The Megyn Kelly Show - Tucker's Next Move, Harry's Quick UK Trip, and Trump's Wild Deposition, with Dan Wootton, Maureen Callahan, and Robert Gouveia | Ep. 545

Episode Date: May 8, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing the mass shooting at a Texas mall over the weekend, why the gun control zealots are stopping us from getting anything done to stop these murders, and what efforts could actually stop these prevalent shootings. Then she reveals new details about what's really happening behind-the-scenes in the war between Fox News and Tucker Carlson, what Tucker's next moves might be, the truth about what may be behind Tucker's exit, and more. Then Robert Gouveia, host of "Watching the Watchers," joins to talk about what may happen in the Trump defamation case, the shocking and a little bit hilarious Trump deposition videos, whether he'll be found guilty and what that would mean, the latest in the Jordan Neely case, whether the Marine who had Neely in a chokehold will be charged, and more. Then Dan Wootton, GB News host and Daily Mail columnist, joins to talk about how successful the King's coronation was, how Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were hoping it would fail, inside details about Harry's very quick trip across the pond, the truth about the relationship between the Queen and Markle, new accusations of racism and sexism about the monarchy, and more. Then Daily Mail columnist Maureen Callahan joins to talk about John Legend's comments about Megyn after Megyn's criticism of his wife Chrissy Teigen's White House Correspondents Dinner moment, the truth about Teigen and Legend, the trashy Met Gala this year, Anna Wintour's failing Vogue brand, new trans cultural stories and backlash, and more. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Here we are again, Monday, and another mass shooting in America, this time at a mall in Allen, Texas. The shooter was a 33-year-old Army veteran. Just learning as we go to air, per local ABC News in Dallas, the shooter was removed from the Army in 2008 for mental health concerns. What a shock. Nonetheless, the guy went on to get a license to work as a security guard, which we believe was his current profession. On Saturday, he killed eight people, including at

least one child and wounded at least seven others. The motive is still unclear, but police say they are investigating whether the shooter, who was Hispanic, had neo-Nazi sympathies based on a patch he wore that read RWDS. Police say that meant right wing death squad, something cops identified as a far right group online. Police also say he had several white supremacist posts on his social media, though, as far as we're aware, none has yet been released. He was killed by a cop who just happened to be at the mall. The mall had been declared a gun free zone, a gun free zone. Thank God that cop was there. I don't know about you, but I'm sick, sick, sick of opening up Twitter or watching the news to learn there's been

a yet another mass shooting in America. Sick of it. We have been over and over and over this. I have hosted countless debates. I have been as open-minded as anyone in this country to a possible change in laws that might diminish the chances of more of these happening. I am not some huge Second Amendment person, and I am not blind to possible change on either side. But nothing has worked to stop these shootings, and nothing proposed by these gun control advocates will work. I'm sorry, but the jury is in. We are not getting guns out of America and the changes we always default to debating in the wake of these things will not stop mass shootings. It's time to focus on other remedies. It is time to focus on other remedies.

Stop hijacking the debate, gun control advocates, zealots. It's like getting alligators out of the Everglades or tarantulas out of Mexico or sharks out of the ocean. It's not going to happen. There are too many, too many. We're too late to reverse this trend. There are 434 million guns in America, 434 million, according to the Trade Association for the U.S. firearm industry. Some 70% of those are semi-automatic guns. That's over 300 million. Those AR-15s, the left is desperate to ban. That's where they go after all these shootings.

There are about 20 million of those. We could ban AR-15s tomorrow and we would still have 300 million semi-automatic guns here, just about one for every person in America. For what it's worth, such a ban would never be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows these bans only if the outlawed gun is considered unusual and uncommon. The 20 million AR-15s will not qualify. Handguns are the most common weapon in America, and they are by far the most common gun used in mass shootings in this country. The deadliest school shooting of all

at Virginia Tech was committed entirely with semi-automatic pistols, pistols meaning handguns that fire one bullet per one trigger squeeze. That's what we mean by semi-automatic pistol. One bullet per one trigger squeeze. AR-15s are essentially the rifle, meaning long gun, version of those, version of the semi-automatic pistol. And they have been used in several high-profile, terrible mass shootings. Yes, they have, from Sandy Hook to the Vegas Massacre, which was the worst mass shooting of all time in the U.S. The point is, ban the AR-15 tomorrow. Go ahead and do it. And even if the high court were to uphold the ban, there'd still be 300 million pistols, just like the AR-15 in America. The guns already favored in the vast majority of mass shootings. We're not getting rid

of these guns. Why are we deluding ourselves? Why? I think it's because people get desperate. They get so upset by the mass shootings, as do I. Trust me. I have three young children, and they just look for something to blame. You know, maybe I am guilty of doing it, too, when it comes to mental health services. Maybe I'm deluding myself that those can actually help stop. But at least there's a shot in that lane, in the gun lane. There's no shot.

We've been doing this. We had an assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 through 2004. It failed. The DOJ's own study of the ban concluded it did not reduce gun violence. Okay, that's the government study. Two other studies done more recently in 2020 concluded the same. Gun violence committed with the banned weapons under the assault weapons ban went down. But quoting from the DOJ study here, the decline was offset by steady or rising use

of other guns. Duh. It's a free and vast country. We are going to have people who want to kill, sometimes on a mass scale. Sometimes they use cars. We saw that in Texas too yesterday. A second mass event, when a Hispanic man mowed down and killed the same number of people killed in that mass shooting at the mall, most of whom were migrants outside of a migrant facility. They're still trying to determine the motive. Don't forget what happened in Waukesha at the Christmas parade as that guy mowed down those innocent folks marching in the parade. Sometimes they use bombs, as we saw in Boston at the marathon. Murderers find a way. They ignored the multitude of gun laws already on the books. That's why we've seen so many mass shootings, not just in states like Texas, but in

blue states like New York and Connecticut and California. I've said it before and I will say it again. What we need more than anything is better mental health services in America. It won't solve it, but it actually would help. Better facilities for the mentally unwell and insane. A new kind of institution that is as secure as a prison, but that could provide humane conditions for those deemed to be a threat. And we could establish a reasonable review panel

to protect said person's civil liberties with appropriate reviews. Right now, if you know your kid's a sociopath and there are parents out there who do, I've interviewed them and I will be bringing you one such parent soon. And you suspect your child may be the next mass shooter. Trust me, these parents are out there. There's nothing to do with your kid. Psychiatrists will tell you they cannot counsel someone out of sociopathy or psychopathy. Law enforcement will tell you they can't lock somebody up who hasn't committed a crime. The standard for psychiatric institutionalization is too high. It's impossible.

We need to fortify soft targets like schools and malls. What parent wouldn't feel better knowing there's a good guy with a gun at their child's school like there happened to be at this mall? The carnage this weekend would have been far worse in Texas if that hero cop had not just happened to be there. These aren't all the solutions, but we need to stop getting mired in and immobilized by the never-ending gun debate. It too often prevents us from taking other necessary action. The left refuses to get off the guns to the point where these self-aggrandizing lawmakers down in Nashville, Tennessee, remember them? Through a childish fit, they had a tantrum on the floor of the statehouse when the legislature wanted to pass a law fortifying soft targets instead of focus exclusively on gun control. Well, thank goodness the lawmakers went ahead with their business anyway over the ridiculous protests of the guy with a megaphone trying to lead his supporters.

It's time to shame the gun control zealots for stopping any other reasonable debates around these shootings. I will offer my thoughts and prayers. I will. Stop trying to shame me for doing that. We need God in those moments more than any other. And just because you're not part of the gun control cult doesn't make it inappropriate. It is not inappropriate to share your thoughts and your prayers for the victims just because you don't see gun control measures as a solution because they haven't been in any state. And I will continue starting discussions about other remedies in the wake of these shootings. That's where I'm going to go each time. Discussions about other remedies such that we at least stand a chance of reducing these mass events.

By the way, if you would like to hear a Megyn Kelly show debate on gun control with both sides represented by reasonable people, check out episode 248, which was one of a series that we do on the show where we have these fair and balanced debates with two reasonable people, and we covered all the angles, and you might actually learn something true instead of just being a victim to all the leftist nonsense that's out there. All right. That's what I wanted to say on the gun situation. Um, and our thoughts and prayers do go out to those down in Texas who are suffering right now. Um, you never want to forget the families and you never want to forget the victims,

uh, eight dead, not including the shooter, of course, and we'll learn more about him and whether the right wing white supremacy stuff turned out to be true. I want to switch gears now and talk about the latest in the Fox News Tucker Carlson saga, because it's it's coming down to the last wire here. There was a report out via Axios this past weekend on Saturday it hit, and the headline was Tucker Carlson ready to torch Fox News. Tucker Carlson is preparing to unleash allies to attack Fox News, unleash allies to attack Fox News in an effort to bully the network into letting him work for or start a right wing rival. Sources close to Tucker tell Axios, Brian Friedman. This is the guy who represents me as well. The high powered Hollywood lawyer, Carlson retained for the contract dispute told Axios quote, the idea that anyone's going to silence Tucker and prevent him from speaking to his audience is beyond preposterous.

They go on to say that Axios has learned Tucker is plotting a media empire of his own, but he needs Fox to let him out of his contract, which expires in January 2025, post the election. Okay. After the presidential election, we're told Carlson has been contacted by outlets, including the right wing rumble and Newsmax that offered to pay him more than his Fox contract, which the wall street journal reported was around 20 million dollars a year they should know they're owned by the same people that the fox news channel is owned by they go on to say carlson and elon musk had a conversation about working together but did not discuss specifics carlson confidence say he's also

contemplating building a direct to consumer media outlet where his millions of fans could pay to watch him. The ousted host knows where a lot of bodies are buried and is ready to start drawing a map, said a Carlson source. Carlson allies with big platforms are prepared to attack Fox for trying to keep them on the shelf. Bare-knuckled brawlers from Trump World are standing by. They're coming to Tucker and saying, do you want me to hit Fox? A close Carlson friend said, he's been saying, no, I want to get this done quiet and clean. Now we're going from peacetime to DEFCON one. The friend added his team is preparing for war. He wants his freedom. Here's what I can tell you. Uh, the Carlson team believes Fox news is not

negotiating in good faith and they are counting on allies to go out there and send a message to fox news to turn off the dial at 8 p.m to turn off the dial period on fox news the word boycott is being used it's already happening at least at eight and to a lesser extent throughout the prime time of fox news the ratings continue to be in the toilet as we've been bringing to you. I'll pull them up just the latest, because when we were on the air on Friday, we didn't have Thursday's ratings yet. They come out late in the afternoon. At 8 p.m., they got a 181 in the demo.

Good God. That's more than a 50% drop from Tucker's in his last week on air. 181. I mean, honestly, I've been in the primetime at Fox. That's disgusting. It's a terrible, terrible number. There's no way of spinning it otherwise. It of course sets up the rest of the primetime to fail. 9 p.m. didn't get a lot more. They got 8,000 more than that in the demo, 189. And the 10 PM, well, they lost to MSNBC. Okay. They lost. That's not what you want. And that's really what will cause panic. Ingram got 156 in the demo. She lost in the demo and the overall as well. That's what causes a panic inside Fox News. If they lose a month to MSNBC, heads are going to roll over there. They're going to have to do

something. They'll have to surrender somehow. They got to stop the bleeding. They may be talking tough right now with Tucker. Here's what they want to do. They want, they have, they have canceled his show, but they haven't fired him. So they still have him under their control, under their thumb. And they want Tucker to sit there on his couch and just cash his Fox checks and basically be immobilized by Fox News, be rendered mute where he can't say anything between now and January 2025. Some of his fans might enjoy Tucker's insights on things like the DeSantis announcement that's undoubtedly coming any day now. Who's going to be the actual nominee for the Republican Party? What's happening on the Dem side as Joe Biden has some 30 percent of his party rooting for somebody else? What happens during the presidential debates?

What about the messaging at the conventions? What's going to happen when they get out there and start slinging muds via ads? You might like to see Tucker's thoughts on that. What about the war in Ukraine, which has very few dissenting voices like Tucker's out there? Is that one of the reasons he was silenced? We know the Murdochs talked to Zelensky weeks before Tucker was axed. They said that Tucker's name did not come up. But what is the reason? We're two weeks later now. We still don't know. He still doesn't know. His lawyers don't know. No one will tell them. He's been completely silenced. His show has been canceled. No one will tell him why. And even Fox News does not appear to be arguing that there was cause for the termination.

Notwithstanding all the leaks you see in the papers, they're not arguing cause because Fox News hasn't fired him and is still paying him his salary. If they had cause to fire him, they'd cancel the show. They'd fire Tucker. They would not pay him the money. And they could keep him silent. That's like all the'd cancel the show. They'd fire Tucker. They would not pay him the money, and they could keep him silent. That's like all the best of the world. But they didn't do that. Even they know they didn't have cause, notwithstanding the bullshit leaks you're reading about, none of which makes Tucker look bad anyway. So they're really hoping

that Tucker will either just abide by it to get his 30 million bucks or that he'll breach. And then they don't have to pay him anything and they'll take him to court to try to silence him. And that's what I think Tucker should do. Tucker should breach. He should come out. He should talk. He should start a rival news network. He should quit. He should forfeit the money. He'll make more money anyway, whether it's Rumble, Newsmax, Patrick Beck, David's organization, launching his own situation, any of it. He should breach and forfeit the money and then let Fox News take him to court. And the sole issue will be whether they have the right to silence him for the entire election season. The guy who served them loyally for a decade, the guy who kept them number one in the APM time slot after losing Bill O'Reilly through the Trump era, despite enormous attacks on him by the New York Times and everyone on the

left, that guy, whether the thanks for that should be F you, you're getting no money, you're fired, not for cause, and you must be silent. That's an F you to his fans. That's what that is. That's an F you to his fans. And what Tucker that is. That's an F you to his fans. And what Tucker seems to be asking for, you read the Axios report, is for his fans to help him out right now and increase the pressure on Fox News so that they just let him out. Well, you fired him. Let him go. Such a threat. You're that scared? Are you that terrified you can't replace your numbers at eight? Why? Did fine after Bill left, thanks to Tucker. You don't have somebody else you believe in who can put points on the board? You're that scared? This is what's going on. So unless Tucker's fans do a hard pass on the eight and the entire

primetime, and perhaps the channel, they're not going to bend the knee. Fox News continue to torture the guy and make him sit on the sidelines. Yes, I understand it's not torture to pay him 30 million bucks, but he doesn't want the money. As you may know, Tucker's independently wealthy anyway. He wants to get out there and do the news. He was doing the news. He did nothing wrong. There's no cause for termination. He just wants to keep using his voice for you. The audience Fox News fostered a relationship with for him. Right. So the whole thing is grossly unfair. Now, in in the context of all this, we get a piece from Rolling Stone and the headline there is inside the death match that helped doom Tucker Carlson at Fox. Now their theory is that back in 2020,

Tucker tried to get my old pal, Irina Briganti, the head of the Fox PR department, fired. And that this was, quote, a clear suicide mission, citing one source of Fox News, that Irina proved too powerful. They say he attempted to get her fired um that he attempted to force her out he made his case to fox news ceo suzanne scott fox chief legal officer viet din murdoch family heir lachlan murdoch and even personalities such as sean hannity in pleading his case carlson argued briganti spent too much time badgering on-air talent, yes, and the channel's personnel, that she was generally incompetent and mean-spirited, okay, that's understating it, and that she regularly engaged in dirty tricks against him and other hosts and contributors

when her job was ostensibly to protect them. Yes, that's all true. I lived that firsthand. The only reason I'm able to tell you any of this is because I refused to sign a nondisclosure when I left Fox, though trust me, they tried. I said, you're offering me all this money to renew. I've chosen to do something else. Why would I sign a nondisclosure? I don't need to.

Why should I? And they got very upset and they withheld a couple months of my salary, even though they owed it to me. Yeah, that's what they did, just to try to force me to sign it. Well, I didn't, and I too had to forfeit pay. It was absolutely absurd. These guys are bullies. They're bullies. And all the talent at Fox News that's listening right now, who are, I guarantee you, more on my side than they are on Fox's side.

They're 100% with me on Irina Burganti. Trust me. You could be next. I left on the best of terms. These guys were down on one knee with a bouquet of roses begging me to stay. I left with a handshake and a wish of goodwill. And then they did this stuff to me, withholding the salary, trying a strong army and deciding a nondisclosure, and then bit by bit attacking me day after day after day when I was on the air at NBC. P.S. They weren't the only ones. That's all I'm legally permitted to say. That's them. So now here they are with Fox, with Tucker.

And the piece goes on to say that what might have been behind his ultimate firing was this woman, Irina, that one source with knowledge of the matter described the Carlson-Briganti feud as an intra-network death match. They say despite Carlson's high ratings, influence on Republican political circles, and hyper-devoted fan base, he lacked the juice to oust Briganti. Her ties to other top executives were too tight for Carlson to overcome. In some cases, executives laughed off Carlson's attempt to get her fired, assuring him and others that Briganti was not going anywhere anytime soon. I don't know whether that's true. I actually don't know whether that's true, whether they thought this is a laughing matter,

because I'll tell you something else that I've never reported before. When I was deciding whether to stay or leave Fox News, the Murdochs offered to fire Irina Briganti to keep me. That happened at the apartment of Rupert Murdoch. I was there with my husband, Doug. And they understood that she had been so attacking me and the other women of Fox News who did not back Roger Ailes in the sexual harassment scandal

that we might've reached a point where she had to go. If that's what it was gonna take, they were prepared to fire her. And I said to them, I'm not in the business of having people fired. And I meant that. I had her neck on a chopping block and I refused to swing the ax. I meant that. You know what? It was a mistake because she went on to continue her reign of terror at Fox News. Ask any of the talent there off the record reporters, go ask any of the talent how they feel about this woman and whether she's made their working situations more bearable, more pleasant, more palatable, more of a non-hostile place to work. Okay. So I believe they would fire Irina Briganti, but the problem is now she's got stuff on him. I don't know what she's amassed. I don't know what she's threatening. And I don't know whether she's behind all these leaks. It's just a theory. I just know she's capable of it. She's done it to me repeatedly. She's done it to others repeatedly. Why wouldn't she do it to Tucker? As I told you, she actually taped me on the air in the commercial breaks when I went on Tucker's show post-employment at NBC. Post! In any event,

that was what was reported to me by Fox Insiders. I don't believe that Tucker's objections to this woman, who they were ready to fire in 2017, late 16, would have gotten him fired. No, that's not what happened. So it was a nice try by the Rolling Stone piece, but they didn't get there. That's not what did it. We still don't know. Maybe we never will. I've got serious problems with the way they're handling this, with their lack of ethics. And I really hope Tucker prevails in this battle. I don't think it's normal for a company to try to ruin a loyal employee once he or she leaves the company. That's what a cult does.

That's what a cult does. It elevates the supreme leader, tries to get the entire cult talking about how special he is, trying not to contradict him, tries to create an aura around that man, tries to make everyone understand we're all in this together. Don't step outside. It's us versus them. If you step outside, as I said last week, it's omerta. It's the mob rule. You're dead to us. You're dead. No one's supposed to have contact with you. You're otherized. That's not normal. That's not a normal, healthy, non-hostile work environment all right and if a company decides

to try to ruin its talent even in our disgusting toxic media industry tries to ruin a talent just for wanting to leave or in tucker's case just for wanting to go against the grain to have differing opinions that may not be approved by the owners of the company that's fine you you can you can actually fire a guy over that. That's fine. You can fire him. It's not for cause. You have to pay him out. But if the company engages in a concerted effort to ruin said personality by planting hit piece after hit piece and leaking whatever clip and privileged documents or confidential redacted documents after another, or allows it to be done without aggressively

fighting to stop it. That's a prior material breach. That's a minimum of a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. And I would take that case to court easily if I were the one getting screwed. So I believe Fox has breached this deal and Tucker should be released from all obligations. And I'm sure he would enjoy the fight. I'm sure Brian Friedman would enjoy the fight and be fun to watch from the outside. But I think what's best for America, for Fox and for Tucker at this point is for them to take the hand that he offered them, shake it because he was trying to be a gentleman, even though they just fired him unceremoniously after having said that they wanted to renew his deal until 2029. Okay. And walk away. Let him go earn his money elsewhere.

Try to rebuild your ratings at eight with the audience you betrayed and be a grownup about it. Be the tough guys you want us to believe you are. Okay. That's your reputation. You're so tough. Got all the shows made about you. Let's see it. Let's see some of that mental toughness now, this swagger now, because right now you look like a bunch of cowering weaklings, cowering weaklings. So that's what I know today, Monday, May 8th in the year 2023. with the latest on the Trump defamation trial. You have got to hear the Trump soundbites. He sat for a deposition. I've never heard anything like it. I can't wait to share these with you. And later for a bit of the dessert after the red meat, we're going to get to Dan Wooden and talk about the coronation over the weekend and the very latest on the Duchess of Duplicity. Several new developments in the death of Jordan Neely.

He's the homeless man put into a chokehold by a New York subway rider after Neely threatened passengers, including, we now know, that subway rider. Local media reporting the Manhattan DA's office could convene a grand jury to consider criminal charges this week. This, as in another case, former President Donald Trump in another courthouse in Manhattan declining to testify in the civil trial underway regarding allegations that he raped writer E. Jean Carroll back in the 1990s. This is a defamation case that she's brought because he denied it and insulted her in the process. So while the statute of limitations on rape has expired, she can still get in for defamation. The underlying rape is at issue. Closing arguments happening right now. Joining

us now to discuss it all, Robert Gouveia, a criminal defense attorney and host of Watching the Watchers. Robert is following these stories closely on his platforms. Robert, welcome back to the show. Hey, Megan, thank you for having me. Yeah, great to see you. So let's start with the grand jury now is considering whether the man who had the homeless Neely in a chokehold ought to be charged. And here's my question. I mean, as far as I know, this information does not like this doesn't have to go to a grand jury. The Manhattan D.A. can just say we're not charging this Alvin Bragg, can he not? They can definitely decide not to charge it. I think that that's probably unlikely, given that it's Alvin Bragg's office and it's the Manhattan D.A.'s office. And we know they're very political and very partisan.

We've seen some of their other prosecutions coming out. And we know that when there is political pressure to bear upon them, they tend to file charges and move things forward. And so in this case, what may look like to us something that doesn't need to be prosecuted, I would imagine that there's a lot of political pressure coming down to bear upon Alvin Bragg and the Manhattan DA's office. And if you have AOC and you have an election season and you have a lot of people screaming that something must be done, I mean, they're protesting and everything now in the subways. And so I think it's a little doubtful that they will just decide to turn the other eye on this and not move forward with it. So what are the, what's the likelihood that this guy,

his name is Daniel Penny, former Marine, will actually get charged? Because I mean, this could be, it could be involuntary manslaughter, could go all the way up to murder potentially. That's what people like AOC are accusing him of. They are, they like to go to that word immediately. Everything turns into this racist attack type of narrative. And I didn't see that from when we watched the video. There was, you know, there's still a lot to come out here about the facts. But apparently this individual, Mr. Neely, was on the subway and he was getting aggressive, throwing trash at other people, maybe even physically threatening other people. And so Mr. Penny decided to jump in there and defend himself, defend other people, according to his attorney's statement. And if you have a situation like that, I think that he can make the case for self-defense. He can make the case that this is

not murder, that he was justified in defending other people, defending himself, if the facts go there. But what we see, I think, is that even if you have a situation like that, where there are self-defense elements, they will still charge you for crimes. We saw Kyle Rittenhouse. We've seen other situations throughout the country where prosecutors will take a case, and if you're a favored defendant, not charge you. But if you're a disfavored defendant, they will charge you. They'll make you part of the narrative. They'll prosecute you for political purposes, not necessarily because I think that they're interested in justice for Jordan Neely, but because it furthers a political narrative.

And out of Manhattan, this is sort of ground zero for a lot of the political narratives. They have the Donald Trump prosecution that they're moving forward. They were letting up on that and then they put the pressure back down upon the prosecution when it felt like they were getting political feedback for that. So I think here, if they decided not to prosecute him, that the political blowback would be too high. And in terms of murder and intentionality, there's other charges. It doesn't have to be murder. It could be negligent homicide. It could be involuntary manslaughter. And so there's a lot of potential liability for Mr. Penny that is concerning. Criminal liability. Criminal liability. That's a different story. It is concerning. His statement, Neely's statement, which was released late Friday, said that.

OK, I'm reading any of the relevant part, Mr. Neely had a documented history of violent and erratic behavior. That's true. You know, we went over it last Friday. The apparent result of ongoing and untreated mental illness. When Mr. Neely began aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers. Daniel, with the help of others, acted to protect themselves until help arrived. Daniel never intended to harm Mr. Neely and could not have foreseen his untimely death. Aggressively threatening both Daniel Penny and the other passengers. That's new information. Aggressively threatening.

And we'll see. It won't just be Daniel Penny's word. They'll have the other passengers on board that subway car to say what happened and those people they have no stake in this like they're going to say what actually happened and we'll find out um they've released the the full video there's a longer video now video now of the exchange and this is the end of it again a warning this could be disturbing to some um but it's the end of the process when process when Neely had been in that chokehold for a long time. You can see the former Marine standing up. There were two other people who had

been helping him. They're rolling him. They're trying to roll him over, we're told, for his own well-being. They clearly don't realize that he's dead. That's what we were told, that he had died by the time the EMTs got there. But they're trying to tend to him. And the other thing we've learned is that there were not passengers on board the subway car saying, stop, he's non-responsive, stop. This is not a George Floyd situation. This was three people, including one man of color, trying to subdue a man who'd been, quote, aggressively threatening, says Daniel Penny. Right. And there were on the videos multiple people who were also helping, assisting in the subduing of Mr. Neely. And I think that we still don't know a lot about

the ultimate cause of death. I mean, they say the cause of death was strangulation and caused by the chokehold. But remember with George Floyd, we all saw the video, we all came to our conclusions pretty quickly. And then we fast forward. And then when the trial went underway, we got the full coroner's report and we got to see inside. And we learned that George Floyd also had arteriosclerosis and hypertension. He had just done fentanyl and methamphetamines were in his system. And so there are additional causation elements here that might have contributed to the death that I think is important to investigate before we start jumping to conclusions on this. But there are reports that he, that he, um, was on some sort of Jordan Neely had been using some sort of jacked up marijuana that is like severely affecting on a person. Um, and I

don't know whether he was on it that day, but that in the past he'd been caught with it and he'd been, I guess, addicted in some way to it. And he had a long history of drug abuse, threatening suicide, hurting others, so violent his grandparents wouldn't even let him stay at their home. He threatened the grandfather. He hurt a 67-year-old. He hurt another older man. He tried to kidnap a seven-year-old. And we could go down the list. And this guy's a career criminal. I'm sorry. He's no longer the Michael Jackson dancer. It's absurd, the headlines that are out there trying to lead us to believe this is just some sweet MJ imitator. That may

have been a chapter in his life. That chapter had closed. He had moved on to far more nefarious things. All right, let's move on to the Trump trial. So as I point out, this is a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. She says that back in the 1990s, she thinks it was spring of 96, but isn't sure. She was working at Bergdorf Goodman. Trump came in looking for lingerie as a gift for his then wife, Marla Maples. She offered to help him find a gift. He said, okay, I want lingerie. He said he asked her to try on the gift that he was looking at. She said no. Before she knew it, she says he had her in a dressing room, threw her up against the wall and digitally raped her and then actually raped

her. And it was over now. And then she's suing him because he denied it. As I said before, he denied it and said, she's not my type. I would never with her. She's not my, you know, she's not attractive enough for me. So she's suing saying he defamed her. And this case has been entirely one sided. Trump's barely defending. He's got Joe Takapina, his lawyer in the other Alvin Bragg case that we've all been talking about with the phony election. Did he misstate the records of his books to cover up the payment to Stormy Daniels? Whatever, same lawyer defending him in this. And he didn't even show up. He didn't even bother to show up. Trump didn't. But the cross-examination that E. Jean Carroll's lawyer did of Trump before they got to this trial is amazing. It's amazing. I've showed it. I showed it to my makeup artist. I showed it to Doug, sent it to my friend. I can't

believe what I saw on this tape. I cannot believe. And now I'm going to show it to my audience that hasn't got a lot of pickup. Let's start with a soundbite of Trump speaking out about that infamous Access Hollywood tape, which other than his apology, like right after it happened, where he said it's a locker room talk and it was like the only time he apologized, I haven't heard him address. So he was asked about it. For some reason, this judge let that in, which I think is a mistake. And he got asked about it at his deposition. Listen to SOT7. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything. That's what you said, correct? Well, historically, that's true with stars.

It's true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy? Well, if you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately. And you consider yourself to be a star? I think you can say that, yeah. And now you said before, a couple of minutes ago, that this was just locker room talk.

It's locker room talk. And so does that mean that you didn't really mean it? No, it's locker room talk. I don't know. It's just the way people talk so what we learn i'm sorry but it's the way it's been for a million years unfortunately or fortunately and it depends on how you look at it could be very fortunate the stars get to grab the women by the pussy wherever they go i'm sorry but jaw dropper. You may find it humorous, but not a good moment for Trump in defending this particular case.

No, not a good answer. Very Trump answer. And I know a lot of Trump fans may like that answer, but I don't think it's going to sit well for the jury is a New York jury, so it's going to be probably an anti-Trump jury just by nature. And so I think anything that reminds them of that tape, anything that would re-agitate any of their feelings is not going to Kaplan, the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, was playing the deposition, the entire thing for the jury so that they could hear all of it just to sort of make it that much more memorable for them. Yeah, she wanted them to see that. I mean, truly, like I know the Trump supporters are like, yeah, right on. I mean, even my one friend was like, he's a legend. But the point is, is he going to win the case? He's trying to win the case and saying like, you know, it's very fortunate that the stars let you grab him. But like, that's not a good moment when you're being accused of literally doing exactly that. Exactly that.

Then there was this moment, which I did find kind of amusing. I'm not going to lie. This one made me laugh out loud on the how E. Jean Carroll is not his type and wouldn't be his choice. Roberta Kaplan cross-examined him on that, too. And here's how that went. Sadi. When you said in that video that Ms. Leeds would not be your first choice, you were referring

to her physical looks, correct? Just the overall. I look at her. I see her. I hear what she says. Whatever. You wouldn't be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I look at her. I see her. I hear what she says. Whatever. You wouldn't be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I hope you're not insulted.

I would not, under any circumstances, have any interest in you. I'm honest when I say it. She, I would not have any interest in. It's amazing. I'm sorry, but it's funny. It's genuinely funny. it's it is it's funny it's genuinely funny he's funny he's funny he's funny and he said it right to her roberta kaplan sitting there and i don't know what that does to her in the middle of a deposition she's rattled i don't know it's no she wasn't she was stone cold i mean you got to tip the hat to her reaction a lot lot of us would have been like, well, you're not for me either, sir. But she was stone cold. She was good. Yeah, it's very Trump. Again, I don't know what

the jury is going to do with that. I think, you know, they might bundle it up with all of the other Trump type statements and then use that to extract from that behavior that something happened here with E. Jean Carroll, even though I think that there's very little evidence in this case about Trump and E. Jean Carroll at all. I mean, any hard evidence, it's he said, she said. But a lot of these statements from Trump kind of make it feel like he's just flippant. He's almost nonchalant about the whole thing, and he's almost above it to a certain degree and having fun with it. And when you juxtapose that with not presenting a defense and you have a New York jury that is already probably a little bit against Donald Trump, I don't know how useful it's going to be

to have that fun in the deposition. Although I certainly enjoy it and I laugh my butt off at it too. Well, it's funny. And Roberta Kaplan is a well-known out lesbian. So she's really not Donald's type and he's not her type either. So it's just kind of the underlying dynamic there was kind of amusing. Here's the problem though. It does seem that E. Jean Carroll may have been exactly his type. Now, of course, she's an elderly woman. I think she's 80 like he is. But at the time this allegedly happened, she was 52. I'm 52 now. So I'm just saying like, you know, it was a different E. Jean Carroll. And he was shown, this is another excerpt that was released. He was shown by the

lawyer, a picture of Donald Trump back then. And E. Jean Carroll was this big writer. She had some sex column. So she was kind of this playful, whatever person, um, was shown a picture. E. Jean Carroll was in it. Donald was in it. Some other people were in it. And he mistook E. Jean Carroll was in it. Donald was in it. Some other people were in it. And he mistook E. Jean Carroll for his wife, Marla Maples, who, of course, is 100 percent his type. This was a very helpful moment for the plaintiff. E. Jean Carroll will show it. It's SOT6. I don't even know who the woman. Let's see. I don't know who. It's Marla. You're saying Marla's in this photo? That's Marla. Yeah. That's my wife. Which woman are you pointing to?

Here. The person you just pointed to was E. Jean Carroll. And there's the picture. You can see that's her, like Trump's, that's the back of Trump's head on the left. Then right next to him in the photo is E. Jean Carroll. And then, uh, two other people. Uh, so it's Ivana and another, I think a newscaster there. Um, that was E. Jean Carroll's husband at the time. So, but that's E. Jean Carroll he's talking to in the picture and he mistook her for Marla Maples.

So she was his type. She clearly was his type. Yeah, it doesn't support that statement very well. It's an old picture, and it's black and white, and it's hard to sort of see, but I still think he looked in there, and he zoomed in, and he said, yeah, that's her. He was asked a couple times. So I think when the jury takes that and they juxtapose it all together, I'm not sure that that's going to be helpful, which is why I think they played the whole deposition just to really, really kind of twist the needle, twist the twist the knife and make it hurt for Trump. Okay. So that's all the bad stuff for Donald. Having said all that, there's a ton of bad stuff for E.G. and Carol. My God, this, first of all, can we just talk about the unfairness of going after somebody essentially for rape defamation,

but really she's saying he raped her. How many years? 30 years ago? 30 plus years ago. How on earth is he supposed to defend this? This is like the Kavanaugh case. How is he supposed to say? He doesn't even know if he was into you.

She can't even say if it was 1996 or 1995. Was it spring? She thinks it might've been spring based on the description of what she was wearing as told to her by somebody else. She was asked specifically, did you say no? Her answer was no. So what was he supposed to be like Karnak? He was supposed to just glean. She doesn't want this. Like the absurdity of like, they went in there. She, they were playful. She admitted she was flirting with them. She says they went into the dressing room that she didn't say no.

She admits she didn't scream. She didn't go report it to the cops. Like this is not a great case to put it charitably. It's a strange case. And she kept watching The Apprentice. She kept sort of posting stuff on Facebook about sleeping with Donald Trump, a $17,000 would you sleep with Trump weird kind of jokey post on Facebook. And there's a lot of strange things that she thinks it was a Thursday. So Trump has really no opportunity to defend against this in any way. He can't say, I wasn't there on that day. I was across the seas or in a different part of the world or anything. He can't latch onto anything

to defend himself. And if you zoom out on this, there's no hard evidence other than E. Jean Carroll's word. It's his word versus her word. We have no surveillance tapes back then. And there's evidence that they were recording. They had surveillance cameras. This Bergdorf's place was supposed to be a very high end shopping facility that had personal shoppers that would come in. So if Trump came in, the theory was he would have his own shopper. And there's no evidence that that ever happened. No other witnesses put him there.

There was no receipt evidence. There's very limited concrete evidence that he was ever actually there. So it's just a she said situation. friends who say she told me this happened at the time. And one of them is a pretty well-known newscaster who's got a lot of credibility, presumably with this jury, who says to this jury, I wasn't there, but she came to me right after and told me what happened. And the one said to her, E. Jean, that's rape. She kind of had to talk her into it, which isn't helpful for E. Jean, but she's got at least two people saying that it happened or that they were told it happened i might point out for the record the same left that is now jumping up and down saying he's a rapist he's a rapist two women can corroborate this completely dismissed tara reed joe biden's accuser when she had a contemporaneous witness who she told joe biden

penetrated her in the corridor of the Senate building years ago. She also had a witness, she told. Now, telling someone doesn't mean it actually happened. But in this case, the double standard is suddenly like, it's ballgame, she told. Right. And my interpretation of what I heard their testimony, these two people, Carol Martin and the other one was Lisa Bernbach, these two witnesses. At least Lisa Bernbach was kind of nonchalant about receiving the phone call. Her friend called her and said, I just got raped by Donald Trump. And she was making chicken nuggets for her kids

and just kind of left the whole thing alone. And same thing with Carol Martin. They kind of took it as though it wasn't this big deal. And they never really brought it up again. And the whole thing went by the wayside until 2019, when E. Jean Carroll had a had a meeting with other people who wanted to go bring the pain against Donald Trump and use litigation as lawfare to take him out. And then George Conway, then it all got George Conway. And then the whole thing exploded again. And now we're in the middle of this litigation that's really becoming a problem for Trump. She also says Les Moonves sexually assaulted her, E. Jean Carroll. And she was asked by Takapina, did you sue him? And she was like, well, no, he didn't disparage me.

But he also denied it. I mean, so what's, you know, is it is the difference that he wasn't running for president, that he didn't become president. So there are some serious problems with her case, but it is by no means a slam dunk for Trump. So in the time we have left, if he loses, what happens? Well, I'm not sure what he does. I think he's going to appeal it. His attorney, Takapina, already submitted a motion for a mistrial that was very good, actually. In my opinion, this judge has been very favorable towards the plaintiff. They were. I agree. Judge was the judge was repeatedly interrupting the defense. He was vouching for the witnesses. He was objecting. He let two other witnesses take the stand, saying they also had been assaulted by Trump, allegedly, which is just this is a trend

in New York. It happened in Harvey, too. Thanks to this new law. It's very prejudicial that plus the access Hollywood tape never should have been allowed. In my opinion, he's got grounds for appeal. Right. And I think he will. And I hope that somebody stops or, you know, some, some higher level court takes a look at some of these lawfare type litigations and does something about it because it's going to be a problem. I think from both sides. This is so unfair. I mean, how is any man supposed to defend something that happened 30 years ago, allegedly? Thank you so much, Robert. Great to see you.

Boo. Boo, boo, boo. I am sure I was not the only one booing Prince Harry. See, they played the bells to cover up the boos. That's my theory. He spent just over 24 hours on the ground in England for his father's 70th birthday party. No, it was his coronation. That's the kind of thing you just fly in for and pop right back out. This is dad's coronation as the king of England. He fled in a car after the

ceremony, even before the Abbey Bell stopped ringing. Joining me now for the full rundown is Dan Wooten. He's host of Dan Wooten Tonight on England's GB News and a columnist for the UK's Daily Mail. So that was me, Dan. Boo, boo, boo. I promised you I would do it and I did it. And I know I wasn't the only one. What did you make of Harry back there in the third row, like some third rate royal? It was unbelievable, wasn't it? I think the best moment of the day was Princess Anne, who had this very large red plume on top of her ceremonial hat, which blocked Prince Harry's face and his view for most of the ceremony. You might remember at the Queen's funeral, the late Queen's funeral, it was a candlestick that obscured the face of Meghan Markle.

Was that really a coincidence, Meghan? Really, given how carefully the royal family planned everything? I don't think so. But I think Harry actually was incredibly arrogant. He strutted into Westminster Abbey, cracking jokes. Lip readers have actually dismantled his conversation with Jack Brooksbank once he sat down. And even in the Abbey, Meghan, he was moaning about his treatment by either the royal family or the British press. He was out of there within minutes, headed straight to Heathrow Airport, leaving King Charles to give a toast to his absent grandson, Prince Archie, on his birthday, saying he didn't know where in the world he was. So Harry goes over to the coronation, doesn't speak to his father, doesn't speak to his stepmother, doesn't speak to his brother, doesn't even bother to speak to Kate Middleton. They used to be so close. And you just think Megan got her way didn't she she managed to divide two families the shots caught by some of the cameras of Harry staring at William across the church who's of

course in the front row just speak a million words, right? Without speaking any, it just shows you the true picture of his envy, his jealousy. You even wrote a column talking about how Harry's got the same receding hairline now, if you look at him walk in that church, that he so uncharitably mocked his brother for. And you can tell that comment, the reason I raise it is who would say such a thing other than someone who is envious who's got something more than just a temporary beef with the guy there's a hatred uh now on his part absolutely and so much of that business megan has come from the fact that william and charles and how thick is thieves That was not always the case. The eldest brother, now the heir to the

British throne, had lots of issues with his dad, King Charles, in the same way that Harry did. You know, Charles himself admits that in the days and the years and the months after the death of Princess Diana, he wasn't perfect. But look, what father can cope with that sort of situation? It's incredibly difficult. What I find so fascinating is that it has actually been the real split with Harry and the royal family and the way that Harry has actually tried to destroy the British monarchy that has brought Charles and William so close together. and you saw that on display at various points during the coronation weekend there was an incredibly poignant moment in front of the world in Westminster Abbey but then last night William goes up in front of the tens of thousands

gathered for this extraordinary coronation concert the first ever coronation concert at Windsor Castle where it was very bizarre megan the likes of lionel richie and katie berry uh joining british acts to sing in front of all of the royals very bizarre night but i have to say i loved it and william goes up on stage and invokes the late queen elizabeth ii and says she would be so proud of you dad so this is the royal family coming together in union and saying you know what we know harry and megan you're gonna keep throwing these grenades you're going to try and destroy us we know that but we are now united and i think there is a very bizarre power in the fact that actually it's only really the difficulties with Harry and Meghan that have

made William and Charles realize that if they stand strong together, then maybe, just maybe, the British monarchy can survive to another coronation. I actually think after the weekend that will happen because look at this family. Look at this beautiful family who have stolen the hearts of the world. And that's the beauty of the world family right there. And their children, William and Kate's children future like their children william and kate's children there you see princess charlotte and the great little prince prince louis who always steals the show i love prince louis anything involving prince louis who i predict right now will never grow up to be like boohoo i'm the spare poor me and then the other pictures of course of prince

george who's the the next heir uh after Prince William, just nailing everything. The photo ops were beautiful. They all looked like they were having a great time. They did look united. The couple looked in love. I mean, I have to say, Princess Kate looked amazing. She looked so incredibly royal, of course, given the garments that she was wearing. And you couldn't help but think of the bitter jealousy. You just know Meghan Markle was feeling at home alone on her couch. Absolutely. Because she wants the world to hate Kate. I have to say, though, I actually felt Meghan when it started to rain, when it poured with rain, and it really did, it bucketed down during the coronation. I thought they were the tears of Megan Markle and Montecito watching the

wall-to-wall coverage on American TV and thinking, actually, we lost because the Sussexes have lost. They thought this coronation was going to be a disaster. They thought it was going to flop, Meghan. Actually, more people tuned in to this coronation in the UK than tuned in to watch the wedding of Harry and Meghan. Now, look, we know King Charles is not perfect. I've been highly critical of the guy, okay, over the years. He's a globalist. He's he's wedded to this uh nut zero agenda as i call it some connections to the world economic for him he tends to wade into politics but he has to succeed because if you're a royalist like i am you have to believe that it's not just about the man it's not just about the individual it's about the importance of the institution. And Harry and Meghan thought that they were going to be able to destroy that in the seven months

since the late Queen's death. And they failed. They point blank failed because this ceremony was a massive success. It's had huge international attention. But I can tell you here on the ground in the UK, it's managed to bring a divided country together over the past few days. The latest stats were the streets were lined with 2 million people, 7,000 British troops, 100 million people watched on TV around the world. That's huge, 100 million people. And that puts the lie to this whole, she just didn't want to go, Dan, because you see what happens, according to Omid Scobie, their stenographer, is the cameras always find Megan. And she really just thought, I'll sit

this one out. That's an obvious lie. She's never seen a camera she doesn't want to put her face in front of. And certainly a hundred million viewers would have lured that woman to any place on this earth. So what's the real reason she wasn't there? Look, Megan, you know what it is. She was going to be booed. And the problem is she wasn't just necessarily going to be booed outside of Westminster Abbey. She may have been booed inside. And that was a prospect that she simply could not countenance. I don't know if you saw, but there was a really fascinating shot when Harry actually walked inside Westminster Abbey. And he was looking around very nervously. He was on his own. And he only got grimaces and looks of disgust from most of the congregation.

There were a couple of smiles, but on the whole, the people inside that Abbey are absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of Harry and Meghan over the past seven months and the past three years, to be completely honest with you. So Meghan could not risk the prospect of being booed out by the British public, but also inside Westminster Abbey. Because you're right, of course she wanted to be there. It's her currency. It's history. And she wasn't part of it. And of course, you've seen over the past few weeks, there's been publicity stunt after publicity stunt. She's been desperate to get herself back in the conversation, having purposefully avoided all of the flack from Harry's awful, hateful autobiography spare. And even over the past 24 hours, there've been some very convenient paparazzi shots picked up by DailyMail.com and TMZ

of Meghan out hiking. What a shock. They just happened to know she was going for a hike and she just happened to look spectacular. Oh, it's all organic. Trust me. You know, I don't blame them. Not only we've been through all the stuff she's done, but not only did she call half the British public racist in her Netflix documentary, everybody who voted for Brexit. But honestly, Dan, I don't think it's an overreach to say she helped kill the queen she did she those two added more toxicity and stress to the queen's last year or two on earth than anyone or anything absolutely and it's only starting to emerge megan even though i knew it privately, just how much stress she did cause on the late Queen. Constant phone calls from Harry begging this woman in her 90s who he knew was dying to

get involved in how much money he was going to receive and whether he was going to be able to stay at his mansion, Frogmore Cottage. Imagine putting that on your dying grandmother. And then this astonishing report uh from a really good young reporter for the spectator called cara kennedy uh emerged last week uh that the queen at a dinner party at balmoral just last summer had actually used the word evil to describe megan markle and said that she saw right through her. So I think we know now that this idea that the Queen, the late Queen, was somehow in support

of the two people who were trying to tear down her institution, who were trying to use their Netflix horror show to tear down the Commonwealth is just a joke. The late Queen did see through Meghan and Harry, and she made it clear to those around her exactly how she felt about the two of them. Now, speaking of the fact that up until September, we had a Queen of England, the accusations of the patriarchy that were all over Twitter, and of course, racism, which we'll get to next, but the patriarch were every, I had to laugh. I mean, the queen has not even been gone for a year and already because the next monarch happens to be male, we're back to the patriarchy

reigns. That's what got us in all of our problems here in Great Britain. It's like, did you forget, right? How many years was she on the throne, Dan? Like 70 something? It's absurd. Yeah. I know there was that great note, that Twitter context added to one of these posts saying, I just do remember the last 70 years we've had a woman there, not to mention the fabulous reign of Queen Victoria about 100 years before her. Probably, I would say, the two greatest monarchs that Britain has ever had, you know, both women. So it is ridiculous, isn't it? It is ludicrous. And, of course, Charles, even though this isn't particularly popular, certainly not particularly popular with me, Megan, given I was a huge fan and supporter of Princess Diana. But Charles has made an active choice to actually put Queen Camilla at the heart of his coronation and all of the celebrations, too.

I have a quick question for you. I want to get to this racist allegation by the Bridgerton actors. But before that, quick, quick question for you. I want to get to this racist allegation by the Bridgerton Actors. But before that, quick, quick question about Protocol. So do we now still call her Queen, because remember, initially with Camilla, we were told she's never even going to be queen consort. Don't worry, we're going to get married, but they're going to change the law to ensure that Camilla will only ever be referred to as princess consort, similar to the way that Prince Philip never became king. Then there was this historic announcement from the late queen just before her

death, where she said, no, she did want Camilla to be known as queen consort. We sort of all accepted that. But Charles, he only ever had one plan. And the plan was for Camilla to be his queen. It's still difficult for many of us to accept. The establishment have accepted it. They absolutely love Camilla Megan. But if you look at the public polling, Camilla actually remains one of the least popular members of the royal family. I mean, of course, her unpopularity pales into insignificance when you compare her to Harry, Megan or Prince Andrew. But she's not beloved in the same way that Prince Philip was, in the same way that Kate

was. But for Charles, she's a complete non-negotiable. And I've thought about it a lot. And I think for Charles to be a successful king, he needs to have Camilla by his side. And so for that reason, even though it's something even a year ago, I never would have thought would have happened. Yeah, she's the queen. She's Queen Camilla. I'm happy he has the love of his life with him. You know, notwithstanding all the drama with Princess Diana, it's nice for any man, a man 74 years old,

to be in this phase of his life with this kind of event happening to him with the woman who clearly is the love of his life. And he'll probably be a better monarch because he has her. So we can be thankful for that. A lot of people make mistakes in their marriages, things they'd like to have back. Theirs just happen to be extremely public. So yeah, I'm rooting for them too.

No, just quickly, why didn't Prince Philip become King Philip? And why doesn't the line of succession include now Queen Camilla? Like if Charles were to die, why wouldn't it go to just Queen Camilla until she dies and then down to Prince William? Because the line of succession

has always been the bloodline. And it has always been traditional that male consorts don't take on the king title, whereas queens do. So we had Queen Mary, and then we had Queen Elizabeth, the mom of Queen Elizabeth II. And then you'll remember that when her husband died and her daughter became queen, she became known as the queen mother. So obviously there are going to be questions about what Camilla will be referred to if she is to outlive Charles. But that may be a very long way in the future, I guess we hope.

OK, so back to claims of racism, because the no coronation is complete without claims of sexism and racism, apparently. I'm sure it was the same 70 years ago. The star of Bridgerton decides in commenting on all of this on ITV to bring up the race of the royal family with which she is clearly displeased. Here she was. We've gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony. Here she was. This is outrageous, Dan. Like, what are they supposed to do? They're white. What are they supposed to do to please her? Yeah, I mean, outrageous is one word for it.

Adjoin ando. I would say she's not just a race baiter, Megan. I would say she's racist. Because just imagine if the situation were reversed and someone made that sort of comment about a royal family in Africa or Asia. It is racist. And actually, there was a lot of this in the press in Britain, especially the broadcast media, the British fashion corporation, BBC, had this woman on the next day after she had made that comment. And by the way, I do also have to say Woke ITV

and their presenters, Tom Bradley and Julie Etchingham, did not question her at all. They did not call her out for making that racist comment. Then she goes on the BBC the next day, the big BBC radio station. There's an interviewer called Paddy O'Connell. And she starts a bit of a mea culpa. And this presenter interrupts her and says, no, no, don't be silly. You haven't upset anyone.

So it does show you how the media elite in Britain, and I know this is something obviously you've experienced in the US for a very long time, but the liberal media elite in Britain have never been more out of touch with the people who they claim to represent. Because believe me, there is huge anger about this statement. There's also huge anger that the BBC used as one of their main commentators for the coronation, an ally of Harry and Meghan, who hates Brexit, who hates the Commonwealth, who hates the royal family, and was one of the main talking heads throughout their Netflix documentary family, and was one of the main talking heads throughout their Netflix documentary. And he was commenting on the coronation for the BBC,

which is the public broadcaster paid for by the taxpayers of British people. So look, I think this racism and this race baiting is creeping in to much of the mainstream media. But that's why, as you know, millions and millions of folk are tuning out of the mainstream media because they think this doesn't represent us. This is disgusting. This is anti-white discrimination. It's completely unacceptable. It's absurd. So the family is white. They're white. So are they racist unless somebody marries a person of color? Is that the obligation now? Black families must marry at least one white person into the family and white families must marry at least one black person in the family. Otherwise they're bad. And by the way, this British family did that and welcomed Meghan

Markle, who let's face it, I mean, she is part black, but she looks white, but they welcomed her into the family. The King Charles, then Prince walked her down the aisle at their wedding. They couldn't have been kinder to her. The queen fast-tracked her into the royal family. She left of her own accord because she didn't like the treatment. She didn't want to be number two to Kate's number one. Well, too bad. You married the spare.

And this woman's still displeased. The family's too white. And then when she tried to do her mea culpa on the BBC, it was terrible. She was doubling down. She said, I think I upset a few people yesterday. I was talking about the day and how marvelous it was. And then looking at the balcony at the end and suddenly going, oh, it's so white because the day had been so mixed. I didn't mean to upset anybody. Well, how's that an apology? That's exactly what you said the day before, just saying didn't mean to upset you. But I stand by everything I said. Indeed, and it's maybe not a popular thing to say, Megan, but we've got to sometimes look at demographics and the UK is a majority white country.

I mean, Scotland, for example, one of the nations in the UK is 96% white. Now, it's lower in England, but it's still around 85% of the population here are white. And our royal family is white. Now, if that is going to be equated with bad in the media, and those sorts of racist comments are acceptable uh then i think we're heading down a very dangerous path but of course what the broadcast media wanted to do in the uk is really pump up the republican message and make out as if republicans and of course this is slightly confusing to an american audience because we're not talking about the big r you know we're not talking about the party but talking about about people who want to overthrow the monarchy and have an elected head of state. And there's been a lot of pushing for that in the British broadcast media.

But Megan, it's still a minority cause here in the UK. People on the whole, like the royal family, and even people who are a little bit questioned about it, they also realize, what's the alternative? Why on earth would we want some ghastly politician put in charge of our political system? Actually, there's lots of French people, for example, who say, we wish we'd never got rid of our monarchy, because look, we have some sort of mega maniac, like Macron in charge, destroying the country. Right. Speaking of the French, Harry chose to wear Dior when the word had clearly gone out to wear a British designer, but he couldn't be bothered to even do that to honor his country of birth and his family. It's just absolutely shameful. Dan Wooden, it's always a pleasure. Go GB News and go Dan Wooden.

Love the program. And I will see you tomorrow night there. We will speak there. Thank you so much, Megan. All the best. And up next, we will be back with Maureen Callahan, also from the Daily Mail. I love Maureen's column. She has a great, great pen.

And we will talk a little bit about John Legend, who is a little upset about my comments regarding his wife. I got some thoughts. Stand by. John Legend, the singer, had some choice words for yours truly after I mocked his elitist, out-of-touch wife for having her minions carry her train to the White House Correspondents' Dinner while she was showing off her underwear. An absurd thing on many levels because this wasn't the coronation or a soft porn movie. It was nerd prom with White House reporters and D-list entertainers. Sorry. Sorry, John Legend. It's true. D-list. It's the event most of us are too embarrassed to be seen at these days, never mind one to which you wear a dress with a train and its own staff. Anyway, John Legend got asked about my thoughts by TMZ.

Here is part of his response. Megan, you know, she likes attention. Yeah? She needs it after she got fired from Fox. She has to do what she can do to get attention. Is that all it is? She pissed all the conservatives off when she asked Trump a tough question, so now she's trying to figure out a way to win him back.

Yeah? Mm-hmm. You think she'll get him back with going after Chrissy Teigen? That's her attempt. Yeah? She's desperate. She got to swing a little harder than this? No. She can just shut up.

Do you feel like it's normal behavior to have someone help you carry a dress? No. Does she feel bad about it? No. Why should she? I love TMC. A couple of quick corrections for Legend, who says I mocked his wife because I was, quote, fired from Fox News and need to rebuild my conservative audience.

First of all, we are number two in news podcasts in the United States and number five podcasts in all shows. Just past a million subscribers on YouTube, where we are adding tens of thousands of new fans a week. So we're good on the audience, John. Second of all, as for my decision not to renew at Fox, it appears John has been getting his news from Keith Olbermann. A simple Google search would have helped him find reports about the nine-figure deal I rejected at Fox News in order to spend more time with my family. John suggested I only mocked his wife because I'm desperate for attention. Sweet John, it must be so hard to live with that on your arm and in your bed every day and night and see anything else as you survey the women of this world. When one's wife shows her panties to

the president, it's probably really embarrassing. I get it can warp your view of women on this earth. When she takes photos of her abortion and treats it as a PR op, something that should be the most private and intimate moments in a couple's life, it's probably extremely uncomfortable. Oh wait, John Legend was there too, wasn't he? He was actually there. He thought that moment would make a great photo op too. A chance to promote their brand. How dare you lecture anyone on needing attention, sir? John defended Chrissy and her cast of serfs carrying her train by saying she is a kind and loving person. Keep telling yourself that, John. The truth is Chrissy Teigen has a long and very dark history. Most notably, there's her bizarre and repeated bullying of young teenagers, who sweet little Chrissy encouraged over and over again to kill themselves.

There's a long, long record of this bully going after young people, wanting them to take their own lives. Candace Owens has been brilliant in documenting all of this. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Chrissy Teigen is a sick, relentless, cruel, self-aggrandizing, needy, attention-starved bully. She deserves every bit of criticism she gets. And trust me, there's plenty more of it in our arsenal if Mr. Legend would like to continue the argument. Joining me now with more Maureen Callahan from the Daily Mail. Poor Chrissy. She's a kind and loving person, Maureen.

And those of us who go after her are just mean, mean bullies. Yes, I have to say my favorite thing about this defense that was so brilliantly captured by TMZ was John Legend's inability to even make eye contact with the lowly serf who was asking him these questions. is it normal to have three people help you carry your dress? He says, no, no. And it's, you know, it's so fascinating, especially to see celebrities who identify as progressive and liberal to not read the room. We are in such an eat the rich moment in the culture. And to sort of roll up to an event like that, you know, where you're in a room with power brokers, the elite, to show up with three sort of, you know, unwashed proles carrying your train. I mean, really, she couldn't exert herself to just sort of gather it up in her hand and walk in.

Like the rest of us do. Every woman has had a dress that's a little long in the back and you hike it. We all grab it. You hike it a little. Only somebody who is just ridiculously self-important would do what she did. You or I would be humiliated even if we were at the Oscars or the coronation to have the minions. That's how she sees them, actually carrying our dress, Maureen. It's laughable. It's just so, you know, to your point earlier too about her record of online bullying and bullying people she thinks are clearly easy targets, low-hanging fruit. You know, she made, she generated a ton of headlines when she bullied Courtney Stodden years ago and tweeted things like, you know, go take a dirt nap, go to sleep forever.

You know, she sort of got in the fray with Alison Roman after Alison Roman sort of took a I think a fair swipe at a celebrity just sort of entering a culinary space, a space in which she has zero expertise. But Alison Roman covers that. It somehow got turned into this racialized attack that left Alison Roman canceled for years. She lost her New York Times column over it. You know, so stop it with this idea that Chrissy Tinkin is the kindest woman who ever walked the earth. And I'm sorry, but the bit about like, I mean, first, it's so typical

of these leftists to not have their facts, right? Like, not, not, no, there was no firing of Fox News, quite the opposite, to not understand where this show is in its history and its success. They don't care about those facts. They just say what they want to say. But to actually call anyone, anyone on this earth desperate for attention when you're married to Chrissy Teigen. I mean, Candace did

do a brilliant bit on this. She took those photos of of herself when first she told us it was a miscarriage. Then after Roe versus Wade was reversed, she admitted it was an abortion. She said it was a life-saving abortion that she had to have, whatever it was, what woman takes photographs of herself as she's losing her baby and tweets them out, gets their PR agent to publicize them with the crying eyes, with the husband holding them. I'll just say this, Maureen, a lot of us have had moments like that. And some of us choose to keep them private because they are private. And not only would we not talk about them publicly, but we would never dream of tweeting out the loss of a child. There seems to be a complete sort of absence of anything being off limits,

anything feeling too sacred to commodify or to send out as clickbait or to be used to really, I think, in instances such as this, valorize oneself, right? To be seeking sympathy, to be seeking praise for being so brave. And, you know, these two are, there's nothing they won't attend. You know, they are acolytes of reality television. There's no bar too low, really. Attention is attention, be it good or bad. And I couldn't agree with you more. It's not dissimilar to what we saw at the Met Gala, which was the day after the White House Correspondents Dinner. I read your piece on that, where you've got these stars,

sort of. It's not like when I went back in 16, it was like Reese Witherspoon. It was all A-listers. I will admit Kim Kardashian was there with her husband, Kanye. But other than that, it was truly A-list Hollywood talent. Now it's like all these wannabe influencers, of course, the entire Kardashian clan still going and celebrating of all people, Karl Lagerfeld. Like now you've got some people even in that world calling for Anna Wintour to be canceled, calling for the Met Gala to be canceled because they're so tone deaf about what people are actually going through in their lives and what the hell it is they're celebrating. Right. I mean, celebrating somebody who actively fat shamed and called women, certain women ugly said feminists were ugly, you know, and, and that's what I mean about there's a certain strata of power brokers, uh, celebrities who just truly refuse to read the room.

And it seems at times that Anna Wintour is transmitting from an alternate planet, you know, to look at what was going on at that red carpet and the caliber of guests. I mean, that was once the gala of galas. You could not buy a ticket unless Anna approved you. And I thought it was so interesting this year. So there were three Kardashians, I believe. Others left off the guest list. It was Paris Hilton's first time getting in.

And that was because she was a guest of Marc Jacobs, who was a longtime pet of Anna's. But it feels grasping. It feels desperate. It feels very let them eat cake. And I mean, I honestly think that Vogue lost all of its authority the moment she caved and put Kim and Kanye on the cover. That was it. And of course, was so quick to celebrate Jill Biden and Michelle Obama, but managed to ignore the only first lady that we've ever had, who's an actual supermodel. It's like, okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, we know her politics, you know, but you know, also this is a woman who commissioned a sympathetic

profile on the syrian first lady and this you know gets swept under the rug uh by by much of the mainstream media um because anna's i mean it's i think she will she will go to her grave before she relinquishes her title and her position at Condé Nast. But Vogue is so irrelevant as it is. I mean, when was the last time you looked to Vogue for anything? Never. I haven't. I don't even do it when she had me over. She actually had me over to have lunch with her after that presidential debate.

And it was like going to meet with the head of state. It was like the guys with the headsets, the Janet Jackson headsets, like she's coming and we're 15 away and we're 10 away. And like, it was just like absolutely absurd what you had to go through to meet with her. And then there was another time back then where it was a couple of years later, she was through this big party at her house for journalists, like female journalists. And I went to that. There were some CNNers there and there was some people more in our industry.

And it was the most absurd thing, Maureen, because we all, she has one of these townhouses where you come in through sort of what is the basement and you see this one area, but then you walk upstairs to get to the main living area. So we were all up in the main living area and having drinks and talking about Trump. It was during Trump. And then it was time to go. It was like a two-hour cocktail party. So we were all being escorted out. And she had us

walk right by the dining room table, which was on floor one with Amal Clooney and sort of her A-listers as we, the little plebe journalists scored it out. Wow. So what a telling detail. What that is insanity. Most of us be too embarrassed to do that. Like if you're going to have a party with just your A-list portion of the party, have it a place that the other if you're going to have a party with just your A-list portion of the party,

have it a place that the other guests don't have to walk right by. Oh, no, no, no. She has to rub your faces in it. She has to remind you. She is queen of all she surveys. And that extends to New York media elite. And she's going to make you feel a little bit less than. So any sort of excitement you may have had about getting a private invitation to Anna Wintour's townhouse, right?

It's just you're completely, you know, deflated on your way out. It's so on brand. I love it. Yeah. But she, of course, wants us to think she's pro women. That was all like these women journalists and so on. And yet, weirdly, I haven't seen the big profile in Vogue calling out Leah Thomas for stealing our medals or calling out San Francisco University or San Francisco, whatever college it was, for attacking Riley Gaines. And that leads me to today's insane trans news. There's

so much to pick from, but I've got to get to this story. The headline from the Daily Mail, or you write, is trans woman is cleared of flashing her penis. All right. First of all, that is not a phrase. That is fake news. Her penis at three women using Ohio YWMCA after judge ruled she's too fat for her penis to be visible. I, Maureen, I can't. Well, maybe she can't see her penis, but clearly the other women in the locker room, the biological women in the locker room could see it and they don't like it. And they want this person out. And it's, of course, look at the judge.

The judge is a man telling women what we can and cannot abide. You know, this story is infuriating because it reminded me immediately of another story that broke last week. And these stories are breaking all the time. It's almost impossible to keep up. A teenage girl testified in California, a student at MLK High School. She testified before a school board over the male student who identified as female,

who had attacked other female students in their bathroom. And she got up and she said, none of you ask us if we're okay with this. None of you ask us if we feel safe. Why is it okay for us to feel unsafe? And this is the question that hangs over all of it, right? Not just women's protected spaces, but why is it okay for trans athletes

to elbow their way into female sports, elite competitions? You know, in some cases, athletes who've only begun in their middle age to begin training, let alone competing, wiping the floor with women, 15, 20 years, their junior who have been training their entire lives. Austin was to one last week, by the way, you know, he, Austin Killips who who identifies as female, won a UCI race, came in first, won a $35,000 purse, which for the first time in that history's race had been elevated to equal the purse of the male who won in the men's competition. So this is, you know, talk about irony.

Yeah. So men won both competitions. Biological men won both competitions for the first time. And they're, they're celebrating that Austin Killips is not sorry, not even a little that he took one of our medals and prize money. And it's outrageous. If I can, I got to go back to the very, very obese YMCA person. Darren Glines is his name. Now Darren goes by Rachel. And this was a criminal trial. He was facing criminal counts of indecent exposure at this YMCA in Ohio. They said that, and the only reason he was cleared is because he was allowed to be there

by policy and maybe Ohio law too, was allowed to be there by by policy and and maybe ohio law too allowing men to be in women's locker rooms as long as they say they identify as female this guy had several complaints made against him dating back to 2021 with at least three people complaining they saw a naked male in the women's locker room one said there were three juveniles present with a woman going to the front desk to report the issue. And then the worker up front reassured her that, oh no, it's actually a woman and you shouldn't be disturbed. But you take a look at this Darren Glines. That is no woman. I don't know what that is. That is a disturbed man who's gotten so

addicted to food. He can no longer see his own penis and thinks we can't either. Hello. I'd be complaining too. And now that he's been found not guilty because he's too fat to see his penis, he's going to be able to go right back in there, right back in there, Maureen. You know, you have to ask yourself, right? So any decent person who is being told that you are making an entire cohort who is already societally vulnerable, uncomfortable, you are making them feel unsafe.

Any decent person might say, let's work out a third option here. Right. Is there a private place I could go change and it's this it's this we're not even having the adult discussion right about who is genuinely identifying as female how we sort of work around these very real world complications that have practical applications to the safety of women and those who might be, as you said, disturbed and sort of, this is sort of a paraphilia, right? Perhaps they're getting off on this exact kind of thing. You know, it's just, you have to wonder where the voices are. And, you know, we see it in sport. There are very, very few. You know, you have the Martina Navratilovas and the Riley Gaineses who stand up.

But in the culture at large, among our elected officials, people who have people even in the media, very, very, very few are willing to vocalize their upset about this. And you have to wonder what it's going to take. I mean, I don't know, Megan, what do you think it's going to take? I think we're getting there. I think the Riley Gaines getting assaulted thing was an inflection point. Leah Thomas was an inflection point. All these trans activists on TikTok saying they're going to shoot us up or they're going to hurt us or that trans women are more women than we are, than biological women are, that they're more female. I mean, no, no, no.

I really think we're getting there. And I just think that too much of this, they pushed us too far, Maureen, because they sold us a bill of goods. This is about being kind. This is gonna be about compassion. Oh, the poor children who are confused, don't be such an asshole, be supportive.

And we were, we were. And it was like the camel's nose, right? Because once we saw the entire camel is now under the tent and it looks like that Darren Gleim's and the camel needs to get out that you see Darren Gleim's coming at you in the women's lady room. There's not a person alive. Wouldn't say, get him out of here. It doesn't belong. It's a man. The guy who was in the sorority playing with himself as he watched the girls change their clothes because he was getting off on the fact that he was. No, the women prisoners, the girls, the 14 year old girls who had the penis coming at him and the girls at the party, wherever, to say, thank God, thank you so much for saying exactly what I feel. And they've been afraid. They felt like you and I have, but they've been afraid, but they're less afraid right now. Yeah, I hear it from readers. I get emails and things, and it's sort of the depth of the gratitude almost feels disproportionate. But that to your point, that's

how afraid women have been to speak up and defend themselves. And, you know, I agree with you completely. We've been gaslit into believing that if we are to say anything and to raise our hands and say, no, this makes us uncomfortable or we're not safe, that we are then transphobic, we are bigots, we are TERFs, etc. You know, whenever I write about this, I almost always try to hit this point, because I think we can't hit it hard enough. We are not seeing the opposite happen with biological men. They are not being asked to see their spaces. They are not being, we don't see a barnstorming of trans men demanding an erasure of nomenclature. We don't call erectile dysfunction something gender non-specific.

Women, once again, we really need to recognize exactly what's happening. I think it's our next great fight. This and reproductive rights, it sort of goes hand in hand. And I really think it goes beyond just sports. It goes beyond just sports and children, which are absolutely children's number one. But those are some of the top two issues. It's about, it's okay to say, I don't want them in my bathroom. I don't want them in my locker room. I don't want them in any of my women's spaces, my sororities, my prisons. I don't want them. They don't belong. And the people we are arguing

with over this are men. We should have the ultimate say. Our views are superior because there are spaces. We are women. They're men. How have we seeded this debate to men? And by the way, most men, actual men who are not suffering from some sort of delusion are on our side. The poll, there was a poll out just this weekend showing vast majorities of the media you know focuses on things like they'll focus on Florida they'll there was a headline this morning about drag queen story hour you know and we're talking about when you say children number one I couldn't agree more like let let's not sexualize children before the time comes. You know, let children be children. And, you know, if I had a teenager in a locker room

who had to deal with a biological male in there stripping down and swinging his member around, I mean, this was one of the things that Riley brought up regarding Leah Thomas. This is an anatomical male stripping down, attracted to females, swinging his member around, knowing that the bulk of those athletes are extremely uncomfortable and not only doesn't care, but is probably getting off on it, you know, but we are villainized. We are the bad guys. It's a cultural delusion that I, I, I, I mean, I hope that you're right. I do feel we're at a tipping point. I don't know that we're there yet. I think we need to see more women with the bravery of say a JK Rowling stand up and say, this is not right. But especially on the left, that's where it really

needs to come from. Anna Riley Gaines, you know, I mean, she was the only swimmer in that whole mess to actually speak out about it on the record. I think she was the only one. If not, there wasn't more than one or two to just say it out how it is. I mean, as Kelly J. Keene said to me on the show a couple of Fridays ago, it's not for women to make men feel more comfortable in our spaces. I don't care. I'm actually not sorry that you're getting kicked out of my bathroom, et cetera. I'm not sorry. Sorry, not sorry. Those days need to end. Maureen Callahan, you're the best. Love, love, love everything you write at The Daily Mail. Thanks for coming on. Thanks, Megan.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show show no bs no agenda and no fear