mancioni, January 6th, and those pipe bombs, and more. But we begin today with some political news. The Republican who was running for the seat in Tennessee being vacated by a Republican did manage to pull it out in the special election yesterday in Tennessee. But it was close. It was closer than the Republicans would have liked. Last count I saw in the New York Times was around nine points between the GOP candidate and the weird Democrat who cried outside of the

governor's office. It should have been 22 points. That's what Trump won that district by. And it's a solidly red district. So why are the Republicans only winning it by nine points, especially since the Democrat candidate was a complete loon? That's a problem. I mean, the Republicans can just pretend that they don't have any problems. That's fine. You can do that. If you want to sit here for the next 11 months and say, this is all your haters, okay, let's see how that turns out for you in November. Or you could actually get honest about why you're having these problems and change some things and then possibly win the midterm elections. It's not a foregone conclusion that you're going to lose. Look what Joe Biden did.

You know, he, yes, the Republicans took, you know, they did okay, but there was no big red wave. Remember that a couple years ago? you could limit the losses. Will they try? Will they try to figure it out? What's causing this? We'll talk about it. Joining me now on this and much, much more, is Chimath Palihappatia.

He is a co-host of the All In podcast and CEO of Social Capital. Chimoth, welcome back. Hi, Megan. How are you? Great to see you. Great to see you. Let's start there because, you know, our mutual friend, your close friend, David Sacks, is in the administration. I know a lot of folks in the administration. And this thing in Tennessee

is a bit of a rattler. Trump won it by 22. They only won it last night by 10. The Democrat is a nutcase. Excuse me. Yes, they put a bunch of money into the race. The Dems, but so do the Republicans. So what's happening here? Like if you actually got the audience with Trump and he said, what should I do to make sure it's not a bloodbath for Republicans in November, what What would you tell him? I think the plan is actually pretty straightforward to diagnose, but it's complicated to fix. So just to set some context, when I was at the White House, I think it was two or three weeks ago, I saw some data that had been vetted and that was about to be shared with the president.

And now I think it's been widely shared, which is that under Joe Biden, I think that the, average American family lost about $3,000 of purchasing power. And the reason they lost that was in large part because of inflation and runaway costs and, you know, the cost of practical, useful things that they need for their life, electricity, health care, and child care. So the Trump administration starts from a $3,000 hole. Now, what they've been able to do in 11 months is that they've earned back. $1,000, which is a third of where they are. I think the problem, though, is that they will

need to find the other $2,000. And it's not their fault because, again, they inherit where they started from. But I think the perception that people have is just that negative $2,000. So if I had to diagnose an answer, I think it's about breaking down the population that's voting into three cohorts. Cohort number one are people that are mostly retired. I think that their priority is going to be mostly around health care.

Then there's cohort number two which are middle-aged, middle-income families. I think their huge sensitivity is general cost of living. And then I think what people like Mamdani uncovered, which I think the Republicans should embrace is for young people, the huge hot-button question is around student loans and debt load

and on-ramping into the United States economy with a decent starting job and salary. So I think you have to have programs that touch each of these three areas, and that is probably the path forward where you can earn back the 2000, show that you've basically closed this hole that Biden created, and then ideally you get out of that hole so that you're now gross, that positive, which would be a huge economic win for them. Now, of those voting blocks, the one that is most likely to actually show up on election day is the older group, if history is any.

Excuse me, I've got my lootins. I've got all my tool search month, but I'm coming off a rough few days. The Ricola, yeah, I got you. In any event, the older people are the ones who vote, but also people who are economically motivated will vote. I mean, we did see a higher turnout of the young people last time around. in large part, thanks to our friend Charlie. So where do you focus on?

I mean, truly, like, if you're just talking, like, brass tax, November's coming. We've got to get people motivated to vote Republican, or we're going to lose the House. We're going to have nonstop impeachments and investigations. The Trump agenda will be stymied. Where do you go? I mean, I can brainstorm with you. These are all kind of like hypotheticals, but I think the hypotheticals are kind of interesting because it starts to make the point you're making. Me too.

I think if you look at older folks, the biggest cost that they bear is the uncertainty and the actual lived cost of medical expenses as they get older. Because most of them, you know, for better or for worse, have structural housing. You know, they've either owned a home or I've been renting something for a long enough period of time where that issue is less of an issue for them, per se. You know, we all talk about how boomers sort of were buying homes in the 80s and 70s and early 90s, and everybody else now is sort of on the sidelines frozen out. So if it's around medical care, we heard yesterday in the cabinet meeting, Bobby Kennedy

say something really interesting, which is starting in 2026, you will not allow for certain procedures to have to go through prior off, which is this crazy scheme that the insurance companies use to essentially slow down approvals. they do that so that they can make more money in the short term before they have to pay out claims. But the lived experience for older Americans is when you need a procedure, you're kind of waiting around hand-wringing,

wondering why the insurance you're paying into isn't approving a legitimate medical procedure. So if you look at that narrow issue and expand the scope, the interesting thing would be to figure out how can we make the health care rails in America more frictionless. How do you make prior off much easier to do across a wide variety of procedures, but also maybe we should look at medications? How do we think about out-of-pocket costs in Medicare and Medicaid? Could those be subsidized in some way with sources of funds that are neutral to the

government, meaning they don't come out of the general fund? There's some very clever financial things that one can do there that rely heavily on private corporations and the money that they're already making. So that's one practical issue. How do you specifically, narrowly lower health care costs for older voters? But that consolidates the block of people, as you said, that are going to come no matter what. I think if you're going to go after homes and middle-aged folks, you have to look at utility costs, food costs, and you have to find a way. And there are, by the way, very clever things that one can do, again, that don't require the general fund or treasury. So one example of this is that if you had a large group of corporations come together,

they can directly use the big beautiful bill language around things like batteries and smart thermometers. And you can go and implement these things into a home, help reduce the cost of electricity in some cases upwards of 50 or 60 percent. And what you get is actually a rebate on the taxes you would otherwise pay. That at scale, I think, has a huge impact on CPI and could activate, you know, the 35 to 55 year old voter who's, you know, in a household family of four type thing. But I go back to this other thing. This younger cohort was activated by these programs that are, you know, they're, frankly, they're regressive, but they're massed as, like, equity. And I think the most important thing that they care about is what is the long-term solution

for all of the student debt that they're signing up for? Because the jobs that they get afterwards make absolutely no sense and do not generate anywhere near the revenue relative to the cost that they undertake. We're not doing anything. We're not doing anything about college tuition. Nothing. We just keep increasing the amount that they can borrow. So then they do borrow that because the universities increase their tuition immediately, accordingly. And the students are left with this enormous bill that cannot be paid off any sooner than 30 years with jobs that don't justify that sort of investment. It'll never be paid off. It'll never be paid off. And look, the different, look, think about a house, right? You take on a multi-hundred thousand dollar mortgage in a house.

most people don't also pay off their mortgages. What they're able to do is rise and participate in the appreciation of the home and then close the mortgage out when they sell the home, right? The overwhelming majority of people get the capital appreciation of this huge loan that is a liability on their balance sheet.

But if you look at student debt, those loans are of the same order of magnitude as a home mortgage, but they don't appreciate in value in any way. They don't accrue value to you in any way. And they're an albatross that you can't even discharge in a bankruptcy. So I think the thing that we have to seriously consider now is at a minimum, do we stop federally underwriting all loans in an equal way?

It doesn't make any logical sense that somebody chasing an eight-year PhD in art history has the same economic opportunities as somebody chasing a four-year degree in biochemistry. The latter has a lot more practical applications, yet when we, the United States people underwrite that loan so that it can be sold into Wall Street, we view them the same.

So then what happens is Harvard is just as incentivized as to push that person into a, you know, they go to that person and say, Megan, I think you should get an undergrad in biochemistry. You're like, no, I really like art history. They're like, well, what about this Ph.D? That can't happen anymore. You have to be able to differentiate these things

and understand the downstream economic value. And if you want to study art history, maybe the right thing for most people is to learn by yourself or in a community college class while you are working because you appreciate that underwriting a $300,000 degree

for that thing doesn't make any sense economically. We don't have that conversation in the United States, but I think we have to. No, because it's all federal loans. I mean, if there were private lenders making a case-by-case decision, we would factor earning ability in, but we don't. The government just gives it. And I live this firsthand, too, even when I was in law school, they raised the amount that you could get from the government on the tuition loans. And sure enough, you know, and I was thinking, oh, great, I'll actually be able to get some that will go toward my cost of living,

not just tuition. Like, I'll actually be able to pay for my own apartment without having to work all these hours on top of my law school. And no, I couldn't because the law school just raised the tuition, exactly the amount that the government raised the loan amount. So it all goes to the university. Everybody's experiencing this. Can I give you an example that underscores this even more? The best example of why there is sanity in the private markets, now you've given me what you had. Excuse me. Oh, no. Over the trance. I'm good. No, you know what it is in Thanksgiving. All that happens is we all spend time at home. We all just get sick.

I have five kids. Three of them were laid out all Thanksgiving. My wife and I were just trying to duck bullets the whole time. It's a miracle. And you know, you think about how easy it is to infect your family. Because like every doorknob you touch in your home, the refrigerator, the remote control, you're just like this petri dish. Although I will tell you, Chmoth, Doug and I, we had a very funny exchange this morning. I don't know if you're like this.

But whenever I get sick, I'm sitting here like a walking. ball of germs, coughing, I'm blowing my nose, my eyes are running. And Doug's like, I feel something in my throat. There's a tickle. I have a tickle. We have to spend 10 minutes on the tickle in his throat. We've spent zero on what's happening to me right now at this second. Like, men are just... You're a woman. You're a woman. You're strong. Men are weak. And we need to be coddled when we get sick. This is a rule. It's true. It really is true. Men are physically stronger, but they are mentally weaker when it comes to the thought

or experience of illness. This is a fact. This is why we have the babies. God knew. I have an incredibly funny but sad story about this. So during Thanksgiving, we go on Black Friday

to a mall here in Silicon Valley and two of my kids are sick and my wife is sick. And in the middle of this thing, there was like a shooting, which never happens where we are. Wow. And the whole mall goes into lockdown.

We're in a store. the people at the store did a wonderful job, they closed all the doors. We were sitting in the dressing room just waiting for everything to clear. It was clear pretty quickly. It was just an isolated event. But in any event, in the whole thing, I look at my wife and my kids who are sick and I'm like, are you guys okay? They're like this. And they're like, are you okay? And I had nothing wrong. And I was just a puddle. I was like, you know, I don't know what's going on. I think I have COVID plus the flu, plus the avian flu. I don't know what's happening. I'm ready to like just completely It was so, it was so sunny.

Okay, anyway, so going back to what I was going to say to you before. The best example of where there's rationality when the private market prices, something versus the public market, is in mortgages. So when you buy a home and you want to get either the insurance or the mortgage itself, one of the things that we've been told about, for years is there's this threat of climate change, and climate change could meaningfully impact

sea levels, they could impact the weather, they could impact extreme weather events. Well, you know who has the best incentive to understand whether those claims will be true in a dispassionate way? It's banks. And the reason is it's the bank's money that's being used to buy a home. And what's so interesting about that is that forget all of the rhetoric, all of the emotional Sturm and drawing around climate change. If you actually just looked at how the banks priced risk over these last 20 years, what the financial direction would tell you was that climate change was something that could theoretically be important, but not much of a thing.

And that was the actual financial underwriting. This is just an example to show you. that when you have these important philosophical issues of society, sometimes the clarity and the truth can be found through unemotional financial underwriting. It's not true for all things. But if you gave these educational degrees into the hands of institutions that would have to pay for it,

you would very quickly see them figure out what the ability for these kids would be to pay it and also what the ability for these kids would be to enjoy a good life and their version of the American dream. You would get that answer within a year. Yeah. Yeah. And today, that's not what's happened. And why can our government approach it the same way? There was what you said about climate change reminded me of this. It's, it went kind of viral yesterday. Nicole Shanahan, who was RFKJ's running mate and was married to Sergei Bryn of Google, co-founder. She has her own podcast now,

And she went off a bit on the obsession with climate change among many people in Silicon Valley. It's not just Silicon Valley, but among, especially like the rich Silicon Valley wives. It was pretty interesting. Yeah, the private equity wives. Take a listen to this. Yeah, she was on with, actually she was on with Ali Beth Stucky, but here she is, Nicole Shanahan. It's not 13. But I don't think many of the tech mafia wives realize is that they were used to set the groundwork.

for what was called like the reset, what is called generally as like the reset. The TechWive Mafias, I believe, were kind of being conscripted in many ways, and their money especially as being conscripted in to set the groundwork for the Great Reset. Specifically through a network of non- NGO advisors, relationship with Hollywood, relationship with Davos, and their own companies, completely blind to everything else that's going on, and how their groundwork is being used to then enable these other policies, these great reset policies. And these women find their meaning through their philanthropic work.

That was my self-worth, was my philanthropic work. And I really believed in it. I really believed that I was giving black communities a chance to, like, rise up out of oppression. I really believe that I was helping indigenous communities rise up out of oppression. The problems of the community have gotten worse. Crime in the community has gotten worse. Mental health in the native community, the indigenous community has gotten worse. The whole model is broken.

The whole model makes everybody worse off. Social justice and climate change. It always boils down to those. two things, and it gets progressive women 100% of the time. It's amazing to watch her red pill evolution. It's super fun to see her get there. And yes, everything she said is right, Jamath. I can kind of see where she's coming from.

I think that the thing with Silicon Valley that's so incredible is you can believe in yourself and you can start something. and in any other place, what would otherwise take you 50 years, you can accomplish in five. Now, that's an incredible thing in terms of what you can make for society, but it can be a very destabilizing thing because along with making great things, you can be rewarded in five years in a way and at a scale that would have otherwise taken 50 or 75 as well. That second part is very destabilizing. And I think that there are those folks that then have access to these resources that aren't necessarily anchored to something who want to find purpose.

And if you are an elite organization like Davos and you can create this air around yourself about intellectual and moral superiority, you have the ability to pull these folks in and use them as tools and mechanisms to affect your agenda. I think that's essentially what she's saying. It's a very complicated topic. I sympathize for what a lot of those folks are doing. Some of these tech wives, to be honest, I know. And I think the honest answer is you actually have to start looking at the core of these organizations like these Davosos and start asking the question, like, maybe we don't need to have this hyper global. monocultural view from the top. And I think if you have the courage to say that

and say there's a lot of different viewpoints and many people acting independently always gets to a better answer than a group of a thousand people deciding for $8 billion. And I think that's what I... I think it's something else. I think these women tend to be gunners in their own right.

Nicole, I think she was getting her degree at Stanford when she met Sergei. Like she was on her way toward doing her own independent thing. It's the same story for a lot of the women in Silicon Valley. It's same story for a lot of the women where I am in Connecticut who wind up marrying billionaires or, you know, guys who are on their way to be coming. And I think what these women need is a more active purpose in their lives. I think they wind up married to people who are more successful than they are. So it's like, okay, I'll sacrifice my career and I'll raise children. But the children quickly

age out of the range where you need a mom there full time. And so now these women are bored. They have a lot of brain power. It's like secretariat is sitting there in the pasture during his prime years and he's fucking bored. He needs to run. And like what these women need to do is step away from Davos and these fake charities as like something that's real and helping anybody and go to work. like find the balance that allows you to use your brain power in the way God intended and also take care of your children if that's what you would like to do and I totally support that. But I think what happens is they're bored and they find the wrong outlet for it. That's not real work. It's just a substitute for it. Because if you have real problems,

if you, let's say you have an actual bill to pay to pay. Let's take it down to like my mom who's a nurse. She doesn't have time to think about this bullshit. She is taking care of patients all day. now she's retired, she's 84, but in the day, those people are never the ones creating society's problems. They're too busy managing their own. It's almost like these people need real problems. So if, so when you say go to work, do you mean like join a corporation and, you know, slot yourself in and try to work yourself up the ladder? Or whatever your passion is, I don't know, could be you start a business, you know, and I don't mean the fake business either. Here's the other problem that I see with these billionaire wives, so many take their husband's money, and then they're like,

I'm a founder, and they start doling out the husband's money to random groups, and they're like, oh, I'm the founder of that company. I'm one of their chief investors. That's not doing anything. That's giving away your husband's money. Pick a fucking job that requires you to use your brain, that requires you to take risk or hire people, evaluate situations and make judgment calls, fail, succeed, stand up on your own two feet, be your own individual person and not just your husband's wife if you really want an active

profession. Not every woman does, but for the women who do, do that. Instead of doing fake Davo shit that is meaningless, and actually it's worse than meaningless, it's harmful. It just makes you feel better about your fragile ego, you know, getting it stroked, but you're actually hurting people because you don't understand that world. You don't understand how you're being used and how you're not even important to them. You're just a gateway to your husband. wallet and they on some level they know it so it's unfulfilling but we all pretend it's not the case find something that i mean honestly i've said this to some of my friends i would rather they get a job at the damn supermarket just do something that genuinely requires you for eight hours a day or

six hours a day sorry for my rant but that's i have strong feelings about it yeah i mean i think that that's um it's just an incredibly hard thing to do i guess um because I think if you put yourself in their shoes, maybe there's a level of stature that they feel like they won't get by doing that. I agree with you. Like I've been a worker my whole life. It's the opposite. Yeah.

I think you have to have a social circle as well that rewards that. You know, it's hard to go back and say, listen, I've decided to do XYZ and that's less interesting than say flying around to Davos and giving away money. The thing that those folks are able to do, Megan, is they're able to market. and make you feel very special for doing that. So all I'm saying is we have to find a way of creating a social culture that rewards what you just said, right?

And if we can have- I'll create the culture around them. They can call me for daily psych-up sessions. Affirmations. Yes, I'm happy to give it to it. Like, honestly, when I'm choosing a friend, I would much rather see somebody who's like hustling on her own,

whatever it is, even if she's married. I know people like this right now. we're married to very rich men who are constantly finding something else intellectually interesting to do whose children are launched, you know, in college. They don't require them full time any longer and who just continue to challenge themselves. Like, this isn't good enough. I'm not actually happy just sitting around here being asked for my investments. I have to find a way to make my own life matter more than that. And when women don't do that at any income level, I really think it leads to bad things. I think it's one of the reasons why women are a huge part of our problem right now.

They're a huge part of our societal and political problems because they're voting overwhelmingly Democrat. They buy into the narratives that the left sells them about DEI and racism and the trans stuff and empathy. And they're ruining the country with all this apathy and free time. What is it exploiting, do you think? Like, how are the Democrats able to exploit that so well, so efficiently? Because it is, when Ali Bestuckie is, speaking of her, she wrote the book called toxic empathy. And that's exactly what it is. Women have a beautiful thing called empathy in spades way more than men have. That's the way God intended it. And it's the reason why generally when your kid gets hurt, he wants his mom and not his dad. You know, you're going to stroke him

and hug him and, you know, brush his hair. Yeah. And the dad's going to be like, you're fine, you know, tough enough. But that gets exploited from K through 12 and beyond by these teachers who use it to make these girls feel like bad people if they don't buy the Democratic Party line. It's from all the DEI messaging and the trans messaging right down to when I was in law school, Chamath, they taught us that the Constitution, this is a liberal line,

was a living, breathing document that could evolve over time. I had no idea that was a liberal line. I thought that was real. It was shoved to me by professors who were trying to exploit my empathy. Like, it lives in, breathes in a way that will allow, you know, due process for people in a way that had never been intended, that will allow the Supreme Court to issue a ruling saying, you can't legislate

sex at a certain level, like in a certain way, whatever, to read rights into there that were never in there, like the right to privacy and the right to have an abortion, that's exploiting your toxic empathy. Anyway, this is, women are genetically prone to it, given evolution, given how we are. And these leftist professors and teachers know it. The systems know it. They take advantage of it. And I think we need a little bit more testosterone running through our veins. Do you think it's organized or do you think it's disorganized? But because they all have the same incentive, it all kind of goes in the same direction. It's the latter. It's taught in a way that, you know, I don't know, it's taught in the same way like my mom knew how to make the meatballs because her mom knew how to make

the meatballs. And now it skips a generation because I don't know how to make the meatballs, Shemoth, but I think my daughter's on her way. But it's just, you learn it. You see it every week growing up. It's modeled for you by the teachers and the professors you respect. It's assumed that you're going to go along and you know you're going to get a pat on the head if you do it. And then before you know what you're doing it.

And like in my case, with the living, breathing constitution, that's just one example. But like, you don't know that this is even questionable. It's just taught to you by somebody you respect and, you know, want to get a good grade from. And it's not so much later before you get exposed to other things. You realize, holy shit, that was a manipulation. So all of this, I just think women can avoid a lot of this. And again, it's not to say everybody needs to work, but women who are bored are dangerous. Okay.

There you go. Okay, let's keep going. Women who are bored may be interested in this next story because they were manipulated, as were men. we were told during the COVID vaccine and I, uh, mania, and I believe that you were very attuned to this. I think you, I don't know why I think you, I have a lot to say about COVID. Yeah. Um, but an extraordinary piece of reporting has just come out about the COVID vaccine trials and children. Alex Berenson reported this and I have been reliably informed that we are fine to go with this reporting.

and that this will be borne out in the coming days. His headline is, and it was an exclusive to him, the FDA may add a strict black box warning on the MRNA COVID shots for kids and teens, millions of whom have already been given this thing. A black box warning. He reports the FDA may soon place this warning on the vaccines to alert physicians and parents

of their link to childhood deaths. This is the strictest an agency can impose, this kind of warning. It's generally the last step they take before forcing a manufacturer to stop selling it. They're also considering an alternative, forcing Moderna and Pfizer to stop selling them to kids and teens, period. The potential move he reports follows the FDA's report on Friday that its reviewers had found COVID-MRNA jabs killed at least 10 children and adolescents and likely many more. He said they'd asked the FDA for comment, waiting to hear back. My sources tell me this is safe reporting. This actually is under consideration, and we're going to hear a report confirming this within days from the highest levels.

This is an outrage, Chmoth. This was forced on us. Every school, including my own. They were expelling boys who would not take the vaccine once they hit 16 and so on. This is downright dangerous, and it was sold to us by the Fauci, Biden, Collins, administration. under Joe Biden that refused to consider actual scientists like Vinay Prasad, who led this. He's leading this within FDA, who was an independent physician at John Hopkins at the time. And he was saying this at the time, saying these vaccines are causing deadly myocarditis in kids and teens.

And he was scoffed at. He was marginalized like so many others and tried to dismiss his fringe. And now, thank God, under Trump and Marty McCarrie, he's been elevated to an important position. your thoughts on it. COVID is probably the most important historical moment of the last 50 years for the world. And it needs to be understood, I think, in three really important and critical things for the success in the future of the United States. The first is that we did not allow robust thinking and dissenting voices during that period all the way up to being able to call places like Facebook and places like Twitter and telling them places like Google and telling them take this down or you know do put a warning on this de boost that you know that's the

effective equivalent of a black box label for content if you're not going to create even reasonable disclaimers and just suppress information, what the average person will do is come to a conclusion based on what is available to them. But if what is available to them is a small sliver of the total groupthink or of the total thought, you're going to get very narrow opinions. And it allowed a small group of people

to control the narrative and then to make decisions. That is extremely dangerous in a democracy. So that's the first thing that we learned in COVID that has to change. So within that, I think we have to go and uncover all of the true underlying medical research and put it out into the light. You know, the great Barrington declaration that J. Badacharya wrote caused them to essentially get defenestrated from Stanford.

And yet he turned out to be right as well. There are umpteen examples where very credible scientists were saying, let's just slow down here and think about this. And they were not allowed to say that. And that content was essentially suppressed. So rational, independent thinking people like you and me and your listeners could not come to our own conclusion. So that's number one. The second thing is that what we learned in COVID is, hold on a second, this globalist monoculture has made us super fragile.

If somebody in some remote part of the world decides that they don't like what we're doing or saying, they can shut things off and all of a sudden these supply chains go dark and our entire economy folds in on a itself. That cannot be how a robust, resilient country like the United States thrives for the next 250 years, like we have in the last 250. So that was the second big thing. And then the third thing, which we still are not putting our finger on, is we have had a huge setback to kids. It created an enormous deficit from learning and from socialization. And I can speak personally about this myself, with five kids all sheltering in place for that period of time, when I look at the impacts, it's the children at that age that were six, seven, and eight, who are today, 11, 12, 13, and 14, of which I have one, two, actually. My gosh, they

really took a step backwards in their ability to learn, in their ability to engage. And I don't think we're doing the best for these children who are the future of our country in the next 20 or 30 years. So those three things in COVID, frankly, caused me extreme frustration. The lack of free speech in democracy, the lack of resiliency in the United States economy that we had created because we just outsourced everything to Davos and their ilk. And then the impact of our kids that we are still not addressing. I think that all of that needs to get put on display and we need to be extremely honest about it. The problem that Biden did at the end, which I thought was extremely offensive was by pre-pardoning all these folks, we essentially allow this

get out of jail free card where you can't even interrogate the truth. So you can't even have an accounting for the future. You know, look, we have had huge mistakes in the past in the United States, but we've been able to have commissions. Those commissions can at a minimum right reports. Those reports can then be taken by think tanks. We may not agree with this process, but at least at a minimum, there is a way for good, sensible policy to then enter the water table. None of that will be possible here because so much of it is suppressed or because we've already taken all of this stuff off the table. We can never even ask the questions.

That is really wrong. Here's the other problem. The media. They were totally complicit. Totally complicit. Totally complicit. They went along with it. Not everyone.

I mean, independent media in our lane, all in and yours truly and Tucker and many others were speaking up against the lies that we were being told in particular. when it came to children. But let me just give you one example, all right? When this was happening, I was listening to Dr. Vanay Prasad. I had never heard of him, but I was very attuned, thanks to Brett Weinstein and many others I do listen to, that there was a problem with these COVID vaccines, especially when it came to kids. And it led me to Dr. Vanai Prasad.

I listened to his podcast all the time, and he's a doctor, and he was talking real truths about the COVID vaccines and about it. myocarditis and pericarditis, in particular in teenage boys, but teenage girls, too, and in kids. And now he's at FDA, and now Alex Berenson reporting, again, we expect this to break from the highest level soon, reporting that Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote a six-page note to staffers, saying the real number of children and teenagers killed by the MRI vaccines is likely much higher than 10 children. After looking at 96 deaths of kids aged 7 to 16, FDA reviewers found 10, quote, died after and because of receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. But that depends on voluntary reporting and is

almost certainly a significant underestimate, Prasad wrote. In addition, the FDA reviewers excluded cases where records were ambiguous. And Berenson reports that one of these children died during the Moderna vaccine trial. And what they did with that kid was just to exclude him. They excluded him. We covered a case like this, where we had on a guy who was vaccine injured.

He was a biker, a mountain biker. He was vaccine injured during the whole process. And they excluded him from the trial. Was it him and his wife, or his wife, I had two on? In any event, they just wrote him out of the trial. So they didn't have to count him. So this is what was being done. And then those vaccines were made,

mandatory for our children. I want to say one note to scared parents right now. The information seems to be that, God forbid, this thing, we're going to cause a death. It would have happened. Like, it wouldn't be now four years later. Like, you don't, yes, of course, get your child checked. For sure, you should, like, for sure, I'd be having my kid checked if they had a vaccine. But even without the vaccine, if they had COVID, get an EKG, get an echocardiogram. That's actually not too expensive. You can get your doctor to order it. And just, check out their heart. That's all you need to do. But the real danger period is right after you get the vaccine. So don't worry if your child had the vaccine and is still fine. You likely avoided

it. The one- The one great thing is, you know, I know Marty and I know Bobby and Jay. These are three exceptional Americans, and they are bulldogs for the truth. And so I suspect that if this comes to pass and there is a black box label, it's because they've done some pretty thoughtful research and they've rerun the data and they've, you know, included. The thing is that, you know, you can exclude data, but that data is written down somewhere. So to the extent that they got their hands on this and was able to see it and they decide that the black box label is the right way to go, I really trust those three to do the right thing. The other thing that I'll say is that it would be really incredible over time

where we can release some of this data in an anonymized way so that some of these new AI models could rerun some of these statistical analyses just to make sure that all the math was right. I think that's probably something that should happen anyways, you know, that's something that the FDA could do

in partnership with Google and Anthropic and OpenAI and GROC as an example. But I think it would give people a lot more certainty that the math and the analysis and the conclusions are defensible, not just in the eyes of the companies who have an economic incentive to get to a yes, but, you know, AI models who are trained to just be extremely truthful. And I think that that could be a very helpful new tool in the arsenal of how we as a community, like, let's be honest, Megan. I mean, you and I have both been prescribed drugs. It's really hard to understand what's going on. And, you know, I just assumed that everything is done correctly. I remember that when I once said on the All-In podcast, are you allowed to call something a vaccine that is 30 or 40% efficacious?

That's when I got some of the most severe pushback ever. Just to even ask that question, you know, because when I think vaccine, when I get a vaccine, I'm protected for. life. That's what I just kind of assumed. And so when I give my kids vaccines, that's what I'm thinking as well. But if I'm taking something that's 30 or 40% of vacations, it doesn't seem like a vaccine. It seems like a best efforts attempt. And that's when like, you know, at some point I stopped taking the flu vaccine because of that because it's not really a vaccine. It's my doctor tells me, yeah, 30 or 40% of the time it'll help you 60% of the time you're on your own. And I wasn't even a lot to ask that question on air.

Yep. Well, so the media thing. back in, it was October 19th, 2020, just to walk down memory lane. And I'd been listening to Vinay and others. And I tweeted out the following because they were, the CDC had just added the COVID vaccine to its list of mandatory, you know, recommended school vaccinations. And I tweeted out the following. A scary number of kids are dying after taking the COVID-vax from myocarditis, among other injuries.

How dare the CDC add this to its list of school vaccinations? Don't listen. Be very careful with your teenage boys in particular, but girls too. These are not honest brokers. This is dangerous with an exclamation point. The shitstorm that rained down upon me was massive and ongoing. I'll just give you a couple. The Daily Beast, which is literally wrong about everything all the time. Tweeted out, Megan Kelly's anti-vax lies are a threat to public health. Daily Beast, you fucking got kids killed. You got kids killed. I saved lives. This show saved lives without question. The Hill, Megan Kelly faces a backlash over COVID tweet. It went on and on. Kara Swisher, Silicon Valley, speaking of Silicon Valley, this was the issue. Not long after this, literally two days after this, Vinay Prasad I'd been listening to, literally two days after this, my sister died.

Not of COVID. It was a long story. and I was supposed to do Kara Swisher's podcast and I had to cancel so my assistant texted her saying she has a family emergency she didn't give up the farm and Kara Swisher wrote back

oh I'm sure it's a family emergency and not just she's afraid to come on now given the storm around her stupid COVID tweets and Abby was like too polite to just shove it down her throat and say actually her sister's dead and by the way when she found out

she wasn't apologetic she didn't say oh my God I'm such an asshole. Sorry for being such a jerk. Anyway, that's what was happening. That was the reaction to that, Chamath. The huge storm around me telling the truth. And I did a whole talking points memo on it the very next day. A whole talking about giving me examples of what I was talking about, kids who were dying from this. And now we have the FDA finally coming out about to put a black box warning on this thing saying it was all true. Where's the media accountability? Where's the apology from The Hill, the Daily Beast, from Kara Swisher. Why won't any of the dishonest brokers come out and say, we're sorry? I think that what has to happen are a couple of really important

things. The first is that places like you, places like All In, whoever is willing to just independently call balls and strikes, we have to find a way of growing and thriving. And I think that while we're doing a good job, I think it's still very fragile for independent media. We're still reliant on large distribution channels like Facebook and Instagram and TikTok and Google and X. And at any point, if those fall into the wrong hands or we go back to repressive or regressive regimes around free speech, the ability to talk about an issue, you know, from all angles will disappear. That's what we can fix, which is we have to become economically viable to be independent forever,

so that even if all of those places at some point say, hey, you know what, I don't like what you're saying, you can somehow, you know, get access to satellite internet and start broadcasting your, own thoughts independent of everybody else. Now, what does that require? I think what that requires is extreme privacy and a monetary system that can be shielded. Now, that's a risk today because I think, you know, there's still a lot of ways in which wrong think can be punished. And wrong think ebbs and flows, depending on who you are. Like, you know, the European government of wrong think is very different than what, right? And so, and we've seen this, by the way.

You guys get, you get suppressed. Your videos get suppressed. They get lower circulation if you have wrong think in them. And in my case, you know, you know the three videos from our summit? I get ultimately savaged by the media for something else. They make up some fake controversy to try to diminish my voice because they recognize I'm a threat. Keep going. Look at my, look at one of my best friends and, you know, my bestie on the pod, David Sox.

Look at this weekend, this huge trash burger. that was written by the New York Times, complete garbage. Now, and frankly, I talked to David along the way over these months, just seeing how he was dealing with it. And I was so shocked at how patient he was and how forthright he was because he was like, there's nothing to see here. And it was five people over five months trying to dig something up. And ultimately, when they found nothing, they tried to write the most hurtful headline,

probably with the presumption that maybe most people will just read the headline and move on and we will inflict the damage we want to see in what is an incredible American. And I think that

the reason why that happens is because they still have an economic leg to stand on. And the faster that the rest of us become economically independent and self-assured, now we can really compete with those folks

and all of these people that malign you or try to suppress us have a much harder time doing it and then let people come to their own conclusion. They can listen to us and turn it off. They can go and listen to something else. I'm completely fine with that in the free market of ideas. Not everything we say

is going to be right. But we're going to get stuff more right than wrong most of the time for most people so that they're like, at least I'll have it in my diet. And I think the same applies to you. I think the same applies to a handful of other folks. But that's what we need to do. The second thing we need to do is you cannot allow one small cabal of people to control the economic parameters of the United States. That can't happen. And when we outsourced everything to one country and we outsourced all the decision-making to a confab in Switzerland once a year, we just completely stop thinking for ourselves. And we can't do that anymore. And I think the good, the best thing about the Trump administration is they don't have any tolerance for that. No, none whatsoever.

Jamatha, we got to go because I'm up against a hard break. Love talking to you. Please come back soon. Great to see you. Happy holidays. You too. Good luck to your family. I'm like, oh, if everybody heals up. We'll be right back. We talk a lot about personal responsibility on this show. Well, here's one aspect that's really important, your health. And I'm not talking about following whatever the experts recommend. I'm talking about real data-driven decisions based on your body's actual numbers. We demand transparency in government, but most of us have no idea what's happening inside

of our own bodies, never mind inside of D.C. Disease can develop silently for years before symptoms appear. By then, you're playing catch-up with expensive treatments. instead of preventing problems when they're cheap and easy to fix. Well, I want to tell you about Jevity. They are revolutionizing preventative care with something radically different. 100-plus blood markers tested at your home.

Personalized supplement packs shipped directly to you based on your deficiencies, bi-annual retesting to track progress, plus ongoing virtual consultations on your schedule. This is health care independence, and you get 20% off at gogevity.com slash Megan with Code Megan when you check out. That's go, g-e-v-it-i.com slash Megan,

because no one should control your health decisions but you. Speaking of this show, getting it right, no matter how many hits in the media we take, Fannie Willis is the first topic of today's Kelly's court. While many of us were enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday, a judge in Georgia officially ended. The election interference case, against Donald Trump, brought by Fulton County DA Fannie Willis in 2023.

It was this case that brought us the infamous mugshot that Mr. Trump ended up using on campaign merchandise and that now hangs at the White House. Many in legacy media fawned over Fawney and her case. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe once wrote for the Atlantic, Willis's determination to deliver on her responsibility to the rule of law exemplify a civil servant doing her duty without fear or favor. Oh my God. Former prosecutor Joyce Vance told MSNBC, the prosecution looks like a slam dunk. But then, good old Fannie blew up the entire case because she couldn't keep it in her pants. It was discovered she had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor who she hired to lead the case. That news hit the night of January 8th.

2024. And within hours, this show called it. Sorry, but we were the truth tellers. We knew Fannie Willis was in trouble, and we owned the coverage as it fell apart over the next several months. Watch this. I have so much to tell you about today, and the lead story is unbelievable. Why is it Not everywhere. The case against Trump in Georgia, I'm not sure the case itself is going to go away, but the prosecutor might be. Some people might be saying, oh, they're having an affair, who cares? You don't understand. The law puts extraordinarily high ethical burdens on prosecutors. Given the power they have, it can't even have the stank of impropriety. Fannie, you're in trouble. I really don't see a way in which Fannie Willis stays. I don't know that the whole case goes away,

but I think she's going to go away. We all know that Fannie Willis is toast. This is going to get a lot worse for old Fannie and Nathan Wade before it gets better. There have been massive and explosive developments in the Fannie Willis case. She's picking up the documents. It's a lie.

It's a lie. No, no, no, no. This is the truth, Judge. It is a lie. It is a lie. Anytime she gets caught in a lie, she lashes out. We have gotten our hands on the text. These text messages show that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade did, in fact, have a romantic affair.

When you put it together, it probably lights out for Fonnie Willis and her prosecution team. The folks over at the New York Times are absolutely flabbergasted. Who even knew that this could potentially be a thing? The feeling that a lot of people had when this motion was filed was that it was kind of a Hail Mary, right? and there was not much evidence that it was necessarily even true. Actually, just fact check for you in New York Times. Some of us knew exactly what to make of it

if you just have an open mind when it comes to anything involving Donald Trump. Christmas came early. It finally happened. A Georgia appeals court has officially disqualified her from the Trump election interference case. She's gone, she's done, it's over for her and her entire office,

and it's official. Another nail in the lawfare coffin, against now President-elect Donald Trump. Wow, what a walk down memory lane. Joining me now, two of the lawyers who helped walk us through the case falling apart with honest, on-point analysis. Phil Holloway and Dave Aaronberg,

who are both now contributors to the MK True Crime channel. That's his own podcast. If you haven't subscribed, go to wherever you get your podcast, type in MK True Crime. And hit subscribe. We've got a couple of week offerings

on True Crime around the country, and it's a great show. It's doing really well. Phil, Dave, welcome back, and Phil, congrats on having that one right from the beginning. Dave, we still love you. Thank you. It took me a while. Dave was ever on the other side of that. I thought it was sort of unanimous that we all kind of knew she was going to be gone. He would be devil's advocate, I'll say. He was a devil's advocate. It took me a while to, you know, at the beginning, Megan, you're right. You're right to call me out because, I thought, like others did on my side of the aisle, that, well, you know, there may be some

issues here, but the underlying case is strong. It won't affect it. And then as more evidence came out of this and possible lying in court, I was like, yeah, this is going to jeopardize this whole thing. Although I did correctly predict that the judge would remove Nathan Wade rather than Fannie Willis. Yep. And then, but then eventually she went and the whole case went. And what a remarkable ending, Phil. You know, it's like, it's fun to walk back to like how this all went down January. In fact, most of those clips for the listening audience were all from January, February 2004, leading up to that announcement at the end, December of 2004, sorry, 24 to 2024, that she'd been disqualified. And, you know, she, no one believed it was going to happen.

I love that New York Times, The Daily clip, where they're like, it's obviously a long shot, you know, Hail Mary by this weirdo Ashley Merchant. Like, this isn't going any. Everyone can see it's not going anywhere, but I guess we'll have to entertain it a little. Yeah, so I go back to, I remember like the whole thing, obviously, but going back to, let's say the day or the evening, I guess, of the grand jury indictment, I actually was out doing a live remote with Fox News in front of the Fulton County Courthouse, and, you know, she comes out, Fannie Willis does, and she has this press conference, and she's in front of this giant podium, and next to her is, among other people, Nathan Wade.

remember thinking to myself, what in the world is going on here, right? Because I knew, like, I knew the guy. I knew there was something going on. I mean, it was kind of like one of these things that in my legal community, everybody sort of knew that these two, like, were some kind of an item. And so right then, on the spot, it occurred to me. I'm like, this is going to be a problem. And then, of course, fast forward to the motion being filed and the other revelations that came out through that motion and then the testimony and the things we've learned subsequently. It's just really remarkable to think back and think about all the different gyrations this case has gone through.

But I kind of suspected the moment of the indictment that this was going to be a problem. It's crazy. Like Ashley Merchant, who's also part of MK True Crime, smelled a rat. And she continued to follow that lead that they were allegedly having an affair, while he was married, and he was working for her on the taxpayer dime, and was like a dog with a bone on that story. She would not let it go. And ultimately got them both key-kewed.

I forgot to say, you showed a picture just a moment ago of her, Fannie Willis, out with Nathan at that press conference. Look, a confidential source whose name is Ashley Merchant tells me that that giant podium there was something that she, rented, especially for this occasion and continued to rent it thereafter until eventually one was purchased. And also that giant seal that says district attorney on it, that was something that was also, as I understand, was sort of custom made for the occasion. So the whole thing just reeked with theatrics from the beginning. That's a great tidbit. Wow, the vanity. I'm sure you did that

too when you were Palm Beach, DA, Dave Arrenberg. Did you forget to do that for yourself? That self-aggrandizement? No, no, no. I used whatever furniture, was there from my predecessor like 10 years prior. So no. So what do you make of this, Dave? So the official news is that the whole case is now gone because they did appoint a subsequent prosecutor. Well, it was basically this group, the prosecuting attorney's counsel of Georgia, which Phil

told us was exactly who it would go to. It's a nonpartisan group to figure out whether there's another prosecutor who wants to take this case. And lo and behold, the guy who took it, prosecutor Peter Scandalakis, noticed, notified the judge, Scott McAfee, who he followed a lot when he did that DQ hearing, said, we're not going to go forward with this judge. And now, as a result of the judge saying, okay, it's out. Like, all these defendants, it's over, right? Like, is it, it can't be rebroad. Is it done with prejudice? Like, can they refile against Trump and these other defendants? And also,

my other question is, what happens to the people who copped pleas, like Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and others? theoretically I'm sorry oh David well let me take that last part Phil and you could take the other part that last part I have some experience with

because it's up to the prosecutor the prosecutor could go back and say you took a plea I'm now undoing the plea deal remember the Robert Kraft case I had that case in Palm Beach County well he fought those charges yes yes and he fought those charges we got plea deals from all these other guys

in advance and after crap was able to win on appeal and the judges said they threw out all the video and we said, okay, enough, we don't, we can't pursue the case. We went back and then we undid the plea deals with all the other defendants saying, you guys pled early. You did the right thing. And we're going to undo the prosecution, dismiss everything because you shouldn't be penalized for copying the plea deal early on, accepting responsibility. And so it's up to the prosecutor here to say, you guys accept responsibility, why should we punish you from doing, in the prosecutor's mind, the right thing early on? So it's up to them. But otherwise, those plea deals stay. They remain. And I believe

they can still go after the other co-defendants. I believe this ruling only pertains to Trump. And they will not be able to file it again against Trump. And I would also defer to Phil, because he knows Georgia law better than I do. Well, so this is called a null process. That's Latin for dismissal. And it applies to every remaining defendant. who did not take a plea deal. So all the cases are officially dismissed, not just Trump, all of them. Theoretically, in Georgia, after this Nall-Pross or this type of dismissal, and a charge can be re-bought within six months.

However, as we now have seen, there's no other prosecutor in the state of Georgia that's able or willing to take the case, according to the prosecuting attorney's counsel. Let me just say, Pete Scandalakis is somebody I've known professionally for many, many years. he is I would say politically a moderate but he is always he's always struck me as a straight shooter right he calls it as he sees it and he wrote a rather long opinion that he filed with this dismissal that explained his reasoning but at the end of the day it's just a matter of look he thinks this thing

needs some finality there's no other prosecutor that wants to take it it's not feasible for the PACC to do it even though they can so no other prosecutor is able to do it no other prosecutor can do it. He's not going to appoint another prosecutor. He's already made his decision. So that six months is just a hypothetical. It's over. It's not coming back. There will be no re-indictment of this case by any prosecutor. As far as the ones that have pled guilty, you know, a card laid as a card played, kind of like as Dave was describing. And if there were a prosecutor on the case who were willing to go back and somehow undo these things, that might be a

possibility. But in Georgia, there are very strict time limits. Those time limits have long since passed. Some of them have actually, I know of at least one, maybe two that have actually tried to withdraw the plea and the trial judge has denied it, according to Georgia law. I think he was right to do that. But I think that those people will forever remain, you know, either convicted or perhaps they get their what's called first offender discharge. Yeah, when you plead, you're convicted. A plea is a conviction of whatever they fled to, a misdemeanor or a felony. I don't, I didn't go through them all. Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesbrough, and Scott Hall, all of whom decided to cut deals to lesser

charges. That's really unfortunate for them. They should have put their faith in Ashley, Ashley Merchant, but who knew? She represented one of the defendants, not even Trump, but she was a local lawyer who knew the local courts, the local players, and knew Fannie Willis a little too well for Fannie's taste. Fannie, a man is not a plan. And you chose a wrong man to lay down with you got the fleas and now everyone's free. Okay, let's keep going because there's a couple of other interesting cases in the news today, which is why we brought you on. The January 6th pipe bomber. So this has gotten a fair amount of coverage, but not as much because it happened right before J-6. It actually happened on J-5th. I think this is when the bombs were planted.

And this, there was a very explosive, pardon the pun, report in the blaze recently on this case, which does not seem to have held up. And so the question to you guys is whether the blaze is about to be hit with a massive defamation lawsuit. Here are the facts as we know them. The pipe bombs, okay, the FBI said an unknown subject placed by bombs under a park bench at the DNC and the Capitol Hill Club near the RNC building between 754 and 816 p.m. the night before January 6th, so January 5th. Discovery of the devices between 1240 and 105 p.m. respectively the next day on J6th, drew already depleted police resources, resources away from the Capitol. The FBI released the first photo of the

pipe bomber on January 7th. So they do have a picture of this person on surveillance cam offering a $5,000 reward. It later up the reward to $500,000. The description of the person is $5.7 with a face mask, gray hooded sweatshirt, dark pants, gloves, distinctive black and light gray Nike AirMax speed turf shoes. The pipe bomber sits on the DNC bench first, then walks away for several minutes, then walks back and plants the bomb, does another several loops near the RNC and is believed to have then planted the bombs there. Here we're showing for the listening audience. Screen grabs at the same person with what we now know are bombs in a bag. Very clear visuals from a ring camera in the alley near the RNC can be seen. Now, the blaze just like two weeks ago, if, yeah, right around there,

with this big report, it was November 8th by Steve Baker and Joseph Hanneman. A forensic analysis of a female former U.S. Capitol Police officer's gate, G-A-I-T, meaning the way one walks, is a 94 to 98% match to the unique stride of the long-sought J-6 pipe bomb suspect, according to a Blaze News investigation confirmed, they say, by several intelligence sources. A source close to a congressional investigation of J-6 additionally told Blaze News, evidence has emerged recently, that pointed toward law enforcement, possibly being involved in the planning of the pipe bombs.

A software algorithm that analyzes walking parameters, including flexion, hip extension, speed, step length, cadence, and variance rated, and I'm going to skip her name since we now have serious reason to believe she did not do it, of Alexandria, Virginia, a 94% match to the bomb suspect shown on video from January 5th, 2021. one. Now, they name her, they go through how she broke her leg once, and that's why they think

her gate is off, as they believe is true of the J6 pipe bomber. And yet, what we know now is that CBS News reporting, she has an alibi, guys, that this woman they named has an alibi showing herself on video with her puppies during exactly the time of the pipe bombs being planted. And the Blaze has not taken down its article, remains online, but they've added the following updates. One, they point out that an attorney for the woman told the Washington Post that she categorically denies that she planted the pipe bombs. Two, they point out to the CBS News report from November 25th that the FBI has ruled out this person as having any involvement in the pipe bomb plot, citing three sources who are not identified. And three, they say, according to CBS, the suspect was cleared after establishing an alibi.

Blaze News repeatedly requested such evidence from the FBI. The FBI apparently did not provide that. so the blaze is sort of Glenn Beck went on the air he would not name this person saying you know I don't know he wasn't comfortable naming her but the blaze did name her so this is like every reporter's worst nightmare that you go out on a limb with something this incendiary which is why most of us would not go out on the air or something this incendiary unless we had it you know dead to rights and now the woman's saying she has an alibi and you tell me Phil Houston whether a big old defamation lawsuit has come Yeah, it very well could be.

You know, look, you're the journalist of the three of us. I am not a journalist. I'm simply a lawyer, but I know that there are things called junk science, for example, that get a lot of people convicted wrongly in America. And so I know that it's very dangerous to use junk science in a courtroom, so it stands to reason that it would be dangerous to use junk science to name someone as the perpetrator of a crime in a media report. You know, this gate analysis, it hasn't yet met the standard in the United States.

We would call that the Dalbert standard. It's the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence. But this stuff has a very high, you know, I guess failure rate, upwards of 30% in real-world settings. And so you've got variables such as lighting, you've got temporary conditions like someone might be injured for the moment, but then they walk a different way later. There's subjective pieces of it that can change from one person to the next making this comparison. And we don't know what kind of source code goes into this, you know, this software that was used. And so it's the kind of thing that, you know, if you're law enforcement and you want to use this as maybe a tool that might make a suggestion is who you might want to look at,

and then, you know, you'd have to confirm it and verify it through some other type of corroborative evidence. But to use this exclusively to name a suspect seems extremely reckless, in my opinion, something I would not do. And if I were a lawyer representing a media company, I would definitely say, do not do it because the risk of defamation is extremely high. Same. Sorry I called you, Phil Houston. That's my CIA spy the lie guy, but you're both in the business of truth detection, Phil Holloway. Similar, same initials. Dave, what do you make of it? You remember the name Richard Jewell? Yeah. Yeah.

He was the security officer who was blamed for the Olympic Park bombing, and it was false. And he got a massive... Most people think he still did it. Most people still think he did that. Keep going. Right. No, and that's the problem here. The Blaze could have retracted it and mitigated their damages, but they didn't.

They're explaining it away. And that opens them up to punitives, because we know now this is not the person who did it. and they're still going with the story, although presenting both sides of it. Here's the issue. She's not a public figure, so it's a much lower burden to prove defamation. And here you had the blaze

relying on an unverified draft memo that came from Tulsi Gabbard's department, along with disputed software, which Phil correctly mentioned, and the fact is that the FBI never charged her. If the FBI had charged her to be a different story. So you have all this stuff that leads to, potentially massive defamation lawsuit.

And I don't know why the Blaze would continue to go with the story because now, in doing so, it's now opening themselves up to punitive damages. Just keeps getting worse for them. Well, I think I love the guys at the Blaze, and I know them to be honest reporters. I think if this is wrong, it's an honest mistake. But I'm going to guess, Phil, without knowing, the only reason they would leave this up is they still believe it, that we say it's an alibi video, but they, you know, that we say it's an alibi by video, but they're saying it hasn't been provided to them by the FBI.

Maybe they're not comfortable with CBS's reporting that it's a legit video, the timestamp of which is legit, you know what I mean? Like, they haven't seen it themselves. And they didn't make it up. You mentioned the Tulsi memo, which is, I guess, important to how they got here. And that was, as I understand it, somebody in the DNI's office, Tulsi's office, generated some memo because someone brought a tip to them is how I understand it went down saying maybe it was this gal. And since this gal is still working in the government, they had some sort of

an obligation to let her employer know within the government, yo, this allegation has come in against your employee. You know, look into it or we're looking into it or the FBI is looking into it just in case. Like, if she really were a pipe bomber, it'd be something that they'd want to know. and I think that's what somehow got leaked to the blaze. But even Tulsi's now distancing herself from that saying, I was out of the country when that shit went down. I don't, I have nothing to do with that. And I don't, like, this is very scary to me as a journalist

because to me it feels like they took an unnecessary risk and they're about to get seriously burned. Well, yeah, look, if I'm, I'm wondering where the lawyers are in this because the Blaze obviously has counsel, right? all media organizations have counseled, and this is their job, is to make sure that their clients don't get in trouble. And, you know, I think that any lawyer would have to say, you need to take this down, issue a retraction, do something.

As Dave mentioned, there's a duty to mitigate damages. And so I wonder if it's the thing where the client is saying, we're going to leave it up over the objections of our council, or maybe the council has not, you know, said, take it down. I just don't understand why it's still up. We don't know. Yeah, exactly. There may be something that we don't know.

But I tell you, like, we saw the story because it was everywhere when they first hit it. And we contacted some of our sources in the government, and we were told stay away. Like right away, we were told, don't touch it. And we did not touch it. And so I love the blaze, and I hope they do the right thing. And I hope I don't want to see them get sued, but they're going to if this was wrong. Okay, let's keep going. So there's some interesting information coming out now against Jada Pinkett Smith and Will Smith,

a big old lawsuit. This got like the stench of some of the crazy ditty lawsuits around it, some of which were valid and some of which were insane and completely made up. So you guys tell me what you think this one is. Okay, this is via the Daily Mail people, TMZ. Lots of them are reporting on this. There's a man named by Lal Salam, who made a cameo appearance in Will Smith's 2000 movie, The Legend of Bagger Vance, who describes himself, this is him saying about himself,

as a best friend for nearly 40 years of Will Smith. Now, I am being told by a source close to the case, they are not anything close to best friends, nor are they close at all. Like, they're not close. so that this is a glomer. But he's filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking $3 million. And whenever I see $3 million, guys, I think, okay,

did someone break your femur or your skull? You know, do you have permanent brain damage? What is it? No, it's intentional infliction of emotional distress. And whenever I see that claim, I think money grab. We need Mark Eglarsh in his $20 bill, like that he likes to hang over the top of the screen and then grabbing it. It's a money grab by so intentional infliction is a bullshit claim in my view and in many

court's view unless it's paired with a serious physical injury. Otherwise, I laugh at those claims. Sorry, by Lal Salam. I don't mean to prejudge you. Here's the other thing that tells you it's bullshit. Do you guys know what the other big problem is of his lawsuit and how it's being handled that tells us it's bullshit? Because he's doing it himself. He doesn't have a lawyer. It's pro se. Any lawyer with a brain doesn't take this case. So he's representing himself. No, boy, no. Okay, but let's go through it nonetheless.

He spoke to the Daily Mail after filing papers. He said he is seeking justice for the atrocities committed against him by Will and Jada. Atrocities, I tell you. He clarified that while the three counts target Jada, he plans to file against Will as well. He alleges she, let's see, her alleged actions, which include her and her emissaries, included trying to bribe, intimidate, and suppress him. He says he suffered damages, the complete derailment of his personal life and career. He's suing Jada for intentional infliction because she denied to TMZ that she had ever seen

her husband engage in sexual or intimate behavior with men. Now we're getting to it. He alleges that Jada confronted him in the lobby of the Regency Calabasasas Commons on September 25th, 2021, while he was at a private birthday celebration for Will Smith. He alleges Pinkett Smith, Jada, was accompanied by approximately seven members of her entourage during the confrontation. He claims that she became verbally aggressive and threatened him by stating that if he continued telling her personal business, that's a quote, he claims, that he would end up missing or catch a bullet. He also alleges that she demanded he signed a non-disclosure agreement or else, or else. After the alleged incident, Pinkett Smith's team followed him to his car, he claims, while continuing to issue verbal threats. Six months later, he claims there was another incident where he refused to request from a mutual friend to assist with crisis management. He thought the tasks he was asked to do were illegal. And then he started getting threatened by them. said and it turns out he was all this while writing a quote whistleblower memoir my note reads

oh lord alleging that he faced further threats after that was discovered he was supposed to get $500,000 for it and now those hopes have been destroyed as a result of the pressure by these two last but not least before I toss it to you I'm sorry I have to do it but I have to do it Um, this plaintiff, he, um, went on a podcast called Unwine with Tasha K. And in this, in this interview, he alleged something very, very ugly about Will Smith. It's very, very graphic. It actually does require a viewer warning. Please cover the children's ears. Turn down the sound. If they're with you in the car, moms and dads. But here is what he's saying about Will Smith, which I think now he's claiming Jada denied, thus leading to his emotional distress.

Here, watch, hide the kids. So, all right, I opened the door to Dwayne's restroom, and that's when I see Dwayne and having anal sex with Will. Let me process that for a second. Who was on top? It wasn't a top. There was a couch, and Will was bent over on the couch, and Dwayne was standing up, killing him. murder like murder it was murder in it okay what did you do I froze I'm not used to see it it's traumatizing like to like I've never seen it I don't watch gay porn and I finally

said oh shit and they turned around said close the fucking door right so I back out the door okay just the final thought again i am told by someone close to the case this is a total money grab this is not a close friend of theirs this guy's been trying to hustle the family for money for years and that there was never a meeting where jada or any of her friends confronted or threatened him at all so um there are real questions about whether this guy has any credibility but he's filed the lawsuit and it's getting a fair amount of coverage and What do you make of it? Dave, I'll start with you on this one. The strongest allegation he has is that Jada threatened him by saying, you'll catch a stray bullet.

But even if that's to be believed, and I don't know if I believe anything this guy says, that allegation is from September 2021. That's well beyond the statute of limitations for intentional affliction of emotional distress. And this guy would know that if he had actually hired a lawyer. But no lawyer would want to file this case because it's based on, crazy stuff. Like, for example, he says that it's intentional infliction of emotional distress because after she said that to him, he gained 100 pounds. Really? You're going to blame it on that? No doctor's note. He just says, I get 100. Maybe it was the Brown. I assume my mom for

intentional infliction for those middle school years. Right, right? Yeah. Yeah, blame, who are you going to blame for, like, the freshman 15 when you go to college, right? I mean, it's, it's silly. Sam Adams. You know, you know, he's claiming defamation. What's the defamation? He said that Jada defamed him by saying she would sue him for the sex comments, but never did. That's not defamation. So this is a strategic move to try to get money from Jada and Will Smith and perhaps to win in the court of public opinion.

But so far, he's losing badly. My feeling, Phil, is that he's banking. that they would pay money to avoid that soundbite getting rerun on this show or Entertainment Tonight or TMZ. He thinks they have enough money and they care enough about Will's reputation that they would pay to stop the airing of these mere allegations. But these allegations have been out there for years about these two. If they paid off anybody who was like alleging Will was bisexual or gay, whatever, they'd have no money left. Yeah. Well, Will Smith and Jada Smith, they have enough money to hire.

good lawyers to sue him for defamation and other things, unlike this guy who apparently could not find a lawyer to take his case. Normally these things are taken on a contingency basis. So any lawyer with the brain, for all the reasons Dave laid out, we just would not want to touch this with a 10-foot pole because there's not going to be any recovery. Listen to what has to be proven. And I actually had to go back and look this up to make sure I was remembering this from law school correctly. But But this intentional infliction of emotional distress requires that someone intended the emotional distress and the defendant's actions must go beyond all bounds of decency tolerated by society, often described as shocking or egregious.

And then in addition to that, the defendant's alleged conduct must be the actual cause of the emotional distress. And it's got to be severe emotional distress, not just hurt feelings or anything like that. You know, look, it's got to be serious and of a nature that no reasonable person could be possibly expected to endure it. Now, so the things that have to be proven are a lot. And, you know, you're going to have to have some really solid evidence, not to mention the fact that the claim is stale, it's old, but you've got to have really solid evidence. And I'm sorry, but if you gained 100 pounds, it's going to be very difficult to try to pinpoint how that happened. His next lawsuit, I haven't on good authority, is going to be against Aunt Jemima.

I want to quickly just touch on Luigi Mangione. We reported the other day on AM Update. He's been in court this week trying to get the evidence that was found in his backpack, which included his 3D gun, a note that appears to read like a confession, thrown out because the cops, when they confronted him in that McDonald's, searched the backpack incident to the arrest. They arrested him. He hadn't yet been read his Miranda rights.

And when they arrested him, then they searched his backpack. But they actually questioned him before reading him as a Miranda. And he's claiming that it was in an invalid search. It was illegal under his Fourth Amendment rights because it hadn't been Mirandized. I mean, now this is what you did this,

a lot of this stuff for a living, Dave. Is he on to something? How do you think this judge is going to rule? The judge is going to reject this request. it's a normal request by defense lawyers to suppress key evidence. I don't blame his very fine lawyers for trying, but they're not going to win on this. There's something called a search incident to arrest, as you mentioned, which is an exception to the warrant rule. When you arrest someone, you can search around him. What they're saying is that, well, he was handcuffed, so he had no

access to his backpack. It shouldn't have been a threat. Yeah, but if it's honest or next to his person, they can still search it. Then they say, well, maybe it was searched before the arrest. Now, if that's the case, they have a little bigger argument, but apparently everything I've read said it was search incident to the arrest as part of the arrest. But even if it was searched prior to the arrest, they could get away with it because exigent circumstances or they have a right to stop and frisk him and it could relate to the backpack. After all, he has been alleged to murder someone and they're on high alert. They don't want this guy to pull out a device, a gun or have a bomb in his backpack. So there are many reasons why you don't need a warrant there. So it's a noble try by the defense lawyers, but it's not going to work.

How about all the questioning before they actually read him as Miranda rights, Phil? Yeah, this is a common misperception. We all grew up watching crime shows, and you see, you know, you got the right to remain silent and all that as soon as the cuffs go on. So people assume that you have to read Miranda rights, otherwise the case gets thrown out, but it's not true. Miranda only applies to what we call a custodial interrogation. So number one, the person's got to be in custody, and two, it's got to be an interrogation questioning by the police. Think about every time you get pulled over for speeding. The cops can come up to you.

I can ask you questions. Do you know why are you speeding and all this kind of stuff? They don't have to read you your rights simply because they are doing an investigative type of stop. So this is much ado about nothing. There's nothing wrong with the questions that were asked prior to the handcuffs going on. There's nothing wrong with the search. there's nothing wrong with the questioning that was done after the Miranda rights, because after all, he committed a state law crime by providing a false name to these officers.

So I see no problem with it. And like Dave said, defense lawyers, they need to do this. This is part of being a zealous advocate. But just because they raised the claim doesn't mean it's going to be valid. There's all sorts of reasons the judge would deny their claims. And even if they did something wrong that Dave and I have missed, there's something in the law known as Inevitable Discovery. An appellate court would say that no matter what,

they would have eventually searched this bag and found this stuff as part of the inventory process. You've got to inventory someone's... That was the inevitable discovery rule was what I argued my... They called it Senior Prize Trials in my law school competition that we won on Inevitable Discovery.

And by the way, they did teach us in criminal procedure if you ever get arrested and you want to assert your Fifth Amendment rights, which you should, to a lawyer, You should say, I assert my fifth and sixth amendment rights to counsel. There's a whole reason for doing that in a lobby. You should say both. Mention both amendments.

And that will really impress your arresting officer. In one of the many, many times, Phil assumes you've been pulled over by the cops. I love that. You know, the many times, I mean, there have been a couple. I'm not going to lie. Guys, it's a pleasure. Thanks for coming on. Always happy to be here, Megan.

All right. Up next, a story exclusive to the MK show. You will not hear at any place else. and it's amazing. We help solve a crime. That's next. The tax extension deadline may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the October 15th deadline or owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. And here's the harsh reality. The IRS can charge a penalty of 5% per month, up to 25% of your total tax bill, just for not

filing. They're mean over there. That's in addition to what you already owe. The good news, though, is that there's still time for Tax Network USA to help you. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got you covered. With tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at many levels. It's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is 100% free. In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA can determine how much you can save.

Call 1-800-9-8-1,000, or visit. at TNUSA.com slash Megan. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move. Hey everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jishinsky. Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app.

Earlier this week, I reposted on X, a horrifying video of she's not my friend, but she's a dear friend of my friend. and she was violently attacked on the streets of New York City in broad daylight. This is an NYU student named Amelia Lewis. She was walking to class around 9.20 in the morning on Monday, just a couple days ago, when a man came up from behind, struck her and yanked her to the ground by her hair. Let me tell you what happened here. My dear friend is the mother of Amelia's best friend at NYU. you. And so my friend Nancy texted me the video of Amelia talking about this on TikTok. She went on TikTok immediately and was upset. I'm like, what is this? She said, it just happened. This is outrageous. I'm like, this is outrageous? I said, is she on X? You know, I'm not personally on TikTok. Our show is on

TikTok, but I'm not personally on there. And she's like, she's not. I'm like, tell her to get on X. So she went over. She created an account on X and tweeted the video. She has a new account. I retweeted it, calling attention to it, saying we need help identifying this guy. And can I tell you what happened? The ex-Army went to work. I tagged the NYPD and the NYPD police chief, and then some other people I know who are very connected to NYPD retweeted it and added other CCs who they knew would pay attention. And this thing started to go viral online on Monday. And guess what? Police confirmed late yesterday, the arrest of 45-year-old James Rizzo, who has been charged with persistent sexual abuse, forcible touching, and assault. And now we're learning even more about

this guy's deeply disturbing history. 16 prior arrests, a two-year sentence for persistent sexual abuse, and even in 1997, murder charge. Amelia Lewis joins me now, and also we've brought in Summer Armstrong, who is my family. friend, and also her mother's, my dear, dear friend, who helped obtain the footage of Amelia's attack, both NYU students. And Summer was also assaulted herself in New York last May. Gals, welcome to the show. It's great to have you. Hi. Thank you so much for having us. Of course. Oh, my God. I'm like, this is like a horrifying story, but it's also kind of uplifting in its own way. So I'm going to start with you, Amelia.

So you're walking down the street on Monday morning. This is the first day back from Thanksgiving. You're in a mood, I assume, has you've been with your family. And how did you experience? We'll show the video, but how did you experience this attack? Yeah, as you said, it was Monday morning, about 9.20 a.m. I was crossing the street, walking up south of Broadway, right by Waverly Place. And in broad daylight, I felt an extremely painful and hard whack to my butt. And then I turned around and was shocked to see a middle-aged man and he proceeded to grab my hair and violently and forcefully throw me to the ground. Were you totally shocked? Like you had, did you have any idea you were in danger as you were walking? I had no idea. As you can see in the clip that you're going to

show, he targets me and follows me from behind. So there was no way I could have seen it. Okay. So just for the listening audience, we're seeing a street cam. and people are walking. Now here comes Amelia. She circled herself. Helpfully on this video, she's got her jeans on. She's walking. She's got his headphones on. There's a man coming up. He's running to catch up with her. He wails her from behind. She turns around in shock and then you can see her go down. You see all the, what's, one, two, three, four, five, six women on the sidewalk stunned, stunned at what just happened to you. And then, like, lovely New York women come over to help you, which is sweet. And I understand there was a man who came to help you, too.

So what happened, like, where did he hit you, Amelia? So he initially first hit me on the left side of my butt, extremely hard. And then after that, it's when he pulled my hair to the ground. After that, did you say it again? He pulled my hair to the ground. Oh, and then just ran. Ran. So did you get a good look at him?

I only got a look at him for like a quick second. I only could see that he had a beard and long hair, and I could tell that he was a white, older male. But after that, he threw me to the ground in shock. I just kind of laid there for a bit. Okay. And what happened with the passers-by? So I could tell that they were also in shock. They kind of stood there and stared at me for a second.

But after a bit, they came and lifted me off the ground and kept asking, like, are you okay? Are you okay? They asked if I knew this man, which I said, I do not. And then later on, a man helped me call 911. And what made you go on TikTok shortly thereafter and post your reaction? I really wanted to bring awareness to the stuff that has been happening to young women in New York City. I've heard so many stories. And on my TikTok, I say, I never thought that this would happen to me, but it's really sad.

This is something that happens all the time in New York. And I really want to make sure and use my voice to raise awareness and help other girls stay protected and also help other girls that have maybe gone through the same experience as I. Because this has been happening over and over and over to young women in New York. The stories are leeching. They go on and on and you were aware of that. Yes. I mean, the news on TikTok. A woman was just thrown with gasoline and set on fire.

The stories are insane, and it's horrific. Yeah. So this isn't like, when you go to NYU, your campus is New York City. So it's not like, you're not on campus exactly. It's a public street, but you were on your way to class. And so it's a place where you would expect to be safe. So you decide, after this happens, you did decide to call the cops, to your credit, because a lot of women would not have done that.

Yes, exactly. I first was in shock and didn't know what to do, but after the man approached me holding his phone with 911, I decided to call the cops just because I wanted to report this. And after I did tell the cops, I decided to also let NYU security know so they could alert other students around campus to let them know that this man is going around doing this to other women.

And what were your hopes that the NYPD was actually going to hunt down this man and find him at that point? I had high hopes. They were very understanding and kind, and they also told me that they were already aware of the man and the blue towel around his neck running around the city and getting this guy. But I definitely think because of your platform and also X,

it helped really put pressure on them to really find the sky and work quickly. So even though I had hopes, that they would find this guy. I really don't know if this would get as much attention as it did if it wasn't for X and also for Summer going and getting the footage. So that's key. Because even if I had posted it to X and retweeted your tearful testimonial, it would have been different without the actual video of the assault. And that's where Summer comes in. Summer, you and Amelia are dear friends, what made you think to go to the store to say, do you have video of this? I mean, right when I got Amelia's text, I was in class, and I got a horrible sinking

gut feeling because this has also happened to me. And I was lucky enough to have footage in my case. Unfortunately, my assailant was not caught, but I knew that footage is key in this, and I knew that it was in front of stores. And so my first thought was we need to get this footage and we need to catch this guy. So was it a liquor store you got it from, whose camera captured it? Yeah, warehouse wine and spirits on Broadway. Did you go there?

Did you just call there? How did you get it? I walked in. I was on FaceTime with Amelia. And I just said, my friend was assaulted. Please, can you go through this time frame of footage and see if you have it? Because I'm pretty sure you guys have a camera facing. And lo and behold, they found it.

Oh, my God. And it's so clear. It's great footage. Awesome. And on top of it being so clear, it is the. reason I think you actually got results in this case. If I had just retweeted Amelia's testimonial, I really don't think this would have drawn as much attention. It's the fact that we can see the crime. It's so infuriating. You want to punch this guy in the face. Every man on X was resolved

to help you at this point, Amelia, having seen what he did to you, and everybody knows it's not like, forgive me, but like some hysterical college student saying something that may not have happened or she may be exaggerating. They can see for themselves, this is an assault. It really was a sexual assault, which is what this guy has an alleged long history of doing. So now the story starts going viral on X, and the NYPD sees it. They told us they did see it on X. And now we're going to pick up the story there. After this break, quick break, don't go anywhere, ladies. More to come right after this as we continue the show. You know about FOMO, right? Fear of Missing Out, but listen up. Don't miss out on protecting your future. For around the same price per month as one of

your streaming services, you can break the FOMO cycle and secure your family's future by finding life insurance at selectquote.com. SelectQuote takes the guest work out of finding the right life insurance policy. You don't have to sort through dozens of confusing options on your own. Instead, one of their licensed agents will find the right policy at the right price for you, comparing prices from top most trusted insurance companies to find a policy that fits your health, your lifestyle, and your budget. And they work for you for free. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you, for less,

and save more than 50% 50% 5.0 at selectquote.com slash Megan. Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash Megan today to get started. We're back now with Amelia and Summer, two NYU students who have both been attacked in New York City recently, right on the street. And thanks to the collective effort of these young women and the Twitter army, Amelia's assailant, has been caught and is in custody right now.

We just found out that he has a court hearing today. We believe he's going to get arraigned today. He's in custody. And we just found out, Amelia, that he's a registered sex offender. Here he is. His name is James Rizzo, the man accused of, really, it was a sexual assault because he hit you so hard on the backside. I don't know if that's an okay term for you. It implies something that didn't happen as well. But it was a vicious assault by any measure. And his name is James Rizzo. So he will be answering to those charges. There is video of his arrest as a reporter tries to ask him some questions. Let's watch. James. James, what's wrong with you? Why do you keep attacking women? Good questions. James, help us understand. Why do you keep attacking women?

What are you doing inside that apartment? What's wrong with you, James? James? James, anything you guys say to your victims? I see if you, the Carlos face. And let me tell you something, Amelia, you're a very lucky woman, because, as you probably know now, he just got out of state prison two months ago, where he served a two-year sentence for a, quote, persistent sexual abuse conviction, and as I mentioned at the top, he actually had a murder charge against him back in 1997, the status of which is unknown. So this is a very

dangerous man, and this could have been far, far worse, not to diminish what happened. But as you see his face there up close, and you hear that he's on a sex offender registry, how does that make you feel? I'm honestly terrified and also grateful at the same time. I'm so grateful. I wasn't alone on like a dark abandoned street with no people around and also i'm so thankful that no weapons were involved because this could have been so much worse knowing now who he actually is yeah seriously and they um they caught him later that day by the way his rap sheet includes charges that he grabbed a woman's breast in manhattan in december of 23 allegedly snapping at the victim Oh, you want more. He was caught yesterday, allegedly, in the act of burglarizing an apartment

near Washington Square Park. He was also charged with four burglaries, three of which while the residents were sleeping, which is good for you. I mean, it's better if he has more charges. He's more likely to stay behind bars, which has to be a concern of yours. I'll round back to that in one second. Summer, I know you and your family very well, and I did not know that. you were assaulted last spring. I think that's because it's like common. It's, it's not even that huge a headline for young women in New York anymore. Yeah, I, I, this is one of the most frustrating parts about the situation because I think as women, we are told this always happens, but what the narrative needs to be is this always happens and there's something done about

it. I didn't go public my attack because it honestly was very traumatizing and hard to talk about. I was struck in the face by a 35-year-old man. And I was struck because he was verbally assaulting my friend. And I asked a simple question to try to deter him away. And he responded with immediate and hard violence. Wow. What time of day was that? It was around 10. So it was a little different from Amelia's case, which was in broad daylight. Okay. And did you ever, like, how do you know he was 35?

Was he apprehended? He was not. That's just my guess. Unfortunately, it became a cold case. He was not found. But crazy enough, this summer, I was on a lunch break and I saw him walking around. Oh, wow. Yeah.

So that was scary. Yeah. Yeah, it was very scary. And not in the way that people use that term trauma, you know, too many times. Like this guy did assault you. And like this Rizzo guy may have a history of sexual assaults, rapes, attempted murders. Who knows? Where like you actually do need to worry. And one of the reasons you both need to worry, unfortunately, and I have a daughter too, I need to worry. Even I as a 50-some-odd-year-old. woman need to worry, is, let's face it, the New York cops will arrest these guys, but the DA and the court system, nine times out of ten, will not keep them incarcerated. It's in large

part due to cashless bail, where they believe it's racist, so they don't require any bail of these guys, which leads to the revolving door of, I'm here, I'm James Rizzo, goodbye, I'm already out back on the streets. And I hope this won't happen in your case, Amelia, again, because he has other charges too. I don't believe that the New York courts will take sexual assault seriously. I really don't. I have a history of reasons to believe that. But are you worried now about either Alvin Bragg, the DA, not taking this seriously enough or the courts not taking this seriously enough to where he's going to be back out on the streets too soon? So they have contacted me the other day and I'm going in and speaking to them. So I don't have

really much to say yet until I go in and just hear what they're going to ask me and what their stance is on this case right now. But I'm praying. I'm praying they take this seriously because I don't know how I'm supposed to go back to school and go back to my normal life knowing that he's still on the street. And because of how much publicity the story has gotten, it just makes me really scared. Yes. But it also is your insurance policy. You know, it's, I think, also a reason why maybe they will pay attention because now they know that there really will be follow-up. Oh, I assure you, there will be follow-up if this guy walks because of Alvin Bragg or a judge who's too lenient on crime.

I'm happy to go sit in any courtroom where you need me. I will sit in the front row. I'll bring my camera. It'll be super fun for everyone. And we'll make Alvin Bragg an even bigger star than he is. So that's fine. Maybe he doesn't care. I'm going to make him care. and any judge who decides that this is not a big, because it's, it is about you, but it's about far more than you. It's about summer. It's about all the young girls who just, you weren't doing anything risky.

Not that I would blame you even if you had been, but you're literally summer, like, you're walking on the street, you were walking a class Amelia. Like, this cannot be, this is what shatters a society. There has to be a basic covenant. You go off to college, even if it's in a city, you can just get from A to B without being in a dark alley, without doing a drug deal, right?

just living your life as a normal law-abiding citizen that you can make it from A to B safely. And you must, it must have been very destabilizing summer. You've had a longer time to process it. Yeah, it definitely, I would say it kind of came in waves. I remember short thereafter, I was in an elevator and a man that kind of looked similar walked in and I just froze. And it sticks with you. But it doesn't define how I feel in general. I definitely think it's made me way more precautious when walking and when interacting with people that are mentally ill. But I'm proud to go to NYU and I'm proud to live in the city. But there has to be things done about this.

There has to be more concern about NYU student safety around campus. Well, where's NYU on this? It's not their, again, it's their campus, but it's not their city. But where are they? Because I'll tell you back in the dark ages when I was at Syracuse University, there was a rash of rapes. And they started installing these rape phones all over the campus, like everywhere. So if you were in trouble, you can immediately pick up one of these phones and call campus security. But like, what is NYU doing, Amelia? Have they said anything to you about what are they doing to keep their students safe? So right after I reported my incident, they were very helpful and gave me all the resources to process what happened, and as well as that reassured me that they're going to take the next steps for campus safety. They have not reached out to me saying what they're doing, but I made sure to highlight how a lot of NYU students weren't aware of what happened to me that. day, and I just wanted to let them know that they need to be better on communicating with NYU students and that they should all know when things like this happen. Is there anything? You know, I look at that tape, Amelia. We should roll it one more time so

people can see it. I look at that tape and I don't see anything you could have done differently. I mean, some people were like, don't wear headphones. But even if you hadn't been wearing headphones, you had like one second to realize you were about to get hit. Like I just, I'd be the first to say, Amelia, don't wear headphones if I thought. that would have saved you. To me, I don't see that at all on this tape. I don't know if there's anything you could have done differently, but how do you see it? Yeah, I definitely have been getting a lot of comments saying, don't wear headphones in the city. I definitely agree. I think that all women, just for right now, please do not wear headphones, always be aware. You should have

your head on a swivel constantly. But in my case, I really don't see how it played any role because he ran up from behind and hit me. There was nothing I could have done. But, yeah, also people are saying, like, you should get out of the city, run. And I transferred to NYU. My dream was to go to NYU. I just moved to the city, and my dream was to live in New York City. And it's the greatest city in the world.

And, you know, New York is always going to come back. And so will Summer and I after these experiences. And I want to reassure and tell everyone that experience, like these aren't going to defeat me and other people, and I'm not going to let this man disintegrate my dream. Good. Good for you. And honestly, it's like getting struck by lightning. I mean, the odds of actually becoming a crime victim are slim, even still in New York City. The odds of it happening twice, even slimmer. So hopefully you will feel empowered. And hopefully, you know, you girls,

You can go, you can take Krav Maga, you can get pepper spray. You cannot get a gun in New York City. It's impossible. All our friends watching this in Texas are like, why don't just get a gun? My Texas friends are like, why wouldn't they be carrying? They don't understand. Like, you literally cannot get a gun unless you have, you know, some serious threat against you. You can get some brass knuckles. You figuratively already have the brass knuckles now, girls, because you did everything a woman can do. I mean, really, I think nine out of ten women probably wouldn't have called the cops because they would have realized the odds of something happening, you know, them actually following up, sadly, are very slim.

And I don't know. I mean, not to go political, but do you worry? Because now we have a soft-on-crime mayor about to take over who says things like this. I'm going to play SOP 42. The jail population of Rikers has increased since Eric Adams has come into office by more than a thousand additional. incarcerated New Yorkers. And what is quite staggering to me is that we know that we can reduce

that jail population to less than 4,000. Vital City had an article about a number of different proposals that could reduce it to 3,700. And some of this also just has to look at the average stay on Rikers in the 90s was 50 days. Now it's more than 100. There are more than 1,500 people. people on Rikers who have been held there for more than a year. So I do think many of the reforms that have to be made are also reforms around the court system. So he's talking about opening up Rikers and letting out the people who are in there by the thousand. There's also still no promise of getting rid of cashless bail. We also have a serious problem with the judges who are on the bench. So I do wonder, you know, whether that adds to any of your concerns, Amelia.

When I spoke out and decided to share my story, I didn't really have the goal of making this kind of any way political. I mostly just wanted to do this for basic human safety. So after all this, I'm really hoping that he and everyone else that is in office and in power is seeing what's going on in New York and actually going to do something about it because if we're going to have these people in office, their priority should be their citizen's safety. It's really scary when you think the population of Rikers in March, summer was 7,000. So he's talking about letting out half, half of the criminals who are in there now, in addition to this revolving door we have in our court system,

thanks to the prosecutors who are soft on crime and the courts, the judges, who go right along with it. And they are not the ones who are going to have to walk on the streets and be assaulted. The DA is a man. The judges tend to be men who are bald. and 70. I have practiced in these courts for many, many years. And they are not the targets. They are not young, beautiful girls in the prime of their youth walking around just trying to get an education. Your thoughts on it? It's definitely scary. And I think in the face of this,

we have to focus on girls for girls and people for people. We're all living, no matter who's elected, we're all still living here. And if we protect each other, whether that's men protecting girls, girls protecting girls, girls protecting men, even, we need to do that for each other no matter who's in power. Well, sadly, that's right. I mean, that's the best option you have because it just doesn't seem, you know, they're capping the number of cops under this new mayor. They're not adding more. They've already had their hands tied. I mean, it's not a good situation. Thankfully, you're sophomores, so maybe you don't have that many more years to worry about it. But I think self-defense classes would be good.

They at least feel empowering. And you, I hope, are feeling a little more empowered, like today, for example, Amelia. And you, too, Summer, than you were right after it happened on Monday. I definitely am. I posted on my ex saying it honestly is helping me sleep at night, knowing that I used my voice, as many other women weren't able to, to try to get this guy off the streets. And it makes me so happy that he isn't going to be able to hurt any more young women. Right. How about you, Summer? You feel differently about it now? Like, you had two, you know,

you got assaulted. And now, what, you know, six months later, seven months later, it happens to your friend. But because of what happened to you, you knew what to do, you took action. And it's directly as a result of what you did that this guy was caught. If that video, if you had not gotten that video, I promise you, you and I could not have made this a national story. I'm feeling really hopeful after this whole situation. I mean, a horrible thing happened, but the silver lining is that there is now an attention on this. And I think we all have to have that fire in us to be either ready to pick someone up after their hit to the, ground or get the footage for someone. We all have to be ready and willing to help each other

because that's all we can do in this situation. I love, Amelia, that it was a man who came over to you with his phone out having dialed 911, right? Like that man who assaulted you and the one who assaulted you summer do not represent, as you guys both know, the men of America or New York, the guy with the cell phone and the 911 ready to dial does. God bless you. Let us know if you need us at all. And thank you so much for telling your story here. Thank you so much. All right, lots of love. Wow, what a story. Okay, this is the first time we actually ran over on our Series XM Megan Kelly channel. So we can do that now. I'll pass it over to Emily Jashinsky. Thank you all for listening. We're back tomorrow with Michael Knowles. See you then.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Thank you.