The Megyn Kelly Show - Leftists Melt Down Over Men's Hockey Team and Trump, and Bombshell New Guthrie Reporting, with Andrew Klavan, Geddes, Hamilton, and O'Neill | Ep. 1259

Episode Date: February 24, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Andrew Klavan, host of "The Andrew Klavan Show," to discuss leftists melting down over Trump’s mild joke about the women’s USA Olympic hockey team during his men’s team call, the absurd charges of sexism about the men's team, the modern left's aversion to patriotism, bizarre praise of Eileen Gu who is competing for China and loves praising herself, shocking incident at BAFTAs involving a Tourette outburst and racism accusations, the truth about Tourette Syndrome, NYC thugs attacking NYPD officers with snowballs, Mayor Mamdani making a joke and referring to "kids" doing it, and more. Then Will Geddes, James Hamilton, and Eric O'Neill, security experts and former law enforcement officers, join to discuss bombshell reports that images of the mystery man at Nancy Guthrie’s house are from different nights, the sheriff again refusing to confirm or deny it, what it would mean if the individual was there before the abduction, the new Savannah Guthrie Instagram video revealing Nancy was “taken from her bed,” her decision to up the reward to as much as $1 million, signs the family may be losing hope, a new theory emerging about how Nancy Guthrie could have been removed from her home, new reporting on blood droplets both outside and inside the home house, why multiple people might have been involved, and more.     Klavan- https://www.youtube.com/@AndrewKlavan Geddes- https://www.icpgroupcompanies.com/index.html Hamilton- https://www.hamiltonsecuritygroup.com/ O'Neill- https://ericoneill.net/books/spies_and_lies/   Joi + Blokes: Go to http://joiandblokes.com/MK and use code MK for 65% off your labs and 20% off all supplements PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month. Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you!     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. We have major developments today in the Nancy Guthrie case. A new Instagram message from Savannah this morning, upping the reward to $1 million and new reporting about those nest images. And we'll tell you what we saw in the message from Savannah that revealed new information about this case. But first, President Trump's state of the state of the United States. The union is tonight, technically his first of the second term. We will have full coverage in AM update and on tomorrow's Megan Kelly show. The guys from real clear politics will be here to help us break down everything that happens. My prediction, the Democrats will make fools of themselves not standing for things that they should. Trump will attack the Supreme Court justices who are there. Some Democrats will pull some stupid stunt that we will mock.

And it will be a great moment when they show the men's hockey players there. Those are my predictions going in. As for substance, Trump, of course, will tell everybody how great everything is. The question on my mind is, will he throw in a line of, we know people are still hurting? Like, we know it's not going fast enough. Will there be any sort of acknowledgement that the American people are still suffering because his poll numbers, as we discussed in AM update today, are reflecting a deep dissatisfaction with the economy, especially among independence, and there's just no way around it.

So does he acknowledge it or does he do the typical Trumpian? It's all good and it's only getting better, right? Like it's very unlike him to sort of say, I know you're still hurting. So if I have to put money down on it, I'm going to say he's not going to say that. Okay. So we will have full coverage again, as I said tomorrow. Right now we're still waiting for the full list of special guests. Usually get that right before the event.

we know that the men's team is on their way to D.C. And it's like the controversy that's been developing around them over the past 24 hours is just absolutely disgusting. I mean, we're going to talk about it, of course, but I think we need to start this hour by saying, remember that normal Americans are not feeling anything like the sound bites we're going to play for you on today's show. The political left is crazy, but they will not be able to change American's opinions about these young men. Try as they and their media enablers might. I mean, people really have lost their minds. Thankfully, Golden Gold, Gold, scoring Jack Hughes and his mom, Ellen, are out there bringing

some rational thoughts. And joining me now with some of his own, Andrew Claven. He's host of the Andrew Clavin show on The Daily Wire and author of the book, After That, The Dark. Ladies, listen up. If you are exhausted, anxious, foggy, or if your metabolism is out of whack, and doctors just brush you off and chalk it up to age, you're not cray-cray. You are being ignored. Joy, J-O-I, was created by a woman who lived this frustration firsthand during paramedipause and decided women deserve better than generic advice and symptom checkers. Every Joy Lab includes a real consultation with a licensed clinician specializing in women's Hormones, not an AI chatbot, an actual expert.

Joy offers hormone therapy, peptide therapy, personalized supplements, whatever your body actually needs. This is such a great idea. And for a limited time, you can add a 60-day supply of their estrogen face cream for just $1 with clinician approval. Stop guessing and start getting answers. Go to joy and blokes.com. J-O-I-and-B-L-O-K-E-S dot com slash m-K-K-E-S-E-S-K.

use that code MK to get 65% off your labs and 20% off all supplements a great deal. That's Joy and Bloaks.com slash MK. Use the code MK and check out for 65% off all your labs and 20% off all supplements, Joy and Bloaks Healthcare that actually listens to women. Andrew, welcome back. Thank you, Megan. It's good to see you. There's a lot to go over. Okay, so let's just start with some of the leftist reaction

because what they're claiming they're mad about is that during Trump's phone call with the boys from the locker room, he made a joke. And in the joke, he said, no, he said, I want you to come to the White House. Cash Patel clearly called the president on his phone because it's cash holding his phone. You can see he's got him programmed in as DT. I would like to speak to the FBI director about his code. And Trump's talking to the guys saying all the fun things and congratulating them. And then he says, you know, come to the White House or come to the State of the Union. And he said, you know, we're going to have to invite the women's team as well or I'll be impeached.

We have it here. What would really be cool. And we'll do the White House the next day. We'll just have some fun. We have medals for you guys. And we have to, I must tell you, we're going to have to bring the woman's team. You do know that. Absolutely.

Two for two. I do believe I probably would be impeached, okay? So first of all, all the young men, you could hear them chanting. Two for two, two, meaning yes, do it, because the women won gold, too. And lots of screams of, yeah, like bring them. But somehow the left would like to parlay this into a controversy about misogynistic young men. And even Trump's comment as misogynistic, as opposed. to a joke, an obvious joke. And even if it wasn't a joke, like, do we have to pretend that there's

equal interest in men's sports versus women, women's? I mean, like, if men held a beauty pageant contestant, nobody would watch, right? Or a fewer would watch them would watch the women. There are a lot of things that women can do. Women in the reality shows are fun. They're colorful, they're emotional. They're interesting to watch. I don't think, like, a bunch of guys would be able to carry a reality show in that way because they're more stoic. They don't talk about themselves as much. You know, it's the old joke. Like a guy gets a divorce and the husband of a different wife goes out in the golf course with him for 10 hours. He comes home and the wife is like, what did he say about the divorce? And nothing I didn't ask him. What do you mean?

Michelle Obama actually told that exact story about Barack, but it's like a meme. Anyway, the point is, there are lots of things that make women fascinating and interesting and people want to tune into them, depending on what they're doing. Sports is one of them, but to pretend that it's as compelling in the eyes of the American people as men's sports, men who have the, just the prowess that comes with being a larger-sized species and the testosterone and all of the stuff. It's just fucking ridiculous how we have to pretend it's perfectly equal and there's just as much interest in the women. I don't think there is. But in any event, Trump was making a joke. Okay, but I'm going to show you a little of the leftist meltdown.

over the fact that Trump did that. The guys didn't hang up on him. And then they agreed to go to the State of the Union, Sot Nye. I had no idea that the U.S. men's hockey team warmed up by licking boots. That when the men's U.S. hockey team issues their official apology, I hope that nobody forgives them. They no longer had to treat the women as equals. They were allowed to let their true emotion.

out. Legitimately to the U.S. men's hockey team, fuck you. The women won gold before you did. To watch that, knowing everything that's going on was sick, nauseating. U.S. men's hockey team who decided to giggle with the United States president, just so you know, that's a very weird way to say that you all have small p-Ps. It only took you like 37 seconds from getting off of the ice from your game into the locker room to disappoint the entire goddamn country, you lose or bitched. Do not trust her. Well, that was a fun 10 minutes of patriotism.

United States. I hate you more and more every day. Donald Trump, I hate you. Hughes Brothers, that was embarrassing. And I hope your mother hits you. Andrew, help. Help us out here. Well, first of all, this is a problem.

An actual problem in the country is that we're now dealing with two parties. We're a two-party system. One of our parties are the Republicans who range from the incompetent to the somewhat interesting. The other side of the Democrats who are now powered by forces that don't want this country to exist, that think it's bad that this country exists, that thinks that any show of patriotism

is some kind of, you know, fascist idea being expressed that wants all of our monuments, whether it's George Washington's home in Mount Vernon or Thomas Jefferson's home, they want them all dedicated to the institution of slavery instead of to the people that people go, there to see. This is an actual attitude. It's at the heart of the Democrat Party, though not all Democrats. I mean, there are plenty of patriotic, decent Democrats who just don't know what they're

voting for anymore. And so everything gets politicized at a level that is completely inappropriate. First of all, if you're going to tell me that men go into a locker room and make jokes about women, I'm just shocked. I'm just shocked. The fact that I can still sit in this chair after hearing this news is incredible. And I actually have heard, though I shudder to believe it, that women, when they get together, discuss men and even roll their eyes at some of the things that men do. This is part of life that actually I find kind of delightful and at the heart of all joy and creativity in life. But no, it's apparently a terrible, terrible thing. So all of this stuff, I mean, when Alyssa Lou, the skater, did an incredible, incredible,

routine and won and was attacked for having some kind of woke ideas. I didn't hear the right actually pick up on that at all. They thought like, yeah, it's great. We won our America, won the gold medal in skating with a fantastic routine. But the left was mocking us because they knew that if she had expressed pro-Trump ideas, there would have been death threats against her and she would have been absolutely, you know, rejected by the left. So we're really dealing with two different ways of seeing the country. This is different. than what was happening before. It used to be, let's say, 40 years ago.

It used to be that the two parties were on either side, as Barack Obama once said, of the 50-yard line. One thought the government should do a little more. One thought the government should do a little less. But we all thought that this was a great place to be. We all honored our founders. We all honored our founding. That is over now. And until people start to understand that that's the argument we're in, that we're not in an

argument, for instance, about whether illegal immigrants should be deported or not, We're in an argument about whether the country should exist, whether there is in fact no, there are no illegals on stolen land, which means this country should not exist, is an actual nonentity morally. So everything is about that conversation. And what we are always in the position of doing is playing backup. We're always being attacked and then having to answer the attacks. We're playing defense all the time. Instead of saying, no, you know, we love this country. The Huffington Post attacked people for waving flags after the male hockey victory.

I'm not hearing anything about that. You know, we weren't supposed to express patriotism in this terrible time of crisis when Donald Trump is president. And I, you know, unlike you, Megan, I can't use the language you use because I'm in the presence of the lady. And you're not. It just my answer, my response to that is two words long. And the second one is you. I don't understand why I can't wave my flag for this country, which, is an amazing country, a beautiful country, a great country. I don't even have to add it's not a

perfect country because nothing in life is perfect. But I just feel that this division is one we haven't cottoned onto yet. And the media, which largely sides with the left, works hard not to cotton onto it. We're not discussing what this great country should do, whether it should go forward a little to the left or a little to the right. We're discussing whether this country should exist and be celebrated. And if you don't think that's true, you only have to look at the nations of Europe, Britain, Germany, where waving flags has basically gone completely out of fashion, and because of that, they're losing their identities altogether. So, I'll tell you something else.

I'll tell you something else about what's happening here. I think the vast majority of these women, and there are men, too, will play them. They're not actually offended at all by the fact that these guys reacted the way they did to the Trump call. They do hate Trump. But they're not offended by the way the guys reacted. at all. They were offended at them, period. They are incapable of celebrating a great moment brought to us by white young men. They are in case. They resent them. They hate them. They feel that they are the

source of all of society's problems and ills. And there is something stomach turning for them at watching the nation rally behind men like that. There are, aren't enough men of color. There are no non-binary on the team. There are no women on this particular team, even though they have their own team. They're unapologetically patriotic, as is apparently in the culture of USA hockey, especially men's hockey. And all of that was offensive to these people before they saw that phone call, before the guys said they would go to the state of the union. They were looking for a reason. to hate them, to declare their hatred for them.

And these guys did not give it to them. I mean, like, listen, let's just listen to the President Trump phone call one more time. Listen to their reaction. They're enthusiastic. As soon as he mentions the women, they're like, yeah, they love the women's team. They've trained with the women's team. They've talked about it. We'll play some of them.

But just play the Trump bite one more time. What would really be cool, and we'll do the White House the next day. We'll just have some fun. We have medals for you guys. And we have to, I must tell you, we're going to have to bring the woman's team. You do know that. Absolutely. Too far too.

I do believe I probably would be impeached, okay? Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. Two for two. Two for two. Like, virtually every guy there was in favor of it, Andrew. But these leftists need, they need to hate these guys. Have you ever heard, again, it just doesn't go both ways.

We are dealing with two entirely different attitudes toward the country. Have you ever heard Republicans get upset if a basketball team won by saying like, oh, there are too many black people on this team? Of course not. We understand that different sports attract different kinds of people. And there are a million kinds of people in this country and they're all Americans if they support America. I think that this is just part of a mindset.

It's like they're high on their own supply. They've been selling division, selling racial hatred, selling identity hatred all this time. And now they've caught it. Now they've caught, you know, they started out. We all started out saying, hey, you know, racism is wrong. We've got to stop treating black people badly according to their race. We all were kind of moving in that direction. But the left, no, no, it's not the racism that's wrong.

We were just racist against the wrong people. Now we're racist against white people. And it's fine. Now it's fine. They sit around and talk about women. They don't even believe women exist. They do not even believe women exist. Not one of them can define a woman.

So what are they talking about when they're against? When we say, you know, the men's sports and women's sports are different. That is just a truth. I mean, it is just a truth that men's sports, with the exception of tennis, which is an important exception, but with the exception of tennis, that men's sports attract more people because men are more into sports and the men are of a higher excellence than the women are. You know, it's just the way it is. It's like, why are we prosecuting reality?

We're prosecuting reality because, In reality, people are unequal. In reality, freedom is good. In reality, America is good. And so we're attacking all those things because we're hoping to create this utopian idea that has just infected the minds of so many people. It is just, it's dangerous. But it's so annoying because they try, I mean, you really have to try it to not let them rain on your parade. But they try.

You know, I'm thinking about let's take the news business or let's take the acting business. there's no sexism in terms of the audience and their ability to appreciate a male or a female news anchor or podcaster for that matter. None. It is a pure meritocracy. I can speak to that. Having been at the top of both industries, when I was at Fox, my show was number one, and we crushed all competition across the demo. And we even wound up beating Bill O'Reilly, who had been the long-term ratings leader for years in that key. advertising demo, you know, a female. So it was nobody cared in, in, you know, Hollywood, too, there's the male Oscar, there's the female Oscar, but there are mega female stars, just like there are mega male stars. You know, you don't get much bigger than a Julia Roberts back in her day, especially. But now, you know, there's a lot of other ones that we could name. So there are many

industries where there's total parity amongst men and women. Now women have a U.S. a hockey team and they went to the Olympics and won gold and they were celebrated universally. Women have a soccer team, which is actually quite popular. Soccer is very popular. Female soccer is very, very popular, including the women's team, notwithstanding people like Megan Rapino who have tried to absolutely ruin it. But it is, sports in general is generally going to favor the men. And viewers generally prefer watching men play sports for the reasons I stated at the top. Male prowess, male athleticism, the male figure.

the male muscular and musculoskeletal system, you know, male testosterone, male reaction speed, male aggression, all the things that have made men men for thousands of years translate very well into athletics and they're fun to watch in that way. They are more aggressive. They're more aggressive in virtually every single way. So it's like, it's just absurd that we have to resort to sexism if there's not an equal amount of interest in what the women are, just Stop, okay? There isn't. Sorry, but it doesn't make a sexist.

There's even a brain element to this in that when men, this is true of all brains, that when you watch somebody doing something, your brain sparks as if you were doing it. So if you watch a man throw a football pass, there's something in your brain that actually sparks. It's similar to what's going on in his brain. That happens more in men, more intensely in men. So they're kind of programmed to like sports, watching sports, more than women are because they experience it. more deeply, which is just not true if you're, for instance, in news anchor or an actress or something like that, then there's no difference. And so all of these things, you know, all of these things are part of the joy of life. You know, the old French phrase, Viva la de France, right?

You know, these are parts of the things that most of us have been enjoying and they're exasperating and they're troublesome and they are just part of, you know, what it means to be a human being. And all of this has to be erased to, in order to fulfill the utopian truth. of the left. And, you know, it's just, what really is a shame is this thing where we have to play defense. So as you say, they rain on your parade. And we have to say, don't rain on our parade, which immediately brings the argument that they're trying to make into the center. I wish we could simply ignore them. Yes. Oh, wait. So can I show you something on this? So these poor boys now are getting asked about this controversy, which is a non-controversy at every turn. Instead of these

asshole reporters just celebrating them, being like, congrats, we're so proud of you. Now it's got to turn into, oh, the controversy. What about the controversy? And I'll give you an example. This, this, well, this is not, the Today Show is, I don't mean that these guys are assholes for asking it. But we have seen some of these reporters sticking the mic in the guy's faces. But the Today Show had an interview with Jack Hughes, our golden goal scorer. And, you know, the guy without the teeth now, he's great. And listen to what he said.

He handled himself very well. But, of course, it keeps coming up. Anyway, here, SOT 6B. I wish if there's a camera on me and Quinn when the women's team won, we look like the biggest trooper fans of all time. We were just jumping up and down. We couldn't believe it. And we locked down and said goodbye to everything because we had a game the next night. It was late and we sprinted out of there.

But I remember I saw Megan in the Calf. I think it was the night we beat Slovakius the night after they won the gold medal. And we were just waiting for food and we were talking. I was just like, Megan, I'm so proud of you. so happy for you. You know, couldn't have happened to a better person. And obviously, you know, when mine went in, I'm just like, so many things, thoughts. And, you know, one of my first thoughts was her. And I'm just like, so proud to join her as a gold mess. Sex is disgusting pig. Yes. And interestingly, most competitors in America, although the Canadians were a little bit

bitter about their loss. Most competitors in America do have that strain of sportsmanship, which is what sports is all about. I mean, you do see, you know, I'm a big NFL fan, you watch these guys beat the living hell out of one another, and then they shake hands and hug each other and congratulate each other

on the victory, which is a very difficult, painful thing to do, and yet they do it. And this is all through sports. It is only in left-wing politics, where this suddenly disappears. You know, I mean, even I'm old enough to remember when we all sort of thought, well, you know, the people voted for the other guy,

so we're going to have to go with that. I mean, I remember saying that when Obama was elected, even knowing he was going to be a disaster, thinking, well, he got elected, he got fairly elected, so we have to go with the will of the people. That ethos has just completely disappeared from some sections of the right, but from all sections of the left. The left is basically convinced themselves that there are two opinions. There's their opinion, and then there's Hitler. You know, there's their ideas, and then there's hatefulness. And when you you do that, you know, you never have to change your mind. You never have to listen to an argument. You never have to confront somebody with politeness and kindness and respect and say, all right,

let's hear your ideas and let's see how my ideas compare. Every time they do that, they lose. Every time they debate, they lose because the things that they're putting forward don't work. So, yeah, so they can't debate anymore. So they can't talk anymore. And the only thing they can do, you know, you're talking about the state of the union. They're planning a people's state of the union somewhere else because they can't, because they can't behave themselves in a respectful way during Trump's state of the union, they have to leave the room. They're like children who have to be put into a separate room. They're literally going to be outside with people in inflatable frog costumes.

That skip. That skip around. Okay. Wait, I want to show you another couple things. One more from Jack Hughes. Here's he's speaking of the Daily Mail. Butted to Jack Hughes's mama, who herself is a badass. Ellen Hughes is not only a star hockey player in her own right, who married a star hockey player

and they produce three star hockey players. Literally all three boys are in the NHL. But Ellen has been an advisor and a consultant to the women's gold medal winning team. So she's got a foot in both camps on this one. So listen to Jack. Some of this is on the politics. And Ellen, too, on the Today Show, speaking to the Trump comments. Are you guys excited to be going to the White House and meeting Trump?

Yeah, we're excited. I mean, anytime, like, everything is so political. We're just, we're athletes. We're so proud to represent the U.S. And we get the chance to go to the White House, meet the president. You know, we're proud to be Americans. And, you know, that's so patriotic. So no matter what your views are, we're super excited to go to the White House tomorrow and just be a part of that.

You're cheering on both teams. How did that comment land for you? Well, I think at the end of the day, it's just about the country. And the moment that these players, both the men and women, can bring so much unity to a group into a country. people that cheered on that don't watch hockey, people that have politics on one side or on the other side. And that's to all both the men's team and the women's team care about. If you could see what we see from the inside and the men and women sharing, you know, dorms, dorm rooms and halls and flex floors and the camaraderie and the synergy and the way the women cheered on the men and the way the men cheered on the women. That's what it's all about.

And the other things they cannot control. they care about humanity, they care about unity, and they care about the country. Nailed it. That must have made the interviewer's very upset. They're like villains. They're like villains in a cartoon. No, unity, we don't want that.

Yeah, ha ha, ha, you know, it's like, it's embarrassing. What did you make at the president's comment? You hated it, didn't you? The implication clearly is. Yeah, yeah. And it's just, it is a shame. It is kind of comical. I just wish we had enough media

territory. We're winning some media territory, and we've certainly changed the game a lot because of shows like yours and the Daily Wire and all these other places. But it's still not enough. They can still push this agenda into the world. I mean, I wonder, you know, I keep seeing these polls, and I believe the polls, I think the polls are true, that people are unhappy, feel that they're worse off than they were a year ago, and that's going to be an impediment to Trump's State of the Union message. But I kind of wonder what they're seeing. What is it? Are there economics worse than they were a year ago, and it's just taking a while for the general rise in the economy to catch up with them? Or is it just the news is so full of panic and hatred and division that that's

infecting the way they think? I don't know the answer to that question. I'm surprised that people feel that they're worse off than they were under Biden. I mean, the worst president in my lifetime, which goes back to the Civil War, you know, and I don't know what they're seeing, but I wonder if It's this kind of this media infusion of division and hatred. It may well be, but I don't know. I'm looking for this tweet because it was very funny to me. Yeah, here it is. So somebody named Liz tweets out the following.

It's got 1.2 million views already with 56,000 likes. Thinking about the hockey moms that spent over a decade of their lives driving their sons to and from hockey practice and games just for their sons, to grow up to become Olympic gold medalists who laugh at misogynistic jokes at the expense of women. And then you've got, like this response from Jill, who I reposted, hockey moms saw a team of hardworking, dedicated young men. Hockey moms are proud of how this team represented their country. Hockey moms saw that these men are a family and will never forget those that they have lost. Hockey moms saw the joy in their own son's eyes when they watched this team win gold on Sunday.

us hockey moms don't have time for your bullshit. That seems to encapsulate the true hockey mom and American attitude. Absolutely. And if these people care so much about women's sports, how come they let men play them? You know, how come they're so eager to have men dressed up as women beat the living crap out of actual women in a boxing ring, you know? Why is that okay? Why is it okay to stick these male swimmers into swimming pools? I've seen how girls work hard to become great swimmers,

and they put a man in there who pretends he's a woman, and he beats their speed. I mean, why is that okay? I don't understand why suddenly their dear hearts tremble for these poor women who they were ready to erase yesterday. I mean, the day before the Olympics, they were ready to erase these women completely off the face of the earth. They didn't exist.

They couldn't define what a woman was so that a man had to be able to play with them. I don't understand the sentiment. This brings me to a guy named. named Ian Kennedy. Okay. Ian Kennedy is, he says he works for the hockey news editor at the Hockey NewsW, author of a book about women in hockey. And he tweets out, as NHL players return to their teams and as Team USA heads to meet

with the president, remember that they've all had plenty of time to speak out, to apologize for laughing, to condemn that type of misogyny, and to tell the achievement of USA's women's team. They haven't. all that is untrue, but the internet, Twitter points out to me, this man hates women and doesn't even want them to have sports and retweets something he tweeted on 2525. So a year ago, trans women are women, trans rights are human rights, trans women belong in women's sports.

To your points, sir. Yeah, yeah, no question about it. And it's just the absolute destruction. It's not just the destruction of women's sports. I mean, you and I have talked about this a lot. It's the destruction of the identity of womanhood, which is, I hate to break this to you, but it's one of the key identities of humanity. There are only two kinds of human beings.

It's a big one. Yeah, it's the only two kinds of human beings in the world. There's men and women. Everybody else is pretty much the same. You know, that's the big difference between human beings is gender. That's it. And so I don't really understand. It is about the division.

It is about the hatred. It's about. Yes, they want to, can't stand it. They're not, these leftists are not having the same feeling that we're, we're feeling when, you know, instead of being like, oh my God, even a moment of patriotism, like we can all come together over this. And we're so naive. We're kind of sweet in our naivete. Like, yes, we're going to embrace everybody. And the leftists are like, what part of tear that shit down didn't you believe? We can't fucking stand the country. We've made ourselves perfectly clear.

Stop trying to stick that olive branch in our faces. That's exactly what. what I'm trying to say. That is exactly the division between this in this country now is not a division. It's not even a division between right and left. It's a division between pro-founding and anti-founding is whether this country should have been founded and whether the people who founded it were great men who moved politics into a brand, a brand new era of freedom that absolutely redefined the values of the human race in the West, which it actually did. I mean, even the Soviet Union had to say it was a union of republics, which it wasn't because of us, because we, our founding redefined what was good and what was bad in politics. Are we supposed to be proud of that

founding or are we not? And this is, you know, the other day I was watching TV and I heard a Democrat come on and say he was against all the radicalism in the Democrat Party because he was a JFK Democrat. And I thought, I'm a JFK Democrat. That's why I'm a Republican. You know, that category does not exist in the Democrat Party anymore. And it doesn't exist in the left. And it's because a very small number of people leftists have been magnified by the media and by Hollywood. That is why it's like this. And because our children, they would rather, they would rather, however, celebrate the likes of Eileen Gou, who, I mean, she's being called a traitor by some. That's probably too strong. But there's no question this woman has gotten millions of dollars, millions, reportedly over

$20 million in endorsements largely from Chinese companies. even though she's American. She was born here, but she has a Chinese mother, and she was recruited by the Chinese for that reason to play to ski for them. And unlike Alyssa Liu, our golden ice skater, she, Eileen Gu, the skier, took the money. And she went over there and skied for China and won some golds, skiing for China. And she's being celebrated. Universities. University, by the leftist media here in America. They're making a heroin out of this woman. And what I see is this.

Look at her during the Chinese national anthem. She's singing it. Okay, I'm sorry, but that's just gross. Yeah. That's just gross. It's just a sellout to China, enjoy your money. Why would the media be celebrating her? It's a really good question, especially when you consider that the Chinese, first of all,

they spy on every single one of their citizens, which is a lot of citizens. They put Uyghurs in camps and re-education camps. They are said, and I believe it, to act. Were they're forced into sterilization? Yes, and to have their organs sold, which I actually believe, which is like a horror movie, you know, something someone like me might make up. It's just an absolutely criminal slave state. And why the representatives of that state, one of the reasons the Olympics don't land on me as hard

as they do. and some people's, because I don't care whether America wins. I still think America is better. If America had lost to Canada, it wouldn't have changed my feelings about the country anyway. Like, I can understand watching football, maybe Pittsburgh is better than Baltimore, you know, but the idea that China is better than America would never occur to me. And I think that this idea, especially as you were saying, this Alyssa Lou, I believe her father escaped after Tiananmen Square, he got out of China.

Yes, they went the other way. That's right. They went the way. He fled China and is here. Anybody on the right say, oh, we can't celebrate her. She's Chinese. No, of course not. She's all-American.

We, you know, this is the wonderful thing about this country. We will magically turn you into an American. All you have to do is support our, you know, our values. Well, unfortunately, the left doesn't. Here's what they're doing with Eileen goo. I'll just give you a couple of quick headlines. ESPN has an op-ed. Eileen Gu's all-American choice to ski for China.

What? What does that even mean? He's got his. Andrew's got his head in his hands. Celebrating her as our, as freestyle skiing's biggest star, she's a case study in modern leadership. Wow. Talking about her 23 million.

She mastered the Olympics, calling her the Snow Princess, superstar, courtesy of the athletic, all these in-depth profiles on her. We're not doing that for any other Chinese athletes. Why are we doing that for her? Because she's an American who betrayed us. Therefore, that gets you all this ink and greater endorsement. And can I just show you? Let me show you who Eileen Gou is, because this is not a

likable person. Absolutely not a likable person. Watch. I'm so proud of how I've done this Olympics. I joke. I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I took a big gamble this time because I chose to do three events, knowing that I hadn't trained half pipe in two months, knowing that I would miss the half pipe training. I'm an introspective young woman. Like, I spend a lot of time in my head. And it's not a bad place to be. The fact is I get to become every day the kind of person that me at age eight would revere. Like, I would be obsessed with me today. Are you kidding? I would love me. Global beneficial impact is like my central theme. The fact is a rising tide raises all boats. And so this is also good for every other athlete competing regardless of what country you compete for.

That's wonderful. She's giving Gail Kim post blue origin. I'm an inspiration. Just ask me. The wonder of me. The wonder of me. The eight-year-old me would revere me. Who talks like that? That's amazing. I love that. The eight-year-old of me would revere me. You know, who would look back on the eight-year-old me and think it might one day become me.

The great circle of me is absolutely complete and inescapable. That's wonderful. Is the left so far gone, these media writers, that they look at that and they think, yeah, right on. No way. They've got to see how self-aggrandizing she is. Trass that with Jack Hughes right after winning gold for the men's team, saying it's all on the goalie. He outplayed everybody by a mile and also finding a way to praise the opponents. The Canadian team was amazing. Not one word about himself. We'll play it.

Back the first gold medal for the United States in 46 years and you delivered it. Can you just describe the emotions of this moment right now? This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It's unbelievable. The USA Hockey Brotherhood is so strong. And we had so much support from next players. I'm so proud to be American today.

This was such an incredible game to grind out. I mean, you're bleeding right through it, just looking at you right now. Can you just talk about how difficult this gold medal was to win? Unbelievable game by Halibuck. He was our best player tonight by Amad. unbelievable game, unreal game by our team. That's just a ballsy, gutsy win. That's American hockey right there.

That's a great Canadian team. But we're USA. We're so proud to be Americans. Tonight was all for the country. All right. So just to sum up, he mentioned when she specifically said, you, you, how did you do it? You scored the game winner. It's about the country.

It's about the hockey brotherhood. It's about the ex-players who have been so supportive. It's about Hallibuck, who outplayed everybody by a mile. It's about the team. It's about American hockey again. It's about the great Canadian team. And it's about love of country. Not me.

I revere me. I'm crushing everything. Doesn't everyone love me? You know, it's also, I mean, he's praising the goalie. The Canadians were so bitter that they were saying, well, they were suggesting. They didn't come out and say it. But they were suggesting that they were the better team because they took more shots. And they did.

I mean, it was an onslaught. They actually took shot after shot after the goal. He kept blocking them. And so they were saying, well, we were really the better team because we took more shots, which is actually not the way hockey is played. The shots have to go into the goal. But look, no, no. Thank you for us non-sports lovers.

I appreciate that because I've been confused. I know. I know. It was complex stuff. But, but, you know, this is a really interesting thing. What that guy was saying is what we experienced. in America of our sportsmen. It is what we expect them to say. Like I said, I watch football. I watch football all season long. And I expect the quarterback to come out and thank the line. I expect them to come out and thank his receivers and to say that it's the great team.

And when he fails, he says, I blew it. You know, that is what we expect. That's what American sportsmen talk like. That's when you use I. Yep. And we, we know it. We all feel this way. And we put it on our kids. We teach it to our kids. This is one of the reasons why when the left says there should be no score. You know, we should have no score. This is one of the things they wanted to teach kids for a long time. There are no winners and losers. It's the fact that there are winners and losers that shapes people into sportsmen.

The fact that you can lose with grace means that you can win in a fury and win with grace. And those, that's, I don't know. To me, that's more important than who wins the game. It actually is. You know, I mean, I look. Now that you're saying that, you're so right. And when you're saying it, Andrew, I'm thinking about the two stories about Eileen goo are totally connected.

the same woman who talks like that about herself would take the $23 million in endorsement deals to go play for the Chinese and sing their anthem, even though she's American, right? It's the same person. It's no accident that she is wrapped in a Chinese flag singing the Chinese national anthem and then sat down and wanted us all to know

how great she is. And I have to say, I hadn't heard those headlines you were reading. That was the first time I'd heard them. And I can't imagine what's in those guys' minds. What are they talking about? Do they not know what China is? Well, what's the story with sports writers?

As an American man who probably reads a lot more sports than I do, is sports writing completely woke? Yes. Because I can't get over the number of headlines written by men that are very woke and annoying about our male hockey team. I actually canceled many years ago, publicly canceled my subscription to Sports Illustrated, because I got so sick of them attacking God. Every time I remember Drew Breeze got up and gave a speech

where some little kid asked him what was his super word, what was his strength word, and he said faith. And in covering this, Sports Illustrated wrote three paragraphs of why he didn't mean faith in Jesus, which is what he meant. That was exactly what he was talking about. But he didn't necessarily mean that because that would be divisive. That was what Sports Illustrated said.

And I said, I'm canceling my subscription. And they complained. They went on Hugh Hewitt's show and attacked me for, canceling my subscription. And I just let no, you guys, you know, this is what sports is all about. It is all about faith. It's all about, you know, excellence. It's all about the things that men care about. You know, people always say, they always say men only have one thing on their mind and always say, yes, excellent. Men think, that is the thing that men think about from the minute they wake up to the minute they go to bed. How can I be excellent? And when you look at sports, you know,

look, I played sports as a little kid, but I'm not a sportsman. But when I look at them, I am inspired to be excellent. I want to be better than I am. I want to make sure that I did all the work I need to do to do my job well. That's what sports is about. You're just hitting a ball with a stick, after all. It has no meaning except the meaning that it has to do the spectator. And the spectator is looking at this and saying, this is excellence. And that is the thing that is primary in most men's makeup is how to achieve excellence.

And it's happening, by the way, notwithstanding all these naysayers and these terrible negative Nellys, all the guys' social media is shooting up, you know, by the thousand after thousand in terms of followers. their influence is growing, their ability to message to the American public is growing. All that's great. And now over on team women, who let's just keep in mind, they are not in a controversy. People are starting to turn on them on the right. Too soon. Okay?

They declined the president's invitation to go to the White House or to go to the State of the Union, saying they just have too many other commitments. That is, but saying we're very honored to be asked. thank you so much. That's fine. That doesn't mean that they're snubbing the president. That they actually do. Mark Tieson was pointing this out on his ex-speed saying a lot of these gals are still in college and they are in the NCAA. They've missed almost a month of school and eight games with their NCAA teams. Some who are in the professional women's hockey league. The break is now over. And unlike NHL players, their teams can't send charter planes to come get them back by the game. I think he means because of dough.

like not as rich or lucrative a business. They were extremely gracious, he points out, and their statement explaining why they couldn't come. So maybe we'll get to the point where they're like, we didn't go because we hate Trump, and then we can have that conversation. But it's too soon. They've done nothing wrong.

They've been very supportive of their male counterparts on the men's team. They're not out there saying that these are sex as pigs. I'm sure they heard these guys who they know very well saying, yeah, two for two, absolutely. Bring them. And unlike these idiots who are ripping on the men, these women know these guys. And I'm sure love them. They've spent countless hours with one another, rooting for each other, living with each other, not with with, but you know, in the same quarters generally.

And the women's hockey team now has received an invitation from Flav Flave a Flav is how he's supposed to say it again. Flav would like to extend an invitation of them to host them for a big rager out in Vegas, do some nice dinners, he writes, and shows in good times. I'm sure he can get a hotel and airline to help me out here and celebrate the women for real, for real. Now, this is definitely meant to be a thumb in the eye to Trump. And then he tweeted out a message saying that they accepted it. But then he took it down.

So I don't know what's real, whether they're going to go or not. I'm fine with them going out and having a rager in Vegas. They deserve it. They work so hard and they made us so proud. I will say if this is turning into like a sexism thing or a misogyny thing and they don't want to go with like the guys who laughed at Trump's joke versus Flavavav they should really do a Google of Flav. Because I did. And I found some things.

Again, I don't think we should hold this against him. I think if they want to go to the party, they should. But if we're going to turn into a sexist thing, there are some things to know about Flav. Like, in 1991, he pleaded guilty to assaulting his then-girlfriend Karen Ross, served 30 days in jail and lost custody of his children amid struggles with addiction. In 1993, face charges, including attempted murder for shooting at a neighbor and additional domestic violence and drug possession allegations.

In 2012, he was arrested in Vegas on felony charges after allegedly assaulting his fiancé, Elizabeth and threatening her teenage son with a knife, later pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charges, attempted battery with substantial bodily harm and domestic violence. In 2014, received probation and attended counseling in 2021 arrested in Nevada for misdemeanor domestic battery. Allegations included poking, grabbing a female household member, throwing her down and taking her phone. The domestic battery charge was later dropped and dismissed. He pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor coercion charge and paid fines. I'm just saying this, you know, Everyone's got problems.

Just, if we're going to be making a statement about how women should be treated, he might not be your ideal host. You know, I have to say when they turned down Trump, I did have a moment when I started, start with startled because I thought like, you know, you win a gold medal at the Olympics. You want to go to the White House and celebrate. I would think. But I did think about it. They were very polite about their turn down. It was not a political turn down. They didn't say we can't go because we hate this president.

They say we have other appointments. You can imagine if, say, enough people on your team had to be somewhere, all of you might say, well, if they can't go, we're all going to not go. And as you point out. Or even, even, Andrew, if they were saying it's kind of a political thing, so we're just going to stay out of it because, you know, we don't even touch anything political. That'd be fine, too. Keep going. Yeah. But I do think, like, it may come out that they are anti-Trump, but I sort of doubt it.

I mean, people, most of the people who go to the Olympics. They're also hockey players. Yeah. And most of the people go to the Olympics. are there to represent the USA and they're proud to do it. It's only the press that pushes this on everybody and it pushes it on everybody. You're not allowed, I mean, this happens in showbiz too. You're not allowed to not have an opinion and you're certainly not allowed to have a right-wing

opinion. So even people, even actors who I know and writers too, who I know for a fact or conservatives, won't come out and say it and they just say, I'm not political and that becomes sort of a shibboleth for I'm conservative. And the press goes mad. But I don't understand it is that absolute conviction. that there is one right opinion and everything else is hatefulness. And I just can't stand it.

I think it is the most small-minded, pinch-hearted thing I've ever seen. And it's infecting so much of the country, this idea that we cannot get along. And I don't believe, I actually don't believe that 70% of the country agree with it. I mean, I think most people actually are willing to listen to others and, you know, act in their real lives. But I think social media basically emphasizes it. And the left just will not let it go. And the fact, you know, the fact that they own the media, so much of the news media, or at least have until now, has really been a bad influence on all of this. I have to ask you, are you, can you stay for an extra 10 minutes, Andrew?

Because I'm dying to ask you about what happened at the BAFTA Awards on Sunday night. And given your Hollywood connections, you're the perfect person. And we have to talk state of the union too. All right. So I've got to, I'm going to have to take a break in a second. And then we'll come back with Andrew. We'll do a couple of other subjects in the news. So, yes, I think it's too soon to be angry at the women.

But I will say, like, the amount of even male meltdown over this, listen to this guy, Boston, Brian. Can we squeeze him in? Just go for it. Sot 12. I just want to go on and reiterate that Team USA can, in fact, stick those gold medals straight up their fucking asses, okay? It doesn't matter what you did. It doesn't matter who you recognized. Doesn't matter how proud you made people during the fucking Olympics.

If you're going to go and talk to a pedophile. If you're going to go and talk to Jeffrey Epstein's best friend, if you're going to go and meet Jeffrey Epstein's best friend, if you're going to party and drink beers with Cash Patel, the guy in power, actively covering up the world's largest sex trafficking ring of children, then you can fuck yourselves, okay? You can cross-eyed piece of shit Cash Patel having him in the fucking locker room. If you don't think that makes a fucking political statement and opens you up to retribution, you're even fucking dumber than I thought. So either fucking ship the gold back to Canada or fucking choke on them.

So fuck team USA. Fuck the men's hockey team. He seems nice. Very nice. He's with Midas Touch, which is the far left podcasting group. I don't, whatever. Like the insanity runs, it's cross-gender on this one. And I wonder now if you think these guys are going to keep getting asked about this.

You know what I mean? Is this going to turn into the dominant narrative when they're interviewed? I think eventually they're going to be embarrassed to do this because everybody else is for them so strongly. I hope that's true because, The left is persistent, and they will do this. They will hunt them down just like they do with J.K. Rowling, just like they did with Chick-fil-A. They will hunt them down as long as they can. But in this case, they might be ashamed.

It's just possible if they have any capacity for shame left that this might do it. Yeah, that's a very hopeful thought that they might. Dream on. We'll see. We will find out together, especially when they appear at the State of the Union tonight, and we'll speak about that with Andrew right after this. You know what Pure Talk's favorite holiday is? Well, we just celebrated it, President's Day.

because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents. Just a little Jackson and a little Lincoln, to be exact. Yes, for just $25 bucks a month, Pure Talk gives you unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data. Now compare that to Big Wireless. They would rather celebrate Benjamin Franklin Day so they can charge your family hundreds every month. That's not right. You deserve better. Pure Talk is an American wireless company that supports our veterans and invests in a U.S. only customer service team. So when you call, you're talking to someone right here at home.

Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just $25 a month for talk, taxed, and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. What are you waiting for? Just dial pound 250 and say keyword Megan Kelly, and you will get 50% off your first month. Again, dial pound 250 and say, Megan Kelly, to make the switch to Pure Talk. Andrew Claven is back with me now of the Andrew Claven show over on the Daily Wire.

So just while we were in break, the following happened. This NHL hockey player named Dylan Strom went to Disney with his daughter, and the NHL tweeted it out, the two of them sitting in front of Disney princess costumes, clearly in the Cinderella store there. And they wrote, Dylan Strom is the ultimate girl dad. and his hat actually reads Girl Dad, and he's got a little tiara on top of it. It's very cute. It's obviously one hat.

And apparently, according to Greg Price on X, the pronoun people in the replies with unhinged comments went nuts, and he posted some of them, like laughing on a misogynistic joke, a rapist, and a pedophile, more like the worst girl dad ever. That's just one example of the kind of feedback they were getting. Then there's weird that you chose today to post this.

Did something happen? Not using the daughter as a human shield. My God, today. A girl dad would put out a statement that he meant no harm by laughing along with a convicted rapist. Okay, so you see how it's going, right? The NHL deleted the tweet. And guess what? Dylan Strom is Canadian and did not even play on the Olympics.

team for the U.S. men's or the Canadian men's teams. He's just an NHL hockey player who's not even American, you know, taking this shit. I mean, it's just, okay. In better news, the actual U.S. men's players have just landed in D.C., I believe. They posted this picture, and they are on one of the president's Air Force won jets. I didn't realize we had more than one, but there's apparently two, at least. And look at this picture. So great, Andrew, with the guys holding the flags, getting off on the tarmac here as they make their way over eventually today to Capitol Hill, where all heroes go. And to see the president. It's great because even when they landed in Miami, they, I saw this online. I didn't know this was the thing, but they were saying that they got this, like, salute at the Miami airport with these, like, fire hoses. The firemen did it, like to do sort of a rainbow over the plane. But in any, wherever they go, they're heroes. That's what's real, you know, when they went through the baggage claim. People were chanting USA, USA when they were flying into Miami. That's how regular normal people feel. And it's great. Okay. Let me keep going. Speaking of the president in Air Force One.

Okay. Even Trump says tonight is going to be a long one. Oh, God. Yeah. Starts at nine. And like, what do you expect? Because it's not that they've never boycotted the State of the Union before these Dems, but it seems like quite a few of them are not even going to show up. They're doing their counter programming. And those polls, we talked about them on AM update this morning. That's our morning news headline podcast, Andrew, also going to. great is the Morning Wire, which I also listen to every day. Love those guys, too. But the polls are terrible right now for Trump. They're not good. He's, I mean, way underwater with independents, like way, way, way underwater with them. So what would you advise him to say or do tonight to get at those folks, the independents? Well, I'm a big believer, and I used to say this

during the Biden administration, when people tell you that they are hurting economically, it is bad practice to bring out your charts and tell them why they're not hurting economically. People know whether they can afford the things they want, whether they can give their children good things, whether they can put food on the table, whether they can pay for the extras that they want to give their kids. People know these things. And if they can't, they can. And they're saying so. So if the negative feelings toward Trump are, as they're said to be, based on the economy, I think you are absolutely right that, one, he should very much acknowledge their pain, and two, it is not in his nature to do that. And I think that that is a serious problem. You know, Trump, all of Trump's great strengths are also his great weaknesses. This is the thing about him. He is a man who will say the logical common sense thing, even if it's become outlawed. And yet he says, because he has no respect for people who say that you can't say that, he will also say things that are pretty stupid. one of the things he does, and he did it during COVID, which was very bad for him, was he

concentrates on how he's being treated and he invites you in to participate in that ill treatment. Like he will say, and there's a lot of truth to this, he'll say it's not me thereafter. I'm just standing in their way. They're really after you. There's a lot of truth to that. But there is also a point where he's not suffering what the people are suffering. And if the people are suffering from bad economic feelings, that they're not getting the good

things that they want out of life. To talk about the Supreme Court and how it ruled against him, to talk about, you know, his problems and his problems with the press is not the right way to go. I mean, he really does need to say, look, this is what we're doing. It's not, you know, it's not working right away, but it will work. It will filter down to you. And it is, it is coming your way. And things are actually better in certain ways that you're not feeling yet.

I don't think, I don't think he's capable of saying that. So I think that the best thing he can do, and his speechwriters, I'm sure, are very keyed into the things he can and can't do. I think the best thing he can do is start to list, make a laundry list of the things he's accomplished, which are not just amazing. They also have been eradicated by the media. The minute he solves a problem, it ceases to exist. So he closes the border. Millions of people are marching over that border while those smiling SOBs went in front of Congress and said the border was secure. millions. It was an invasion. It was an invasion. That's not an exaggeration. He closed it. He shut the door. Bang. It was done. I don't think any other Republican would have done that. Anybody who tells me that a Mitt Romney, John McCain, only these people would have done it. No way. He did it because he didn't care what the press was saying. He should remind people of that. He should remind people that crime is way down. Death from fentanyl's way down. The actual effect that he is having on drugs being poured into the

the country is huge. I mean, this is a problem that people in the government thought could never be solved. He's actually made a move towards solving it. Same thing is true in the Middle East. Another problem that because people were stuck on the two-state solution, they thought that could never be solved. He has opened up a path to solving the ineradicable violence in the Middle East. It has done an amazing, amazing thing in the Middle East. So all of those things are things that he should bring to bear, but they are not the kitchen table issues that people seem to be complaining about in the polls. And when he deals with those a little bit of humility and talking about Trump and humility in the same sentence just makes me laugh on the face of it, a little bit of

humility might not be a bad thing. You know, I... Well, the good thing for Trump is unlike yesterday when he met with the angel families who had lost people, family members and loved ones to illegal immigrants, which Fox took and News Nation took and I think nobody else took. Right. They're all going to take tonight. So, you know, it's a great opportunity for him to get some of that messaging out there because every network will take it. And while not everybody's thrilled to watch two or three hours of a state of the union, they'll see highlights all tomorrow. And the news cycle's not that hot right now. So CNN will play clips. So will MS. And even if there are clips that they think are bad for Trump, Trump clearly is not going to think they're bad clips because he put him in a state

the union address. So that's good for him. Your comment about his strengths or his weaknesses. It reminds me of this. I've done this. This is Total Trump from Jumangi. Watch. Strength is my weakness. Hey, can I, quick question. How is strength my weakness? Somebody explain that to you. It's funny because that's where you come in. It's true of all of us. All of us, we have these, you know, salient traits, and they're usually the best thing about us, and they also play into the worst thing about us. If you're a truth teller, you might also be a big mouth, something I'm pretty used to.

You know, things that are your virtues. Yeah, the things that are your virtues are also your deficits. And with Trump, he's such a big character that his big virtues and big deficits. He has changed the way the game is played. And so much of what he does is attacked not because what was happening before was working, but because it was never done before. You know, it's like we let's not, let's not. lead with the two-state solution in the Middle East. Let's just close the border. Let's deport people

who shouldn't be here, who are here illegally. And everybody knows, you know, that's going to be the third rail. Everybody's going to see the evil pictures of people crying and weeping on the air. But once again, I just have to point this out again, that we're dealing with a party that is often ineffective on the right, but does actually appreciate this country and what it means. and another party that only brings up American values to hurt America. The only time you hear Democrats care about whether people are treated with, you know, their due rights is when those people are gangsters, America haters, Chinese nationals. You know, you never hear of a church-going, you know, ordinary person.

They're saying, oh, you know, when they broke into that church and started protesting and screaming and making the children cry, that was a terrible thing to do. That was a violation of American rights. You never hear the left say that. They only say it when villains and thugs and anti-Americans are mistreated. So you blow up some drug dealers in the middle of the ocean, and I'm all for it, by the way. But suddenly, oh, they didn't have their habeas corpus rights, you know, paid attention to it. Whereas if you arrest somebody for going to church or for, you know, wandering into the capital when he shouldn't be in the capital, all of that, we don't have to worry about habeas corpus and due process at all.

So, you know, I think if Trump can just come forward as pro-America, if he can come forward as understanding that there are people out there who are not doing as well as other people, and if he can put forward the things he's done so far and the things that he is planning to do, you know, he has a shot of making an impression. The State of the Union. Turning these numbers around a little bit. Let's hope. I mean, let's hope. The truth is these things, even with Trump, tend to be mind-numbingly boring. There'll be some moments. My own recommendation for what it's worth is

maybe just catch the highlight reel on the Megan Kelly show tomorrow with the Real Clear Politics, guys. We'll bring you all the fun and important moments. If you want to watch the whole thing, I'd watch it on Fox. I would definitely not be watching it. Although it could be kind of fun to watch it on MSNBC

and just see the balloons and sometimes that's just like entertaining. Anyway, up to you guys. Okay, we've got to talk about what happened at the BAFTAs, which is the British Oscar. The BFTAs was on Sunday night. And one of the movies being, like, honored is a movie called I Swear.

And it's a movie about John Davidson, who was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome at the age of 25. The symptoms first began when he was 12. They included ticks, include present day, and uncontrollable outbursts, often involving cursing. A number of outbursts could be heard throughout the BAFTA ceremony, reading here from Variety, including, shut the fuck up, being shouted during an introductory speech from the BAFTA chair, Sarah Putt, and fuck you when the directors of Bong, which won for Best Children's and Family Film, accepted their award.

Okay, it's kind of funny. Family Award, and Mary's like, fuck off. Sorry, but most people with Tourette's could probably laugh about the absurdity of some of these moments. Anyway, my friend's son developed Tourette's. It was shocking. It came out of nowhere. You got ticks and other symptoms, but he actually then outgrew it, which can happen. In any event, there was a very unfortunate moment.

It's funny because, like, who made the decision to allow this confluence of things to happen? You know, like, it was just, oh. So they have two black presenters, Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, presenting the award for best visual effects to the film Avatar, Fire, and Ash. Both Michael B. Jordan and Lindo are black. And Lindo's appeared in a number of Spike Lee films, among others. And this guy, the actual Tourette Syndrome guy, who, by the way, everyone should have known what he was suffering, with because Alan Cumming, the actor who hosted the event, made it clear throughout. We got a guy here because of this movie. He's got Tourette's. There could be outbursts. Don't take him personally.

It's not something he can control. And by the way, the movie itself, I swear, which is very popular, so much so it got this one of these nominations, shows it at length what this guy goes through. This isn't him. This is an actor portraying him. But look at Sat 24 before I get to what happened at the Bafters. This is from the movie I'm not pointing to you. And no worries. Be honest, it's nice to have a few minutes off work. Part-time swag. I fugged on a jellyfish. You're a wind up.

Rodey's got a little cock. I've got a big fucking rabbit in my ass. Fuck you. Your dad wasted sperm. Your dad's a cunt. My dad's a pedophile. I'm a pedo, you know. I'm the leader of the girls, you know.

You're on the fender, you know. My dad shagged your cat. My dad's a fucking jellyfish. What's a gun? Me, me be no one. You're a lobby. Mom, I was a priest. You're a priest.

You're a winkstein. It's a lot. They're showing two people outside of their car. And even they are able to laugh at themselves in this movie. Again, it's a portrayal of John Davidson's life. Well, here's what happened when Michael B and Delroy Lindo got up to present that award. I warn the listening audience, you're going to hear the N-word. it's pretty clear.

We decided not to bleep it because we want you to see what the controversy is about and how this played in the room. Delaware and I are delighted to be presenting the first BAFTA of the night for a vital part of movie making.

We're here to celebrate. OMG. So, now everyone's having a meltdown. Like, everybody. They're blaming the actor, or they're blaming the BAFTAs, they're blaming the studios, they're blaming BBC for not editing it

from the aired program, which didn't come on the air until two hours later. What do you make of this? Well, it's very sad. One of the things, I've dealt with people with Tourette's as well. And one of the things about Tourette's is what makes it funny, what makes us laugh helplessly at it, is that we have all had moments when we have kept our thoughts to ourselves. And it has the effect, when Tourette's has the effect of looking like

these people can't keep their thoughts to themselves, that this is what they're really thinking. And that's it. I mean, I think I have this. I mean, the thing is... It's like looking in a mirror. The thing is, it's not true, you know? It's a tick.

It's an actual tick. But they do say the worst possible thing. So it does come across as if they're saying what people are really thinking. Actually, I thought the actors, the actors chose to ignore it. It clearly shocked them. You could see it in their eyes. But they chose to ignore it. I thought they did the right thing.

And then they sort of had to apologize for doing the right thing. Because why didn't they stand up, you know, against this terrible... terrible word, which has been turned into sort of the worst word in the world. And I just think it was just, you know, a sad thing. And a little bit of, this is one of those occasions when saying a little bit less might be the right thing to do. The guy has Tourette's. This is what it's like. You know, it happened at a very embarrassing moment. But that's, it's worse for him than it is for anybody else. If you're going to have him. Yeah. Yeah. If you're going to have him at the ceremony, then you're going to have to like realize this is what happens. Andrew, I know you got to run.

Thank you so much for being here and for sticking around. It's always a pleasure, Megan. It's good to see you. Oh, the pleasure's ours. I want to keep this going just for one more minute, though, because I have a couple other things to tell you about it. So it was not just accepted that this was normal Tourette's behavior. Jamie Fox, the actor, he commented below a post about the incident on social media saying unacceptable. And nah, he meant that shit. I mean, like, that's bullshit. Like, do you know anything about Tourette's? Because they say people with this syndrome say the most, incendiary things. It's like, I don't think it's true to say we're all running around thinking these absolutely terrible things. And it's only like our conscience and our non-ticking that stops us from saying them. It's almost like the syndrome, it's not almost like,

it is that the syndrome like makes you go to the most outrageous place mentally and then burst it out. It's a nightmare. That's a nightmare. This guy was embarrassed. He left. Apparently, they didn't throw him out, they said. They said he left voluntarily of his own accord for the second half. But Prince William and Kate were in the audience. I mean, it's like so uncomfortable, right? So it's like maybe you invite him and you give him a special backstage position where he can meet all the actors face-to-face in private, but, you know, that kind of a remark won't wind up going out on the airwaves. Here's Jamel Hill, who like, listen, of course, she takes it to an extreme, but she raised black people are just supposed

to be okay with being disrespected and dehumanized so that other people don't feel bad. Like, what do you mean? Like, were they supposed to scold him? The whole fucking movie is about this syndrome and him and how it is uncontrollable, Jamel. Now, having said that, they did put these actors in a very uncomfortable position because it could have been black men being called the N-word or it could have been that other You know, as I said, the person who is the BAFTA chair having, fuck you shouted at her or shut the fuck up or the directors of Bong,

fuck you and fuck up. Like, okay, I would say that everyone there who was presenting was placed in a very difficult position, given this man's syndrome. And had I been running it, I would have said, we'd love to have you. Given the nature of what you're struggling with, which we're clearly aware of as we showed in this film that we've nominated, what do you think of? running backstage where, you know, none of the outbursts will be recorded and disrupt like the future king and queen and the actors.

And you can meet people. This is not the first time we've encountered Tourette's in the news over the past year or two. I was saying to my team, remember the girl, Frato Cuomo interviewed her. And her name is Baylon Dupree. She's a TikToker. And we showed this. Remember, this is what Tourette's does to you. Do things like that.

I've had parents reach. out to me asking me, oh, my son's coming home with a girlfriend and his girlfriend has Tourette syndrome. So, and then I also get very evil people that would comment and say like, go fuck yourself, Chris, let your bite you mean and blam up your ass, put on your own biscuit, fat ass, that have told me that my parents deserve to die in a car accident because I'm faking my condition or people have told me that, like, I've had to have the police out my house because people gave out my location and said they were going to come torch my house. Like, it's crazy. Here's the thing. Clinically, people suck. Okay. So that's Tourette's. So anyway, it's an

unfortunate situation. It is like a shocking thing to see happen. But the absurdity of the BAFTA folks, like putting everyone in this position from poor John Davidson to the actress who had to present to the prince and princess sitting there. It was an utter fail all around. Now, people are resigning from the BAFTA board, I think it was, that we saw on the news today. It's just, yeah, that wound up coming back to haunt everyone. Okay, let's keep going because I want to talk about what happened in New York with the NYPD yesterday. We've had two back-to-back epic snowstorms here in the Northeast, as you've heard about the news. New York City got absolutely pummeled. The first time around, Zoramamam Dani,

the new mayor, completely fell down on the job and 19 people died because he didn't want to do homeless sweeps that he thought were inhumane. I guess it's more humane to let them die. Okay. So this time around, he reinstituted the sweeps. But now he's dealing with a different controversy because the NYPD came out to deal with, reportedly it was a massive snowball fight that was happening in one of the parks in New York. And, you know, these things can get nasty and they actually can't get dangerous for passers-by. There's no place in New York that's rural where no passer-by would be endangered by hundreds of snowballs getting thrown around. So the NYPD goes to try to see if this is orderly, and it's not. And already, like, the mob is forming. And then they start pelting the cops in the

face. And I'm talking man, woman, black, white, Hispanic. Like, you name it, all of these thugs pummeling them over and over in their heads, in their faces, down the back of their necks, with massive snowballs and ice. Here's some film of it. Watch. They're being forced to retreat and their police vehicles right now. For the listening audience, there are, I don't know, over 100 people following them, all fully grown adults, male and female attackers, if you will as well. And we have gone now basically 36 hours or more without the mayor of New York saying anything. Anything to back the blue.

to say this is unacceptable. You may not do this. The police commissioner came out and said that you will all be criminally charged if they, if they managed to track them down. This is a crime. It's assault. The police union came out and said several of the cops were injured to the point where they had to be treated in the ER. And you get an ice ball in the eye. You're going to the hospital.

And now today, just as we came to air, Zohra Mamdani, finally found the time. to tweet. He sent out one tweet, and here's how it reads. I've seen the videos of kids. I've seen the videos of kids throwing snowballs at NYPD officers in Washington Square Park. Listeners, please trust me, these were anything but kids. They were fully grown adults. This was not some child snowball fight that one cop found himself in the middle of. This is a lie. I mean, he is five words into it, and he's lying. Officers, like all city workers, have been out in a historic blizzard, keeping New Yorkers safe and cars moving. Treat them with respect.

If anyone's catching a snowball, it's me. Not it, sir. Not it at all. You're downplaying. You're minimizing and you're diminishing. And therefore, endangering NYPD. who needs a strong statement like that of the police commissioner. It needs to sound closer to F-A-F-O.

And so here's what's happening. He's setting the tone such that if and when any of these folks do get arrested, Alvin Bragg is not going to be all that moved, you see, because he doesn't like to indict people not named Donald Trump. He's not going to be all that moved to indict a snowball. I mean, this is just like the Subway Sandwich guy down in Washington, D.C. You know, like that grand jury would indict that. And Alvin Bragg's going to say, I can't, I can't, I'm not going to get this through a New York jury. Come on. It's a snowball.

Who wants to go after somebody for throwing a snowball? That's not what we saw on that tape or the next one. It was over and over in the face in the head. And again, actual injuries, according to the police officers union and the reporting around this. And I have no problem believing it because it looked bad. Yeah, some were taken to the hospital with lacerations to the face. They were tormented. They were pelted with snowballs at close range as they patrolled the park via the New York Post. At one point, an agitator could be seen dunking a huge chunk of ice onto an officer's head before fleeing. And they were forced to retreat. Jessica Tisch is the New York City Police Commissioner.

Here's exactly what she said. The NYPD is aware of certain videos taken earlier today in Washington Square Park showing individuals attacking cops. I want to be very clear. The behavior depicted is disgraceful and it's criminal. Our detectives are investigating this matter. Then came the union. Unacceptable and outrageous. This is the environment that New York City police officers are up against.

Our police officers are being treated for their injuries, but the case cannot end there. The individuals involved must be identified arrest. and charged with assault on a police officer. And all of our city leaders must speak up to condemn this despicable attack. And as we came to air today, we hadn't heard anything from Mom Dani. It took him all that time to come up with, these are just kids. If anyone should be catching a snowball, it's me. Yet another fail by this pathetic excuse for a New York mayor.

Okay, we're going to take a break. And then next up, a deep dive into the latest of the Nancy Guthrie. investigation. Actually, a lot has happened since we last dug in. That's right after this break. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet, and now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card and the security offers are under attack, and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide

rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durban Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks, with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. We are turning now to breaking developments in the Nancy Guthrie case. Multiple outlets are now reporting that sources have confirmed, As we discussed right here on the MK show, these two photos taken of the intruder on Nancy Guthrie's porch the night she was taken were taken on two different days.

According to those sources, the image with no backpack was captured sometime before the day of Nancy's suspected abduction. The source is declining to provide a specific date citing the ongoing investigation. Sheriff Nanos, however, telling Fox News, quote, the info that it occurred on a different day did not come from the FBI or from us, meaning the Pima County Sheriff's Department, and that the reports are, quote, purely speculative. But there are multiple outlets now. I mean, like, they all ran to their phones and their digital posts immediately. So clearly somebody decided to spread this word. And I'm not sure the sheriff can speak for the FBI. although it is interesting that he tried to here. But in any event, clearly somebody close to the case put this out to multiple news organizations last night that these are two different people. I'm sorry, not two different people, two different days. We've been saying on this show for weeks now that the two images look like they are from different evenings. If you look at the skyline in the background, one is a much lighter sky the night she was taken and the other is much darker. And, you know, that is, that is, alone, reason to ask whether it's the same night, even though the outfit looks the same, but it doesn't have the backpack. It just didn't look right. Now, we also talked about maybe,

it's just a weird angle on the one. Maybe it was this dark or this light. I don't know, but we discussed with our panel a couple of times about whether this was, these are two different nights. And why wouldn't the FBI tell us this? The FBI actually told us in the release of these photos, that they were both from the early morning hours when Nancy Guthrie was abducted. It's a chilling new detail. It suggests that this guy, this masked suspect, scouted out the home in advance, you know, or possibly made two attempts. I mean, it's possible he tried to get in the first time and couldn't.

But this guy, this was no accident. This obviously was no accident. He didn't just stumble upon this home or go on some drug, fueled binge and decide to rob or take something from Nancy Guthrie's home, including Nancy. Clearly, the guy had been there beforehand, if these reports are true, and went back with a plan in mind. This news comes as Savannah Guthrie posted her latest heartbreaking plea on Instagram this morning, saying the family still has hope, but acknowledging that Nancy may already be gone. And also announcing that the family's now offering

a reward directly. You might remember the other one comes from the FBI of a million dollars, up to a million dollars for information leading to their mother's return. Day 24 since our mom was taken in the dark of night from her bed. And every hour and minute and second and every long night has been agony since then. We still believe. in a miracle. We still believe that she can come home. Hope against hope. As my sister says, we are blowing on the embers of hope. We also know that she may be lost. She may already be gone. She may have already gone home to the Lord that she loves. What is to be, then we will accept it. But we need to know where she is.

We need her to come home. For that reason, we are offering a family reward of up to $1 million for any information that leads us to her recovery. To please come forward, tell what you know, and help us bring our beloved mom home so that we can either celebrate the glorious, miraculous homecoming or celebrate the beautiful,

brave and courageous and noble life that she has lived. I mean, you can't help but feel for her. You can feel the stress, just looking at her expression and her attempt to hold back tears as she talks about her mother and now openly acknowledges that she may already be gone. And I think most of us have come to that realization. And I'm sure the family will be the last to actually get there. but it sounds like they are getting there. Savannah Guthrie's not dumb,

and I'm sure she knows full well that the odds of her 84-year-old mother being held captive for over three weeks now by someone who clearly does not care about her. It's not a good way of fostering wellness or longevity for an 84-year-old.

It's just so awful. And it certainly seems like the case does not have a bunch of new leads, and we'll talk about that too with our panel. Here to react is Will Geddes. He's a security expert and founder of international corporate protection. James Hamilton, former FBI supervisory special agent and founder of Hamilton Security Group. And Eric O'Neill is back on the program, National Security Specialist,

former FBI Counterintelligence Operative, and author of Spies, Lies, and Cybercrime. And also, Eric, the guy who brought down Robert Hanson, one of our best-known, most nefarious spies ever. We have a great episode with Eric where we talk all about it. So we've got some guys who know what they're doing on this panel here. But let me just start with you, Will, because we just talked about this, about whether these were two different images, you know? The one sky was dark, the other sky was light. The guy doesn't have the backpack on in the dark sky night, and he does have the backpack on with the mouth light in the lighter sky night. So now what do you make of the fact that they're admitting? Somebody's

admitting and spreading to news that it's two different nights. And yet the sheriff, weirdly saying, and speaking for the FBI, saying, none of that came from us, that's speculative. It's firstly, Megan, thanks for inviting me back on. Firstly, this is quite bizarre, but again, seems to be following the same traits that we've already seen with the sheriff, with evidence being quirked and reshaped in various different forms and him not being able to send a very linear a message of progress as things are going along. It certainly falls in track with what we discussed before, where there was a presumption of some advanced reconnaissance,

which for me kind of discounted it from being a burglary, but there was some advance sort of visiting to the property, some monitoring to see potentially what the landscape was. And when I say landscape, I mean in terms of security, whether it be the nest doorbell, or whether it be intruder lights, alarms, anything else like that. But the key question for me, Megan, right now is the time between those photographs. That would tell us an awful lot about potentially the degree of motivation behind this

individual. And if there was a very short or long period will determine perhaps even a level of professionalism, although there are so many indicators that this wasn't what we would term a professional job. There's some speculation, though, again, not confirmed, that it might have been on January 11th because you know that they've asked, the authorities have been going around and neighbors asking them to check their ring cameras specifically on that date. Now, they've also said, go back to January 1st. This event happened overnight from January 31st to February 1st. So we can't be sure that the other event may have happened on January 11th. But that's one of the other dates that cops have been asking

about Jim. And we've all been scratching our heads saying, why, what happened on January 11th? Like none of us has known, and yet now we may have just been effectively given the answer. Yeah, good to see you again. January 11th, to me it looks like two different nights, as you all are saying, and why they don't want to say that is interesting to me. But I agree with what you said in the opening about, if it is two separate nights, this is a casing as Will was talking about,

and it would check with that. And it also makes sense as to why, you know, he doesn't have the backpack, or the gun in the silly, you know, location. But again, the more we, you know, kind of dive into this case, the more people we're seeing around porches at 2 a.m. So, yeah, it's a concern. But I think it was two different nights. And I wish we could just get some clarity.

I mean, what would it tell you, though, as a former FBI guy, Jim, what would it tell you is that, do you think that's recon? Like, let me, I'm going to put on my little discuss. Because it's a very risky recon, no? I would think if I'm going to do recon and a kidnapping, I'm probably going to stay in my car. I don't, like I've never committed a kidnapping before, but I'm just going to guess it would be exponentially riskier to get out of the car and walk up onto the stoop where you can see from a ways away there's a nest camera. Well, again, I'm still not certain that we're, we originally started out as a kidnapping. I'm still not certain that this person, you know, his original intent was to kidnap.

It certainly checks with, you know, pre-operational surveillance prior to. a robbery, a burglary, some type of home invasion. And we've also talked about how dark it is out there. So if he parked in a close proximity, then got out, then put the mask on, it's not very suspicious because no one's going to see you. It's so dark there. I don't think he was driving around town with the mask on. But interesting that he has this little, you know, same clothes for his operations that

tells us something about the individual. But, yeah, I mean, to me, that's what it would tell me is that, you know, this was planned in some degree. Obviously, we know he's made some mistakes, but he didn't make a lot of mistakes because we saw him caught him. Well, are there two ends, Eric, to the communication around this reveal. There's someone in law enforcement who's telling ABC, Fox, News Nation, and others, these were two different nights. Clearly, someone in law enforcement did say that. ABC News says sources to ABC News, according to our sources. Fox says a source with knowledge of the investigation confirmed. Brian Enton said he and another person at News Nation, we each have a source. So we don't know exactly who.

But to me, you know, the FBI can sort of speak to what the FBI is likely doing here or if it is the FBI or local sheriff. But as a newsperson, I can tell you there is zero chance. They all just came up with the same wrong story. Someone clearly in law enforcement decided it was time to leak this. to the public for some reason. And I don't know, maybe the sheriff wants plausible deniability for some reason. Maybe the person did it without the sheriff's permission. Maybe it's somebody over at FBI and he has no idea what they're doing. But this is definitely not the press making

this up. Yeah, I'm going to agree with you. I mean, it certainly shows bad Opsack or operational security on behalf of the local law enforcement and FBI Joint Task Force trying to catch the perpetrator who showed up in Nancy Guthrie's home and abducted her. You know, I'm not surprised that there are these different images from different periods in time. The way this works is the camera records everything and sends it to Ring Server, I'm sorry, Nest server. And that's the way that you can use your app to actually see it, even if you don't have a subscription. But what happens is it's marked to auto delete, right?

So it probably got written over a number of times, and it can be reconstructed. It's painstaking. Obviously, they had the one video that's a pretty decent shot of the individual showing motion, his eyes, and that was what they released in order to get the public to look at it and think, maybe I recognize that person and hopefully catch a break in this case. I always thought that they had more than they were releasing, and it doesn't make sense that they would release that earlier image. So that seems to me like a break in the chain of command there, someone who decided on their

own to release it, because there's no reason to say, hey, the guy was there earlier. But it was released with the other photos. It just wasn't clarified to be on a separate date. until now. Right. And so I mean, in Cash Patel's original, you know, dump of these photos, he said these were all taken the night she disappeared. And you know, the other thing is that what the way they reconstruct this data is there's no time stamps on it. You know, I've always been wondering whether perhaps they had some of the audio because that would typically be recorded directly with the video. And of course, they're not releasing that. And it makes perfect sense. I'm agreeing

with James and Will that the perpetrator would have had to case the area. It's a really difficult place like James said, the area is incredibly dark. And it's also a warrant of streets. And if you're really smart, you don't bring your cell phone with you to a crime that allows the FBI to look at telemetry from cell towers as your phone moves through and pings them. And so they have to figure how to get there now. Let me stand you for another minute on this, Eric, as our former cyber guy. Do you believe by this point, the cell phone data has proven not helpful because we're three weeks in? and they would have already had that, would they not? Yes, if they brought their phones with them,

I think that they might have had a better clue of who this was, and so I don't think that that cell phone data, which is always very difficult any way to triangulate is going to help. They were using things like bluefi. That's really difficult, and bluefai for any, I'm sure you've talked, yeah, I know you've talked about it before, but this is a technology that allowed them

to actually put it on the bottom of helicopters and scan different signals coming from Bluetooth devices, or wireless devices to try to find that pacemaker. That's really useful when you're in a large area of terrain like Yosebany National Park where there's not a lot of signal noise, but over an urban environment like this, where there are millions of Bluetooth devices all sending signals, it's hard to find that one needle

in a haystack. You know, a lot of what they're doing are very innovative technologies to try to find more clues toward this perpetrator, but it's very difficult just because of this dense, area and because I mean, I don't know if it was Will or Jim who said it, but they did a good job of covering their tracks for someone who didn't look super, super professional. Either they're incredibly lucky or they're really good. Well, what are your thoughts on why would this guy

show up earlier? Like if this was January 11th, unconfirmed, unconfirmed technically that it was even a separate night, right? I mean, the sheriff's denying it or at least saying this is speculative. What was the guy doing? Like, why would you show up? There's no gun, notably, in that picture without the backpack. But, I mean, what kind of a person would put the whole mask over the head and walk up on the stoop and apparently do nothing? And then only to come back. Well, I mean, I think it follows what we were saying a little bit earlier, Megan, that this is what we would call a soft probe reconnaissance, which is just a – it could be a walk past off the actual property.

itself, it's looking at neighboring properties. Again, depending on the sophistication of the perpetrator, and again, depending on what their ultimate objective might be. But in a basic level, it will be looking at what security there is, what intrusion detection there might be, whether it be lights, salons, or otherwise. But it will also be looking at, if it gets more sophisticated, could be looking at local neighbours, seeing if they've got cameras, the aspect, obviously, onto the front of the property. So if, let's say, that speculatively they were going to remove Nancy from the property, again, it was looking at who else would be able to capture or record this,

what kind of devices there were, how sophisticated they might be. So again, we know that the very front of the property had a lot of bushing and a lot of sort of garden area, which might have made it very difficult for a direct line of sight, which would mean that he would have to, and that is obviously speculative, that it's a male, but I think we're safe to say that, actually needing to go closer to the property. And again, removing the potential for identity, like James was saying, may not have stepped out of the vehicle or his vehicle with the ski mask on, but got a little closer to the property. And again, it's quite dark there being able to put on that mask and then being able to

get a little closer look on the front door. There is news just breaking on the DNA that was found inside the house. Plus, I really want to get into what jump. jumped out at me in that Savannah note. There are two new reveals, as far as I see it, on clues in this case. We'll talk about them right after this break. Don't go away. If you're stressed out about getting out of debt, it's go time. This is one of those moments where timing matters. And let me tell you about done with debt. 2025 was a record year for them. People who collectively had more than $102 million in debt turned to these guys for help. And right now, maybe the best time for you to negotiate a settlement.

Done with debt tracks credit card and loan company behavior. They are experienced at knowing who's negotiating and when and what it takes to get you the biggest reduction possible. Whether you are carrying $10,000 or $500,000 in debt, this may be the best chance you will get all year. So consider scheduling a free consultation. It only takes a few minutes. Imagine waking up without that weight on your shoulders and doing it without taking

out another loan or filing for bankruptcy. Done with debt helps you through the debt relief process so you keep more of your paycheck every month. Go to done with debt.com right now. That's done with debt.com. Back with me now. Will Gettis, founder of international corporate protection, James Hamilton, founder of Hamilton Security Group, and Eric O'Neill, author of Spies, Lies, and Cybercrime. All right, James. So I wanted to talk about the Savannah Guthrie latest statement. There's a lot actually to go through today. That statement, plus just a couple of other pieces. As I mentioned, something's just breaking about the DNA.

What jumped out at me was, I don't know if she intended to or not, but she made a little news about the actual crime, where she said, it's day 24 since our mom was taken in the dark of night from her bed. Yep. No one has ever said that before. In fact, the sheriff said it early on and then took it back and said, I didn't mean to say that.

I'm not confirming whether she was taken from her bed. But there it is, straight from Savannah Guthrie herself, that's news. I mean, there was speculation, even we speculated just last week on this program about whether this intruder was possibly knocking on the door before he was like messing with that nest cam because it almost looked like a knock. Other people have speculated he rang the doorbell to get Nancy Guthrie to come downstairs because there didn't appear to be forced entry, at least at the front. Ashley Banfield reported early on in this case that her source told her there was forced entry. We don't know which door. She also reported the,

that the back door to the house was left wide open. So presumably it was the back door. But in any event, in her bed, or from her bed, taken in the middle, in the dark of night, from her bed is new. What if anything does it tell us? Yeah, good for you. That's why you're an investigative journalist, because that's immediately what I picked up on, you know, that, okay, this is, wait a minute, is she just saying that, as if to say, you know, sometimes in kidnappings, you know, like a John Meney, taken, you know, from her bed type of deal. And it's almost like, you know, something you would say.

But I'm with you. I think she was literally that Savannah knows something that we didn't know, and now we do know, that she was taken from her bed. Well, that rules out, you know, that Ms. Guthrie, you know, answered a door. There was a knock on the door. She went out, answered the door, and then the guy took her. That rules that out. If there was forced entry or any, there had to been some type of entry, you know,

either forced or she left the door unlocked, God forbid. And they roused her from her bed. Now, that's a totally different thing. And so, yeah, that's significant. It also seems to me, Will, to suggest that Savannah believes her mom did, in fact, return home to her house after having dinner with Tomaso and Annie, Savannah's sister and brother-in-law, earlier in the evening. You know, we've all speculated about whether, like, what's the proof that Tomaso actually dropped her off at 948 with the garage door? opening and then closing again at 950. Like, why do we believe that?

Now, we believe the pacemaker continued to work until 228 that morning, at least. But what's our evidence that Nancy Guthrie was actually in that home? And our only evidence was really that the police said she was, and they seemed to believe it. And you tell me, Savannah saying her mom was taken from her bed seems to tell us that Savannah believes that too, which means that's what law enforcement told her. Yeah, I think that's the any place that she, could have drawn that information or glean that information from. And that's not uncommon, certainly, where family members will be told a little bit of detail, asked to keep it to themselves

more often than not. But the care management of families in these kinds of situations, whether it be abductions, whether it be kidnappings or otherwise when someone's gone missing, will be to try and keep them having a little bit of hope wherever possible. But I think, you know, I was speaking with my other panel members with Eric and James in the break. And I think we're all in the agreements that this most certainly was an abduction. As to when it exactly happened, again, we're relying on certain information provided by family members. Again, how precise they are on their timings again is potentially questionable and is very difficult to evidence, unless, again, this is captured on the nest camera.

And there is evidence of when Nancy actually walked in, whether or whether she went in via the garage, it's believed to be the case. But I think in terms of this abduction, you know, it is an abduction. If it was a kidnap, again, my fellow panel members, we all agree, you know, ultimately they're looking for some sort of ransom. But because of the amount of publicity, this is garnished, and I certainly know many, many cases where someone has been kidnapped by unsophisticated criminals, that as soon as they get some attention, as soon as they believe they're on the radar, it's not a closed

affair with family members or whoever they may be demanding the ransom from, then they can panic because of their fear of apprehension and dispose of the hostage. So I think regrettably, you know, this was an abduction. If it wasn't for kidnapping, what was the motivation? What was the reasoning behind that? Eric, what do you think? Well, I'm going to agree, and we did talk about this earlier during the break. It certainly looks like an abduction. We don't know the reasons they were there. It could have been a shakedown. It could have been some other angry, a very event. event and then of course the abduction happens and you have a trail of blood leading out of the house. You know, it's interesting that we have the force entry that quite possibly the back door is wide open and that she's in the bed.

Now, one thing that I take from Savannah's newest video is that there's more despondency and less hope in the family. She certainly is starting to come around to the fact that 24 days into it, it's very unlikely that we will ever find Nancy Guthrie alive. I mean, that is heartbreaking. I think it is now worse for the family that they have no way of contacting the alleged kidnappers, and that's why we're saying it's an abduction, and that they don't know. And the scary thing here is I think eventually that the FBI does catch this individual. I mean, it's just an odds game with enough time. time and enough data and enough work. They tend to catch the perpetrator, but do we ever find

Nancy? And it's not likely that we're going to find her alive at this point. Right. It's been too many days. The other thing that jumped out at me about Savannah's statement was, hope against hope, as my sister says, we are blowing on the embers of hope. She mentions the sister James, which is interesting, given all the focus on the sister and more accurately, the sister's husband. To me, that's a way of endorsing the sister and reminding us they still believe in her and probably in Tomas, too. I don't think you mention the sister unless you're looking to rehabilitate them both. So I think she communicated something with that too. Your thoughts? I do. And I think we don't know. I don't know enough about their family. She doesn't mention her

brother very much. But I would say that that caught my eye, but me, my ear rather, what I really heard was the million dollars. And I know we talked about this, I think two weeks ago when I was with you. And the, you know, the reward was 50 grand. And I was said, you said it need to be higher. Yeah. And now here we are. You said 500,000. Right. And they went up the next day to 100. And now they've gone up next to their, next to their, and then they doubled your reward ultimately. Money talks. And for me, it, it, it speaks. to what I felt the whole time, just the lack of urgency in this case. I mean, 24 days, it feels like we're working this, like it's a robbery or burglary.

It just has never felt to me like a human life abduction story. And the cases I've been involved in, right? Like the case I've been involved in where someone is missing, there is a sense of urgency. And you, I mean, everything you got, you're throwing at it. And a $50,000 reward did not seem like urgency. And now here we are 24 days later. And, okay, a million bucks. hopefully somebody finally says something, but let's keep going. Because again, the woman is still

out there. Whether she's alive or not, we need to find this lady. James, that is so true, because one of the things that was so weird about this case from the get-go was within 24 hours of realizing Nancy was gone, they called off the search and rescue. The sheriff said, we've called it off. He said permanently, but he said, but we'll restart it if we need to. the FBI got in and started to deploy resources that I don't know if it was looking for Nancy or looking for clues, but they were looking. But who ends the search and rescue after 24 hours? You said it. And then he said something else I read this weekend that, you know, he said something like, we're not giving up. What are you talking about? How do you get that option? You don't get that

option. You don't get the, I can just give up on finding a person. That's just not an option. Not on the table. Right. You're right. So it's like, I mean, the sheriff, of course, is like, we're going to find it. We'll do whatever it takes. Could take days. Could take years. What? Right.

Right. Again, who talks like that? But you're right. The lack of the sense of urgency has been right there in our face all along. And only now will that Savannah sounds hopeless. Let's face it. I mean, she's talking about the sister says, we're blowing on the embers of hope. She says she may already be gone.

She may already have gone home to the Lord that she loves. She's dancing in heaven. with her mom and dad and her beloved brother and with our dad. If this is what is to be, we'll accept it, but we need to know where she is. And then says at the bottom, we help us bring her home our beloved mom so we can either celebrate a glorious, miraculous homecoming

or she specifically puts us in here, celebrate the beautiful, brave, and courageous, noble life that she has lived. So she's being very explicit here that we recognize there's a very, very good chance that she's dead. And it's it's hoping against hope that she's not. But now here's a million dollars. So what's that about? I know, it's bizarre.

And again, this is pure speculation, Megan. But your point and what you were discussing with James just now, about the 50,000, which initially came out, any open source research, just a simple Google, a Savannah's salary would bring you. into the context of 50,000 is a pittance, and it doesn't communicate any sense of urgency in terms of wanting to determine or establish where a mother is. The other thing is, again, this is speculation on my part, is that certainly the beginning of communications in the event of it turning into a kidnapping

will be too lowball to a certain extent until a figure is actually presented because it gives some sort of indication of what funds may be available or what funds could be readily accessible, to resolve or to settle any kind of ransom. So this could have been as a result of poor advice that she was given to only cap it at about $50,000 because I think any child of a parent that's gone missing is going to offer

an unbelievable amount's money to determine the whereabouts or the safe return of their parents if they've gone missing. So I think in this instance that... Well, and there are reports now today that she was reportedly ready, Michael Ruiza Fox, reporting on X. Sources with knowledge of the family's thinking say the Guthrie's initially raised the idea of the reward, this bigger reward, on the first day of the investigation. They were advised by law enforcement to hold off as, quote, doing so earlier might overwhelm

the infrastructure set up to field leads, tens of thousands of which have been coming in organically. They are now offering the seven-figure sum after coordinating with investigators. I mean, that makes sense to me. I'm sure Savannah's definitely got tens of millions of dollars in the bank. there's no way she would hesitate to say, here's a million to save my mom's life. Yeah, this is poor advice, I think initially, because you want to set a sense of urgency. But I think even this million dollar sort of reward is a mute offer.

Because ultimately, whoever has been involved in the abduction of Nancy is highly unlikely to provide any kind of evidence unless it's someone associated or as family member or a friend who knows the individual or the individuals that are responsible for Nancy. who are going to furnish that information. And ultimately, it's a little too much too late. All right. I'm just going to go cynical reporter for a second here because I believe that story that Savannah was ready to offer the money from day one and was told by season law enforcement, that's just going to bring every single crazy out of the woodwork

who thinks they know anything because a million dollars is a fortune and everyone's going to want it. So she held it. But there is also, I'm just going to say, there's also the possibility that the reason somebody close to Savannah talked her out of offering a million dollars early on is they thought somebody might come out of the woodwork and point the finger at them. You know, I mean, it doesn't, just because Savannah believes in the sister and the brother-in-law, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to say they had nothing to do with it. You know, the cops keep going there. They keep searching the place overnight. they towed her car.

And so it's also possible, Eric, that sister Annie or brother-in-law Tomas were quick to push law enforcement's thing saying, that's going to cause chaos, hold that one back. And it would certainly help us understand why only now when they're completely forlorn and they're desperate and seemingly out of leads, did they try to throw some money at the problem. Yeah, it's certainly possible. You know, when I look at this, I wonder, was the... The sheriff initially thinking this is easily a kidnapping because he saw a ransom note come in to TMZ, which might be why he releases the crime scene way too early. But he released it before the ransom note came in.

He released it Monday. The first of ransom note, I think, hit Tuesday evening or Wednesday. And he sets the, well, then the family with the law enforcement set the reward way too low, thinking that this is a kidnapping. we're going to work that chain of investigation and now realizing that this is not a kidnapping, it's an abduction because kidnappers actually want to make money. They don't send a note and then never respond to you and give you no avenue to negotiate with them. And here, finally, they're looking for those tips. I like the idea that was raised that they got 40, 50,000 tips, and a lot of those tips were nonsense.

They were things like, I've got a theory on the case, or, you know, I don't like this person. Maybe it was them, right? And they have to sift through that. And that's a lot of infrastructure to do that. And then maybe it's fear that if we raise it too much, we're going to invite a lot more of that. But at this point, look, a million dollars is a lot of money. Somebody knows that guy and there's no honor among thieves. Maybe that person, some person will say, hey, I can make a cool billion and just give up my friend.

We're banking on it. We're banking on there being no honor among thieves because so far we've gotten no leads. This just in, as I mentioned when we went to break, breaking news and it's not good. Same from Fox. The DNA samples recovered from inside of Nancy Guthrie's home mainly came back to people who had a reason to be there, according to two federal law enforcement sources. One unknown sample yielded only a partial profile that could not be checked against the FBI's CODIS database of known offenders. I mean, this was the most hopeful thing we had, Will, right? The DNA, unlike the gloves, which are two miles away, this is unknown DNA inside the house, which they had already said they believed was not linked to a landscaper or a housemaid or anybody helping Nancy or who knew Nancy. It was the most promising thing we had. And what they're basically saying is no luck.

Yeah, it is a turkey shoot in many regards. We were talking about this the other night, weren't we the other day, about trying to get into ancestry and the various other groups. And myself and Derek and James were talking about this again in the break. The biggest problem you're going to have is even with their assistance and compliance to try and extend that DNA search, there is every chance that individuals who may have contributed

may opt out in being able to or taken that opt-out option to sharing it with the part of. and ultimately then you're into an incredibly difficult position, and I'm no lawyer, I wouldn't be able to advise as to what their next steps might be, and the chaps might come up with some good suggestions. But unfortunately, yes, it's one of those dead ends, which ultimately, again, puts the sheriff in a very precarious position because he's lent so heavily on various different pieces of the trail that have been discovered

and vouched for them, and then ultimately they've fallen apart for one. reason or another. Well, what we hear now, James, and again, the DNA inside the house has been a bit of a mystery from the gecko. The sheriff has never really specified whether it was blood or something else. Whatever it was, he sent to the Florida lab, and there was a question about whether it should have gone to Quantico. I heard a very robust defense of the Florida lab by, I think it was Laura Ingle, who's now on News Nation, worked with me at Fox for years, saying it really is a very, very respected lab and, you know, impeccable in its credentials. But in any event, didn't come up with anything here.

Then the sheriff said that not only did the gloves in the field, not test positive for DNA or become back useful at all, somebody said, how about the DNA inside the house? And he said, no. So it seemed like he was suggesting they had already gotten this disappointing news on the DNA inside the house. But now today we hear, no, this is actually the official news that the DNA inside the house so far has not come back helpful at all. And now Fox News goes on to report they may try to do genetic genealogy on it, like running it against possibly a state database in Arizona to see if there's some hit against some 10th relative or something that they can start drawing closer lines back to the perp. We don't even know if it is the perps.

Like that might be exciting, James, if we thought we know, like when the Brian Colberger case, it's the knife sheath. And these people were stabbed to death. We're pretty sure this thing belonged to the murderer. This is like random DNA. If you came in my house and tested random DNA, even if you tested all the people who come through to do whatever it is that gets done in a house, you'd miss a couple. Just this morning we had Stanley Steamer here. You'd miss, I'd forget about that one, you know, like the once in a while guy. Like, this just doesn't feel like a real lead.

Well, I wanted to go back because I think that the language used is very interesting. The language used was the DNA was for people that should have been there or people that had reason to be in the home. Well, who is that? What is that list is. Is that the sister? I'm sorry, the daughter and the husband we've been talking about. Who exactly are these people? And then for anyone to say that we're ruling out people, how can you do that?

How can you rule out 100% somebody? Yeah, they may have an alibi for that night, but doesn't mean they weren't involved in some way, shape, or form. So I don't like the premise of we just rule them out. Now we have DNA of who, people that you say should have been in the home. Well, who is that? Because, you know, unlike maybe you, Megan, if you've got a bunch of vendors, I don't have a bunch of vendors coming to my home. That's a very short list. So who are these people?

And let's go back. I still have not found any information on Pac-Man, and I haven't found any information on the guy on the porch with the neck tattoo. So what happened to those leads? Did that just go away? Like the Range Rover? There's just so much, you know, unknown. So I have an update for you on that.

And this is where things start to get really depressing. This is reportedly, I mean, it's really only Fox News proper and Fox News Digital and News Nation. And occasionally the New York Post and Ashley Banfield. who are actually breaking new information on this case ever. Seems like nobody else has actual sources, although yours truly has some sources, but this is what we've gotten from, I'm not going to individually source these,

but obviously NBC too. That the gun shops, where they went in with 40 names and 40 pictures, saying, do you know any of these people, did not help. That the video pictures of the abductor from the nest cam did not help. That just hit. That the cops are now saying they didn't get any viable leads from that.

I think that is TMZ today. Our sources say neither the still photo nor the video from February 1st has helped them identify the getaway car or the suspect. So nothing from the best lead they had. The pictures of the perp that the DNA inside the house

did not help. that those gloves they found two miles away did not help. Those raids they conducted on four different people. One guy, Carlos, and then the next weekend, three other people, did not help. And then today, well, I mean, this past couple of days, we hear this from Brian Enten interviewing retired FBI agent Steve Moore, the following question in SO-56. It's certainly not a hot case. And the way I would define that is that if they thought something was going to happen right now, the last thing they would be doing is releasing assets, you know, people going back to their home offices, agents, going back to their divisions. So they don't think it's imminent, but they, it is not cold, cold to where they assign it just to where. one or two agents and they see what they can do with it. So technically, no, I would not call it

cold. I would say that it is cooled off quite a bit. Cooled off quite a bit and not hot is not great, James. No, it's not. And again, I hope you know what I'm talking about when I say Pac-Man. It was the guy that we had the video and he had the two backpacks. And then we had another video of the guy with the neck tattooed. They ruled him out too. They said it wasn't him. Right. And that's what I'm concerned about is, you know, that's a lot of ruling out. There's a lot of rules. ruling out going on. And then I read that the sheriff and two of his top deputies who've been with him forever, they're the only people who are, you know, leading the case or running the case. Well, who's doing the interrogations? Interrogation is an art. And that is developed over 20

plus years of being in the box with a person, you know, and really, you got to know what you're doing in there. And to just rule somebody out, what are you using a liar, liar pants on fire defense? I mean, I don't understand how we're just ruling these people out. arbitrarily without, you know, really doing some hard interviews to get some information. And I thought those were pretty good leads. And I hate to hear that they had been ruled, you know, ruled out. I know. I mean, this is depressing, Will, to hear that all, like, literally every clue we've been discussing since the case first broke has been, it's gone nowhere. Yeah. I mean, did you remember, Megan, and I mentioned to you a while back on one of the other shows,

that certainly in a kidnapping, and I'm not saying it wasn't. kidnapping. All we know is it's an abduction that she disappeared. But in kidnappings, we have what we call the 70% rule, which means in 70% of kidnappings or abductions, there will be someone close to the victim or close to the hostage, 70, 70, 70, who will actually have some involvement, whether they be providing information to the abductors or the kidnappers, or it be someone that is known to the hostage. You know, so. So ultimately, again, I agree with James, I agree with Eric. It's just simply bizarre that the sheriff is discounting and eliminating certain people from the inquiries and saying, well, that's those suspects that closed off.

Until such time as the body has been determined and found, everybody's still a suspect in my book. And now the other evidence that the case may be growing cold is the reports, that are growing that the news media has left. I mean, that local representative, the Arizona congresswoman, like the state congresswoman, legislator, has been begging the media to leave. And we've been mocking her.

How dare she? How dare she? Because once the media goes, the cops will eventually go to. There will not be 400 officers on this case. Once the media loses interest, guaranteed. Guaranteed. But now look at this report

from News 4 Tucson reporter, Andrew Capasso here, showing the scene outside of Nancy. house yesterday. It's not 55. And you know that there has been a lot of media out here, a lot of national networks, cable networks, and they've all been up and down this street here. Of course, the house is on this side here, and that's where most of the media has been. One thing you'll notice is there's almost no one left. It's the cones that the county put up this weekend, but there are very

few reporters left here. This morning when I was doing my live shots, normally you would be able to hear the other reporters in my microphone because we're just so close to each other. This morning, I was the only one out here doing live shot. And sure enough, Eric, the New York Post is reporting that some resources are leaving. They're starting to cut down on the number of law enforcement officers they have devoted to this. Yeah, I mean, the interest generates a lot of the detail. And the more that we learn about the case, the more that the public remains interested, and that can keep law enforcement engaged, especially when you've got the President of the United States saying he wants this case solved.

Now, I don't think the FBI backs off. I mean, we can be very tenacious when there's a case in an investigation. You never want to give up, and you do want to find the perpetrator. But it is looking more and more difficult and that it's going to take a lot more time because all of these avenues, just as you one after the other, set up and knocked down, are falling apart. you know, relying on genetic genealogy to try to trace a partial match of DNA that is not in the KOTIS database, which the combined DNA index system, that's the FBI's database. It was always going to be a long shot that piece of DNA from that house was going to be in Kodis. I mean, that would be your bad guy, or at least someone who had a record. But I'm going to agree with my co-panelists. It's a real bad idea to rule out anyone who was in that home. Why? That is a

big house. And we know from a lot of the information that there's good evidence. that the perpetrators cased the area and the home earlier than the event, which means, you know, if they're going to break in the house, they've got to know where to go. They have to know where her bedroom is. You're not just going to go wander around in a home for whatever reason they were there that turned into an abduction blind. And usually in these sort of cases, it's someone with knowledge of the home already, someone who's been inside the home. So I don't know why you would roll out everyone who, I don't know what the term was, but had a reason to be there. I mean, I wouldn't even roll out the pool boy who's still allowed to go over there and clean the pool.

I wouldn't make sure that anyone who was there was there was still being looked at. Here's something else. Here's something else that just happened. The news just broke that the police are at Nancy Guthrie's right now posting no trespassing signs outside of her home. They're posting no trespassing signs. I don't know if this is the reason why. but Phil Holloway, our own M.K. True Crime contributor. He posted this video we're showing here yesterday with the following caption.

He'd just been out at Nancy's house last week. What in the fresh hell is going on at Nancy Guthrie's house? This is before the no trespassing signs today. This group of women from Mexico are digging in her yard looking for her body. So like these women just walked up with a shovel. one of the commentators responded, or the, you know, the people on X, that these are actually, like, as a known group of women, that they're amazing, that they actually do look for people who have disappeared in Mexico, including their loved ones. They do research and they dig until they find bodies or what's left of them. So this actually is a thing, but I'm going to guess law enforcement's not too keen on them just showing up at the Nancy Guthrie property.

No, not at all. I mean, that's a huge problem. And imagine, like, is the guy going to abduct Nancy from the home and then, you know, spend the time to bury her right on the property? I mean, that doesn't make sense. But when things are this sensational, you know, it can come from the goodness of your heart. You feel like I really want to help, which is one of the reason that there's so many tips from people who have no knowledge. But then you get a group who decides they're going to go dig in their property. And that can cause, you can imagine how many problems that can cause for the.

investigation. Well, all along we've been wondering if the reason the sheriff called off the search and rescue literally on day two. I mean, she went missing at 2.30 in the morning on Saturday into Sunday, and by Monday late afternoon, he called off the search and rescue is because he knew at some level she had died, that this was not a search and rescue, that this was a murder investigation. And therefore not an urgent hurry, a priority, important to solve, but not an urgent, panicked hurry the way you'd have if you really believed there was a missing person and you could get them. Because Calhann Walsh of the missing four exploited children will tell you, if you don't find a stolen person within the first day, they're dead. I mean, he'll say it a lot nicer than that. But you have to find them right away or

forget it. And that dovetails with something Ashley just added to her reporting over the weekend about the DNA that was inside the house. Sheriff Nanos won't tell us, but she got some details. I don't know if this is the entirety of the DNA, but she did get some more details on what was found inside of that house. Here it is and sought 54. Today, another enforcement source, familiar with the investigation, has said that the pattern of that blood inside the house matches the pattern outside the house, outside Nancy's front doors. Those pattern droplets, as many experts have, you know, describe it are as vertical. They're, they fall straight up and down, 90 degrees. And there's no smears. There's no stepping in it. There's no struggle. There's no

signs of struggle on that front doorstep. My source tells me it is exactly the same inside the house, that there's no sign of struggle in that blood. It's not smear. There's no steps. They are those straight up and down drop patterned blood. I asked where in the house and I did not get that answer. I can't tell you if it was in the bedroom, if it was in the front entrance. So that's a pretty good clue as to what went down that night potentially well. Yeah, I think so. I mean, to cover your first point, Megan, which was about the search and rescue and the sheriff calling it off very quickly. I am more inclined to, although statistically, yes, the chances of recovering someone within a designated period of time, it diminishes

beyond that time. But until such time, unless he had specific evidence to support the reasoning for calling off that search and rescue, I think the search and rescue should continue, whether it be using drones, whether it be using aerial capabilities, whether it be soliciting neighbors, all sorts things. This can go on for an awfully long time and determining also what Nancy's typical pattern of life was. What was her routine? Where did she go? Was there a local coffee shop there? She would regularly frequent. Until such time as all those inquiries had been exhausted, I don't think you can call a search and rescue. And I've had individuals where communications with kidnappers has broken down, and you'll actually send out a missing person's initiative. So again, it falls again into this bundle of

errors that the sheriff seems to be calling, whether it be opening up the crime scene, enabling, you know, treasure hunters to come and start digging around. And I agree with Eric entirely on the point of, you know, if she was going to be incapacitated, and certainly from the drops of blood, it would appear. And I think I can give the credit to Eric on this, because we discussed this during the break, that she was probably being carried over the individuals, the perpetrator's shoulder, which is hence why the drops fell as they did through the property and then out. And I'm not sure Eric will probably be able to give you a little bit more on that. He's probably more of a blood expert than me.

But certainly it just seems a catalog of errors as to how the whole site has been managed, the process has been managed, and it smacks horribly of a pettiness that the sheriff has towards the bureau and his unwillingness to cooperate with him. On that front, on that front, this is speculative on my part, but might not be. understanding is if this is officially a kidnapping from day one, the FBI does have jurisdiction, like that the FBI could have swooped in and said, we'll take it. If it's just an abduction, if it's a murder, then it's a local crime and it's the sheriff's. So I could have that wrong, but I did hear that from a legal expert I trust over the weekend. And that could potentially,

we know this sheriff, he denies it, but we know from his earlier statements he can't stay on the FBI. He has a bad history with them. He does not like them. They've investigated his department, and it's possible. He was like, it's an abduction. It's not a kidnapping. There's no reason for the FBI. And then eventually, like 72 hours in, he realized, oh, shit, I'm in over my head. I don't know.

It's just a possibility. But the blood pattern inside the house, matching the blood pattern outside the house that we've seen, Eric, is interesting. That with the new detail that she was taken from her bed is starting to give us a visual in how they got her out. So expand on your statement to Will. Well, you know, what we were talking about earlier is it seems like if it's a 9 degree, so you have a straight line, a pattern of blood droplets moving along. Now, she could have been carried. She could have been dragged and bleeding. You know, there are a couple reasons she could be bleeding.

There could have been reinforced trauma, and then she's pulled out. She could have been actually killed in the home, and it's not a reduction of the person, but taking away of the body. Or, you know, something could have happened in the home, and altercation and they decided we need to get her out, we need to go. And as she's being pulled along, she's bleeding. When you're 84 years old, if you're grabbed roughly, that skin can tear a lot easier than when you're much younger. And so that could have caused it. But either way, it looks to me that she was pulled out or carried. She dropped blood in a certain pattern that matches interior

of the house, the porch, and, of course, along the driveway. And then she, she dropped blood in a certain pattern that matches the and, of course, along the driveway. And then she's thrown in a car and taken away. And we don't know what happened to her since then. Well, and the other thing we don't know is how much blood is inside, which is why, you know, I've wondered all along if this sheriff is leaning toward murder as opposed to abduction. And he's got to keep abduction open because she's no longer there, James. but if there's a lot of blood inside that house, it's possible this sheriff all along has been,

and don't forget he called in homicide detectives immediately. It's possible from the get-go he's been thinking this is a homicide. Yeah, and you're right. And he also might have told her, you know, or told Savannah, she was taken from her bed because that's where, you know, a large deposit of the blood was that would make complete sense of the video we're now seeing. But why take the body? This case, just the more you look at it,

the less and less it makes any sense. You know, why take her body? If she died, you know, in the bed or right there, there was a struggle. What if she fought, James? Yeah. You know, and then she's got the perpetrators' DNA under her fingertips. Yeah, it's possible. Again, there had have been a reason I try not too much to get in the head of these people

because, you know, you drive yourself crazy. But it's just bizarre. And then I think unless Eric saw it somewhere, I have not seen a lot of blood leaving the porch going down that little step up, you know, the steps with the wrought iron where that blue t-shirt was left. I've only seen blood, yeah, like I don't see any. Here's the Fox News video. And it does show some blood on this little path that we're looking at right now leading into the red bricks. So the blood does continue.

That was news that we didn't know, courtesy of Fox. Yeah, it's... After they release that video of the intruder. Right. You can see, see a little, see blood, drops of blood. This is courtesy of Fox. And interesting that he didn't step in it. Interesting, it is very dark.

We know how dark it is there. So how do we, you know, from an evidentiary standpoint, how do we get there? How was he able to carry her or move her? And that thing's fallen at a 90 without, you know, any real movement, which you would expect carrying someone out. And then not step in it, two in the morning with, it's so dark there. Maybe he's using that mouth light that he had, but it's odd to me. Well, Eric's theory of her possibly being over his shoulder, like bleeding behind him as he walked forward.

Yeah. That would explain that. Yeah, I like that a lot. And then what, to the car and then we go. But, but, I mean, you guys could speak to this more easily than I think I could speculate to it. but I think she was 5 foot, 5 and 150 pounds. If she were no longer living, that would be extremely heavy, right? To lift dead weight, like a dead weight of 150 pounds weighs even more.

It feels like it weighs even more, right? I mean, Eric, you're- But we're also assuming that there's only one person. There could be multiple people, and I suspect there would have been multiple people. if they're carrying her out, right? You know, that's very difficult for an or it could be one person who kind of restraints her. You know, he had a lot in that backpack. You know, so he could have had restraint.

She could have gagged her. She could have been bleeding. He walked her out and forced her into a car. So we just don't know. It's carrying. I bet you there's more than one person, but I would expect there might be. Yeah. We have zero reason to disbelieve that.

Right. Zero reason to disbelieve it. We haven't seen it like an empty car sitting there waiting. We didn't see the perp come up and turn off the ignition with no one else in it. Like there absolutely could have been another person there. Well, you were going to say something. Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, again, going by Eric's theory there, and I certainly would agree with James as well on the points he's made, is that there's been no flourish. There's to be no results of neighbors' cameras. And I'd be interested to know that any of the budding influences or, or, journalists that are actually on the ground there, whether they've actually done a sight and scene survey of the nearest residences to see if anybody does actually have cameras.

Because if there was more than one person, if there was a vehicle that they could potentially trace, that sort of information is really important. But I don't think we've heard a great deal from the sheriff in that regard. Well, I have a question for you as our kidnapping expert. If they took... I agree with James.

I think we all agree with James. Why take the body? Like if this was a murder, why take the body. Now it's possible, like I said, there was DNA, there was a struggle, there was something they thought could identify them that they might have left behind on her. Because clearly, this guy, while he didn't seem to do very well with that Nesp camera, he did a very good job of masking his identity and his DNA. Here we are 24 days in, and we have no clue who he is.

So this guy watched a lot of dateline or has committed a lot of crime. So, okay, but if it was, a planned kidnapping, taking the body makes all the sense in the world. So he heard her, he took her out, he intended to ask for money, and then maybe she died. She's 84, she doesn't have the heart medication. This whole thing was like extremely traumatic. Wouldn't you have thought, if you're a guy who's gone to all that effort to steal Nancy Guthrie and then she dies, you send in a lock of hair, you, whatever, you send a very detailed description of what she was wearing when you took her, the actual pajamas, you know, like, we all know, like, if you spent enough time with your 84-year-old

mother, you know what she wears, you know what she wears to bed, you know, it's like, if somebody were to describe to me my mom's choice of nightgowns, I would know them all. So, like, why, under this theory, would he just give up? Why would he just disappear? Well, I mean, to make a difference, Megan, between, you know, what we do in the private sector to what the chaps do, obviously, as federal, you know, Bureau of Investigation. I was talking about this with James in the break. The advantage that we have in the private sector is that we are not interested in apprehending the kidnappers. We simply want the hard stitch back. So we're not obligated.

We're not driven to finding out the kidnappers. identities and trying to get them apprehended. We just found the hostage back and we communicated that from the outset. Now, obviously, as soon as the Bureau got involved, as soon as the sheriff was involved, the problem that these guys had or this individual had before even submitting, and I've had certainly weeks go past before even a ransom demand can be delivered. And to cover, excuse me, the point that you made earlier, which was about there only being $50,000, whether it be $50,000 or a million dollars that was being offered,

for the safe return or the identification of Nancy's worry about, you're still going to get chances that come out of woodwork, and it's only through that proof of life that you can narrow it down to who it might be. So my concern is, and I think this is the case, because it's understanding the motivation behind that abduction, why would that abduction be taking place and what would be the purpose for it,

other than to try and shake down Savannah in some shape or form for some financial benefits? And we look at Nancy's profile, pretty low profile in the area. The sister and her husband, low profile. Savannah, well-known face on the TV. So, you know, she was a prime candidate for this kind of extortion. But because this garnished so much publicity, so quickly, and I think because of our publicity-hungry sheriff,

especially giving interviews left, right and center, I think if she was indeed taken for ransom, then there's every good chance that the kidnapper or kidnappers have panicked. And that, unfortunately, would probably bring about the demise of Nancy, because what else are they going to do? Okay, so now a new window has opened because in this scenario, Nancy's passed. You can't send proof of life anymore. At this point, I don't even know if you could send hair. I'm not even sure if hair would register as coming from a deceased person, you know.

But at this point, they'd have to get rid of Nancy remains. Well, the hair would have her DNA. So that would be great if they had it. But they probably don't because they have to tell you whether the person is dead or alive. Right, of course, yes. Like, if they pull it out from the route, I'm just going to, I don't know. I mean, I've done some negotiations for the return where it's been an unprofessional amateur group where the hostage has died, you know, through their mishandling.

of the hostage. But the family still wants, obviously, their relative back. Now, again, this comes the difference between, obviously, law enforcement and the private sector. The private sector, we can still, through various evidences, determine, obviously, that they do have the person in question, the hostage. For, again, the risk to negotiate, even for the return of someone who's deceased, with a law enforcement agency, increases the chances of their apprehension. And that, unfortunately the big hurdle that this could be faced right now. Are you suggesting, well, might be smart for Savannah right now, like right now, to bring in someone like you and say, you don't have to do with the FBI?

Sadly, it's too late. And law enforcement will now have an obligation under law to obviously continue their investigation. So the likes of ourselves would be, you know, just not a relevant element. Well, what do you guys think, James and Eric, about the possibility now of this. window opens up. You've, you've stolen this woman. You can't ask for a ransom because she's died. This is an imaginary scenario. We're just speculating here. But then Savannah Guthrie drops a million dollar reward out there. And you do know the answers to get you the money. So what are the odds? This guy now, through an intermediary or through his own somehow, says, I know where she is.

He's not going to give himself up. Yeah, if we're putting it together and we're looking at it as an abduction for money or kidnapping gone bad and Nancy dies. Now they have her and they've been sitting on her thinking, what are we going to do? We can't really show a sign of life without showing that she's passed. And now there's a $1 million reward. You could see someone saying, hey, I know where the body is, right? And I want to stay anonymous and you need to give me. That gets you the reward.

It gets you the reward. Because Savannah said she finished it by saying a $100,000, or sorry, a million dollar reward. You can call 1-800-tip line. You can be anonymous. I'm trying to find the line. But she said basically consistent with FBI practices. Oh, this is on her Instagram. Her caption reads, someone knows how to find our mom and bring her home.

Call 1-800. Call FBI. You can remain anonymous or find a way to reach out to me. Note family reward of up to $1 million will be paid only. for recovery of Nancy Guthrie, consistent with FBI criteria for payment of its reward in this case, the $100,000. And we actually looked up that criteria. The FBI said reward is up to $100,000 for info leading to the location of Nancy Guthrie and or the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in her disappearance. So you can get the dough if you can just point them to the location

of Nancy Guthrie. Keep going, Eric. Right. And well, the fear there would be, of course, Do I trust it? Right? Am I more worried about my personal safety and security or the avarice of getting this reward? Because if you're that savvy to go into a home, abduct a person, and not leave any of your DNA behind, then you've got to take the next step, at least to do some research, to realize that there are methods that the FBI can use to track back things, and you have to make a communication in order to do this. So, I mean, I don't want to say too much because maybe they're listening to the show.

and the techniques that the FBI can use. But you're banking here on the fact that they really want to make something off of this. They put in a lot of time and effort into it. And criminals want to get paid. They don't make money unless they win. So it is possible that someone could come forward and say, I know where the body is. And if you pay me, I'll tell you. And now you're getting up to real numbers.

You know, don't forget that backpack, which they've determined came from Walmart, cost $11. Now that doesn't mean this guy has fallen on hard times. Lots of us would buy an $11 backpack. But the odds are if you're on somebody's doorstep in the middle of the night wearing a ski mask trying to abduct an old lady, you're not rolling in dough. And so, you know, you're talking a seven-figure reward. I just want to get James to weigh in on this. And I also want to talk about what now that so many of these things have gone cold. We'll keep you guys over if you don't mind. Stand by. Hey everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more.

It's bold, no BS news only on the Megan Kelly channel, Sirius XM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. Okay, and we're back. So, James, your thoughts on all this, on where things stand now? Well, two things. One, it would be, if we're going with that they did this at the behest of someone. I'm not going to say the son-in-law, but anybody, you know, had a reason to do this. They hired somebody to do it. And then, God forbid, you know, she died during the thing.

And they would call back to the person saying, hey, we screwed this up. She's dead. And then more than likely the person had hired him and would say, well, I don't want to hear anything from you. Get rid of the body. Okay, so the car and the body, that's your next step. So where's the car? Does the sheriff have any leads on any burned out cars?

Where is the car? You're not going to drive around with her DNA in your car. Or have they taken this car across the border to Mexico? And, you know, it's very telling that there's a group of ladies, you know, and I'm aware of that group and that most of them are from Mexico. It happens so frequently that they're looking for bodies that there's a whole group that does this. So that's a problem.

So that's the first lead. Do we have the car? And then if it's not, you know, someone paid them to do this, and they just happened to go into this home to rob her, and then all of a sudden they took the body, as you were saying, because either their DNAs on her or, you know, they think that you get money from her somehow, and then she dies.

Same problem. We've got to do something with this body. And I don't think they're going to hold on to the body to try to get money out of it. I think they're running from this thing as fast as they possibly can. Get rid of the body, get rid of the car, all that. And then lastly, I just want to say, I think you said something about, you know, that the guy was smart enough to not get caught. Well, how well was that scene process?

Maybe we missed something. Maybe it's possible that the, you know, the people that worked at crime scene, they've missed something. And, you know, obviously there's a high degree of luck here in this situation. And maybe he just got lucky. But to me, there's a lot of evidence that we still need. And, you know, I can't believe it's not there. how do you even go back and start finding that? You know, if you were called in now, James,

and they said, we need you. You know, suit back up, come over here and start anew. How would you do it? Well, you got to go back to the motive, and who would have a motive to do this to this lady? You know, is there a financial benefit for someone? And that's where you start. And you got to, I mean, why did this happen?

And usually it's motive because of money or revenge. And that's where you start. And then everyone gets looked at again. really, really in a very, very difficult manner. It does seem impossible that this guy, maybe more than one, but this guy, has stumped 400 law enforcement, trained, seasoned, in many cases, law enforcement officers from the feds and the sheriff's department. It's shocking to me. It's shocking that here we are 24 days later. Every weekend, I kept feeling

like they were going to make an arrest because there is so much evidence that I'm seeing, and I don't see, all I'm seeing is what I'm watching on television or on, you know, the internets. And behind the scenes, they, they have a lot more evidence. So I just am shocked that here we are 24 days later and we're nowhere. Right. I feel like right now we're praying for a miracle, Will, because, look at them in the list of, I mentioned it. So it's, uh, gun shops, nothing. Video picks of the perp, nothing. DNA inside the house, nothing. DNA in the gloves, nothing. raids, nothing. Nothing.

Absolutely nothing. Brian Enton was saying, now they're going to hotels, trying to ask hotels, if they have seen these faces or recognize these names. I don't know whether that's a, that's turning into anything.

Let's listen to it. It's not 59. And I reported that they were going to gun stores in Tucson with a list of 40 names and 40 photos. And there's new reporting today that they're doing the same. same thing at some hotels. What does that tell you? I mean, on day 20, should that make us think that

they haven't really narrowed it down to a couple of people? Well, what I can tell simply by the nature of the case and what's been revealed to the public at least, that doubtful they have contact with the kidnappers or with the abductors. It would be very unusual to be so out front in the media and requesting public assistance when you have some level of connection with the perpetrators. So that tells me that they're still struggling for indicators and clues. That's quite interesting. And do you guys agree with that? Yeah, totally. I mean, I agree with James and I agree with Eric. I mean, there have been so many eliminations of suspects, the denials or the end of potential evidences or potential clues.

I mean, it's just almost embarrassing because it doesn't give great deal of hope that there's actually anything positive or productive that's actually being carried out. And even eliminating more useful data, like, for example, the local neighbours' cameras, traffic cameras that may be in operating cellular data, which may triangulate or whitelist residence phones, but also other individuals' phones to determine particular leads that may be followed up on the IMEIs. You know, it just seems ridiculous that we're at day 24. And there's no positive potential direction that we're seeing here. But Eric, this is your wheelhouse, I think almost exactly, because that was a former FBI agent, retired FBI agent who worked in Mexico for the feds, our feds. And he's saying what this tells me is that the authorities do not have contact with the kidnappers because they would not be so flailing like gun shops, hotels.

And has anybody seen any of these people when you're in an act of negotiation with the people? But here's why I want to ask you about it, because Harvey Levin of TMZ has been saying all along that the feds, rightly or wrongly, took those first two letters to Harvey and then the two local stations and then just to the one local station very seriously. And that whatever was in those letters, Harvey intimates. And I'm sorry, you do have to take it with a grain of salt because Harvey seems to be. be very much enjoying being at the center of a piece of this case. And he's been sensationalist in the way he has promoted it. So it's possible he's very into the ransom notes. I'm not trying

to insult the man. I'm just saying we have to factor this in. He may be trying, he may be in love with the alleged ransom letters because that's where he came in. All right. So discount it, however you wish. But he says the feds took those two letters extremely seriously. And even after the deadline passed for the ransom to be paid, continue to take them very, very seriously as, like, a possible lead into the abductor. But you're the cyber guy. So, like, wouldn't, if they really thought those Bitcoin accounts, or the one that was in the $6 million demand letter and then the follow-up letter, was going to take them to Nancy, they'd know by now. Wouldn't they? We'd have the guy. Well, yeah. So you never want to discount any lead. And it was a letter that was sent in.

suggests that there was some information in there that at least made them raise an eyebrow and think that maybe they have some inside information. I will say really quickly, I think that everyone in the enforcement working the case is probably pretty annoyed with TMZ about dropping little hints of information that are just not helpful at all. Now, as for Bitcoin, yeah, they could have put that amount of money that was asked for in the Bitcoin transaction. they could have sent the keys to that amount of Bitcoin to the wallet that was provided, which was verified as a real wallet in those different ransom notes. Now, we don't know whether it's the same wallet. We don't know if there's different wallets, if these are different individuals or the same, and that's a problem for us.

Well, we were told that the account that was mentioned in letter number one, asking for $4 million if by this Thursday or 6, if you wait until Monday, was the same Bitcoin account referenced in this second letter that came that didn't have proof of life that led to the first really forlorn video from the Guthrie family like right we understand so what could you do you could put some money here from you you could put some money in it and the way that bitcoin works is it's on open public ledger so the transactions are all full and open in something called the blockchain and so what the fbi could have done is sent the keys into that wallet for a million bitcoin a million dollars worth of bitcoin or you know however

for many Bitcoin, and then watched the transactions to see whether the owners of that wallet started to move the keys to other wallets that they own. See, the trick with Bitcoin is we know exactly where every cryptocurrency transaction is going to move. It's on a public ledger. But until the individual moves that cryptocurrency to a wallet that they control that is attached to some sort of a regulated entity like a bank or Coinbase, which is the most of the most popular, then you can't actually determine who is moving the money.

And what criminals do if they're very savvy, let's say that these kidnappers were working with some very good dark web cyber criminals, they can move it through what's called a mixer. And the mixers take that transaction and move it into a wallet that has massive amounts of keys that for Bitcoin in and out and in and out, and that makes it a lot harder for the FBI to track it. They've been very successful in the past, but either it was in negotiation with the family, but with the family. The family didn't feel comfortable putting that money in. Or the FBI said it's not worth it. We don't know enough about this individual or we can't really confirm that this person

knows the sufficient details to take that risk. So, you know, it's a crapshoot. How sophisticated do you have to be to know somebody who can give you access to a mixer? You have to be pretty sophisticated. You have to be at like foreign intelligence operative level, sophistication in order to move those transactions in a way that the FBI can't eventually follow. You know, the top-tier dark web cyber criminals even fail at it. And you have to get it right every single time. I want to know those guys. Yeah.

I know those guys. But they have to get it right every single time. You can't make a mistake or the FBI. They're very good cyber investigators. And they will just follow you until you move it to a wallet where you're you're going to a wallet where you try to get the funds because eventually they don't want a bunch of bitcoin that they can't spend you can't buy anything with it they need to turn it into cold hard cash that they can use and uh and so eric what does that tell you what does that tell you if anything about the people who

wrote those first two letters well look i i suspect that the letters are people who are opportunists that saw this case and we're able to at least provide enough information that made the FBI law enforcement believe that it's possible this could be the kidnappers and then there had to be a head scratcher when they never received any open communication. So if you're savvy enough to find a way to retrieve this money, the ransom in Bitcoin, and then move it through the dark web in order to evade law enforcement, you're savvy enough to use different dark web message boards using the Tor network or other networks that can at least allow you to be somewhat anonymous.

and they're pretty good to have open communication. We do it all the time with cyber criminals. What do you mean with the family? Yeah, with the family, with law enforcement. We do it all the time with cyber criminals. So think of a different case where a company is locked, all their data is locked by a ransomware attack. You know, that ransom note that's sent on their servers

usually has a link to a dark web message board that keeps the attacker completely anonymous, but you can go back and forth, literally typing your chat in the message board, message board and they can give you information. If they were that savvy, that cyber savvy, they could have set that up. And the fact that they didn't suggest to me that these ransom notes are not actually ransom notes from kidnappers at all. They're opportunists who decided they were going to try to cash in on this terrible misfortune. Well, you look like you agree.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more with Eric. And certainly if they were cyber capable, and they did have the ability to use, like Eric mentioned, tour networks or other means of message boards through the dark web, that wouldn't heed them in then presenting proof of life. And the proof of life could be communicated via those means, again, protecting their identity, but verifying that they are indeed the individuals that have a credible ransom demand.

So ultimately, yes, I mean, as we always guessed, these particular requests or demands that are came into Harvey, none of them had any credibility until such time as they were going to provide proof of life, of which neither of them have. Hey, Megan. What were you going to say, James? That level of sophistication would not be in line with using daisies to try to, you know, block the camera. So I have a tough time with that one.

And then I was just going to say how discouraging it is to me that law enforcement is going to a hotel or a gun store or you name it with a list of 49. What is this, Casablanca and they're rounding up the usual suspects? I've never gone with a list of 40 names. Like, what? That is very discouraging to me. Yeah, I know. I just, like, if you're, so clearly this isn't, I agree, it's not.

It's almost certainly not the kidnapper who wrote those first two ransom notes or whatever we're calling them. But the thought of getting a million dollars has got to be. tempting for this guy. Like, now we're talking real money. And in the case of, you know, your common criminal, life-changing money. So if you were advising Savannah, like, how do you make it, I think I'd want to know, how can I assure this criminal? I'm actually not that interested in catching him. I actually genuinely just want my mom back, dead or alive. And, like, I want to I want to get him on the dark web. I want, you know, I know you feds, you want to catch him,

but I just want my mom. So like, how do I telegraph to him? This is how you should contact me. It's untraceable. The feds can't get you. You know what I mean? Is there a way? Could you advise her in such a way? Well, that's what Will's talking about. Yeah, Will, that's exactly what he's talking about. You know, people like Will, you know, and he doesn't want the FBI to know that, but he could work for her. and then behind the scenes be advising to do all those things because from our standpoint. But it's too late now. Yeah, from our standpoint, we want to lock the guy up.

If somebody comes up and says, yeah, I know where the body is, well, the next question we're going to have is, how the hell did you know that? And we're looking at charging you. We want someone charged because we're looking at it from the law enforcement lens. You know, people like Will, you know, they try to, I'm going to say they work outside the lines of law enforcement, but they certainly have a different, you know, interest, which is let's get this body back, and regardless of the justice system. So what you're saying is, God forbid, we have somebody in our lives kidnapped.

The first call we make is to Will, not 911. That's what I'm doing. I mean, it depends on the relative. It did. It does. Just kidding. Yeah, of course. I mean, it really also depends on the jurisdiction, and it depends on where it happens.

So, for example, if it was in the United States, for us, it would be very difficult to operate outside the boundaries of the law. And we wouldn't want to upset the likes of Eric and James should it be subsequently discovered. The problem is that Savannah is a very well-known personality. She's a well-known individual. And as Eric mentioned, much earlier on, it was a question of the offset, because the operational security and the information security around this. But if it was in another part of the world, where we wouldn't be up to trust. I mean, the FBI probably some of the best kidnapping negotiators there are out there. And, you know, one would be able to work efficiently with them. But if you're in a part of the world where you don't trust law enforcement,

local law enforcement, because they may very well have some part to play in the kidnapping, then, you know, again, it's one of those things which you ultimately, you know, may choose to do it outside and quietly and clandestinely. And now, look, you know, the kidnappers are watching all of this too. And they know that the FBI is very involved and that it's very unlikely that there's going to be an open way to communicate where the kidnapper is going to be able to stay completely anonymous at this late date, even if there, even if someone was set up, if Will or I set something up through a dark web network that we created, right, just for this. And with instructions for how you can get on here and everybody can get on here, but

no one will know who anyone is, you're still going to think if you're the kidnapper and you've been this cautious that it's a trap, right? And once again, you've got to go into that. A million dollars not worth it to you? Yeah, that calculation. Is that a million dollars? It's my greed overcome my sense of personal security. And it's 24 days out.

If, you know, you would think that we would have heard something if they had her alive, certainly. And if she's not alive, maybe some scheme to try to get money anyway. At this point, maybe the abductor or the abductor, right, not kidnapper, has completely given up. Yeah, I would say they're a lost leader here. If I asked you, if I were in this position and I said, Will, what's the number to shake something loose? Like what number, you know, pick your sum, but what's the number to make somebody call?

That's almost like the length of a piece of string is very, very difficult to determine. I think, you know, I agree with Eric and James that I think it's a lost leader for whoever has taken her, if Nancy, if it was some sort of kidnapping for ransom. The issue is that the risk is just way too great for them now. The best thing that they could do, because there's still every good chance

that the Bureau is going to still try and chase them down and find out who they are, it would be for them to leave Nancy in a public area. So she could be discovered by a member of the general public. Perhaps in an environment where there is CCTV coverage, but I would say

again, they would want to evade detection and apprehension, but to put her in a location where ultimately she could be found by a passerby, by a member of the general public, and then at least giving the family some peace in terms of the returning of Nancy. But I think any avenue that they try and pursue now is just going to be too fraught with risk. You know, but to go back to the beginning, you know, like I said earlier, there's no honor among thieves. One million dollars buys you a lot of grief. in-in-between criminals. So there could be someone who's on the periphery of this, had nothing to do with it, just saw it, knows about it, is told to keep quiet, who suddenly their lips loosened

because a million dollars is on the line. So there's the hope there. I mean, that is where this can push somebody who had, you know, who's really far in the date line. Yeah. It's the wife of like a second-tier accomplice. Yeah. In the date line, it's like the spouse of somebody who's loyal to the guy, but the spouse is not loyal to the guy, and she's seeing a life-changing sum, and they're not primarily responsible. So, like, maybe you have some responsibility, but not the main responsibility,

and the FBI would 100% cut you a deal. If you are a low-level perp attached to this as opposed to the main guy, people should know that too. Well, another fascinating discussion of you guys. We'll do it all over again when we get the next significant update. Appreciate talking to you on all your expertise. Thank you. Thank you, Megan.

Yeah, thank you. Wow. Oh, my gosh. I mean, honestly, we took a day off and thought this case had really dried up. And I think it has, sadly, I think it has dried up. But that was a lot. I mean, that's why Savannah did the ransom note. I mean, she did that message because she knows it's drying up, too. She sees the media leaving. I'm sure she's read the reports about the cops drawing back in terms of the number of staff. Of course, they have other crimes to solve. They have missing kids. They have murders. And the Guthrie's donated to $500,000. to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, too. So they've got other responsibilities. There are missing children right now who don't get one-tenth of this coverage and attention. And things feel like they're starting to wither on the vine. So she's trying to keep the story in the news.

Contrary to what the local lawmaker and some other critics over at MSNBC think is appropriate, media coverage is a blessing for any family that has a missing love one. We'll stay on it. And we'll also stay on the State of the Union and have that fully covered for you tomorrow with the guys from RCP. See you then.

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