The Megyn Kelly Show - Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty on All Counts, with Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Branca, Mark Eiglarsh, and Angenette Levy | Ep. 207

Episode Date: November 19, 2021

Megyn Kelly is joined by Glenn Greenwald, editor at Substack, Andrew Branca, self-defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, defense attorney, and Angenette Levy, Law&Crime Network reporter, to talk about the breaking news that Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts, the media coverage of the case, the jury deliberation process, the focus on the judge, MSNBC's coverage from Joy Reid as well as their ethical breach by following the jury van, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Hail to the chief. Kamala Harris is now President Harris. Have you heard the news? Yes, President Biden has briefly handed over his presidential powers to Kamala Harris this morning. We'll explain why. But we're going to begin the show today with day four of jury deliberations now underway in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The jury has now deliberated longer than the juries of O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman. I'm joined now by Anjanette Levy, a reporter with Law and Crime who has been at the Kenosha courthouse for the

duration of the trial. We've been showing you some of her videos this week. Welcome, Anjanette. Thanks for being here. Well, Megan, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Sure. So set the scene for us. They began, I guess, would have been two hours ago or two hours ago, Kenosha time, deliberating against them. What's happening there this morning? Well, I just checked in with the clerk and she told me that the jury has ordered lunch. There was a rumor flying around the courthouse that they had declined a lunch order. That's not true. They ordered Subway and she said when it arrives, when it gets here, they will eat. So they are still deliberating. And this all came, of course, after last night when the jury was dismissed a little

after four Central Time, five Eastern Time. And one of the female jurors asked whether she could take the jury instructions home with her. And the judge allowed it despite defense attorney Mark Richards shaking his head no. And, you know, objecting to that just with a head shake, the judge later put it on the record that he allowed them to take them home if they wished because he found them to be confusing. And he said that even the pundits on television said they were confusing. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. I thought that was very bizarre. I've never seen a judge allow that before. Normally, all the all the deliberations take place in the deliberation room with the other jurors and you're not allowed to do at-home study. Here's a little bit of the clip where the judge asks counsel in front of the jury. I mean, it's one of these awkward things because each lawyer wants to be better liked by

the jury. And so you don't want to be the one being like, don't give her what she wants. But what choice did defense counsel have? He didn't want those jury instructions to go home. So you can see in this video what happens as the judge asks the question in front of the jurors and then kind of seems to realize his mistake. Watch. Any questions, anybody? Whether or not I could take the jury instructions home. Can you take the jury instructions home? Yes, but you obviously can't talk to anybody about it. I didn't see a reaction from the state side. I did see a wag of the head by Mr. Richards urging me to say no, but I did anyway. So did you want to make a record on it?

I'm afraid it's going to be the old dictionary game and they start defining words and things like that. The outside research. Yeah. That's my concern. Well, actually, no, because they could do that at home without having the paperwork. And instead they have the wonderful, concise jury instructions. Oh boy. So not only did she get the jury instructions, but he said all of them could take them home if they wanted. Was that do we know? It seems like the jury for a woman, juror number 54, who asked to take them home. I believe that is the jury for a woman. So maybe she's trying to, you know,

herd the cats or something and take charge of this and move things forward. And so, you know, obviously, we would love to know what's going on in that deliberation room and where they're stuck. Okay. And we don't know. Most people would agree at this point that they are definitely stuck, that there's holdouts one way or the other. Because it's, as I point out, it's taken longer than a lot of complex and very, very public cases. It shouldn't be taking this long one way or the other. Because it's as I point out, it's it's taken longer than a lot of complex and very, very public cases. It shouldn't be taking this long one way or the other. I want to get back to juror number 54 in one second. But first, you had a little bit of color from inside the courtroom when you I think it was defense attorney Mark Richards, who you saw, and you asked a question of can you fill us in there? Okay. Oh, yesterday. Yeah. I asked him, he came into the courtroom and we, you know,

anytime anybody enters that courtroom, we all turn immediately. Uh, what's going on, what's going on. And, you know, of course we think he will know anything before us. And we said, what's going on or, you know, how are you doing? And he said, uh, stressed. And, um, he was just coming in to see if anything was happening, which was really a strange moment. But he stressed. I just saw him in the last 10, 15, 20 minutes. I saw him upstairs. I asked him how he was doing again today. And I said, I know that's a dumb question because he obviously is stressed. And he said, there's nothing I can do. So he was coming in wondering if we knew anything

yesterday. But just in the last 20 minutes or so, I spoke with him and they haven't heard anything. It's excruciating for these lawyers not to mention poor Kyle. They haven't asked any questions since Wednesday. Yesterday, they went the whole day without a question, and they haven't asked a question today either. They did ask the other day, dated November 17th, so two days ago, for several exhibits. And the request is signed by presiding juror 54, again, this woman. And it's a little bizarre, I have to say. The way it's worded is a it's strange. It's she's commanding the judge to behave in certain ways. And normally the relationship between jurors and the judge is deferential. He's kind of their boss. He looks after them. He doesn't work for them.

But her request reads as follows. We could put it on the screen if we have it. Please prepare Mr. Rosenbaum's shooting mr rosenbaum shooting she means the video uh and then she has sort of line a line underneath it fbi aerial with all points of interest marked drone video zoomed in um image still zoomed in image still after miss after mr rittenhouse put down the fire extinguisher full event one video in regular and slow motion we will request when ready it just has some people raising their eyes as to is this woman maybe the potential holdout she seems to be in charge she seems to have a strong personality because she's ordering the judge around, perhaps again, when it comes to sending her home with her jury instructions.

And I've also heard reporting that she was one that some on the defense team had originally been worried about as someone who could be anti Kyle Rittenhouse, be in her politics, you know, sort of more left leaning, more anti Second Amendment and more apt not to want to be on a unanimous jury that acquits him. Yeah, it was interesting the way the note was worded, because you would think that they would just ask. And in one of the notes, they did ask whether they had to, where they could view them and how. But yeah, that was interesting. And the drone video, it was interesting because there was this whole argument in the courtroom about it. And the case

law in Wisconsin says they have to come downstairs, but the judge sent it up on a laptop for them. But the drone video, they actually viewed in the courtroom. And there was a lot of argument about that back and forth. And the defense is seeking a mistrial over that, of course, because they say they received that lower resolution, lower quality version of it in the email transfer from the state. So they came down to the courtroom to watch that. But, yeah, it is very interesting that it is. I mean, they are kind of in charge in a way. You know, they are the stars of the show that you don't see. They hold, you know, Kyle Rittenhouse's fate in their hands.

So if they want to see the videos, I guess, you know, they want to see the videos. But it is interesting how it was worded. You are right. They're entitled to. Yeah. It's just the way I mean, I've been a juror. I've been in lots of courtrooms for over a decade. I've never I've never seen something.

I mean, even a lawyer, a lawyer would never speak to a judge like this. It's very commanding. I just wonder what, if anything, it tells us about her. And we have no idea. I want to preface it with that. We have no freaking clue what's going on in there. This woman may or may not be for or against Kyle. Who the heck knows? It's all desperate tea leaf reading from those of us on the outside who want information but cannot get it. A question for you about that videotape, which has become so contentious. And did the prosecution hand over to the defense exactly what it had? It says it did. And that somehow something on the defense counsel's laptop or computer compressed the video so that they had a poorer quality. The defense says absolutely wrong,

that nothing on her computer compressed anything. This is how the prosecution gave it to them. And you can see we're showing it on the screen now. The top version is the blurry version the defense got. The bottom version is the clear version the prosecution had. And the question that some are asking is, apparently there was a screenshot of Prosecutor Binger's computer that showed he had or maybe it was Krause, but one of those Krause. Yeah. Who had handbrake on his computer.

And this is a this is a thing. Why is this a thing? Explain what handbrake is and why people are concerned. It's some kind of software that can do things to videos and edit them. And someone in the courtroom was explaining to me yesterday that it's more like you can use it to rip videos and things like that. So there were people speculating on Twitter that, oh, he's got handbrake on his laptop, so he must have done something. And just to let you know, we had a lengthy conversation about this among us reporters sitting in the

courtroom yesterday waiting for any piece of information. And one of the other reporters in the courtroom told me that Apple actually weighed in on this because it apparently went from either an Outlook or a Gmail email to an Apple email. And he claimed he read that, you know, Apple weighed in on this and said, well, of course we compress a file when we have to compress it to send it through. So there's a lot of this is a pretty serious thing. I don't know if say he's convicted. I don't know if it would be serious enough to overturn the conviction and order a new trial. But there is a lot of speculation about handbrake and did the prosecution, you know, compress this and give them a blurry version so they wouldn't know about it. That would be

a really bad thing. And that's all speculation, I should say. We don't know anything like that. Right. And I think the prosecutor is denying that he did it. And the judge is saying he has his doubts and he may put them on the stand and take under oath testimony from the prosecution. That all comes becomes relevant only if the jury can't reach a verdict and the judge wants to enter one or reaches a guilty plea, guilty verdict, and the judge may overrule it. So that's I think he's postponing ruling on any of this until he has to, you know, if he's placed in a position where he has to. All right. Let me ask you about the two other things. Jump kick man is one of the people in this case who did not take the stand, but is relevant because what Kyle Rittenhouse did to jump kick man as he's become known, he's charged for he's charged with having recklessly endangered that guy. The guy ran over to him on videotape right before Kyle shot Gage Grosskreutz.

And he kicked Kyle in the face. He took a flying leap, hence jump, and kicked Kyle. There's the still of it. And kicked Kyle in the face. And Kyle fired off his gun. He did not hit jump kick man, but he's been charged for firing the gun there now we know the identity of him at least according to the daily mail uh this fact was originally broken by dan o'donnell of wisn 11 30 talk talk show host out there he broke the story that the prosecution had indeed identified jump kick man um dan did not name him but the daily Mail is now saying it it has been in touch with this man. His name is Maurice Friedland. Friedland, according to the Daily Mail, he's 39 years old. They claim he has admitted he is jump kick man. He's a career criminal. And the reporting is that he he said to the D.A. Binger, I'll testify if you give me immunity because he was already facing criminal charges on other matters, serious domestic abuse charges. And Binger said no. So this becomes a problem for the prosecution if in fact they knew who Jumpkick Man was prior to the close of the evidence and did not disclose it to the defense. Well, Megan, I actually it's I found out some information about this this morning

and it's my understanding from a source that the defense learned about this during the first week of the trial, sometime midweek. And the prosecution apparently was going to speak with Maurice Freeland. So we don't know, and I'm still trying to work on finding out when the prosecution learned of his identity. But the prosecution learned of it identity. But the prosecution learned of it at some point in time. We don't know if it was during the trial or before, but they were planning to interview him. And as you stated, they did, I confirm that Freeland wanted immunity in order to testify and Binger and Krause said no. So he didn't testify. If he had been called to

testify, he would have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. He wouldn't wouldn't have done it. And there you have it. So we now know who jump kick man is. When the prosecution learned of his identity, we don't know. But there was some type of interview of him by the prosecution that sounds like it was going to take place during that first week of the trial. Well, when you kicked off your statement about this, you said the defense learned who he was in the first week of the trial. Did you mean to say that? Did the defense know? That's what I, that is what I heard from a source that they found out sometime midweek in the first week of the trial. Okay. They learned of his identity. If that's the case, then there should be no prejudice to kyle rittenhouse right because if his side they can call him yeah exactly exactly if his side knew before the close of evidence to me it's interesting because yet again here's a guy with a disturbing disturbing criminal history um let me see i'm gonna get my daily mail uh article here

here it is okay hold on um he has okay keep in mind the state has painted all of these so-called victims from rosenbaum to uh gage grosskreutz to huber to jump kick man as heroes that they were heroes trying to take down an active shooter we already know about the disgusting criminal history of the other three now we we find out that Maurice was facing charges for an incident that took place months before the riot in Kenosha, March of 2020, between Friedland and his partner, who the partner wound up telling officers that he punched her three times in the chest,

that he threw her to the ground, he kicked her in her lower right ribcage, he began punching the television, he threw her to the ground. He kicked her in her lower right rib cage. He began punching the television. He yelled something to the effect of, you better run, bitch, I'll kill you. His record spans 25 charges across more than 20 years in Kenosha, acts of criminal violence, destruction of property, possession of controlled substances, traffic offenses,

family court violations, escape from custody. He'd been incarcerated in May, released October 24. On and on it goes. Battery, disorderly conduct, possession of, I could go on. The point is, all along, the prosecution's been dying to portray the men who are on the wrong side of Kyle Rittenhouse that night as these sort of innocent victims who were trying to uphold the peace. And when you take a close look at who these men were and how they lived their life, it is utterly unbelievable. Well, I think that you have to look at the other side of the coin, though. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't know this stuff at the time that this happened.

He wasn't aware of those facts. And I think that's part of the reason that it wasn't allowed into evidence in the trial, the criminal records of these people. And of course, you know, but but then the D.A. got up and and painted them as some sort of, you know, citizen warriors. And he stood up in his closing and literally referred to them as heroes. Actually, I'll play the soundbite. Here's here's D.A. A.D.A. Binger in his closing.

And every day we read about heroes that stop active shooters that's what was going on here and that crowd was right and that crowd was full of heroes i mean the fact that that didn't draw an objection And even he danced around this earlier in the trial before closing too. And my own feeling is he opened the door and that prior bad act, those prior bad acts should have come in. But could they in that instance, let's say the truth of the matter is, and that's up to the jury, I think you have to look at it from the side of, well, if Kyle Rittenhouse, according to the state, they say he was an active shooter. If he was indeed an active shooter, which we think of an active shooter as somebody who just runs into a mall or something and starts shooting indiscriminately, maybe they would have been heroes in that instance if they had stopped an active shooter. So I don't know.

But the heroes thing, yeah. I mean, I think a lot of people are like, oh, maybe, maybe, maybe not. I don't know. So but I mean, it would have been a great debate to see, I have to say, because it would have been very easy for defense counsel to object to that. And if Binger then wanted to say no, even though they had these criminal histories, they were heroes trying to stop the active shooter. And then the response would have been great. Let me cross examine junk jumpkick man. And we'll talk all about how he abhors violence and doesn't want to see people get hurt, especially not the people like his girlfriend who he kicked repeatedly in the stomach, all of his incarcerations in the past for violence. Let's go through it. Let's talk

about it. How about Gage Grosskreutz, who slapped his own grandmother and faced criminal charges for what he did? How about Huber, who held a knife to his brother and said he was going to gut him like a pig? I'm sure they abhor violence and were just horrified by Kyle Rittenhouse that night. I mean, I could have made that argument in my sleep as the defense attorney. And I really think in this particular case, I would have been on my seat, the edge of it, waiting for the prosecutor to come anywhere near hero or lionization of the men shot because it would have been fun to dance through that open door. I'll give you the last thought, Jeanette. Could I ask you a question? So since Binger said that in his closing, and I don't remember if that was his closing or his rebuttal, but if he said it in the closing, could the defense have

talked about it in their closing if they had told the judge he opened the door? So how? How? The evidence wasn't in. That's the problem. That's why it was so egregious what Binger did. It had been specifically ruled out of evidence by this judge saying it's too prejudicial to bring that in. You don't bring in somebody's prior criminal record unless unless the prosecution puts him on the stand and tries to then paint them as an angel. Then that's called opening the door. And so the judge didn't think that they actually went that far when they had the witnesses on the stand.

But then Binger gets up in his in his closing and goes further than he'd gone with the hero's remark and the comments you just heard. And if I had been the defense counsel, I would have raised holy hell about it. I would have stopped it. Yeah, and it was closing. I would have asked for a sidebar. Because Krause did the rebuttal. Sorry about that.

Right. So what was Mark Richards supposed to do on his closing? How can he get up and say, they're not heroes? One's a convicted child molester who anally raped several boys between the ages of five and 11. One, you know, hurts grandmas. One hurts family members and threatens to gut them like pigs and so right and on and on. No, it wasn't an evidence. You're not allowed to just offer your own

testimonials as evidence. That's he that would have been improper. So Kyle Rittenhouse is ultimately the person who was put in a terrible position by the way this prosecutor behaved. And it's just one of the many things I think we'll hear more about if this case doesn't go his way. And Jeanette, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Oh, well, thanks for having me. All right. And we will continue to bring you any developments in Rittenhouse as they come. In fact, we're going to continue our coverage because Glenn Greenwald is here. And we're going to talk about what happened with MSNBC yesterday. And I'm going to walk you through exactly what was so wrong with that MSNBC producer. It was a freelance producer. They

tried to deny it initially. Then they were caught and they had to admit it. And NBC is trying to dodge this whole thing. An update for you. President Biden is president again. He has retaken power from President Harris. Wow. Just in the past few minutes, he was he was in the hospital for a colonoscopy and his powers were temporarily ceded. Only the fourth time that that's ever happened. So he's back in power now. Do we feel better? We'll have more on that with Adam Carolla in just a bit. But first, joining me now is Glenn Greenwald. He's a journalist, Substack editor, and was co-founder of The Intercept. Glenn, great to have you. I'm dying to talk to you about MSNBC and their behavior yesterday. So they did, as it turns out, have a freelance journalist

following the jury in a car. Originally, I think the reports were they tried to deny it, then they had to admit it because the police, when they pulled this guy over, he gave up the farm. He was like, I'm a freelancer working for NBC. I was told by Irene back in the booking office in New York City to follow the jurors. This is what I was doing. That's why I ran the red light. And all I could think was, you know, NBC was probably like, shut up, shut up, shut up. Don't you have to admit everything. But he did. And this that part's kind of funny to me. But what he was doing is no laughing matter. Some people are trying to poo poo it like, it's what bookers do. They're aggressive. No, no, no, no, no, no. This this was much

higher stakes in my view. What do you make of it? You're also a lawyer. Obviously, the anonymity of any jury is critical, particularly so in a case that everyone knows has the very real and likely potential of creating social unrest if a jury verdict is delivered that the public dislikes. We've seen over the last year how disruptive and violent and serious such protests can be. And there's no way to have a fair trial for someone accused of two counts of murder, another count of attempted murder, if the jurors feel that an acquittal will endanger their lives or destroy their reputations. And that can happen only if they're guaranteed anonymity. And so to have a major news network, which has made no secret of the fact that it regards acquittal

as a grave injustice, as some kind of expression of racism, they've said that explicitly, following the jury ban to the point where they're so desperate to keep up, they're running red light in order to stay close to them, obviously raises the question of what is the motive and they're doing that. Now, MSNBC, as you said, tried to almost deny it. And then I don't blame him. The freelancer was not willing to go to prison to protect MSNBC, invoke the fact that he was working as a journalist and what he was doing as he was doing that. But then that leaves the question, which MSNBC to this very moment

hasn't answered. They've said we weren't trying to expose the identities of the jurors or take photographs of them. What was the motive? Why were they following a van full of jurors whose anonymity is crucial? That's exactly right. So the MSNBC statement says, last night, a freelancer, trying to distance themselves, he still works for you, sorry, received a traffic citation.

While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations. During deliberations. This is what I said said yesterday he's probably trying to follow them home to find out where they all lived so he could go knock on their doors after the fact not okay sorry bud you're not allowed to do that uh and never photographed or intended to photograph them but the sheriff's office says we believe that they were trying to photograph the jurors. Now, it's the police, the police who pulled this guy over.

He ran a red light. Like you said, he was determined to stay right behind that van. And you tell me why the why the police concluded he was trying to photograph them. OK, he denies it. NBC denies it. We'll see how it plays out. But something tells me the police had a reason for writing that down. They say we regret the incident and will fully cooperate with the authorities on any investigation. I think there

could be a few issues here. I think this could be I don't think that he'll face charges. But I do think some of the the concepts that are at play here are obstruction of justice, even potentially jury tampering. Now, those normally require a knowing and willful interference with the jurors where you're trying to change their vote. But I think if the defense needs to move for a mistrial, given all the errors in this case, Glenn, this is just one more feather in their quiver, one more arrow in their quiver, because the jurors have had themselves videotaped, which the judge had to confiscate and delete. They've now been followed by an MSNBC reporter.

And just this morning, this is just breaking. I want to give this to you. It's from the New York Times. Jurors have entered the courthouse for the fourth day. They discussed the case for 23 hours. As the jurors entered, this is the New York Times reporter who apparently heard this.

Several of them thanked sheriff's deputies for putting up a folding screen that blocked them from the public. Quote, it helps calm my nerves, one woman said. Another woman on the jury could be heard saying, quote, the media coverage is insane. And a man said he woke up at 3.30 a.m., couldn't fall back to sleep until 5 a.m. They're under enormous pressure. They know the media is stalking them, literally stalking them. And this was an egregious act by this news organization. it, even if you decided to be as generous as possible. Again, it still requires an answer

to the question that they've not yet answered, which is if the motive is what they deny it was, is what they say it wasn't, which was to take photographs. What was the valid journalistic motive for following the jury? I can't imagine what possible public interest there can be in having a journalist that works for you follow the jury van except to uncover their identities either during the deliberations or after. And there are cases that have kind of a mild level of media scrutiny, Megan. As you know, you can find jurors, you've heard nothing about the case, and that's what you attempt to do in those kinds of cases. In this case, the Rittenhouse case, for people who live in that area, obviously there's literally zero people who aren't at

least to some degree aware of the significance of this case for the broader public. And they know that if their identities are revealed, it's going to follow them around for life. And so even if you did have some motive less than the worst possible motive of intimidating the jury or purposely making them know that they're being chased and stalked, it's an incredible act of recklessness on the part of this gigantic news corporation, which is really NBC News, to interfere in this process in such a harmful way. And I think the judge has already said he thinks there's prosecutorial misconduct that is sufficient to create a mistrial, maybe even one with prejudice, meaning they can't try them again if the jury comes back with a guilty plea. And as you said, I think this is just one more added to the mix. And it should be. I mean, just put yourself in the position of a defendant who is accused of murder, might send you to prison

for the next several decades, if not the rest of your life. And then a news organization takes action that could intimidate the jurors to deliver a guilty plea, even if they don't think you're guilty, just to protect themselves. Of course, you're going to think that your fair trial has been compromised. Yes. I mean, look, this is this thing that the Times published really puts the point on it. I'm so thankful the sheriff deputies put up a folding screen that blocks us from public view. It helps calm my nerves, says one of the female jurors. Another one points out the media coverage is insane. The other man says he can't sleep at night. So they are afraid of the press. They're afraid. They're making that very clear. And then

you have this guy from MSNBC following them, running red lights to keep after them. It's totally inappropriate. And they think themselves above the law. That's what NBC is really saying here. Guess why they put it behind the screen, you dumbasses. They don't want people like you to know who they are. It's not up to you to say, I overrule the sheriff. Right. And the judge whose courtroom this is, it was an egregious thing to do. And I would say to my fellow reporters trying to defend this, just stop. There's no defense. This was completely inappropriate, and it might even have been criminal. So it's in the interest of everyone, most particularly Kyle Rittenhouse and our justice

system, that these reporters be held to account. One final note here on this, Glenn. Dan McLaughlin at National Review had a really good piece out today and pointed out that there was recently a case out of the fourth circuit court of appeals, um, United States versus Johnson, where, uh, they, they took the trial court judge to task because they did not feel he took the idea seriously, um, that the jury may have been possibly exposed to an attempt at photographing them. The trial court was more focused on whether a picture had actually been taken. And the court of appeals said, he said, by focusing on the question of whether photographs in fact had been taken, and in failing to consider whether they had in any way actually intimidated the jurors by displaying their cell phones, the district court failed to consider the effect on the jurors of the perceived external contact.

Quote, a third party's threat or perceived attempt to take a photograph of a juror may be no less intimidating to that juror than the actual taking of such a photograph. So there's no defense of this behavior. And I really do think if the defense doesn't make a big deal out of this in court, they're missing yet another opportunity. Yeah, I think they're going to. I mean, obviously, it doesn't matter what the intention of MSNBC was, as that court opinion said, and as common sense makes clear, what matters is the perceptions of the jurors. If their anonymity, if they perceive that at risk, whether or not it is, that will have the same effect on their ability to render a just

verdict as if their anonymity has in fact been compromised. But I just want to add one point, which is, and this is what I was getting at earlier, that case that you just cited from Dema Goughlin, I don't know exactly what that case is, but obviously it's nowhere near the level of political and media prominence that the Rittenhouse case has. It's probably just an ordinary criminal case. And yet even in an ordinary criminal case, it's vital that the jurors not feel threatened, maybe by the family members of the defendant or the family members of the alleged victims. In any trial, it's crucial that the jurors feel safe. But for one of this magnitude, where, and I think this is the key point, is that the national media,

led by MSNBC and CNN, have purposely injected into this trial a overarching narrative of race. Even though the defendant is white and accused of shooting three white people. Nonetheless, everything that has been talked about in this trial has been, as usual, described through the prism of race so that anyone who believes that Kyle Rittenhouse ought to be acquitted, that the state's evidence is insufficient, that he acted in legitimate self-defense isn't doing that because they've made a genuine, honest evaluation of the evidence. It's because they're an apologist for, if not a supporter of, white nationalism and white supremacy, something, a label they put on Kyle Rittenhouse from the

very start without there being any evidence. And they've already primed the country and the nation to believe that if there's an acquittal, the only reason for it is because the judge was racist, the criminal justice system is racist, and therefore the jurors are racist, which means that if their identity can be exposed, they're going to have that tag applied to them by a community that has already demonstrated its propensity to engage in violence when they believe it's necessary because of these kinds of political themes. The same media that followed him is the one that has made this situation so dangerous and volatile for them. That's exactly right. The juror, this isn't a case where the man on trial is part of the mob and you got to worry if you convict him, the mob's going to come for you

as a juror that we've seen those cases in the past. The mob here is the media and its ability, its very effective ability to incite riots and the mobs like we've seen that sort of began this whole thing, right? The misreporting about Jacob Blake, this unarmed black man unfairly shot by police while he was armed. The media rushed to judgment, the president rushed to judgment, while. The media rushed to judgment. The president rushed to judgment. Well, then candidate Biden rushed to judgment. And that helped create the riots after Jacob Blake, which put Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha that night. And sort of this whole spiral began. And the media has become no more responsible in the wake of any of that. I saw you reporting the other day that your old outlet that you helped create and then left in a blaze of glory that we celebrated together, The Intercept, they noted Kyle Rittenhouse's race 20 times in one piece while saying nothing about the color of the men he shot. P.S. It was all white people, right?

The three guys he's charged with shooting, they were white people. And then it's even worse in some other outlets. There was one paper overseas that described the men he shot as black. Totally untrue. The New York Times, Matt Taibbi was pointing this out. They continue their standardized practice of underscoring Rittenhouse's race, white teenager, white teenager, white teenager. And then Andrew Sullivan had a great, great piece talking about how the media coverage in this case has just been awful and really poisoned the jury pool and probably the actual jury. He points out, here's a New York Times article from August 26th, the morning after the killings, quoting the New York Times. The authorities are investigating whether the white

teenager who was arrested was part of a vigilante group. His social media accounts appeared to show an intense affinity for guns, law enforcement, and President Trump. Rittenhouse's race is specified. The race of the men he killed and injured were not, of course, they were also white. And then he says a day later in another New York Times piece,

they talk about the video footage. Quote, as Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. No mention of the fact that they were actually beating him

and attacking him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, Grosskreutz, is hit in the arm and runs away. Grosskreutz, he pointed his Glock

in Kyle Rittenhouse's face and then got shot. The other guy was beating him with a skateboard and then reaching for Kyle's gun. But this is how the media does it. Glenn, this is how they they do it from the Covington boys to the Duke lacrosse defendants to the fake UVA rape case, they invent a narrative. And if it makes somebody in their favored groups true victims and somebody in their disfavored groups villains, so much the better. Yeah, you know, look, I'm at the point. Obviously, there's a lot of controversy over President Trump's invocation of this very extremist slogan that the press is the enemy of the people. I understand why people were uncomfortable by that. That can be a dangerous and provocative statement. It has some kind of bad historical overtones. But leaving that aside, I actually am at the point where I genuinely believe that the dominant sector of the corporate media is a very toxic influence in our society

because I'm completely sympathetic to the fact that any human institution is going to make mistakes, maybe even make mistakes with some degree of frequency. That's to be expected, especially when you're reporting on complex issues. These are not mistakes any longer. This is a transformation of what they perceive to be their role in society from trying and sometimes failing to do their best to convey the facts as they understand them, then correct them when they're wrong into instruments and weapons in service of a political agenda based primarily on the premise that president Trump and his movement pose such a fascistic and existential threat to American

democracy, but anything they do in the name of stopping it is justifiable, and that any association with President Trump or his movement means that you're a white nationalist. So if you say, Megan, to this day, Kyle Rittenhouse immediately got labeled as a white supremacist, even though there was no evidence for it,

they'll say, no, there was evidence. And you know what they'll cite? Everything you just cited. He likes guns. He seems to have an affinity for the police. And he said favorable things about Donald Trump. In their minds, that does make him a white supremacist. And the amount of deceit that gets disseminated, you mentioned an overseas paper. You probably saw this from my feed. What actually happened was in Brazil, the largest newspaper in Brazil is Folha de São Paulo. I've worked with them. I know a lot of journalists who

work inside of them. I partnered with them. They're a good, decent, solid, responsible newspaper. And they published an article, an entire article about the Rittenhouse case last week, which they obviously got from, they read the New York Times, they watch CNN, and they just said over and over, he shot two black men, shot and killed two black men. That's what they thought. Where do you think they got that from? They got that from the American media. Like the intercept is so race obsessed. I bet you can't find one instance where they don't identify the race of the victim. When the victim in a police shooting or a crime is black, everything will be killed. Everything will be, kill the black man. The black man died. This person was Hispanic. He died. This Asian person died. This gay person died. They're obsessed with the demographics of the race of the victim.

But in this case, even though they used the word white 20 times, as you said, either describe Rittenhouse or his ideology as white supremacist, they purposely omitted telling their readers the fact that the people that he shot were all white. Because how can you convince people that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist engaged in white supremacist domestic terrorism when all of the people that he shot, A, attacked him first, but also B, were all white. That's a really weird thing to do if you're a white supremacist, go and shoot into a crowd of people and purposely kill only white people when there are a bunch of black people standing around. So the media, instead of grappling with those facts, as you would if you're engaged in a

journalistic function, instead purposely conceals them in place of the narrative they want to promote. It's so true. It's so true. And even the narrative that, you know, these guys were just these peaceful BLM protesters is a bunch of bunk, too. These weren't these people probably didn't care at all about Black Lives Matter. They were out there because they have a history of being career criminals and they wanted to cause trouble. That's obvious if you look at the length of their rap sheets. So I have no sympathy for them putting themselves in a dangerous situation. I'm sorry it wound up as badly as it did. But this is one of the risks you assume when you go to a riot that in which you set things on fire, you disobey police and you welcome lawlessness into your life. Bad things follow. You know, I mean, they're the ones who had the who had the motives that they were in the wrong place that night. As far as I can tell, Kyle Rittenhouse, while mistaken in my view for showing up there, did not set out to cause trouble.

And yet he is painted as a vigilante villain in every single article you can find. I mean, if it's not by established right-wing media, you will see him painted in the way you just described. All right, stand by because we're going to squeeze in a break and we're going to pick it up with Glenn right after this. There's plenty to go over. And folks, remember, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. And the full video show and clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, you can subscribe and download for free on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. And there you will find our full archives, including more than 200 shows, including the very first time Glenn Greenwald was on, which was episode number one.

Just hearing him, can't you see why? The guy's brilliant, and he's totally fair, and I love talking to him. Back with me now glenn greenwald he's a journalist a substack editor and co-founder of the intercept um we played the soundbite a couple days ago and it is it is indicative of you know msnbc's bias and so on but i have to say glenn i i'm really troubled by the the rhetoric coming out of that news organization in In quotes, I'm almost going to like quotes now and people like Joy Reid. And I saw you tweet about this, and I'd love to discuss it with you, but just to tee it up for the audience. This is what she said on TikTok is just an example of the kind of stuff she says every

night on her show. I could play you a long soundbite where she says all this same stuff. And it occurs to me that this person is a raging racist and has been given a total pass on it, I guess, because her racism is against white people. Here's Joy Reid on her TikTok. It's called Rittenhouse Trial. It reminded a lot of people of something, something, I can't remember what it was. Oh, the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in which Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused by a high school friend of committing sexual abuse of her, cried his way through the hearings to make him a permanent member and associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. And his tears turned out to be more powerful than the tears of Christine Blasey Ford, which were the tears of an alleged victim.

But in America, there's a thing about both white vigilantism and white tears, particularly male white tears. Really white tears in general, because that's what Karen carrots are, right? They carrot out and then as soon as they get caught, it's a green waterworks. White men can get away with that too. And it has the same effect. Even as the right tries to politicize the idea that masculinity is being robbed from American men by multiculturalism

and wokeism, they still want to be able to have their tears. I'm sorry, but that is just so disgusting. She has no heart. She's just full of rage. Your thoughts? Well, I mean, first of all, it's interesting. My personal history with Joy Reid goes back a lot longer than most people's before anyone really knew who she was when she was a columnist at the Miami Herald. She was actually one of the

leading people demanding that the FBI and Department of Justice under Obama prosecute and arrest me for the reporting that I was doing on the Edward Snowden case because she used to be a campaign aide for President Obamaama in 2008 she worked for his campaign and she never really grew out of that role that's still what she is and it was all it was never you know kind of like a academic argument about whether it was like it was vicious you know it was like he belongs rotting in a prison alongside edward snowden and then there was also a controversy where chelsea manning um, who people may not remember when she was first arrested as WikiLeaks source, was put into this extremely harsh prison condition, like 23 and a half hours a day of solitary confinement. It was designed to break her down.

I was actually the one who broke the story. And Joy Reid was the one who was coming out and saying, like oh, boo-hoo, Chelsea Manning wants a little blankie. Obviously, Chelsea Manning is a controversial figure. Lots of people think she should be in jail. But the cruelty and the lack of empathy was evident to me all the way back then. And then obviously, she had the next six or seven years of writing extremely bigoted blog posts, you know, just, I mean, outright hatred for any gay man, lesbian, trans person, and actually would attack Chelsea Manning claiming that it was her, you know, sickness about being a trans person that caused her to leak those documents. So I've known this about Joy Reid forever since way before MSNBC decided

to elevate her. And that kind of clip that you just played, which is, as you said, extremely exemplary, extremely illustrative of the sort of discourse in which she frequently engages, is the kind of stuff that you would hear at a KKK rally in the 1950s about talking about a group of people with complete contempt based on nothing other than their skin color. Their skin color. It's amazing that they allow it to happen. Something's deeply wrong with our media these days. It's disgusting.

And that's exactly the lovely note on which we'll pick it up after this quick break. We're with Glenn. Don't go away. We're getting reports out of Kenosha. Something's happening there. We don't know what. We don't want to get ahead of our skis. But we are being told that the families of those who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in this case, in which he asserts he did that in self-defense, are being called to the courthouse.

This is according to The New York Times. New Yorkork times is reporting go ahead listen to my producers go ahead steve times is reporting that there is a verdict new york times is reporting that there's a verdict in the kyle rittenhouse case um after essentially one business week of deliberation uh It's been what over 20 plus hours. And Glenn Greenwald is still here with us. I mean, this is if this is true, and they're going to read a verdict today. We don't know whether it's I mean, it could be we were we were not able to reach a verdict. It doesn't have to be guilty or not guilty. At this point, they may just be calling folks in to let them know that they were unable to. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure you've had the same experience. There's nothing more torturous than trying to read the tea leaves of jury behavior.

I've been trying to tell friends of mine who've never been involved in the jury system that, you know, I mean, I used to litigate civil trials and you finish a case or so much on the line, and then all you can do is wait. It's one of the most torturous things imaginable. Imagine if it were actually your life on the line. I'm seeing on social media that there does seem to be a verdict. My guess is, Megan, that if they were going to come

and say, we can't reach a verdict, that there would have been a back and forth first with the judge where they say, look, your honor, we can't reach a verdict. And he would have encouraged them to go back and try my, I doubt that their first indication of we can't reach a verdict is a mistrial. Um, and, and Glenn, to your point there, the New York times language is they are reporting the jury has quote reached a decision. So that, that doesn't suggest mistrial. That suggests it doesn't suggest like we need to speak with the judge.

Like a hung jury. Yeah, like a hung jury, we can't reach a verdict. So it seems like my guess is based on what you've read, what I'm seeing online as you read it, that there's an actual verdict on all the counts. I've had this feeling so many times before as a reporter and for 10 years of my life as an actual lawyer, there's nothing like it. It's pins and needles. It's a physical reaction, that pit in your stomach. And you can only imagine what Kyle Rittenhouse is feeling. I mean, he's so young, right? He's 18. This is a life or death moment for him. He actually could go to prison for the rest of his life depending on what this jury has decided and i'm sure the jurors are feeling

tons of angst as well it's just there's no describing what that courtroom is likely to feel like and the families you know i mean that's one of the thing you know you played that clip about the the white tears from do i read i mean, just, you know, if you put yourself in Kyle Rittenhouse's position, regardless of what you think of the verdict, he's at the time 17, he shot three people and killed two of them, even if it was justifiable as I've come to believe it was, it's an incredibly traumatic thing for anybody, let alone a 17 year old. And then to go through a year and a half of intense media attacks and then be put on trial that can, of course, you're going to cry. What like only a sociopath wouldn't, right? And there's been mockery of what his mother looks like. And so, I mean, of course,

it's an incredibly traumatizing and difficult time for everyone involved in that case, no matter your views, if you're just a decent human being. Being told that Kyle Rittenhouse has arrived in the courthouse, I'm sure he's with his counsel and I'm sure his mother's not far behind him. The judge will assemble all the parties into the courthouse. And once everyone, defense counsel, the prosecutors and the family members of those killed are present, he'll bring in the jury. The jury will read its verdict. And then

whichever side loses is most likely to ask to poll the jury members one by one to ask them, is this your verdict? So say you all and so on. And then they have to stand up and say, yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And on and on we go. And then the media frenzy will begin. And the thing that we have to worry about, Glenn, if it's anything other than guilty, is will there be potential riots, right? If this kid is found not guilty or only found guilty of lesser included charges, I mean, there is a real risk of rioting, more rioting, more loss of life, destruction of property, and so on. That's why the governor's already called in 500 national guardsmen. What are your thoughts on the likelihood? I would be shocked if there wasn't substantial social unrest in the

event of acquittal, not only in Kenosha, where they might have actually sportified the area more than anywhere else, but across the country. I think it's possible as well. There are a lot of people who feel extremely strongly on the other side as well, that if he's convicted of first degree intentional murder or anything like that, there may be some serious protests in anger on the other side as well. But clearly, the pattern of the last 18 months has been that the people who go out and protest and riot and do violence when they don't get what they like are the people who would be inclined to be angry about an acquittal and not a conviction you know it would be very nice if the media would allow the publication of things like uh the piece by nelly bowls nelly uh works for the new york times i i think she's still where she might have worked no she left she's left okay sorry she left officially left um and she's engaged to barry weiss and And she had a piece on Barry's sub stack today or yesterday talking about how she had done a long piece for the Times

on what these riots actually do in a town like Kenosha. And Kenosha was the town she studied and said, you know what? Let me tell you what they do. They hurt the black and brown communities. It's not some, it's not all big box, white owned, you know, Walmarts. It's mom and pop

shops owned by people of color that have a really tough time rebuilding that the community may have a really sentimental attachment to, you know, that storefront where you like, you know, the guy who you get your deli coffee from or what have you. And the Times buried it that they killed her piece. They had no interest in it before the election. And Joe Biden became president and eventually they ran Nellie's piece. But the people itching to go out on the streets and cause havoc in the event this isn't a verdict they like, they weren't allowed to read pieces like that for far too long. You know, there was a there was a taboo in last summer about doing reporting on the devastation that was left in the wake of these protests one of the reasons why the independent journalist michael tracy

became a kind of popular figure and built up this big audience is because he was the only one pretty much he like rented a you know kind of like a crappy car and he drove around the country and he interviewed immigrant store owners whose stores were burned down, like second-generation immigrants who built up a decent business, or as you say, minority-owned business owners who were furious that oftentimes it was white Antifa anarchists who had no connection to the cause of police brutality or even BLM activists. And as you say, the media tried to depict it as, oh, they're just looting Nikes and Walmarts, when in reality, the people who were the brunt of that, that those protests were the people who are most marginalized.

And yet it was almost like a prohibition on the part of newsrooms to go and do that reporting as Nellie's piece said she tried to do it and they only published it after the election was over. I want to remind our audience that there is a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. We are just awaiting its announcement by the court. We can see the judge is in the courtroom. Kyle Rittenhouse is in the courtroom. He he he looks nervous. I mean, of course he is. They all are nervous. I'd venture to say even the judge who's been on the bench longer than any other judge in the circuit courts in Wisconsin feels somewhat nervous right now. It's just human nature. The stakes are so large. No one wants to get it wrong.

Even if you are rooting for one side or the other, there's a lot involved here, right? There's a lot of humanity. My producer is trying to tell me something what do we are they reading it okay so they can read it at any moment we had originally been told that everybody would be given an hour notice when the jury had a verdict maybe that's happened maybe it hasn't maybe the the media just was late to report it that they that they had the notice but we expect a verdict at any minute um it could happen any second now so um what's going what's going to happen glenn is uh if this case goes against kyle rittenhouse uh what do you expect from defense counsel immediate motions for to renew their their push for a mistrial with prejudice and i think in this instance they have a shot

motions i'm hearing i'm seeing the judge on the bench. Probably they're waiting for the jury. But yes, I mean, the judge has actually said that he believes at least a couple of those motions for a mistrial, including prosecutorial misconduct over having questioned Carl Rittenhouse about his right to remain silent and implying there was something nefarious about it, which everyone who practices law knows you can't do. He has the constitutional right, infuriated the judge. There's also the motion for mistrial on the grounds that the prosecution seems to have withheld higher quality video that could have helped exonerate him. So that seems to be a pending mistrial motion that the judge has indicated he believes there's merit to. And he's kind of said, let's see what the jury does, and then I'll decide on these motions. So I think there's a good chance, even if there is a guilty verdict, that the judge is going to either overturn it on the grounds of evidence, which the judge does have the right to do, or or based on the mistrial of the prosecutorial misconduct. Yeah, I think there's a good there's a there's a very good chance that this judge could overturn any verdict that he doesn't like. I mean, that's that is within his purview. It's within his power. Judges sometimes do it. They always prefer to defer

to the jury. But the way the judge has talked about some of the prosecutor's behavior, it's just it's it's tough to know whether it seems to me he's upset with the prosecution and the way that they've handled it. I want to say that the jury is outside of the courtroom. We're told at this moment that's what we believe getting ready to come in. So we should stand by. So say it again, Deb. They're standing. OK, they're standing.

That must mean the jury's on its way in. Kyle Rittenhouse is on his feet. So are his lawyers. So is everyone in the courthouse. The judge sits because he never stands. He doesn't have to stand for the jury. Um, they're filing in and it shouldn't take long. They're going to read it in moments. I want to tell you that we have Andrew Branca as well standing by. Um, he's an attorney who's been covering this from start to finish. He's been writing at Legal Insurrection, and we'll have his reaction. Glenn, thank you. I want to say thank you very much for coming on and helping us out today, and I'm going to switch gears and say hello to Andrew Branca as we continue to await this. Thanks, Megan.

Yes, all the best. Hey there. Andrew, hi. Thank you for being here. My pleasure. Thanks for having me here. Yeah, so we're both watching this together and trying to hear what the jury is saying we apologize to our audience this is not something that we can air to you live uh otherwise we would be but we're going to try to we're going to bring it to you just as soon as we know and can what are we hearing i'm going to ask my producers let's put the audio up and listen together together. Okay. All right, members of the jury, have you elected a foreperson? Would you give your adjournment please?

Fifty-four. Fifty-four. And has the jury reached a verdict as to each count of the information yes we have got one verdict and one very dog yes would you hand all the paperwork to the bailiff please everything yeah thanks May I see that tool, please? Thank you. The defendant will rise and face the jury and hearken to its verdicts. State of Wisconsin versus Kyle Rittenhouse. As to the first count of the information, Joseph Rosenbaum, we the jury find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the second count of the information, Richard McGinnis,

we the jury find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the third count of the information, Unknown Male, we the jury find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the third count of the information, unknown male, we the jury find the defendant Kyle H. Rittenhouse not guilty. As to the fourth count of the information, Anthony Huber, we the jury find the defendant Kyle H. Rittenhouse not guilty. As to the fifth count of the information, Gage Grosskreutz, we the jury find the defendant Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. Wow. Members of the jury, these are your unanimous verdicts. Is there anyone who does

not agree with the verdicts as read? All right. So we wish the jury pulled. No. Okay. Okay, folks, your job is done. And we started just about three weeks ago. And the judge now is going to dismiss the jury. Stunning, stunning, Andrew. After all this time, the jury, I say, and I think you agree, they got it right. The only just outcome, the only outcome consistent with the evidence in the law in this case, it was never a close call if we got a fair and impartial jury who applied the law as instructed to the actual evidence in this case. The prosecution alone was a horrific miscarriage of justice. Just to interrupt you.

Put this poor kid through this process. Forgive me for interrupting you. Kyle Redhouse just fell to his knees in tears he's on his knees his lawyer's talking to him he's shaking it's uh it's upsetting to watch i you know it's like i i feel like the media is just so awful andrew they've been so disgusting from the beginning and you can feel what this boy is feeling uh this young man his his mother's in tears behind him. We forget people's humanity in the press. We just want to kill them. We want to go for the jugular. We want everyone to pay. And in this case, we wanted him to pay because he was a Trump supporter and he was a Second Amendment supporter and he wasn't on the side of the BLM rioters. And they and the media and the president and the governor put this kid through hell. Through hell. And this is the only just verdict. Back to you. They had nothing.

They had nothing close to a conviction on this case. And they threatened this kid with life in prison. An 18-year-old kid with life in prison. No possibility of early release. And they had no evidence that was close to disproving self-defense. It's despicable. And don't even I mean, and the machinations that the prosecution went through to try to build a case out of nothing to put this kid in jail for the rest of his life. It's contemptible. That's the thing people need to remember.

This is not a case that was close. We all started to wonder, right, because they took so long. The jurors took so long. But this was not a close case. This is a case that never should have been brought. The videotapes showed the story. You just had to believe your own eyes and ears and not the liars in the press and the politicians trying to get elected off of racial division. Right. Because this was based on his presence there that night was was based on

the shooting of Jacob Blake, who is a black man by a white cop, which was ruled legally justified, including by this sitting president's DOJ. But it was all there, black and white. The charges never should have been brought. This wasn't a close case. No, no, not even close. There was literally zero evidence inconsistent with self-defense in this case. The state's own witnesses testimony was consistent with lawful self-defense for every one of these criminal counts. No one's going to do any soul searching.

The media won't stop. They're probably trying to hunt down the jurors again right now, although it's different once the trial's over than during the course of the trial. And the judge has to worry. Kyle Rittenhouse still has to worry for his safety because because of all the irresponsible coverage, they've all received serious death threats. Well, it doesn't surprise me. I mean, you know, the left is violent, right? The whole premise of these events was because they were burning down the city of Kenosha over the false narrative around Jacob Blake in the first place. Now, I guess we see what they do.

I mean, there's 500 National Guard standing outside the town, I suppose. Are they going to burn Kenosha down again because they're angry about this just verdict? I fear for the town of Kenosha. And it's not a big town, folks. It's a small town in America. And I fear for this judge and for Kyle and the defense attorneys, you know, the judge and the defense attorneys were literally just doing their jobs. This is how our system works. And the system is stacked against a defendant, white or black, folks, the system stacked against the defendant. You go into that courthouse with the weight of the state coming down against you. The prosecutor comes in there with an air of authority that's very hard to

pierce. And that's why due process is so important and adherence to the rules is so important. And the prosecutors have a higher calling and expectation to pursue justice and not just a conviction because they have so much power. And so for them to now be demonized, I mean, there was a there was a piece. Gosh, I think it was Charles Blow writing in The New York Times saying something like this judge made rulings as though Kyle Rittenhouse was his grandson that he had to look at. Nonsense, nonsense. There was prosecutorial misconduct for which they were rightly called out. Absolutely. And by the way, this judge did not make particularly favorable rulings for this defendant.

All those motions for mistrials with prejudice should have been granted on the merits. The judge put off making those decisions in the hope that there would be an acquittal and he wouldn't have to make the call. And it looks like he got his wish. Thank God we got the acquittals and he got his wish. But this was not a judge that was eager to make decisions in favor of this defendant. And he's notoriously, especially protective of defendants' rights. Long before he ever heard the name Kyle Rittenhouse, he has a reputation for bending over backwards to protect the defendants who are in his courtroom, as it should be.

What do you want to judge? I mean, even people who are more prosecution oriented in general, like I am, do I want to judge who's more prosecution oriented? Absolutely not. The system's already stacked in favor of the prosecutor. It shouldn't be stacked the other way. And I agree with you. He didn't seem to particularly like Mr. Binger, but you could understand why. Mr. Binger had done several irresponsible things, and so the judge got angry with him a few times, but then came out before the trial was over and defended all the lawyers involved in the case. Well, you know, he has to work with all these people again, right? You want to maintain, I guess, looking forward, a professional

relationship with all these people, but frankly, there's no question in my mind Binger should have been sanctioned for no other reason than referencing Kyle having asserted his Fifth Amendment, right? And mentioning it in front of the jury, which folks, for those of you who are not lawyers, you just do not do that. That does not happen. That right is sacrosanct and you cannot have that right to remain silent, used against you in a court of law, period. It may not even be mentioned. And a career prosecutor knows this. That was no mistake. That was intentional. Exactly right. And also trying to bring in evidence that he knew he was banned from bringing in. The court had said, I'm inclined to disallow that. Don't go near that without asking me. And he

jumped into it with both feet, trying to suggest that Kyle had a prior incident with a gun that had been ruled, well, had been suggested that it was going to be ruled inadmissible. So the prejudice that was stacking up against Kyle Rittenhouse from the beginning was enormous. And that's not even discussing things like the video, the jurors being videotaped, the MSNBC reporter following the jurors when they knew they had no business doing that. And that's been ruled misconduct in the past. The intimidation of the jurors with the protesters on the courthouse steps on and on it goes. And I have to say, this jury was very brave. I think so. I mean, they were obviously facing tremendous pressure, certainly media

pressure, social pressure. There's no social win for them by voting for acquittal. It could only be negative because the right doesn't attack people for simply delivering a verdict in court. That's what the left does. So the only threat was from the left, and they hung in there. I guess, I presume we're going to find out there was one juror probably hanging out. That's why we're in our fourth day of deliberations. I presume that's the juror who wanted to take the jury instructions home yesterday. I think what must have happened is they were the only holdout. The other jurors said, listen, do you do whatever you need to do, but we're not voting guilty on any of these charges. So take the jury instructions home, sleep on it. If you need to come back here tomorrow, if you can't also vote for acquittal, we're a hung jury because we're not going into the Thanksgiving week in this courtroom. It seems like there had to be a holdout for it to take this long, right? This many hours, this many days. It's hard to believe that for each one of those hours, they were going over each case, each shooting, Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz, Huber, and Jumpkick Man, who wasn't shot, but shot at.

That wouldn't have taken this long. I mean, I can't think of a world in which that would have taken this long. So somebody seems to have been a holdout. Again, speculative. We'll find out if one of the jurors decides to speak. And we're told that they are allowed to if they now so choose the normal way it works i looked it up actually in wisconsin at some point and it was i believe um you're supposed to as counsel submit your request to the court and the court will then let the jury know of course hey guess what the media wants to speak with you and then it's up to the jurors whether they want to do that or not. And listen, they may not want to. They may not want to, Branca, given... I'm calling you Branca now. Given the number of threats that have already been leveled in this case. I think most of the jurors will not want to. I expect,

if we're right in thinking there was one holdout, I suspect it was the jury foreperson, juror number 54. But I suspect whoever that one holdout is will want to talk because what tends to happen in these situations is their social circle would have been against acquittal. They voted for acquittal anyway. Obviously, it has to be a unanimous decision, this acquittal. Now they have to go back to their social environment and kind of explain it away. And what we typically see happen is they'll come up with excuses. They'll say, if only I had known this evidence that wasn't admitted, or if only I had known that I would have vote, I was misled somehow by the court process.

So they can take the heat off themselves for having voted for acquittal within their social circle and place it someplace else. And to do that, they want to explain how it was that this, what they'll characterize afterwards as a mistake happened. But that's fine. I don't care about any of that. The acquittal is rock solid. Kyle Rittenhouse is free of any claim of criminal liability in this case. And that's the outcome that I expected. I had hoped for it the first day. Frankly, I thought the defense in their closing argument should have made clear to the jurors that, listen, you have 36 pages of jury

instructions. You have to decide how to use them, but we encourage you to start with self-defense first, because if you find self-defense, nothing else matters, and you can be home in time for lunch. Well, what a critical ruling that was, Andrew, where the defense did get the judge to rule that if the to instruct the jury, if you find he shot, you know, Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz, Huber in self-defense, you can stop. You need not consider the lesser included charges. Like if he's if it was self-defense on intentional murder, it was self-defense on every lesser charge underneath intentional murder. Your job is done. And that was big. Well, it's for each count. So for each person, you'd have to find self-defense separately.

Each person had lesser included. So if you found self-defense for each count at any level, then all the rest went away. But they did have to find self-defense five times. And they did. When they were going down the list and by the you know, by the time they got to gauge Grosskreutz, you knew it was going to be another not guilty because like that one was such a slam dunk. If they had found him guilty on that, it just would have been such a stunner. So it became kind of clear.

And Kyle Rittenhouse, you could see, my gosh, his reaction. In fact, we have it. We have it teed up again for our listening audience. Here it is. And for our viewing audience, you can see it again on youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly when we post it later. Watch. As to the second count of the information, Richard McGinnis, we, the jury, find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the third count of the information, unknown male, we, the jury, find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the fourth count of the information, Anthony Huber, we, the jury, find the defendant, Kyle h rittenhouse not guilty as to the fifth count of the information

gage gross courts we the jury find the defendant kyle h rittenhouse not guilty members of the jury are these your unanimous verdicts is there anyone who does not agree with the verdict says red would you wish the jury pulled? Him falling to his knees is such a moment. He's grabbing, for the listening audience, his tie, his chest, almost as if it feels constricted. And gosh, that's the most human moment, right? You could feel his relief and the stress.

And I'm sure he does have PTSD, as his lawyers suggested. How could you not? I mean, even if you weren't prosecuted, the mere fact that you survived those brutal, vicious, serial, murderous attacks on you and somehow survived, that alone would give you PTSD. Then to have the state bring its entire power upon you to try to lock you in a cage for the rest of your life. No possibility of early release. He was abused both times. He was abused by his attackers, his physical attackers, and then he was abused by this prosecution. Now already we're getting some media reaction. It's exactly what you would expect. You've got Bakari Sellers, CNN, tweets out, look, black folk, don't y'all even think about trying what Kyle did? I know most of us know this, but for some young quote, told you so, told you so. He's been on MSNBC railing about this case and trying to make it about race from the beginning. And then here's

good old Joy Reid. We knew, but it's sometimes helpful to remind ourselves how America was designed to work. It continues to work as designed. We have learned again what is considered legal for some people, in quotes, some people to do in America. It's helpful to know where you stand in your country. Be safe out there. She talks about this as though the three men he shot were black and that this was about what a white man can get away with doing to a black man. It had nothing to do with race, this particular shooting. It was about whether benefit disproportionately from self-defense law, from the privilege to use force in self-defense, tend to be young Black males who are growing up living in violent environments, find they have to defend themselves, and then justify their use of defensive force in court. So these are not laws against Black people. These are laws that help any law abiding person who's compelled to defend themselves or their family against criminal predation.

You can make the case that Kyle Rittenhouse never should have been there that night. Okay, I get that case. I mean, that could be debated for quite some time as a society and people are free to do it. But legally, legally, what was at stake in this case was what are your rights to self-defense when you show up in a dangerous situation and it gets even more dangerous, right? I mean, that's really what happened. He showed up at a dangerous place. We knew it was going to be dangerous. That's why he brought the AR-15 just in case. And then it got even more dangerous than he had ever imagined. And we saw it all. You don't have to imagine. You don't have to take Kyle Rittenhouse's word for it or the words of all white witnesses. You can just look

at the videotape for yourself. Just watch. It plays out. They slow mode it. You could see it frame by frame that this kid had a gun pointed in his face by Gage Grosskreutz, that Huber was attacking him, beating him down with a skateboard, which, by the way, have been used to kill other people in the past in other attacks. Jump kick man. It's caught on tape. A long career criminal. Now we know it comes out. And the original the original man shot Rosenbaum, who I mean, his crimes are disgusting and very well known at this point. He wasn't well. I actually saw a report. It was on a Fox station andrew recently about how the the defense ought to be called out for mentioning that rosenbaum was quote crazy and that you know he had bipolar disorder and that this was somehow a demonization of his mental health problems are they kidding they're kidding i mean this same people who mocked you know the

press kyle rittenhouse's tears yes i. I mean, I saw tweets along those effects that it shouldn't have been mentioned that, you know, Rosenbaum's mental illness and his child rape convictions were irrelevant to what he did to Kyle Rittenhouse. And I don't understand how people think that way. I mean, from a lawyer's perspective, I can see the arguments for excluding that evidence, like the judge actually excluded it until the door was opened up by the state's own witness. But are we really saying that somebody's mental illness and child rape proclivities have nothing, whatever, no connection at all to them then chasing down a child in a dark parking lot and attacking them? I don't think that's that much of a stretch. And by the way, for people who say Kyle shouldn't have been there, it was poor judgment. I agree. If I had a 17-year-old son who wanted to go to a

riot with an AR for whatever reason, provide medical care, I'd say no way is that happening. That is just only bad things can result from that as actually happened here. But at the same time, just a couple of weeks ago, we had a news story about a woman who was raped on a subway car in front of witnesses and nobody did anything to help her. So are we going to be a society where we're going to say, hey, anytime something bad has happened, I'm not intervening. It's none of my business. Is that the kind of society we really want to live in or do we want people to be willing to help. Yeah, I saw it. I saw it too. There was that one video where another separate video in New York where a woman was confronted by a very angry man. She was white, he was black, and he wound up punching her in the face and had sort of, he'd been getting all over up in her grill and he punched her right in the face and and no one stepped in to help her there either and then everybody says well why didn't anybody do anything well you know why they didn't do anything because of kyle rittenhouse because of george zimmerman because of well-intentioned

people trying to do the right thing and then finding themselves getting prosecuted for murder as a consequence yeah in that in that latter video it appeared this it looked like her boyfriend or partner was standing right next to her a guy and nothing. It caused me to say to my own husband, I said, what would you have done? Because the assailant clearly seemed extremely angry and not really all that well. And he said, I would have been between you and that guy long before he threw the first punch you know i mean that's the situation we're in like you you get in these places where you have no choice but to defend yourself or thank god you know hopefully if you have somebody with you to help you defend yourself but if when it's just you and that's the situation he was in it's just you and they've got their hand on your gun and people are now like well they had the strap so he's supposed to risk his own life on the strength of that strap while he's got this crazed guy running, lunging

at him, yelling, fuck you, who's already threatened his life not long earlier in the evening. Sure. Right. Sure. It's just so unrealistic. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. I'll give you the last word, Andrew, that the way people should be thinking about this as the media assaults them with a different narrative today.

These were the only verdicts consistent with the evidence, the law, and justice in this case. Thank you for your amazing coverage. I'm sure we're not done. I appreciate it. We are going to come right back with Mark Iglish, a former prosecutor, now defense attorney, who took a position on this case very clear, saying he should be acquitted. So what does he think now of some of the reaction coming in? The jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse has returned a verdict, and that verdict is not guilty on all charges. Not guilty. Of course, Kyle Rittenhouse cannot be retried by this court because of our double jeopardy rules. And now we are already getting a reaction rolling in from the likes of people like Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York City, who tweets out as follows.

Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today. The only reason they're not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people. To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement. To call what Mayor de Blasio just tweeted out disinformation is charitable. Mark Eiglash is with me now, longtime friend, former prosecutor, now defense attorney. And I don't like I'll just take that one. They're not victims. The jury says otherwise. The only reason they're not alive today is because both of them attacked Kyle Rittenhouse. And you don't have to believe me. It's on tape, not because he was a violent, dangerous man who chose to take a gun across state lines, which he did not do. That's that

was disproven. He didn't take a gun across state lines at all. And he didn't just start shooting people. He was attacked. But this is the narrative that that he's been up against, Mark, and will continue to be already the early reactions. It's about race. This would have gone another way if it had been a black defendant, even though the guys he shot were white. And you tell me whether you think justice was done. Okay, so justice was done. And what bothers me the most about those comments, all of which I'm glad that they're making, because they feel that way. And it's totally okay under the First Amendment to spew whatever you want. That's what makes our country great. I'm not a fan of restricting people's free speech. But I need people to understand what's happening there. Those statements are great insults to the jurors who gave their time, their energy, their focus, and they made a decision based upon the evidence and the law, and this is what they get? That's

completely unfair for people who perform one of the highest duties under the law that you can other than serving in the military. They sat there day in, day out, took a week away from their families and so on to deliberate this case. The jury instructions, all the things. And now Bill de Blasio's going to try to say it was a miscarriage. How does he know? I guarantee he hasn't watched one minute of the trial, not one. He's just a knee jerk, you know, ideological reaction that really, I mean, I agree we have free speech rights. It doesn't mean we have to like what the folks say. And he deserves a hit in the face. And I'm just the person to give it to him. Rhetorical hit, I mean, of course. Listen to this, though, Mark, because the media has been a massive part of this problem. We do have an obligation in the media to at least try to hew to the facts. We do. And not to rush judgment in a case like this. It's what you owe your audience. And to present both sides, right? I mean, that's what we've been doing all week, presenting both sides. Our viewers know and listeners what the prosecution's arguments were and how it could have gone a different way. None of them would have been surprised if it had, because we made sure they understood both sides. Lester Holt over on NBC,

in breaking this news moments ago, take a listen to how he framed the issues. The prosecution had made the argument, and they're closing arguments, that you can't provoke something and then claim it was self-defense. Maybe you can. Is that what this says? I mean, the problem there is he doesn't understand the law. What the jury just found is he didn't provoke it. Well, OK, yes and no. Legally, he didn't provoke it to the extent that he lost his right to argue self-defense. But Megan, if we're being factually honest, the jury isn't saying that they like Kyle

Rittenhouse. I don't know whether they're judging his character at all, but it isn't saying that they like Kyle Rittenhouse. I don't know whether they're judging his character at all, but it doesn't mean that they're okay with him having a gun. It doesn't mean that they're okay with him even going to that city and inserting himself into that scenario because I'm not okay with those things. I've been very open about that. All they're saying is, regardless of how we feel about his choices, does he legally deserve the protection under self-defense? The answer is yes. But this in no way is support for Kyle Rittenhouse. This is no way indicting him as a hero in any way. Casey Anthony wasn't decided as a good mother

when she got acquitted or OJ Simpson's not a gentle, loving husband that you want women to be around. It just meant that legally the prosecution didn't prove their case. But he is misframing the legal issue. He's suggesting, oh, wait, I guess you can provoke violence and then get off. What the jury is essentially saying is that Kyle Rittenhouse did not provoke these three incidents. But provocation under the law would have deprived Kyle of the right to self-defense unless the jury then later found that he was faced with great bodily harm and he he was unable to retreat and had exhausted all possible means of escape.

So it's possible they got. No, no, no. I know the law. Trust me. I know. But but how about this? Can we agree on this? There could have been a certain amount of provocation, but He went there. He was trying to be an EMT. He didn't go to be a vigilante. He went because he hoped to keep the peace and help people who got hurt. Then some lunatic pedophile who just got out of the mental institution hours earlier chased him after telling him he was going to kill him, threw a bag at him. And then when Kyle turned around with his wearing his gun, the guy lunged for it. That's not provocation. And what happened later with

Huber and Grosskreutz, even less provocation than the first case. Yeah. All right. And look, the bottom line is legally we agree on this subject matter. Factually, I still question whether he should have been there, whether he should have owned a weapon of that significance, whether he should have done a lot of the things that he did. That's for society to do. I still believe that he he the acquittal was the right outcome under the circumstances. What happens now? I just said he can't be retried in this court because of double jeopardy. But, you know, sometimes you see the feds try to swoop in. Is this a case in which they could do that where there's been a criminal, an acquittal of criminal charges in a state court? The answer is, I don't know. I didn't even think about that because I just don't think this is one of those cases. I think it would be like, no, I mean, I just don't see them doing it. I mean, is it theoretically possible you'd get some points on a law school exam probably for identifying that? I think in reality, this is over. For the same

reasons that jurors found him not guilty across the board. They would find him not guilty in federal court. I think that they have an obligation not to even consider going forward. And now now the lawsuits and they'll go both ways. Right. I mean, we already know that Gage Grosskreutz is suing the city for ten million dollars, something the defense pointed out when he testified, you know, you've got $10 million to lie or 10 million reasons to lie and so on. They said, Kyle Rittenhouse has no money. So he's sort of judgment proof. It's kind of pointless to sue him. But yeah, against the city. And then the other way. I mean, already, you're seeing a lot of folks say Kyle Rittenhouse should sue everybody. He should sue all of the news organizations that

said he was a white supremacist that called him a domestic terrorist, a vigilante, and so on. You know, we did see that kid in the Covington case do that. He sued Nick Sandman. CNN got a settlement. Others got settlements. The media does have an obligation to be careful the way they talk about people who are not public figures. What do you make of his chances? I like the idea of him suing select people depending upon what they said and the impact of what they said, because the stakes are much higher now. When you call someone certain things in the media, you could be risking literally life and property because people don't know. They follow the media. They think they are telling the truth. And when someone's calling him something, they act upon it. So I don't mind him suing. Now, legally, what are his chances? It really is just fact sensitive. What was reported, what was told to that outlet before reporting it,

when the president of the United States calls someone something and then a media outlet reports it, let's say afterwards, you know, I mean, I think they're probably on solid footing if they reported something the president might have said. So I think that it's got to be very unusual circumstances for him to prevail. How about the accountability of our leaders on this, Mark? Tom Cotton, Senator Tom Cotton, by the way, he's going to be our guest next week he tweeted out joe biden needs to publicly apologize to kyle rittenhouse and he he weighed in on this case way too early he called him a white supremacist none of which was even discussed in court they didn't they didn't have any proof of that absolutely none and um of course he won't apologize but we i talked earlier this week, Mark, about how

Joe Biden's weighed in on a couple of these cases. He weighed in on the Jacob Blake case and rushed to judgment there, too, which was the precedent to the Kenosha violence. You know, Jacob Blake, a black man, was shot seven times in the back by a cop who was later ruled legally justified by the AG of Wisconsin and also by Merrick Garland once he took over as Biden's AG and Biden became president. Why? Because Jacob Blake had a knife. Jacob Blake survived two tasers. Jacob Blake was beating on the cops. Jacob Blake lunged for the police for another weapon, but and so on. He also said that those cops should be charged before he knew any of that. He said he was unarmed. Jacob Blake, he wasn't unarmed. So did Kamala Harris. To me, it's so frustrating to see these very powerful politicians with huge platforms and microphones stir the pot before we know what the facts are, then refuse to apologize or take it back. And then when there's an ensuing riot and violence, do the exact same thing again. And then again, no accountability or willingness to acknowledge their role in causing the mayhem. Megan, I share your frustration. I think it's probably greater for me because, as I told you,

President Trump condemned my client, Scott Peterson. And I'm telling you, my client is completely innocent. I call upon Biden and others at this point, if they recognize that they were factually inaccurate, if there's no evidence of him being a white supremacist and you called him that, then get in front of those same cameras and apologize. We'll think more of you. And other leaders thinking about getting involved in a criminal case before you know all the evidence, don't do it. It's fundamentally wrong. It messes with the criminal justice system. You screw with the people of the United States, some who will take to violence based upon your words. Stop it.

It's so true. I was off during that time when Trump was doing that. And I remember thinking, oh, my God, like because remember the kinder, gentler time, Mark, where our public leaders, especially a sitting president, would not weigh in on a case in the news. And I remember when I remember my own first memory of that being broken was Barack Obama, President Obama talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. And remember, he said, if I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon. And I remember, you know, the Fox News and all of us were like, whoa, what's he saying? We know he's clearly telegraphing whose side he's on. That's so mild compared to what would come after him. And now it's like no holds barred.

They seem to enjoy taking these cases and making them political footballs and the defendants rights be damned. Yeah. And I thank you and others who will now make that an unpopular thing to do. Shed light on the leaders and let them know that there are repercussions to you speaking out. They think they can do it freely and get the benefit of it. No, you can't do it. It's wrong. And it messes with too much. Don't do it anymore. Yeah, exactly right. Gosh. Okay. Ben Rhodes, speaking of President Obama, he was one of his top guys, tweets out a very dark message sent to all the other heavily armed would be vigilantes out there. I think it's quite the opposite. No one wants to go through

what Kyle Rittenhouse just went through this past year plus. Did you see the relief on that kid's face? I mean, he collapsed. He literally collapsed in the courthouse. He's a kid. I recognize technically he's an adult, but who's going to be inspired by what's happened to him to go out and do the same? Unfortunately, many, Megan, unfortunately. And that's why I think the message needs to get out that there's no precedent here, that these were very unusual facts. And he got away with one where if the facts were a little different, him putting himself in that situation, which, Megan, you and I seem to disagree on.

But I don't think that he should have been there. I think he'll even- No, no, I agree he shouldn't have been there. I've said that. Okay. Well, there's no precedent here. Stay away. Don't walk down the street with a gun. But if you are going to do that, then make damn sure that your life is in jeopardy, which apparently the jury found that he did. I don't know. I think this roots back to so many things. There are so many sources of the blame. One of them is the governor of Wisconsin who refused to keep the peace in the wake of the Jacob Blake shooting. He refused to call in the National Guard. He sent out an incendiary tweet rushing to judgment in that case, in which now to reiterate, the police have been exonerated and he let his city burn for two nights.

Finally, he called in some smattering of National Guard was 125 and his city burned a second night. And there was arson. There was looting there. There were burglaries. There was chaos in the streets. And that is why Kyle Rittenhouse and others, again, in my view, and I realize people disagree, wrongly decided to try to keep the peace themselves. And there's a reason we don't arm 17 year old boys and send them out with AR-15s for crowd control. They're not mature enough. They don't have the life experience. We won't even let them vote. We won't let them drink. The cerebral frontal cortex is not fully developed until they're in their mid-20s, for God's sake. You don't want them doing this. And there's a reason we put cops through all

sorts of training before we arm them and tell them they can interact with the public with a weapon. OK, I get all of it. I'm on the same page with you on that. But the governor of Wisconsin left people in Wisconsin and in Kenosha feeling like they had no help. 125 National Guardsmen is not enough for a city of 100,000. And the local sheriff's office, I'm told, only had 112. Finally, the governor wound up sending in another 125. Now you got 250. Guess how many he's calling in this week? 500. He finally got it. But he put Kenoshans in this position. Joe Biden put them in this position. The media that rushed to judgment in the Jacob Blake case put them in this position. It's not to exonerate those who were involved in the particular incident, but there should be a lot of soul searching tonight and not just by those who

went out on the streets that night, August 25th, 2020. Agreed. But there won't be. There won't be. It's only going to stoke the racial narrative, right? It's only going to stoke it. No, no, no. You go get them, Megan. You got it. I have faith in you. Come on. Dig it up. Make sure that you hold people accountable. white people have the right to self-defense after they show up with a gun looking to shoot someone. And not surprisingly, a bunch of white people are like, sure, why not? Hey, Ellie, not helpful, not factual, not smart, not even close to on point. Mark Eichlar, appreciate you being here. Thank you so much. My pleasure. Thank you, Megan. I certainly hope that we don't have chaos and violence and riots to report on when we rejoin you on Monday.

If history is any indicator, it's going to go the bad way. I will say there weren't after the cops were exonerated in Jacob Lake. And Jacob Lake has actually called for peace prior to the verdict. But hopefully that'll prevail. Thanks for being with us this week. Don't forget, Monday we have Senator Tom Cotton. Feel free to download the show and go to YouTube as well. Have a good weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.