The Megyn Kelly Show - Megyn's Trump Interview Next Week, and Potential New Murdaugh Trial, with Ric Grenell, Mike Baker, Jonna Spilbor, and David Wohl | Ep. 622

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show by announcing her interview with former President Donald Trump coming up next Thursday on September 14. Then Ric Grenell, former acting DNI Director, joins to discuss the state of the media, President Biden tanking in the polls, the potential "elites" coming together at the Democratic convention to appoint Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as the nominee, VP Kamala Harris’ continued struggles, former VP Pence speaking out against Trump and populism, Grenell's believe that DeSantis' campaign is "homophobic" after their LGBT ad, the gay community and the GOP, DeSantis’ policies in Florida, and more. Then defense lawyers Jonna Spilbor and David Wohl join to talk about the potential jury tampering in the Alex Murdaugh trial by a clerk, how that could actually lead to an entirely new trial and potential criminal charges, the relevance of the clerk's motivations, Trump potentially taking the stand in the classified documents trial, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio sentenced to 22 years in prison over January 6, whether Tarrio's sentencing was politically motivated, the hypocrisy in criminal consequences for January 6 rioters and BLM-Antifa rioters, and more. Then Mike Baker, host of "The President's Daily Brief," joins to discuss how the Russia-Ukraine conflict could actually end, the danger to America as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are getting closer, new details about how caught off-guard the Biden administration was by the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, Hunter Biden facing a gun charge now, Biden walking out and White House spin, and more.Grenell: https://twitter.com/RichardGrenellSpilbor: https://jonnaspilbor.comWohl: https://cucamongacriminaldefense.attorneyBaker: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-presidents-daily-brief/id1617887885 Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm Megyn Kelly, and we have a packed show for you today. A Kelly's Court in just a bit, big news on Hunter Biden, and in just a minute, we have Rick Grinnell back with us. But I want to start today with the big announcement. Huge, huge, you might say. Here at the Megyn Kelly Show, we've welcomed many of the 2024 contenders. Vivek Ramaswamy has been on a bunch of times, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Chris Christie. You may remember my lengthy sit down just last month or late July with Governor Ron DeSantis. Even RFKJ has been

here since his announcement as well as before. But next week, I'll be interviewing former President Donald Trump. It will be my first interview with a former president in seven years. And there is so much to get to. I'm really looking forward to this. It's going to be great. It's going to be spicy and it's going to be tough, but it's going to be great. It's going to be spicy and it's going to be tough, but it's going to be good. And hopefully we're both going to enjoy it. I think you're all going to enjoy it a lot, too. We're going to have a lot of time to get into a variety of topics in person, sitting down with him in person, and then we will air it in full on Sirius XM Thursday, September 14th. Okay. Mark your calendars. If you want to listen

to it live Thursday at noon, September 14th, uh, it will of course then also become available a little later in the day on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, and all podcast platforms, including Apple and Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, et cetera. I'm really looking forward to bringing you this one, uh, and many more to come. I'm very glad that he agreed to do it. He's not saying yes to everyone. And to his credit, you know, Donald Trump knows that I'm not I'm not somebody who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome like the vast majority of people in the media. But I'm also not a sycophant. So I'm not going to go in there and be a bootlicker. It's going to be fun and he can handle it perfectly well.

So looking forward to it. I hope you are, too. Mark your calendar. And now Rick Grinnell, who was a key part of Donald Trump's administration. He joins me live. Rick, great to see you. So I'm excited for this. I think this is going to go great.

What do you think? Wow. September 14th. I just I just wrote it down. I think it will be fantastic. So many people are going to be thinking about the last time you interviewed him. I had a flashback while you were talking about being in your studio in Fox when we both worked at Fox, and that was during the presidential. And we had so many times where we talked about different issues with Trump. And I think it's true. I think, you know, you were tough.

And I think the way that you just said it is that you're not a never Trumper and you're not a sycophant. And that's, I think, great. And, you know, credit to Donald Trump. He's been doing interviews where he mixes it up and isn't afraid to get in there. He went on CNN for God's sake. I mean, he's definitely not afraid to mix it up. A town hall with Caitlyn, a whole town hall. I'll tell you, it's been nuts because I saw Trump at the Charlie Kirk turning point event in July and we hit it off. We had a nice sort of glad handing moment. And I talked about it on the show. So it was great to see him. And I talked about his I mean, there's no question he has a natural magnetism.

Whether you love him or hate him, that is indisputable. I'm sorry. It's just a fact. He walks into the room even before he was president, but especially post. And there's an air that that must be paid attention to. He's just that's just who he is. It's a lifetime of celebrity and now becoming really the most famous man in the world. So I talked about it on the show and said, I'm very glad that all that nonsense between us is water under the bridge. And we're just in a normal journalist covering, you know, president or former president situation. The left freaked out at those comments. Entire podcasts were devoted to those comments, Rick. Like,

oh my God, what's happened to Megyn Kelly? She's bent the knee. They need me to hate him for some reason. They need as many sort of foils to Donald Trump as they can get. And if they think you're one and you turn out not to be, they become apoplectic. It's just like a robotic chip has malfunctioned. Look, I think they're apoplectic about everything you do. They're always watching, you know, your time at Fox, your time at NBC. They're just, you know, I always, I was going to say something that I would regret, actually, so I'm not going to say it, but let me just say it this way. You, you're smart. You know, I know you from a time personally when I worked at Fox and, and I know your heart and how kind you are. But that's not always what comes through in, in the media. They like to have a one-dimensional

Megyn Kelly. They also like to have a one-dimensionalyn Kelly. They also like to have a one dimensional Donald Trump. I've worked for some big name politicians, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, people who are never Trumpers now. And I know the dimensions of all of these people. I try as somebody who was on the inside with people to not trash former bosses. Even if I disagree with them, I try to, you know, be more positive about it. And that means giving them more than a one-dimensional look, right? The people who really know people try to give you stories and

make it more than just black and white. But I always think with you, with Trump, there's a lot of people that they just try to make one dimensional. And I think it's really disingenuous. I will say this, though. I think social media has really busted that ability of The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, to be able to define somebody just with one dimension. Now, you've got this long podcast, you've got the ability to have a whole bunch of conversations and to show who you are, besides just a one dimension. Not everybody is that lucky to be able to have that long conversation. But I think people who have been in the media realize that it's really disingenuous what the media tries to do. And I put Trump in both that category.

For sure. With Trump. I mean, it's insane. I'll say this. Somebody I really like down at the Jersey Shore, a woman I don't know well, but I see her in the store every year. And I love this woman. She's a Democrat. She came over to me and she was upset after I said that thing on my show about having seen Trump and it went so well and I was glad to see him. She was upset. She said, I don't understand, you know, after the way he came after you, what happened with your family, like, I don't understand how you can be okay with him. And I said to her in my business, if you hold against people, especially politicians who don't, who justifiably don't like the media, that's my role. If you hold that against

all those people, you're not going to have any connections, any sources, or anyone with whom you have a decent relationship. You know, you can't be fighting all the time over big slights or small slights. And I think, if I may, it's to my credit that I'm able to put that shit behind me and move right on. Like, that's a life coping skill that more people should have, but especially journalists who too often can't stop making it about themselves. Well, here's my problem. And I'll put you in the journalist category for this. You know, you all build a career out of criticizing people, and then the first time you get criticized, they freak out. And that's my problem, is that don't put yourself into the public sphere of criticizing everybody else if you can't take it yourself, including myself,

people who run for office, people who get politically appointed to office, people who are leading the public, journalists who are on TV. I mean, gone is the day that journalists just get to sit behind a desk and their name is on a little print report and nobody knows who they are. Now they all want Newsmax contracts or MSNBC contracts or Fox contracts. And so if you're going to put yourself out there and you're going to be somebody who publicly criticizes people, you better be able to take it. And I love to see reporters who write criticism. And then when you criticize them on Twitter, they block you. I can't take one little criticism after I just wrote a whole- I don't think I've ever blocked anybody on Twitter. I don't think one little criticism after I just wrote a whole. I don't think I've ever

blocked anybody on Twitter. I don't think unless Abigail finding got on there and did it. I don't, I do not block people. Um, they may annoy me, but I'm fine hearing dissenting points of view. Now, if you're like sexist Lee trolling me, that kind of crap, you'll get muted. You'll get muted, but I would never give somebody the satisfaction of blocking them. Why would I, it was, um, Ray Kelly, you know, uh, former police chief in New York, whose son, Greg Kelly is a friend of mine, probably yours too over at Newsmax. And Ray always said, why would you do somebody the courtesy of telling them what you really think about them? Someone you really don't like, why would you do them the courtesy of like showing that they have this power of you. I love that advice.

OK, so let's talk Trump because and let's talk Biden, because there's there's news on both. I want to get to what Mike Pence is saying about Donald Trump. It's extraordinary. Mike Pence is coming at Trump now in his sort of populism in a way that completely ignores the fact that he was Trump's vice president. He's coming at him like he's brand new to politics. And gee, I stumbled upon this weird populism I can't support. You were his vice president.'s brand new to politics. And gee, I stumbled upon this weird populism I can't support. You were his vice president. I'll get to it. Got to start with the Biden polls. CNN releasing a poll that let its own anchors to start a show this morning with off when it comes to Joe Biden in these numbers. 67% believe the Democrats should nominate someone other than Biden. That's up from 54% in March. Only 39% job approval rating. That's down from 41% in July, which was already bad.

It was 51%, by the way, in March of 21. So now it's down 39. Fewer than half of Americans believe Biden cares about people like them. Only 33% describe him as someone they would be proud to have as president. And one quarter of the electorate, only 26% believe Biden has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president. That's down six points just from March. These are stunning, stunningly bad numbers, Rick. Yeah, look, I'm the wrong person to ask this. I've done seven presidential races. I'm old. And let me just say this. You are not old. I don't think there's a single time that I've been on a presidential race and I've done seven

where we don't have a moment where the media say, oh, I hate both people. I wish somebody else was running. You know, the both candidates are bad and polls about, you know, both of them are bad. Look, it's the system that we have. I think Joe Biden is terrible. I think he's going to lose on gas prices alone. And yesterday, you know, he's taking away even more of the supply. And so what what I believe is that people feel this. People feel this because they have to gas up every single week. They go to the grocery store and these are just the fundamental issues they see. Now, the media likes to try to make it about trans issues or abortion

and all of that i actually think that that people are more concerned about their everyday uh ability to pay for gas pay for groceries and to pay for um you know their kids uh you know soccer practice and the everyday things that people are supposed to pay for. So I think he's done. And I'm somebody who believes that the Democrats who are so calculating and so united, will wait until it's, you know, two weeks before the convention. And then suddenly something will happen to Joe Biden, and he won't be able to continue. And they'll take it to the convention. And there'll be a fight with Gavin Newsom and the vice president. And lo and behold, we better come up with a third person and the United, the unity candidate will be Gretchen Whitmer from from

Michigan, and she'll make it all about abortion. That's what I think is going to happen. She won big. She made it about abortion. They want to put the first woman president. They're not going to go with a straight white male again. They'll get completely crucified if Gavin Newsom is the guy. And I'll say this lastly. I live in California. I know Gavin Newsom. I relish seeing him in a swing state. He's going to get slaughtered. This whole idea that somehow he is electable is a joke. He doesn't even work in swing counties in California. They keep him away from San Fernando Valley. They keep him away from Palm Springs. He doesn't go to places that are not hardcore left. He goes from San Francisco

to L.A. and little parts of San Diego. And that's it. That's so funny because I really think the love affair with Gavin Newsom starts and ends with his hair. They're like, he's good looking. He's got nice hair. And then you actually take a dive into California politics and the policies that he's signed off on and pushed and you recoil like the very Midwesterners they might get if they go with Gretchen Whitmer. I love this theory. This is actually very interesting to me. Would hate what Gavin Newsom is doing to children in California parental rights. I mean, we could go down the list, but that's how is it? I don't know if you know the answer to this, but is it as easy? Would it be as easy as at the Democratic National Convention? Biden says, thanks for the memories, but I'm bailing. And then would you please put your support behind Gretchen? And then the Democrats just vote on her like it can all happen right then and there. are not interested in transparency or an actual election. They are interested in keeping their

power. So what's going to happen? I look, I believe that this is absolutely going to happen. They realize they cannot put Joe Biden forward, but they don't want to have a messy primary. They'll spend a lot of money and it will be crazy. The elites are just going to pick. I mean, they do this all the time at their convention. They shut people up. Remember the famous moment at the convention? I was there in Charlotte when Mayor Villaraigosa was up on the platform and they were voting on something and it was the eyes, it was a vocal vote and it was about Israel versus Palestine. And immediately the whole crowd was like pro-Palestinian and he was like, oh, the eyes have it for Israel. And we like moved on.

I was there too. And it was so blatantly, obviously a lie. But the media, you know, they just dutifully regurgitate everything. So yeah, they're going to do this. The elites will get together at the convention and they'll spin it as like, oh, it was too late. And so this is the rules of the convention.

We got to come together and then they'll just, um, hoodwink everybody. Okay. Now you say probably they, they recognize Kamala Harris's weaknesses as well. And that's, that's why they'd go with somebody like from the Midwest, which is Michigan's a very important state, Wisconsin, a very important state and all the swing states are a little bit more moderate than the politics of Kamala Harris. Who was like a Gavin Newsom Jr. would support. There is, however, Kamala Harris's incredible oratory abilities, her rhetoric, and its inspiration to millions

of Americans. There's a new chapter on that front today. Rick Grinnell, here she is, inspiring us all about. Unclear. Take a listen. I feel very strongly about the importance as a general matter of engaging in U.S. policy as it relates to foreign affairs in a way that we pay attention, of course, to the immediate concerns and threats if they exist, but that we also pay attention to 10, 20, 30 years down the line and what we are developing now that will be to the benefit of our country. What? So she can't. When I see that as a Californian, it's so obvious to me what's happening in California. Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, I will put HHS Secretary Javier Becerra, all of these Democrats in California rise to the national level completely unvetted. The LA Times has never vetted these people. No one in Sacramento is vetting them, except for the California Globe, which has now

emerged as an amazing publication if you really want to see something in California. So go to the California Globe. But everybody else is literally just singing the Democratic songbook. And these politicians, they get on the national stage. Kamala Harris literally went from San Francisco to Sacramento to Washington, 100% unvetted. Nobody ever asked her tough questions. So these Democrats in California arrive in Washington, and they think that, you know, can I say it? Their shit doesn't stink. And all of a sudden they face some scrutiny and they collapse. And this is the phenomenon of California media. She's a walking air sandwich. That's it. There's no substance. I just, I looked, I had them printed out so I could see if I could understand it. I feel very strongly about the importance as a general matter of engaging in

U S policy as it relates to foreign affairs. I'm already lost, already lost in a way that we pay attention of course, to the immediate concerns and threats if they exist, but that we also pay attention to 10, 20, 30 years down the line. And what we are developing now that will be to the benefit of our country. Nothing was said, literally nothing. They know she can't do it. Okay. So from one vice president to another, Mike Pence in the news today, he made a speech and look, it's a speech that reflects what a lot of people within the Republican party believe, uh, which is that there's a line. There's a hard line to be drawn between sort of an old conservatism and the new populism that

Trump brought to bear. As I point out, it's a very bizarre point to be making so strongly when he was Trump's vice president two minutes ago. But Mike Pence making clear in no uncertain terms that he thinks the party is on the road to ruin if they stick with Trump. Take a listen. It's not for we've come to a Republican time for choosing. Will we be the party of conservatism or will we follow the siren song of populism unmoored to conservative principles. The future of this movement and this party belongs to one or the other, not both. It takes the form of what's known as populism rather than progressivism, but make no mistake

about it. Those ideologies are fellow travelers on the same road to ruin. The truth is the Republican Party did not begin on a golden escalator in 2015. Long before that day, it was forged and defended and defined as the conservative party in America. And so it should ever be. Hmm. What do you make of it? It's hard for me because I, you know,

I want to stay positive towards Mike Pence. Certainly, you know, as a vice president, I think he did a lot of good for President Trump. But what I don't understand is now his path. I get that he's trying to challenge Donald Trump, but that feels, that whole speech right there just doesn't feel real. It doesn't feel consistent.

From my perspective, that feels like consultants are saying to him, you're not really taking off. You need to have a different path. Go back to, you know, trying to be the hardcore conservative. But I would argue that what the Trump Pence administration did was really take populism and make it conservative. And I love that. I mean, Donald Trump has redefined the Republican Party forever. I believe that in 15, 20, 25 years, we will still be saying to people, who's the Trump candidate? Who's the America first MAGA candidate in these races?

That will galvanize people who really believe in America first. And look, I've written on this subject to just to get intellectual for a second. I've written on the idea that America first policies and populism are actually conservative principles. I wrote a very long piece for Carnegie Mellon University. It's still up on their website. You can Google Carnegie Mellon and Richard Grinnell and find that piece. There's probably a lot of hit jobs on me when I was there.

So you have to look. But there's a piece that I wrote about America first and what it means to populism versus conservatism. And I think Donald Trump threaded that needle perfectly and will forever define the Republican Party as a party. And what does that mean, Megan? That means going for the union voters, going for everyday Americans, not the elites. Now, we're having this discussion. I think Pence is right about this. We are having this discussion that many of the elites, I saw a mutual friend of ours kind of defending elites yesterday and going after populists. But I think that this is an argument that's happening. He's clearly taken a different side. I think that's a dead end because the Republican

Party has been redefined towards populists who are conservative, like working class families. I'll finish with this. First and second generation Americans are the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump. You ask yourself, why is that? Why are first and second generation Americans, why do we have a lot of Latinos that are switching over to Trump? A lot of people who came from countries that were fascist. And the reason why is they came here to live the American dream. They love capitalism. They love human rights. They love the rule of law. And they're watching our media completely act like their media were from the countries that they left. And they are canaries in the coal mine for the rest of us saying, you're losing this American dream. You're losing America. That is a populist group that I think is now conservative, Republican, Trump supporters. I never want to see those

people leave. Well, that's the thing. And the economic policies are in large part what pulled them over. And even the New York Times has a poll out now showing how Biden is hemorrhaging support among the groups you just mentioned. And it's why the times concludes that despite Trump being under four indictments and so on, he's tied pretty much at worst in most of the head to head matchups with Biden. In many Trump is ahead and the times is scratching its head, trying to figure out how can this be? And their conclusion is right along the lines of what you just said. They're writing up their Nate Cohn writing up, um, consistent signs of erosion in black and Hispanic support for Joe Biden. Biden's unperforming, underperforming among nonwhite voters in the latest national polls over the last year.

He said he's saying this is a trend looking at where Biden was in 2020 with those voters. 70 plus percent with nonwhite voters. Biden was now it's 53 percent to 28 percent for Donald Trump. And 28 percent may not sound like a lot, but it is. It is a lot for a Republican presidential candidate among these groups that have historically gone almost unanimously for Dems. And they point out what you just pointed out, which is the gap is at its worst when you get to those who are nonwhite and lack a four year college degree. Among those who have a college education, still speaking about minorities, Biden has a 61 to 23 lead over Trump. But when you get down to minorities who don't have a college education, his lead drops to 49 to 31, uh, writing that if this gap persists until the election,

it will raise the possibility that the political realignment unleashed by Mr. Trump's brand of conservative populism has spread to erode the political loyalties of working class voters of all races who were drawn to the Democrats before by material interest in an era in an earlier era of politics. The Times is just now getting this, Rick. I mean, I think many of us have seen this for a long, long time. Yeah, look, I think the trajectory has been there from the from 2017 when Trump took over. It's just a shock, right? There's a lingering effect by the time people realize, oh, wow, he really is for the working man. And remember, the media has been completely against him and trying to go against that argument. But if you look at the

trend, the trajectory, it is absolutely going in that direction. This is not new and it will continue as more people begin to understand the policies. And I will say this too, Joe Biden helps us because when he came into office and started a war and had terrible relations around the world, there's not a single region of this world that is better off under Joe Biden. Grocery store prices, gas prices, as I talked about, all of those things are convincing people that Trump's policies were way better. And I'll finish with this. Remember, just, you know, if you take Phoenix and Atlanta and Philadelphia and Milwaukee, four cities. And you look at what the numbers were in terms of Biden Trump votes, it was a sliver. Now, you know, we can come up with three or four reasons of why that will be different in 2024. But I'm convinced, going back to our previous conversation, that the Democrats see this, the media sees this, and that they must dump Joe Biden.

But they don't want to have a crazy primary season. And so they're trying to figure out what to do. And, you know, we'll see what happens right before the convention. Well, to me, the most interesting thing about those at New York Times report is that Mike Pence doesn't appear to have read it. You know, like this battle he's framing, which is a real battle, he doesn't frame it incorrectly entirely, right? The Republican Party is made up of at least two warring factions, the more establishment GOP and the more populist MAGA brand, and even beyond just core MAGA,

just the more populist brand of policies that Trump brought in that even non-core MAGA supported. But what the Times report shows us is the populist brand is resonating with an entirely new brand of voters who have become critical to the Republican coalition. And maybe you get back some of the Chamber of Commerce Republicans or the suburban soccer moms if you abandon it. I don't know. But this is an important group that nobody ever thought was gettable on the right. And I don't know how Mike Pence accounts for that in his argument about where the party should go. All right, wait, let me let me turn the page because Jim Messina, who ran Barack Obama's campaign, his reelection campaign, he spoke to Politico and he's saying that the Democrats need to chill out. Biden's got this. He's like, I see the warning signs that you're worried about. I see.

And we have to worry about like third party candidate Dem spoilers. Uh, but the economic fundamentals are strong saying commentator commentator commentators predicted a recession that never came and that the white house still has nine months to change bad perceptions about the economy because voters views about the economy are only baked in by the June prior to the November election. He talked about abortion being a key motivating issue. You, you recognize that too. Mentioned governor Whitmer, Whitmer, two thirds of Americans, he says would opt to protect the right of abortion in their state's constitution. If a state held a vote that works for us, the Dems.

And then he says Biden's path to victory is centered around seven key states and says the last two elections were dangerously close. But he still likes their party, their party's chances. Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina. Do you agree? Those are the states. And the question I have for you is. What about Trump and the independents in those states and the soccer mom Republicans who voted for someone other than Trump in those states? So, first of all, let me just say Jim Messina's personal economic indicator is that Biden must stay in office because he's making a lot of money. And so these swampy people are going to want the guy that they can control. That's point one. Second, on that list, did you read Wisconsin? I don't know if that was one of the same. Yeah, it's basically the Southwest, Nevada and Arizona, Upper Midwest, Wisconsin, Michigan, and the eastern seaboard going downward, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia. So no, I disagree on North Carolina. I think I think that's solid red.

Notice that they didn't say Ohio or Florida. They're giving up, which I love. But here is here is the the situation in our primary. We've got a lot of people who, you referenced Pence. I would point to DeSantis. We've got a lot of people in the Republican primary that are dialing back a lot of these really good policies from President Trump. You've got, you know, DeSantis pushing a six week abortion ban. You've got DeSantis with, you know, crossing the line of under the age of 18 on trans issues and really going after gay people. I will have that debate all day long. What he did in that video was completely homophobic,

terrible, dialing us back. And he lost a lot of suburban women. I will remind our party that when you have a problem with suburban women, suburban women historically have been wildly supportive of gay conservatives, their gay friends. 40% of the Log Cabin membership are straight women. They want to see if you're kind. They want to see if you can talk about these issues differently. Log Cabin has a under 18, over 18 policy when it comes to trans. If you're under the age of 18, protect children. Don't make children get tattoos or allow children to get tattoos or surgeries or blockers for their hormones. But if you're over the age of 18 and you're an adult, knock yourself out. You know, the reality is, is that we have to have a society where we allow adults to live their

lives as long as you're not hurting somebody else. And so I think that that's the policy that President Trump absolutely had in his last administration. And he is showing to be somebody who is not taking the bait on these radical policies. So suburban women see this. And if anything, the Republican primary is absolutely helping Republican, conservative. What's radical about the DeSantis agenda? What's radical about the DeSantis agenda? Well, look, I think go take that video that he did. He was literally making fun of Donald Trump for having a speech after the Pulse nightclub. There's a clip in there for having a speech trying to say that gays and lesbians should be protected. And he made that clear.

I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens. If Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you would be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses. That is correct. In the future, can transgender women compete in this universe? Yes. Make America great again. Psych! There's also parts of that video that he pushed out there from the Log Cabin annual dinner where Ronna Romney said we're going to outreach to gays and lesbians who are conservative.

There's a whole bunch in that video that crosses the line. That wasn't just about protecting children under the age of 18. That was going after gay adults. That's unacceptable. I've worked way too hard in my career to allow a presidential candidate to dial us back like that. I believe that Ron DeSantis ruined his chances for 2028. Nobody wants to see a homophobic take over the Republican Party again. And I know I'm going to get attacked for this. But the reality is, is that he was wrong. And I hear very clearly from the gay supporters of Ron DeSantis, that that was a mistake, that they they're trying to dial that back, that Casey

DeSantis was furious about it, all of these things. Well, then speak up, say that it was a mistake, say that it was wrong. But I'm not going to sit back and allow this migration and thank God for Donald Trump and Melania Trump, who also are not going to let us go there. I mean, he we don't know that his campaign was behind that ad, that they approved it. But they said they weren't. Remember, they said they did. They got caught. That's right. That's true. To me, that ad overall seemed aimed at the trans community and the push for trans rights and suggesting Donald Trump had been an early leader in standing up for trans rights, saying Caitlyn Jenner could use the women's bathroom and trans women could be in his beauty pageants. That seems what he was focused on. When

I look at his actual policies, I don't see anti-gay. I mean, I see somebody who's trying, like you said, to protect children from having this stuff come into the classroom agendas, which I think you agree with. But apart from the ad, which I'll accept your position as a gay man was offensive to you, is there a policy that he's pushed that you think is a problem or radical? Look, I would broaden it out. It's not just offensive to gay men. It's offensive to suburban women. And this is what we were talking about.

There are a lot of women that look at that and they just say it's mean spirited. OK, I get it. You made that. But what in terms of I'm looking for, what's what's he done in Florida? Because he's been there, you know, as a governor since 18 or proposing now that you think is radical. Well, first of all, what I'm not in in Florida, so I'm not going to be able to give you any specific Florida policies. I am going to be able to give you specific rhetoric. And I think that his rhetoric on the campaign trail has crossed the lines from protecting children into going after gay adults. And look, we have a...

What else besides the ad? I think it's rhetoric in a lot of speeches. And a lot of times when he's out there, he crosses the line when he's talking about these issues. He doesn't just leave it as children. He doesn't make it clear that he's just trying to protect under the age of 18 children. You get the impression in the general words that he uses that he has a real problem with trans adults and gay adults. He's not making a question about, let me ask you a followup on that because I've listened to him too. One of the things he says, like he gave an interview to Benny Johnson and he said, a man cannot become a woman period.

That's, that's nonsense. They cannot. So, I mean, I was like right on. Yes. Agreed. And he's also, when it comes to adults trying to keep men who are opposing his women out of our spaces. So, yes, he's very focused on the children, but he's also with adults. He doesn't want to see males coming into women's spaces even at the adult level. So is that something that you agree with? I feel like you would agree with that. Yeah, of course. I don't want to see biological men competing in women's sports. Neither does Caitlyn Jenner. I think there's a difference between you're just you're detecting like a belief of his that you feel like there's a hatred there or a bias. No, I disagree. I don't think it's just a feeling. I think that it's much more than a feeling. It's his own words. He has not done a very good job of trying to make it clear that adults get to be adults and choices that they make. He may not agree with, but there's a difference between saying, I don't want biological men in women's sports and I don't want them in bathrooms, which I think most people agree with. I think that's an overwhelming belief. But you have a

responsibility when you're talking about these issues to make clear that people as adults get to make choices that you may not agree with. Otherwise, if you don't make that clear, then you're going to look like a bigot. You're going to look like a homophobe. You're going to look like a hater. You're going to look intolerant. And that's where he is, to be honest. And I think a lot of women feel that. I will go to my grave saying that the reason why Ron DeSantis imploded is because in the beginning, all of, and I know a lot of these donors, a lot of them from California who jumped on the bandwagon of, of supporting DeSantis. They did it because they thought, oh, here's a guy who's just, you know, common sense going to stick to economics. And

then he went into social policy that was way too conservative and they became uncomfortable. He imploded because they got to know him. And I don't know if it's his advisors or if they regret that, but what would you say is the reason that Ron DeSantis completely imploded? He was skyrocketing. And then I think it's that video where people saw him as a radical social policy person who really, you know, left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. And we saw a lot of donors dial back and leave him. I don't, I think Ron DeSantis is not a very strong retail politician, even though he's a very smart policy guy. And I think

he'd be a great president. I do. I just think it doesn't come naturally to him. He doesn't have that natural, forgive me, Governor DeSantis charisma that somebody like a Trump has. Here's what I would push back on. Very hard to get any oxygen or attention or resonance when Trump is in the race. Go ahead. Yeah, I would push back on that because he's been governor for four years. He was a congressman. Everybody knew that he didn't have a lot of charisma. A lot of donors met with him. And I know they would walk out and they'd say, oh, he's not very personable. He didn't ask about me. And he's boring. I mean, there was all of that beforehand, but he still got the excitement of, you know,

running for president and raised a lot of money from donors. And I think the more donors got to know that he was a radical social policy person, that they didn't like it. And, you know, our party has changed. Our party has completely moved. And I'll finish with this. There's not a single elected Republican in Washington that could come out and be anti-gay and survive. I think that. Well, thank God. Yeah, you become a long way. I am one of those suburban women who supports the gays and gay rights. But the LGB needs to separate from the T because there are different issues down there in the other corner. Rick Grinnell, always a pleasure. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Megan. All right. Up next, Kelly's Court. Have you heard what's happening in the Alec Murdoch

case? Oh, M.G. That guy legitimately might be getting a new trial. We'll talk about it next. Kelly's court is back in session and the docket is jam packed. Let's get right to it because the case of Alec Murdoch is imploding. He was the South Carolina lawyer convicted of murdering his wife and 19 year old son. Well, there is a very decent chance he could be getting a new trial. Unbelievable. This stuff never, it never resonates. It's always like, oh, sure. You want a new trial? Listen up. Uh, that's not necessarily this case. John is billboard is a criminal defense attorney and founding attorney of John is billboard law. And David Wohl is a criminal defense attorney. John, David, welcome back to the show. We've been doing Kelly's Court together for some 20 years now, feels like, at least 15. And this one is, I mean, forgive the salacious term, but it's juicy. It's juicy. What's happened, and jump in if I get it wrong,

is the clerk of court, the woman who read the verdict, the woman who kind of manages the jury and is this sort of top administrative person behind the scenes during the trial, is in a whole lot of trouble. The defense lawyers found three jurors, two who actually rendered the verdict or part of the verdict, and one who got bounced off of the case the last day of the trial for alleged misconduct, have signed sworn affidavits saying that she, the clerk, behaved inappropriately, that she tried to influence the verdict, that she tried to caution them not to believe Alec Murdoch when he took the stand, that she got misrepresented, the one bounced jurors alleged misconduct. And the reason she allegedly worked to get that person bounced was because she, the clerk, sensed that the soon to be bounced juror was in favor of the defense

and that she, the clerk, wanted defense friendly jurors off. And this would be one thing, if it were like the defense saying, I think the clerk is bad, but the defense has three signed affidavits. That doesn't make them unassailable, but three signed affidavits from jurors. What do you make of it? Megan, where do we start with this? Because I'm infuriated and it doesn't matter whether you think Murdoch is guilty or innocent. That's not what this is about. This is about the sanctity of the procedure of our system of jurisprudence.

You know, I want to know. So, OK, I'm not going to get mad at the jurors for coming forward now. But I do have questions. If you see something, say something. Why not during the actual process? Why do you wait for a person? No, she's like the boss of them in there, Jonna. They're probably terrified of this woman.

And I get it. And that's a problem. That's a problem because they don't feel safe coming forward during the actual process. And if she had not written this book, and from what I understand, it's not a great book. If she had not written it, they might not have come forward still. And think about that. Think about how that would have gone under the radar. And this person would not really have had a fair trial. Like this is, you invite this. What are we going to do about that long term? But for right now, Murdoch definitely deserves a hearing. I can't see a judge denying a hearing. And this hearing very well may be successful. And there's going to be a ripple effect after this, as there should be. I'm in sense. And, you know, it's like so the clerk wrote a book. Her name is Becky Hill.

She wrote a book that was apparently self-published and talked about her her experiences with the case. And reportedly it was or according to the defense lawyers, it was allegations in that book or claims that led the jurors to get ticked off about the way she was describing the behind the scenes goings on. And they came forward reluctantly, but they came forward to say, um, Becky Hill's full of shit. And by the way, we were manipulated by this inappropriate woman behind the scenes. Here is, um, Jim Griffin, one of Murdoch's defense attorneys on the allegations they're making against the clerk on Tuesday, Sat 12.

That the clerk of court would go in to the sanctity of the jury room before he testified and tell the jurors, don't be fooled by his testimony. Watch out for his body language. And if that is true, which we have every reason to believe that it is and no reason to believe that it's not, there's no choice but the courts to grant a new trial. David, he's right. She said to the jurors, don't be fooled by him. I mean, before he took the stand. Yeah, Megan, I mean, if that happened or even something close to that happened, that's jury intimidation in all 50 states that in and of itself is a crime, which is going to make it difficult when they have an evidentiary hearing for a new trial,

and the defense calls Becky Hill to the stand, and she takes the fifth, which I assume she's going to do. That alone will prompt the judge to grant a new trial. I mean, this is something that you might expect to take place in a banana republic somewhere in the third world. But if this actually happened, Megan, the only person who's supposed to be having contact with the jury is the court bailiff. And the court bailiff will lead the jury to from the courtroom to the deliberation room, lead them from the courtroom out to their cars, or during deliberation, he'll get a note from the jury if they have questions or they have concerns or there's some kind of problem in deliberation. The court bailiff is the only person

that has contact with him. For the clerk to have that kind of contact, any kind of contact, is inappropriate. So yes, if there's even a fraction of what is claimed that took place, there will be a new trial. And, you know, we may have to do this whole thing all over again, which will definitely in order to the benefit of Alec Murdoch, who was surprised by a couple of things at the trial. We can go through it and we will. We'll take a quick pause before we do squeeze in a break for Sirius XM. John and David, stay with me. All right, so let's get into some more about what they're alleging this woman does, did this Becky Hill, by the way, just in case the audience is curious, this is Becky Hill on her

post-verdict media tour. So you have a sense of what she looks and sounds like. I'm the one that read the verdict of Alec Murdoch. And it was a little, my breath was knocked out for a moment. But then I have to tell myself to treat this just like any other trial, any other verdict that I have to read. And I have to place my mind there and take out any other personal relationship. Oh, Becky, if this really was you treating this just like any other trial, how many trials now are going to be opened up, David? How many other? I mean, you're a criminal transit attorney. If you had a client and she was the clerk, wouldn't you be going back in there right now? You'd be trying to find every juror to say, what did Becky say to you in our case?

Oh, absolutely. I mean, she has opened up a can of worms bigger than she can imagine. All the defense attorneys who practice in that courthouse are now going to engage in investigation. And Megan, in all likelihood, the presiding judge of that courthouse will do so also, order that investigation takes place, because how many verdicts were altered by that kind of tampering with the jury in cases where she thought one side or the other should win. And so her input was critically important. Wow, this is, you know, practicing law 34 years. I've never seen anything even remotely like this. There's going to be, I mean, like I said, there's going to be a new trial.

I mean, when you look at it and she, there's going to be two new trials. There's going to be a trial for Mr. Murdoch and there's going to be a trial people versus Becky Hill. She's going to be the defendant. All right. Two, two things. Number one, these are allegations. Number two, she denies them so far. All she said is that they're untrue. And we'll hear from her and her defense, I'm sure, at some point soon. Number three, there are no criminal charges against her yet. However, Murdoch's lawyers have sent a request to the South Carolina U.S. Attorney's Office to open up a federal investigation into what they say was the violation of Alec Murdoch's civil rights. And if they can prove jury tampering here, Jonna, potentially there would be a crime committed by her. I mean, that's if they can prove it. But that's not really what our court is about. Our court is about whether the first guy accused of a crime, Alec Murdoch, gets a new trial because of these allegations. So here's just a little bit more meat on the bones. Details from their motion, which had to be filed with the appeals court,

asking for an evidentiary hearing on their allegations. That would be the next step to get a hearing. The judge who oversaw the trial would probably be a witness in this proceeding. So he probably that the judge we all fell in love with, he was like totally measured. He probably won't be the judge. It'll be somebody else hearing these allegations. And this is what is alleged. She instructed jurors not to be misled by evidence presented by Murdoch's defense. Hello. The scales of justice are supposed to have a little blindfold over them.

That she told jurors not to be fooled by Murdoch's testimony in his own defense, that she had frequent private conversations with the jury foreperson, who it's also alleged she manipulated into getting that role, that the jury actually wanted somebody other than this person, but that because Becky wanted this foreperson, they got it, that she asked jurors their opinions on Murdoch's guilt or innocence. My God, the impropriety of it, if true, Jonna, and that she pressured jurors to come to a conclusion in their deliberations quickly, allegedly telling them they would be taken to a hotel for the night if they didn't come to a verdict and did not allow smokers to take smoke breaks until deliberations were complete. And on top of all that, that she furnished false information about that one juror she thought was pro Murdoch to the judge, which did result in that juror being booted on the last day of the trial.

The lawyers alleged that Becky Hill targeted that juror because she thought the juror was a possible vote to acquit. Specifically, they claim that Becky lied to the judge about an alleged inappropriate Facebook post. Well, a Facebook post that alleged inappropriate conduct by the juror. And what happened during the trial, I remember this because I remember I was dropping Yardley off at school and this is on the radio. I was like, oh my God, they're actually going to boot one of the jurors. And the allegation was that that juror's ex-husband had posted on Facebook that the juror was blabbing about the case and her opinions about the case. And if so, that was clearly inappropriate. And she did get booted. That was, I think, one of the things the judge looked at, but there were other alleged instances of misconduct by the

juror too. And what the defense is now alleging is that the analysis of the ex-husband's Facebook account showed he did not make that post. So I don't know where Becky was getting that from. But that's just one of the many allegations against her. I mean, can we just go back to ask the jurors their opinions on his guilt or innocence? Right. And my question is one of my many questions. How how did this clerk have that kind of access? Like literally, she is really a concierge to the jury. You make sure the women's room has toilet paper. You make sure the pencils have erasers. You make sure the pizza is ordered on time. You do that kind of thing in a trial like this. How was she having one-on-one conversations? Most judges, if you are sharing a restroom with a jury, you walk out if a juror walks in. The clerk should do the same thing. How was she able to have these conversations, to have this kind of influence, and nobody knows what's going on.

I mean, there's something really untoward here. And I think if the defense team has made one little tiny thing that I wish they had changed, I wouldn't make the allegation that this clerk was doing this motivated by the opportunity to write a book that wouldn't have happened if there was a mistrial. I would suggest, because this is what it sounds like to me, and I would investigate this, did she do it simply because she didn't like the defendant? That is what's going to open the door. I agree with you. I totally agree with that. She didn't like him. It doesn't matter about the book. Her defense is going to be,

the book has only made me five cents. So that's not the motivation. The motivation was to help take down this guy, this family that so many people were quote unquote jealous of, or, you know, didn't like for a number of reasons. And she got to play God and putting that in air quotes in that sense by influencing the jury. And to me, that's a better road to go down because it's more plausible than I think. Yes. And so she had a co-author on this book and he spoke with our pal Vinnie Palatine over at Court TV. And he was making a similar point to the one you just raised. You're spot on, John. Here he was. His name is Neil Gordon. Take a listen. I was pretty upset at what Harpoolian said was the motivation that Becky had.

Last time I checked, Simon and Schuster did not send us a check for $200,000. The Gordons and the Hills put up $30, dollars of our own money because we felt this was an interesting story to tell. So right away, Vinny, for that to be motivation for her to get a book deal is completely false. That is a weird place to take it. I mean, maybe they really do think that was her motivation, but the book itself is weird. I mean, I haven't read the book, but I've seen excerpts of it. And here are a couple that I think got the jurors ire up. It's called Behind the Doors of Justice, the Murdoch Murders. I mean, everybody cashed in. When have you ever seen a clerk of court write a book? When does the clerk? We all know the jury

writes books. When is the clerk of court write a book? It's so weird. That's probably what got the defense lawyers irritated and thinking, you know, maybe this is the motive. But here's what she writes. She talks about when they went to visit the murder scene out at Mizzell, where they lived, the Murdoch family. And this is where the pair were murdered. She writes some of us either from the courthouse, i.e. her, law enforcement, or the jury at Moselle, had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with our eyes. We did it with our eyes. I knew and they knew that Alec was guilty. Okay, that's just weird. So she's telegraphing that while the case is still pending, before the jury was allowed to talk about this case with anybody, they were communicating to her and she was communicating

to them with their eyes. He's guilty. She better not have been doing that. Uh, then she goes on to say, uh, hold on. Although I was conflicted about knowing the Murdoch family, cause everybody in South Carolina knew the Murdoch family and about having so many people watching and listening to me as I read the verdict. I was mostly concerned about Alec being found innocent when I knew in my heart he was guilty. I mean, all of this suggests your claim, Jonna, which is she'd made up her mind. She was reading into her interactions with the jurors and it makes it much more plausible what these jurors are saying she then did orally. Yeah, and maybe the book is just the catalyst or the means that gives them the reason to write the motion. But this is deeper than that.

This is deeper. She didn't like the guy. She wanted to have her 15 minutes of fame. It all comes together, and it's all completely inappropriate. I just don't want the defense team to limit themselves to the book being the motivation here when I think it runs far, far deeper. OK, but now here we go. So let's say the Court of Appeals gives them a hearing because they do need to kick the tires on these claims and she'll get a chance to defend herself. And let's say the Court of Appeals orders a new trial for Alec Murdoch. I mean, extraordinary. He's serving two life sentences right now. The prosecution decided not to go for the death penalty, serving two life

sentences. One of the critical moments of the trial, David, was that when he took the stand in his own defense and a lot of us were shocked he did it. And he did come across as a liar. And one of the reasons many of us believed he chose to do it, and some would argue had to do it, was because he was caught in a lie prior to the moment he got up there. What happened was he initially said to law enforcement, I was nowhere near there. I was not near the kennels at Moselle when my wife and my son were murdered. I wasn't there. I had taken my car to go visit my ailing mother. And he didn't know that at the kennels at Moselle, his son had taken a video and sent it to a friend showing something about the friend's dog that was in the kennels and posted on Snapchat or it was either posted or was sent to the friend's dog that was in the kennels and posted on Snapchat.

It was either posted or was sent to the friend. My memory's failing at the moment. But it showed. It clearly showed Alec Murdoch's voice. And they knew it was him. Hold on a second. Here it is. We have it.

SOT 17. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Bubba. Hey, Bubba. There's a his mouth. Baba. Hey, Baba. There's a guinea. There's a chicken. Come here, Baba. Come here, Cash.

Come here, Baba. Cash. Quick. They had witness after witness take the stand and say that's very clearly 100% the voice of Alec Murdoch. He was at the kennels at Moselle moments before the murder. I mean, moments. And the videotape tied right in with the murder scene. It was very, very, they had him dead to rights.

So he had to take a stand. He tried to explain away his lies to law enforcement by saying, oh, I was intimidated by law enforcement. I was on drugs. That's why I lied and said that wasn't me or that I wasn't there. And now this time, David, he will not be surprised. He will not make the same mistake. And, you know, the odds of the jury, the new jury remembering this whole sequence of events are very slim.

Yeah, well, the problem is those are prior inconsistent statements if he changes his story and the prosecution will be able, unless there's some sort of a bizarre court of appeal ruling, to play those statements that he made on the witness stand in the first trial. But, you know, any way you look at it, Megan, I mean, he did it. I don't think his lawyers had a choice based on exactly what you said. He had to testify, but he will be able to fine tune things. And given a second chance at a trial, they'll be able to pull out all stops, come up with evidence they didn't think about, which happens in every trial, and bring that forth to the jury. But the reality is, Megan,

and we were talking about this a little earlier about the court clerk, Becky Hill. Look, the reality is she may have had some sort of megalomania kind of syndrome where she thought she had this extraordinary power to influence the outcome of such a huge case, maybe the biggest case in Scott Peterson, or OJ or one of those type of cases. Yeah. And she wanted to do it. And the fact that her book didn't make a lot of money. And that was found out after the fact doesn't mean she didn't think it would make a lot of money when she was doing all this. So I suspect that the media publicity and fame that she would get on a conviction based upon her having an extraordinary impact in that conviction was a motivating factor. And it's just bizarre. And it will result bank on it in a new trial. And remember, the jurors gave sworn statements, by the way,

requesting them if they lied. That's a felony called perjury. So that's why I tend to believe this. Well, one of the defense lawyers actually made a point about the jurors. Dick Harpoolian was on GMA yesterday and was talking about the jurors and the communications that they're now having. Listen to this. The two jurors that gave us affidavits hired a lawyer, Joe McCullough, before they would talk to us and before they gave us the affidavits. The other jurors out there on a group text, and we are reasonably informed that last week when these allegations began to surface, one of the jurors said, quote, who's talking? I'm concerned that these jurors don't understand the import of what's getting ready to happen. They need to get lawyers.

They need to understand they may have some exposure and they need to be careful before they start talking to the FBI or SWED or even us. Whoa, what does that mean, Jonna? You know, that's a really great point, and kudos for him for making that, because they might have some exposure. We don't know that all of the jurors are innocent in this. We don't know that there wasn't some backdoor conniving and whispering and violation of the jury rules going on for all of this to happen. We do not know that. I hope that's not the case, but we don't know. And if I were a juror in that situation and all of a sudden law enforcement and whomever else wanted to talk to me, you're darn right, I'd want a lawyer too. And they're smart to get one. And this way they can't say that the Dick

Harpootlian is influencing them in any way, because now it can be lawyer to lawyer. I mean, this is again, we don't know what we don't know. We only know that a couple of jurors came forward and said this is what we say happened. And they don't really have a motivation to come forward, except to do the right thing, except to do the right thing. So that's another. Well, but can we talk about that? Because there is sometimes jurors have Sunday morning regrets, you know, as we used to say in college. Was that out loud? And they that you don't get a jury verdict reversed for the Sunday morning regret, right? Like you feel bad that you convicted him.

You got blowback from your friends. And here's some of what the jurors said in their supporting affidavits. Juror number 630, they're not naming them, says this woman Hill instructed the jury to quote, watch Alec closely, to look at his actions, to look at his movements with the juror, which the juror understood to mean that he was guilty, quote, I had questions about Murdoch's guilt, but I voted guilty because I felt pressured by other jurors. Well, that's not, that's not good enough, right? Like that's not going to do it. Well, that would, that may, in my view, in my practice, that would certainly be grounds, strong grounds for new trial, motion for new trial.

If I toss that in and the jurors said this was not actually my decision, my verdict, it was just that I felt pressured. Okay, what caused the pressure? What was said to you that caused the pressure? Yeah, that would be sufficient grounds, certainly for motion for new trial. Don't they all pressure each other to get to a unanimous verdict? 12 angry men, you know, like it happens. Well, the pressure, but in the way you said it, it seemed to be a little bit inappropriate, that type of pressure. If it's just, listen, listen to this or listen to that, or are you sure that's fine? But right, exactly. Okay. That's interesting. Here's juror 741, who says Ms. Hill told the jurors right before the defense put up

their case, quote, y'all are going to hear things that will throw y'all off. Don't let this distract or mislead you. And I read some of the other allegations. The standard is interesting. I initially thought they're not going to get a new trial unless they can prove there would have been a different result. That's not the standard because the evidence against him was overwhelming. I mean, I think all three of us believe the guy did it. That's not the standard. Here is defense attorney Jim Griffin explaining what the relevant legal standard is in SOT 13. That's not the legal test. The legal test is, is the subject matter prejudicial to the defense. It's not what would have made a difference in the outcome.

It was a subject matter of the improper private conversation material to the defense. When the subject matter is and is reported under oath by these jurors, it was a direction on how you should receive Alec Murdoch's testimony. You should look at him. Don't be fooled by him. That subject matter is absolutely material. That's the core of our defense. And that is something that we had no chance to defend against. Okay.

So do you agree with that? First of all, like it doesn't, you don't have to prove as the defense, we would have gotten a not guilty verdict had she not done this nonsense. I actually disagree with that. Sorry, David, I think he's sort of on but there is another element to the first of all has to be evidence that you didn't know before the trial and that you couldn't have known during the trial. And obviously something going wrong with jury deliberations would would fill that bill. But also it has to be it doesn't have to definitely change the outcome. It has to be likely to change the outcome. Then there's a strong possibility that the outcome could be changed based on this newly discovered evidence.

So it's along the same lines of what his defense team is saying. But there is that that element of would it change the outcome? Could it change the outcome? Not will it change? I mean, the lady saying don't be fooled by the outcome. Could it change the outcome? Not will it change the outcome? I mean, the lady saying don't be fooled by the defendant. It's so grossly inappropriate if it happened. She should be booted out of that office. She's an elected official. Go ahead, David. The only thing more inappropriate would have been had the judge done that, Megan. One of the problems is with having the clerk have any contact with the jury at all is the clerk is

there in court when the defense makes motions, objections that are outside the presence of the jury, has arguments that the judge only wants the counsel and the judge to hear. And the clerk knows all that. The clerk has heard all that. So for her to have contact with this jury is just out of control, inappropriate, misconduct like I've never seen. And like I said, if it's true, then start picking the new jury. And to that point, Megan, we have jury instructions that say to the jury,

don't take any cues from the judge. We don't say don't take any cues from the person sitting next to him, which is the clerk. Like, so maybe that should be added because she really, if this is true, went behind the scenes and wreaked some havoc. Becky, you're not important. You're a fly on the wall. You're not the main player. Sorry,

sister. If you want to be the main player, go back to law school, get a law degree, pass the bar and work your way up to being a sitting judge in the state of South Carolina. P.S. Now it's never going to happen. All right. She denies all charges. OK, we'll see. We'll find out. We'll find out who's lying. Either Becky's lying or the jurors are lying to be continued. All right. I've got to get to this proud boy sentencing situation. Enrique Terrio, 39 years old. He's a Floridian of Cuban descent, former Proud Boys leader. This is in connection with the January 6th trials that we've seen ongoing. Just got the longest sentence handed down to date. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison. When I heard this, first thought I had was he hit a cop. He attacked a cop. He's one

of those guys bearing with the flagpole beating a cop like that. Okay. You know, he planned something terrible and then he went in there and assaulted a police officer. No, no, he did allegedly plan. Uh, they alleged that he conspired to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college, uh, vote and to oppose by force the authority of the electoral college vote, and to oppose by force the authority of the government. Accused of recruiting others to take part in and assembling a group of nearly 200 people to the Capitol, that he posted messages to his followers, including things like, proud of my boys and my country, and don't effing leave, day of Jan 6th, had a nine-page strategic plan to storm government buildings in Washington on January 6th that were found in his possession after the riot. He wasn't there. He did not go, but he allegedly planned. And so the

reason they got him to 22 years is they gave him a terrorism enhancement. I'm not supporting or defending what he did, but 22 years, Jonna. Yeah, I'm also quite surprised by it. But I guess I'm surprised by it. And I'm also upset by it. And again, not defending what he did at all. But the double standard just immediately smacks me in the face with this because I live in the New York City area. I work in the New York City area. I've seen a lot of, quote, peaceful protests that weren't so peaceful. Nobody's getting 22 years behind bars. And, you know, I struggle with that and everybody's First Amendment right to stand up and rise up and say, express themselves in ways that they disagree with what's going on. And the total double standard here just doesn't make any sense to me. And again, it's infuriating. We just had news this week,

David, that in New York, the police are now agreeing to reform their protest tactics in a settlement over the George Floyd protests that now because all these protesters complained about how the police handled their riot, that the cops now have to have different levels of response. They need like several tiered systems of protest response that prioritize de-escalation. And under the lower tier response, the default for most protests, the NYPD must now accommodate street demonstrations, including those that obstruct traffic and use community affairs officers trained in de-escalation. You can't even send

numerous police officers until certain bad behavior by the protesters has been evidenced and recorded. They got $35 million from the New York City officials because of their alleged claims of police misconduct. This also happened. What was it? It was just out in Denver. They settled with police protesters, protesters in the George Floyd thing for four point seven million. The protesters in the George Floyd are getting paid millions. The protesters in January 6th are getting 22 years in prison. Yeah. And how many cities have made huge settlements with the Antifa rioters that went around and burned down

and destroyed cities in the summer of 2020 over political issues, political issues. They did not go to jail, at least a lot of them didn't. They rather banded together and convinced far left city leaders to pay them out millions. I mean, clearly, Megan, in New York, the inmates were on the asylum. I mean, there's no other way to put it. If you can't use law enforcement in a way that will deter and in a way that will significantly intimidate the bad guys, then there's no point in having law enforcement. This is, you know, the January 6th thing in D.C., you know, giving him 22 years, I regularly, I've had people commit murder that don't get that much time, Megan. Attempted murder that don't commit that much time.

Carjacking, bank robbery, rape. I mean, this is purely political. There's no other way to look at it. And I fully suspect, Megan, that a lot, maybe if not all of them, will be pardoned once President Trump assumes office again in January of 2025. I mean, if they're having the book thrown at them for political reasons, then a political solution would be the answer. The prosecution wanted 33 years, my God, 33. Switching gears, but staying on the subject of Trump. He gave an interesting interview to our pal Hugh Hewitt yesterday or the day before. And Hugh asked him if he's planning on taking the

stand in these criminal trials against him. I think this particular exchange involved the trial about the classified documents, allegedly classified, being held down at Mar-a-Lago and how Trump is accused of obstructing justice by not turning them over, even though under a federal subpoena. Listen here. If you have to go to trial, will you testify in your own defense? Oh, yes, absolutely. You'll take the stand. That I would. That I look forward to because that's just like Russia, Russia, Russia. OK, if you do and they ask you on the stand, did you order anyone to move boxes?

How will you answer? I'm not answering that question for you, but I'm totally covered under the law. OK. So he's getting smarter on this, right? Like he's not, you know, with Brett Baer, he was giving like really direct answers that were going to become relevant and played in the trial here. He said, I'm not going to I'm not doing that with you, with you. But, Jonna, taking the stand in the classified documents case, which is probably legally the strongest case against him. Yeah, so, you know, he'd be a hard client to control.

Number one. Number two, I don't you know, there's something to be said for being the attorney that gets to cross-examine Donald Trump in a historic criminal case. Number three, I think at the close of the prosecution's case, would you make the decision then whether or not your client has to testify? Will he listen to that? Where will we be? When will this trial be in terms of you know the the political season like this these are this is all crazy it's all crazy and if i have my website i don't want to go off subject here but i really wish all of his defense teams would be fighting this procedurally so that we don't see four trials coming down the pike before we all vote in the next election i really wish they could do something there if they intend to do that. Otherwise, I'm 99% certain that this man will take the stand in his own defense in all

of these trials, whether his lawyers want him to or not. Well, right now, the scheduled cases are this one in Georgia. They wanted it. I mean, two of the folks are gonna be tried in October, including Sidney Powell and another lawyer. They're going to be tried October, next month. Trump wants his case to be severed from theirs. He does not want to go that quickly. Then the classified documents case that we're talking about, May 20th, that's set for of 24. March 4th, the day before Super Tuesday, is the election interference case set to start in Washington.

That's the January 6th case against him. And March 25th, just a little later that same month, will be the New York State ridiculous Stormy Daniels hush money case if these dates hold. So they want them all to be held before the election because, of course, these are political. So what do you make of it, though, David? Like. Well, will his state of mind be relevant and will he actually take the stand? Because I realize, yes, you could cross examine Trump, but you could also try to spend your day nailing down Jell-O and you probably have the same success. Yeah. Yeah. I think, Megan, unfortunately, on one hand, he will have to take the stand because no jury will accept him not taking the stand, even though there is a juror instruction that says specifically you are not to consider the fact that the defendant did not take the stand.

He has to. I mean, he's Donald Trump. He's president of the United States. He's 45. He's likely to be 47 and he'll have to. But we're a long way from doing any trials. There are going to be demurs. There are going to be motions, strike motions to dismiss appeals of those motions all the way to the Supreme Court. Do not count on any of these trials taking place in 2024. It's just not going to happen. I totally agree with that. It's so easy to delay. You guys know, as defense lawyers, it's so easy to delay the trial, is it not? Am I wrong? I mean, I didn't practice criminal law, but it's certainly in civil law. It's so easy to defend to postpone the trial. So, I mean, won't it be in these cases as well for a criminal defendant

whose rights are, you know, constitutional rights are very much at issue? You would think it would be when you have some of these judges that seem to be on siding with the prosecution when they're not supposed to be that at all. They're supposed to be on siding with the prosecution when they're not supposed to be that at all. They're supposed to be neutral arbiters. But when they have a political agenda, too, and you know that all of these are politically motivated, look at the timing like this. You couldn't make you couldn't write a script as as salacious as what's going on with Donald Trump in these four criminal cases. You just couldn't do it. But a good judge, a neutral judge, regardless of their

political affiliation, would be granting the time it takes. This Georgia trial or the one that's scheduled for October, the trial is going to take longer than they have to prepare for the trial. That's completely unfair and unheard of. So no, I know it's completely ridiculous. Yeah, I just think all the appeals he's going to have to make, especially down in Georgia, you know, on whether it should be severed, on whether it should be held in federal court and, you know, all the associations they're trying to make. And we'll see. You're right.

You make a good point. If a neutral justice were a jurist were in charge of all four, I don't think any would get tried before November, but of next year. But he does not have neutral jurists in charge of these four. I don't think any would get tried before November of next year, but he does not have neutral jurists in charge of these cases. David and Jonna, what a pleasure. Love having the dream team back together. The OGs. We love being here, Megan. I'm speaking for you, David. Sorry, we love being here. Anytime. Love being on. And Megan, congratulations on your massive success. Well deserved. Very well deserved. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for congratulations on your massive success. Well deserved. Very well deserved. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for being a part of it. Love you both. See you soon.

And coming up, Mike Baker is back on the show. Looking forward to our conversation. Stay tuned. Joining me now, Mike Baker. He's a former CIA covert operations officer, and he's also the host of the newly relaunched President's Daily Brief podcast. Mike, welcome back to the show. Thank you very much, Megan. I appreciate screwed up presidential daily brief, whatever. Um, it's what the president gets every day. And now Mike Baker is bringing it to you courtesy of his time at the CIA and elsewhere. And I think it's actually very good that you are doing this because you have such a way, especially with foreign policy that kind of, most people kind of glaze over when you get into the intricate details of, you know, deep foreign policy, but you're very good at sort of separating the wheat from the chaff. So let's start there. What's grabbed you this week about stories in the news on foreign policy, whether it's Ukraine,

North Korea, Russia, what's what's on your mind? Sure. Well, thanks for mentioning that, by the way. I appreciate it. And I think one of the great things about the this relaunch of this podcast, the president's daily brief is that it is it's only 20 minutes. Right. And so just like with what lands on the president's desk every morning with with the actual President's Daily Brief, you just keep it really tight. Right. So you talk about the primary issues of the day. You put a little context analysis to it and then you get on and you move. And so it's it doesn't take a big bite out of people's day. So anyway, but I think in terms of what we're looking at currently,

I mean, obviously there's the Ukraine conflict, right? And the interesting part about that is we tend to focus on the battlefield and, you know, whether there's been any forward progress from the counteroffensive and how much territory have they retaken. But there's all the activity that goes on in the periphery, right? There's all the things that happen that impact the world. So you've got the Russian military using food as a weapon, right? They've blockaded the Black Sea ports that Ukraine uses to export grain. They're a major grain exporter that helps feed the world. So they blockaded those ports. Ukraine then kind of diverted and they said, OK, we'll start using transportation routes out of ports on the Danube River. Now the Russian

military is attacking those ports. So we're going to see as a result, you're going to see prices spike. You're going to see problems with the global food supply chain. And it's just one more way that Putin, through this tragic concept of invading Ukraine, is impacting the rest of the world. So it's the stories on the sidelines sometimes around this conflict that I think are the most interesting. Can I ask you a question? Because I was like, I checked back in on Ukraine and all I hear is bad news. You know, definitely the Russians have taken a bunch of losses and Putin's got some problems when it comes to finding new personnel. But how does this end?

That is the most important question. And frankly, it's the one that most people aren't asking. I mean, it just you you you look at it and you go, OK, we get it. It's very emotive. We were all waving the Ukraine flag. Everyone's been impressed with the courage and the fortitude. NATO has shown terrific resolve. And in fact, Putin played the NATO angle completely wrong. And he started this invasion in part to show how weak NATO is. And he was hoping to fracture NATO. And of course, he had backfired completely on

Putin. Now NATO is unified. They've added to their membership. But despite the emotion, despite everyone saying, yes, of course, Ukraine needs to win. Of course, Zelensky is saying the obvious, which is when we take back all our territory, including Crimea, that's when we've won. But the reality is that we need to be having some pragmatic discussions about what a settlement looks like, because the idea that Putin will willingly give up Crimea in particular is, it's just not in the cards. And so we're at day 550 plus in this war. We're entering the winter season, which means soon we'll be in the third year of this conflict. So your question is spot on. And it doesn't distract or it doesn't take away from the bravery and the courage and the importance of what is happening there with Ukraine. But it is the real world where you have to ask those questions. Meanwhile, two of our foes, Russia and North Korea, are getting cozier and cozier.

And despite North Korea's promise not to arm the Russians in connection with this battle with Ukraine, they appear to be getting ready to do it. And so our U.N., our U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, warned NOCO that providing weapons to Russia would not reflect well on North Korea. What do you make of that? Yeah. Well, I'm sure you know, Kim Jong-un, the dear leader, probably sat there and goes, you know, he's right. This is not going to reflect well.

So we have to rethink our position. It's going to be on our permanent record. Yeah. They're going to send us a harshly worded memo. So yeah, I think the relationship that's building, right, this blossoming romance between Putin and Kim Jong-un over the recent past, it makes sense from a strategic point of view for both sides, right? So Russia needs to resupply their weapons inventory, their munitions in particular. Their stockpiles have been depleted at an incredible rate. And North Korea is one of the few places they can turn to at this point. North Korea, on the other hand, needs hard currency,

they need food, they need energy. So that part of it makes sense. It doesn't make it any less worrisome, but it is not unexpected. And now you have sitting over the top of that blossoming relationship, you have China. And according to some South Korean intel sources, Russia recently suggested that North Korea joined China and Russia in joint military exercises. So that relationship needs to be watched very carefully. That's a nightmare. recently suggested that North Korea join China and Russia in joint military exercises. So that relationship needs to be watched very carefully. That's a nightmare.

That's a nightmare triad that we'd really like to avoid of some of the world's worst actors. Another thing I know you guys covered, and this is of course on the minds of a lot of Americans as of last month, but the two year mark of losing our 13 service personnel in Afghanistan and the disastrous withdrawal. A book has come out, a journalist, Frank Voyer, and it's called The Last Politician. And it writes about what went down as that one piece of tape that we all saw was airing with the plane leaving the tarmac out of Afghanistan and these civilians and translators and kids trying to hold on to

the exterior of the plane as it took off. It was absolutely devastating. And they reveal that at the time, Anthony Blinken was chilling in the Hamptons. Press Secretary Jen Psaki was beachside with her family. However, after seeing that footage, she made the executive decision to cut her beach time short and return to the White House. So it appears they were all over it, Mike. They were ready. I mean, this is that happened in the middle of the withdrawal. It was very foreseeable that danger was was coming to our personnel, our military and our friends over there. Yeah, it was right in. It was right in the thick of things, right? President Biden had taken off for Camp David three days later,

right? Ghani, the head of Afghan Afghanistan at the time fled because he was rightly concerned about his own safety. So like the coward that he is, he off so Biden was sitting in Camp David now admittedly you can do command and control from Camp David it you know it's got that capability but yeah our secretary of states in the Hamptons our primary White House spokesperson is sitting on a beach how tough is it and this is not a thing against a particular administration, any administration, right, that's looking and is staring down the barrel of a withdrawal from a war-torn country where we know our foe is knocking at the door, right? It was no surprise at that point that the Taliban was moving on Kabul, right? So how tough is it to cancel leave and say, you know what,

everybody, all hands to the pump, we're sticking around the White House because this thing may head south very quickly. So they didn't do that. I think it's just an indication of sort of the level of sophistication of their national security team and the advice military was going to hold together. But we knew for years that we were having the same problems that the Russians had, the Soviets had when they were in Afghanistan. Right. Corruption, poor morale, leadership problems, command and control. They couldn't hold the urban centers. Right. They couldn't hold the countryside. I mean, it was we repeated some of the same problems that the Soviets had. The Soviets spent five years trying to get out of Afghanistan because of the same problems we experienced. So it was not the best. It was a very insightful look. Yeah, it was a very insightful look by the author. Yeah, exactly. Not that I mean, even here, we cancel our vacations when there's a presidential debate, nevermind something like the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. Um, let's talk about Hunter Biden. Now there is news today that he will be

indicted in connection with the gun case this month. Um, that they, the speedy trial act requires the government to obtain the return of indictment by a grand jury by Friday, September 29th at the earliest, they believe they will do it before that date. I mean, hello, finally. And where are the rest of the charges? And of course, all of the main big charges are to their, their bard. They're, they're untimely now. Yeah, this is, uh, I mean the, the, the gun charge aside, although I think there's an interesting little sidebar story here where the defense team for Hunter appears to be looking at the strategy of saying that, you know, prohibiting or preventing a a drug user or, you know, from owning a weapon is unconstitutional. So if they push that, that's going to run completely counter to the White House's efforts to, you know, be more aggressive in gun control.

I'm not sure how they're going to square that that loop. But the bigger story, from my perspective, is just the failure of the vast majority of the media to focus on what is clearly a money laundering operation. Right. I've got a company that does global intelligence and investigations all around the world. We have done countless asset tracing and fraud investigations and looking at single purpose companies set up all around the world for the purpose of just funneling cash to obfuscate the flow of those funds. And essentially that is money laundering. So when you look at the years that it's taken for this investigation to look at what the Biden family, right, led by the key bag person Hunter Biden to do, I've got investigators that could have wrapped this up and presented I-2 charts with all the links and all the evidence

within six months or so. It's just astounding that there's no real curiosity about this problem. There's no desire, of course, right, by this DOJ to actually get to the bottom of it. In the meantime, we have a president who seems literally lost most of his presidency nowadays. And it came up this week when he very clearly bailed from a Medal of Honor ceremony prematurely. He walked out before it was over and before the benediction. It was a very clear error. You could tell he was lost. And now Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, is trying to spin the moment, which got coverage everywhere, internationally. God bless this Medal of Honor recipient. He deserved better. Here's her spin

on it. It was all part of the plan, basically, Sat Naam. He left as planned. He left when there was a pause in the program in order to minimize, to minimize his close contact with attendees who are about to participate in a reception. Oh my God, Mike. She's trying to blame COVID. She's trying, first of all, he was next to that guy for how many minutes? Like within like spitting distance of his face. For how many minutes? And then right at the end, before the prayer,

that was the deal-breaking moment? Please. Yeah, no, you could tell. And you pointed that out. You could tell on everybody's faces, they were perplexed, right? This wasn't a planned departure. And KJP is doing everything that, you know, a spokesperson has to do.

You know, she's she's got a tough job. I think it's a terrible job in a situation like this where you're trying to defend something rather than just being honest and saying, well, you know what, the president at a moment. But of course, you're not going to say that we're going into an election year. And the striking thing is survey after survey recently has shown that it's not just the Republicans that are concerned about his acuity. Right. And it's not an age thing because you've got incredibly sharp 85, 90 year olds out there. It's an acuity issue. It's your ability to perform your responsibilities. And the Democrats are just as almost as concerned as Republicans are about this. But look, we got a we got a vast number of 80 plus year old politicians, we just keep voting for them, we keep sending them back, whether they're Republican or Democrat. And, you know, part of the problem, I think, is we've never talked about term limits in a serious way before.

And maybe it's time. I mean, are there, you know, at the law firm where I used to work, there were limits you had to get out. Trying to remember, I think it was, was it age 60? I never even got close. You couldn't be a partner anymore. You could sort of be emeritus, you know, you could be of counsel because they understood that the mind stops sort of working at its sharpest at a certain age. Was it like that in the CIA? Because that seems more important to me than my law firm. I don't know. Are there any limits, age limits across government? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's no thought to keeping somebody on at 80 years old in the operations directorate, right? I mean, we retire pilots at a mandatory age. We remove CEOs from major corporations in their mid-60s.

We take board members off of boards when they get to a certain age. We rotate out senior military officials. Politics seems to be the only place where we're willing to let somebody stay until they die in place. And it makes no sense whatsoever. And again, it's not a Democrat or Republican thing. Look at Mitch McConnell. He's got issues, right? So we need to have a serious discussion. And maybe the focus on this is meaning we're moving in that direction. Mike Baker, good luck with the presidential daily brief. I look forward to listening to you on there. Thank you very much, Megan. I sure appreciate it. Oh, it's great to see you and hear from you again. Okay, to be continued. Thanks to all of you for watching and listening today. Before we go,

I want to tell you happily that you will be hearing me for a while longer here on Sirius XM. I've signed a new contract with my friends and I'm thrilled we hit the two year mark here at Triumph today. I love, love, love the people at Sirius. Honestly, in all the news world, full of scared, spineless cowards, Sirius XM is not among them. They truly believe in free speech and free and open and honest debate, provocative though it may be. And they've never interfered with our editorial.

It's a joy to partner with them. I'm privileged to be part of the brand. And I thank all of you for helping continue us in our joint mission here with them. I'm privileged to be part of the brand. And I thank all of you for helping continue us in our joint mission here with them. Talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.