The Megyn Kelly Show - Media Ignores Shooter Reality, Megyn Reveals Blake Lively Subpoena, and Adelson on Trial, with Matt Walsh, Eiglarsh, Geragos, Holloway

Episode Date: August 28, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Matt Walsh, host of The Daily Wire's "The Matt Walsh Show," to discuss updates on the horrific Minneapolis Catholic school and church shooting, the Minneapolis mayor’s focus on protecting the transgender community in the aftermath, the real dangers of our society's affirm-only culture, the left and media’s focus on respecting the shooter’s gender identity, the broader refusal to accept trans reality, the absurd coverage of this horrible shooting, and more. Then Megyn reveals Blake Lively subpoenaed her and implied Justin Baldoni may have been paying her, her successful fight against a subpoena over her journalism, Lively’s documented history of bullying, and more. Then Mark Eiglarsh, Mark Geragos, and Phil Holloway, MK True Crime contributors, join to discuss the legal implications of Lively subpoenaing media members over their coverage of her, her attacks on anyone speaking negatively about her, disturbing crime scene bodycam footage from the Bryan Kohberger case, the surviving roommate’s account of what happened, new questions surrounding the investigation, the most important moments of the Donna Adelson trial so far, Adelson’s emotional outbursts that got the judge to call her out, her estranged son taking the stand against her, the defense's peculiar strategy, and more. Subscribe to MK True Crime:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mk-true-crime/id1829831499Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4o80I2RSC2NvY51TIaKkJWYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime?sub_confirmation=1Social: http://mktruecrime.com/ PrizePicks: Download the PrizePicks app today and use code MEGYN to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup! Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/MEGYNPique: Get 20% off your order plus a FREE frother & glass beaker with this exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/MEGYNGrand Canyon University: https://GCU.eduDailyLook: https://dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code MEGYN for 50% off your first order.  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. We've got a big Kelly's court coming up where I'll be breaking some news about Blake lively and yours truly. But first, the left's stunning reaction to yesterday's horrifying shooting at a mini. Catholic School's first mass of the year. The 23-year-old shooter, a man pretending to be a woman who identified as transgender, shot and killed an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old. 14 other kids were wounded, as were three adults who are in their 80s. All of the wounded miraculously. I mean, truly miraculously, are expected to survive. I mean, thank God. Thank God. I mean, I know. I know. I'm feeling as you are just incredibly so sad for the parents of that little eight-year-old and that little 10-year-old and would do anything to help them. But I'm also so relieved that the wounds

all the other children and the elderly people suffered have turned out not to be fatal. I don't know. You just, you look for the silver linings you can find in these situations. FBI director Cash Patel says the Bureau. is investigating this shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and as a hate crime targeting Catholics. And in the aftermath, Minneapolis Democrat mayor made sure his focus was on protecting not children, not Catholics, but the trans community. Here he is talking to a nodding Aaron Burnett on CNN last night. Watch. Obviously, I've heard about the rhetoric and the narrative that is being pushed out but here's the thing anybody that is going to use this as an opportunity to villainize

our trans community or any community has lost touch with a common humanity we got to be operating not out of hate for any group but out of a love for our children that's where the focus needs to be right now a love for our kids seeing these kids not just as somebody else's kids this horrific thing happened. But what if it was our own? How would we feel then? So look, we need to be standing up for every community out there. A Catholic community, too, by the way. He doesn't know anything. He doesn't know anything. A hate can't be operating out of hate for the trans community. It's not about hating the trans community. It's about being honest about what was wrong with this obviously extremely ill, mentally ill, mentally ill.

man who picked up his guns, three of them, to be exact, and shot a bunch of kids. It's not about hate. How dare you try to turn this into a pro-LGBQ moment? We have to get really honest about what was wrong with this shooter. And P.S., it's the same thing that's been wrong with shooters in a multitude of mass shootings now, which your side, mayor, refuses to acknowledge. What is this guy like 2932 at most? Where were you during Sandy Hook? Because I don't remember you out there, Mr. Mayor. Some of us were with parents were at these scenes moments after the gunfire went off. You've got, yes, one terrible tragedy in your community. It's about a lot more than your alleged hate for certain communities. It's not about that at all.

It's about calling a spade a spade. It's infuriating watching that guy. I mean, also like, oh, and the Catholic community, by the way, oh, like, that's an afterthought. Like, yeah, Catholics. Yeah, we're realized. We know that. Catholics were targeted. Thanks for the nod of the head. We really appreciate you deigning to acknowledge that Catholics have been targeted here. I mean, literally putting the group that was the targeted, chosen victims of the shooting as like an afterthought. What this is really about is how mean we are to transpe. people. When we were planning today's show, I knew there was nobody better to start it with than Matt Walsh. He's host of the Matt Walsh show on the Daily Wire. He's here with us today.

Football's finally back, and so is the hard-hitting gridiron action on prize picks. Kick off the season right and get 50 bucks instantly in lineups when you play your first five bucks. With millions of members and billions of dollars awarded in winnings, prize picks is the place to put your takes to the test. You just pick two or more players across any sport, pick more or less on their projections, and if you're right, you could cash in. Prize picks is available in 40-plus states, including California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia. With simple stats and user-friendly policies, prize picks is the fan-friendly app to make your picks. Don't miss any of the action on prize picks with preseason football underway and college football already kicking off. Yay!

Download the prize picks app and use code Megan and get 50 bucks instantly in lineups when you play five bucks. That's code Megan on price picks to get $50 instantly in lineups when you play just $5. Win or lose, you're going to get 50 bucks in lineups just for playing guaranteed. Price picks, run your game. Must be present in certain states. Visitpricepix.com for restrictions and details. Matt, thanks so much for being here. It's infuriating listening to that guy. Absolutely maddening. Yeah, I mean, it is and you expect nothing less from this guy. Remember, this is the mayor, Jacob Fry, who wept at the golden casket of George Floyd back in 2020. So this guy is just a completely pathetic piece of

garbage. But you're exactly right that it's way past time that we start being honest about about all this. And that includes the fact that trans violence is not, this is not an aberration. You know, if it's seen, of course, the media plays this game all the time where they want us to deny the reality that's in front of our face. And when it comes to transgenderism in particular, that's, of course, been the game for a long time. But it certainly seems as though very often these days when there's a mass shooting, and then we find out

a little bit more about the killer, we find out that, oh, they got the she her pronouns, they them, non-binary, trans. It certainly seems like that is a big part of the story very often, and it is. And that's what the stats bear out. And also keep something else in mind that there's There's no official database of trans violence that any government entity keeps.

Probably there should be now. Probably we need that database. But there isn't one, which only means that we only find out about the trans connection to violence when it's one of these big, huge mass shootings that the media has to talk about because they have no choice because of the bloodshed. But there are many other cases of violence, assaults, these sorts of things. where maybe nobody is killed. It's not really reported, certainly not on the national scale.

And so how often is there a trans connection there? We don't know exactly. But my only point is that I think the problem is even worse than any of us realize. Makes perfect sense because you look at what's happening today in the media, and the New York Times does a whole article about the shooter. And the only mention of the gender identity is in the context of pointing out conservatives are attacking it, not even considered as something we should be looking at and trying to figure out what was wrong with this shooter's head. CNN, an article entitled how the absolutely

incomprehensible shooting unfolded by Chelsea Bailey makes no mention of the shooter's gender identity. USA Today doesn't mention the shooter's gender identity at all. Hat tip to Tom Bevin of real clear politics for pointing these out on X today. They're completely whitewashing it like it's a non-factor, Matt? Yeah, and they don't want to have the conversation. And by the way, the fact that the person is trans, this is not, this is obviously a relevant fact. It's not, this is not just some conservative gotcha moment.

There's, this is very irrelevant. Why is it relevant? Well, number one, if somebody identifies as trans, that means that they are delusional. This is a delusional person who is confused about a basic fact of. reality, like one of the most basic facts, which is their own, which is, which is biological reality, their own sex. So this is someone who's, who's, it has a delusional mindset. We are, we already, we already know that. And also what, what are trans people being told? What is, what is the media been telling them for years now? They've been telling them that, you know,

if somebody does not affirm your fake identity, then that person is a threat. They're an actual, their actual threat to you. Trans, you hear the phrase trans genocide has been used many times. And of course, it's completely absurd. There's no genocide happening of trans people. No one's rounding of trans people and killing them. It's completely ridiculous. But what they mean by trans genocide is, well, people like you, Megan or me, who when we go on the air and we say that biological reality exists and we're not going to affirm your delusions, we are somehow participating in a genocide, which makes no sense. But if you have someone who's already mentally ill, they're already suffering from delusions, and then you take that person, you tell

them, hey, those people over there, conservatives, Catholics, they're committing a genocide against you. When they, when they refuse to affirm you, they're actually physically harming you. Well, now you're giving that person all the excuse they need, all the pretense they need to commit an act of violence. So this is, this is, you've got, you've got Peggy Flanagan, the lieutenant governor, wore a shirt that said protect trans kids with like a knife on it. I mean, this is, This is not subtle. You are actively encouraging them to commit acts of violence, and then that's exactly what they go do. And then on top of that, there's the problem of the way the psychiatric system deals with anyone, child or adult, who says they're trans. And this person started saying

it when they were still a minor and apparently got a name change from a male name to a female name when they were a minor. They applied at age 17. And you and I both know, including Miriam Grossman, who was in your wonderful movie. What is a woman? She's one of the few honest brokers in the field of dealing with this, like the transgender dysphoria and trans confusion amongst youth. And she pointed out in your movie and on our show and elsewhere, and I think she's written a book now, too, the only standard when someone like this shooter goes in to see a child psychiatrist or any sort of mental health professional is to affirm. You're not allowed to explore possible psychotic breaks that the person may be experiencing, maybe just upset due to a shitty childhood

or, you know, parents' divorce, or who knows? It could be a girl's anorexic. She's whatever. She's getting bullied. Has nothing to do with gender. The modern psychiatric standards is just lean into the gender ideology. And as a result, all those underlying and other things really go untreated. Yeah, exactly. And that's why every, I mean, we can I think we can safely assume that this person, this scumbag, had plenty of, you know, experience with the psychiatric community, psychiatrist, therapist, all the rest of it. I mean, I don't have any information about that. I think we can probably assume it.

And all of those people, we should have the names of all those people because they all, they all hold a fair amount of responsibility for what happened. Yes. Because, of course, you're exactly right that when you have someone come in, especially a minor, and they're claiming that they're, you know, it's a boy that claims he's a girl. Well, you know, I said before, these people are delusional, they suffer from delusions, and that's, of course, true in many cases. But what you can also have is someone who kind of like knows that they're not, they're not actually confused. They actually know that they're

not, they don't actually think they're a woman, but they're making this claim for some other reason, you know, and whether it's a fetish or in the case of a kid, it could be that kid was abused. Something else is happening, and this is their way of like coping with it. But because you have to just affirm, you can't get to the bottom of that and actually start talking about what is really going on. And then you take this very disturbed person and you're basically just, you're abandoning them. They've got their, they have their very unhealthy coping mechanism, which is to, which is to, you know, reject their own identity and pretend to be somebody else. And rather than saying, okay, well, this, clearly there's something very wrong here,

we've got to get to the bottom of it so we can help this person. Instead, you just abandon them to that coping mechanism and kind of just wait until the inevitable, awful thing happens. Yeah, because it's considered conversion therapy within the psychiatric community to try to talk to that person about whether they're, actually having gender dysphoria or whether this is just like something they're throwing out there as a more fashionable excuse for certain feelings they're having of depression or what have you. And so you're not allowed to really get into that stuff. You just have to affirm and

go along with it. And then in most cases, they add to the mix by putting the person on a dangerous cocktail of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and even chopping off healthy body parts, which can really cause deep problems. We don't know whether that happened in this case. We're just talking about the system and how messed up it is. You mentioned Peggy Flanagan. She's the lieutenant governor of Minnesota. Her messaging has been so deeply flawed on this and wrong. Same as her boss, Tim Wals, but here she is in March of 2023 and SOP 14. Because let's be clear, this is life affirming. and life-saving health care.

When our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them. That's what it means to be a good parent. Oh, my God. I know you covered that on your show at the time. We did too. It was such an insane way of phrase. how you react when your child has this issue.

Yeah, I can't think of a, it's hard for me to imagine worse parenting advice than that, that our job as a parent is to believe whatever your kid says, what? If anything, it's exactly the opposite. If anything, it's your job as a parent most of the time is to not accept whatever crazy nonsense comes out of your kid's mouth. So that's totally, totally insane. And what really infuriates me about it when I hear people like Peggy Flanagan or any of these people on the left is that I know that they don't really believe it. They don't really believe any of this. They don't. You would have to actually be mentally ill yourself, which of course plenty of them, maybe Petty Flanagan is. But everyone at bottom knows that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Everybody knows. knows that children are children and there's a lot of things they don't understand about

the world. Everyone knows that you can't just give a kid a cocktail of drugs and magically turn him from a girl into a boy. They all actually know that and yet, and they know the harm that it causes, but they do this anyway, they do it for political gain, they do it for control, they do it, you know, if it's a pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry, they do it for money. do it for all these reasons, knowing, knowing, knowing the harm that it causes. And that to me just makes it all the more despicable and evil. You mentioned that some of them genuinely

might be nuts. That leads me to Nebraska, Democratic State Senator Michaela Kavanaugh, who when Nebraska passed a law saying, we're not going to offer these procedures for minors. Like, if you want to do this stuff to yourself as an adult, that's one thing. Minors should not be cut up by money-motivated surgeons who want to make money off of their delusions. And this was her response in 2023. It's stop 15. Trans people. We need trans people. We love trans people. We love trans people. We love trans people. We love trans people. We love trans people belong here. We need trans people. We can be here all day. She goes on. You get it. But some of them truly do seem like actual nuts.

Yeah, I think, well, certainly. There's plenty of Democrats who are insane, but I almost think we give them too much credit or we let them off the hook a little bit by writing them all off as insane. Because if you're insane, then it's not your fault, right? I mean, that's what being insane is. And I think even in the case of that, I mean, you'd be excused for seeing that performance and thinking this person's totally nuts. And yet, I think that that's, it's, there's a strategy, though. There's actually, when they, when they do the thing where they just yell the phrase over and over again, this is very common on the left, it's one of their favorite tactics. And there's a strategy. The strategy is like we're just going to filibuster by screaming because there's no actual argument. They can't make an argument in favor of this. They can't present, I mean, I've been talking about this, of course, for a very long time.

And I've yet to hear anyone on the left actually. present anything resembling a coherent argument in favor of chemically castrating kids. It doesn't exist. They know it. So instead of they start screaming about it. And also, by the way, not to, you know, not to sidetrack this, but you mentioned this is in response to a law that would ban this stuff for kids. And, you know, even a lot of conservatives will say, well, when you're an adult, you can do what you want. I think that part of the conversation now, especially in light of what happened yesterday and in general, I think as conservatives, we need to move to the next step,

which is that this is not just about protecting. Protecting kids is the number one priority. And fortunately, we've made huge strides in protecting kids against gender ideology. There's still more to be done. But we are winning on that. We are winning on it. But for me, anyway, that was never going to be the end of it.

because the next step is to destroy the gender transition industry, period. Because it may be true that adults in their own private life can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. Like if you're in your own home and if you're a man who identifies a woman and in your own home you put on a dress or something, that's weird, you shouldn't do it, but no one else can see it and so there's nothing we can do about it. But when we talk about gender transitions, even for adults, that's not something. something that they're doing to themselves. That's something that a doctor is doing to them. And my point is that doctors should not be allowed to do that to anyone of any age. If someone comes to you and is a male and says, I feel like I'm a female, you should not be

allowed to take advantage of that confusion and that delusion by giving them castration drugs and permanently physically harming their bodies no matter what their age is. What they need is psychiatric help, and as a doctor, as a medical provider, you should be legally required to give them the psychiatric help that they need. And so that's what I, that's, that's, I think where the conversation should go for me. I agree with you. And I also think it's, we've been derelict in not having the conversation about just how blatantly offensive it is. You know, I mean, I go back to the, the Irish girl brand dove, she goes by, and she did that amazing poem about how I am not a dress. You know, I, I'm not a costume to be

worn. It's not that far afield from the blackface discussion. You just can't do it because it's offensive. It's deeply offensive to the target group who you're pretending to be. And that as a woman, that's how I feel. Like, you don't get the first thing about being a woman just because you put on lipstick and a dress. And I'm not a costume. I'm not a dress. You're offensive. Looking at you parading around and insisting I call you Ms. is offensive to me. I don't want to have to participate in it. most of these guys are having a sexual fetish fulfilled anyway. I don't want my kid to participate in your sexual fetish, nor do I want to do it. There's all sorts of reasons to take issue with it at the adult level, too. I want to keep going because we have so many things

to get through. Back to the question of the fakers, the ones who aren't nuts, but are doing it to virtue signal or, as you point out, some of these people are on the payroll who have gotten donations or in the form of ads or in the form of direct payments to their hospitals. Here's NPR's Alisa Chang, doing an interview with Senator Klobuchar, who's a Minnesota senator, on this issue yesterday. Two children have just been shot dead. You've got another 18 who have been wounded, who are in the hospitals, and listen to what's upsetting Ms. Chang in this discussion, Sophor. There is, of course, the hate you're going to find that this perpetrator, that this horrific offender, that he there was it was all purpose hate right he hated a lot of different groups it wasn't one

ideology or another we're going to have to leave it there that is senator amy klobuchar of minnesota thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us thank you for thinking of us thank you and just a point of clarification senator klobuchar referenced the shooter as he although police have identified a suspect it's still unclear at this time what that person's gender is or how they identify. Oh my God, Matt. Yeah, I actually had not seen that, I hadn't seen that clip. And I don't know how I can continue to be surprised by these people, but somehow, just the total shamelessness of that and worrying about respecting the so-called gender identity of a guy who just killed children.

I mean, he went to a, we all understand this, he went to a church and shot children. So you're dealing with, that's the most evil you can possibly be. That is the absolute depths of evil. And the idea that we should be at all concerned. Because why are we concerned? We're concerned about hurting his feelings as he's, you know, that guy's burning in hell right now. He's got bigger problems. I can tell you that than whether or not his gender identity is being respected.

So that is just shameless and nonsense. And was looking forward to it. I mean, his manifesto online has entries that read as follows. I love when kids get shot. I love to see kids get torn apart. I've had thoughts about mass murder for a long time. Then he says, I'm very conflicted with writing this journal. I need to get my thoughts out without getting on a watch list.

Ha, ha, ha. And, I mean, there's a real question about, Your point. Like, yeah, who should have been watching you and reporting you to authorities? The mother willingly participated in the name change and was all smiles and pictures of this guy trying to look like a woman. There had to be some sort of mental health professional involved, I'm sure. And then we find out that he actually had regrets about it. The New York Post reporting this morning that he confessed he was, quote, tired of being trans and wished, quote, He never brainwashed himself in this manifesto that was posted online, wrote, quote,

I only keep the long hair because it's pretty much my last shred of being trans. I'm tired of being trans. I wish I never brainwashed myself. I can't cut my hair now as it would be an embarrassing defeat. And it might be a concerning change of character that could get me reported. I will probably chop it on the day of the attack. So what does that tell us? Well, I mean, it, again, it tells us, among other things, just the total dereliction of duty on the part of whatever group of so-called mental health professionals, he, you know, had been consulting, and we can assume that there were plenty.

I mean, this is someone who, and we find this very often also, this is another, this is another common thread with these mass shootings. things, what you find is that whether this is a trans person or not, very, very often, they're on psychiatric medication. We don't know if this guy is on psychiatric medication. I think it sounds like pretty good possibility he was, but very often that's the case. And also, very often these are people who are very much, you know, they have therapists, they have psychiatrists, they're in that whole world. And yet when we, and now, of course, it's with hindsight, because we're only aware of these people in the public after they commit the heinous act. But still, it's like, if I had seen that guy a week ago and had a five-minute

conversation with him, I could have immediately known. Like, this is a dangerous person. I mean, this is a disturbed, a potentially dangerous person. It just, it leaps off the screen at you. Even if you didn't have the benefit of hindsight, I think any of us could. And so the question is always, well, where were the, whatever therapist, whatever counselor, What were you doing exactly? What was happening in these sessions? And I think we need more clarity on that. I know that there's all kinds of laws, because you have privacy and all that stuff is important.

But I think we need some changes of policies because when this sort of thing happens, we need to know what psychiatric drugs, if any, was the person on and which medical professionals was this person consulting? We need to know these things. And I think that needs to change. One of the other things the manifesto makes clear is that he was smoking a lot of pot, vaping all the time. And like Alex Berenson, who's done a lot of writing on the dangers of today's marijuana and vaping, he's raising that as a common thread that we've seen with a lot of these school shooters. So you've got this, basically this madman who's lost it, who's had some sort of a break.

It's manifesting in a number of ways, including this trans ideology, who's smoking a bunch of dope and vaping all the time. some of the manifesto shows like wafts of smoke coming up. He's obviously smoking. And all the left wants to talk about, Matt, is guns. That's it. The guns are the problem. And also, by the way, they're sick and tired of our thoughts and prayers. I'll give you Jen Saki in Sot 9. All they should be hoping to do is have someone to sit with at lunch or someone to play with on the playground. And they should be waiting to hear an update when they get home. And that is not what these parents in the school experience today. Because we have been here so many times, so many

times. And yet again, like clockwork, half the politicians in our country have little more to offer than thoughts and prayers. That is all they are offering. You're going to start seeing narratives. You're already seeing them. They're already out there about how the shooter was trans. You're going to see narratives about how the shooter appeared to be anti-Trump and anti-Semitic. and clearly was in the midst of a mental health crisis. Weaponizing the shooter's identity is meant to distract from what matters. That is what they are doing, trying to distract from what matters. Here's what matters.

Today's shooter bought the what rifle, handgun and shotgun they used to do what they did today legally. It's the guns, everyone. It's not really a secret. Thoughts on it, Matt? Yeah, well, I, first of all, you want to talk about guns. Okay, so this was a trans killer. I don't know, Jen Socky, are you saying that, what, we should, we should stop trans-identified people from owning guns? You want to have that conversation?

What, okay, let's have that conversation. I don't think she does. And I think this stuff about, you know, this stuff about thoughts and prayers, well, we've got to do more than just pray. Yeah, we all know that. Okay, that, first of all, that is obviously a direct attack on and an insult against the actual victims themselves, as many people have pointed out. Of course it's true. These people were in a church. They were praying. And now here you are being dismissive and contemptuous of prayer. So obviously you're indirectly insulting the people, the kids who were just killed, which makes you just an absolutely vile scumbag. But also, as every Christian knows that, yes, we pray. We believe in the power of prayer. But no one thinks that, well, you should just pray and do nothing else. You pray and you beseech God for his. mercy and for his his help, but then you have to also go out and do things. And when it comes to cutting down on these kinds of incidents, it just so happens that most

conservatives, there's a lot, there's a lot of actual things that we want to do, that we are proposing. Yes, we should pray, but also we should stop transing the kids. Also, we should shut down the gender affirmation industry entirely. Also, we should start holding the the big pharmaceutical companies accountable for all these psychiatric drugs that they're putting on on that they're that they're you know putting all these people on we should do that also we should have you know every school in the country should have armed security i mean amen unfortunately where i spot now where every church also probably needs armed security so there's like i don't know there's four or five things i just listed actual active things that we can do

and that many conservatives have proposed the exact same thing. So this idea that we don't want to do anything but prey is just a ridiculous and insulting straw man. She won't talk about it. She won't talk about any of those ideas. She just wants to act exasperated in front of her audience that it's all about the guns, that a madman like this wouldn't have found an alternative way of hurting these children and that in Jen Saki's world, you know, you just take away the guns and then they'll never hurt somebody again. The gun solution is totally impractical.

It's never happening. Even if the United States, if the people wanted it and voted for it, there's no way of getting 400 million guns out of the United States of America. It's not a possible thing to do. And even if you did it, you'd still have mass death because madmen do what madmen do. The solution is to look at the madmen and figure out how to keep them away from the rest of us. If you can stop the deterioration, which is what you're talking about with the crackdown on the trans enablers, great. But if you can't, I'm all for instant.

institutionalizing these people when it's clear that they're a danger to society. And at a minimum, we should be fortifying all the soft targets that we know, we know they want to hit. We've now had way too much evidence that schools are vulnerable and that places of worship are vulnerable. So still you have, I mean, even, look, you had Andy McCabe, right, formerly of the FBI on CNN this morning. And he's drawing the line, Matt, between the shooting in Nashville, Tennessee by a girl who said she was trans and targeted this Christian school to this shooting that we had yesterday. And he talks about all the similarities. Okay, this is a former law enforcement official. And see if you can guess, see if you can glean what's not included on his list as he's

trying to find the seam in the story that can help law enforcement figure out who to be wary of going forward. Here it is in SOT 7. I haven't seen the manifesto, so I can say whether there are specific references to the 2003 Covenant School shooter in Nashville. But if you look at that situation and this one, there are remarkable similarities. So both were in their 20s, both targeted religious schools that they formerly attended. Both brought three weapons to the crime. Both purchased those weapons legally. Both drove to the attack site and left a vehicle there.

Both posted manifestos in which they raged and expressed grievance towards numerous ethnic groups and religions, a real broad stroke of kind of anger there. Both sought to kill children, young children specifically. And I think the most important here is both were students of other mass shooters. He doesn't even mention it. The trans thing. Let me just give you one more quickly.

Former FBI agent, again, law enforcement official, Catherine Schweite goes on MSNBC, talks about how the shooter became radicalized, appears to catch herself making a reference to the gender thing, and then tries to completely whitewash her own reference here in SOT 11. likely stopped communicating with other people. They began to withdraw and change their appearance. And I don't mean change their appearance like you might hear. I understand at least early reporting is that we have someone, you know, who is

female, but presents as female but was male. So I'm not talking about that kind of change appearance. I mean, the clothing, the dark, the jackets and things like that. people begin to say, hey, what is going on with this person around me? We're not doing a good job of looking for that type of thing. What a liar. What a liar. She did mean the trans thing. She just caught herself. Oh, we have to look for people changing from tan jackets into black jackets. That was a bunch of bullshit. What horseshit, Matt? She caught herself because she had a moment of saying what was real and then realized she couldn't say that on MSNBC.

And Andy McCabe doesn't even mention it as a possible factor to be considered. But the left ones are condemn the right for thoughts and prayers and wanting to do nothing. Yeah, it's completely ridiculous. The good news, though, is that, well, those two clips you played, right? They're all over X right now. They're all over social media. And Andrew McCain might not want to acknowledge it, but a lot of people, you know, millions of people in social media are happy to say, well, you don't want to acknowledge

it, but I'll let you know the one thing you forgot. So the good news is that this is the game these people want to play by ignoring the obvious reality, but it's not working. I mean, maybe it worked like five years ago, but it's just not working anymore at all. And the trans agenda in general is losing in pretty much every facet of life. I mean, it's losing politically. It's losing culturally. it's losing in the state houses, it's losing in the courts, it's losing, it lost in the Supreme Court, it's losing everywhere. So team sanity, as I've come to call it, is winning

on this issue. And so when you watch even a couple of those clips, it almost feels like a relic, an ancient relic of, you know, the ancient times of 2021 when people were still kind of gingerly stepping around this issue. But we're not, we're not doing that anymore. At least not out in the broader culture, regular people aren't doing that. But so that's the good news. But what I would warn everybody, and, you know, not to, not to, you know, not to be alarmist, but it's just true that, well, the trans radicals are losing, but because they're losing, I think that they've never been more dangerous than they are right now.

I mean, these people are, they know they're losing, they have nothing left to lose, and they know that their agenda is going down in flames. And so now I think we're getting to a point where they're going to try to take down as many normal sane people as they can along along with them. I mean, they're desperate. You know, when you get back someone into a corner and they're losing and it's out and it's gone, it's like they can either just give up and wave the white flag and say, okay, you got us. It's over. We're going to stop. Or that is the moment when they become the most dangerous and the most desperate.

And I think that's the moment that we're in right now, which is only just all the more reason to be vigilant, rather, be on your guard. I hate to say it, but I hate that this is the case, but it is the case that even going to church, you know, you should be carrying when you go to church if your church doesn't have armed security. I mean, that's the place we're in right now in the country. You're 100% right. And that is a silver lining, like when I think about, okay, you know, at least the jig is up. I mean, unfortunately, we still have Bostock out there. And, you know, this is a Supreme Court decision, thanks to Neil Gorsuch, who sided with the libs, to give us a mandated right amongst trans people to be hired at your organization. And so now you're looking at this.

You're looking at the series of mass shootings perpetrated by these people suffering from trans ideology. And then one comes to your place of business. And unless you have another very good reason not to hire them, they could sue you for not hiring them because of their trans. status. That has to be undone. The Supreme Court must take a fresh look at that decision, and it has to be reversed. I mean, it's a massive problem, Matt, and it's still sitting on the books. It's good law. Yeah, which is why I say they're losing in every area of American life, and they are, but it's not over, and there are still some major problems. Even the issue of protecting kids from chemical castration, mutilation, I think it's been one L after another for the trans side, but that's not.

I mean, there are still plenty of states in this country where that's happening to kids. So the fight continues, but still, I think the good news is that, and this even goes beyond politics, it goes beyond the courts. I think that just in the culture, generally, people are just done with this. I think five years ago, a lot of normal, nice, polite people kind of went along with it because they didn't want to be mean. They didn't want to be rude. And I think that was certainly a massive mistake. But it was rooted in the fact that they're normal, polite people. But I think that those people now are done with it and are not going to go along with it anymore.

And so that's been the real shift that ultimately is the kind of the last nail in the coffin for the trance. About it. Every day you see something on X or elsewhere, like, did you vote for this on Donald Trump? He's an authoritarian. He's doing unlawful power grabs and so on and so forth. We were so close to having Kamala Harris and Tim Walsh in there, Matt, who would have exploded this gender ideology crap all over us. This was Tim Wals at the Democrats' DNC summer meeting that they're having. in Minneapolis. This is him on Monday. On Monday, a couple days before this happened, this is the message he wanted to bring to top Democrats about his state, his policies, and what he thinks should happen in this country, South 12. Minnesota ranks the highest per capita for being a safe haven for transgender individuals in Minnesota. And can I just say we can talk about economic growth and feeding children and growing the economy in creating jobs simultaneously with talking about everybody's human rights matters and we shouldn't be

demonizing them. You can do both. When he was running, Matt, I did a whole story on the trans refuge law in Minnesota and how he, if you won't confirm your child's gender confusion, they can go to Minnesota. Planned Parenthood will sponsor them. You can get like a third party to sponsor you. And custody can be wrested from the non-affirming parents, both. of them and placed temporarily in the state of Minnesota where then they can trans your child. It's insane, but it's there thanks to Tim Walsh, who signed it into law.

We dodged such a bullet with this lunatic and his would-be boss, Kamala Harris, who would have signed on to all of that. So it's like, I really don't have a ton of time for the people who get upset about the fact that Trump wants to make cities have fewer murders when we're looking at that on the other side. Yeah, yeah. And I totally agree with them about having fewer murders in the cities, too. But also, we did dodge a major bullet, but that also speaks that that's, that's, you know, we got to keep in mind that Trump is in office till 2028.

And we have another election. Democrats are not going to be as much as I would love to think that Democrats will be held out of the White House from here until, you know, King. come. I don't think that's going to be the case. We're going to end up with another Democrat president sooner than later it's going to happen, which just means that we need as many victories as we can get that are also not things that can be overturned by the next Democrat president in two seconds. A lot of the executive orders are great. I support a lot of these executive orders, but the next Democrat president could get in there and just write another

executive order and get rid of the last one, which, So that means we need, Congress needs to step up. And we also need laws on some of this stuff. They're never going to do it. Why isn't their law? They tried. You know, you saw they tried on the school's sports thing. They tried on the, keeping boys out of a girl's sports.

And they failed. They couldn't get cloture on it in the Senate. So they couldn't get a vote. We need 60 Republican seats in the Senate and a Republican House and president, and then we can actually get that done. But until then, these Democrats, they couldn't even find an additional seven Democrats, such as seven Democrat senators to say, I'll vote for cloture so we can have a vote on keeping boys out of sports. Never mind this other stuff, which they would consider even harder to pass, you know, stopping the chemical castration.

It should be easier, but they would consider it harder. Yeah, well, I think actually stopping chemical castration would, you know, it should be easier. I think it probably would be because it puts, you know, sports are one thing, but putting Democrats in a position where they actually have to stand up and defend the chemical castration of an 11-year-old. That's not an argument. None of them want to talk about that. None of them want to have that debate. There's a reason why when Kamala Harris was running for the presidency,

she did not, you know, three, four years ago, she was talking about trans stuff all the time, trans rights, waving the trans flag. But during her presidential run, she kind of stayed as far away from it as she could because this is not a conversation they want to have. And one way or another, that has to be. we need actual laws in place at the federal level as well. Or what I'm worried about is that although we're getting all these wins, maybe three, four years from now, we're going to look back and all that stuff or most of it has been erased in the blink of an eye.

That's terrifying. I've got to show you this clip. It's kind of where a fair amount of the press is going with it. It was from Joe Scarborough this morning. who is upset with the New York Post headline. The headline reads, Transgender Maniac, Minneapolis School Shooter. Okay, so they're calling the shooter a transgender maniac. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's factually correct.

But here's Joe Scarborough's reaction to it. I'll rev on the front of the New York Post. They say demonic. And then it's transgender maniac shoots up Catholic school. You know, they could very easily, say time and time again, straight white maniac shoots up Catholic school or shoots up country music concert or shoots up this or shoots up that. I mean, I suppose some people will try to distract from the ongoing mass laughters that are going on of our children, schools and churches and across

the country of people that go to country music concerts, of people who are sitting in pews at churches, at Baptist churches. I mean, we can go on and on and on. So again, I, I, I, I, I, I, I suppose they can focus on whether it was transgender or straight white male or whatever it was. The fact is, this is happening too much. Oh, my God, Matt. He's acting like transgender is the same kind of label as white or black and doesn't come with a whole host of mental health implications, right? Like, he's trying to sort of suggest the post as a bunch of bigots because that's, they never say straight white male goes in and shoots up a high school. By the way, yes, they do.

But anyway, it's, it completely ignores that this is mental illness we're talking about, which the left has made an impossibility to discuss. As you know, you could get penalized on YouTube for even saying that. Yeah, well, it's like if this was, if this person was a diagnosed schizophrenic, Would it be irrelevant? Would it be strange to say, a schizophrenic killer? Well, no, of course not, because that's a driving factor. But it's one of the reasons why this happened is because, to your point, because of this mental illness. And, you know, transgenderism is also a mental illness. And it was categorized that way by the psychiatric industry for many years up until, you know, relatively recently. So it is very relevant. And also, by the way, the media is really happy to tell us. When a white person commits an act of violence, straight white male, they're very happy to include that label,

even where it's not, it's actually not relevant. It actually doesn't have anything to do with it. But in this case, the fact that the fact that the trans person is relevant on multiple love. Even when it's not actually a white person, remember CNN with that shooter outside of the New York City corporate office building a few weeks ago,

saying possibly white, was very clearly a blindfold. black man. But yeah, they love to sell you it's a white person, whether it is or it isn't. It's just this one thing they can't mention, even though it's clearly much more relevant than skin color is. Right. And white is not, white doesn't tell you, the thing about trans is it not only tells you that this person has a mental illness by definition, but it tells you, it indicates a lot about ideology as well. I mean, trans is also an ideology. It's also, of course, very left-wing coded.

And so this is someone who's attacking a church. And so there's a lot that you can glean from that. But white is not an ideology. It's also not a mental illness as much as the media would like to say that it is. And so that is a far less relevant detail that they still are very happy to tell us, even as you point out, even when it's not true. I just think it's so clear this guy had mental health problems. he was funneled into some system that probably just affirmed, affirmed, affirmed from his mother to potentially a mental health counselor. And by his own words, he didn't actually think he was trans.

Later, he got to the point of realizing, what am I doing here? And I guarantee you no one had ever taken a serious look at why he was saying that. He was probably just affirmed, especially in the state of Minnesota. And it was one of, I'm sure, a multitude of factors that led to the mass murder we watched him commit yesterday. Matt Walsh, thank you. Thanks so much for being here. Thanks, Megan. One of the few people who has stood up from the beginning on this, courageously, and made a real difference in some of those changes he was just outlining, and we should all be grateful to him for it.

We're coming back with Kelly's Court and our friends from M.K. True Crime, and I will bring you the news on Blake lively and yours truly. Let's be honest. Afternoons can be rough. Energy fades. Cravings kick in. Yes, been there. Focus goes out the window. The quick fix, another coffee, but that can lead to jitters or a crash later or you're up all night. Peaks sun goddess matcha is another option for you. Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this matcha is not just a drink. It can be a better daily habit. It gives steady energy and helps you focus without the ups and downs. This is not any matcha, it's organic ceremonial grade, and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil far away from pollution.

It's shaded longer for more nutrients and blended by tea masters. That's how serious these guys are about quality. The taste is smooth, creamy, and rich, not bitter like lower quality matcha. It packs powerful antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady. Right now, you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free rechargeable frother and glass beaker. It's backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee. So go to peaklife.com slash Megan. That's P-I-Q-E-Life.com slash Megan to try it out for yourself. Again, that's peak life, P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com slash Megan.

Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show. An extraordinary update for you in the Blake Lively, Justin Bell. This is a case in which Blake Lively accuses her co-star from the movie It Ends with Us, Justin Baldoni, who is also the creator of this movie. He's the one who optioned the book and had the idea for it to begin with, of sexual harassment and disparagement. Baldoni cross-claimed saying, Lively is a nasty bully who is unfairly blaming and disparaging him for the negative press she generated with her disastrous promo tour around the release of their movie back in August 24. News broke in July that Lively had begun sending subpoenas to podcasters and others who had said or written negative things about her, from Candice Owens and Perez Hilton to people you've likely never heard of like Zach Peters. She targeted more than a dozen journalists and online creators igniting a free speech firestorm. We can now reveal that we were among those targeted by Blake Lively. Yes, she actually tried to get the confidential and proprietary materials my team and I used for any and all stories about her.

Because Blake lively was unable to fathom that yours truly had developed a genuine revulsion toward her on my own, she posited that I must have been ensnared in Baldoni's alleged ongoing smear campaign against her, that his attorney, who happens also to be my own from well before his representation of Baldoni, must be controlling our coverage. In addition, she suggested that I was getting paid by Baldoni or by his lawyer, Brian Friedman, for my anti-Blake coverage, demanding to see all documents reflecting this alleged agreement or payment structure. This is how narcissistic this woman is. She actually thinks I needed to get paid by Baldoni's team to say negative things about her. Newsflash, Blake, I came to those conclusions totally organically.

Don't give away your power, sweetheart. It was you. It was all you who made me unable to stand you. No man had anything to do with it. We fought her subpoena and won. She backed down and has now missed the deadline to pursue her harassment of me and my team. any further. Sorry, sweetheart, you might want to try harder than next time. But in any event, we gave her absolutely nothing, not one document, not one record, not one communication. In no world would I ever, ever allow my teams or my communications with each other or with our sources

for our news reporting to be turned over to a third party and certainly not to this nitwit. It's called the First Amendment, freedom of the press. She has zero right to nose around in how I gather news or in how my team and I prepare for any show we do. Pro tip, we're extremely fair. We are extremely thorough, factual, and unsparing of any public figure and frankly of ourselves when it comes to our own high standards. But access to our actual communications, it's a no. You cannot have them. I am a member of the press. You are a sad, pathetic, uncalented, narcissistic bully. And I will never back down to the likes of Blake Lively. Never. And her fight to harass me and my team

ended in her getting nothing, nothing. However, there are still many content creators whom we believe are actively being bullied by Blake Lively to this day. We were in the fortunate position of being able to hire a lawyer to tell lively to pound sand. Most of the people she's harassing do not have those resources and she knows it. She's targeting them because she knows she can. She's richer, better connected with high-powered lawyers who have nothing but time and billable hours on their hands thanks to Ryan Reynolds' booze and acting fortunes. These two Hollywood mega millionaires think nothing of harassing powerless people on social media who have the temerity to write or speak negatively about Queen Blake. Remember that. The next time you see

Ryan Reynolds trying to pawn himself off as the super nice guy, aw shucks as he tries to blow apart the lives of these content creators who happen to think she's a liar. He's a bully too. So while we at the Megan Kelly Show are not worried at all about Blake Lively's attempt to harass us, we are concerned about this ugly bully's efforts to embarrass other online creators with fewer resources, and we sincerely hope the judge in this case will send a message to Lively and her legal team that they have overreached. It's ironic, of course, that in an effort to disprove that she's an unlikable bully brat who did not deserve any of the negative press she received, Blake lively acts like an unlikable bully brat who cannot believe any of that negative press could possibly be genuine. So I will just say this. I came to this case entirely open-minded.

Go back and look at the first interview I ever did on this case of Brian Friedman, who is Baldoni's lawyer. It was probing. I braised many of her defenses. We talked about the Me Too stuff, all of it. And I underscored to the audience that I don't have a horse in this race at all. I had nothing against her. It was not until I saw how many allegations she clearly made up and reached the independent conclusion as someone who practiced law for a decade and has been in journalism for two more, that she was glomming onto the Me Too movement to try to save her reputation that I finally realized she's a terrible person. Then I started looking at clips, in particular the clips that had generated such negative coverage of her last summer, and saw that I was actually quite late to the Blake lively as terrible party. Clips like this one, where she bullied a reporter with no power after the journalist had the nerve to compliment Blake's very obviously pregnant state.

First of all, congrats on your little bump. Congrats on your little bump. Did you guys love wearing those kind of clothes that you... Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, working in digital... Never one wants to talk about the clothes, but I wonder if they would ask the men about the clothes.

I would. Yeah, it's not just the women that have the clothes. But Victoria... But I feel like the women get the conversation. So absurd. So that the reporter wasn't pregnant. She was belittled and she did feel insulted and she spoke out about it after the fact.

But Blake Lively couldn't be asked about the very obvious baby bump. being a reporter, because let me tell you when you're a reporter and there's something glaringly obvious about the person who you're interviewing, whether it's multiple nose rings or a large baby bump, you call attention to it to get it out of the audience's mind so then you can move forward and have a real exchange. And is if Blake lively thinks talking about fashion is insulting or sexist? She's constantly pushing it on us on her social media. She's so proud of her stupid floral themes she's always wearing. She was pissed that she got asked

about her baby bump by this reporter because she gets pissed at everything. She's always the victim, even when she's the one with all the power, all the money, and all the ability to walk out of the interview. She didn't have to agree to it. By the way, she was once again effing up her promo tour. So since then, Blake Lively's been accused by many people of bullying them, including a woman named Barbara Sussman, an assistant director who worked with Lively on the set of the movie a simple favor. Barbara posted online that Lively, quote, was cruel to many on that set, adding,

quote, I cried my way home many nights because you try so hard to please someone who is never pleased and puts you down constantly. Think about this. Blake Lively is a star of this movie. This woman was the 4th AD. She has no power. She's low, low on the totem pole. She's working her way up in Hollywood. And Blake Lively treats her like shit. The mark of one's character is how you treat someone who can do nothing for you. Nothing for you. Somebody very wise once told me then, and it's really true. And Barbara said Blake lively's treatment of her was the, quote, reason I quit being an AD. And while she did not specifically name Blake lively in her posts, complaining, she later linked to a Perez Hilton YouTube post in which he surmised that Barbara

was indeed talking about Blake. Then an intern who goes by the name of E. Wood on the show that made Lively a star, gossip girl, similarly came out publicly to say that there too. Lively was a bully to staff and nasty to her fans to boot. Noting that unlike Leighton Meester who would pose for photographs with adoring fans who came by the set, Lively never would. Here's how he put it. I noticed a stark contrast between the lead actresses. Blake often displayed mean, bullying behavior disguised as jokes, very passive aggressive. On the other hand, Layton was consistently lovely to everyone, even fans. He actually gave an interview doubling down on those allegations. I think so I saw Leighton and she was very nice. I just say hi and

that's it. And when I saw Blake, I say hi. She didn't reply to me. I think when she saw me, it was like, I'm nothing, you know, so she's not going to acknowledge me, you know, I even trying to look at me or anything. My thing was like, well, that's strange because I was not acting like a fan, you know, I was just like doing my job. And because I just saw Layton before and just say hi, and she was so, I don't know, like her smile and just, she was just amazing. Like she just made the experience better. When I saw Blake, she was just not nice. It was very passive aggressive behavior. The way she was talking to other people, you know, it was not nice. I just pretend nothing happened and, you know, but she was very rude and just the

way she was talking to people around, you know, it was just like the kind of people just don't want to be around that kind of person. Just the way she was acting, you know, towards people, just the way she was talking to people, the way she was not welcoming, you know. And there was like a major difference when I saw Leighton. That was on the Colonel Kurtz, K-U-R-T-Z YouTube channel. So maybe E. Wood there and Barbara and the journalist with a baby bump. Maybe they were all part of the Justin Baldoni Smear campaign efforts,

which I guess we're all on the payroll. They're on the payroll and I'm on the payroll. Is that the theory of her case? That's really what she's going to hang her hat on in court. Oh, and Candice Owens, which is bullshit. Like Candice needs to be paid by Justin Baldoni to have her opinions. Wake up, right?

It's so diminishing. She's smart. These guys who are commenting on Blake are smart. Yours truly has a couple of nickels to rub together in between my ears. Smart enough to realize she's a liar. Blake Lively is a narcissistic liar, bully brat. That's the truth, in my opinion. And now we know that she harassed Justin Baldoni, too.

She threatened him that her dragons, Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift, She was the mother of dragons, she said, were there to be her enforcers, a claim that appears to have cost her her relationship with Taylor, who now reportedly wants nothing to do with Blake. She tried to rest control of the movie. It ends with us from Justin, from the editing to the wardrobe, to the writing of the script and so on. And when he failed to comply with her demands completely and totally, she jinned up clearly fake allegations against him that he harassed her and turned the cast against him. That's what she did. She claimed his best friend, for example, was parachuted in to play the part of the OB when her character gave birth just so that he could get a look at her lady parts during the scene, which she claimed were entirely uncovered. Well, that man is Shakespearean actor has since gone on the record saying he's an acclaimed actor with many credits and that Miss Lively was fully covered in biker shorts for the scene in question. She claimed Justin and his co-producer would stop by her trailer unexpectedly and watch her breastfeed her baby against her wishes. she didn't want to be so exposed, then Baldoni produced a text message of hers, inviting them over while she was breastfeeding something she clearly had no problem with. She claimed that that co-producer subjected her to watching porn on the set. We later found out it was a still shot that could have been on the cover of any magazine of his wife doing a bathtub birth of their infant with absolutely nothing X-rated about it as a motivation for the scene that she was going to do.

She's a liar. It's obvious. We could go on, but you know the truth. This is yet another entitled, nasty, elitist Hollywood snob who thinks she's untouchable to the point where not unlike Megan and Harry, who have made a career themselves out of suing members of the press who write disparaging things about them. She believes that anyone who does not worship her must be on the payroll of her enemies. Well, I'm not, Blais. No one has to pay me one dime to say negative things about you. I do it because I believe them and because you really are terrible. Turning me now, Mark Eglarsh, Mark Garagos, and Phil Holloway.

All contributors to MKTrue Crime, our new MK Media Podcast Network show. It's a show of MK True Crime, which you can download anywhere you get your podcasts, and it's got all of our legal all-stars talking about the juiciest legal stories of the week. check it out on all podcast platforms and YouTube and go to mktruecrime.com to subscribe. Hi, guys. How's it going? Great. Megan, why don't you open up and tell us how you feel about live? Yeah, really. The one thing that I thought of, Megan, is you were telling this story.

And in full disclosure, as you disclose, Brian is your lawyer. And Brian Friedman is, I count as one of my closest friends. But one of the things that makes, as I was sitting or smiling as you were ranting that makes me smile about this is people don't realize how you came to have Brian as your lawyer. Brian started off as representing somebody adverse to you. So it's not like you came to this as, oh, this is my lawyer. You know, I'll go through wars with him or I'm going to I'm going to burn my integrity for him. You recognized his talent in a depot and said, I don't want to be adverse to this guy.

Yeah, I loved him. Right. And one of my favorite stories, and I love that. And the idea, to your point, the idea that somehow you're going to just flush, I mean, people don't remember, you did practice law. When I first met you, you were a cub reporter, but you had practiced for 10 years and were a real lawyer, you were a real lawyer at a real law firm, actually, too. And this idea that somehow you're going to flush all of that.

to be a mouthpiece or like some kind of an influencer is somewhat, I get why you're disturbed. Yeah. It's very insulting, Phil, like, to suggest that I would, first of all, I don't need money from Justin Baldoni, okay? Let's just be clear. I don't need his money. I don't think he has a despair, and I don't need his money. And it's an insult to me. It's an insult to Baldoni. It's an insult to Brian Friedman. It's an insult to Candace. It's an insult to Perez. Like, all these people, I don't know Perez in his situation, but I firmly believe Candice would never take money from somebody to do her reporting. I would never take money from somebody to do my reporting. And this is her trying to smear, to use her word, the reporters who are out there who aren't in love with her.

Yeah, look, in my opinion, let's be very clear. I'm stating my opinion here. This entire litigation train is probably being driven almost exclusively. by the attorneys who have a financial interest in the longevity and complexity of this of this litigation it's almost like a class action case where the only people that benefit are the lawyers and so look baldonie is probably being bled dry by the litigation costs and you know she's the ones that launched this whole thing with a in my opinion specious claim of sexual harassment against him and now to see that she's extending this

out and she's going after public figures like you and others who have like you said come to their own conclusions about what they want to think about her it just confirms my suspicions and look I'm like you there I have very low opinion of her I have never really known much about her until this litigation started but it didn't take me long to reach my own conclusions and I had I didn't wasn't influenced by Baldoni I'm influenced by her and how how he's behaving in this case. It has nothing to do with him. And honestly, if there's anybody that I care less about, then Blake lively, it might be her husband, Ryan Reynolds. These

people have zero impact on my day-to-day life. I don't even think about them unless or until somebody's talking about this litigation in the media. And so it just has this unseemly air about the whole thing. And quite frankly, I'm ready for this litigation to be done with. But apparently it's going to be dragged out as long as it possibly can. Yeah, Friedman just took her deposition at the end of July or early August. Mark, you're known, at least to me, for defending the little guy and like people who don't have a lot. Like, you'll step in and help them. That's the thing that's really galling to me about this, is it's like one thing to come after me. Obviously, I've got good lawyers. I did not use Brian on this because he's already involved in this case. But I did hire a lawyer and it

did cost me some money and we made sure that I was protected and that we gave her the middle finger. But there are, you know, social media influencers who are just starting out their online careers who have no money and wouldn't know the first place to call to get a lawyer who could defend them on this kind of a subpoena that comes from these powerful law firms who then are trying to bully them. More than one has gotten a motion to compel after they've said, I'm not giving you this. And by the way, like, just. the obvious infringement, just because you're a social media influencer, doesn't mean that you don't have a First Amendment protection in dealing with sourcing, which she's trying to probe at.

She wants to know people's sources and see communications with sources. Just the overreach, and again, the bullying nature of it is offensive. This would be one of those cases. I'm glad you brought it up, that I would say, if somebody called me, they didn't have the money, I would consider assisting them for free because it is distasteful. Now, I don't feel the same way you guys do as of yet. I don't judge these people individually. I don't know them at all.

I also do not know fully the merits of what she's alleging or not. I can tell you, however, that some of the things that she did allege, we've discussed on this program a number of times, how it's not necessarily supported by the evidence. And that all you need to do, like Garagos and I do and Phil does in the criminal arena, is create reasonable doubt. I don't know that you need to take every single thing that she's alleging and disprove it. A couple of things are clear or they're not. You'll have the footage of what occurred during shoots to undermine some of the things that she's alleging. And I think we've already done that on this show. So my concern legally is that what's being alleged isn't necessarily supported by the evidence.

Final point. And then I want to move on. Mark Garagos, how many public figures have you represented? When you are famous, people are going to write and think and feel negative things about you. It comes with the job, the nerve. I mean, in this way, it really didn't remind me of Harry and Megan, to try to go around whack-a-mole and harass. Like these, and I don't mean this insultingly, but low-level social media influencers, some of whom had under 40 followers by dragging them into quote.

court to try to intimidate them into not saying negative things about you is as petty as it gets. The true stars know this and would never dream of bothering the press in this manner to try to scare them into not saying anything about the star in the future. So funny you say that because I've been thinking about this case and when I heard Phil talking about the lawyers. I don't think this is as much lawyer-driven as PR-flack-driven. And I mean that in a negative sense because PR-Flax, I think, are one of the, they're worse than PI lawyers. So the problem with this case and what's going on here is precisely what you've said.

You've got people who have very thin skin, don't understand what I tell most of my clients. Just keep your head down for 96 hours. somebody else is going to do something more stupid and nobody's going to do it. And so just haters are going to hate, forget about it. You don't need to engage unless and until somebody gets, you know, somebody gets traction and there's, you know when that happens. You understand when there's a critical mass and then you take action. But otherwise, this is so petty, to your point, and it's so driven by PR people and

their kind of nonsense calculations that that to me is what's driving this and not so much the lawyers. Megan, can I ask you a question? Just to keep it balanced, okay, at the risk of anybody yelling at me. Are you certain that nobody was paid for their criticism? And if you're not certain, don't her lawyers have an obligation to explore and potentially, not necessarily you, but others, and see whether there's any evidence that corroborates that this was exactly what they alleged. No, because it's throwing darts at a board. It'd be one thing if they had a basis for it, someone gave them a tip. Well, that's my question.

No, they might have a basis for this. There's zero basis for this. You'd have to have a tip. You know, like, hey, I heard that, you know, Joe Schmoe is getting paid by Baldoni for the—I don't—as far as I am aware, and I've been following the coverage of this, there's not even a hint of an allegation along those lines. Go ahead, Mark. I was just going to say, and by the way, Mark, it's a frustration. Do you know how many times in a criminal defense case, I wanted to pierce source criticism because I know that it's law enforcement who's doing it, but you can't do it. It's there. It's a wall. That's it. Sorry. That's the point's been made. If there's no good faith basis to believe that someone's been paid, then yeah. You can't just do it. Even if there is, there's nothing you can do. No, because we're reporters.

She wanted all, you know, whenever I get ready for a show, when I got ready for the show, right, I get a packet. It's got a bunch of information. It's very thorough and detailed. My team goes through document after document to try to condense it so that we can do an orderly segment. And you guys know, because when it's a legal segment, we'll usually give it to the lawyers, too. So you have all the factual background I have. And it's, I would, I mean, I'm proud of it. Very few people are this thorough in their preparation for their new shows.

It's good stuff. Pretty lengthy. It is. So we're very serious about it, and we try to make it fair. A little too lengthy. Out of every show that I've ever done over whatever number of years, your packets are way the best. And I think anybody would have been doing that. Thank you. Well, they're certainly the thickest. And they're the best, too.

So, but my point is simply like, okay, so now if what she basically wanted was for any segment in which I spoke about her, like my interviews of Brian Friedman or what have you, she wanted everything. She wanted the emails between me and my two. team. She wanted the briefs or the packets. She, like, hell no, the drafts of the packets. My team, you know, our discussions about how it went, absolutely not the nerve of this woman to think that I would ever turn that over or allow my team to turn it over. It just shows you the hubris that comes from being like this Hollywood star.

Like, you know what? You're up against it now, sweetheart, because I will fight you. I will fight. I'll spend tons of money. It'll be my pleasure to spend tons of money fighting you and turning you into a loser. which is what happened here. Okay, moving on. The Brian Colberger cases had some extraordinary reveals in the past week,

including the body cam worn by the officers when they showed up at the King Road House right after they got called. 911 got called by, you recall, it was the friend of the surviving roommate. The surviving roommates were Bethany Funk and Dylan Mortensen. They called a friend. He came over with his other friends. friend, and they discovered the bodies and got the two girls out, and then the cop showed up wearing body cam. And for the first time, we see one of the main people in this case, Dylan

Mortensen, who's the only one who laid eyes on the killer, who we now know is Brian Colberger, by his own admission. Moments after he committed the murders, he was walking out of their house, and she opened her bedroom door for, I think, the fourth time, and laid eyes right on him, and he kept going. But she was the one who said he had Bush. eyebrows, described his build, and that he was wearing some sort of a mask. So here she is on camera, and then she did not call the cops for another eight hours, which became very controversial. Here she is on camera talking to the cops in SOT 33. What do you remember seeing? What started? I remember I was in my room and I was trying to go to

bed and I heard Kaylee, who, um, ex-cofriend. All I heard was, I heard her, go upstairs. Like, okay, I'm going to go to sleep now because she's going upstairs. And you heard who go upstairs? Kaylee and the dog Murphy. And then all of a sudden, her walking up, I heard her scream, and she ran downstairs because she saw someone. That's what I'm pretty sure. She said.

Someone's here, and she screamed and just ran downstairs. And I called for her name, but I jumped up and locked my door because I was so scared. And then I heard someone in the bathroom, and I heard her crying, and I heard some guys say that you're going to be okay. I'm going to help you. And I kept calling her name, but she wasn't answering. And then I opened the door for her second. And I saw this guy, and he was not insanely tall, but he was wearing all black and, like, this mask, which is covering his forehead and his mouth.

And then I locked the door, and I called back, and I didn't know what to do. This was at 4.5? Yes. And then I just ran down to the... You left here? I left my room down to the room. She's that one with the white blinds at the very bottom. I ran down there, and we talked, and we just locked the door. We didn't think anything of it.

We're like, nothing happens in Moscow, so we just, like, try to go to bed. and then we woke up and it was weird because none of our roommates were up and we called old and they were not waking up and so mean like this is weird so I called and come over and then that's what all this happened. Phil Holloway, the thing that jumped out at me and that was how much more aware she was of the danger than we were led to believe by the police affidavit, you know, which made it sound like frozen shock phase upon seeing someone in the house, then kind of went catatonic for eight hours,

then called police. I'm not blaming Dylan Mortensen, to be clear, this poor girl's been through hell. But it was shocking to me to see how fearful she was the whole time and yet didn't call cops until noon the next day and the murders and the encounter happened right after 4 a.m. Yeah, that video and the others are, you know, some of the most gut-wrenching body camera videos that I've ever seen in my practice,

and I'm sure that both Marks here as well as you, Megan, none of us are strangers to looking at police body camera video. But this stuff is so, so compelling because it illustrates the just enormous sadness of the whole case. And for anyone who's been living under Iraq until this afternoon, what we now know, of course, is that Brian Koberger's defense team, they're the ones that made a plea offer to the prosecutor to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea. And of course, the prosecutor accepted Koeberger's offer, and that's where we are.

No wonder he pled guilty because he knew that when a jury saw that and some of the other very compelling stuff, they would have the emotional reaction that I know I'm having. And I think most people who have a soul have when they see this kind of thing. and it just illustrates how, you know, just the utter evilness of the case. And I keep going back, and I hate to be a dead. I keep going back. Why is the death penalty off the table? But I don't know.

Again, I don't blame Dylan Mortensen even one bit for this crime or anything. They were not savable. The four victims were not savable. If she had called 911, you know, five minutes after, it doesn't seem like they would have saved. They were so extremely attacked and brutalized. But it is at odds somewhat, Garagos, with what we read in the police affidavit. Like, I can't kind of get past the disparity. Well, you know, it's a really good point, but it also, I think, clarifies and amplifies something that I've always argued in a different context. There is no playbook. There is no way that you can say

people should react. You can have now a, you can look at this after the fact and you can say she was shell shot or they didn't understand and when the enormity of it kind of clicked that then there was that emotional reaction. That's always been when people point to somebody and I've been on the receiving end of a client who didn't act right. I always, my retort is I don't know how you're supposed to act. I don't know what was going through their minds at the point and how they had grappled with it. And it works for virtually everybody. Nobody reacts the same way to any same stimuli. You refer there to Scott Peterson, I assume, because we've discussed that. I was not thinking that, Megan, but it also flies to him, I think you'd say. I knew you

would default to that. Okay, wait, I want to show you another clip and then I'll bring you in Iglars. Here is more of the police interviewing Dylan Mortensen in SOT 35. I heard her scream and run as fast as she could downstairs, and she said someone's here. And then I heard Murphy barking a lot. Okay. And then I heard her going to the bathroom, and I remember her sobbing, and I just remember her in this guy's voice, and I didn't recognize saying, you're going to be okay, and to help you. But it wasn't like, I don't know how to explain it. Like, it wasn't in like a nice way.

weird way, like a weird tone. So then I opened up the door to look, and that's when I saw the guy passed by. He looked at me, but he didn't come towards me or say anything, which was really confusing to me. I don't, I don't understand that. And I'm pretty sure he went out the side door. And then I called and she thought maybe there was a fire or like a firework. We didn't know. We heard this, she heard this loud noise and there was a light, I guess. And that's the I called me and I told her, can I, I need to come to your room because she was the only one that was entering me. So I just ran down there. And for a second, I stopped and I saw Zana passed out.

And I thought maybe she was just like sleeping or something. I didn't think anything because I was so out of it. And I went into the room and we just fell asleep. Okay. So there's a lot in there, Mark Iglars, including she heard screaming. She heard one of her roommates scream. She heard sobbing. She saw that there was a strange man in the home wearing a man.

mask. She called the other roommate. They blank out the name there, but she's saying, Bethany, the other surviving roommate. She called her. She was scared enough. She called the other surviving roommate who said maybe I thought I saw like a firework inside. And then she saw Zana down post attack. She said she thought she was passed out or that she, Dylan, was out of it. I guess I just don't, I still wrestle with how. How could you hear your roommates screaming and sobbing and see one down and not call sooner. I'm not blaming. I just genuinely am searching.

Megan. Okay. So first, I agree with Phil. This would have been a compelling witness if this went to trial. And who knows what would have happened there. But I start the analysis with this could be my daughter. I have three kids, one just graduated from college, two are in college. So this could be my daughter.

And so my daughter could be on Megan Kelly's show and all these networks and now being analyzed by all of you substituting what you think you would have done in that scenario and you're well intended but I sure know if this is my daughter or this girl in particular she's well intended and she did the best she could at her level of awareness at that moment and just like Garago said there's no typical way to act it's really problematic as a defense lawyer as a father as a human being to continue to hear people say well they should have done this they could have done this without ever really hearing what they were going through and or ever being in that particular abhorrent scenario, the worst moment of your life being questioned by law enforcement.

I praise her for having the courage to answer the questions to help out with this investigation and nothing that she did was nefarious in any way. But what about... Scott Peterson's nefarious. No one suggesting it's nefarious. So you can save your umbrage and outrage. No one's suggesting it is. a very odd situation here where she was way more upset and she heard a lot more than the

police had revealed to us in that affidavit. She was much more aware that there was danger in the house than we've ever been told before. So what do you think it was, Megan? So it's a fair question to say, why is that? Why didn't the cops reveal more of that? Why did they try to keep that out of the public eye? And I'll tell you what that has done. This is not a Megan Kelly theory, nor do I subscribe to it. But you take 30 seconds and Google her name. name online, you've got half the internet thinking she knew more, that she wasn't in on it, but that she knew more about it than was previously revealed. I don't believe that, but I do think it's odd that the cops did not disclose any of that to us, and now we learn when the case is

all over that she heard screaming and sobbing and ran for it and all that. Go ahead, Phil. Police reports are usually, I mean, I've never seen one in my entire career that had everything that should have been in there, in there. And on the other hand, when I put my former police officer had on. Sometimes I don't want to put things in a written narrative that I know is going to be part of the larger case file. I'll tell you why they didn't put it in there. I don't need to the public. I accept that, but I think they didn't put it in there because it doesn't make Dylan look very good because they knew that people would say she was, she heard screaming, she heard sobbing, and she saw Xanacronodal down on the floor. She was scared enough, and then she laid eyes

on an intruder. She was scared enough to run to the other roommate's room. And they still didn't call 911 for eight hours. It's odd. We are allowed to ask questions about how that could happen. It doesn't mean I'm certainly not saying she had anything to do with it. It's a very odd thing that's just been revealed about this case and we've been covering this case closely. So I make no apologies for discussing it. All right. We're going to move on to the, yeah, go ahead. I'm just going to say, I think both of you're right. I think Phil is right when he says from the police officer perspective, they're not going to put something in there that is going to undercut somebody who's in her position. And I think from your standpoint, absolutely it's odd, and that probably supports what filled is. A savvy

police officer knows, why am I going to highlight this for a defense lawyer to point out the fact that she should have done it? And in her defense, who knows what went through her mind and whether she had some other issue the night before? I don't necessarily... Or went into shock or something. There is an explanation there that we don't have that would help allay everyone's concerns. And Megan, I'm not blaming you for asking the question. I just, I'm frustrated because then the internet and everybody then just criticizes this poor young girl in the worst state. But by the way, Megan asked the same question. Any lawyer would? I understand. Megan's okay with it. I'm all right with Megan asking the question. Well, I'll say this. I think she's also disadvantaged here

because clearly when she's being interviewed by the cop, she now knows they're dead. And so, you know, in the moment. She hears the stuff. She's confused. She doesn't know. You know, you're not thinking everyone's dead in my home. You know, you're thinking, oh, I'm being an alarmist. I'm sure it's fine. It's a college house. People are in and out of it. Who knows it whether somebody's hooking up. Right. So now it's the next morning. And the slow build has crescendoed to where, like, the friend comes over. He rushes them out of the house. They call the cops. The cops get there. She hears them talking about four bodies. I mean, you know, that's the state in which they finally got to her for some questions. So, Okay. We're going to talk about the Adelson trial. We've got to take a quick break. Don't go away. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself.

Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree, GCU's online on-campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic personal and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcuh.edu. I want to tell you about daily look.

This is a very cool idea. Their mission is simple. Elevate your style. They work with top brands and emerging designers alike, like Kate Spade, AG, Good American, Girlfriend Collective, and more. Their sizes range from extra small to 3X, 0 to 24, and here's how it goes down. You fill out a style quiz.

with your preferences. Like, I like bold colors. I like a more tailored look. Then receive up to 12 hand-selected items at home. Keep what you love. Return the rest. Shipping is free both ways.

Daily look is the highest-rated premium personal styling service for women. You get a dedicated stylist, not an algorithm, who curates each box based on your body-shaped, lifestyle, and taste. It's the same stylist every time.

So if you say, I don't like a-line skirts, she will know not to keep pushing those on you. Try on premium pieces at home and save time. Visit daily look.com, use the code Megan for 50% off your first box. It's time to get your own personal stylist with Daily Look. Head to Dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code Megan for 50% off your first order. Once again, that's Dailylook.com for 505% off and make sure you use my promo code Megan so they know I sent you and they give you your discount. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on Serious XM. It's your home for open, honest,

and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Serious XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly. You can stream the Megan and Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app.

It has ad-free music, coverage of every major sport, comedy talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK Show and get three months free. offer details apply Welcome back to the Megan Kelly show Back with me now One of our legal dream teams

Mark Iglarsh, Mark Garagos, and Phil Holloway They are all contributors to MKTrue Crime This is our new podcast as part of our MK Media Network Go subscribe wherever you get your podcast Just go in a podcast and type in MK True Crime This will come up, you hit follow, And then you get this in your feed And you will see our twice a week drop

from all these legal all-stars talking about the juiciest trials and issues of the day. They're all going at it. You've got to see, they're fiery. I mean, they're fighting. It's fun, and it's interesting, and it's entertaining, and it's all the things you love about Kelly's Court. We'll drop Assad in here. I just think it's very relevant. Maybe you want to object because it's too relevant, too powerful, and too damaging to your client.

Maybe that's why. It's just speculation. I mean, you know, it can be damaging, but the jury's going to mistake that for something else, something actual real evidence, which they just haven't shown at this point, especially with that witness. We are going to talk about the trial of Donna Adelson. It's happening in Florida right now. But I do want you to know you can watch every minute of this trial at our MKTrue Crime YouTube channel. That's the other, the sister, same as the Megan Kelly show. We've got the YouTube presence and the podcast. MKTruecrime YouTube channel. Go to YouTube.com slash at the little at sign, mKtrue crime.

YouTube.com slash at mKTrue Crime, and you can watch it all thanks to our friends at WCTV. And then you get the real analysis from actual trialers like these guys. Thanks all for coming back on. All right. So in a nutshell, this case is about, we talked about this with Dave Aaronberg and others not long ago, but he knew the victim. So it's kind of interesting, Dan Markell. It was about a guy who lived in Florida, who was married, his name was Dan. He was married to Wendy.

they got a divorce. Wendy really wanted to move to a different part of Florida, South Florida. They're up in Tallahassee and she wanted to move down south to like a Miami area. And Dan did not want her to go because they have two kids and he wanted to be with his kids. And her parents were down there, including her mother, Donna. And Donna really wanted the grandkids by her. Next thing you know, Dan winds up dead. No, boy, no. Turns out there were two hit men who were hired to do the job. and it was a woman who hired them. That woman and the hitmen have all been convicted.

That woman's connection to the family was she had worked for, remember, Wendy is the one who's in the divorce with the decedent, the victim. Wendy's brother employed the woman who hired the hitman. So the allegation is that Wendy's brother is guilty. By the way, he went to jail. The hitmen are guilty. They went to jail. And so is the woman who worked for the brother, who found the hitman, all in jail. However, the prosecution alleges like the kingpin or pins, queen pins behind the whole thing, remain free. And they're starting with the grandma, which is of the two little boys, which is Wendy's mom, Donna. And Wendy could be going down soon too. We'll get to that. But first we're starting with Donna, who's on top. trial now in Florida, where Mark Iglarsh is. And thanks to the Florida Sunshine Law, we get to see it all. I just want to show the audience a couple things. Donna Adelson is sitting there at defense table crying. She's doing a lot of crying. All right. Now, maybe there is crying in criminal

defense, but this judge does not seem to want it, Eichlars. I'm just going to show a little bit of the crying in Sot 37. Why did you take this photograph for the darkened area on his forearm? Why was that of significance? That is consistent with stippling. What is stippling? Stippling is being close contact to a firearm that was discharged, and it's going to be the unburnt gunpowder and gases that leave the barrel of a gun at high velocity,

and it will tattoo or stain the skin. State Exhibit 24, please. Just to let the audience know. We can wrap that. We showed Donna Adelson with her eyes closed, shaking her head, putting her hand up over her mouth, like, no, no. She's clearly either crying or fake crying. And they were describing the victim's injuries, which, according to the prosecution, she caused. So the crying seems a little off.

And the judge, Judge Everett, Everett did not like it. It's not out 38. Mrs. Adelson, when the testimony is occurring or the evidence, I know you may have a natural reaction, but as best possible, you need to control your reactions concerning any head movements, any expressions of disagreement, or any emotional outburst. The jury must decide this matter on the merits or on the evidence. Do you understand this? Very well. I do not wish to do this in front of the jurors at all, but it's very important that you are. are able to control your emotions. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Aye, Glarge, he gave her the stop crying or he'll give you something to cry about line that my mom used to give me in the 1970s. Yeah, well worth it. I mean, listen, the trials are not necessarily about the truth. Trials are about theater. And if you can have your client testify without testifying, what she's doing is she's saying, I feel so horrible. This is horrible what happened to my brother-in-law.

Here's the problem. I would nudge her and say, stop it. This is not the message that you want to convey. No one's buying it. We know the fact show that you didn't like him. You were talking crap about him. He then went to court, and there was a pending motion where he was trying to keep the kids from her. So she didn't like him.

Stop acting like you're sad that he's gone. You're thrilled. Now, whether you're paid to have him off, that's not selling. different issue. Right. No, not a good act, and it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't fit the evidence. Crocodile. Here is, here's one other thing. Robert Edelson is not the son. There's Robert, there's Wendy, and then there's the son. I'm forgetting his first name. Yeah. The estranged son. Then there's Charlie. Charlie's one who's in jail for finding the woman who found the hitman. But there's the estranged son, Robert, who parachutes into the case and gives testimony. for the prosecution, talking about his discussion with his mother, the defendant, Donna,

who was not really all that interested in finding her son-in-law, Dan's killer. Listen here, Sot 46. Did Donna Adelson seem curious about who killed Dan Markell? No. Was there a complete lack of curiosity? Yeah, nobody seemed curious. Did you actually ever ask her, like, after the murder, like, hey, like, what do you think happened? What do you, yeah, and, you know, the conversations were kind of rerouted or that was certainly discouraged.

And it was probably like maybe sometime, like, mid-August, you know, when I finally had a chance to ask and say, you know, what is going on? This was not a small event. This was getting a lot of notoriety. And I said, you know, what do you guys think happened? And she had said, you know, I don't know and I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Oh, boy. All right.

Those tears. Those tears make sense then. Really? Come on. She felt it deeply. Carragos, that was meaningful. Getting the other brother. That's a win for the prosecution.

Yeah, but I'm going to dial back for a second. I have been in a courtroom. I can't tell you how many times, countless times, where I have reacted my even though I counsel the client not to where I'll either roll my eyes or I'll look like, oh, come on, something like that. I understand from a judge's standpoint, I thought his admonition to her was completely appropriate because he said, yeah, it was gentle. Yes, he didn't, I assume that was not in front of the jury. I don't know. Wasn't. No, it wasn't. I'm not as hard boiled as all of you are, if somebody may not have particularly liked what they were doing

but reacts to being confronted with it, I think there is an innocent explanation for that, and she could be emotional. And I don't know why. I think I speak for you when I say we object to being called hard-boiled. I think we are soft-boiled. We're soft-boiled, maybe, occasionally scrambled. So Garagos does not think the judge was being particularly hard on her. It's fine. Okay. moved on. But the prosecution is bit by bit making its case that Donna Adelson, while she sits there, oh, boo-hoo, is really a cold-blooded killer who thought nothing of taking out her son-in-law, Dan, just so she could get the grandkids and her daughter, Wendy, to come live with her. Mark, Garrigan, so I'll let you make a point on that. Well, just make, I'll make one point. And my father

used to say, if they've got a great case, they want state prison. If, they've got no case, they want a year in jail. If you're factually innocent, they offer you time served. What's my point? They offered her time served in this case. How much do you think they really believe in their case? If they're offering her time served and she turned it down. I heard that wasn't true, Mark. I don't know that that's not true. That's unconfirmed. They denied it. And that doesn't make sense. Well, I know it doesn't make sense. But a lot of this case doesn't make sense. and I've heard the exact opposite that they did make that offer.

Well, here's the thing. You pissed him off, Garagos, with the hard-boiled remark. You started it, and now you're going to have to deal with it just like I've had to deal with it for 20 years. Time served in a murder case. No one's offering time served in a murder case. Yeah, well, look, here's the thing. Well, they've explicitly denied that they made that offer, but, you know, who knows.

But here's the big problem that I see with the case. The defense, in my opinion, is making a mistake by not leaning into something known as being an accessory after the fact. The charging document, the indictment in this case, charges her with soliciting the murder, with entering into a conspiracy for the murder, and as a party to the crime or a conspirator being a principal, so she's charged with literally pulling the trigger, although it's not exactly what it means. So they didn't charge her with any crimes pertaining to anything she may have done to conceal a conspiracy after the fact, which is what the evidence right now I think is very compelling. She was in it up to her eyeballs. We're starting to see through some wiretaps and conversations, some other things, we're starting to see some evidence that may suggest that she knew about it and participated in it was part of the conspiracy beforehand. But the prosecutor, because they didn't charge her with any after-the-fact type of crimes, leaves open the possibility for the defense to say, you know what?

They're right. Our client, Donna, was in it up to her eyeballs. She's guilty of helping her kids kind of cover up this thing. But she's not charged with that, so you've got to find her not guilty. There is a method to what the prosecution is doing. They're working in their way backwards to her. They got the two hit men. They got Catherine McBanois, who was the go-between, which, by the way, she didn't actually work for Charlie.

She was, well, she worked under Charlie in a sense, but she wasn't working for Charlie. She was a girlfriend. Yeah, but Donna was the one writing the checks. Donna was the one writing the checks for the business, even though she wasn't actually doing it. Bill is establishing a chicken or egg scenario. Yeah, so they're going backwards, and now they, you know, they've got the easier people, and now they're working on Donna, which is a little bit tougher nut to create. crack. And then if they can get Donna, I think they're going to go to Wendy next.

Wendy, that's who they want. Phil. Phil just did something that the defense didn't do an opening. He gave a theory. Now, listen, I don't like to be hard on defense lawyers, but I will likely play the defense opening in my law school class next Wednesday and say, okay, you see what she did. Don't do that. And by that, I mean, there was such a lack of passion. For every action, there's reaction if you really believe that your client is snow white innocent you're being paid to say that she is then get up there and feel it so what's going on is your client is being stripped of her liberty while she was going to vacation or relocate to a to a nice place it would have come back if needed but whatever whatever theory you advance for that she was fleeing for the members

of the audience who have been following she was fleeing and got caught by cops but but that she's innocent and look what they're doing and how dare they do that i know in both these guys that I'm on the panel with, get up there and defend someone. They have the passion and energy that mirrors the feeling inside that that is an innocent person and they should never be there. That woman got up there and with utmost love and respect, this former judge who left in disgrace, I don't know exactly why, but this former judge got up there and it did not seem to match the energy that you should have when you have an innocent client.

Well, here's what they are doing. So the defense is interestingly, this is the defense. This is Donna, seeming to point to Wendy, like they actually do seem to be pointing to the daughter, Wendy, which is new because so far they've been a united front. There's been no daylight between Donna, the grandma and Wendy, the mother of the two little children, who, you know, is, we believe, possibly behind this thing, though it hasn't been charged in any way. And so so far they've been united. But in this trial, now we're seeing, as Donna's really getting, you know, her freedom questioned here, and possibly on the line. Her defense lawyers are going after Wendy. Here's a taste of that because Wendy did take the stand. Donna has not yet taken the stand, but the daughter, Wendy, she took the stand and here's Top 42. He's not here to give them advice.

He is not. He can't come to any of their functions, sports, anything else. Correct. They're not eating kosher like they would have with their father. They are not. They don't have him at all. They don't have him in their life, stay-a-day, no. Because on July the 18th of 2014.

he was brutally murdered in his driveway. Isn't that true? That is true. And you testified on direct that anybody in your family that had anything to do with it should be held responsible. Isn't that correct?

Yes. And that includes you, doesn't it? Anyone, anyone who's responsible. That's the defense. That's not the prosecution. That's the defense going after her. Yeah. So what?

You know, in other words, what is that really? Yeah, but what is that advanced? Donna's going to throw the daughter, Wendy, down the river. Well, of course. course, first of all, they haven't spoken in two years. Secondly, she's looking at the rest of her life in prison. She's going to do whatever she can and later say, by the way, no offense. I needed to do that to get out of this thing. So that's not abnormal. Up the river, down under a bus. That's

how you throw people. Under the bus and up the river. I don't know what kind of an egg that makes her. I know. It's hard. It's hard. Okay, wait. I want to play another one here because there is, let's see, this is the prosecution. Now, they had a shot at Wendy, too, and this was Sot 40. Take a listen here. At the time of Dan Markell's murder, was the defendant, your mother, very angry at Dan Markell. Before he died? Yes, ma'am.

Yes. And you hated him, too, right? At certain points, I was very frustrated with him. Did you refer to him? as an STD. I don't remember saying that. Tab 5. Looks like I made that analogy. Danny is an STD, one wrong mistake marrying him and this will never go away. Is that what you said? I did. Did you share that kind of sentiment with your mother? I don't remember ever saying that so I don't think it's something I said very often. Did you ever refer to your ex-husband

as the dark lord i don't remember saying that but i certainly might have did you refer to your ex-husband as gibbers i did what is the meaning of gibbers jibbers was just a silly name that a friend helped me come up with to basically make him feel less scary it was nonsense all right so there you have the prosecution trying to get Wendy on record with all the terrible things she said about Dan. Is that the worst thing you've ever heard in a divorce? He's an STD. That is literally so tame in most divorces. I can't even tell you he's in.

Because there was a lot more than that, Mark. I mean, what a joke. Those two, the mother and that daughter spent hours trashing that guy. Come on, I know the culture. I know what's going on. STD was the nicest thing she said about him. It's precisely why I don't do family law. It's a name-calling, yelling, and people on their worst behavior.

Well, I see that as a two-for because that's the prosecution questioning. You both get Wendy to say she thought he was a jerk and you get her to say, I told my mom, I thought he was a jerk. So everybody was getting the same messaging around him. Last one, one of the two guys who actually committed the murder, Luis Rivera, he testified. And this is the defense, again, the defense for Donna. questioning him in Sout 39. Then I said, if you would, put the number five next to the lady that wanted a man killed.

And did you do that? Yes, I did. And was that with Wendy Adelson? Yes, I did. Then I ask you, if the two people on the top of the page who have their pictures there and the name's Donald, I mean, Donna Edelson and Harvey Edelson, you see those on the top? Yes, ma'am. I ask you, as far as you know, were they involved in any of this?

And you said no, correct? Yes, ma'am. So I ask you to put Exist. next to the people who on that page were not involved in this. Yes, well. And you did that. Yes, I did. Thank you.

So there he is, Phil, saying that Donna was not involved. So I got some frustration with that bit of that testimony because this guy, Rivera, in the past, he's always referred to as the lady, okay, back in Tallahassee, who, you know, who didn't want the kids to go to South Florida. He's never identified that person as being windy. And so he also has stated many times that, you know, he wasn't personally in communication with anybody other than his, the other hit man, who was in touch with Katie McBanlaw, the go-between. And so I have a problem with how he knows this information. It looks like he's speculating it was Wendy. Wendy's the one who wanted Dan Keld.

Yeah, it looks like he's speculating. It looks like he might be guessing a little bit. We don't know the basis of that knowledge. And none of it. And the lawyers. The prosecutors didn't redirect him on that. They didn't drill down and try to say, okay, is it possible you could be wrong about her? What is the basis of this knowledge? And it was just kind of left hanging out there. So I was very frustrated with that. I'm going to give you the floor, Iglars.

But just to be clear, again, for the audience, this is the defense of Donna, pointing the finger through the actual hitman at someone else, namely Wendy, who's Donna's daughter. Like, Wendy's the one who wanted this murder. Not Donna. She was just the grandma. Go ahead, Eichlars. Phil is absolutely right. The prosecution should have really gotten in there to explain you don't know who paid this whole thing and what Donna's involvement was. But you've got to admit, and this is probably part of Phil's frustration, it was very effective. You know, as much as I criticized that opening and the lack of passion, this was very effective to have someone a main player in here cross off Donna as one of the persons involved in this scheme. Granted, it's got a lot of holes, Swiss cheese, but it's great theatrics. It's a great for court.

Reasonable doubt. Yes. It's got two reasonable interpretations, one that points towards innocence. Yes. He has strong. But how without a foundation that he knows? But nobody questioned that. That's the point.

Right. Yeah, but you can make the point in closing. Megan, a lot of jurors are not very bright. A lot of them are not. They need to be dragged right to that water. Go ahead, Phil. Right ones might say, why didn't they drill down on it? What were they afraid of?

Right. I think they were afraid of the answer. I guess. Yeah. I don't think they were ready for it, but they should have been ready for it because there was a, you know, in Florida, unlike many states, like in Georgia, where I practice, we don't have the ability to take pretrial depositions in criminal cases. In Florida, they went down and deposed this guy several months ago, and they created their

own chart and says, okay, cross out anybody that wasn't involved. and he apparently put an ex over Donna Adelson, and he went all in on it being Wendy as being the mastermind. Again, I don't know what caused his change in testimony from being the lady to specifically naming Wendy, but hopefully the prosecution will bring that back. It's something I think they need to clean up before closing argument. All right. So, before I let you go, how's it going? Like, do we think this is inching toward a conviction or no, let's go down the line. Too early.

Too early. I mean, there's enough there. There's a lot of little, you know, motive, a lot of good motive here. But we're not there. The prosecution arrested their case today. I would be yelling in spite of me believing that she's guilty, that, and acquittal is required by law. Okay.

How about you, Geregos? I'm not in that courtroom. And like I say, all trials are one or lost in jury selection. So I would have to see the jurors. But I will tell you, if I, I thought that I had the jury that I wanted, if I had a couple of people and all you need is one or two who are not going to be buying what the prosecution is selling because they've been through a bad divorce or they've had kind of animus within their family. And I heard

that so-called hit man, whatever you want to call him, say that it wasn't her. I don't know how you lose that case if you're the defense. Oh, I know. Phil Holloway. I know how. So they're going to lose it because they haven't presented the rest of their case yet, which includes very compelling video evidence of a not so frail-looking Donna Adelson trying to get on a jet going to Vietnam, which is a country that she's on wiretaps talking about doesn't have an extradition treaty. And by the way, it was a one-way ticket. So they've got that, which is consciousness of guilt. They're going to link that back up to a lot of the other incriminating statements on the wiretap, and let's just face it, the jury knows that she's not the mother of the year already.

So when you factor all that in together, I think they're going to convict her because it's going to be her own words and her own conduct when it comes to flight in the face of accusation which I think is going to get her. And by the way, real quick plug, as far as MK True Crime is concerned, all of us who are contributors, we talk about this a lot offline or on social media. So if you have a chance, follow all of us on social media. Follow M.K. True Crime, because we continue, we continue the conversation out there. Phil, the master, from reasonable doubt.

He is a master. Wow. Wow. He works it, and that's why he's become a star. All right, guys, a pleasure. Thank you for sticking around on this Thursday afternoon. Love it. Love what you're doing. Love MK.K. True Crime. You guys will all love it, too. Go to mK.truecrime.com.

That'll just make life easy. And there you'll see links to sign up if you prefer to get your, news and entertainment via podcast. Just see the links. If you prefer to do it via YouTube, it's right there. MKTruecrime.com. Thank you all for listening and watching. Tomorrow, we've got another true crime story. It is our follow-up to the Baby Lisa series. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Thank you.