The Megyn Kelly Show - Iran Timing, Epstein Guard Questions, and "WiFi Jammer" Evidence in Nancy Guthrie Case, with Fitzgerald, Geddes, and Hamilton | Ep. 1269

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

Megyn Kelly discusses Lindsey Graham’s wild interview with Sean Hannity where he threatens Spain and Middle East allies over Iran, the senator's aggressive rhetoric and apparent influence in the Trump administration, Graham saying he's with Israel over American "isolationists," Trump calling the war in Iran a “little excursion” that is already “very complete,” his mixed messages about how long we'll be involved in the conflict, consequences of U.S. involvement in the region for the midterms, disturbing new details about a Jeffrey Epstein prison guard who received mysterious deposits into her bank account days before Epstein's death, her strange Google searches about Epstein right before he was found, new questions about the circumstances of his death, and more. Then Jim Fitzgerald, Will Geddes, and James Hamilton, security experts, join to discuss Brian Entin's new reporting that a Nancy Guthrie neighbor had a strange encounter with a couple claiming to be FBI agents shortly after she went missing, their mysterious actions that night and the conflicting messages from local police and the FBI, new questions about the Nest camera interruptions at Nancy's home, speculation that a possible "WiFi jammer" could have been used in the crime by the intruder, the evidence over whether the Nancy Guthrie abductor was an expert or an amateur, a theory about if the actions on the Nest camera on the porch was staged, and more.   Fitzgerald-https://www.youtube.com/@ColdRedPodcast-tb2lb/featured Geddes- https://www.icpgroupcompanies.com/index.html Hamilton- https://www.hamiltonsecuritygroup.com/   Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Relief Factor: Find out if Relief Factor can help you live pain-free—try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Veracity Selfcare: Head to https://VeracityHealth.co and use code MEGYN for up to 60% off your order   Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: 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. The United States has a growing internal threat that must be dealt with, and his name is Senator Lindsey Graham. This guy is a homicidal maniac, as I said yesterday, in my opinion, that President Trump apparently loves and listens to, which is a grave threat to us all. And while President Trump is all over the map on potential timing to end.

the war in Iran or the, quote, little excursion, as he's now calling it, there is reporting that some of his advisors are now pushing to find an off-ramp, understanding that with rising oil prices and gas prices and sentiment in the United States, the majority, is against this war. Republicans are for it, but independents are overwhelmingly against it. And of course, Democrats are, too, but independents matter for the midterms. Many think this is not worth it. We got some gains. Now let's get out. The Wall Street Journal reporting some of Mr. Trump's advisors are privately urging him now. Please look for an exit plan amid these oil prices and concerns that political backlash is heading Republicans' way. Now the White House calls the reporting quote full of crap from anonymous sources.

Okay. But there's no question that's spiking oil prices. Yesterday it went to at one point, I think, $120 a barrel. And then Trump right before the markets closed, said, we may be ending the conflict, sending the price going back down. Now he's being accused of market manipulation. But all of this will be a concern. There's no question consumers are already struggling with inflation and affordability, so-called, has been their number one issue for a long time. And we do not want people's gas prices and oil prices affect all prices to be going up prior to the midterms. There are reports that top Republicans in difficult races in November have been calling the White House saying, please, please find a way out. This is not going to be helpful. But if any part

of any of this is true, and again, the White House is denying, they call this Wall Street Journal report full of crap that some advisors are pushing for an off-ramp. But if any part of it is true, it's not going to matter if Senator Lindsey Graham has his way. And his, and his cohort over at Fox News, I mean, Sean Hannity is Lindsay Graham by a different name. It's amazing to me to watch them cheerlead this. I mean, we've got seven U.S. personnel dead. We've got a girl school, 175 young girls dead in Iran, and there's serious dispute we'll get into who's behind that. But there's only serious dispute because the president is now saying that it wasn't us,

but his own defense secretary over his shoulder is saying, it's under investigation. And senators like Kennedy are saying, yeah, it looks like it was us. And the Wall Street Journal and others are reporting, it was us. None of this is good. Okay. And you would think at a minimum, somebody like Senator Greta, would like pause and not look so bloodthirsty? How does that make the Trump administration look good when we know that he's working hand in hand with the president,

that he's been one of his chief advisors to make him look so cavalier about the death unfolding in the Middle East right now? And the likely of more to come. Last night on Hannity's program, he sounded, Lindsay Graham did like he was our secretary of state or even our president. It was obscene. Who does he think he is? No one elected him as president. No one ever would. As if the American public would elect Lindsey Graham to lead this war. He thinks he's the commander in chief. He's starting to sound truly deluded like someone needs a psychiatric intervention. Make agreements with other countries. Defend them. If they go to war, this is what he's saying. He's threatening our allies. He's saying, I'll allow this. I'll push for that. Now I'll punish you in the following. Who died and elected him president or secretary of state? And he may be a duly elected senator from South Carolina to represent the interests of South Carolina, but he's not the president. And by the way, he's not even representing the interests of South Carolina. He made clear last night that if you are

a so-called isolationist or if you've expressed doubts about the wisdom of this war, he's not on your side. And he said, and I quote, I'm with Israel. I don't care about you. I'm with Israel. you are an American senator representing the interests of South Carolinians who put you in office, sir, not Israel. You don't work for them. Lindsay, this is getting insane, you guys. Someone needs to reel him in, and he needs to be absolutely nowhere near the president's orbit, as I said yesterday.

But Fox News, I tweeted this out as parading him around on all of its shows like he's a Hefner bunny in stockings and a bushy tail. They know exactly what President Trump wants to see and the messaging he wants to hear, and it is as bellicose and war hungry as you could possibly imagine. It is an isolationist or non-interventualist worst nightmare. It is exactly the opposite of what President Trump ran on, exactly the opposite. And yet Fox News is salivating over the prospect of more war, unexended conflict. and Lindsay Graham is its spokesperson. And President Trump seems to be enjoying that.

Because if you weren't, we wouldn't be seeing that anymore. These soundbites that we're going to play for you are all from one interview, one interview that Graham did last night with Sean Hannity. And I just have to say up front, Hannity offered zero pushback to any of this. Zero to anything you were about to hear. Like, why not do your viewers the service of just saying at least, hey, you know, here's what your critics are saying. Here's what the president's critics are saying. Fox prize itself on having allegedly more independence watching its programming than any other cable news channel. Well, that's not saying much.

But why not service them and offer both sides? Like, at least you're not going to have somebody who actually disagrees with Lindsey Graham, but you as the anchor. I used to do this. I know a thing or two about how to anchor a show that would wind up becoming the number one show and cable for a Fox News audience in a way that's meaningful. Offer pushback if you don't have the other side. You, Sean, have to be the other side. I mean, that's what Roger Ales praised all the time.

When I was at Fox, he loved it when you did that because he thought it was a service to the audience. Those days are gone. Now it's you cheerlead the war, support the military industrial complex, or you're a loser. It's just, it's infuriating because we're talking about life and death. We're talking about American life or death. And this is a dereliction of duty. At one point, he let Senator Lindsay Graham speak uninterrupted for six minutes, six minutes. And this appears to be the president's main way of achieving an information briefing.

You know, he said he was talking about how, you know, he got into this war. He listened to Jared Kushner. He listened to Steve Whitkoff. He listened to Lindsey Graham. That's very clear. He's been praising Lindsay Graham's appearances as well. which is why Fox News puts him on more, and why Lindsey Graham feels totally at ease sounding like he's got the president's job.

We elected President Trump. That's who we want in that office. We do not want some crazed, childless maniac from South Carolina calling the shots in the Middle East. First up here, Senator Graham telling Saudi Arabia that the United States is willing to go to war for the Saudis, depending. depending on Lindsay's following conditions. Listen here. Finally, to my friends in Saudi Arabia, I've been your biggest champion.

I think the Crown Prince has taken Saudi Arabia in a completely different direction in a good way. But here's what I want to say to Saudi Arabia tonight. I'm willing to do a mutual defense agreement with your country to give you protection and perpetuity. Under the agreement I've been pushing, and I hope we can continue to talk about, if you're attacked by Iran, we would go to war for you. I? I'm willing to give you. Who the fuck are you? What do you mean I? Let me tell you, I voted for Donald Trump, I campaigned for Donald Trump, I endorsed Donald Trump, and I voted for him willingly and happily. I did not vote for Senator Lindsey Graham, nor would I ever. Then I think a lot of South Carolinians are going to have second thoughts about having put him in the U.S. Senate. I will agree. What, we never elected you as commander-in-chief, this is outrageous. Next up, as I said, Senator Graham sent a message to any isolationist in the United States and any in South Carolina that put him in office

who doesn't fully support this war, that he's not with you. He's with Israel. Not even with another American. He's with Israel. No questions asked. Watch. I believe with all my heart and soul, if the regime in Iran still stands when this is over, we've made a mistake. If they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it. They've been lying about what they're doing with their nuclear program. They want a bomb because they're Nazis. They're crazy. They want to kill all the Jews.

And the Jews have been down that road before. To our friends in Israel, God bless you. I'm with you in every way. To all the anti-Seminites, to all the isolationists. I don't believe... Forget it. I'm not with you. I'm with Israel.

I will be with Israel to our dying day. Okay. I don't know what an anti-Seminate is. But the isolationists, forget it. I'm not with you. I'm with Israel. Okay, right now, the majority of the country are feeling isolationist. They don't want this war.

They don't want the foreign entanglement. They don't think that we have to do Israel's bidding in the Middle East. They think that Israel can handle itself, which it can. That it doesn't need American troops sacrificing their blood and treasure on the fields of Iran. So how dare you? How dare you say I'm not with you? You represent the isolationists and the neocons alike, sir, in the state of South Carolina, in the U.S. Senate.

This is like some sort of a – I mean, he's given Nero vibes, this guy. He has been in the U.S. Senate for 23 years. You have to wonder, serving the wishes of Israel or of America. Certainly sounds like Israel is his top priority. Who voted for that? This is like, you say this, you say. that we're doing this war for Israel, or that he was pushed into this war by people who are Israel first. And you could call an anti-Semite. It's fine. As you guys know, I've been called worse.

I've been called all the names. Racist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, you name it. I've been called it. It's funny at this point in my career. By the time I hit my age and my level in journalism, you kind of laugh at it. You're like, you're either, I'm a demon. I'm an absolutely evil demon, or people just like to call me names when I step on their favorite issue. I'm just going to go ahead and say it's the latter. But this guy, he is Israel first. He is truly Israel first. Like, I don't think Senator Graham is Jewish.

So you can't even argue that it's an anti-Semitic comment, but it wouldn't be even if he were. He is Israel first. He says it openly. This has to be stopped. They have co-opted our foreign policy. through our own U.S. Senator, who for some bizarre reason, now has the ear of the president, like he's, you know, Tom, what's his name? Tom in The Godfather. Is it Higgins? No, it's not Higgins.

I can't remember his last name. You know. Robert Duval. Tom Hagan. Tom Hagen. Thank you. It's crazy. Someone has to step in, someone who loves the president. J.D., Marco, Ivanka, someone who he respects. As I told you yesterday, there was a report in the journal that Mark Tiesen and Jack Keene, General Jack Keen, two friends of mine at Fox News. I mean, I think Mark Teeson would tell you the reason he's a Fox News contributor and you know his name is because of yours truly. I, too, used to be very neocconi while on Fox.

It's one of the reasons I'm so anti-war right now. I participated in this. I helped cheerlead it. I blindly supported the administration and its lies about the war when George W. Bush was president. And I didn't know they were lies at the time. I just unquestioningly, unquestioningly followed them, and then delivered them to an audience, which kept approval numbers at a decent rate, at least within the Republican Party. So I know how the game works. And the game is dishonest. And I refuse, refuse to be a part of that again. No. We'll report, I am rooting for Like these weirdos who are like cheering on the Iranians right now, I want the United States to win this now that we're in it. I want a solid defeat if it can be achieved. But I'm also going to be honest. And it's not going universally well over there. We're getting propaganda from the administration. And then we're getting just the naysayers who report nothing but bad news for the United States, which isn't true either.

I mean, it's quite a feat to have sunk their entire Navy, which we appear to have done. It's, you know, don't underestimate the power of the U.S. military, but the bloodlust by the administration spokespeople and this guy chief among them is very disconcerting. It's very off-putting. He then, okay, went on to issue a warning to Spain. Okay, what are we now doing to Spain? Not to mention the entire Arab world. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't want to do business with you any. I want our air bases, our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight.

What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop. The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. Aye. No one elected you as our commander in chief. shut the fuck up. Get off the national scene. You've disgraced yourself and endangered our troops long enough. Okay.

The business about the Arab world is a point that should be discussed because it did emerge that it was not only Israel reportedly urging President Trump to get into this war. Not reportedly. Israel urged President Trump to get into this war, period. Lindsay Graham was flying over to Israel. and briefing a foreign country's leader on how to manipulate the sitting U.S. president. That's been confirmed. Okay, that's the Wall Street Journal reporting.

The Wall Street Journal that's been very supportive of this war. That's very neocconi, whose owners are the Murdox, with whom the president remains close. It's on again, off again. Just yesterday, there were pictures of Jared and Ivanka at Rupert Murdox 95th birthday party all over the internet. That's the paper reporting that Lindsay Graham, who's proud of it. It was in an interview with Lindsey Graham. It wasn't like non-onymous sources to say. Lindsay Graham gave the Wall Street Journal an interview and reported firsthand that he's been flying over to Israel to deal with a foreign country's leader on how to manipulate the sitting president into war.

Everyone telling those of us who said Israel got us into this that were anti-Semites, you are fucking wrong. Read the paper. Listen to the guy who is the chief advisor now to the sitting president. You may not like it, but it's true. It's crazy that this has been allowed. We did go through the confirmation process for an actual Secretary of State to advise the president, for an actual Director of National Intelligence to advise the president, for an actual vice president, to advise the president.

Those are the people that we also confirmed and elected in some cases, in J.D.'s case, not Lindsey Graham as any foreign policy advisor, as any commander-in-chief, as any secretary of state. And where are those people, by the way? I saw Tulsi and dressed in full uniform at the dignified transfer as the remains of our first fallen return to Dover. Good for her. She looked dignified. I guarantee you she's against this. She's been the most outspoken of the administration on war with Iran. I don't expect her at all to be speaking out against the president. I actually don't think she should. Same for J.D. That's a behind closed doors kind of conversation. And I do wonder, I don't know what the answer is. You know, the president had a comment about J.D. yesterday saying, He wasn't too enthusiastic, and then he was enthusiastic, but he's been enthusiastic, but he wasn't enthusiastic. You know how President Trump is. So there's no question, J.D. didn't favor this. But who would expect them to publicly criticize the president? I said the same about Kamala Harris, by the way, when Joe Biden opened the border. It's not about what they say publicly. Publicly, they're expected to back their boss. But behind the scenes, they're expected to do something

and represent the interests that got them the job. Anyway, back to Hannity. Graham. That interview ended with Graham saying, we should move all of our, quote, stuff, apparently our military assets, to Israel. We should move all of our stuff to Israel instead of to other countries that aren't as cooperative. Spain, Macron, and Great Britain, they either wake up, this is their tipping point moment, too, just like the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, You decide now. UAE decide now. Qatar, Qatar, Qatar, decide now. Because I'm a little sick and tired of, you know, the constant threading of needles.

They wanted the Iranian stop as much as the Israelis to treat me told. God bless Israel. We should move all our stuff to Israel. Thank you. Senator Graham, thank you. Okay. So we should move all of our stuff to Israel. We should pull all of our – there's a reason we have our military bases across the Middle East and Europe.

and it's that Israel can't really do it. They can't house all of our military bases in a way that would protect the region. And look, but the point, the larger point about how the Saudis pushed us to get into this war and now that it's underway, don't want to actually join it, is a fair point. That's true. But that was something we should have foreseen when they were pushing us. That was up to us to calculate how they've behaved in the past and how they're past and how they're likely to. to behave now. You know, I mean, I can't get over the animal house line. You fucked up. You trusted us. It's probably what they're saying. We urged you to start a war that we would not help you with.

And now it's your problem, not ours. They know the Middle East. They're like, we don't want this quagmire on our hands. Let it be your problem in the United States. That's what Israel's thinking, too. Do you think Israel cares if our relationship frays with the Saudis and with Qatar and with UAE? They don't care at all. In fact, that's good for them. They want to grow in power. in the Middle East. And if the United States and its allies have a fractured relationship in the Arab world, that's better for Israel. They don't give a shit. That's great. What they want is more power. Yes, to feel safe, too. I understand that. And they can do that on their own. The United States did not have to intervene to make this our fight. And now the relationships are fraying with our Middle East

Arab allies because they're pissed that they're under attack, not just the United States military bases in their countries, but their countries have taken hits from Iran. And what happened was Iran on Monday said, okay, we're sorry we did that, not about the military bases, but we're sorry we hit the actual countries. And we're going to stop doing that. And instead of taking the olive branch, President Trump said, aha, full surrender, you know, too bad. Suck it. We're going to have more conflict. And then by the afternoon, under pressure from their own constituencies within Iran, because they didn't like the apologetic statement to the other Middle East countries, they said, oh, never mind. You know, we are going to continue. hitting everybody, everybody who has a U.S. military base. And we got back to, you know, openly targeting of the Allies by Iran, by the day's end. So we were sort of headed for a de-escalation, and now it's unclear. All of this is like just so deeply problematic, you guys, it's just, it's deeply problematic. And, you know, a word on what we're seeing on Fox. In the days following the initial strike, Mike Pompeo has been second only to Lindsey Graham,

who is, I mean, again, as Israel first as they come. He was on a Saturday special edition of America's newsroom. That's the day of the strikes. Sunday morning, Fox and Friends, Sunday night, Trey Gowdy Show, Monday afternoon, Harris Faulkner, Monday night, Sean Hannity. He wrote an op-ed for foxnews.com. Mike Pompeo, Operation Epic Fury is righteous,

and regime change must follow. And we could keep going. But this is why the president thinks that there's public support for this and it's going so well and that he should stay there. It's because all he listens to is Mike Pompeo and Lindsay Graham. JD needs to get loud, sort of Tulsi. So there's anybody else who can see the risks to America, much less the Republican Party and this thing going on much longer.

The president's messaging on how long this is going to last, your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea. Like, listen to what he has said. This is just at yesterday's presser. Okay, this isn't like over the past. week. This is at yesterday's presser on the timing of this thing. Satnai. We're ahead of our initial timeline by a lot.

On Iran, you called it an excursion. You said it would be over soon. Are you thinking this week it will be over? No, but soon. I think soon. Mr. President, you've said the war is, quote, very complete, but your defense secretary says this is just the beginning. So which is it? And how long should Americans be prepared? Well, I think it could say it both. The beginning, it's the beginning of building a new country. And we could we could call it a tremendous success right now as we leave here. I could call it. Or we could go further and we're going to go further.

Like your guess is as good as mine. Here's Heg-Seth this morning. On day 10 of Operation Epic Fury, we are winning with an overwhelming and unrelenting focus on our objectives, which are the same as the day I gave my first briefing here on Operation Epic Fury. They're straightforward, and we are executing them with ruthless precision. One, destroy their missile stockpiles, their missile launchers, and their defense industrial base. Missiles and their ability to make them. Two, destroy their Navy.

And three, permanently deny Iran nuclear weapons forever. It's a laser-focused maximum authority mission. laser delivered with overwhelming and unrelenting precision. We will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated. But we do so. We do so on our timeline and at our choosing. Okay. So he says we will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.

And then you have Trump all over the place. I'm like, it's short, it's almost done. It's not almost done. but it's it's going to end soon. And then there was this in the downplaying of, of what it is to begin with. By the way, just before we play SOT 8, I want to tell you that out of the Pete Hegseth presser this morning, the first guest on Fox News was a Mike Pompeo. Here's Hegseth in, sorry, Trump in SOT 8 yesterday.

So with your help and hard work, we're making America great again and we're doing it much faster than we thought. and it's better, stronger, and our country is doing really well, I mean, at a level that nobody thought. We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that to get rid of some evil. And I think you'll see it's going to be a short-term excursion. How good is our military, right? Amazing. How good.

Short-term. Short-term. A little excursion. I mean, you know, there's already been. a fair amount of pushback on that term because we have seven dead American service personnel, not to mention the number who have died in Iran and Israel

in the surrounding countries. A little excursion, and he said it over and over so it was not accidental. Meanwhile, the president says war all the time. Some of his advisors are like, it's not a war. And then Trump gets out there and he's like, Sean Davis of the Federalist was making a joke

about this on X. Like, the reason that messaging is not sticking is because every time Trump gets before the cameras, he's like, We're winning the war because it's not a war, and the Iranians don't understand war, and they're very bad at war, but we're good at war, but it's not a war. It's a little excursion. Okay, so that's not working. It's obviously a war. We're blowing them to smithereens. We've sunk their entire Navy. It's obviously a war. If somebody did this to us, do you think we'd be calling it a little excursion? I think we'd recognize that it was war. I don't, like the word games are point. We have eyes. We know what it is. Let's just admit it and let's get it over with. And I hope the president's telling the truth when he says it's short term, short term. Great. Somebody asked him, do you mean days? And he said no. So we know it's longer than days. The last time Pete Hexeth put a number on it, he said maybe eight weeks. I understand why he doesn't want to pin us down. We don't know what's going to happen. But short term needs to mean short term. We've already done immense damage. And yes, how about our military? Yes, they're incredible. They're stunning. They're the best and bravest in the entire world. That's always been the case. We're incredibly proud of them in their capacity and their courage. You know, what they're doing is

courageous. But that doesn't make it smart. And it doesn't make it necessary, as Stu Berggear was pointing out yesterday. There's justified, the question of whether it's justified, and there's the question of whether it's necessary. I thought that was a very helpful distinction. You know, there's no question Iran has attacked us many, many times. They killed a lot of U.S. troops in Iraq, almost 700 over the years. The Houthis have been attacking are people in the waterways. Obviously, they've been killing people, Israelis and Americans, via Hezbollah. And if you go back, you know, 50 years, we get a lot more examples of Iran's bad behavior over the past five decades.

So there's, no one's arguing they're good. It's a murderous regime. Yes, it is. Unfortunately, the new guy they just elected as the Ayatollah, who's the Ayatollah, seems worse than the old guy. They say he's more of a radical. He's more hard-line. He's more pro-nuke. So, you know, be careful what you wish for.

But the question is Quagmire. The question is lasting consequences. The question is, was this our war to begin with? I understand why Israel wanted to go into Iran. Israel's got a great military, probably second only into ours. Good luck. Godspeed. You're the guys with all the great intelligence.

Go for it. This is your neighborhood, not ours. Not ours. We're worried about the... about our hemisphere. That's why we're talking about Greenland. That's why we went into Venezuela. Right? That's why now we're threatening Mexico on the drug cartels. That's why we threaten Canada on the fentanyl coming across the border. That's our hemisphere. We are not policemen of the world. We do not have to police the Middle East. Oh, my God. That's never gone well for anyone.

I want to keep going. There was an extraordinary Wall Street Journal article that dropped late in the day yesterday about the one that Caroline Levitt called crap. It's got three reporters on it, and the headline is Trump's advisors urge him to find Iran exit ramp, as I mentioned. Now, the president, they point out, said we're way ahead of schedule, that he thinks it'll be very soon. You heard him say short timeline there in terms of when we're getting out. He sounded ready for a quick conclusion, writes the Wall Street Journal in their discussion with him. And yet, you know, You hear Pete Hegeseth not willing to give a timeline saying we won't relent until the enemy is totally indecisively defeated. And today was talking about how this is going to be the most insane day yet in terms of our firepower.

Here's that in SOT 6. For example, today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran. The most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes. intelligence more refined and better than ever. So that's on one hand. On the other hand, the last 24 hours have seen Iran fire the lowest number of missiles they've been capable of firing yet. Just the bifurcation, just the trend lines that we talked about on our first briefing. You see, this is not 2003. This is not endless nation building under those types of quagmire's we saw under Bush or Obama. It's not even close. We're winning decisively with

brutal efficiency, total air dominance, and an unbreakable will to accomplish the president's objectives on our timeline. Okay, so you can see there's a bit of a difference there, you know, in what he says and the president with the short timeline and we're way ahead of schedule and it's going to be over very soon. And then the president himself contradicting himself, it would seem, talking about how we're going to go further, we could go further, and that he would back the killing of the younger Khomeini, the new guy, if he proves unwilling to cede to U.S. demands. I mean, are we just going to keep killing the Iranian leaders who don't cede to all of our demands? Trump has said he wants unconditional surrender, which is basically one has to generally drop a

nuclear bomb on somebody to get unconditional surrender. There are always some conditions to the surrender. we're going to have to go a lot further if we want unconditional surrender, especially by the Iranians. The reports are that Trump has been surprised by how much they've dug in and how unwilling they are to surrender. It's a cultural thing. It's like the Iranians. You know, it's the IRGC. There are tens of thousands of them. They are very dug in. And there's a question about whether we're really just going to have to declare victory with less than that or whether we are just going to keep killing people named Khomeini, who get elected as the new Ayatollah. There are questions, too, about just how much support we have from the Iranian people for the bombing campaign that we're unleashing right now. 80% of Iranians

wanted Khomeini gone, according to polls, but now we're raining oil down upon them and their children. And what we saw when the new Khomeini, the 56-year-old son of the 86-year-old cleric, his name is Mojtaba Khomeini, when he was named the Supreme Leader. There was a massive gathering in Tehran, and this is what it looked like. We're rolling video of, it looks like tens of thousands. I don't know. I'm not good at estimating crowds, but that to me looks like tens of thousands out in the public square, cheering him on. And many point out that Iran has got 92 million people.

So that's not, you know, with respect to the overall population, it's really not that many. But, I mean, it's a decent amount, considering that we're dropping bombs on them every hour. And so we don't know. And there are a lot of Iranian Americans now who are saying, if this goes on, the longer this goes on, with the more accidental targets like the girls' school or the desalinization plant, we don't know whether that actually happened or who did it or whether it was intentional. There were reports that it was the Israelis. But the Israelis did hit their oil depots. And that was the thing that even made Lindsey Graham yesterday say, oh, hold on, you know, we're going to need this country to operate once we pull out. Don't go too far, my Israeli friends, masters.

Whether a public sentiment over there is now dropping for this thing. And, you know, they're not in love with the United States and Iran to begin with. So, you know, query whether Trump's goal of working together with the Iranians to find the next leader is a realistic one. The oil prices are surging. We talked about that and then fell. They were over $100 a barrel yesterday. and the Wall Street Journal reporting that that's when some of Trump's advisors were sent off in alarm. Fielding calls, too, about midterm elections from vulnerable lawmakers.

His team concluded in recent days they report that they needed a more aggressive communications plan to sell the public on this war. Trump said Monday that he would remove oil-related sanctions on some countries to produce oil prices, but he did not name what nations he's talking about. He said the U.S. would provide risk insurance to tankers operating. in the region, adding that the Navy, our Navy and its partners would escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz if that's needed. Many won't go right now because they can't get insurance since the Iranians are determined to bomb vessels that go through. That's fraught as well, and one of the reasons why oil is going up. So we'll see what happens there. That's obviously a major,

major variable in this conflict, the price of oil. You know, if it goes too high, there's just no way Trump won't pull. He just, there's just no way. He of all people understands the volatility of that and the effect it can have on U.S. consumer prices months before the midterms, when people already say by far that affordability is their number one issue. We talked about this before the Iran war was launched. We talked about this on the show about how the so-called affordability or cost of living was by far the number one issue. Nothing was even close. It was like almost 50 percent said that that was their number one issue, and the next closest was down at like 11%. And foreign policy didn't even rank. It was like a one-percenter. And now we're going to jack up prices based on foreign policy.

How is that going to play? You ask yourselves. The issue of the bombing of the girls' school is heartbreaking. There is zero chance. The United States of America intentionally targeted a school. Zero. We don't do that. That's true. But that doesn't mean we're incapable of mistakes in this war. And on the first day of it, an Iranian girl school that was right near one of its missile bases, was bombed. And 175 people died, the vast majority of whom were young, very young, single-digit age children, girls in particular. We are told that it was bombed by a Tomahawk missile, which is an American missile. was developed during the Cold War,

right before the Gulf War was the first time we used them, the first Gulf War in 91. That's an American thing. And we have sold them only to a couple of countries. I think it's Australia and Great Britain, neither of whom were bombing in this Iranian campaign. So that is why so many,

the Wall Street Journal, other, the New York Times, taking a close look at it, have concluded that this was an American missile. Pete Hexeth said we're investigating. And President Trump came out yesterday and said,

it wasn't us. I'm convinced it was an Iranian missile. The Iranians don't have Tomahawks, which is why the press has been incredibly and understandably skeptical when he says that. And finally, a reporter, Sean McRish,

actually followed up asking the president how he can say that. In an exchange that saw the president immediately shift his messaging, it was pretty extraordinary, Sot 10. There's footage that shows that an American missile strike and a Tomahawk missile likely destroyed that Iranian girl school. So will the Americans, will the U.S. accept any responsibility? Well, I haven't seen it.

And I will say that the Tomahawk, which is one of the most powerful weapons around, is used by, you know, is sold and used by other countries, you know that. And whether it's Iran, who also has some tomahawks, they wish they had more, but whether it's Iran or somebody else, the fact that a tomahawk, a tomahawk is very generic, it's sold to other countries, but that's being investigated right now. Mr. President, you just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school on the first day of the war,

but you're the only person in your government saying this, even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked, standing over your shoulder on your plane on Saturday. Why are you the only person saying this? Because I just don't know enough about it. I think it's something that I was told is under investigation, but Tomahawks are used by others, as you know. Numerous other nations have tomahawks. They buy them from us. But I will certainly, whatever the report shows, I'm willing to live with that report. Okay, so that was Sean McRish of the New York Times, him on that. Here's just a fact check. Okay. So we, we develop these missiles. We have not sold these

missiles to Iran, Tomahawks. Only two U.S. Allies are known. This is via the New York Times to have Tomahawk missiles. And as I mentioned, that's Australia and Britain. Two additional countries have agreed to purchase them. Japan in 2024 and the Netherlands in 2025, neither of whom has a presence in this war. Iran has its own cruise missiles. But those are distinct from Tomahawks, and they can be easily identified in part by their propulsion system, while the Tomahawks motor is fully contained inside of the missiles fuselage. So they're readily distinguishable. Here is Senator Kennedy speaking about the school bombing.

Do we have this soundbite? Oh, no, sorry. Sorry, it's just to be a paper statement. Sorry, a report, but I'll read you what he said. He was asked Republican Senator from Louisiana about the bombing and said, quote, it was terrible. We made a mistake. Other countries do that sort of thing intentionally, like Russia. We would never do that intentionally. By the way, I agree with him, as I said. He goes on, I think the department is investigating it now. And I'm sorry, he says. I'm just so

sorry it happened. It was a mistake. That's very good messaging. That maintains our dignity and our honesty and our integrity. We're not infallible. War is hell. And it's confusing. And when you build a child's school right next to a missile depot, you, Iran, are risking the lives of those girls. That's the truth. But our precision strikes are incredibly impressive. I mean, the strike over that military depot was reportedly dead center, like actually quite impressive. And it appears that we made a mistake in thinking the neighboring property was also part of it. So, you know, we'll get, I hope, an honest assessment.

I mean, here was Pete Hickset in a pretty extraordinary moment. He understands that Trump's his boss, and he certainly understands the messaging Trump wanted, because Trump said it right next to him on Air Force One. And look at the difference. So you heard it referenced by Sean McRish for the New York Times there. Like, your own secretary of defense seemed to be giving a different answer than you did. And here's what happened on Air Force One the day before. The only side that targets civilians is Iran.

Issues. Whoever was that by Iran. Okay, so he walked that back when he was pressed by the New York Times. I just think it was. I just think. But there's no evidence, and they don't have tomahawks. And, you know, you've got senators, you've got the journal, you've got the Times who are doing in-depth reporting on this and getting leaked to saying it was whatever. I don't, I take no joy in spending any more time on this.

This is a terrible outcome. And I'm sure the United States, if we did it, is extremely sorry and that it was unintentional, unlike the barbarians. that we fight against. Okay, so that's just real. But let's get real. Let's stop. Like, I can't, I can't with the misinformation. Like, when it comes to war, it's one thing to do puffery on your poll numbers, on even the economic numbers, to put the best spin on them. We need total honesty when it comes to actual war data. You know, the United States has been lying to its people for 100 years on war outcomes. That's why we had the Pentagon papers released. Let's just be honest, okay? Not to mention the lies about Afghanistan, that broke long after we had started that war and been misinformed

about it for many, many years. Our government lies to us when it comes to war on how well it's going because they want it to keep going or they want to justify what they've done already. And it's not the media's job to cheerily it along. Fox, Hannity. It's our job to be skeptical and make sure we're getting real information so that the American public can make up their minds legitimately about whether it's worth the costs. We cannot just say, I think, because I think it was them. His own defense secretary, Secretary of War, is saying we're investigating. These are Republicans.

Kennedy, the Wall Street Journal. That's not a left-wing paper, especially when it comes to war. That's their favorite thing. Saying that it was us. Okay, so whatever. We'll continue pushing Laura Ingraham to her credit from Fox, tweeting out, we need to acknowledge whether this was us or not. And if it was, to apologize immediately, seconded by yours

truly. Things things clearly have gone wrong in the war, not beyond that girl school just yesterday. The Israelis killed a Catholic priest in Lebanon. And this, not just any Catholic priest, but this totally beloved priest named Father Pierre El Rahi, also known as Pierre L. Rai. He was killed in southern Lebanon when an Israeli artillery tank fired on a house that he was outside of. This is per Catholic officials and the media, reports that have since been confirmed by the news outlets there. He had earlier refused, along with other priests, to obey an order by the Israeli military to evacuate the Christian village of Olaia. Sorry, El Quayahia, I can't pronounce it, El Quela, K-L-A-Y-A-A-A.

He had refused to evacuate because his Catholic resident, were not leaving, some 8,000 of them. They did not want to leave. They didn't know where to go. And it's been difficult for the hundreds of thousands who are displaced out of Lebanon, thanks to Israel fighting now with them, to find a safe place to go, in particular in Beirut. They can't find shelter. So they don't want to leave their homes. They don't want Israel coming in with its tank saying, get out. They don't know where to go. They have children, just like you and I do. And so he decided to stay with his flock and the Israelis killed him. Lebanese news report stated that an Israeli Markava tank hit this house twice.

The first strike wounded the owner and his wife. El Rahi and other neighbors rushed to the scene to help when the tank fired a second time. That's when El Rahi was wounded from that strike and later died from his injuries. Several other Lebanese civilians were also injured in the attack. Al-Rahi told France 25 television on the steps of his church a day before his death. This is a March 8th interview. He's killed on March 9th. The following.

We boasted over in English after reading the translation in the French press. Listen here. We are just defending our lands, defending Muslims. None of us carry any weapons. We only carry the weapons of people. Peace, goodness, love, and of course prayer. Surely, we are forced to remain under threat because these are our homes. We will not leave them available for anyone who does not want to enter use or stay in them.

So now you have the Israelis killing Catholic priests and attacking Catholic towns. They say there were legitimate Hezbollah-related targets there. Is there any discrimination? Do we get to say, okay, maybe you don't get to get. every single member of Hezbollah if they're right next to Catholic priests and 8,000 Christians. It's not a great PR move at a bare minimum. And it's going to continue. It's going to continue.

That report in the Wall Street Journal from late yesterday said that we might want to get out, but that it was going to be up to the Israelis to decide whether it was time. It said that basically that the Israelis have a veto right on whether we actually are going to get out or not. Here's how it reads. Some Trump administration officials said, as long as Tehran continued to attack regional countries and Israel still wanted to strike Iranian targets, it was unlikely the U.S. could easily withdraw from the war. So our ability to withdraw will depend on whether Israel still wants to strike Iranian targets. We're the senior partner. Why doesn't our willingness to withdraw depend on entirely what is good for the American people?

Could it be perhaps because Lindsay Graham is Israel first, as are all the people advising President Trump, that now they have the same veto right that was offered to them in getting into this war? They were going to go do it, according to Marco Rue. be on therefore we had no choice but to do it. How about we just get out? And if Israel wants to continue this, I think the Iranians would take the American departure willingly and gladly. All right, there's a lot of other news to get to. We have not even touched the Epstein revelations, and I'm going to do that next. Don't go away. Think about this. In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces

would be worth about 165,000 bucks. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And it's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today, it's a crucial part of any balanced strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 9-8-9-8-9-9-8 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information.

with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now, that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to the number 9-8-9-8-98 today. Okay, so now we've got to talk about the bombshell that dropped on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation this week, which is, I know that word gets overused, but this is truly a bombshell. the prison guard, one of the two prison guards that was on duty the night he allegedly killed himself has been caught lying about what went on that night. And it turns out she was receiving mysterious deposits into her bank account for months prior to his death to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars.

All right, I'm going to get specific on the numbers, but it's a total of, I think, $11,880. Seven cash deposits to the point where the bank flagged the deposits as, quote, suspicious activity to the FBI in November of 2019. Epstein died August 10th, 2019. This is a crazy, crazy story, you guys. All right, so the FBI just released documents. pertaining to the investigation. And they show that one of Epstein's reading here from a New York Post exclusive, one of Epstein's guards Googled, this is the other piece of it, Epstein, minutes before he was found dead, and also made a mysterious $5,000 cash deposit 10 days before his alleged suicide per new DOJ documents.

All right. So she was getting some almost 12,000 bucks, but just 10 days before he died, she made a five, thousand dollar cash deposit. This is a, this is a prison guard. They're not rolling in dough. Five thousand dollars is a lot of cash for her to mysteriously deposit 10 days before his death. Her name is Toya Noel. She was one of the two metropolitan correctional center workers accused of falsifying records to say that she and the other guy checked on Epstein throughout the night before his August 10th, 2019 suicide. What did you say, Steve? Tova, Tova, no, well. The guards were both fired because they said they checked on him, and they didn't, and he was dead.

But the criminal charges against them were later dropped. However, the investigation against them showed a lot, and there's a real question about whether those criminal charges should have been dropped, and whether they were the correct charges in any event. It's not about falsifying records exactly. It might be about, did you willingly look the other way, allow someone in, or facilitate his death in any way. The guards, this one guard, Noel, Tova Noel, Googled right before he died.

Latest on Epstein in jail, that was at 5.42 a.m. And then again, at 5.52 a.m. So within 10 minutes of one another, she had that search, latest on Epstein in jail. Why does she need to Google that? Why don't you get your fat ass up, walk down the hallway and take a damn look. Was she looking to see whether something had broken,

whether somebody else had broken news? This was less than 40 minutes before her colleague, correctional officer Michael Thomas, found Epstein dead in his cell by hanging at 6.30 a.m. Was she expecting something to happen 40 minutes later or sometime around when she was Googling later? why does the guard responsible for keeping an eye on him have to Google what the latest is on him, quote, in jail? This is highly suspicious. This is per an FBI record of her internet search

history. This is crazy stuff. Earlier in that shift, this Tava Noel, Tova Noel, who's 37, shopped for furniture online and snoozed on the job instead of making the mandated checks on Epstein every 30 minutes, while Thomas perused motorcycles, according to prosecutors. The FBI highlighted the Internet search in its 66-page forensic examination of the Bureau of Prison's desktop computers of Noelle and Thomas. It was the only search highlighted. When questioned during her sworn statement to the DOJ in 2021, Noel denied Googling Epstein. So she lied, which is a federal crime. It is a crime. to lie to federal investigators, which she clearly did when she denied Googling Epstein,

notwithstanding the fact that she had Googled, quote, latest on Epstein in jail at 542 a.m. And then again at 5.52 a.m. Her answer was, quote, I don't remember doing that. She said FBI records were not accurate. I don't recall looking him up. Now, meantime, on the cash deposits, Chase Bank, and pay attention here on the timeline, flagged cash deposits in her bank account in a suspicious activity report to the FBI in November, 2019, another file from the DOJ revealed. Again, he died August 10th, 2019, so this would have been a couple months later Chase Bank flagging cash deposits into her account. It turned out a total of 12 deposits had been made, culminating in the largest one for $5,000, a $1,000. A lot of $1,000.

11 days before he died, July 30th, 2019, for $5,000. So 10 or 11, depending on how you count it, days before Epstein died. But here's the weird thing. And then they show seven cash deposits. A total of 12 were made culminating in the largest for 5,000. Seven cash totaling 11,000-880. So in total, she got almost 12 grand, 5,000 of which. which came 10 days before he died.

And here's what's really weird. She didn't start working in the special housing unit where Epstein was held until July 7th, 2019, which was weeks before his death. But the deposits began in April 2019. Sorry, April 2018. So she started getting this money in April of 2018. It wasn't until,

November 2018 that the Miami Herald even dropped its massive report on Epstein. So she starts getting the deposits in April. Then in November, Julie K. Brown drops the big piece in the Miami Herald that would lead to all the trouble for Epstein. Then Epstein was arrested a few months after that. And then in July, you get a $5,000 deposit into her account. And in August, she's working at the special housing unit, and he dies. And she was pushed. So she gets moved to the special housing unit July 7th, 2019. And July 30th, 2019, she deposits $5,000 cash.

Maybe the two deposits or some of the deposits are unrelated. If she was paid off, right? How could the person giving her money in April of 2018 before the Miami Herald piece have known that he was going to be arrested by New York prosecutors, well, I mean, federal prosecutors in New York, and that he was going to be arrested, that he's going to be in her housing unit, and that she hadn't even been moved to yet. That seems far-fetched. But it is suspicious that she gets moved to the special housing unit July 7th,

and within, what, 21 days, 22 days or so 23, she gets five grand in cash that she deposits. She drove a $62,000, 2019 Land Rover range rover. That's a lot. for a prison guard, how was that paid for? And when the DOJ interviewed her, she was not asked about the cash. Why not? Why not? Might we need to reopen that investigation? Here's another thing I don't understand. Why knowing all this was the FBI so quick, you know, when Cash and Dan came out on Fox and Friends to say, he killed himself? You know, that's what we believe. We've seen

the videotape, why did they come out and say that? And presumably having seen this report. I mean, this is pretty extraordinary. And this is questioning during her sworn statement to the DOJ in 2021 when she denied Googling him. Apparently, we knew that. We knew it wasn't true. So what led to her, like, why hasn't this been completely ruled out as a nothing burger? I'd love to know more. The New York Post does not explain it and presumably does not know. They write an internal FBI briefing, also released in the DOJ files, reveals the agency thought no well, was also likely the mysterious orange shape spotted in a blurry surveillance video near Epstein's cell around 10.40 p.m. that night. Now we have video of the mysterious orange shape. Let's watch it. It's orange blob movement. We're Googling in. You can see it for the listening audience on the very right side of the screen.

Something, some sort of orange blob is definitely moving around. It appears to be a person right near. Ebstine's cell. This is again, around 10.40 p.m. the night before he would kill himself. This is within hours. And there's been a question about who that is. Well, the post reports at approximately 1040 p.m., a correctional officer, believed to be Tova Noel, carried linen or intimate clothing up to the L-tier. Last time any correctional officer approached the only entrance to the S-HU tier. That's the special housing unit, wrote the FBI. Epstein apparently hanged himself with strips of orange cloth. In the sworn statement she gave Tova Noel, who was working a double shift that day, told investigators she saw Epstein alive somewhere around 10 p.m. And that she never gave out linen ever or clothing to inmates because that's done the shift before.

The identity of the pixelated orange blob in the video has been a source of debate and conspiracies, writes the post, since the FBI released the footage last summer. So this is new information that the FBI, per its internal briefing, which they're not. the New York Post has seen now, said that they think it was Tova Noel, that it was the woman who had the mysterious cash deposits. We've always wondered how Epstein got the extra linens in his cell, with which he killed himself, if he killed himself, right? If he was murdered, he was murdered. If he killed himself, someone made it very easy for him by providing the extra linen. Or somebody made it very easy for the murderer to cover up the murder by having all this extra linen that made it look like he used it. Tova testified she did not know why Epstein had extra linen in his cell.

She doesn't? The other guard on duty was sleeping between 10 p.m. and midnight, she said. A prison employee entering the area of Epstein's cell alone would be a policy violation, workers have said. The Inspector General report released in 2003 said it was unidentified correctional officers who had been in that orange blob. So now the information that it was the same woman, Tova, who lied to investigators, under oath, that seems clear, about her Epstein searches, who was searching Epstein in jail latest 20, 40 minutes before he died and then didn't tell the truth about that, and who had

mysterious bank deposits, including right before he died, 10 or 11 days before he died, that she was the one. I mean, this is crazy. This is truly crazy. All the Epstein so-called conspiracy theorists, right, have been, like, shamed and blamed as nut cases for years now. You tell me, even if you sincerely believe that he killed himself, what's an innocent explanation for all this? Hell if I know. I have more questions than answers and more questions than ever right now about Epstein

and somebody should answer these. Dr. Bodden, Dr. Jeffrey Bodden, was brought in, Michael Bodden, was brought in by Mark Epstein, Epstein's brother to examine the corpse. And, you know, it's also just come out that the official coroner who refused, who said sort of undetermined on Epstein's death, was persuaded in part by Dr. Bodden's strong conclusion that this was a homicide based on the neck bones in Epstein's body. Do we have that, Deb? Because Bodden, I think, talked to Tucker shortly after this on his then-Fox news show, and here's what he said.

I was present at the autopsy, and there were three fractures in the windpipe. that are much more typical of crush injury from homicidal strangulation than from hanging. Hemorrhages in the eyes, again more typical of a homicide. And the ligature imprint on the neck didn't match the ligature that was present in the cell. So I thought that made it more likely that this was a homicide. But we never got to find out how the by the body body was found. Was he found hanging or not, for example, because the two guards were sleeping, the body was just cut down and brought out to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Now, Business Insider today reporting that the medical examiner, a doctor and New York City medical examiner, Kristen Roman, was less sure about homicide initially, but on the death certificate. She did not check the boxes for homicide or suicide and instead checked the box for pending studies. Five days later, Barbara Samson, the chief medical examiner of New York City, and Roman's boss ruled that it was a suicide after what she said was a careful review of all investigative information. She did not attend the autopsy and did not elaborate on the findings, so she didn't have additional information. She just declared that it was a suicide. Roman, the one who was the medical examiner, her initially ambiguous classification of his death,

combined with Bauden's media interviews, helped fuel, writes Business Insider, conspiracy theories that Epstein was murdered. The world did not learn that Roman agreed with her office's findings that it was a suicide until nearly four years later when the DOJ, Inspector General's office, released its report. Even then, the reasoning behind her ruling and the delay was not made clear until now. They are reporting that a transcript of her interview for the DOJ reflected that she was, quote, just being thorough by waiting to formally determine that it was a suicide, and they write the following, quoting her. If he had been a less high-profile person who there weren't

people wanting to kill, I would have probably called it a hanging on the day of the autopsy. She said in the interview conducted under oath May 22. She was certain that Epstein hanged himself. It was pretty clear cut, she said. The medical examiner was not permitted to see Epstein's cell or interview correctional officers, which would be a relevant piece to the conclusion, but she was shown photographs of the room. She said those limitations did not affect her conclusion that he killed himself. She says she felt the injuries were consistent with a hanging. She pointed to the same fractures in his neck that Baden said were inconsistent with a hanging. She said the hyoid bone was fractured on the tip where it would have pressed up against his

spine rather than near the joints where one would expect fractures if someone squeezes your neck in homicidal fashion with unsustained pressure. According to Roman, the thyroid cartilage was fractured in the places where the hyoid bone pressed against it, which was also consistent with hanging. She said manual strangulation would have fractured it unevenly. So there's a discrepancy between what Baden concluded and what the medical examiner, Roman, concluded there, which we've kind of known about. We knew that the head, the chief medical examiner had concluded something different than it than Bodden did. And now we know that Roman, the woman who actually did the exam, had her doubts, as initially expressed, but that she was definitely leaning suicide.

I wonder how she'd react, if shown the latest on the guards' testimonial per that FBI investigation. This is a crazy story. Will we ever know? I mean, will we ever know, no, no. I just don't think we're going to know. I'd think if somebody had this guy murdered, then they have every incentive in the world to continue covering it up,

and clearly they're very well-placed in terms of power and connections. And if somebody just made it simpler for him to kill himself, getting the additional linens in there, getting the guards to look away, same. To me, it seems the least likely outcome right now is he just killed himself on his own and no one had anything to do with it. This guard testimonial, this guard, money, the guard apparent lies under oath.

There's no coincidences. I just don't believe in coincidence. That's too many coincidences. This is quite damning info. We'll continue to stay on it, and we will continue to stay on another big case that we've been covering here on the MK show, and that is the Nancy Guthrie disappearance. We're going to have our team on next to talk about the very latest. in that case. Don't go away.

Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet, and now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack, and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durban Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested

networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. I am drinking my coffee, staving off my dementia. Remember, we talked about that the last time I was on location doing a show. There's a study that says two to three cups a day of coffee or tea has to be caffeinated, though. It's not a guarantee. None of this stuff is a guarantee, but why wouldn't we try? It's delicious. And it's like one of the few things that we enjoy that's not bad for us.

So bottoms up. Okay, so we haven't talked about the Nancy Guthrie case in a while, and yet our audience, I know, is very, very interested in this. We have officially entered the fifth week now in the search for her. It's hard to believe, isn't it? The FBI and the sheriff's office reportedly are asking neighbors about potential internet outages the night of Nancy's disappearance. That's very interesting. As one neighbor reported that their ring camera closest to Nancy's home was mysteriously not working that night, like that night only. Plus, there's new reporting from Brian Enton of News Nation on a bizarre, bizarre experience that one of Nancy's neighbors had with law.

enforcement in the early days of the investigation, which would appear to point to some level of disarray, which doesn't come as a shock to anybody who's been following this, but still, when you hear the specifics, you know, I think you will be somewhat slack-jod. Joining me now to discuss it all, James Fitzgerald, better known as Fitz, former FBI supervisory special agent and a host of the Cold Red podcast. Will Geddes, elite bodyguard, security expert, and founder of the international corporate protection and also James Hamilton, former FBI supervisory special agent and founder of Hamilton Security Group. Guys, welcome back to you all. Let's start with the Brian Enton report on this neighbor who he tracked down, Brian of both News Nation and he's got his own independent feed on YouTube, which is great and well worth following, talking to one of Nancy's neighbors about something that happened to her with the FBI, question mark,

in the early days of the investigation. I think it is up 50, it's 50 or 51. They went to my sister's house on the second Friday night after Nancy went missing at like 7.30 at night. It was raining with hoodies on, black hoodies, and were tapping on her windows and frantically ringing her doorbell. And she answered it. They went in. I think the male did not take his hoodie off. The female did. They wanted to know if she had a pacemaker and they wanted to look into her garage. And so she was like, okay. I mean, she was alone and was like, sure, of course, for the FBI. They were in her house for like 20 minutes. She was asking questions and they were kind of vague and the guy didn't really speak and he kind of creeped her out. My niece called and said, are you sure they were the FBI? So she called the 1-800 FBI number and it was busy. She called 911 and within 15 minutes to, and she called 9-1-1 and within 15 minutes to, and she called her.

10 minutes, there were seven police cars, four FBI agents, said it wasn't the FBI. She was terrified. They swabbed her, fingerprinted the entire house, were there until the middle of the night. The next day, at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, she got a call from the large group of FBI agents that were there and said, oh, yeah, by the way, that woman was an FBI agent. We don't really know who the guy was, but she was, so you're fine. And she was like, no, I'm not. I think the FBI and the sheriff's department were not communicating. So eventually she figured out it was an FBI agent, but the sheriff's department didn't think it was in the beginning. Oh, M.G. So just to be clear, that was a neighbor of Nancy's talking about her sister, who is another neighbor of Nancy's and the sister's experience with, again, the FBI question mark. unclear fits, but what does it say to you?

It says to me not just left hand, right hand, left foot, right foot with multiple people at the same time, not necessarily knowing what they're doing or with whom they're doing it. This is clearly a violation of investigative protocols that people don't know where each other are. And of course, I'm not either wearing hoodies. I'm assuming they pulled out some kind of identification. FBI identification is pretty distinctive. distinctive a smaller gold badge and of course picture and ID next to it. So and I'm not even sure the exact line of questioning that took place there. But again, they're flying some people in from

around the country. Some people just showed up to that day and decided to take on some leads of their own and just said, well, let's go out and knock on some of these doors and talk to these people. We're not going to worry about getting all dressed up. We'll just wear the gear we did when we traveled here. I don't know. I can't explain this. But this sounds like it was someone went out sort of on their own on left field. And then it took, you know, a bunch of talk afterwards and meetings to decide, oh, yeah, oh, it was Jane and this other guy who we don't know to this day. It's weird. It's odd.

I'm not sure what it contributes to the investigation. If anything, it detracts from the investigation in terms of how this part of it was handled. The neighbor, this woman's sister, reported that the only identification they were wearing was the one, had on a black hoodie with a tiny FBI emblem on it. Oh my God. But you can buy in D.C. on the street corner. That's horrifying. Like, literally, I think my 12-year-old has a sweatshirt just like that.

He should not be allowed in anyone's house to ask questions. And scary will, I mean, it actually makes me wonder if law enforcement ever shows up at your house, and in this woman's defense, it happened in the middle of a massive investigation that was all over the television. She knew FBI was everywhere. What should you do to make sure this is a legit person I should talk to? Well, I mean, I kind of agree with Fitz's assessment, but maybe I'm a wee bit more suspicious, Megan. Certainly, I think any evidence of a warrant card asking to see some ID would be absolutely essential in the first instance to verify. But whether you have the wherewithal at that time to actually think of asking for it rather than it just being proffered voluntarily.

I think the fact that she called the FBI sort of hotline, albeit it was engaged and she couldn't get through, which isn't very good. Again, it just gives strands of keystone cops of the Sheriff's Department behavior and certainly one hand not speaking to the other. I might be a little bit more cynical and suspicious than fit that if this was an individual claiming to be FBI, maybe they weren't FBI. and maybe the FBI are now using this as a new possible lead, but don't want to be shown out. I don't know. I mean, again, I'll leave it for the bureau guys to maybe make their assessment on that.

Yeah, I agree with you. Because, James, the fact that they sent over, as soon as she called, this full team, and they cheek swabbed her, shows they were taking this very seriously, and then just sort of the afterthought, oh, by the way, the next day, that person who came over was FBI,

so just don't worry about it. And, you know, as you heard the sister say, No, she did think there was a problem here. Like, she'd given an interview. Then the whole SWAT team basically came in, took her DNA, cheek swab the whole bit, and then just sort of the casual, oh, never mind. That was a nothing. Like, what does it tell you?

Well, you see it a lot. And Fitz was right. Will, of course, is, you know, correct with regards to the right hand, not knowing the left hand is doing. But, you know, again, and I might be a dinosaur here, but this dress in the hoodie, it's not surprising to me because the Bureau, at least the pictures I'm seeing, now and what I see on the media. They don't dress like FBI agents when I was there. And, you know, it's certainly a citizen should ask for an ID. Call 911, ask to speak to a supervisor, you know, and verify they are who they say they are because a hoodie with a little FBI emblem, like you said,

Megan, your daughter's got it. It's not hard to impersonate. And, you know, frankly, you should dress like as a professional. And if you're going to wear a hoodie and look like that, then fully expect to be vetted. Yes. I mean, I'm like, I'm looking at this thinking, what's next? She showed up with a Starbucks cup that said FBI on it. Like, we definitely need better credentials than a sweatshirt. A badge would be one thing, Fitz. Go ahead. I'm just going to say, and we've talked about this over the last few weeks, and James has probably been a part of a number of task forces like I have. And you're just sometimes being flown into a location for, I mean, I can give you multiple locations in my career, I'm sure James can too. And you just land on the ground and you're not

even sure who your supervisor is first. You report to a command post. There's police officers, there's other federal agencies there. You may report to a supervisor. I was a supervisor. People would be reporting to me, but I wouldn't be sending them out on these types of leads without having some sort of direction or coordination with others who have done this. So I'm not saying it's a mess there or out of control, but I have no question, especially in the early few weeks, or the first few weeks, people flying in and out and not even under the direction of the Phoenix Special Agent in charge, but some other supervisor who just flew in, hey, why don't you guys go out and cover these leads right here? So I want to emphasize that this

was seemingly unprofessional and it didn't follow protocols. It doesn't mean illegal and it doesn't mean that, you know, bad things are being attempted here, but it certainly raises more questions than it does answers. And this kind of investigation doesn't need that kind of incident to happen. And there may be other ones we don't even know about. I'm with Will and that. My question is whether that first, that couple was FBI at all and whether the FBI was being honest when it said to her the next day, oh, don't worry, they were FBI. Like, I got questions the same as Will.

Here's a little bit more from the neighbor describing a weird man in the neighborhood around January 11th. Again, this is from Brian Enten on Monday. About two weeks before, it was, I have a picture when. in my bathroom, and I see all the people walking by in the mornings, and I noticed this strange guy with his hat down really low. He was kind of hunched over, not in, you know, walking or hiking gear. And it stood out to you. Oh, yeah. And how often has something like that happened where it stood out to you enough to say something? Not often at all. I see the same people.

I think once maybe 12 years ago I saw a strange guy. Did you tell the police? I did. I told the FBI the day after they came. came here. So you've got the pretty good view. So Nancy's is up that way. Yeah. Okay. And so you've got a pretty good view and he was walking down the road and he was in kind of street clothes, not shoes that you'd walk in and he had a baseball hat really low and he was kind of hunched over and he was kind of looking around and he just didn't fit. And he wasn't going terribly quickly like a normal person that's getting exercise. It was kind of going slowly. And when he walked by this street, He really took a long look at it.

I noticed that. I see that, James, and I think never underestimate the power of a curious female neighbor. Because I do think, like, we've got our neighborhoods wired. So I actually am paying a lot of attention to what that woman said. And not for nothing, but it does connect to an NBC report that on January 11th, okay, this is like the same. She says this is when she saw this man who didn't fit. they report the two homeowners said when the investigators came to their home, just this past Thursday, that they additionally asked about any video footage from January 11th. So it sounds like

investigators are taking that date that she referenced seeing this guy who didn't fit very seriously. Yeah. And unfortunately, you see this, you know, she's talking herself into it. Her intuition's pinging. She's purely, you know, curiosity and suspicion or messengers of intuition. And she's trying to talk herself into having these feelings, she doesn't need to do that. And unfortunately, at least from the reporting I just heard, she only said something to law enforcement once the FBI has come after the Guthrie missing. Why didn't she call 911 that day, you know, in January? That's when people need to, if they see it, they need to call. That's this whole see something, say something thing from DHS. Well, that's what they're talking about. And you need to get on the phone.

And you can tell in the interview, she's trying to talk herself into it. She doesn't need to. That was more than enough suspicion to call into the police. But unfortunately, you know, it was after the fact when she finally told somebody. This reminds me of the baby Lisa investigation, baby Lisa Irwin, who was stolen from her crib in the middle of the night in Kansas City, Missouri. And the night that she went missing, the neighbors to her home, you know, where she was stolen from, saw a man with a baby who was totally underdressed for the cold. evening at midnight, almost midnight, and they didn't call the cops. Both the wife and the husband saw a man with a baby, and they didn't call the police. I think too many of us say, oh, it's not anything. I don't want to bother law enforcement, as opposed to just giving it over to the people

who are paid to decide whether this is a threat or it isn't, James. Yeah, and as a police officer, you know, I cannot tell you, a thousand times I've responded to some nonsense 911 call. I mean, like literal nonsense. You know, this is not nonsense. Someone being suspicious in a neighborhood, possibly casing houses, that's what we're being paid to do. You know, if people had any idea how much nonsense is called in the 911 and police are actually dispatched to, you know,

they would not feel bad about calling for something like that, which is something that the police need to be, you know, investigating. I want to shift now to something that happened a few days ago. You guys were not on, but it definitely grabbed our. attention. And this is Sheriff Nanos, making quite quite a statement to NBC on March 2nd. Here it is, Sop 49. It's been 30 days since Nancy Guthrie went missing. Are investigators any closer to finding the suspect or suspects? I think the investigators are definitely closer. We got a lot of intel, a lot of leads, but now it's time to just go to work. We also asked about that new ring camera video

obtained by Fox News Digital showing a car two and a half miles away. Is this really something we should looking at. Look, what I would tell you is this. We're aware of it and we're looking into it, just like any other piece of evidence. Have you been able to identify the car that drove past at 2.36 a.m.? No. No. But you are looking to identify it. We're looking at that vehicle as well as hundreds of thousands of other vehicles that were out driving that time of day. We've now learned that maybe it wasn't purchased out of Walmart. That backpack as new is exclusive to Walmart. But who's to say I didn't buy it and put it on eBay? That's what we're looking at, but We have information on this case that we think is going to hopefully lead us to solving this case.

But it takes time. Can you get there? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. So the sheriff saying they are closer to finding a suspect. Does that strike you as just puffery fits, just like a generic reassurance to the public? Or would he not do that?

Well, I suppose the opposite of that, Megan, would be they're farther away from identifying, identifying, finding the suspect, and he's certainly not going to say that. So yes, are there a lot of early leads they've covered already, and they can rule those out. And so that brings them somehow closer to whoever the suspect is, yes. Look, and again, the other folks who on this panel today have worked cases one way or another, you know, Unabom and D.C. sniper. I was right in the middle of those and the Atlanta bombings for Eric Rudolph. And the point is, you think you're getting so much closer than you get frustrated, you get closer than that some of these other agents come up with ideas. Some of them are, you know, sort of, you know, out and left field, but they still want

to, you know, follow through on them, which maybe could have been one that people were knocked on the house with hoodies, you know, when they were in some sort of a vain attempt to get something done. So bottom line is, there's no doubt looking at it on a linear scale, they are getting closer, but only because they've ruled out so many other suspects at this point. Now the question is collating everything they have, Pingtower, cell phone records, and write license-paid readers, facial recognition, all those things, and trying to get that one break that they've been looking for all this time.

So in that regard, they are closer, but we may be a long time yet from actually having a name. It's still a shorter time frame than it took to arrest Brian Colberger in the Idaho 4 case, and that's something to keep in mind, you know, the police were very much onto some good leads in that case that we didn't know anything about. So that's somewhat reassuring, although I don't know. Now the task force out there has been reduced to reportedly four people. It's, you know, a fraction of 400. And one does wonder, you know, whether they've run out or they're just replowing old leads and they've run out of new ones. I do want to talk about

the possible information on the doorbell can, though, because I think all of us agree that's the best lead they have. And you heard the sheriff there saying the backpack video has gone nowhere. Now they're wondering whether the guy got it's secondhand. So that's why they can't find it on any sort of Walmart video of their suspect purchasing the backpack could have been an eBay purchase, etc. The question about what actually happened in that video where we see they said at 147, and the Wi-Fi was disconnected. And at 212, notwithstanding the disconnection, the system reflected that a body had been identified, an image had been identified. And there was a very interesting discussion with a couple of discussions I want to get to on this about how this could have

happened, like what might have happened. Here is Jake Green. He's a digital forensics expert, and he spoke with our pal Ashley Banfield about what could have happened. And here's SOT 53, him speculating on what could have happened at 147 versus 212 here. Really the only thing is they wanted to make sure their Wi-Fi de-authentication device was ready to go. So they rode by, checked it from the street, was able to hit that Wi-Fi unit and make sure that it was actually receiving that signal. And then came back a little bit later and hoped it was still working. And it wasn't. Right. That's exactly right.

When they walked up, it was definitely not working. In plain English, that means that they may have tested the jammer at 147, and it's disabled because it's jammed. They drove away, for whatever reason, and then came back at 212, and it had reignited again and was back up and running, and now captured this image. That's right. And perhaps when he walked up, it wasn't running in his pocket. Okay, so the theory being that the perp had a Wi-Fi jammer. He tested it at 147 and it worked. It successfully turned off Nancy Guthrie's Wi-Fi.

But by the time he went back at 212, it had turned back on, which is why he got caught on camera. And those images were recoverable by the FBI. This does dovetail somewhat with the neighbor's home near Nancy, who's now saying that their Wi-Fi stopped working for a time on the night Nancy went missing. Here is, well, this is video 50 where Brian Enten shows. us this. Let's take a look. Okay, so he's just showing us that that's Nancy's house and he's at the neighbor's house where the Wi-Fi went, where the cameras are and where their, their Wi-Fi stopped working the night that Nancy went missing. I don't know. This is like, this is awfully

coincidental, Will, that you've got the neighbor's Wi-Fi that night that stops working. It's right, the camera, the camera stopped working. I mean, we can presume, I guess, it's possibly Wi-Fi-related. And there's been a lot of speculation, as you know, about whether that guy was, whether what was in his pocket, the patio suspect, was a Wi-Fi jammer. Yeah, so the first thing I'd want to check, Megan, is the timestamp of the neighbor's outage of their Wi-Fi to see whether there is any indication of this corresponding at the same time as Nancy's being taken out or being utilized. I mean, using Wi-Fi jammers is not that difficult. You can get them in a reasonably small size, but you can also check them.

I have used them myself on operations and projects. And what you can find is it will knock out not just the Wi-Fi, but 3G, 4G, 5G as well. And you can test it remotely. You don't have to necessarily go up to the target location, test it there. You would generally have it on you. You would check it, make sure it's running. And again, depending on where it might be inserted,

if it was put into the rockery at the front of the property, as it in what we call a green option. So it's disguised or camouflaged. And then it knocks out the Wi-Fi. That's always a possibility. But they're relatively easy to get your hands on, Megan. And if you do have any kind of Wi-Fi connected cameras, yep, they will knock them out.

Hmm. I mean, our producer, Jake Whitman, who helped us do that Wi-Fi demonstration, remember that we did with the Nest camera, he tells us that when you approach the Ness doorbell camera and it's on, the doorbell button lights up very bright. He says it happens about six feet away as you approach. It's impossible to miss. And it tells you that the camera is capturing you, which I suppose is not a great indicator for an intruder that his Wi-Fi jamming is no longer in effect from 147 and that by 212 it's gone off, which, you know, again, this may not be a Mensa member that we saw in NAM. Nancy's patio fits. And he may have found out the hard way when he returned in this video or watching here that if he had tried to jam it at 147 and now it's 212, that has a limited lifespan. Yeah, and Megan, I remember watching this video with you minutes after it was released

and we were going through it, you know, frame by frame we were trying to anyway. Well, I mean, this adds to the pre-offense behavior, which I've talked about a few times in the past. attempt at least a sophisticated, you know, a method of getting in this house and breaking down, you know, any kind of electrical device or communication device, obviously in the bombings of Iran, you know, that's being done by the U.S. or shutting down Internet and disabling all kinds of communication devices. Here's something, of course, very much different, very isolated to one home. And this guy went out of his way to buy this. Now, what does that tell you? What did he know about this house and the system contained therein before even going there. To me, that's even more

supportive of the fact that he's been to this house before January 11th or sometime before that, a worker involved with security systems, who knows what, a vendor of some sort, and it's not just chance that you happen to have a disabling device such as this for the Wi-Fi. I never knew you could buy these type things. I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure Intel agencies had them, probably the bureau, et cetera. But I'll go with what Will said. If you can buy these commercially and just use them yourself, I'm not sure there's a legitimate purpose for shutting down someone's Wi-Fi

other than what this guy's doing. But good for him for at least attempting that, even though it didn't exactly work out. So yeah, not on Men's list, that's for sure. I mean, if I can jump in there. I'll give you floor one second, but I will say this. The way you can avoid this at home is hardwire your cameras, hardwire. You don't rely on the Wi-Fi.

Go ahead, Will. Yeah, well, Wi-Fi is always going to be fallible. It's a massive risk and it's always going to be vulnerable. But to cover off a couple of the points that you can fit is covered. The first would be the actual camera light coming on to detect, obviously, is that one coming to the front door? Now, that will have probably very little to do with the Wi-Fi and we'll work on what we call a passive infrared.

So it's an intrusion detection. So if any object comes close to it, then the light will switch on. The second thing is, with these blockers, as I mentioned, it will also take out all cell phone signals. So if someone's coming in to do, say, a snatch or to break into a property, and they want to disable the communications by anybody inside of the house, other than, of course, the landline, then a blocker is perfect for that

because it will knock out obviously any cell phone signal and the ability to be able to utilize it. Hmm. Well, how does that affect, if at all, the data that Nancy's pacemaker appears to have been coordinating, communicating with her phone up until 228 that night, Will. So, like, if he was using a Wi-Fi jammer, wouldn't it have presumably knocked out the communication between her cell phone and the pacemaker?

I mean, you're saying it would shut down the communications of the cell phone. Absolutely. So that raises a very, very interesting question as to the viability of actually using a blocker, because it would have, I mean, without knowing the mic and model of the actual pacemaker, whether it worked on a cached information that as soon as the connection was regained, and that would be the block has either switched off or it's gone out of the area, then that information pulses through, or how often it's received actually at the base station or at the monitoring center.

Again, if it's permanent and it's constant, which I would imagine it should be with a pacemaker, then yes, any interruptions of that signal should activate some sort of alarm or certainly some communication to the user or a monitoring station to say there's been a lesson signal. Just to clarify, are you saying that in your experience then a Wi-Fi jammer would knock out not because, you know, we've all had the situation where our Wi-Fi isn't working on our phone, but the cell service will kick in and keep you able to communicate. But are you saying in your experience, a Wi-Fi jammer would shut down both your Wi-Fi and your cell service? Yes.

it would knock out your data. So any kind of internet connection will be knocked out as well. So if you have a combined unit, so there are lots of different types of units out there, you can get your hands on, Megan. There are ones which will literally take out cell phone signals. There were ones which will take out Wi-Fi, and there are ones which are combined that will do them both.

Wow. Again, this doesn't sound great, James. Well, no. And we were talking, I think, you know, early on about, you know, as much as we might want to say these people aren't that smart, like I said a long time ago, well, we haven't caught them. So they're not that dumb. And I do want to just highlight, there's a lot of talk within, you know, my circles of FBI folks that,

you know, South American threat, you know, South American groups that go around and do these real high-end burglaries that you see with all NFL stars, you know, that this is their MO, that they do pre-operational surveillance, they dress like this, they use, jammers. They use burner phones, cell phones. This to me would speak to a lot of what we're seeing here. You know, the inability to have any type of evidence without, you know, for instance, the DNA or any type of, you know, people know when who these individuals are, well, if they're coming from out of the country, you're not going to know who they are. You know, not getting any type of cell phone evidence so far. We haven't seen any updates on that, which we're kind of surprised by. And the last show, we talked a lot about the Bureau's capability. Well,

you're running burner phones. It's really hard to really do anything with that. And then, you know, so that's a, for me, I think a really good lead that hopefully someone at the bureau, if Sheriff Nano will let them do it, is working on. But I did want to double back that interview. And I think I heard this correctly that he told that interviewer that, you know, there's a hundred thousand cars they're looking at that night at 2 a.m. Well, certainly that must have been an ability to misspeak. There can be 100,000 cars at 2 a.m. within a two-mile proximity of her home in Tucson. Right.

That's like every member of Tucson, every resident. Right, at 2 a.m. So I just, I don't like to put down the importance of that looked like IKEA to me, that little white car. But there couldn't have been that many cars out that late at night. That's a good lead. And I just maybe didn't like that comment. Well, I didn't like any of the comments, Megan. Wait, I want to hear both of those comments.

I want to hear what you're going to say, Will. Then I also want to hear. I was just going to say I didn't like anything that the sheriff said. But I had to take a break first. Stay on back. Relief actor loves hearing from pain-free customers and hopes they can help you next. One user, Bill, said, quote, I've been crawling under sinks and working long hours for decades. My back and knees took the punishment, and I thought pain was just part of the trade.

But relief factor surprised me. Within weeks, I was working without wincing. I could get down on the floor and get back up again without thinking twice. Bill knows hard work. He knows pipes, tools, and long days on the job. What he didn't know. is how good life feels when pain stops tagging along. Maybe it's back pain or knee issues that's slowing you down, but Relief Factor may be able to help. Relief Factor's 100% drug-free. It targets the

inflammation that causes pain, so you can move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 804 relief. Let's see if you're next in getting out of pain. I want to tell you about veracity. It's transforming the way we think about health by focusing on the real root cause of so many issues. Metabolism. Their metabolism, Ignite formula, has become the go-to for many. It's the number one doctor-recommended GLP-1 booster and a natural GLP-1 alternative. Veracity says there are no side effects, no allergens, that it's just a plant-based blend, clinically shown to reduce hunger by 85 percent, and help people lose an average of nine pounds in 90 days.

Consider making the switch to GLP-1's The Natural Way. Head to Veracityhealth.co. and use the code Megan for up to 60% off your order. Once again, that's veracityhealth.c.O for up to 60% off and make sure you use my promo code Megan so they know I sent you. 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, Lake Lauren, Moran Callahan, Emily Dershinsky, 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. We're back now with our panel. Okay, Will, you wanted to say something about the Sheriff Nottos interview. Yeah, the whole thing, Megan, just, it just grated and made me cringe.

I have to say I've been involved in a number of missing persons cases. Some have turned into just disappearances, some of them have turned into kidnappings. But, you know, the first thing was the optimism that he pushed forward. And that's something you've got to couch so carefully. The family are watching, loved ones, friends, all sorts of people are watching. You can't get people's hopes up unnecessarily. And the second thing is I'm no law enforcement expert,

and you've got two, the Bureau's finest, are with me here on the panel, and I'm sure they'll have their opinions on it. But he was talking about evidence, and there is a distinct difference between intelligence and evidence. And when he's talking about the 100,000 or so cars that were driving past, he referred to his evidence. And in my book, that is purely intelligence until you can prove it to pee evidence. We did look it up. There's 500,000 residents of Tucson.

And in that clip, he said, we're looking at that vehicle as well as hundreds of thousands of other vehicles that were out driving that time of day. Yeah, to your point, James, not too plausible, not at 2.30 in the morning. But can I just follow up with you on your comment about, you know, potential? south of the border intrusion into Nancy's house. The biggest thing in my mind, undermining that theory has always been, why? Like, where's the ransom demand, right? Wouldn't that have been a ransom type operation? And we believe one never came unless you believe, you know, that crypto demand that happened

early on. No, so, yeah, my bad. The South American, you know, theft groups are not a cartel. They're not a Mexican crime. cartel type of situation. They are predominantly from Columbia, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and they do high-end burglaries. They go into homes usually at night that they've done pre-operational surveillance of, and then they steal. And then, you know, they're very famously linked to NFL players, Travis Kelsey, Joe Burrow, the Cincinnati Bengals quarterback, and

what do you mean linked to them? Travis Kelsey? They hit their houses. He's operating a South American burglary ring? No, they hit their houses and stole their stuff while they were playing in games. And, you know, it made, yeah, and the Bureau has been looking at it for several years. It's a very organized group. They're very good of what they do. And what they really specialize in are these, you know, high-end residential burglaries. And they really like homes like Nancy Guthrie's house, which is, you know, desolate,

backed up to either woods, golf course, trails, something like that. and they show some type of pre-operational surveillance. All those things are hitting with regards to this case. And if you look, I mean, anyone can do a quick Google search of previous South American Thief Group, you know, CCTV footage. And it's the same MO. You'll see them. They're operating with their backpacks, hoods on, black gloves.

It's, you know, again, it's a lead that I think certainly nano or somebody needs to be working on. But the question would be then fits, why? take Nancy? Because if we go by the Wi-Fi jammer discussion, and, you know, that's got some asterisks on it, per the discussion with Will. Like if they had a Wi-Fi jammer that would have shut down the cell phone, why aren't they telling us that the cell phone stopped communicating with the pacemaker earlier than 212? It should have stopped communicating around 147 when they did the alleged jamming. But why would they take, why would South America, Americans take Nancy. And anyway, what I was going to go for on the timing was if the intruder video

on the porch was from 212, right, jammed at 147, the guy showed up at 212. And we are told that that we believe the reporting is that that was at 212 that we saw the video of the guy trying to get in. It shortens the time that the guy was inside the house from 212 to 228 potentially, which is only 16 minutes by my math. And I guess you could get in and start robbing a place, but like to get in, rob the place and grab an old lady and get back out to the car in 16 minutes. It still leaves me so many questions. Why would a South American burglary ring want an 84-year-old lady?

Right. Go ahead, Fiss, but let me jump on that after Fiss. Yeah, just real quick, and I appreciate what James was saying. Back in the 90s, it was the Yaks, Ugoes, Albanians, Croats, and Slavs who were doing these kind of high-end burg. They were very difficult to catch. They would wear uniforms like this and whatever. And real quick, when the jammer, if that, you know, I'm not sure how reverse engineering can take place to determine if that did in fact happen at the Guthrie residents as well as the neighbors.

That would be very good to know. And there's also one more product. I'm not sure how many people are out there buying Wi-Fi jammers on wherever site you can buy them. But that's something, I'm not giving anything away here. Obviously, the investigators are looking into. If in fact that's valid, let's find out who's been buying, you know, these type of jammers over the next. over the last year. But yeah, back to Mrs. Guthrie. There's no doubt through her daughter, she's worth some money, multiple millions of dollars. The reward itself is for one. But did they

really think, I can see NFL players and other celebrities getting the bling ring out in L.A., those kind of people getting burglarized, but Mrs. Guthrie, especially if we think someone may have been in the house, I don't think there's any information she had, you know, expensive artwork or jewelry, any of the pictures we see doesn't have that with our. So I'm not sure this would be a classic place to burglarize, maybe some teenagers looking for booze or something, but that's not what we have here. And then the burglary goes bad,

and they wind up kidnapping, which just ups the stakes so exponentially in so many different ways in terms of the risk value. So I would be very surprised if this was, in fact, a burglary like that. James is right in who he describes doing these things, the yaks, as we used to call them back in the 90s, but I'm not sure this would be the ideal house they would go after because they wouldn't have the quick merchandise to get rid of within a day or so. Go ahead, James.

Yeah, I was just going to say that we do have information very early on that there was forced entry, that, of course, we haven't heard directly from the sheriff, but we did hear from other law enforcement sources. There was forced entry to the back of the house. So there was two people, which a lot of people have always thought there was more than just a guy on the front porch. So your timeline might be a little off if we've got people going in the back. they're already inside. And if they expected for her to not be there, for it to be an empty home like they usually do,

and then, God forbid, there she is, and there's a struggle, or something happens. You know, and she dies, God forbid. None of us have ever really said this was a kidnapping. I think Will and I, from the very beginning, have always felt like this was an abduction, not necessarily a kidnapping because there was no ransom. So, God forbid, they do a robbery.

She dies either through a heart attack or they hit her or something, causing the blood. What do you do with the body? They decide to take it. Well, maybe they think they can take it down south. Again, I think it's strange. But that's the thing about this case. It's never made any sense to me.

Why take the body? Why do that? It's never made any sense to me. Because, by the way, it's hard to do. It's hard to carry, if she's 100 pounds. It's hard to carry a 100-pound body out. You know, you need a couple people. 150, reportedly.

Well, then it's even harder. You know, it just has never made any sense to me. But the more I look at these photos of these, all of these other South American gangs that have been caught in the last three years, it's the same MO. It's the backpack. It's the hood. It's the face covering. It's the Wi-Fi Jammer. Working in pairs, black gloves. It's just on and on and on, the more I look at it. I think, you know, I'm not saying that that's it 100%, but I certainly would be going down that lead bucket, and that's exactly what they're working on now are, you know, buckets of leads

that somebody, certainly, I hope from the Bureau, is working that angle. Well, that would explain some of the sophistication that we do see. I'm like that we've kind of been making fun of this guy because of the vegetation to cover the doorbell camera. But, you know, the whole mouth light and a Wi-Fi jammer potentially and the face covering. I'm like this is not, it didn't look like necessarily the guy's first rodeo. And that, I mean, that would be consistent. Go ahead, Will. Yeah, I mean, there's two aspects that the OCGs, the organized crime groups that do these high-end robberies and home invasions.

We have a lot of them over here in Europe, for example, and again, they target professional sportsmen when they're off playing a game somewhere around the world or certainly in Europe, or if they're on vacation and they publicise it on their social media, letting everybody know the bandits included that their home is vacant and it can be broken into. But these guys aren't shy about turning up,

robbing the house, zip-tying the family, if need be, and then obviously getting them to open safes and that sort of thing and hand over various jewellery. Sorry, James, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'm still going with a kidnapping on this one. My feeling, Megan, fundamentally, is on all these robberies of high ends or even low ends or whatever, the likelihood of removing the occupant is going to be very, very low. They'll zip tie them, they'll suppress them.

I don't think Nancy probably could have put up much of a fight against a couple of intruders, or certainly the lump that turned up at her front door. And my feeling is that it's because it's Savannah's mum and because it got so much traction so quickly in the media, I think ultimately, whoever took and whatever intention they had in issuing a ransom demand against the return of Nancy, I think they panicked. And I think, very sadly, I think they've probably disposed of Ms. Guttery. I still have my money on the whole thing was a murder made to look like an abduction. That's if I had to put money, like, you know, people stop me on the street and I'm sure they stop you guys all the time to say, what do you think happened? If I had to place a bet, I'd say somebody had a reason to get rid of her. And they went in there, they grabbed her, they got rid of her.

And this was never a kidnapping or anything else. It was a murder and a cover up, you know, to get her. rid of the body. Fitz, your thoughts? Yeah, it goes back to one of the first words I use with you four weeks ago, victimology of not just Mrs. Guthrie, Nancy herself, but certainly Savannah and our family members. Who did they upset over the years, not just months, but years we learned, you know, maybe decades. Is there some other reason there that, and I'm not saying one of the family members undertook this, and I'm repeating myself here, but there's a reason for it. You know, I'm following it.

I like to bring a little bit of historical basis here when I can. And I'm following a podcast now about the case of the missing candy eras, Helen Brock. From 1977, she just disappeared out of nowhere, never to be found. She was a very wealthy woman. So different in that regard. There's no forced entry that we know of her blood. But she just disappeared after a trick to the Mayo Clinic out of suburban Chicago. It's a very interesting story.

Never solved, no idea where she is. And that's been over almost 50 years. I'm just hoping this isn't the same type of case that never goes anywhere. There was no video of people coming in the door, of course, back in the late 70s. But in this case, we have that. But I think somewhere in the emails are people that have visited one or more of the family members, that will be the culprit here, if not the person himself, an associate of his. And that's how this thing will get eventually resolved.

And we hope it does. And we hope by chance, Mrs. Guthrie makes that alive. Fitts, I know you got to go. Thank you for your input and expertise, as always. I'm going to continue on with Will and James. The thing that undermines the South American theory is, yeah, potentially that they didn't demand a ransom. And, like, I don't know. I think, to me, why would they target, like, Nancy's home wasn't even the nicest home there. Like, there's been reporting that the neighborhood has got a lot nicer homes than Nancy. So if you're going to go in there and target somebody, why would you go to her house? And I'm sure they would have done some surveillance of the house. It's not like Nancy was a world traveler and they could see, oh, that house is never occupied.

You know, let's hit that one up. I think she was an 84-year-old lady who was there, most of the days and most of the hours of most of the days. So I don't know if that makes much sense to me. It does make sense to me, though, if you think about where's the evidence that they left behind, Where's the DNA? Where are the fingerprints? Where are the mistakes? Right. Like that... Right. But then I'll argue against myself because it doesn't look like the sheriff is the most sophisticated investigator.

If I've got James Fitz and Will on this case from the beginning, then I have confidence. But I feel like, you know, with all due respect to the sheriff, I don't have any confidence in him. So is it that the guy left no clues or is it that the sheriff found none will? Right. I don't think. I think the problem is they've had probably so many inquiries. They've had so many tips. They've had so many pieces of information. And we've got this undercurrent of disdain that the Sheriff Holtz, the Bureau in, that he is not collaborating. There's no teamwork. I mean, I think as you isolated just now, Megan, you know, if it was Fitz, James and myself, you know, we'd all played well together and we'd all throw in together and brainstorm what avenues we should pursue and look at. What we've got here is two separate camps trying to achieve the same goal and ultimately not working well together. And I think the problem, just in that statement that you played a little earlier, Megan, of what he was saying and the lack of understanding, the difference between intelligence and evidence just speaks volumes to me about someone who doesn't really understand probably anything more

than just very low-level criminality. Well, and also, James, the thing about the sheriff's statement, and I'm glad you raised this will because it speaks to a lack of carefulness. He's not careful the sheriff is. Like, we've seen him misstate facts repeatedly and then have to go back and say, oh, I misstated that. You know, just the one that comes to mind, but there have been many is he said she was taken from her bed. And then he came out and said, oh, I misstated that. I didn't mean to say that. And then, of course, Savannah came out in her statement and said our mother was taken from her bed. So who knows what the truth is? But he's not careful. And I think,

If this were my mother, I would want somebody running this investigation who is extremely careful. And when you're not careful with your language, you're not careful behind the scenes either. Yeah. Well, that's what Will was saying with regards to false hope, you know, and saying we're going to find her. Well, you can't do that. I mean, you can say, we'll do everything in our power to find her. We've got everybody and their brother working on this thing. We won't stop until we have answers.

But to tell the family, you know, that we're going to find her alive. I don't think you can do that. Not careful. To your point, Megan, not careful at all. And I would just, you know, back to your question about why her house, you know, there's kind of always been two theories on this deal. It's they knew who she was, you know, kind of your theory, Megan, it was a murder because they knew who she was. They went in to get her by name. And then there's the random, right?

Wrong play. They hit this house. They didn't know who it was. And now, like Will said, this big crap storm comes down on. I'm like, oh, my God. So, you know, that could definitely be in play with regards to this criminal, you know, burglary group. But the reason that the house could have been targeted is just based on layout, just based on,

yeah, it may not be the, quote, unquote, nicest house in the neighborhood, but it might have been the most accessible, meaning it offered the best ingress, egress, an ability to conceal yourself coming and going. And that might have overwled maybe, oh, that, you know, house on the streets looks nicer, but they might have said, but this looks, you know, from an operational standpoint, easier to get in and out of and keep ourselves, you know, hidden. So you got to think about those things. But wouldn't you think, James, if that were the case, like South Americans, and I'm very interested in what you're saying about how this is their MO, if you look at how that guy looked and approached the front door. But, like, wouldn't we be seeing a pattern in Tucson?

You know, what are the odds that the first time they tried to do this in Tucson, they hit on Savannah Guthrie's mom's house? Well, no, there's a lot of evidence about, you know, operating in the Tucson area, Scottsdale. I mean, it's all over the country. It's not germane just to one particular area. And so, you know, there are cases of these groups in Arizona. That's just a fact. So, you know, again, did it just happen to be this first one in Tucson? I don't think so.

But we don't know because, you know, they haven't been caught. Okay. Here's more. Our pal Ashley had an interesting episode the other day where she had on a bunch of bunch of investigators and just ask them their theory. Like, what do you think happened? And one, a cold case investigator named Paul Holes, he had a couple of thoughts that I wanted to run by you guys. Here's, let's listen to SOT 55 first. You know, everybody right now is thinking that this crime occurred in a linear fashion. You know, you have Nancy coming home from dinner, garage doors closing,

and then a fender shows up on her front porch. And then he gets into the house, assaults Nancy, ducks Nancy drives off. Based on other cases that I've worked, I would not dismiss the possibility that the offender was inside the house when Nancy came home. And now he is attacking Nancy, getting control of her or worse, and then going out in front with that costume on, and posing in front of the camera at a certain time of night saying, here I am, the bad guy that came and abducted Nancy. This guy, he was actually on our show in June of 2022 on the Golden State Killer Case, episode 344.

So that's kind of interesting. I don't totally understand why he'd be going out front in his little get-up if he already had control of Nancy other than to just make it look like something other than what it was. and I'm just going to give you a little bit more from his theory before I toss it to you guys. Here's SOT 56. I think the video of him on that front porch with that costume on is so compelling, based on, that he is wanting to be seen.

He wants to be seen in that costume because he's going, this is an abduction for ransom. And I believe thoroughly, this is misdirection. He was there to harm Nancy, and he pre-planned this crime to see. set it up to look like it's this this abduction for ransom. When the offender does that, that's what we call staging. And that's because the offender in his mind thinks that he is likely going to be a suspect. And this could be somebody very close to Nancy, or could be somebody who delivered something to her house a year prior. But in his mind, he's going, I have a connection to her, the victim. I have a connection to that address. And so I have to make it

look like something it's not. This is very funny because I listened to that episode by Ashley, but I was tired when I was listening to it and I kind of drifted off for part of it. And I missed Paul Holz's theory entirely. I guess I slept through his part. And my executive producer, Steve Crackauer, who is as into this case as we are, he was like, did you hear the Paul Holza? I'm like, no.

Anyway, that is very interesting, you guys, that this, I mean, if that's what this is, that this is brilliant, that he was inside the whole time. This was all meant to get rid of Nancy, but then as a misdirection, he goes outside in the get-up with the mouth light and the whole, like, we can't rule it out. Paul Holes is legit. I saw you shaking in your head, no, though, Will. You don't like it. I'm not liking it at all.

I don't know what James is going to say on it. I've always run on a very linear basis with many of these things. In 30-odd years of dealing with kidnap and ransom and missing people, it's usually pretty straightforward. You never kidnap the person who's going to pay the ransom. You're going to make sure that the person that you do kidnap is connected to someone who has sufficient money to be able to pay a ransom. It is as simple as that.

I think staging this sort of masquerade outside of standing out there with the gun in the wrong holster with the baggy clothes with the ski mask on. I think it's too high-faluted and it doesn't sit well with my gut. We're on vacay right now, James. And the other night we watched the movie The Others. It was, you know, it's 20 years old with Nicole Kidman. And I'm going to do a spoiler here. So if you haven't seen the others, you might want to turn down the sound.

But it's about Nicole Kidman raising her kids in this creepy house that's haunted and they're having to deal with ghosts all the time. They don't know what this is. And the kids say, oh, I see a little boy. And she's like, there's no little boy. You're weird. What's happening? And at the end of the movie, you find out that here's the spoiler.

She and the children are the ghosts. And the alleged ghosts they're seeing are the real people who have moved into the house. This is that level twist. If that's like, this guy is a setup and not at all, like, there to abduct Nancy, but really just there to throw us off and make us think that there may be like a South American or some kind of connection and really this whole thing was a was a murder that's happened inside the house from a guy lying in wait who's very clever and has maybe been watching a lot of true crime yeah i'm with will i don't i don't buy any of that i think it's interesting um but why would you

put the get up on it i think the investigator's theory was that he wanted to be caught well if he wants to be caught then take the mask off and expose yourself um the actions on the porch the more you the cup of the hand and Will explaining the light. You know, to me, it just looks like the guy's trying to see is the jammer not working. You know, and I want to see, yeah, right there is my, he's cupping that thing to see the light in the camera to see if the thing is on or not. That's what it looks to me like that's what he's doing. With the, this, you know, the flowers, it's, you know, trying to see, am I getting any type

of light from the motion detector, you know, to me that makes complete sense if they don't think their jammer is actually working. But as far as him waiting inside while, you know, for her to get home, that you'd have to know a lot. You'd have to know a lot about where she was, what time she's expected back. But why take the body? Also, what happened to her then, James? Like what happened if she, if when she got home, you know, around 9 o'clock that night, what happened between 9 and 2.30 a.m.? They just sat there having tea.

Like, yeah, exactly. It doesn't make sense. communicating like what was going on it doesn't make sense the evidence doesn't speak to that and then why take the body if you're going to just beat her up and kill her why take the body i mean i've worked a lot of homicides and they just don't take the body like it that's never made sense to me if it was a purely you know i know who she is i'm going to kill her then why take the body right that doesn't make sense but not getting and again we haven't got a lot of information out of anyone on this case but not having any DNA, not having a fingerprint, not having any IMI cell phone information,

again, speaks to people that know what they're doing or there's no record of these people. You've got to remember if it is a group coming from another country, we're not going to have DNA fingerprints. That stuff doesn't, it doesn't work that way. So if you come in here on a tourist visa from Peru or Chile, they don't swab you and take your DNA or your fingerprints when you're coming here as a tourist. So we're not going to have that information. That, to me, again, speaks to the lack of matching of any type of evidence that they've found in the case. It's just so confusing. I mean, Matt Murphy, you know, former prosecutor in Orange County, California, wrote the book of murder.

He's all along been reminding us there is the possibility of a sexual assault here, even though, you know, it's terrible to think about this old lady. But we've all seen cases in which that's happened. I mean, if that were the case, there would be a reason to take the body. because there would definitely be potentially identifying DNA. And even without a sexual assault, there may have been the risk of DNA. There was a struggle. Clearly, there was a struggle. And maybe they were worried that their DNA got on her and she was deceased and they were not going to leave behind.

You know, this was obviously somebody who was somewhat careful. And it's possible this person said, I'm not leaving that behind. I'm taking the evidence of my presence here with me. But that doesn't answer the why of why they were there. to begin with something we're just all still scratching our heads about. So at this point, you guys, do you think, so she was taken on the first of February, and now we are on March 10th. So do you think, do you think, Will, like, where would you put that likelihood that an arrest in this case will be made, some 20? Wow. I don't want to do the math. What day are we on 35?

I think there's all to. I think if the investigation is led correctly, and I think if all the leads that are pursued, there's every good chance, and there's a very good probability that the contributing intelligence to become evidence will be generated from a neighbor will come from the technology

that James has just been referring to, that if that is interrogated correctly, if it's providenced, then there's every good chance that they may find someone. And I personally think that, you know, there was evidently a struggle. You know, they picked up, obviously, on the, and confirmed the blood on the porch area outside the front door was Nancy's. So there evidently was a struggle in removing her from that property. Whether she was assaulted sexually or otherwise, we don't know, obviously, at this stage.

Ultimately, I think it is going to be the recovery of Nancy. Unfortunately, I don't believe in any great condition. I'm sad to say, certainly at this time and period where I've had a drop in any kind of communications, whether because of the panic of, say, if it was a kidnapping, the kidnappers fearing that their apprehension is going to be so much more heightened. Now it's got so much publicity that, you know, more often than not, and I think I've referred to as a similar case when I was in South Africa, where a young girl was taken and it was publicized in the local newspaper, garnished a lot with the local TV, the kidnappers killed the hostage, and they were never found. They found the dead body of the

hostage, and that was it. Day 38, to correct myself. Go ahead, James, your thoughts on whether we will actually get a resolution in this case. I feel like you will get a resolution. The inability to, you know, find an 84-year-old woman and her never to be found, it's just incredibly rare. It's so rare. I know Fitch was talking about some case that he's looking at, but that's why he's looking at it, because they are so incredibly rare. They just don't happen where the body just, you know, goes away. The person just vanishes off the face of the earth, especially an 84-year-old woman. So I feel, I feel like we're going to get, you know, some type of resolution in this case eventually. But, you know, whether she's still with us, as the days go on, I'm less and less hopeful for

that just based on, you know, my past. And it's unfortunate to say, but I think we will finally get some resolution, but it's going to be a while. Every day I wake up thinking we're going to have a break, but nothing. And you never know. I mean, they may be a lot closer than we know. It took 47 days between the Idaho four murders and the day we found out that they had arrested Brian Colberger. So 47, and now we're on day 38. Again, it's not, doesn't mean we're, we have have another nine or ten days. It's just just as a benchmark. It's kind of interesting because there too. We thought that we were

dealing with buffoonery and cops who didn't know what they were doing. And sure enough, they did indeed and they got their man. It was now behind bars for the rest of his life. Guys, thank you both so much. Love talking to you. Welcome. Great seeing you. Now, the last thing

I wanted to say to the audience before, to all of you, before we go, is there was video released recently of Savannah back on the Today Show set. She's back in New York. And this past Thursday, this was released of Savannah in Studio 1A. TMZ has the video back saying thank you to all of her colleagues. You can see it's the cast of the Today Show and the crew of the Today Show.

And I have to say, this struck me as an incredible. extremely cynical thing for NBC to do. I'm intimately familiar with Studio 1A and the facilities all around it, and there was plenty, plenty of space for them to do this reunion without putting it on camera for all of us to see. Obviously, they wanted to show us, Savannah in there hugging everybody and everybody hugging her. And in my view, NBC turned this moment into a PR opportunity, because throughout this thing,

they have been pushing the live that it's just one big happy family at the Today Show. Meanwhile, just read the Daily Mail because at least once a week there is some backstabbing article about what's really happening behind the scenes there and how their eye rolling that she's back and now she's like their boss and they're going to have to behave differently now that she's back and about how Hoda is desperate to get back on this set and get her seat back. And NBC did not need to do this. First of all, there are covers for those windows. So if they really just wanted to make it easy and not move the crew immediately outside the actual studio that's on air, they could have lowered the window covers.

Second of all, there's plenty of space right outside of the studio. But they put this on display, which is just voyeuristic in my view. Like, this is so weird. And look, they have Savannah basically facing out the windows and all the crew sitting there like her court. You know, the queen is back and this is her court. This is very, very vile to me. Like, if she wants to make a statement on camera the way she has, everybody's going to listen to that. But what they're trying to do is image building for NBC and the Today Show here.

And I find it abhorrent. I think Savannah should have said no to it. And I think the executives there should have known better than to take an intimate moment like that and make sure that they had cameras catch it outside of Studio 1A just to pump up their image. Because in the end, it's all about ratings and put it out to the public. just so, so cynical and reinforces, you know, what we've been reading behind the scenes in the press. And frankly, as I pointed out to you before, my own experience, it's not the one big happy family. It's just not. It's a bunch of backstabbing, you know what's over there who are worried about themselves.

And I'm sure there is a lot of now what she wants to come back. What does that mean for Hoda, who's gotten awfully warm in the seat? And for the others who are enjoying being their own queen bee. when Savannah's been out. And I include Craig Melvin in that, too. I'm sure he's been enjoying being the elder statesman, which he's not, while she's been off the set. And then, you know, they're sure to release the statement of Hoda without her makeup

on doing the hard hug of Savannah. You know, everyone knows Hoda regretted leaving that seat as soon she did. They wouldn't pay her reported the amount she wanted because the Today Show does not make the kind of money. it used to. They're no longer the dominant, independent media source, not independent, but media source at all, the way that today show used to be. I mean, they used to be getting like huge, huge, five, six million every day, more than that. And now they don't. Now they don't. And so they couldn't pay this exorbitant salary demand. And she left. She reportedly left in a huff. And you know what happens when you leave a place in a huff? You wind up regretting it, especially when you're somebody

who needs to see themselves on TV. Hoda began that little independent I don't know, conversations and cars, which is bombing. Bombing. So I'm sure she's loving her time back in the spotlight. But, you know, she's got to be seen as the one who's really like the soft place to fall. She's the hugger. She's the one everybody loves. Okay.

Let's just say there are questions about whether that's real. And I just thought that was horrible. I really think that I forgive Savannah for it because if she's in a compromised state, I'm sure she didn't, she just kind of went along with whatever they said. But I think that the classy move would have been for NBC to say, let's allow her the privacy she deserves. And we will have a thanking of the cast and crew behind closed doors like an actual family would have done. Okay, that'll do it for us today. We are back tomorrow with an update from a remote location where we are.

And thank you to all of you for listening and making this show possible, which is independent, today and every day. And tomorrow we will be back with our pals from Turning Point, Andrew Colvette and Blake Neff. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.