The Megyn Kelly Show - O.J. Simpson Dies, Trump Trial "Election Interference," and Men in Women's Spaces, with Viva Frei, Phil Holloway, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Britt Mayer | Ep. 764

Episode Date: April 11, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show with the breaking news of O.J. Simpson’s death at the age of 76, his legacy and infamy, the famous Bronco chase and trial, his series of legal troubles, why she believes he committed the double murder, and more. Then legal experts Viva Frei, Rumble creator, and Phil Holloway, host of "Inside The Law," joins to discuss Trump’s upcoming New York criminal "hush money" trial, how it’s an example of "political persecution" and "election interference," the potential outcomes in the trials, why Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels could become star witnesses, the New York jury Trump faces, Alec Baldwin's upcoming trial,  the latest officer-involved shooting of Dexter Reed in Chicago, the bodycam footage showing the events leading up to the initial gunfire, the media spin on the incident so far, and more. Then Britt Mayer, founder of Rooted Wings, and Allie Beth Stuckey, host of BlazeTV's "Relatable," join to discuss men continuing to invade women’s spaces, the recent incident in a women's locker room at Planet Fitness involving a man who was later arrested, Planet Fitness claiming it took correct action in the matter, new details on the biological male athlete who injured a girl in a basketball game, women being "empathy-shamed" over trans ideology, the male lawyer with the giant fake breasts, how Trump's abortion stance is splitting the right, Trump’s latest comments regarding his stance on abortion, how conservatives are split over Trump’s pro-life comments, whether Trump's stance will hurt him with the right and help him with the left, and more. Frei- https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/Holloway- https://www.youtube.com/@PhilipHollowayMayer- https://campsite.bio/rootedwingsStuckey- https://www.blazetv.com/series/d36O0ZN2Y3SO-relatable-with-allie-stuckey 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, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Oh, we have a powerful show for you today. There are several stories I'm really looking forward to bringing you. We've got a Kelly's Court coming up in just a minute. And in a way, we begin with some legal news. Breaking news this morning related to someone who became associated with one of the most famous court cases in American history and one of the most infamous crimes ever committed. We received news this morning that OJ Simpson has died at the age of 76. His family announced the news on Simpson's ActiveX account. It reads in part, on April 10th, our father, Orenthal James Simpson, succumbed to his battle with cancer. He was

surrounded by his children and grandchildren. During this time of transition, his family asks that you please respect their wishes for privacy and grace. TMZ reporting that OJ had been battling prostate cancer in recent years. His health recently took a turn for the worst. Back in February, he denied rumors that he was in hospice care. Hey, X-World. Hospice? Hospice?

You're talking about hospice? No, I'm not in any hospice. I don't know who put that out there. But whoever put that out there, I guess it's like the Donald's one of the reasons he became such a star and why America fell in love with him when he was rising to prominence. He began winning the Heisman Trophy and breaking all sorts of records at USC, then went on to become a star NFL running back with the Buffalo Bills, and then went on to become a very famous actor in commercials and movies like the Naked Gun movies. But he truly became one of the most famous or infamous people in the world in 1994, 30 years ago when he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend,

Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles in a pair of absolutely gruesome stabbings. The children, Nicole and OJ shared together from their marriage, were steps away inside the house and were just eight and five years old at the time of her death. They were asleep in the house while their mother was being murdered outside. The slow moving car chase with OJ's white Bronco that happened soon thereafter as police closed in on him as their lead suspect who they wanted to arrest became an iconic moment. Again, in American history, followed by his subsequent arrest. People remember where they were when they watched that. But the trial that would come captivated the nation for months on end, even more so than the slow Bronco, making not only OJ, but so many other characters,

household names to this day. Marsha Clark, the prosecutor in this case, who is a regular here on the Megyn Kelly show, in her opening statement, she detailed the brutality of the killings. I warn you, this is graphic. And there he saw a sight that he'll never forget. He saw the body of Nicole Brown lying at the foot of the steps in a pool of blood. Officer Risky went all the way up to the end of the walkway in the bushes to a point where he was able to see at that point that it was not just Nicole, but also Ron. We did warn you, ladies and gentlemen, that this was a case that was going to have photographs that would be very, very hard to look at. We have to show you the evidence, and I apologize for the graphic nature of them,

but this is the crime that we're here to examine. No one will argue about what the cause of death was for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. Indeed, it was stated repeatedly by the prosecution that Nicole Brown Simpson was nearly decapitated. So brutal was the attack that she suffered. OJ's lawyer, Johnny Cochran, of course, Chris Darden, Marsha's co-counsel, to try them on, they did not fit. And he made a showing of it. They had been treated, they had been wet, and then they had dried and gotten smaller. We've heard the lawyers talk about it since as a complete blunder by the prosecution. The judge, Lance Ito, another name known coast to coast. Witnesses, Cato Kaelin. Still, most Americans who are Gen Xers at least know these names. In the end, OJ was found not guilty in 1995 in the criminal case in a decision

that split the country right in two. Another moment where most of us remember we were when the verdict came down. Yours truly, I had just begun my career as a lawyer. I watched the trial as a third year law student along with everybody else. We were riveted. We would go to our classes in the morning and then in the afternoon, we'd gather in the student center and watch it on one of those old fat TVs that we were all watching in 1994 before they all got slim lined. And then in 1995 came down the verdict and we all gathered this time for me, it was in my law firm, all white lawyers, one black receptionist, and they said, not guilty. And the white lawyers stood there stunned. And our black receptionist, who we all loved,

was cheering. And it was just a microcosm of what was happening all across America at that moment. And one of those moments in which people started to get it, that there was a massive distrust of police, especially within the black community, especially in LA, that the white community wasn't feeling and that this evidence and this case and these accusations, strong as they were, were being viewed very differently by citizens across this country. OJ would later be sued by Ron Goldman's family for wrongful death in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower than it is in a criminal court. And indeed, that jury found him responsible, liable for the double murders in 1997. That was not the end of OJ's legal troubles. Many years later, in 2008, he was found guilty

of kidnapping and armed robbery related to a sports memorabilia scam that he was running in Las Vegas. The Goldmans were able to garnish his wages forevermore after that verdict, and he was trying to get out of paying, they alleged, and trying to find ways of earning money, potentially off the books. He was sentenced for that crime to 33 years in prison. Many believed the sentence was so hefty, not for that crime, but in payment of an earlier one. He was released in 2017 for good behavior and went on to have a rather large presence on social media, posting videos like the ones I showed you, where he's all smiles, he's in good humor. And that's the thing about OJ Simpson. His personality

was effervescent. There was something likable about the guy and the way he related to us all. But OJ killer, OJ Simpson, in my view, was a killer. He was a double murderer, just as that civil jury said. And the fact that he had great lawyers who pointed out some failings of the prosecution in its case, that didn't change that. Not for me and not for millions of Americans. I'm sorry, but I don't think you can look back at this man's legacy and remember much more than that. Yeah, he was a great football player. He was a good actor. He had a great personality. and he killed brutally two people, including the mother of his very young children. And that is what most of us will remember OJ

Simpson for. And now we turn to Kelly's court and we'll kick it off there. Joining me now, two of our favorite lawyers, Viva Frye, lawyer and rumble creator, and Phil Holloway is with us on a Kelly's court today, legal analyst and host of Inside the Law on YouTube. Viva, Phil. Welcome back. What a day. Always happy to be here. Yeah. Yeah. Great to see you.

He's one of those names. My team forwarded in the news, OJ's dead. Everyone knows him just by that, just OJ. And the thing I thought, you guys, was when Kobe was killed in that helicopter accident, you remember some reporter brought up the sexual assault charges against him in writing up his death. And there was a big debate about whether that was appropriate, especially given the way Kobe had died unexpectedly in a helicopter crash with his young daughter. It was so tragic. He'd gone on to live a good life after all of that. I just don't see this as anywhere near the same. This guy brutally

murdered two people with absolutely no reason other than his rage and his history of domestic violence against his wife, which went ignored because he was a celebrity. And in my own heart, O.G. never asked for forgiveness, and I certainly never gave it. Viva, how do you see it? Well, oddly enough, Megan, Robert Barnes, you know, our Sunday nightly show, he believes O.J. was innocent. I do not believe O.J. was innocent. I still don't believe in reveling in the death of someone and saying how God finally got you. It might be the case. God finally got O.J. and he'll have to repent for whatever he did in this life, wherever he is now. But how do I feel? I remember exactly where I was. I was staying with my aunt and uncle in California. I remember the television showing people cheering, people jeering at the acquittal.

I remember the trial. I remember everything about it. It was an iconic moment of my growing up. I think I was 14 or 15. But I was always just shocked by him taking to social media like that was not part of his life, even if he were innocent. What he did on social media was was, you know, rubbing in the nose of the victims what the accusations were against him. I thought it was always a sign of a narcissist of sorts to come out and boast to the world. You all know what I did or you all know what you think I did. And I want to come out and pretend like it never happened, make a social media account and make jokes about it. I never thought that was appropriate, but maybe I'm even Phil wrote a book called If I Did It, about which there was so much controversy,

they had to pull the book because people were not ready for that wink and a nod recount by O.J., which Marsha Clark has had a lot of comments on, on this show about, you know, suggesting it's, it, it wasn't a true recitation anyway of how he did it. But, you know, this is a guy who got away with double murder and one of the worst one could commit. I mean, the mother of his children with them steps away inside. And then went on, I looked just to see at his Twitter account, he's got hundreds of thousands of followers, a lot of love for his tweets and likes. I mean, people somehow went on to be like, oh, OK, and hung their hats on. Well, he was acquitted or maybe not even saying that. What do you what are you feeling about it? Well, a lot of people, Megan, think that it just because a jury says somebody is not guilty, that's the end of it. And of course, we know that's not true. I'm one of the people that's old enough to remember the OJ prior to the murders. I was sitting

with some law school classmates, I think, having beers, watching a basketball tournament, if I'm not mistaken, when that slow speed chase happened. And then, of course, the trial and the case progressed through the court system. And my professors were using it almost as like a real life case study on what's going on. And then we had, you know, this new evidence. We had DNA that was just coming into sort of the fore of being able to be used in criminal cases. And then fast forward to the verdict. Apparently, I was one year behind you in law school because in my last year, I was working as an intern actually trying cases at the DA's office in Houston, Texas.

And when the verdict was read, we were in the judge's chambers. If I'm not mistaken, it was on my birthday. And the judge made a comment that, look, you never know what a jury is going to do. And she reminded us, she said, look, you've got to remember that the jury is not seeing all of the evidence that those of us who are watching the trial see. Fast forward to today, and we've got lots of people who follow you on YouTube and on social media, same with Viva and me. And a lot of these people are trial watchers, and they oftentimes know a lot more

about the facts of the case than a jury who's actually hearing the case might. And this goes to how important it is who the judge is, because the judge controls what information the jury sees. And remember, there was a lot of this that we know about, that we saw, that Marcia Clark, I'm sure, will talk to you about, but the jury never saw. And then you add into that certain things like whether or not it was the right venue, whether or not it was a jury that was overly sympathetic to the defendant or overly antagonistic, perhaps, to prosecutors and police. And what you have is you have a jury reaching a result that I think most people today who watch the case disagree with. But the lesson is there. Juries do not always get it right. They

frequently get it wrong. This is one that they did get wrong. And his legacy, unfortunately for him, is that he is a brutal double murder, regardless of what that jury might say. That was a case in which now it's, you know, these facts are known, but of course, Johnny Cochran played the race card. And as his co-counsel Robert Shapiro said, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. But now we know, of course, Shapiro was somebody whose reputation in L.A. amongst the Tony crowd was important to him. He both wanted the fame and glory of representing O.J., but he also wanted to belong and get the best dinner reservations. So why didn't he stop the race card from being played?

Right. Because Johnny Cochran did play it. And you know what? It worked. It worked. Who was beautifully who was he was in a powder keg of a community that hated the police because of a lot of things that had happened. Rodney King and so on. Keep going with Viva. Who was that cop, the racist cop in it that. Ben Adder or Furman.

Oh, yeah, Furman. I remember. But also, wasn't there an issue about them having planted blood on O.J.'s sock in order? Yes, Ben Adder. This is what Dershowitz says all the time about how they had a sock that had O.J.'s blood and Nicole's blood tested. And he, you know, as he points out, that's great evidence for the prosecution. OJ says he wasn't even there. And now you've got his sock with both blood on it. That's kind of ballgame. But they had it tested

and had a chemical that you would only have gotten in the lab. And so it showed that somebody's blood had been dumped on the sock from a test tube as opposed to the other. If you've got to frame a guilty man, you still have to hold the system to account. And if you have to frame a guilty man, it's because you're not doing something right. So guilty as he might have been, you know, there could have been some serious problems, which even today we might appreciate. But today the problem is everybody's guilty now anyhow. So criminal defendants stand no chance even when they're innocent. But back in the day, you know, even if you were guilty, if the system is planting evidence, you're going to have to let one guilty person go free to make sure that nobody does that

type of chicanery on a going forward basis. I don't you know, it's it's I understand. Alan said many times that people who actually sat and watched the trial every day were not surprised by the verdict and people who just watched the highlights on TV were. And honestly, like this was kind of my experience where I just watch highlights. I was in law school. I was busy. But my then boyfriend, who was out of a job at the moment, watched everything. And he we even he and I had this split where he was like, I'm not surprised at all.

This was the right result. And I was like, you're an insane lunatic. But separate and apart from whether the jury got that right, there's what you can prove in a court of law and holding a dirty cop accountable. And then there's what you what you believe. And I have zero doubt that O.J. Simpson committed those murders. There was a history of domestic violence against his wife. That's indisputable. I don't care. And I love Robert Burns. I think he's brilliant, but that's indisputable. He was a wife beater and it's on tape and you could hear her terror and she had filled out a will at age, you know, 30 something. And she had put pictures of her bruised and bloody face in a safe deposit box. And that's,

when I look at that picture of this young, beautiful woman with everything in front of her, this young, gorgeous mom of two young kids and this guy with everything, everything. He made the most of what America has to offer. And we rewarded him with love and riches and fame and adoration. And he couldn't control his violent fury enough to stop him from almost slicing the head off of his own children's mother. That's what I will remember OJ Simpson for. And I believe right now he's paying. He's paying for those crimes. Okay, sorry. Dark way to begin the show, but the news comes to me as it is. Let's move on to so many legal cases, guys. There's a lot to get into.

Let's just spend some time on the Trump cases. We've talked to them at Nauseam. I don't want to spend the whole day on them because we've got some other good and interesting cases. But let's spend a minute on the fact that he's about to sit for a criminal trial on Monday. Jury selection is going to begin in this New York trial court, criminal court on Monday. Jury selection is going to begin in this New York trial court, criminal court on Monday. They are limiting to some extent what they can ask the jurors, like they can't ask them who they voted for. It's kind of interesting. I don't know. You can make a

good argument in this case that they should have to say who they voted for. You know, like they should have to tell you if they voted for Trump or Biden. If they voted for, you know, Biden, it's the same race happening again, Phil. So you could make a pretty good argument. They've got a bias against Trump and probably were looking more for people who didn't vote or for Trump voters who could sit favorably and, you know, I should say, you know, without favor for either side. What do you make of it? Yeah, they ought to know what the political inclinations are for the jurors when you're putting on trial the presumptive nominee for

the presidency for the Republican Party. It's just common sense. Why the judge wouldn't allow the parties to get into that is just lunacy. There's no reason that this trial really should be taking place in Manhattan. If it's going to be a trial at all, there needs to be a change of venue to someplace that's a little bit maybe more neutral or someplace that can possibly be fair. There's no way that he can get a fair trial there. But remember, this case should be at most some type of state misdemeanor bookkeeping violation that had a two-year statute of limitations. But what is Bragg doing? He is basically lying to the public by telling them this is some kind of federal election case that is some kind of, there's no victim here. There's no fraud. At most,

it's a bookkeeping error. It's one that federal election officials who actually have the ability to prosecute these things looked at and said, there's no case, we're not going to bring it. But yet we have another instance of lawfare by a partisan hack, biased local prosecutor in Manhattan who lets everybody go for everything. Apparently you can smash people over the head in the subways, you can commit armed robberies, You can murder people. You're going to get let go if you just were some kind of a sympathetic, at least to him, defendant. But if you make a bookkeeping error or do something in the way that you keep your books, which is harmless, by the way, there's no victim there. And if Alvin Bragg doesn't like it, he wants to put you on trial and try to throw you in prison on a case that ought to have been barred by the statute of limitations.

This is, you know, this is pathetic. This is almost as bad and maybe even worse than what we see here in Atlanta with Fannie Willis. And, and Viva, he's going to have to sit there. Unlike the civil case, in a criminal case, the defendant must be present. So he's losing two months from the campaign trail. Megan, it does not need to be explained how over the top it is. The gag order is election interference in its purest form. But, you know, a bookkeeping mistake or whatever you want to call it, and they'll argue, no, no, it's election interference because he paid off an alleged a porn star for an alleged affair. This is what I believe it was. John Edwards had a very similar thing, and I thought this was resolved in law. Hillary Clinton, fine. And I'm not playing the whataboutism.

I'm just saying this is less bad than what has been done in the past. Hillary Clinton financed the Steele dossier that was at the root of that bogus Russiagate story. They financed it, and then they lied about it. And she gets an $8,000 fine, and the DNC gets a hundred and some odd thousand dollar fine for concealing the fact that they financed that opposition research. Slap on the wrist, minimal fine. They turn this into a 37 or however many charge indictment because every month they charge for the entry in the books, the writing of the check, because this is what his lawyer did at the time, Michael Cohen. I made a tweet when I was eating dinner alone last night and I was laughing to myself. I was like, look at all the players in

all of these persecutions. It's a joke. It's a comment. You got a porn star, a convicted perjurer, a convicted extortionist, corrupt prosecutors. It's like we have a joke of a play. And yet somehow, because people like it politically, they're going along with it. This trial is election interference. I predicted it wasn't going to start on the 15th. That looks like I'm going to be wrong, but I'm still holding my breath. It's wild. It's a joke. They're making mountains out of molehills and it's political persecution and election interference of the highest order. Just to reiterate for our audience, we've gone over this in the past, but so it was a bookkeeping, you know, misstatement, which was would have, as Phil points out,

would have been a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations was two years that that case was dead. That claim was over. It was too late to bring it. The way he resurrected it by saying it was under New York law, if your bookkeeping error is to cover up an underlying felony, then you've committed a felony. And the underlying crime that they claim Trump committed was an illegal campaign donation. Right. An illegal campaign donation to his own to his own campaign, in essence, by paying off Stormy Daniels in order to cover up this affair so that people wouldn't know about it in advance of the 16 election. Well, we've had election officials on this show, a campaign finance officials who have pointed out that in order to qualify as a campaign contribution of any kind or like campaign finance, it has to be a payment that could only ever be used for a campaign donation.

It can't be something that has dual purpose. Like I bought a suit and I would both wear it at the debates, but I would also wear it in my real life. No, that's not going to qualify. And it usually comes up because somebody tries to write off the suit purchase as like, oh, that was for my campaign. So I'm just going to use campaign funds to purchase it. And these officials would say, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do that. It has to be solely for the campaign. And that's the proper legal window through which to adjudge this payment that Trump made to Stormy Daniels through his lawyer, Michael Cohen. Men have been paying off women to shut up from the beginning of time about affairs, All right.

You could go back to Alexander Hamilton. And that doesn't make them it doesn't make a campaign violation just because it happened to be done right before his election. I'm sure Trump didn't want Stormy Daniels telling this to the world because it's embarrassing to Melania because she was his wife. All of these reasons. Anyway, all of this gets lost and we're going to see the jury next week. Maybe. I mean, I think jury selection is going to take a while.

Go ahead, Viva. I can see you want to get in. Well, I mean, yeah, you heard Abenadi gave an interview from prison, not that he should be trusted now, but seems to be suggesting or implying that it was actually perhaps Stormy Daniels shaking down Trump knowing that election was coming, that she allegedly approached the Trump campaign and not vice versa. So it's unclear as to which way this alleged extortion scheme is even going. Set aside the fact that this is going to be a state felony charge over what arguably is a federal election crime. I understand that's only going to come up on appeal, but this is quite clearly the weaponization of the judicial process of the highest order. And just by the way, by the way, the feds declined to bring that underlining charge.

The feds looked at the campaign finance allegation and said, there's no there there. We're not doing that. So only Alvin Bragg, this political hack, as you point out, in New York, saw this and said, I can stitch it together. I can make it happen on the subject of Avenatti. So he goes on with Ari Melber on MSNBC the other night, Avenatti. Oh my God. I mean, I, one of my proudest moments as a journalist is when I, I will tell you, and you can go back and check the record on this. I never fell for his bullshit. I was never enamored by this guy. The one time I had access to him, I grilled him like a 4th of

July hot dog. It was unpleasant for him and the record will speak for itself. But he's back from prison where he's been sentenced, I think, 22 years for the multiple frauds he committed against his clients, including Stormy Daniels. He's in jail right now because her publisher gave her an $800,000 book advance and he stole $300,000 of it and forged her name. I mean, this is a proven liar. But what he had to say about Michael Cohen, who's going to be a star witness against Donald Trump in this case, was pretty interesting coming from Michael Avenatti. Take a listen. Every case needs to have one or two primary witnesses who tell the story.

From my perspective, I surmise that the DA is going to use potentially Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels for that purpose. And I think that has the potential to be a disaster. Michael Cohen is a, and you know, I've never been a fan of Michael for various reasons. You know, he's a serial liar. He's shown himself to be incapable of telling the truth. Okay, so correct. True, but right. Hello, pot. Hello, pot.

Meat kettle. It's amazing, Phil, to hear. I really object to his serial dishonesty. Yeah, you know, it's weird because I find myself in the surreal position of agreeing with everything that Michael Hefner just said. It's bizarre. Maybe I'm going to get invited to lunch with Fonny Willis this week. Things are so strange in my world right now. But look, I mean, you've got a convicted felon, OK, that is going to be the star witness and or perhaps, you know, the porn star who, you know, refuses to pay any kind of judgments against her. And it's just it's going to become a circus. I mean, anything that that involves, you know,

Donald Trump has a tendency to draw every camera on the planet and every microphone on the planet. Just, you know, it's it's there and it's all going to be superheated. It's like in this giant pressure cooker and it's going to just be explosive. We're going to be in the situation, unfortunately, of dissecting the truth or the lack of truth of every word that comes out of these witnesses' mouth. We're going to obviously have to dissect the strategy of the prosecutor, who, by the way, is not going to want anybody to tell him because, you know, it's true. Non-disclosure agreements are, in fact, legal. This is part of what people do, whether they're running for president or not. This is part of what people do to settle these kinds of things on a regular basis all across America.

So it's not even a crime. And look, you need to look no further than the Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade situation to understand, like even she did not want her relationship to get out. And only when it was uncovered did she finally have to fess up to it. So people just don't want these things to be on the front pages. And so they do non disclosure. Even Fannie Willis has done non-disclosure agreements with her staff. This is what people do when they don't want somebody to talk. It's a matter of contract. It's legal. It's legal to hire a lawyer to create these things. And whether or not there's a bookkeeping error that happens to

conflict with bookkeeping norms is pretty much irrelevant. But he's trying to bootstrap this misdemeanor and to make it a federal felony prosecuting in Manhattan state court. It's preposterous. And it matters. Here's why it matters. Even though people, I think, generally know this is kind of bullshit, that still you've got one third of Republicans and 50 percent of independents saying it might change their vote if Donald Trump is a convicted felon by the time we get to November. And I realize most of us are like, do they really mean it? This is kind of a BS case. Really didn't mean it. Unlike this, this would make you feel that way. We don't know. What if they do mean it? What if they do mean it? Because Alvin Bragg is likely to get a conviction in this case. And that really could change the course of history, especially to your point,

Viva, because he's basically gagged. He's gagged from publicly attacking Michael Cohen, who's got free reign on him, from Stormy Daniels, who's got free reign on him, from the judge's daughter, who's got free reign on him. And we could go on. He can attack the judge. He can attack the D.A. But this really does look like election interference. And Trump is gagged. And you've got that 50 percent and one third saying convicted felon could change my vote. Would they be more likely to vote for him or less likely? I'm not trying to be. No, they're saying less. They're saying less. I mean, the Republican Party has said now we don't care, but he can't win with that. He needs all

Republicans, virtually all. And he needs a hefty amount of independence to win this race. If he can win anyway, I think he can win anyway. And when he does win, even if he let's say let's say you go through this trial and let's say there's a conviction on some or all. And look, it's in Manhattan. I think the deck is severely stacked against him. So let's assume for the sake of this discussion that he's going to lose and he's going to be convicted of one or more of these counts. But then he wins the election. OK, what do you do then? Is he going to be in jail or is he going to be out on some kind of a post trial appeal bond? I'm not going to jail for this one. The convictions are not final until the appeals are final. He's not really. He's not going to jail on this one. And the appeal will play out. It'll play out. Go ahead.

I just highlight one thing. I think people might have also forgotten about this. So you got your porn star versus your convicted perjurer. Story Daniels came out on how many occasions to reaffirm that there was never any relationship. And now the argument is that she lied about lying, that there was no relationship and people forgot about this. And then you get Michael Cohen, who's saying that Trump knew exactly what was going on when Michael Cohen is alleged to have taken this money as a retainer and then done good lawyering by paying off the porn star.

And it's not clear if there was a relationship, other relationship. It is gonna be comedic. The only problem is they don't need to show the jury, ask the jury who they're gonna vote for. You know, statistically, it's like being in DC, 90 some odd percent, maybe it's a little less in New York, you know, ask the jury who they're going to vote for. Everybody, you know, statistically, it's like being in D.C., 90 some odd percent. Maybe it's a little less in New York, you know, with certainty. So he's going to get voted for Biden. Well, he'll get convicted, Trump, in as much as Sussman got acquitted in D.C. despite being

dead to rights on the evidence. It's all politics. I think everybody's seeing that. And I'll take the other step. I say if he gets convicted, it's only going to help him. I don't think it's going to hurt him. I agree with Viva. I think it's going to help him. But what I'm saying, guys, is if look, what I'm saying is this is what the polls show us. And I, too, am inclined to say, I'm not sure I believe that. I'm not sure I believe it on any of the cases, but I could see us getting closer when we're talking about the federal prosecutions. Not that BS down in Atlanta. But what people have to see this is what we're wrong. But Phil, what if we're wrong? Phil, what if we're wrong? What if we're wrong? We've written off polls before only to be embarrassed. So what if these people mean what they say? And we get to Election Day, these independents, 50 percent, say, you know what, I couldn't do it. He's a convicted felon. Then this case will have meant everything. Yeah, well, if we're wrong, then Alvin Bragg has, and this judge who puts the muzzle on Donald Trump, has single-handedly changed the course of world history, would give us presumably another four more years of open borders and

relentless crime on the streets and all the social chaos and the division that we're seeing now. And this is why lawfare is morally wrong. I mean, you're shooting fish in a barrel to prosecute Donald Trump in Manhattan. I mean, you cannot provide a worse venue for that man to try to get a fair trial. All the things that Viva points out about the credibility of the witnesses and the cast, those would all be reasonable doubt in a reasonable world, in a reasonable venue. But we don't have a reasonable venue. We are in Manhattan. We're going to have a bunch of lunatics on this jury that hate Donald Trump. And that, you know, look, they elected Bragg. They elected Letitia James. These are the people that vote for people

who promise to get Trump. We're going to get Trump if you vote for us. So now they voted for these people. These people are in office. These people are now fulfilling the campaign promises to go out and get Trump. And they're patronizing two actual voters there in New York. Promises made, promises delivered. We promise to get him, we're getting him. All right, one other question on the Trump immunity case, well, immunity argument. So he's basically arguing at the federal level in response to the January 6th case. You really can't bring this case at all because presidents have immunity from criminal cases. And that applied to me because you're coming after me for things I did while I was still in the Oval Office. And this whole case should go away because I have presidential immunity.

Well, he brought that argument before Judge Chutkin, who does not like Trump, and she ruled against him. Then Trump appealed it and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him. And then they sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. And we had a debate on our show with our legal eagles, Mike Davis and Dave Ehrenberg. And Dave said, Supreme Court's not going to take it. They're just going to let the DC circuit court of appeals decision stand. Well, he was wrong. SCOTUS took it. And we expect, um, that, uh, they're going to have, well, what's the date of the argument is April 25th. And we just got Jack Smith's brief. And I've just, I cannot, I cannot let our segment pass without raising this

with you. So this is Jack's argument. And I believe Jack's going to win. I think he's going to win the immunity argument, but you've got to hear what he's saying right now. Phil's shaking his head. He doesn't think so. Okay. I could be wrong, but listen, here is what Jack Smith argued. First, he says the framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president. And you need look no further than Nixon and Watergate to see that. Why did, why did Nixon need a pardon from Ford? Both Nixon and Ford both believed he could be charged criminally and that he wasn't immune for presidential behavior or behavior taken while president. Then he says, you've got to stay with me for this immunity from, okay, but now hold on. A criminal prosecution must be brought by the

executive with strong institutional checks. He's trying to reassure the justices that saying a president can be criminally prosecuted. It won't lead to abuse. Don't worry, because that's what Trump's saying. He's like, they could go after Obama for drone strikes. They could go after Clinton for war in the Middle East. You know, they could they could have gone after Bush Roosevelt for the for the internment camps. And this is Smith's response saying, stop it. It's like that's not going to happen. People aren't going to abuse this ruling. And he says a criminal prosecution must be brought by the executive with strong institutional checks to ensure even handed an impartial enforcement of the law.

A grand jury must find that an indictment is justified. The government must make its case and meet its burden of proof in a public trial. And the courts enforce due process protections to guard against politically motivated prosecutions. He says we have layered safeguards to prevent the kind of politically motivated and weaponized prosecutions that Trump has complained of. I don't think it's dawning on him, Viva, that this very prosecution undermines every single thing he's saying. He's making he's a hired goon. I mean, it's not like, you know, when it comes to lawyers, you can be smart and dishonest like Avenatti or you can be dumb and dishonest like Michael Cohen. Same thing goes for prosecutors.

Alvin Bragg is a is a is an attack dog. He'll do what the powers that be want him to do. Jack Smith will say what needs to be said. The bottom line, people laugh at the argument that Trump could literally get away with murder if he wasn't impeached for it. There's a reason why that exists the way it does. It's so that if you don't get impeached and convicted, they can't go after you afterwards because otherwise you will be able to blackmail every president going forward that you'll get rogue district attorneys or rogue whatever prosecutors at state levels to go after you after you're out of office and to make sure

that you do their bidding when you're in office. So as ridiculous as it sounds, well, if he could kill someone in the office, is that what it takes? If you can't impeach and convict someone, a president who kills the chef because he doesn't like the food, you got bigger problems, but you don't start getting to fabricate crimes for which he was not impeached and convicted. And in Trump's case, for which he was impeached and acquitted. So he knows it's a lie. He'll just say the words that will get him far enough into the process. It's amazing, Phil, to hear him say this, to reassure us that the layered safeguards

are going to prevent politically motivated and weaponized prosecutions. Really, Jack? Really? Well, Jack's going to say what Jack feels like he needs to say to maybe bring just enough of the justices over into his camp. And maybe he's going to be able to succeed in hoodwinking maybe a Roberts or somebody like that. But look, here's the thing. You've got a reasonable nexus okay to a presidential act now not obviously everything a president does is presidential but to use the example that others have used if if the president of the united states whoever he or she might be launches a drone strike somewhere without

congressional approval and kills somebody who they say is a terrorist no no real reasonable person is going to say, well, we're going to prosecute that president for murder, although it would meet the elements of the crime of murder. But nobody's going to prosecute them because there's a reasonable nexus to a presidential action that would be taken. The same goes for the situation with Donald Trump. Is it possible that Trump is wearing two hats, one as president and one as candidate, and that the same thing that he's doing maybe furthers both interests? Of course. But I think that the rule has to be, if we're going to have presidential immunity in civil cases for that reason, we also have to extend that to criminal cases. Now, obviously, you know,

Nixon was pardoned because, you know, we don't want to have to litigate that. And it was an effort by Ford to sort of calm things down politically here, domestically at home. But it doesn't really mean that we can't have something known as presidential criminal immunity, because as Viva points out, we're going to have a situation where if we don't have it moving forward, we're going to have this tit for tat. Every time somebody loses an election or leaves office, they're going to have to live in fear of being prosecuted by the next man or woman coming in who's in charge of the Justice Department. You can be the president and you can take actions that basically fit into two camps that are presidential in nature that have to do with your

official job and that also uh coincidentally you know benefit you personally or coincide with your personal interest so that's not a distinction really that concerns me what we need to have if the test should be if there's a reasonable nexus to some real presidential action or presidential power then there should be criminal immunity. And that's it. Okay. I have to take a break, but I just want to tell you this is happening. Reaction pouring into the death of O.J. Simpson, Ron Goldman's father to NBC News.

The only thing I have to say is it's just further reminder of Ron being gone all these years. It's no great loss to the world. It's just a further reminder of Ron being gone. Marsha Clark, uh, gives us this statement first, first before others. I send my condolences to Mr. Simpson's family. She's a class act. Good for her. Um, she's not going to comment beyond that, but of course we are, because we're in the business of making commentary around news events. Viva and Phil stay with us. There's plenty more to get to. Don't go away.

So I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I'm not going to pull the trigger. I said, do you see that? She goes, well, just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that. And I cocked the gun. I go, can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that? And she says, and then I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off. At the moment, the decisive moment. That was the moment the gun went off, yeah. That was the moment the gun went off. It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well, the trigger wasn't pulled.

I didn't pull the trigger. So you never pulled the trigger? No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never. Alec Baldwin, back in the news. Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. Viva Frye and Phil Holloway are with me.

So the prosecution filing a brief last Friday in this case, which is set to go to trial on July 10th. We've got a bunch of trials coming our way over the next few months. Hunter Biden, this Trump thing on Monday and Alec Baldwin, to name a few. And in it, she raises the interview with Stephanopoulos saying every time Mr. Baldwin speaks, a different version of events has emerged from his mouth. She's gone on to say that this was a man who had absolutely no control of his own emotions and absolutely no concern for how his conduct affected those around him on the set. She said he demanded the crew and the armorer who's now been found guilty in that case work faster and that his relentless rushing of the crew on the movie set routinely

compromised safety. Went on to say that after the shooting, Baldwin set about constructing a false narrative that deflected responsibility onto others. He has claimed that he did not pull the trigger of the gun. You heard that there, which the prosecution maintains is absurd on its face. Viva, I know you've been covering this one closely. So do you think this thing is actually going to go to trial on July 10th for involuntary manslaughter? And how are you feeling about the strength of the prosecution's case? Look, I my theory of the case is that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger on purpose because he thought there was only a blank in it.

He was pissed off at Elena and he was trying to, you know, let his rage. That's my that's my personal operating theory of the case. One thing is for certain, despite him saying, no, no, no, I would never point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. Well, he pointed the gun at somebody and then his defense was, well, she told me to do it. So he did something that he said he would never do because she told him to do it. Look, my only question is, I think he's obviously guilty of something here. The only question is whether or not the conviction of the armor, now I forget her name. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.

Hannah Gutierrez, sorry. The only question is whether or not her conviction is going to help or hurt Alec Baldwin. And I've listened to both sides of the argument. I at first thought it would be a foregone conclusion it would hurt him. I think he's going to get to hang his hat on it now and say, look, she was convicted. I had no reason to believe or no way of knowing

that there was a live round in there. And I'm washing my hands of it. I think it's going to help him. But I still think his statements indicate guilt. His his overt denial. No, no, no. I would never pull the trigger to it when he admits to having done it. He knows he did something wrong. He's just trying to rationalize it to himself. Phil, the prosecutor argues the combination of Hannah Gutierrez's negligence and inexperience and Alec Baldwin's complete lack of concern for the safety of those around him. That's what proved deadly for Helena Hutchins.

She's in no way going to say the armorer's conviction on being completely negligent on that set gets him off the hook. He was the executive producer. They gave him the gun. He didn't check it. That seems to be the industry standard. And then as the prosecutor points out,

he effectively blamed Helena Hutchins for her own death by saying, she told me to point it at her, the thing I'd never do. So in a manslaughter case, you've got something known as an intervening causal act. And in this case, he's going to point to Hannah's conviction as being that thing that breaks the chain of causation and therefore leads to his acquittal, he hopes. One thing, though, that he says that has always troubled me, look, triggers don't pull themselves. Now, my background, I came up in law enforcement. I'm from the South. I've been around firearms my entire life, and I know that triggers just don't pull themselves. He knows that, too. Why his lawyers are letting him go out

and make these ridiculous statements on television and otherwise is just beyond me. He's going to talk himself into a conviction, but there can be no doubt once he does get into that courtroom, he's absolutely going to point at Hannah and say, look, she's the reason for this unfortunate death. I was just simply doing other things. I had no reason to believe that there would be a live round in it. By all accounts, there shouldn't have been. However, the thing that's going to hurt him is his statements that don't make any kind of legal sense whatsoever. He never should have given that interview to George Stephanopoulos or gone out there over and over again. So what happened was in March,

Baldwin's lawyers requested to dismiss the indictment. And this prosecutor is saying, that's absurd. We've got him, we've got him dead to rights. And she also tells us, I think for the first time, Viva, why she originally, um, she offered him a deal. Remember she dropped the felony charges against him and offered him a misdemeanor plea deal. And, um, then she withdrew the offer for the plea deal and indicted him on a felony charge. And now she explains why. She says in part that he she found out Baldwin was planning a documentary about Helena Hutchins and was, quote, actively pressuring material witnesses in the case to be interviewed for it. It was at that point, she says, the plea offer was rescinded.

The man's the man's a pathological rage monster. I mean, everybody's known that for a long time, but a narcissistic one of that, the George Stephanopoulos interview was one thing, but then the street side interview that he gave where he says, she was my friend, she was my friend. Well, it turns out not to say that she wasn't his friend, but they had only relatively recently even met. And I think he met her for the first time right before they started shooting the movie. So what makes more sense than anything, he pulled the flipping trigger, whether he did it on purpose or by accident, he pulled the trigger. At first, I thought maybe he fanned the hammer and then released it. But apparently, from what people are telling me, that's not possible on this type of firearm. Bottom line, he made statements that

were laughably stupid, implausible, changed his story multiple times when he's going out doing his press tour to garner sympathy for himself in the wake of the death of the woman that died literally at his hands. So, I mean, that's all going to come back to bite him in the ass. And I said it when he was doing it. I mean, the man just can't shut up. He's saying many things which are going to come back to haunt him. The only question is going to be, does like like Phil say, you know, the actus nobis, does he get to say this ruptured any causal responsibility link between me and the event? All right, stand by. I got to take a quick break, but we're coming back and we have more to do. Stand by. There is a police involved shooting in Chicago that's starting to make some major headlines

right now. And I'm telling you, I mean, every time we go into an election season, this happens because there are many police-involved shootings. That's America. And that doesn't mean the cops are guilty of anything. It's just America, especially in Chicago. But what happens in an election year, mark my words, is they find a case, they put it on loop, and it becomes an issue in the presidential race. Maybe this will be that case, maybe it won't, but you tell me. Here are the facts. The man's mother, he was a, I think, high school senior, says that they shot her son, quote, like an animal. Police body cam video just released

yesterday shows the police officers firing over and over, 96 shots in 41 seconds. According to Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability, better known as COPA, there is a reason that there were so many shots unleashed by the officers, and that is that the officers were shot at first by the suspect. This group, COPA, investigates police shootings for the city. We're going to walk you through the details as they stand right now, and we have the videotape, so I encourage the listening audience to go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly and watch this with your own eyes. The video matters here. The shooting happened on March 21st. So very recent. It involved 26 year old Dexter Reed. Okay. So not high school, just out

of, according to COPA police stopped Reed. They said for not wearing a seatbelt reads car windows were heavily tinted. So it's unclear right now how they might have seen Reed not wearing the seatbelt. Police in unmarked vehicles, some in plain clothes and some wearing vests that read police on them, approached the vehicle. They asked Reed to roll down his window, driver's side, and unlock the door. You will see him, we're going to show you this tape in a second, roll down his window all the way before beginning to roll it back up. An officer asks, what are you doing? Reed responds, I'm not doing nothing. He then partially rolls the window back up, even as a female officer tells him over and over, roll it down.

After that, he does not comply with demands from the officers. At least two officers take out guns and point them at Reed while giving him orders. The female officer walks backward as she says, open the door now. Then shots are heard. The video we're about to play for you runs about 90 seconds long. It's from the view of the female officer's body cam video. I'll describe it for the listening audience when we come back on. Try to listen to what you hear first. We warn you, the video's graphic.

Roll the windows down. Roll the window down. What are you doing? Roll this one down. Roll that one down too. Hey, don't roll the window up. Don't roll the window up. Do not roll the window up. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now. Open the door now. Open the door now.

Open the door now. Open the door now. 1164 Davis, shots fired, shots fired. Hey, hey. Shots fired! Shots fired! Hey! Hey! Shots fired! Fernandez and Avers! Fernandez and Avers! 10-1! 10-1! Hey! Let me see your hands!

Let me see your hands! Hands! Hey, is everyone good? We need an ambulance. Officers hit. We need an ambulance. Officers hit. Okay. So it's hard to see in that video, even when we slowed it down, the initial gunfire and which direction it came from. For the listening audience, you see him, he rolled back up that window, not all the way as they're telling him, roll it down and roll down the other one too, which he did not comply with. You hear them telling him, unlock the door. And the police officers got her hand on the door handle, trying to pull it and it remains locked.

And you do hear, um, Reed say inside, I'm trying to, but over the course of several seconds, it doesn't happen. And you can hear the police's escalation. Uh, you can hear their concern rising as they begin to back away from that door as they no longer can see very well inside the car. Cause the window is gone, not all the way back up, but mostly, and then you hear gunfire again, though, in that video, even when we slowed it down, you cannot see from where the initial gunfire came. COPA, which again, investigates shootings in Chicago, says the video and ballistic evidence point to Reed, the man inside firing first at cops. A body cam video from a different officer shows that at one point, while all the shots were being fired, Reed gets out of his vehicle and goes to the back of his SUV. The video shows him getting

shot repeatedly, so we're not going to air it, but we made a series of full screens, meaning pictures, so you can see what the officers saw. In this one, you see Reed crouching down as he goes up the side of the vehicle this is after the shooting had begun in this image he makes it to the back of the vehicle his arms do not appear up for what it's worth in this image you see him fall backward as more gunfire rings out eventually he falls to the ground at that point officers point their guns at him and order him not to move as he lies still. One officer remarking that Reed is still breathing while they search him for a gun. He is put in handcuffs. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. A Chicago police

officer was shot in the arm. Per COPA, a gun was recovered on the front passenger seat of Reed's car. Chicago Sun-Times, citing a high-ranking law enforcement source, says Reed fired 11 rounds, and his gun was empty when it was recovered from inside the vehicle. Several of the police officers seen on the body cam footage are black, as was Mr. Reed, because of course the news is already making an issue out of race. And one officer who was seen lying on the grass with this arm injury is also black. Now for how the story is being covered by some media outlets. The Washington Post coverage includes this photo of Reed. Reed is seen smiling during a graduation ceremony.

The Associated Press also included that photo in its coverage, which is fine. Those pictures were put out by the family. I'm sure that's how they want him remembered. But the reporting did not include Reid's recent mugshots or even any background on his arrests, which may prove relevant. An outlet called Block Club Chicago, which bills itself as a nonprofit news org dedicated to covering Chicago's diverse neighborhoods, quote unquote, did good reporting on this, citing past info from the Chicago Sun-Times. They report that Reid was arrested twice last year.

In April 2023, he was charged with retail theft. The charge was later dropped, according to the Sun-Times. In mid-July, Reed was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon without a concealed carry card when officers said they found him with a loaded gun at the Windy City smokeout, according to the Sun-Times. He was facing several gun-related charges that were pending at the date of this encounter. Did the officers know anything about these arrests before pulling him over? That remains unclear. Again, police say he was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. Officers involved have been placed now on 30-day administrative leave. Their union says these cops responded heroically. The lawyer representing Reed's family is calling

for these tactical units to be disbanded because they have been quote terrorizing the community. Back with me now, Phil Holloway and Viva Fry. Guys, I want to start with this, which we just got our hands on. It is surveillance video from a neighbor's house and it gives us a different angle. What you're going to see, I'm just going to describe because it's hard to, it's hard to see is the two cops on the left side of the screen are on the passengers. All right. Okay. No, sorry. Are on the, um, the driver's side, the two cops on the right side of the screen are on the passenger side. And it appears that you can see some sort of looks to me like gun smoke come out of that passenger side. And it appears that you can see some sort of looks to me like gun smoke

come out of that passenger window. You can see it lingering in the air. The cop falls backward onto the grass right next to it. And the car tries to get away. If that's what we think it is, it should be ballgame. That should be the end of it. I mean, it's uncertain these things get played over and over. But this cop looks like he's been shot through the passenger side window of this car, and it appears to be on tape via a neighbor's surveillance window. We've covered enough of these, though, to know it's going to be analyzed frame by frame by frame. And so far, the family's denying that this is the way it went down, suggesting these cops are to blame. So your first reaction looking at it, Phil, I'll start with you on this one.

Yeah. So, look, I mean, as a former law enforcement officer, what I see on that video that the most recent one you showed, I see the cop getting shot out the passenger door. It is it is pretty clear. But the common denominator in all of these cases, Megan, is noncompliance with police commands, right? You can pick apart whether, you know, maybe they should have stopped him, maybe they shouldn't have stopped him. But the common denominator is noncompliance with police commands. It's sort of the standard that we use to assess whether or not police shootings are reasonable. And it tells us that we are not supposed to use the 2020 hindsight vision to analyze these things. Put yourself in the place of an officer on this chaotic scene where things are dynamic, they're fluid, they're rapidly changing. And then the question is, would a reasonable officer under like or similar circumstances use that degree of force? And so I put myself there in that scene with all that stuff going down, and I see a colleague of mine being shot through the passenger door. Yes, I'm going to return fire.

I'm going to return fire until that threat has been terminated and neutralized and is no longer a danger to me, any other officers, or the community. It's a legitimate shooting, and the media may play it otherwise, but absolutely this was justified 100%. Viva, here's some of the reaction. The family's attorney comes out and says these plainclothes officers did not announce they were police officers. Okay. Footage does show many in plainclothes, but some were wearing vests with the word police written all over them. He called on the Chicago mayor to disband the tactical units that have been terrorizing the communities. He asked how many more young black and brown men need to die before this city will change. And then the Chicago mayor, this far lefty, Brendan Johnson, weighs in with

the following statement. As mayor and as a father raising a family, including two black boys on the west side of Chicago, I am personally devastated to see yet another young black man lose his life during an interaction with the police. If what we've just seen holds up, that is incredibly irresponsible. Megan, I was going to make the sick joke that, you know, just see what LeBron James is tweeting about this and then you know the opposite is true. You remember that the cop who shot the woman as she was about to stab someone saved a kid's life and got demonized. Yeah, I mean, look, I will always wait a little bit longer before taking an opinion because it could be that the first shots might have been from the cops on one side shooting to the other and it's just massive confusion some people could hypothesize that they planted the gun afterwards to frame the guy i don't know what you know until you know definitively what the facts are um you should you know hold off

forming an opinion but if it turns out the person fires first on police officers, OK, 46 shots, 72 shots, however many shots they shot. If somebody opens fire on the cops, A, they've relinquished any expectation to live anymore. And B, you can't have these lefty progressive politicians whipping people up into race baiting frenzies. It's absolutely irresponsible, but it's done on purpose. I'll say in this case, I'll wait a little bit more. See who fired first. I think I know what I think, but they should release the body cam footage sooner than later to at least not allow the media to run with fake narratives for extended periods of time. By the time they release it, everyone's already formed their opinion. Mm hmm. FYI, we don't see that LeBron has yet tweeted anything on this, though. The day is young, But I will give you a couple of media headlines. Washington Post. Police fire 96 shots in 41

seconds, killing black man during traffic stop. No mention that the cops are black. What is why is his race in here at all? OK, AP News. Deadly Chicago traffic stop where police fired 96 shots raises serious questions about use of force. It does. What would you do if you got shot at as the cops are alleging here? CBS news, why did the Dexter Reed traffic stop shootout with Chicago police escalate so rapidly? And then there's this block club Chicago, which we mentioned with a fair headline, Dexter Reed shot cop before officers returned fire 96 times, Watchdog says, as video released. The media is going to try to spin this fell into a race war without covering the race of the cops, as we saw in that one

shooting that involved or beat down that involved five black cops. The media will ignore. They don't care if it's black cops hurting a black man. That's their internalized racism caused by white supremacy. If it's black cops getting shot at by a black man who shot first, the issue is how many times they returned fire. This is how they spin these things to fit a political narrative rather than just searching for real facts. Well, they learn so well from when we at the beginning of the show, we talked about Johnny Cochran using the race card, playing it from the bottom of the deck and getting the acquittal in O.J. Simpson. Fast forward to 2024, playing of the race card has become the standard and people are getting the media in

particular is getting very, very good at it because what they're trying to do is they're trying to further divide the public along racial and socioeconomic lines. And of course, it being an election year makes it only worse. But if you take it and you look at it objectively and fairly, and you put yourself in that scene as an officer on the scene, your life is in danger. Your colleagues' lives are in danger. It doesn't matter what race anybody is. It doesn't matter what gender anybody is. What matters is there's rounds coming at you from inside that vehicle. And you've got to do what you've got to do to stop that. Because if you don't, and you can worry about the headlines later, but if you don't stop that threat, whether it's one round or a hundred rounds fired, if you don't stop that

threat, other people are going to die and the community is not safe and so you've got to protect yourself and protect the lives of those around you and worry about unfortunately the headlines later viva what do you make of the fact that the cops are saying they pulled this guy over for not wearing a seat belt and those windows don't like you could look like they could ever be seen through by a cop in another car seeing whether somebody's wearing a seatbelt. Well, I mean, conceivably, the front window or the windshield is not tinted. So they could have seen him through the windshield.

The bottom line is, you know, I never worked in law enforcement. I just have a neurotic mother and a neurotic father who say, do what the cops tell you, even if they're wrong for telling you to do it. And so they pull you over not wearing a seatbelt. The fact is, you know, it sounds like there was, the guy might have had an illegal firearm in the car and is in much more trouble than just not having a seatbelt done up.

And it escalates. I mean, it is tragic. The bottom line though, is that you're not gonna stop giving people traffic tickets for fear that they might have unlawful firearms in the car and, you know, use them at a traffic stop. That's not how you enforce law and order by letting everyone get away with everything because it might escalate to something that's going to be, you know, given bad press. So I

think they could have seen it through the windshield. But bottom line, you get pulled over. We've raised a culture of not doing what police say to do because, I don't know, of my rights. But police abuse can be taken care of in a different context. Escalating to this point, you cannot then say, well, they shouldn't have pulled him over in the first place. How about this irresponsible mayor? Shame on him for that statement. Shame on him for pouring gasoline on this budding fire before he knows everything, before we've gotten back anything. We don't know. Have they done a drug test on on Reed? Do we know what happened? Obviously, he's at the coroner's office and they'll be running all of those tests or was there and they'll have

had all the information. All right. Before I let you go, we've got to touch on Fannie Willis, because you're here and you're a Fannie guy. She is asking the appeals court to refuse to consider Trump's appeal on her disqualification. The defense team says you need to take the case because they found, if not an actual impropriety, at least the appearance of impropriety for both of these folks. And this needs to be resolved before we go to trial. So it's up to the appeals court whether they want to hear this. What are the odds they're going to take it?

And what did you make of the arguments? Well, I've said it on my YouTube channel. I've said it on Viva's YouTube channel. And now I'm saying it on your show and your channel. I think the Court of Appeals is going to take the appeal. I think that once they take it, I think they're going to have no choice but to disqualify Fannie Willis. This is the kind of case where, look, if you don't want to go forward with, you know, the judge is talking about having multiple trials and doing, and of course,

he's still litigating motions. You don't want to go through this process and have multiple trials and potentially convict people only to find out after the fact through the regular appeal process that the prosecutor on the case wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. There's going to be a panel of judges on the Georgia Court of Appe. There's going to be a panel of judges on the Georgia Court of Appeals that's going to be assigned this, and it only takes one. One of those individuals has to agree to take the case, the appeal that is, pre-trial. And then, of course, it takes two of the three to reverse Judge McAfee. Judge McAfee did, he basically found everything that the defense wanted him to find.

He found the odor of mendacity. He found the pall that's draped over it. He found financial irregularities. He found all of the things that go into making up the ingredients for disqualification, if you will. But he didn't quite go as far as he needed to go. The defense has the, they're in the catbird seat. The judge wrote a very good order, notwithstanding his mistaken conclusion. I think they're going to get the appeal. I think they're going to get her removed from the case. Do you agree, Viva? Well, I predicted that she was going to get removed

in the original judgment. Scott McAfee went just up to the edge and then not over. She has to get removed. I mean, the judge's order is a blueprint for removal. She's a liar. What she did was legally improper in front of the church. She didn't mention the defendants by name, but she certainly made it clear she was talking about them. She's made mistake after mistake after mistake.

She was dishonest under oath. She was unprofessional on the bench. And yet, only one of the two goes, only one of the two bank robbers goes to jail. She had to get disqualified. I predicted it originally. If the Court of Appeals takes it, which I think they will, and she does get disqualified, I will be vindicated. The odor of mendacity, Megan, that shall live and echo throughout the ages. Odor of mendacity. Yes, it really is. It's like lingering in the room, you know, like a pepe lefure.

The odor of ael. Yes, it really is. It's like lingering in the room, you know, like a pepe. The odor of a fanny. Yeah. Sorry, that was childish of me. No, that was perfect. What a great way to end. We started on a dark note and we ended on a light, fun one. Viva, Phil, you guys are the best. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thanks for having us. Great to see you both. I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph,

a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly. You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now.

Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Now we turn to some cultural news with two super smart amazing women uh and who better to talk about the latest uh of with men continue to invade women's spaces to some very detrimental consequences who who could ever have predicted this that's where we're going to kick it off

joining me now rip mayor founder of rootedings and Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Blaze TV's Relatable podcast and author of the book, You're Not Enough and That's Okay. Ladies, welcome back to the show. I'm so happy to have you. Thank you, Megan. Thank you so much. Okay. So there's a couple of related incidents. We are learning more facts about that male basketball player posing as a woman in the Massachusetts high school where three girls got injured when playing against him to the point where they had to call the game.

You've seen this video, right? The six foot tall guy claiming he's a woman, Lazuli Clark, that he was shown in that picture there. So we now have a bunch of background on him that we are going to get to. But before I get to this, I want to start with planet fitness. Okay. And just, just like before we do this, a little, a little throwback on how, you know, back in the day, there were not women's rooms and men's rooms or women's locker rooms and men's locker rooms that came about the segregated facilities for a reason. And it was that women were concerned about their safety because over 90 plus percent of

all sexual assaults are done by men against women. That's just how it goes, especially when it comes to stranger assaults. And women were worried about places in which they change or remove clothing being assaulted in their most private and intimate moments. So anyway, here we are all these years later where they're allowing men into our bathrooms and our locker rooms and our sports and so on without any thought for why these sex segregated facilities and rules came about in the first place. And in sports, there are all sorts of reasons in addition to the ones I talked about. So Planet Fitness was in the news recently, thanks to Libs of TikTok. You guys, I know, saw this story where this guy went in,

in Alaska. He had his stubble. He was shaving his beard. There was a minor present. And instead of expelling the guy, Planet Fitness expelled the customer who took the picture and complained and said, we stand by him because we're for inclusivity. Now flash forward to today, courtesy of WSOC TV in Charlotte. The headline is suspect arrested after going into women's locker room charged with indecent exposure. Okay. How did this happen? According to WSOC TV, his name is Christopher Allen Miller. He's 38. He was arrested after he went into the women's locker room on Thursday at the planet fitness there. This is the mugshot. Imagine this guy coming into your women's room. And under these circumstances,

listen, um, planet fitness allows members, they report, to use the restroom and locker rooms that they identify with as part of their no judgment motto. However, some members say they're worried and believe that Christopher Allen Miller misused the policy. You tell me what you ladies think. They say they were stunned the women were to see him in the women's locker room. And here's the exchange with 911. We don't have a tape of it, but here it is. And what's he wearing? Asked the dispatcher.

Nothing. Literally nothing, says the caller. Okay, so he is completely naked? He is completely naked, says the caller. Sources tell Channel 9 Miller asked a woman to rub lotion and shower together. Question, is that man still there, says the dispatcher? Yeah, he's still in the bathroom, is the response. It's a man, but he says he identifies as a woman and won't leave the restroom.

But he's just walking around showing us his and won't leave. So Planet Fitness wants us to know that they took immediate action because they have zero tolerance for harassment of any kind. They endangered the women in this locker room and they have endangered women coast to coast because we're all subject to this policy. If you go to a Planet Fitness and beyond, because there are places like many states that by law, you have to let the man saying he identifies as a female into the facility. And the consequences to the women be damned. They're very lucky this guy did not rape somebody in that locker room with his penis out asking for lotion and a shower together. This is disgusting.

Planet Fitness can't just act like it did something responsible. They are the reason it happened to begin with. Britt, I'll start with you. Yeah, it makes me want to vomit. And this is the logical conclusion of all of these demonic ideologies. And we're supposed to act surprised now. Surprise! There's a guy in a woman's locker room with his penis out asking for a rub.

Why are we supposed to look shocked? This is where it was always headed. You know, 20 years ago, we were concerned if we were at a rest stop and there was a guy in a woman's bathroom. But now that's just, we're supposed to take that as being totally normal. And then on top of that, you have places like Planet Fitness and YMCA embracing these cult, cult ideologies. That's what they are. They're cult ideologies that says that sex can be separated from gender. It's a demonic lie and women will continue to be hurt and degraded over these. It's disgusting.

It's amazing, Allie Beth, to see now they're like, oh, well, you know, the system worked the way it should, you know, with law enforcement came and he's been charged. No, that doesn't save them. No, the system is now women have no recourse. We're not allowed to call or to get someone in trouble. If this man who identifies as a woman comes into the locker room, sexually harasses us and exposes himself to us, now we get in more trouble for misgendering this individual than the man who exposes himself to a young woman, a minor, like he did in Alaska.

And so that is the system that Planet Fitness has put in place. This man was just following their rules. Their rules say that if you state that you are a woman with a penis, that you can go into a locker room and it's all fine. Doesn't matter if there's a six-year-old girl in there. It doesn't matter if other women are changing. This is the system that planet, uh, fitness is put in place. And so this is the consequences of their actions. They can't save face now. Okay. So that brings me to this athlete in Massachusetts. It's a male participating in women's sports. And we all saw the videotape of him taking the ball. He's for the place with a KIPP Academy,

taking the ball from an opposing player on the girls team. And she falls down to the floor and is writhing in pain. This poor girl, look at him. He uses his male power to make sure he gets that ball. He rests it from her. She can't get up. Look at her. She's unable to stand back up. You can see her grimacing face. She's, she has her hand on her back. She, she keeps rolling around. She can't move. She can't, she can't rise. Two other girls were also hurt the same game and they had to end the game early. The coach for the opposing team with all the hurt girls. Well, guess what? This guy's been up to no good for quite some time. So there have been a couple of reports now, one from Quillette, and then there's another one now in the Daily Mail about

this, as the Daily Mail puts it, bearded six foot tall trans athlete who's been going from female sport to female sport and what has reportedly been going on. All right. This is Quillette says this same six foot tall trans student, last name Clark, participated in multiple different female sports, not all at the school, but multiple sports, including rowing, volleyball and taekwondo. In volleyball, this man, as a female, was named a Commonwealth Atlantic Conference All-Star. He scored more, quote, kills in the volleyball season in 23 to 24, 171, than the rest of the team combined. He got 171. The whole team combined got 131. He joined a female rowing team at a private club in Massachusetts

in 21 after allegedly doing poorly on the male team. This is, you know, one of those memes that goes around online. Women's sports is not a place for failed male athletes, you know, to try to feel good about themselves. The transgender athletes participation allegedly caused issue for the fellow rowers, according to a copy of a letter sent to U.S. Rowing, the sports national governing body signed by 15 concerned parents. One of the parents told the magazine the athlete did not bother to shave his stubble, even continued wearing the male team's uniform. Final straw was an incident in 22 when the rower, the man, allegedly walked into the girls changing room, observed a teammate

who was topless and said, Ooh, titties in reference to her breasts. When another rower in the locker room asked if it was the first time this teammate had seen female breasts, he reportedly replied, uh, yeah, with a laugh. And then the Kippa Academy student, this guy was subsequently reported to the U S center for safe sport resulting in his suspension from the rowing team. But joining the basketball team because that incident where he hurt the girls was just recent was apparently fine. Bear with me. I know this is going on, but I just want to get all the facts as alleged by these two news outlets. Daily Mail added to the volleyball story or the rowing story, the rowing story. It was a private rowing club in Massachusetts in 21, 22. So he got suspended after that. Ooh, titties comment as he is in the girls locker room, these poor girls trying to row and just do better in life.

This report that was filed claimed that he, they're using she at the Daily Mail, we aren't doing that, of course, he caused many issues for the female athletes on the team, who then avoided using the locker room because of this guy. The U.S. Center for Safe Sport intervened after the incident, and that athlete never rode for the male or female teams again. A letter to U.S. Rowing from 15 parents, this is expanding now in Quillette's reporting, claims the girls were intimidated into silence.

Our daughters have stayed quiet because they're afraid, they quote one parent. We tried to speak up with them. We were shut down, reads the letter. We tried to speak to leaders at all letters, but name calling and the threat of mental health is being used as an emotional blackmail tool to keep us all quiet while women are harmed and devalued. Parents said one girl on every trip had to take one for the team and share a room with this guy. On their road trips, the rowing team also required the male athlete to room with them on the trips. The girls spoke to us about quitting rowing because of the intimidation of being forced into a hotel room alone with the male. We have not been able to reach out to this student, Mr. Clark, directly, though he's welcome to provide us a statement and or come on with his side of the story.

These are allegations for now, as reported by Quillette and the Daily Mail. But this is an outrage, Ali Beth, that this guy over and over was reportedly sicked on these girls to the point where he's emotionally hurting them and physically hurting them. Yeah. People need to understand something about this so-called gender confusion, gender deception. While there are cases of true gender dysphoria, it is very rare. What we are seeing now, in my opinion, from what I've seen over the past few years, is that these are a lot of porn sick young men who have a sexual fetish that involves the humiliation and the degradation and objectification of women. And so in my opinion, this guy, if these allegations are true, he actually gets off on embarrassing these women walking into a locker room and seeing

them naked, making comments like that, that are obviously very belittling, objectifying, and then injuring women on the basketball court. Even a guy just a, you know, a normal guy who is attracted to women is not doing something like that. He's not excited about the idea of hurting a woman. Your normal teenage guy doesn't want to compete against women on a basketball team because that would be embarrassing and belittling for him. And so this guy has a sexual perversion, in my opinion. And we have been so, especially as women and especially as Christian women, so empathy shamed into giving so much space and so much defense of these men in the name of trying to affirm them and comforting them in their confusion.

They're not confused. These guys know that they are guys. They get off on humiliating women and there should be zero empathy for that. I mean, to support your opinion, we don't know if this guy's an autogynephile, but there is an overwhelming number of them in the trans community who get off, they get sexually pleasured by dressing like women and they, then they want to go parade themselves around women. And you tell me Brit, what, what kind of, you know, like trans person, who's not an autogynephile walks in there and says, ooh, titties. Again, it's an accusation to which we don't have his response. Yeah, I was thinking on all of this and the the whole trans ideology is unsustainable because it's not real.

It there is no such thing as trans. There is no such thing as trans. There is no such thing as transgender. And I was thinking about how important words are in the world and how they almost act as the bodyguards of ideas. And as soon as you start conceding words and adopting a new language, you start adopting and embracing ideology. And it's hard to get out of that. So as I was reading this story, I thought, hmm, the word trans and the word gender, well, you can't trans sexes. There's no such thing. A man cannot become a woman. So we need to stop using the term trans. And then gender didn't come around until the 1950s with John Money, who was this corrupt,

fraud, perverted doctor whose experimentation on these two Reimer boys ended up in an abject failure and all his receipts were completely fraudulent. And the boys, both of them ended up committing suicide, but he hailed it as a success that you can actually force a child. His word was that children are plastic and you can cause a child who is a boy to become a girl. And he played

this out with these two Reimer brothers and these boys ended up committing suicide. Both of them, just absolutely tragic. But that's the one that they, the one who he tried to say was a girl when he was really a boy, he killed himself with this. Yeah. And you know, it, there's a lot there, but both were, yeah, both were death by suicide. So you look at where the word gender came from. Gender comes from that boys poison. So the word gender comes from John money's perverted, disgusting, debased, chaotic mind. The word trans does cannot be applied to sexes. You can't trans sexes. So therefore, the word transgender is a made up lying word. It does not exist. It has no there is no reason to use that word in our English language.

And as soon as we start using that word and we're applying it to guys like this disgusting student who's a man playing against girls, we weede truth and we're saying, OK, we'll adopt your language. It's a transgender playing on a team. No, it's not. It's a perverted, just like a perverted boy that has something very wrong with him mentally, who's being allowed in women's spaces. And this ideology is going to run its course. It's not sustainable. But so many girls are going to be hurt mentally and physically because of it. And I think one of the first steps is to stop using made up words. And one of the ones that we have to stop using is transgender. It does not exist.

To be clear, that's Britt's opinion that he's mentally unwell, but this is, you know, this, we've seen this over and over where someone just declares themselves trans. Like we saw in the planet fitness thing after doing something inappropriate. It's like, this guy is naked in a planet fitness gym, parading around, asking women to massage him and take a shower with him. And he's, as he's getting arrested, I'm trans. It's like these people who are going to the women's prisons who are suddenly trans, but I'm Brits. Brits comment about language and how it matters. I think we're all going to stand up and applaud talk TVs, Julia Hartley Brewer in a great exchange she had with a presenter. That's what they call them across the pond. Shivani Dave, who I guess, well,

you'll see what Shivani goes by and how Julia Hartley Brewer, who I really would like to know, handles it. Watch this. Good afternoon, Julia. You know my pronouns, are they them? How are you doing? Yeah. Thank you for telling me your pronouns i use correct grammar so the only i only think i would need to refer you to is to your face would be you but i'm not being rude you can choose your pronouns you can choose what you want to call yourself but you don't have you don't get to require me to use incorrect grammar and factually incorrect things you're not a plural you're a you're a one person and you're a you're a female person so i will use she and her thank you very much do what you like i guess you didn't need to tell me then did you maybe i'm just

making sure people know in case they're watching and they want to refer to me respectfully is it disrespectful for me to use correct factual grammar it's not incorrect or unfactual grammar to use singular they them pronouns for an individual but we're here to talk about the cast review but you chose to bring it up you chose to use the incorrect

pronouns for me I chose to use the correct pronouns for a single woman who is appearing on my show God bless her Ali Beth you never see that I my gosh i love that so much and i feel like that exchange was a lot more polite probably than how it would have been over here even the guest i think that she actually was a little shocked that the host pushed back on her at all and did so in such like an insistent and polite way. I loved that. I loved that she tried to declare

her pronouns right off the bat. The host was just like, nah, I'm not going there. Good for her. Not having it. I know we need a lot more just like it. And, you know, she understood to the guest was polite, but she's right. The presenter was right that the guest raised it. If it's if you're not trying to make me say it, then why raise they, them, when I've introduced you as a, she, or as a, her, she was trying to force it. She was trying to scold her as not appropriate as potentially bigoted and Brit, the, our hopefully soon to be friend, um, talk to Hartley Brewer, was on to her. Yeah, I loved her. I saw that yesterday and I'm like, who is this brilliant woman? Such an example

of how we can contend for truth without wavering. And kind of in what Ali said about how there's this sense of shame if you stand for truth and for what's right. Well, she's leading us in an example of how you don't bend. You don't have to be rude. There was nothing she said that was disrespectful, but she harnessed truth. She harnessed back the words and said, I'm not going to cede language. You are a single female. So that's how I'll refer to you. I think that that's an example for all of us. And I absolutely love her. I hope she comes on the show because she's amazing. I know. I want to know her. I'm definitely going to extend her an invitation. She seems super fun. OK, so that's somebody who does what I do as a journalist doing it right. And here's somebody who does what I used to do, which is being a lawyer. And I would

submit to my esteemed panel doing it wrong. Look, Britt's laughing because she knows where I'm going with this clip. So this is a lawyer who goes by the name Stephanie Muller, who is a man posing as a woman and also as a drag queen. She looks like he looks like a drag queen in court. Here's a clip of him talking about his client. My comment about my client? Yeah, I just met her. She's really nice. She's really smart. She sounds like she's got the right idea about things. I really support what she's up to. And I think it's fabulous. Oh, my God. For the listening audience, this man, he looks like Kayla Lemieux. It looks like the Canadian shop teacher with enormous fake breasts with protruding nipples, like weirdly protruding nipples and a very low cut top and drag queen makeup on. This is not somebody who's trying to

pass. He's trying to like parade. I don't know his sexual fetish in front of all of us and have us participate with him, Allie Beth, you tell me your opinion on what's happening there. Beautiful dainty princess with such a, like a beautiful feminine voice, just gorgeous, gorgeous girl, gorgeous girl. I hate to bring us back to this because it's so disturbing, but again, I see this as the humiliation ritual. And unfortunately I'm going to have to familiarize if the audience doesn't already know, with something that goes on in these gender bending dark corners of the internet world. And that is something called a sissy task. These men who get off on becoming women or pretending to be women and sometimes even pretending to be young girls.

In these kind of pornographic chat rooms, they are given tasks or they take on tasks to do out in public like dress like a ridiculous caricature of a girl or a woman. And they actually are sexually satisfied by performing something that is purposely subjugating and humiliating. I do not know, of course, if that's what this person is doing. But unfortunately, as has been reported many times by Redux, that is very often what is going on here. So this person, when it comes to this and this persona that he's putting on, does not

deserve our compassion. Of course, he's an individual with all of the rights that are afforded to individuals and the respect that kind of stops there. But as far as his identity, the fact that we are giving it any credence at all, that we are taking it seriously in any sense. I mean, it's personally offensive to me as a woman, but it is disgusting that we are normalizing, celebrating, glamorizing this kind of sexual perversion. You know, back when I was practicing law, if you went into court, like even in a skirt and a T-shirt, you'd get called out by the judge. There's a high likelihood the judge could say, Miss Kelly, do you think that's an appropriate outfit for this courtroom? And you'd be embarrassed. There

was a certain standard expected, a certain level of decorum. And it wasn't sex based. If a man did it, he'd get called out to just respect for the core and its system. And you have this person who's clearly it's very obvious to me she's working out some sort of a he sexual fetish on us with these enormous breasts exposed, exposed. I haven't seen that much breast since Lauren Sanchez last night at the steak dinner for the Japanese prime minister. It was obscene. You know, you mentioned autogynephilia. And I think with him, again, everything that I when I suggest anything, it's thoughts that I have. I can't conclusively say that this guy has autogynephilia. But when you're rocking a plastic bodysuit that clearly has

boobs that no woman has ever owned naturally, and nipples that are protruding, you know, the size of my pinky. First, like Ali said, it is a total mockery of women. And it's that ritual that we've seen in those, you know, the sissy chat rooms and all of that. But on top of that, that autogynephilia comes to mind where it's like, what is he getting off on in not only humiliating, but also having this arousal toward these boobs that he's put on himself, this self arousal. It's disturbing. He looks like a trans sexual. What I mean, is that even a crossdresser? Cause I'm not going to use trans anymore. He looks like a crossdresser. Thank you. Like prostitute in a courtroom. It's it just it takes our law and turns it into a circus, which I mean, a lot. He looks like a drag queen. He calls

himself. I am a role model, he says about himself. I'm a role model for the transgendered community. Are you? All right. I don't. Well, maybe he is the words. Maybe he is. Maybe that's where this is headed, y'all. I think we might be headed here. Look at this. This is ridiculous. Why should the court personnel, his opposing counsel, his clients, I mean, who would hire him? The judge and God forbid a jury have to stare at this and be part of what is more than likely a sexual fetish. I mean, what's happening, right? You have to ask. It's like with Leah Thomas. You have to ask yourself what's happening. Is there an erection down below? Is he actually going to go to the

to the quote ladies room where the jury has to go later and get off because of his big fake titties in front of these innocent jurors who are just getting called down there to do their duty? That's this is the reality. Then the juries leave to go for a workout at Planet Fitness and bam, another penis and a guy asking you to massage it. Then they get home from work and there's their young daughter who just got home from school where she had to play against a six foot guy who's already gotten in trouble for walking in on naked girls and saying, oh, titties, what the fuck are we doing to ourselves? I mean, it's a new form of the patriarchy, baby. I guess finally, these liberal feminists, I have a friend who says this often, that liberal feminists finally found a group of men that

they're willing to submit to. And here we are. They got fake boobs. The fake women. Let's talk about Trump and abortion, because he released a statement earlier this week on where he stands on, quote, abortion rights. Then we saw this Arizona court high court decision saying this law from 1864 is resumed, that it stands and therefore only abortions for necessary to preserve the life of the mother should be allowed. And then Trump weighed in on that. Here is here he is weighing in on Arizona in 44. Mr. President, did Arizona go too far? Did Arizona go too far?

Yeah, they did. And that'll be straightened out. And as you know, it's all about states' rights. That'll be straightened out. And I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason. And that will be taken care of, I think, very quickly. Allie Beth, what do you make of that? Yeah, you know, I wasn't a huge fan of Trump's statements on abortion. I understand from a pragmatic political position why he kind of has to moderate on it. And, you know, I feel like he

probably personally is a moderate on abortion, and that is a position to take. However, of course, those of us over here who are, you know, ardent pro-life evangelical Christians, I just don't agree because there is no difference in a baby that's conceived by rape or by incest and a baby that's not. And I'm looking at it from that perspective, from the human rights of the child. And because killing an innocent person is wrong in all cases, then I'm against abortion in all cases. Again, I get it. And I still think that he is a better alternative to Joe Biden, who says abortion through all nine months, subsidized by the taxpayer with no apology. So if I have to pick one, the choice is obvious. But of course, that doesn't reflect my position on abortion.

And if he truly means, OK, states rights, leave it up to states rights. First, I would say there have been past human rights atrocities that we've justified by states rights. But if he really means that, then butt out of it, butt out of Arizona, butt out of Alabama, allow their legislature to do what they need to do according to the will of the people that elected them. Hmm. to do what they need to do according to the will of the people that elected them. You know, I've always said, because I've been, you know, asking presidential candidates questions about abortion for a long time in particular. And I've always said that that position that you just took is really the only truly consistent one on life. Like if you're pro-life, why would you be

for rape and incest exceptions? Like if you believe abortion islife, why would you be for rape and incest exceptions? Like if you believe abortion is murder, why would you murder an innocent baby who was conceived through a terrible way, but through no fault of his own? There are a lot of people who have been born to mothers who chose to have the baby anyway. Like you're basically telling them you're, there's something wrong with you. There's something sort of evil. Your existence shouldn't have happened. That makes perfect sense to me. You're giving the death penalty

to the baby rather than the rapist. Yeah. Yeah. So I understand that. But Trump was very much like even in a statement the other day, Brett, which I know you had some criticism of, too. He was like, absolutely. We always have to have rape and incest, always those exceptions, and kind of was more pragmatic about where the Republican party needs to stand now that Roe has fallen on these. And yes, he's saying states, you know, states, right. States, right. But that gives the green light and you could argue a lack of leadership on, you know, the way forward when it comes to life. Yeah. I was super disappointed with his, and I made that clear. I was very disappointed with his

forward position on his stance on abortion. And even where I struggle is I get the moderate view. I am passionately for the abolition of slavery nation or for the abolition of abortion nationwide. And that does tie into the abash. Yeah, both of them. It does. And it totally ties in. And the 14th Amendment is the tie. You cannot say that people are from God given the inalienable right to life and it can't be deprived by any state and then say except for those it, the 14th amendment says, no, you can't, you can't say that. And you also can't say that states get to decide which people are worthy for the right to life. This is a federal protected right that comes from God and it's not given by government. And I wish he would have leaned into that. He didn't. And I get, you know,

the political playbook and how you have to kind of try to straddle the fence. I don't like it. But there's a difference between my personal convictions and looking at who we have on the table in front of us, who are the politicians. I was just at a night with RFK Jr. a few nights ago, and he made it very clear that he is for a woman's right to choose with her doctor free of any government interference. That's his position. So you have that you have Biden, Ali just covered Biden's position, which is diabolical. And then you have Trump, who, you know, on this, I think it was lame duck. I didn't like it. But I look at it as the dogs we have in the fight. And which one are we going to be able to leash and bring under submission? And I think Trump on abortion is the one that we are most able to leash and bring into the

conservative aisle. Yeah, the the this tweet from Charlie Kirk is interesting. Ali Beth, you know, he's very, very pro-life. And he tweets out the following. I'm 100 percent pro-life. I've spent countless hours defending the pro-life. And he tweets out the following, uh, I'm 100% pro-life. I've spent countless hours defending the pro-life position on campus and in the media to all my fellow pro-lifers. We must be passionate as well as strategic. And the choice is simple. If you allow November to become a referendum on abortion, evidence suggests our side will lose and more

babies will die. If we win in November, we will be positioned to claw back radical pro-abortion policies while we continue to persuade more voters of the horrors of killing babies. Win and we can save lives, right, about the life issue, he's almost ensuring a loss and a Joe Biden victory who is not going to legislate the way the pro-life side wants. So it's like you've got to be smart about how to win elections. I, of course, understand that argument. My question is who is going to vote for trump because of this issue that is like on the fence i'm thinking of that i don't know suburban mom who is pro-choice like is she really pro-trump and other in other ways like is this going to attract that woman

which specific demographic which specific voter is he going for here? I just don't believe that there is maybe. But again, I think that those people, they are probably center and independent in other ways that do not align them with Trump. I just don't think that there are very many voters out there who are thinking, oh, I would vote for Trump if only he would moderate on abortion. I just don't believe that. I think those voters are going to vote for RFK. They're going to not vote. They're going to vote for Joe Biden. I don't think they're interested in voting for Trump. I think strategically what's happening is that he's making it more difficult for someone like me who has to make the Christian case to my audience and to other Christian women to vote for him. It makes me feel

less enthusiastic. I feel less morally driven to do it because right now I have three pro-choice candidates. And while I totally agree with Britt that this is the best option that we've got, the best hope that we have for pro-life policy, if he wins, it still makes me less inclined to be a Trump apologist. And if I feel like that, I bet a bunch of other Christian women do as well. And so I just think that that is probably a loss. Yeah, you said something interesting about RFKJ, Britt. Every once in a while, you get reminded that he's a Democrat. He's not a Republican in Democrat or independent clothing. Yes, I was actually surprised at how forthcoming he was.

It was a private event. And it's actually posted on my rooted period wings on Instagram. You can go check it out because I thought he was going to kind of hedge and hide it a little bit. And he just came out swinging and said, you know, and I that's exactly what I thought. Well, there's a Democrat like your Democrat is showing, you know. I also think it's interesting that we're told, you know, don't make this a one issue vote when it comes to November. But that's what Biden's doing.

Biden's only drum that he is banging is abortion, abortion, abortion. That's the people who are voting Biden. That's what they're voting Biden in on is that policy. That is his number one only thing left, his last Hail Mary desperation. So it's interesting that, you know, I vet all candidates very honestly, dog in the fight. But I think we need to be able to be honest in conversation about the policies that these politicians are upholding and be able to have dialogues like this, because it's honestly the only way that we will be able to demand better from our politicians. If we venerate and whitewash their policies and ideologies, then why would we expect any better when they actually get into office? Good point. You know, I was thinking about something that we had we discussed in our first hour with our legal panel about how, you know, the New York state criminal trial is going to happen against Trump starting Monday on this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and the whole bit. And we were talking about how this case, well, you know, it's serious. It's a criminal charge. But I think a lot of people sort of recognize it for the

political hack job that it is. It really could like. There's a lot hanging in the balance on Monday, beginning Monday. If, as I said to the panel, then if 50 percent of independents mean what they say and one third of Republicans mean what they say, that they actually really don't think they could pull the lever for a, quote, convicted felon. And they didn't make exceptions for the New York trial. Then a conviction in this trumped up BS case could actually potentially ensure a Joe Biden presidency. I know we don't believe that, but it could. If you believe the polling, that's what will happen. And you're talking about, of course, the abortion issue. You're going to have way more abortions with a Joe Biden in the White House than a Trump. Yep. I think. But think about even just the trans issue. Think

about right now what's happened in the past couple of weeks. Riley Gaines and other athletes have filed this lawsuit against the NCAA saying you didn't protect us. You subjected us to people like Leah Thomas, failed male athlete trying to win in the women's lane, walking around intact male naked in the locker room, enjoying it, obviously. And think about what Joe Biden's trying to do to Title IX right now. The comment period has been extended. He's trying to change Title IX right now, which was enacted to protect women, girls in sports. He's trying to change it right now in ways that will be very detrimental on the trans issue. And in every lane, Ali Beth, he opens the door on the trans issue. He refuses to say the

word women's rights. Joe Biden doesn't believe in that. He only believes in trans rights. It's like trans women. Sure, he's into that. Actual women, not unless he's sniffing their hair. True. You know, so it's like a lot lays, a lot's in the balance beginning on this Monday. Yes, he's willing to talk about women's rights only when it comes to abortion. And that's actually what we see a lot with women's rights organizations. It's like, what's their what's their number one talking point? What's their number one priority? Is it like maternity leave? Is it protecting women in women's prisons?

Is it women's rights in other arenas, making sure that we feel safe and that we're treated equally? No, their number one issue is to ensure that women can get an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. Their number two issue is that men who identify as women can go into women's locker rooms and play on women's sports teams. And so the same thing with Joe Biden, of course, as a devout Catholic, he had to comment or the White House had to comment on what the Pope just said about the dangers of gender ideology and the evil of so called sex switching. And what a Korean Jean Pierre said, she just had to double down and say, Oh, no, he believes in transgender rights.

He believes in that transgenderism is great. He believes in protecting trans people like this is basically this and abortion is number one issues. And he is just as I'm worried about our girls, how anxious they are, how depressed they are, not our girls on this set, but you know, I'm talking about America's girls and how we're at record levels of anxiety and depression and suicidal ideation and the messages that they get every day through Instagram and Tik TOK and Snapchat and these false images of women, half of whom are walking around literally half naked with these artificial bodies as this impossible beauty standard that these girls never should even seek to attain. Nevermind, try to with the surgeries, the enormous, this, the tiny, that all combined. Um, and we're medicalizing them. And I saw Allie Beth, you did something on this in your show

recently, but we are now, we do it with boys too, but we're basically treating, starting to treat these girls as like the hysterics from, you know, like the forties, where if you had any sort of natural human emotions, you were soon to be shipped off to the asylum, right? Like the husband would have you shipped off or heavily medicated. And it's like, it's happening again. So can you talk about the interview you did on a recent podcast on this, because I thought this is a good topic. Yeah. Yeah. We've done quite a few episodes on this recently. I've had a psychologist on the show to talk about this, just the medicalizing of normal behavior, especially in children. So with boys,

very often they are given the diagnosis of ADHD. I'm not saying that that's always inaccurate, but sometimes boys are just rambunctious and they don't want to be seated for eight hours a day. And so you medicalize them, tame them to make sure that they can sit there, basically like zombies. And for young girls, especially teen girls who are hormonal, emotional, and moody, very often they are placed on birth control, which makes it worse. And then they're placed on some kind of SSRI. And rather than just being told, hey, it's normal to be sad, it's normal to be worried. They are told, no, you are depressed. No, you have anxiety. No, you have these kind of pathologies that we have to medicate. And they are not told that this can radically transform your personality. This can

change your ability to pay attention, to feel joy, to feel real sadness. It just kind of numbs you. And I'm not saying that medication should be condemned in all cases. I'm not saying that at all. But we are no longer teaching our young people, especially our young girls, who you're right, have so much on their plate right now and are facing so much. Rather than dealing with those root causes, we're saying, hey, here, take Lexapro, take this Prozac, take this Welbutrin and numb all of the pain. Don't think about it. And it'll just be fine. Then they're waking up at 25 remembering that they don't remember the last

12 years of their life. And all of these chickens have not yet come home to roost yet. And I am scared of what the future will look like when they do. I will say a word in defense of birth control. I was on it for basically my entire, you know, reproductive years, which I'm still technically in, but it's not happening. Um, I have no fallopian tube. So for one thing, um, also I'm now as old as Methuselah in any event, um, I liked the being on the birth control. I was not one of those people who had any emotional response to it. And I loved it for, among other reasons, you can have safe sex and you can control your family planning, but it also really helped with my skin. And I had acne, I mean, pretty much through my forties and it really helped me. So I know there's some pushback in some corners on birth control,

but I am a big fan. But to the point of like the SSRIs, Britt, and how over-prescribed they are now, especially to these young girls, I am with Allie Beth. I have real concerns about medicalizing emotions and also wallowing in any sadness or trauma. You know, the older I get, the more I really feel like compartmentalization works. The solution is not to get mired in the bad things that have happened to you. As much as you can kind of go Presbyterian and shove it down. Sorry, Doug. He's Presbyterian. Honestly, the better that I really think that works. And the more you lean into part B and that happened to the worse off you are. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we live in a culture of quick fix and honestly, anything can be fixed under a knife. You want to

change your gender. Here's a knife. You want to look 20 and you're 45. Here's a knife. You want to change your gender. Here's a knife. You want to look 20 and you're 45. Here's a knife. You, you know, so we're in this hyper-medicalized society. That's also driven by really not addressing root causes. It's just a series of band-aids. I actually, I, so you don't know a whole lot about my childhood, not to get into it, but it was very, very dark. And I went through a lot of like extremely challenging things and the Lord redeemed so much of that. Um, but when I was dealing with a lot of the trauma from my childhood, I was getting ready to get married and I started seeing one of the best therapists in San Diego to help me walk through it. And, um, all the trauma started to come back up, which is a common phenomenon if you haven't dealt with it because you've shoved it down and it's repressed.

So everything started coming back up. And the first thing was throwing pills at every manifestation of the trauma. And I ended up on so many medications and, you know, it numbed me. I was on so many mental and physical numbers that I just felt like I was in this haze and I was doing a lot of acting and Hollywood at the time. And I just remember like popping pills just to get through auditions and then having panic attacks set in. And then there was a pill for that. You know, there was always a fixed pill, but it was never getting to the real root. And even with this amazing therapist, it was just toss pills at me. So then when I got married and

wanted to, we wanted to start having a family, I was like, I have to get off all this medication. And it was probably one of the most difficult and challenging seasons of my life that no one prepared me for was to get off all the medication. It's the physical taxation on your body that that takes and the mental turmoil to get off of all these controlling drugs that have numbed you for so long. So for all these girls who are just being thrown medicine right now, it's like, that's not a long-term game plan. And eventually they're going to hit a point where they're going to want to get off of that. And then the trauma all floods back. If you haven't actually dealt with what's at the bottom, you know, it's still there when you get off all the drugs. So I just think that our society in general, it's too much of a push to medicalize as a fix it when instead of actually addressing the root and also looking

at, look, this was the past. The past was this big on a whiteboard, but you've got all of this, all of this that the Lord can redeem and that can be for the good. And that was for me, the biggest shift was seeing that and seeing how much potential I still had to live life free of the path work through it. But the, the medication was just a very temporary bandaid that actually caused more harm than good. I, I completely understand that. I, I, for me, I did not have dramatic trauma in my childhood. I mean, my dad died at a very young age and so that was traumatic, but I didn't have, you know, abuse or anything like that. Thank God. And, but I will say that my therapist who I love, and I had another great

one when I was getting divorced from my first husband, they were very, and have been very like present focused. Neither one was interested in discussing past trauma. It was, it's very much like, how are you feeling now? And how are you dealing with those feelings? And here are some other alternatives for how to deal with how you're feeling. And that for me has worked wonderfully. It doesn't require the dredging up of any painful experience. It's just new tools for managing emotions, which is really important. But I know like a lot of my friends now, you know, we're all getting older. And so my kids are a little on the younger side, but a lot of my friends have kids who are a little older who now are getting the SSRIs pushed on them. I mean, everywhere. It's like, you go to the guidance counselor, they want to put you on

one of these things. And you talked with somebody, Allie Beth, um, she won chopped. She won chopped a couple of years ago, Brooke, a chef. We pulled a soundbite. There's a little bit of it. And then you react on the backside. It's not 47. I had spent the better part of my 20s in New York City. I was objectively miserable. I was really depressed. I was having a lot of suicidal ideation. I had no emotion to anything. And it just kind of dawned on me that I had spent my entire adult life on powerful psychiatric drugs and that if they were working, I wouldn't be thinking about these things. And on top of that, it just bothered me that I clearly was so deeply unhappy in my life and I had made the decision that led me to that point through the lens of a powerful psychoactive agent. So I kind of started conversation we were talking about how, um, when she decided to get off the drugs, cold turkey, which she's not saying that she recommends,

talk to your doctor, but she decided, okay, I just don't want to do this anymore. She got off those drugs and she had all of these just awful, awful thoughts, thoughts of suicide, thoughts of violence, just out of her mind. And then but she also had these small windows of feeling joy. And so it was that those small windows of feeling joy for really the first time in her life. And she got off those medications that made her hold on and reminded her, okay, I'm not actually crazy. If I can hold on to these small feelings of joy that I've never had while on these medications, then maybe I can hold out. And eventually those feelings of joy and the feelings of normalcy, they got longer and longer to where she finally was able to live a normally and mentally stable or normal and mentally stable

life. And she realized that her childhood was really taken from her, maybe with good intentions. Her dad died, and so she had to deal with all of that. But she really didn't get to experience the normal range of human emotions because her sadness was called depression and anxiety. And she was medicated into numbness for about 20 years of her life. normal range of human emotions because her sadness was called depression and anxiety. And she was medicated into numbness for about 20 years of her life. We have sadness. It's human. And sometimes it lasts for a few months. A few years is rough. That's a different story, but you can get help in handling sadness that's non-hill related. You can do things to make sure you're sleeping better,

which is so critical. You can exercise. That's a natural way of improving mood and endorphins. You know, you can work out, you can improve your sleep. You can improve your nutrition. You can make my, my therapist always says three social a week. That's what he wants me to do. Three social. Um, so I'm like, does this count? This feels social. I don't know. Anyway, but that's good. Right. Just to get out there a little bit, put yourself out there. I'm like, does this count? This feels social. I don't know. Anyway, but that's good, right? Just to get out there a little bit, put yourself out there. I'm not saying this is a prescription for everybody. And I know that SSRIs have helped a lot of people, but we're just, it's too knee jerk now. It's too quick and it's becoming too common. You women are delightful. Will you please come back soon? I loved this time. You and with Allie. So wonderful. Such a,

it just feels like we're out to lunch, having a good conversation. I mean, this is double special right here. I got both of you. Yes, it's, it's happening. Yeah, totally. Tell your therapist. This counts for two. Thank you. I will. Right. This is definitely double. And you're right. It does feel good. All the best. See you soon. All right. And thanks to all of you for joining me today. We're going to be back tomorrow with Adam Carolla. Looking forward to that. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.