The Megyn Kelly Show - Will Elon Musk Buy Twitter, and Johnny Depp Trial Drama, with Peter Schiff, Jonna Spilbor, and Anne Bremner | Ep. 300

Episode Date: April 14, 2022

Is Elon Musk really going to buy Twitter? Megyn Kelly is joined by Peter Schiff, CEO and Chief Economist for Euro Pacific Capital, to talk about whether Musk really is trying to buy Twitter and whether Twitter might accept is offer, the truth about the inflation crisis, Biden's absurd "Putin's price hike" talking point, why our sanctions against Russia are doing nothing, how China's economic freedom is surpassing America's, what Americans should be investing in, and more. Then, Kelly's Court with Jonna Spilbor and Anne Bremner, talking the crazy details in the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, the circumstances to the NYC shooter’s crimes and how he got caught, the Marilyn Mosby fraud case, 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. So much to get to today on our 300th podcast episode. That's exciting. In Kelly's court later, we're going to bring you the latest on this New York City subway shooter. We talked about this yesterday and this guy's history of racist hatred. Also, Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard gets heated. I actually spent a lot of time looking into this and now I'm into it and I think I'll get you into it, too. It's it's fascinating what huge fame, huge money and huge substance abuse will do to a person. But we begin today with economist Peter Schiff on the news yesterday that inflation has hit 8.5 percent last month.

That's the fastest 12 month pace since 1981, though Peter says it's worse than they're disclosing. The Biden administration is trying to blame it on external forces calling this Putin's price hike, which no one believes. Plus, Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter and it's getting really interesting. Really interesting. Joining me now to discuss it all, Peter Schiff. He's the CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital. And he joins me now. Peter, welcome back. Thanks, Megan, for having me back. And congratulations on your 300th podcast. You know, I'm going to record my 800th podcast on Friday for the Peter Schiff show. So you got 500 to go to catch me. You know what? I listen to it. I do

listen to it. And, you know, I understand. It's like listening to a foreign language you learned in high school where it's like, I can understand some of it. Yeah, well, I use simple words, so not that you wouldn't understand more complex ones. No, no, but even an economic dope like me can follow most of it. So, like, I can follow the trends you're discussing. I just couldn't, like, repeat it all to somebody, but I don't need to because I have you here. Yeah, most economists don't speak frankly because they're trying to confuse you or they don't understand the topic themselves. So but it's it's very straightforward. That's why it's easy to understand when I explain it. Yes, I'm definitely your, you know, economy for dummies consumer. So one of the things I like about you. All right, let's kick it off with Elon Musk, because this is kind of exciting. I had to say I'm excited about this. So just to bring the audience up to speed, he took over 9.2% of the Twitter stock last week. And what was a

surprise to many of us, about $3 billion worth of stock, making him their largest stockholder. And Twitter seemed to be having an oh crap moment in response to that and said, seemed to believe that they could control Musk if they put him on the board and got him to agree that he would buy no, not much more. If he bought more, it would amount to maybe just 14%, 15%, but no more than that. And that way there would be no hostile takeover. And if he sat on the board, he'd be prohibited from doing certain things. He'd have a fiduciary obligation. He wouldn't be able to tweet out weird things

like should we turn the headquarters in San Francisco into a homeless shelter? Should we change the name from Twitter to losing the W? Stuff that he was tweeting last Saturday after it was announced he'd be joining the board. Well, then comes Sunday and Twitter tweets out, the president tweets out, he's decided not to join the board. Well, then comes Sunday and Twitter tweets out, the president tweets out, he's decided not to join the board. He didn't like all those restrictions. It didn't sound like Elon Musk to be boxed in like that anyway. And the Daily, the New York Times, the Daily

podcast was saying today something like, he's not a 50% kind of guy. And so there was already speculation about whether this was the beginning of a hostile takeover, and especially when he refused to join the board. And now we know, I guess it is, right? So tell us in terms, even I can understand what he's done today and how this is likely to go. Well, today he's supposedly announced that he's made an offer to buy the entire company. But, you know, I don't think Elon Musk has any intention of buying Twitter. I don't think he has the ability, the liquidity to finance such a large purchase. So I think he's just having fun. I mean, I don't know if it's just him being eccentric. Maybe he has a plan. Maybe he thinks he'll be able to unload these

Twitter shares. I mean, he already has a pretty big paper profit on the position he has. So maybe his goal is to get out into all the hype and make a little money. But I don't think he's going to buy the company. I don't think it's worth what he is contemplating paying, nor do I think he can finance the offer in the form that he's making it. So even Elon Musk cannot necessarily spare the cash to buy Twitter, and he's the richest man in the world. Yes, but he's the richest man in the world because of the paper value of his holdings, predominantly in Tesla, but also in SpaceX. But he would have to sell his stock in order to get the cash, which would collapse the price of the stock in order to raise the cash. And does he really want to do that? Does he really want to get rid of so much Tesla to buy Twitter? And what does that say about what he believes the relative value of Tesla is?

He would be sending a message to Tesla shareholders, Twitter is a much better buy than Tesla. That's why I'm dumping all my Tesla to buy Twitter. And so even more people would be dumping Tesla. So he doesn't have, you know, what is it, 40, 50 billion dollars in spare change lying around. I doubt he's going to want to borrow the money and pledge his shares as collateral, because what happens if he gets a margin call? Now he's in an even worse position to have to liquidate those shares. So again, I think it's a bunch of noise. Maybe he's just having a lot of fun with the markets, with the media, and he may end up walking away with a nice profit. And a lot of other people who tried to ride on his coattails will have overpaid for their Twitter stock. Because, yeah, because already the stock has gone up. I think they said something

like 54 percent just based on like post his initial investment. So he's already if he sold his stock today, he would have made some good dough on it. But what he's saying now is he's offering fifty four dollars and 20 cents per share. He writes, he says, quote, I have moved straight to the end. Quote, I don't have confident in management. And he says, quote, I have moved straight to the end, quote, I don't have confident in management. And he says, Twitter has extreme potential. I will unlock it, but says this is his best and final offer. And we put Twitter, as you point out, at about a $43 billion valuation. Well, first of all, best and final offer, I mean, that could be a negotiating ploy. So if he really wants Twitter,

he would be willing to pay more than that offer. That's his opening salvo in this battle. But again, I don't think it's legitimate. I do think he wants to price the Twitter to go up. But if you actually listen to what he just said, he doesn't like the management. He doesn't have any confidence in the management. Well, if that is true and he isn't able to take over the company, then why would he hold onto the stock? He would sell it. And I think he's basically laid the foundation for selling his shares if they don't accept his offer. And for all we know, he's already doing that. I don't know what the rules are as far as what he has to disclose, but if he makes an offer and they turn it down, there's nothing that says that he has to hold his stock.

Is there any chance they do accept his offer? I don't think so. I mean, I think these guys want their jobs, right? I mean, the management just generally wants to keep their jobs. And they want to say, well, it's not in the best interest of shareholders because we don't think that you could effectively manage the company. Who cares? The stockholders will be out. They're going to get cash. They're not going to be shareholders anymore.

So that's just a ruse. Uh, it doesn't matter if the shareholders think that $54 is a good price, then they should accept it. And personally, I think Twitter is not worth $54 a share. Uh, and so I would just call Elon's bluff and say, yeah, we accept. But that could also cause the stock to crash when he doesn't do it. So I don't know. I think they're in a tough spot.

So this is just entertainment. That's what you think. He's kind of known as a Twitter troll in what I think is a fun way. Sometimes it's gotten him in trouble. It's gotten him sued. Um, but this is, this is already gotten sued. They've, they've already had lawsuits now filed on behalf of Twitter. And I'm sure if he ends up selling his stock, he's going to get sued for that too. But he can't afford to pay lawyers. He's got a lot of money for that. That's absolutely right. Okay. Um, maybe he'll move over to the Kelly's Court section of our of our show one of these days soon. So let's talk about Putin's price hike, because poor Joe Biden, you know, the savior of our economy.

Things were going along just perfectly and swimmingly until Putin started a war in Ukraine. I mean, even Biden's not bold enough to put it that way, but he is blaming these crazy inflation numbers on Vladimir Putin. And you've been making two interesting points lately. Number one, it's not Putin's price hike, but number two, the inflationary numbers are worse than is actually being revealed. The number's not really 8.5. It's more like double that. So let's start with point one. Why is it not Putin's price hike that is causing inflation to now be at, I think it's a 41 year high, 8.5%. Well, first of all, we've been dealing with much higher than expected inflation numbers for a long time, all of last year, all of 2021, long before Putin invaded the Ukraine, prices kept going up month after month,

more than expected. And the Fed kept saying, don't worry about it. It's transitory. It'll go away on its own. And in fact, the Fed was finally forced to reluctantly admit that inflation wasn't transitory. And all this happened before Putin invaded the Ukraine. And by the way, even if you're going to try to blame some inflation on the invasion, it's more the sanctions that are affecting prices than the invasion itself. Not that I'm saying that we should condone the invasion, but we also have to accept the responsibility that the U.S. is leading the charge on these sanctions. And it may be the sanctions that have more to do. is leading the charge on these sanctions. And it may be the sanctions that have more to do with it than the invasion itself. But I think neither is the

culprit. It's all the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government. It's Congress. It's the Biden administration that has been spending money that it was not collecting in taxes. We were running record budget deficits and the Federal Reserve was monetizing those deficits. We were printing all this money and the government was spending it. We told people not to go to work, not to be productive, don't help make stuff, don't provide services, but here's a bunch of money to go out and spend. We want you buying stuff even though you're not making stuff. And so we flooded the country with money. At the same time, the production of goods and services slowed down. And of course, prices went up. It's not a

surprise. It's exactly what I was saying was going to happen when they first went down this misguided path. And so we're simply reaping the whirlwind of the wind that we sowed. It's too much money chasing too few goods. And they just kept pushing money after money after money into the economy and then finally found a scapegoat. Vladimir Putin. Great. That's going to involve oil and gas shortages. And we can blame everything on him. No one's buying it. But and by the way, Megan, the the amount the sheer volume of goods coming into the United States is at an all-time record high. So we've never had so much stuff coming into the country as we have right now.

The problem is we printed even more money. And that's why everybody is chasing all this stuff. So the problem isn't a lack of stuff. It's a surplus of money. Because the government can print money, but they can't print stuff. So if they keep printing money, clearly prices have to go up because there's nothing to buy with the money they print. And why is it worse than 8.5? Well, when the government calculates the official CPI, there's a methodology that they use and they purport to try to take into account substitution or improvements in quality to adjust the price. And so the prices that are actually coming out of the CPI are not the prices that go in. There's a lot of manipulation going on to arrive at that

number. And when the government changed the CPI in the 1990s, they specifically said that they thought the CPI in the 80s and 70s was flawed because they thought that because they didn't account for substitution and- Wait, substitution and let me just stop you and dumb it down a little bit. Okay. Just dumb it down. So CPI is consumer price index. And we look at this to see how much certain goods, I mean, people like me look at it to see how much has, you know, have groceries gone up, um, you know, this March over last March or this month over the month before, uh, how much, what about, you know, this March over last March or this month over the month before? How much, what about, you know, all consumer goods that we buy, basically?

Right. So let me give you an example. So take groceries. Let's say the price of broccoli goes way up. They decide, well, consumers didn't buy broccoli because it was so expensive. Let's take it out and let's stick Brussels sprouts in there because Brussels sprouts didn't go up as much. And then they say, oh, steak prices really went up. Okay. Let's say people bought chicken instead of steak. And so we'll take out the steak and we'll assume they bought chicken. They make all these adjustments. The basket is not fixed. Yes, that's correct. But before they fixed it, right, in the 1990s, the CPI represented a fixed basket of goods. So all they did is look at the price of goods and then look at how much the price changed. And if we were measuring prices

today, the way we measured them in the 80s and the 70s, because we want to go back and say, this is the worst inflation since 1981. Well, if we measured inflation today using the same CPI that they used in 1981, that's where we'd probably be at about 17%, not 8.5%. So this is the worst inflation in the history of the country if we measure it accurately. But the government doesn't want to be honest about inflation. It lies about inflation the way it lies about everything. Well, one of the other stories we're starting to see now from the media is this is peak. Don't worry.

This is like the good news is we've peaked. And of course, I don't know anything about money, but I do know that I was told inflation was transitory and not to worry. And it kept getting worse and worse and worse. So when they tell me it's peak, I don't believe them. Should I believe them? No. I mean, first of all, they said it peaked a while ago. And so we're higher than where it was when it supposedly peaked. But it's as peaked as it was transitory. And there's no reason to believe that it's peak. Think about where interest rates are. Even though the Fed is talking about raising them, they're still at 25 basis

points, one quarter of 1%. The last time inflation was this high in 1981, interest rates were at 20%. So we're not even close to 1%, let alone 20%. So inflation is not coming to an end like it was in 1981. It's just getting started. This is like 1971, not like 1981. We have a long way to go. We're not even close to the peak of inflation. So what about the Fed? And what it's, I mean, it's had interest rates so low, it's made borrowing money so easy for so long. And all that money's flowing in the economy as a result. Now they're starting to inch up the interest rates. Is it enough? Is it, is it going soon? How high should it go and should it go high at all? Well, the interest rates should be above the inflation rate. So even if you believe-

The real one or the fake one? Well, the real one. But even the fake one is we can't go above eight and a half. People aren't lending money to lose on purpose. You have to have a real return that exceeds the rate of inflation. And we're not even close to that. But the reason that the Fed is not raising rates significantly to fight inflation is because it can't do it because we all have so much debt. But the reason we have so much debt is because the Fed could never raise rates in the past because every time they tried,

the economy would go into recession, the markets would tank, and then it'd have to go right back down to zero and do a bunch more quantitative easing. So the economy gets more and more addicted to cheap money every time we get a bigger dose. And now they're claiming that we can go cold turkey on the cheap money and

nothing's going to happen. I mean, the economy has never been more vulnerable to a rise in interest rates than it is right now. And we've never had more inflation than we do right now. So higher interest rates have never been more necessary than they are right now. But we can't get them without collapsing the economy. So we won't get them. We'll have massive inflation instead, which will do even more damage to the economy than a collapse. Oh, my gosh. Because, you know, people have referenced back in the Reagan years when we faced high inflation. And what did they do? Well, they did raise interest rates a lot, and it was painful, but it helped. But you don't see that as a realistic option

in front of us, or at least not one anyone's going to take. No. And not only do they have to raise interest rates, they have to dramatically reduce the money supply. They have to reverse all this quantitative easing. They have a $9 trillion balance sheet. Can I just interject again? I know I'm supposed to know what quantitative easing is, but I don't really. Can you explain that just quickly? Yeah. Well, it's very confusing because the whole term is a lie. But what quantitative easing really is, is debt monetization. That's when a central bank, the Federal Reserve, prints up money and buys government bonds. And so they put new money into circulation. They are inflating the money supply. That is the very essence of inflation.

Whenever the central bank says we're doing quantitative easing, what you should actually think they're saying is we are causing inflation. And that is what they did. And the consequence of that is that we're all paying higher prices. But if they want to get rid of the inflation, they have to shrink that money supply. So they have to do the opposite of quantitative easing, quantitative tightening. They've got to sell U.S. government bonds and then take the money they get and destroy it so that the money supply goes down. The problem is who is going to buy all these government bonds? Because up until recently, the Federal Reserve was the biggest customer of

the United States government because the Federal Reserve was the biggest buyer of treasuries helping to finance the deficit. Well, if the Fed goes from being the treasury's biggest customer to their biggest competitor, if the Federal Reserve is competing with the government selling treasuries into the market, who is going to buy all these treasuries and where is the money going to come from? The answer is no one's going to buy them. The price has to collapse. That's why interest rates are rising every single day. We just hit 2.9% today on a 30-year, 2.8% on a 10-year. These are the highest rates have been since COVID, but they're going up every day because nobody wants to buy treasuries. So every day, more and more treasuries get sold.

Rates are going to keep going up until eventually the markets crash. And then the Fed is forced to pivot on its stance and go back to, oh, we can't hike rates. We can't shrink our balance sheet. And that's when inflation can really kick into a higher gear. As bad as it is now, it's going to get much worse. OK, so that's what I'm looking for, the prediction. So they can't fix it. The quantitative easing can't really be effectively undone. They're not willing to raise interest rates above one point above 8.5 or one point above what it really is, which is more like 17, right? It's 18%.

So they're not going to do what's necessary to sort of do what happened under Reagan. Because remember, if the Fed is going to do quantitative tightening and sell treasury bonds, the U.S. government, the Biden administration, is going to have to dramatically reduce government spending, not just reduce the rate of increase, but actually spend less than they did in the past and actually spend a lot less. The budget deficit is projected to be two and a half trillion. Now, it's probably going to be over three trillion if they're projecting two and a half. But how are they going to sell two and a half trillion worth of treasuries when the Federal Reserve is also selling hundreds of billions worth of treasuries during the same year? They can't do it. So the federal government is going to have to dramatically

cut spending so that it doesn't have to borrow so much money, or they have to have a massive tax hike on the middle class right now, effective immediately, maybe double income taxes on the middle class, which I mean, clearly they're not going to do. They're not going to cut spending either because they'd have to cut social security, Medicare, you know, all the entitlements. I mean, they're just expanding Obamacare. We're broke. The Fed is raising rates. And these idiots just voted to spend even more money on Obamacare. And we can't even afford the money we're already spending. So it's never going to happen. They're just going to keep on printing until they destroy the value of the dollar

completely. And as I said, prices are going through the roof. They have just started. They've only just started going up and they're going much, much higher. So how does that end? I mean, does that end in a massive recession? Where does that take us and when? Well, it ends, I think, in an inflationary depression. I mean, it could end in hyperinflation where the money has no value whatsoever and you can't buy anything, no matter how many millions you have, there's nothing that you could buy because no one will sell you something. But if we're going to stop that from happening, then we're going to have to suffer a severe collapse, a financial crisis far greater than anything that we had in 2008. And nobody gets a bailout from anything. No banks get bailed out they have to fail and in

fact when they fail the depositors are going to lose their money because there's no fdic money either because that would have had to come from the fed so depositors lose their money companies go out of business investors get wiped out jobs get destroyed um you know it's going to be a real mess in the end that's why they're waiting so long and kicking the can down the road for as many years as they have, because the consequences are so horrible, nobody wants to face them. But every time we kick that can down the road, we make those horrible consequences much worse. So since we've been doing it for so long, you can only imagine just how horrific

things are going to be in order to avoid hyperinflation, which would be even more catastrophic. All right. So let's say we elect Peter Schiff as our next president in 2024. What's the first thing you do? They had to recount. No, they're not going to elect me, obviously. But if somehow I could become the president of the United States, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of things I would do. But in the short run, we would have to still go through some pain. I mean, there is no quick fix. But what I would do is enable the economy to fix itself over the long run, because the problem with the economy is government and the Federal Reserve. We need a free market economy, not a government planned economy.

We need the government to dramatically reduce its size and its cost so we can return those resources to the private sector. We need to dramatically deregulate the economy so that the free market can regulate it, not a bunch of bureaucrats. And we need to return to sound money, not money that can just be created out of thin air that has no value. The gold standard? Yes. Yes. That's the standard that the founding fathers put us on. They did it for a reason. It worked very well for as long as we followed it. So we just need to go back to it. And, you know, I'd like to get rid of the income tax, the federal income tax, the corporate income tax, Social Security tax, you know, make government much smaller.

I mean, I think the only thing the federal government should do is national defense, and it still spends too much money on defense. I think the rest of it should be covered by the states, although most of it shouldn't be covered at all. It should be taken care of in the free market. But America could be a very prosperous nation, again, if we repeat what made us so rich in the first place. But right now, we're broke. We just don't know it yet. We're living off of borrowed money. We are the world's biggest debtor nation. We owe more money than all the other nations combined. We're broke. We just don't know it yet. We're living off of borrowed money. We are the world's biggest debtor nation. We owe more money than all the other nations combined. We're running enormous trade deficits with every nation on the face of the earth. So our economy is completely incapable of producing the goods that we consume. We borrow from the rest of the world because we

don't have our own savings. We're basically being supported by the rest of the world. The world has to bear the cost of subsidizing the U.S. economy. And that's going to come to an end. And if we're going to stand on our own two feet, if we're going to be productive again, then we're going to have to return to the limited government, maximum economic freedom type economy that we had in the past. You've got my vote. Okay, we'll do it. There's so much more to go over. You heard Peter mention it a minute ago, but the sanctions that we've, we passed on Russia,

right, that Joe Biden put in place and the Europe put in place, why that may be doing more harm to us than to Vladimir Putin. We'll get into that. Plus, I want to ask about what to expect in the housing market. A lot of people worried about that. We're going to pick it up there in one minute. The sanctions on Russia, are they doing what we want them to do financially to Russia? And what are they doing to us? Well, think about it logically. So what are we doing with the sanctions? So Biden and other leaders are telling Americans, hey,

Russia's got gasoline that you need and food that you need, but you can't buy it from them anymore. We're not going to allow you to buy these goods from Russia. So you got to buy the goods someplace else. Well, now we have to pay more because now there's all this demand from the other sellers. They have much higher prices now because we've eliminated all the supply that was coming from Russia. So Americans end up paying a lot more for those goods that the US government won't let us buy from Russia. But now think about it from Russia's perspective. Russia still has all their oil. They still have all their food. That's now way more valuable because we've caused the price to go up. And now they're able to sell either illegally on black markets or to other nations

that are still trading with Russia. They're actually still able to sell their oil and their food. They just get a higher price for it than they were before. So Russia may be winning from the sanctions. And it's Americans, it's Europeans who are losing. So I think that like most things the government does, it typically backfires. Like when the government creates an anti-poverty program, you end up with more poverty, not less. And so by sanctioning Russia, we're probably going to end up helping Russia and hurting ourselves, especially by highlighting to the world the dangers of using the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. And so we may have just hastened the demise of the dollar as a reserve currency, which means we accelerate the collapse of our own economy. So basically, it wasn't going to work, the sanctions, unless we got everybody

to join on board. You have to make sure India's on board. You have to make sure China's on board. You have to make sure that all these Middle Eastern nations are on board. Otherwise they don't work so well. But even if they're all on board, there can still be people that circumvent, because let's say because of the sanctions, a product that Russia was selling went from $1 to $3. And so now the market is $3 and it's really expensive. And now under the table, illegally, Russia says, hey, we'll sell you this stuff for $2. You can get it for a big discount to the $3. There are going to be people who will illegally buy that stuff because they're saving so much money paying $2.

But at $2, Russia still gets double what they were getting before the sanctions. So Russia wins, you know, and everybody else loses as a result of those sanctions. So, you know, that's how I think this ultimately plays out. There was a report that the ruble is worth more now than it was at the beginning of this war. I've heard some people throw some cold water on that. What do you make of that? No, that's not a report. That's a fact. I mean, I haven't checked the exchange rate this morning, but the last time I looked, the ruble was higher than it was when the war began and the sanctions were announced. Now, initially, there was about a 40 percent decline in the ruble. And President Biden was bragging about how much value the ruble lost. Well,

the ruble has recovered all of that lost value and then some. Now, the ruble is still a lot lower than it was a year ago. So it's not like we have a strong ruble, but it has strengthened recently. And I believe that that is a trend that's going to continue. And right now, the dollar has been very strong against a lot of other currencies, in particular, the euro. It's not wasn't just a ruble. But I think that dollar strength is eventually going to reverse as well. I think the dollar is going to come under a lot of pressure when the markets realize that the Fed is bluffing about its ability to fight inflation and that when the markets figure that out and the Fed is ultimately forced to reverse because of the weakness in the economy

and the markets, I think the dollar is going to tank across the board, including against the ruble. And now that Putin has kind of fixed how much gold the central bank of Russia is willing to buy priced in rubles. If we see a very weak dollar in terms of rubles, that will put a lot of upward pressure on the price of gold because a lot of Russian banks will be buying gold that they can turn around and sell to the Russian government at a profit. And the strength in gold will also accelerate the decline of the dollar and feed the whole process. I know you're big on buying gold and silver as well, and that you have a firm that helps people do that. But I've heard you say it for a long time that gold is a good investment. What about this notion of the dollar no longer being the world's reserve

currency? Can you explain what does that mean and how does that affect regular people? Yeah. Well, first of all, I look at gold as money, as a store of value, not as an investment per se, like you invest in stocks or real estate. You hold on to gold to preserve value because it doesn't throw off a return like stocks or real estate do. What was the question you asked, though? I just... What about the dollar as the world's reserve currency? What does that mean? And what does it mean to the regular Joe watching this program if that is no longer the case? Yeah, people don't really understand the degree to which the American economy is dependent on the dollar and its role as the reserve currency. You've often heard the U.S. economy described

as a service sector economy, right? We're all about services. Well, where do we get all the stuff then? Because we certainly consume a lot of stuff. Americans are incredible shoppers. I mean, we have an insatiable appetite to buy stuff, right? But if we have a service sector economy, where's all this stuff coming from that we're buying? Well, it's coming from China and other countries. Well, how do we pay for it? We don't. We just print money. You see, under a normal economy, if we didn't have the reserve currency, we would either

have to produce stuff for ourselves or produce stuff for our trading partners to trade with them for the stuff they produce. But we don't have to produce stuff for ourselves or produce stuff for our trading partners to trade with them for the stuff they produce. But we don't have to produce anything. We just print money. And the rest of the world takes the money we print for the stuff they make. And so we have a much higher standard of living because we get to consume all this stuff that we didn't have to produce. So we didn't really pay for it.

But when the dollar loses its status, then the rest of the world isn't going to want dollars anymore. They're going to want stuff. And so if we want their stuff, we're going to have to make some stuff of our own to give them. And we can't do it because we don't have the factories. We don't have the savings to create the factories. We don't have the supply chains. We don't have the skilled labor. We don't have anything that a manufacturing economy needs because we're no longer a manufacturing economy. I mean, we manufacture a little, but not nearly enough to satisfy our demand. So what would have to happen if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency is American spending would implode. Consumption would collapse

because we'd have nothing to buy. And so our entire GDP would implode. We'd have a massive recession because Americans wouldn't be buying anything because we couldn't afford anything. And all the shelves would be empty because foreigners wouldn't be sending us the stuff that they produce. And we don't have the capacity to produce it for ourselves. What is the likelihood that that could happen? Oh, 100%. And when? The only question is when. Because the only way to avoid that would be for the US government to act fiscally responsible. But that's never going to happen. In fact, as long as the dollar is the reserve currency, we have no incentive to be fiscally responsible. So that's the problem

here. We're going to keep on doing this until there's a crash, because the only thing that will stop it is a crash, because we won't voluntarily face the music, because it's so politically damaging to the people in power to do that. And I also think that a lot of people in the US, including at the Fed, just take for granted the dollar's reserve currency status. I mean, they don't think that we could ever jeopardize it, that no matter how much money we print, no matter how much our deficits are, the rest of the world is just going to go along for the ride. And I think they believe that because they've gone along so far. And we've gotten away with it this long. And so the belief is we've gotten away with it this long.

And so the belief is we'll get away with it indefinitely. And I think that hubris is going to have a big price because that's not going to be the case. And I also think that the Fed and the US government have underestimated the degree to which that reserve currency status is so integral to the entire bubble economy that we have, our whole service sector economy. That's the linchpin. You pull that out and everything implodes. You're talking about manufacturing and how we don't do it anymore. And this is one of the reasons why Trump got elected, why Rick Santorum's book sold well. It wasn't always thus in our country. So what happened, right? I mean, was it NAFTA? What brought us from a country that manufactured its own goods with pride to a country that buys everything from China? Yeah, well, it was big government. It was taxes

and regulations that made the U.S. uncompetitive relative to the rest of the world. And then it was going off the gold standard and going on a dollar standard where once the dollar was the reserve currency, the rest of the world needed dollars. And how did they get dollars? Well, they sold stuff to Americans. And so we basically outsourced our entire economy. And in the short run, we benefited because the cost of production was lower overseas than it was in the U.S., especially because American companies had to deal with high regulations, high taxes, labor unions, all sorts of other things that ran up the cost of production that foreigners didn't have. And of course, you know, a lot of the regulation, the labor laws,

the environmental laws, I mean, these other countries didn't have. And of course, a lot of the regulation, the labor laws, the environmental laws, I mean, these other countries didn't have to deal with that. And so they didn't have to bake the cost of complying with those regulations into their price of their goods. And the wages were already much, much lower in the other countries. So Americans got a good deal. We traded our jobs for stuff and we did that for decades, but you know, we can't do it anymore because we've now have so much debt and wages around the world have increased to the point where there's not a big arbitrage left anymore between labor costs outside the U S and labor costs inside the United States.

Um, and, and foreigners don't want to play this game anymore. They have too many dollars. They have too many U.S. treasuries. And we're making that apparent by flexing our muscles with these sanctions. So I think that we've reached the end of the road here on this game. And when we experience the true consequences of what's happened, because, you know, we've been living on credit cards and borrowed money and imported goods, and we don't realize how drastically things are going to change for the worse when we can't rely on those things anymore. Those lifelines are going to be gone. So compare us right now to China, because they've taken a very different tact. And I've heard you say the 20th century was ours and the 21st is theirs. Yeah. And it's not that China is doing everything perfectly, far from it.

And I don't think that the Chinese economy is anywhere near what our economy was, let's say, in the 19th century and early 20th century. We are much freer or we were much freer back then than China is now. But unfortunately, in many ways, China is freer today than we are now. And that is the problem. And I'm talking about economic freedom, not necessarily political freedom, although I think we may be losing that now, too. But China has positioned itself much better because they have a far more productive workforce than America. You don't have armies of people dependent on government. You don't have people collecting Social Security and welfare. People are saving in China. They save a very substantial percent of what they

produce. And they produce a lot. I mean, just go walk down the aisles of a Walmart and take a look at where everything is made. I mean, these are very productive people. They have the equipment, the capital, industrial capacity to produce. And that's what's important. All we have is people that want to buy. But what good is wanting to buy something if you don't make anything? I'd rather have the factories and the ability to make stuff. Because if you can make stuff, you can consume it. You can't consume what you don't make. So China actually is holding the cards, not America. I think they've built a far more viable economy than the one that we have. We have a bubble economy. And I think when the dollar crashes, the Chinese currency is going

to rise dramatically. And as Americans see their standard of living collapse, the Chinese are going to see their standard of living surge. Because what's going to happen is all those goods that the Chinese used to make and send to America, they're not going to send them to America anymore. They're still going to make them. So what are they going to do with them? They're going to consume them themselves and their lives will be a lot better when they have their stuff instead of our paper. And our lives are going to be a lot worse when we don't have their stuff. And all we have is our paper. How would you hedge against that? I mean, for individuals out there feeling scared now as a result of this discussion, what should they do? I mean, we can't control, I mean, yes,

elect the right leaders, but I know you say no, no leaders are good. Politicians are not the answer. So what should individuals do? Well, you mentioned yourself. I mean, Donald Trump campaigned on making America great again by revitalizing our manufacturing and none of that happened. The trade deficits were higher when Trump left office than when he came in, even if you look at the trade deficit before COVID. So we were still continuing to disintegrate as an industrial economy, even during the Trump years. So yes, the politicians aren't going to change. It doesn't matter who you vote for. But what you do need to do is protect yourself. And that's what I've been doing myself for years. And I've been encouraging all of my clients to do the same thing. You've got to get

out of U.S. dollars. You've got to recognize that inflation is a tax. It's the way the government is funding its deficits. The deficits are going to go up. So the tax is going to go up. And there is more there is more reasons now to avoid it. And so I am helping people rearrange their investment portfolios in light of this reality to invest in countries that are not going to have this rapid inflation, but to also own assets, real assets, productive assets that sell products and services that consumers have to buy, not just what they want to buy, because a lot of things they want to buy, they're going to stop buying because the stuff they need to buy is

going to be so expensive. So you want to own the companies that sell the stuff that people need to buy and they can raise prices and they're paying their earnings to their shareholders in the form of dividends. So you have to be an old fashioned investor for value and dividend. You've got to look towards resources, raw materials, agriculture, energy, mining, but then things like utilities or things, you know, whether it's tobacco or food, you know, things and things that people have to buy and they're going to pay higher prices. You know, they're not going to they're not going to cut back on entertainment or buying computers or things like that, gadgets that are fun, but they don't really need to upgrade to the newest phone when their phone they've got will do. They need that money for food. They need it for rent or

something like that. So you want to invest in those, but you have to recognize that you need to be outside the US. So we're building portfolios of foreign in those, but you have to recognize that you need to be outside the U.S. So we're building portfolios of foreign stocks predominantly, but also focusing on some emerging market exposure, commodities exposure, precious metals. Gold and silver will be big winners in a monetary reset where the dollar is no longer the reserve currency because when the dollar is out, gold will be back in. Because before we had the dollar as a reserve, everybody had gold as reserves. We only went off the gold standard to go on the

dollar standard. And we only did that originally because the dollar was backed by gold and redeemable in gold. So the world was still on a gold standard until 1971, except it was on the gold standard through the dollar. Well, we defaulted on our commitments to redeem dollars for gold in 71. And so we've been on a fiat standard ever since. But when this experiment comes to an end, the world is simply going to go back to what existed before 1971, which is a gold standard, only it won't be through the dollar. Countries will have their own gold reserves. And obviously, in that environment, the price of gold is going to be much, much higher. So I would invite your listeners to reach out to me and talk to me through either my representatives at Europe Pacific Asset Management, Europe Pacific

Capital, to help create a brokerage account or a managed account where we can work with you on building types of portfolios that will do well. Because if you have a standard portfolio of US stocks and bonds, you'll get wiped out in your bonds. I mean, for sure, U.S. dollar bonds are going to be a horrible investment. In fact, they're already down more this year than U.S. stocks. But also, the U.S. stocks that most people own are the ones that are going to go down the most. Those are the overpriced momentum type tech stocks that everybody owns. Those are the ones that were inflated during the bubble. Well, those are the ones that are going to collapse as the air comes out of that

bubble. So you got to get into a portfolio of value and dividends, not these hyped up momentum stocks because they're not going to do well in the inflationary environment that we're in. So on that front, you mentioned rent. Where does housing fall? Essential, non-essential? Because everyone's wondering what's going to happen to their home, to the prices of homes available. Is real estate a good investment and what's going to happen to our homes? Yeah. Well, first of all, remember, as far as the CPI, the government claims that housing costs are only up about 5% year over year, which is instantly the most that they've claimed in a while, I think. But the actual increase is more like 15% to 20%. That's part of the fraud of the CPI.

They don't use actual rents or actual home prices. They use owner's equivalent rent. Well, nobody pays owner's equivalent rent. They pay real rent. And the real rents are going up triple what the government claims. So housing is a much bigger issue and rents than the government admits. But yes, housing is essential. People do need a place to live. But the question is how big a place and how many people can share one dwelling. So, you know, there is going to be a problem with real estate, certainly in the inner cities or, you know, big cities, urban areas where people, you have to go to work anymore. They can work from home. People want more space. They want more land. Maybe they want to grow some vegetables on it. I don't know. But I think so. Real estate,

it's going to be a mixed bag because mortgage rates are going up and that's going to be a big problem. In fact, we're now over 5%, which may not seem that high historically, but when you have historically high prices and rates were close to 3% and now they're over 5%, that makes a huge deal. And of course, the construction costs for new homes are going through the roof. So we can't supply new homes into the market because they're too expensive to build. So you're kind of stuck with the inventory that's already there. So that would keep home prices propped up. But what I do think is going to happen to the rental market is that as inflation really rears up and people are just spending so much money on food and utilities and stuff like that, they're going to even have to cut back on their

rent. And so what might happen is people that live by themselves might take on roommates. People that have homes might start renting out rooms, a spare bedroom, the attic. Families can be sharing. Older children can move back in with their parents or the elderly can move back in with their grown children. We're going to get that sense of community back that we lost thanks to the iPhone. So there's a silver lining. Peter, listen, I got to run, but I appreciate your insights on it. You've been right about so much. And that is what is so terrifying. Peter Schiff, thank you. All the best and come back soon. And remember, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on SiriusXM

Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Full video show and clips at our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, we would love for you to subscribe to our audio podcast where we've put out the 300 episodes. Because one thing you can get from them is our archives. You can go back and check out any one of those 300 shows. We get a ton, a ton of downloads from our archives because there's a lot of great, great content there. So check it out. Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, Apple, wherever you get your podcasts for free. On the docket today of Kelly's Court. Well, one of the biggest trials we've seen out of Hollywood in a long, long time. And at the center of it is one of Hollywood's Court? Well, one of the biggest trials we've seen out of Hollywood in a long, long time.

And at the center of it is one of Hollywood's most famous and most dysfunctional relationships. Johnny Depp and actress Amber Heard once described their relationship as, quote, intensely passionate, at times volatile, but always bound by love. That was their divorce announcement. It's always love until you wind up in court suing each other for tens of millions of dollars. Johnny Depp wants 50 million from his now ex-wife, claiming that she defamed him when in 2018 she wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post portraying herself as a victim of domestic abuse. She did not name him, but it was clear the implication, so he alleges.

In return, Amber Heard has now countersued Johnny Depp for $100 million. And the case opened this week. It's underway right now. We have the latest highlights from it or low lights depending on your POV. So who is likely to prevail in this celebrity showdown? Joining me now, criminal defense attorney, Jonna Spilbore and trial attorney, Ann Bremner. Ladies, welcome. So I spent way too much time preparing for this particular segment of today's show. I was listening to various podcasts of people who've been following this thing very closely. And what I've determined is there's no one left to root for. These are both obviously deeply troubled, narcissistic, deranged people. I mean, that's just clear. And I personally have no desire to he was getting a raw deal by newspapers who refused to acknowledge alleged abuse. She heaped on him and other people I know and trust saying she was the victim. He's the horror. And we'll see. But that's that's really what's at the heart of the defamation case, because truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim.

So if she can prove he really is an abuser who abused her, she's going to win. And if he can prove she was the abuser, I was the victim, and that this was a lie she made up to try to portray herself as this victim and then women's rights advocate, and she ruined my career in the process, he's going to win. Jonna, what do you make? They did opening statements on Tuesday. They both have top notch lawyers and it's a fierce battle already. How's it going and how do you see the case? So let me just say this. You have spent a lot of time preparing for today's segment. I actually stayed home from work and watched the trial yesterday from nine to five.

I couldn't stop. Now, listen, here's the thing. Nobody is going to win this case. And I don't mean there won't be a verdict for one side or the other. There will be. But right now, they are both losers because what we are hearing as the public consuming this is a lot of dirty laundry, a lot of personal stuff that we really didn't need to hear. And can I just say this for a minute? I know that Amber Heard wrote the op-ed, but if it weren't at the heart of this lawsuit, I probably would have easily forgotten that she wrote the op-ed. I'm not saying it wasn't important, but in terms of ruining or affecting Johnny Depp's career, had he let it go, he probably will be better off than he's going to be, even if he wins this trial. That's my convoluted opinion.

All right. And what do you I mean, I see the point because PR wise has been a nightmare. But this comes on the heels of another trial. So I don't know that Johnny Depp has much downside at this point because he sued this newspaper for claiming he was an abuser. He sued them for defamation. And he lost. He lost that trial, which these jurors will never know. They will not be told about that.

They may have heard about it prior to today. They would have screened for that on right here. But he already lost this. Then he tried to appeal. The appeal was denied. And then Amber, she's she made the allegation separately and directly in The Washington Post. And now he's like, all right, now I'm going to come after you. I don't like my results.

That was a BS verdict, he thinks. And he's like, let's go again. Right. It's like, you know, game on for him. Like she gave him a perfect opportunity. And, you know, it's defamation by implication. She didn't name him. But who else would it be? You know, except for Johnny Depp, who's the abuser. And she's been victimized and vilified and attacked by, you know, trolls and people in the comment sections and everything else. So she gets out there and says, you know, I'm this huge victim. It's a perfect comeback for him, I think, because and I've heard that at the trial, he's got legions of female fans. You know, when he walks in the courtroom, they're all, you know, Twitter and and, you know, they love him.

And I know it's mostly male jury, but the fact is, is that he's got a fan base. He lost out on a major enterprise that's been playing Jack Sparrow because of what happened with the case with the son. So it's like getting two bites of the apple. You know, it's like a second chance to basically come in the United States and show that he is not a wife beater. And he's got some pretty good evidence against her, including her on tape, allegedly admitting that she hit him. It was a total dysfunctional relationship, as you said, a couple of narcissists and now two scorpions circling and trying to sting each other in a courtroom. So, John, on her side, let's talk about what she's got going on her side that that may suggest he abused her.

The as I understand it, she went in and filed for divorce and that it emerged that she came out. Let me get the dates. May 23, 2016. She filed for divorce after 15 months of marriage. Four days later, a judge issued a TRO against Johnny Depp over domestic violence allegations. That doesn't mean he did it. That's it's very easy for somebody to go in there and say, I was abused. Here's a bruise. Give me a TRO. Most judges will give it to you. That doesn't mean it actually happened. But there are pictures of her alleged injuries that appear in the tabloids at the time. The LAPD finds no evidence of a crime. But the question is, did he beat her? Because there are pictures of her looking like she has injuries. His lawyers at the last trial are saying she faked that. We're showing the picture if you want to check it on YouTube later. This is a fake injury, or at least he didn't cause

it because she intentionally walked out the front of the L.A. courthouse that day. She filed for divorce. Now, I mean, even at my level of being a public figure, you don't have to walk in and out the front door of the courthouse. When you're Amber Heard, you really don't have to use the front door. I mean, she clearly wanted to be photographed. And they had a witness yesterday by the last name Buka, who was a friend of Johnny Depp since childhood but he said he became Amber's friend as well who said I saw her after the alleged incident that she said led to that bruise and there was nothing on her face we actually had this sound bite it's number two take a listen I'm walking back I say to Amber as I'm walking up, he hit you. And she goes, yeah, he threw a phone

at me and hit me. And I'm looking, cause I had just seen her two feet away and I'm going, where? And she puts her head out. She puts her face out like that for me to look at the right side of her face and I'm looking but at that point also I'm looking and I turn I turn around get on the other side we're in the doorway so I'm on this side with the light shining this way from the doorway with the lights above and but the sunshine and she's got a face out like this looking, you know, to show me. And I'm looking, and I inspect the face. I'm looking at her forehead. I'm looking at the side of her eye.

I'm looking at her cheek. I'm looking at her chin. I'm looking at the other side of the face. I'm looking at the whole thing. And I don't see anything i don't see anything to i don't see a cut a bruise swelling redness it's just amber's face what do you make of it well first of all this guy's gonna get his own show when this trial is over he is he is the reason I was glued to the TV yesterday. But listen, he comes across as a very credible witness. Yes, he's been a friend of Johnny Depp since they were kids.

I get that. And yes, he's being called by Johnny Depp's camp. But he seems just kind of like this palooka who doesn't know much about makeup because they grilled him about makeup in Boston with different mascara, blah, blah, blah, all day yesterday. And he's saying, look, I was around them all the time. She tried to point out an injury to me. I looked as hard as I could. I did not see one. But he comes across as credible. So that's going to be an interesting fact, set of facts for this jury to debate.

And it will come down to those injuries really that's the main thing did johnny what a did she cause her own injury was she actually injured and b if so did johnny depp do it that's really the crux of this case that it because is that is there are there other alleged incidents of physical abuse she's alleging or is that the main one that's the main one from her now let's keep in mind that Johnny Depp is actually alleging that she's committed physical abuse against him neither one of these people look good in this endeavor but that's the one that's the one that that started this whole thing that guy we just played um to your point he was asked on cross-examination whether he kissed her multiple times on the cheek when he saw her at the door. He said,

no, I'm not European. I'm from Brooklyn. Love that. So, yeah, he's a character. So the other thing that keep in mind, this is Johnny Depp presenting his case first. So right now we don't have her case yet. And, you know, things tend to get worse for the plaintiff once the defendant gets to present its side of the story, though her lawyers are cross-examining all of his witnesses. This is an interesting, I don't totally understand this evidence, but the same guy said he heard that Amber's sister, the week of her alleged abuse, the week of Amber's alleged abuse by Don Johnny Depp, that Amber's sister had thrown a fake punch at her and that it was sort of like funny or fun. Let's listen to soundbite three. Same guy. Amber's on the left. Whitney's on the right. They're hanging out. Can I stand up? Yes, sir.

And so here's Amber, here's Whitney, and they're hanging, waiting for the elevator. And Whitney does the looking at each other, yapping or whatever they're doing. And Whitney goes like this. Pow. Just a fake pow. And then they both start laughing. And then they're just standing there so his point and is that what what actual domestic abuse victim would be joking around with fake punches within days of claiming they really got hurt well yeah and then by implication

and by what he said before of course that the injuries she claimed weren't there, that she's doctored up pictures or doctored up her face. And we even have the credibility issue, of course, of when she said she donated the seven million that she had in the settlement and then didn't. You know, she looks like somebody that wasn't famous, who became famous, more famous, marrying Johnny Depp. And part of the, of course, the case for johnny depp is she wanted fame and and she got it now she's getting potentially infamy because like john has said neither one of these people look good i mean they look terrible but somebody's going to come out prevailing at the end and they'll be looking a lot better than their opponent and hopefully going off into the future with with some measure of

the reputation intact but you know the question of whether you get your reputation back after a trial and a trial like this is questionable but johnny depp needs to get back into the game and this is how i think he thinks he can do it how does it how does it affect any of this that the london judge ruled in 2018 that the son's article was quote substantially true that the father of two had attacked amber heard a dozen times causing her to fear for her life on three occasions right like i realize he tried to appeal that with to no avail. But that's what a judge so found, Jonna. So, like, there's got to be some proof there on her side beyond this one incident and enough to at least convince a judge that she could that she wasn't directly involved in that, but that the son was within its rights to call him an abuser. You know, I do think it's a little different when you are suing a publication or a newspaper versus what he's doing now is suing a person directly. And also I think over there across the pond in that case, there was no jury. It was just a judge. So for what

that's worth, the burden of proof could be totally, uh, you know, less than what it is here. So the fact that that information is not going to get in front of this jury, I think is important for Johnny Depp. And I don't think it's going to play into it's not going to play into this trial really at all. Kind of apples and oranges, because now he's suing the perpetrator, if you will, directly and not. He's saying you believed her. He's saying to this newspaper, OK, you believed her. She was lying to you. And then then she said it publicly. And he's like,'s not just that and his lawyers admit johnny depp texted terrible things about her and said terrible things um that used words the lawyer said that like you and i wouldn't use because they know what's likely to come in is this this quote

trove of shocking texts i think this might be from um it's either from the son of the daily mail writing up the article or the trial the earlier trial anyway uh he was texting with avengers star paul bettany uh who's isn't isn't that the guy from beautiful mind so good i'm not into the avengers series so yeah yeah yeah yeah so good and beautiful but anyway he texted to him let's burn amber let's drown her before we burn her. I will F her burnt corpse afterward to make sure she's dead. By the way, this is she married him after this. This is November 13. They got married after this.

So this is a sick, sick group of people here. But the defense is going to say, Johnny's lawyers, they're the plaintiffs. They're going to say not a nice husband, not a nice way to talk about your wife. But she was the instigator that she equated violence with caring about one each other, one another. And one thing Johnny Depp on his side, he has on his side is finger gate. She actually did manage to cost him the tip of his finger. Right. It's so crazy. I don't, a few years earlier, oh, we have the photo.

Okay. In 2000, I don't know when it was, but she threw, in Australia, she allegedly threw a vodka bottle at him and severed the tip of his finger. I mean, that's pretty good evidence, Anne, that she, warning, viewer warning, there's the tip of Johnny Depp's severed finger. Gross. Yeah, I mean, I was just thinking to myself, you know, falling in love is like a temporary form of insanity for some people, you know, you get in there and you just kind of do crazy things. I mean, she married him after that. I saw that text. I thought that's what you would call vile. I mean,

with a capital V, right? And I mean, it's, it's completely off the charts. But the fact is, I think he's doing something really well in this case. And that is, like you said, making her the abuser. He lost the tip of his finger. She throws a vodka bottle on at him. She's on tape, you know, basically admitting that she hit him. Didn't she have another incident with another partner where there was violence? And so she's what the kids today would call, I guess, pansexual or bisexual. I don't know. The letters confuse me,

but she was sort of married to another woman, though I guess it wasn't official. And there was an incident at an airport where the then wife accused her of abusing her. There was a police report and everything. Then I guess the wife and Amber accused the cops of being homophobic. But it turns out the person who took a police report and everything. Then I guess the wife and Amber accused the cops of being like homophobic. But it turns out the person who took the police report was herself a lesbian cop who's like, it's not my hatred of lesbians.

You know, I saw what I saw. Anyway, so she's got she's got a prior partner who alleges she had a history of domestic abuse or at least at one point said that. And he's got a bunch of exes from Winona Ryder to Kate Moss to this woman he was married to for 14 years, apparently all of whom are saying he's not an abuser and he never has been. Go ahead. Sorry, finish your point, Anne. When I was going to say, I was just like, I had my niece here and her boyfriend and they're kind of the kids, you know, and I ran this by him. They go, what did his ex-girlfriend say? What did his ex-wife say? You know, I said, hey, they all said he's great. And they're like, OK, we're on Team Depp. That's it. That's all we need. You know, and I said there was this other incident and they're like, OK,

done. You know, we were the jury. We vote. We vote for Johnny Depp. But the thing is, you know, she's got that history. She's got the evidence in this case that she is an abuser. And basically, I think that that can be enough for a jury to say, you know, that Johnny Depp has a case. You know, he's basically saying you didn't need to write that op-ed in the Washington Post. That was completely self-serving. And what you did thereby was almost ruined my career. And I'm not going to take it anymore. I'm not going to let you do this to me anymore. And I'm going to stand up for myself. And I think it's a really well prepared case from what I've seen so far. I know John has been watching it in real time. He's at least trying to muddy the waters, right? He's at least trying to muddy the waters so that there's an alternate story out there and not just he's an abuser. I mean, the finger picture doesn't lie. No, they've also the Daily Mail has been doing like in-depth reporting on this bunch of breaking news for the past couple of years.

And they they have audio recordings in which Amber talks about hitting Johnny Depp and question it. She questions whether anyone would believe that Johnny Depp is actually a domestic violence victim, saying, quote, I can't promise I won't get physical again. God, I effing sometimes get so mad I lose it, she says in one clip. Then it goes on to say, quote, tell the world Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim to of domestic violence. See how many believe or side with you. Now, that could just be him saying, you know, I'm going to tell them you did it to me. And she's going to and she innocently says, no one's going to believe that you psycho. We don't know what the truth is. But, Jonna, that brings me to an unfortunate episode of this case known as Poopgate.

Just in case you already couldn't stand these people. He's alleging or alleged during the last trial that she left human feces in their marital bed. What do we do with that? Oh, God, I don't know. And if it can't get any worse, I can say this about that. You know, this is a divorce. Let me say this. Their divorce ended.

But did it really? I mean, this is the kind of thing that you hear in a heated and contested divorce. People are imperfect. And when people fall out of love with each other, they often forget that they ever were in love in the first place. And you do disgusting things. You can say disgusting things. And oftentimes you think those disgusting things that you do are going to be kept in private between you. And when they're not, and when they're exposed, everybody comes out dirty for a lack of a better word. And that's what they're, I mean, they are slinging, well, they're slinging poop instead of slinging mud, literally and

figuratively in this case. And like, you know, and like I'm pointing out, like you pointed out, I do not see anybody winning in the court of public opinion. They might win in the court of law, but not in the court of public opinion. Well, I will tell you why I think Poopgate is relevant because he's alleging that's what led him to divorce her. Like that was the final straw for him that he went home. They had an argument and he left. He says, this is a pattern. She abused him and he would just leave.

He would try to get out of Dodge. And I think even their therapist says, yes, that's true. And she equated him leaving either in the middle of a fight or permanently as a massive threat, you know, fear of abandonment, et cetera, and reacted in a very weird, upsetting way in a lot of circumstances. And there was this one incident where he he left. He's got like 10,000 homes and they were in L.A. and he has these five pent in the Hollywood Hills. And then the next morning, his poor maid, Hilda, who'd been working for him for 30 years, goes to make the marital bed, which he did not sleep in. Amber had been there and finds human feces. Disgusting.

We know this. She tried to blame it on their little dogs. I can't remember what kind of dog it was. Everyone knows there's a difference between the human poop and dog poop. My audience can weigh in on this later, but there's no way it was the dog. It was like the little dog too. It wasn't like my big Strudwick. It was the little tiny and the Hilda. Hilda was like the dogs. They never got on top of the bed ever. They can't get up on top of their bed. Their little legs are too small and they've never soiled the bed um and apparently amber allegedly admitted that she or

she either did it or was or was responsible for her friend doing it to their mutual business and like whatever contact this guy who says they both called me and they were freaking out. I was mediating. Anyway, he claims Amber admitted it. She says that that's not true. I didn't admit it. But the point is, if she's lying about it, right, if she's lying and you've got a third party who's willing to say she admitted it to me and now she's trying to lie about it, it's just she's a liar, right? And the jury in this case, seven people, civil jury, had the right to say you lied about that. You won't own up to something that disgusting. I don't trust you. OK, I mean, I'm glad to hear that. OK, but wait, that's good because it gives me one one more minute to make this point.

They have their therapist taking the stand. OK, so his security guards are going to take the stand and say we always had to get him an extra room when they traveled together because he would have to leave. She would start abusing him and he would have to leave. And then their therapist is taking the stand, Dr. Laurel Anderson. And she was on the stand just now. Here's a highlight of what she said. Listen here. He had had been well controlled, I think, for almost, I don't know, 20, 30 years. And

both were victims of abuse in their homes. But I thought he had been well controlled for decades. And then with Ms. Hurd, he was triggered and they engaged in what I saw as mutual abuse. Sometimes I'm not. I know she led on more than one occasion and started it to keep him with her because abandonment and having him leave was her worst nightmare. And she goes on to say she led on one more occasion. You heard that. And then she says, and I think he may have initiated it on occasions, but that I'm less sure of. And she goes on to say it was a point of pride to her if she felt disrespected to initiate a fight. If he was going to leave her to

deescalate a fight, she would strike him to keep him there. She would rather be in a fight to keep him there. And she said Johnny Depp had trouble finding his voice during their marital sessions. He was, quote, really overwhelmed. She never witnessed abuse between the pair herself. Now, I understand why Johnny Depp's lawyer thinks this is helpful, Jonna, but it shows that she that she abused him too. But it doesn't disprove that he abused her. And in fact, it supports that, that he did. I mean, she's saying he may have initiated on occasions in terms of a defamation case. That's ballgame. That's all you need. You don't have to prove who's more responsible. You just have to prove that Amber had the right to say I was abused by him. Exactly. That's why I'm shaking

my head about this testimony. And if this were a joint therapist for each of them, they would have to allow this therapist to testify because otherwise it would be privileged. So they're both okay with this testimony, I out, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But it does tie in one thing. Because in the very beginning of this trial, when Johnny Depp's sister took the stand for a day and a half, and she loves him, you know, like, she's his ride or die, basically. And she was explaining a lot about Johnny's behavior in having to get away from a situation. And that was based on the fact that Johnny's mother, their mother, apparently was somewhat abusive. And the way that they dealt with that was by escaping. And apparently, you know, 50 years later, Johnny's never figured out a better way to deal with that kind of thing. So it does conjure a little bit of sympathy for Johnny Depp, because you figure, oh, my God, here's a guy. He owns a million houses. He's very successful.

He's worth a billion dollars. And he actually is human because he's got these issues, these childhood issues that he's never gotten over. It might be a sympathy card, a little bit of a sympathy card. His substance abuse has taken center stage at the earlier trial and this trial. I mean, like the amount of alcohol, they're alleged to like some flight with two bottles of champagne, a half a bottle of whiskey and a bunch of cocaine on an empty stomach or he hadn't eaten in days. I mean, just in case you're sitting at home thinking my life sucks and I wish I were a Hollywood celebrity with a billion dollars and apartments everywhere. And I look like Johnny Depp or Amber Heard. Don't don't think that you're wrong. Your life is better than theirs.

It's more fulfilling. It's it's healthier. It's safer. I mean, these are all corruptive influences. And this is this is what I see when I see them. And I don't think he's going to win this trial. And she's not going to win her cross claim. I think he's just looking to muddy the waters and get it more in the public record that she also abused him. So that is a win for him, because I do believe she did. She did. I mean, I believe the therapist that she she did it and he did it. And this is a completely effed up couple that is if you needed more proof of why you should discourage your child from going to live a Hollywood lifestyle. There it is. That's what we should be taking away from this. OK, up next, we're going to get a little bit more serious and take on the New York City subway shooter, his history of racist hatred and whether the FBI

dropped the ball in this case. OK, John is Billboard and Ann Bremmer are my guests today, and we're going to kick it off with what's happened in New York City. So we now know that they're who the shooter was. He's been apprehended. I have to say it's a little odd because Mayor Adams is like, we got him. And I was like, yes, they got him. And then I found out, well, they got him because he basically contacted the NYPD and was like, here I am.

Come get me. Here I am. This is where to find me. Like, I mean, I'm glad we got him, but like, I'm not sure we should be like patting ourselves on the back. So the troubling thing about this guy's history is that he was apparently on the terrorist watch list for a time um he managed to get a gun he has at least 12 prior convictions though no felonies so how is this guy not you know being monitored how is he being provided access to firearms how were we not sort of keeping a closer eye on him? Jada, I'll start with you. Well, that's a great question. I would like to know how it is that you can't say something, you can't form an opinion on Twitter about COVID without getting blacklisted or you can't wind up

in Facebook jail. But you've got a guy who regularly went on social media rants, racist rants, homicidal rants, and he's allowed to do that with impunity. But if you have an opinion on social media, you are not, number one. Number two, around here in New York, if you have a misdemeanor on your record, you're going to have a tough time getting a gun, let alone 12. So even though legally, it's usually not a preclude you from getting a gun. It is a practical matter. Oh, it does. Even if the misdemeanor is a minor misdemeanor, like like a DWI or a DWAI. So number three, if we're going to do away with cops, which is also a bad idea, well, then you better not do away with the cameras that are going to catch people doing the crap that the cops can't arrest them for. I mean, those are the top three things that needed to happen in this case that didn't happen. And you're right. He turned himself in and basically

said, I'm at the McDonald's, come and get me. And they got him. So you're right. Eric Adams has no cause to hold a trophy up or put a star on his jacket because it wasn't about him. As a matter of fact, it just illustrates the failings of this government. Seriously, I'm like, OK, you know, like I'm I'm ready to give you credit until I find out that basically you couldn't find him, even though there were lots of breadcrumbs until he was like, here I am. Would you come get me? I'm like, OK. And let's start with that. What about the Facebook piece of this, like the online social media? She's John's got a good point. Like you can't say anything right.

Like so many people like RFK Jr. We interviewed him. He's been banned. He's been banned. He had his account taken down on Instagram and Facebook and all these things. But you can be this guy with his racist rants, his misogynistic rants, his threatening of violence, threatening. He hated the mayor, too. No problem. Why? Yeah, I mean, exactly. That's just it's just from the sublime to the ridiculous. How can you ban Bobby Kennedy Jr. because he's anti-vax?

That's an opinion he has. Are you basically saying if he weighs in on this, you're going to like totally change people's opinions out there. Therefore, we have to censure you and take you off Instagram or Twitter or whatever else. And this guy, I mean, you've seen the kind of things he was saying. I mean, he was a bomb waiting to go off. He's the accident waiting to happen. I mean, this guy is just like, here I am, here I am, here I am. Nobody does anything. And then by the way, at the end, he says, I heard you were looking for me. I'm right here. Amazing. What about the fact? So he was on the FBI watch list before, but was apparently cleared in 2019 after multiple interviews.

He had entered into the FBI's guardian lead system, I guess, in New Mexico. I'm not sure what that is exactly, but the guardian, the FBI's system in New Mexico. I mean, it sounds like we don't know why he was entered into that list or that system, Jonna, but they can't keep you on that system forever. So if you don't commit a crime or do something particularly dangerous, you come off of it and then, you know, they stop watching you. Yeah. And last I heard, we didn't defund the FBI. So you would think they would at least stay on top of their game, but they didn't. The other thing that makes me really hot under the collar about this is this guy intentionally dressed like he was a subway worker. When you see those pictures, like people probably thought

he belonged there. I mean, that, that to me adds insult to the multiple injury here. Like he knew what he was doing. He might be mentally depraved or he might have some sort of mental illness, but he sure was calculating for a guy who's crazy. You know, another thing, we got to stop coddling the crazies. And I don't mean that against, there are people with mental illness, I understand, and hopefully they can get help. And that's great. But a lot of times people with mental illness also commit crimes. We can't coddle them. And we have been and that needs to stop. We are not safe until we do. Well, you know, and that he's going to raise a mentally deficient, you know, mentally ill, whatever defense when this ultimately goes to trial.

Apparently, his sister says he's not mentally ill. And you tell me whether somebody truly mentally ill to the point where it could get you off a trial could be as organized and methodical smoke bombs and the number of victims he had as this guy was. All right. And I was thinking the exact same thing. I mean, the sister said he's not mentally ill. When I was a prosecutor, we used to say like in a robbery case, he wasn't holding up a telephone pole with a banana. He was holding up a bank with a gun. I mean, look at this guy. Meticulous. I mean, totally organized.

He's dressed the part. And he pulls it off. Who does that? I mean, he knew the nature and quality of his act. He knew what's right from wrong. And he knew right from wrong because he said, I heard you looking for me. Here I am. He knew he did it. So I don't know where the defense goes. I don't think very far. And Johnny point out the camera reference you made the subways after putting cameras and all

the subways and bragging to us about how under our last loser mayor, you know, how safe we were all going to be now. They didn't have them on, not one. So none of this was caught by the infamous subway cameras that the New Yorkers paid for, for exactly this sort of a situation. And cameras don't stop crimes, right? Cameras will help us catch the perp or the culprit. They don't stop the bullets from firing out of the gun. Police can help do that. Police can certainly help do that. And if this guy didn't turn himself in, he'd probably still be on the loose and committing or planning to commit another crime. It's absolutely ridiculous. And we need to act with lightning speed. We can start in New York City because New York City needs it back with lightning speed and

start refunding these police, getting them out there, checking the infrastructure and don't get on with your three piece suit in front of a camera and think that you did something good until these incidents are few and far between. We have a long way to go. I'll get off my soapbox. No, this is the same mayor who was telling us like a month ago that we shouldn't actually be afraid on the subway. That was like, I can't remember how he put it, but like fear is not the appropriate emotion and the subways are safe. Well, actually not so much. We're having women being shoved in front of the trains. Um, right now we're having people attacked down there all the time with knives, with hammers. And now you got this guy, a mass shooting. It's a miracle. No one died. A miracle. Thank God for at least that piece of this. So we'll continue to

follow. Okay. So let's take a walk down memory lane and talk about Marilyn Mosby, the state's attorney in Maryland who came to national prominence after Freddie Gray, after the ride-along that killed Freddie, you know, the rough ride, the alleged rough ride that killed Freddie Gray, a black man in Baltimore. All the police were acquitted of the charges. And remember, wasn't she the one who was like, this is our moment? I'm pretty sure it was Marilyn Moby. Moby was like, this is our moment. It's like, shut up.

What are you saying? This isn't about you and your stupid moment. To the youth of this city, I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. And as young people, our time is now.

Go prosecute the case or don't prosecute the case, but this isn't about you. You want to be starlet um well she's back in the spotlight but not for the reasons that she would hope she's actually running for state's attorney again even though she's facing felony charges are they felony charges jonna yes they're felony charges felony fraud charges so they think they're saying she's a serial liar that she's a fraudster that she's a defrauder who stole money from the citizens she's trying to represent right now um by a few different ways so tell us what she allegedly did so what she did this is similar to now i don't

know if you're a real housewives of new jersey fan but i am a little bit and theresa judice went to prison for this same thing they're they claiming that Mosby committed fraud in trying to get not one, but two mortgages that she lied in order to take. I guess maybe the down payment is what she was looking to get out of her deferred comp fund. She had to answer a series of questions in order to qualify for that. She didn't actually qualify for that, but she answered the question so that she would. That's fraud. She did that on two applications. She actually got the money. She purchased two vacation homes. Now, part of the issue is in order to qualify to get money out of your retirement fund, you have to be suffering a hardship. Needing to buy two vacation homes in Florida is not qualified as a hardship. I don't know how they're going to, the voters are going

to get past all this because her trial is going to be after the vote, but, but the primary is going to be before she's ever convicted. So this is a real quagmire for the, for the voters. Well, I mean, they elected her and they, they, they seemed to, they seemed to like Marilyn Mosby down there, although she was given quite a bit of guff at a recent. I don't look like like a town hall meeting. And this is actually what got my attention on this case. I was like, oh, look at this. There's Marilyn Mosby and the voters who have to make this decision seem irritated that she afforded herself these options that they are not allowed to afford themselves of. And they don't see her two hundred and fifty thousand dollar salary as hardship anyway that they pay for. They think she's making plenty of dough and that she shouldn't have been able to

tap into these plans, these deferred compensation plans that they wouldn't have been allowed to tap into and that she apparently lied in order to do it. That's the accusation. Here's a little bit of that town hall meeting. I'm concerned right now, given the optics of your situation, how any person in Baltimore can feel comfortable with a state's attorney who spends time in Florida flaunting a annual salary of two hundred fifty thousand dollars and then decides to do what many people in our city can't do, take money out of their pension funds so they can flip houses and make a profit of $150,000. Now, you can't deny that because that's in your own documents. And if you want to talk about your

innocence, then try the case. Why did you add instability to this primary run by postponing this case when you said you wanted to be tried right away. I think that I'm being racially and politically and personally, they're being attacked by an individual who has calmed every aspect of my life for the past two years. I have nothing to be apologetic about and utilizing my own money. So when I'm here- It's not your money. I'm not, it wasn't my money. It was my money.

My retirement. So in any event, I am here to talk about the work and I'm not going to allow you or anybody else to distract me from it. Next question. She played the race card, Anne. What does that have to do with it? Either you took that money inappropriately or you didn't.

Your race has nothing to do with it. Yeah, unbelievable. I'm thinking, wow, you know, unbelievable what she just did. I mean, it's a paper chase. It's all there in terms of the documents. What's she going to say next? Like Michael Avenatti, I flew too close to the sun. You know, I mean, what is that?

I mean, just look over here. Don't look at me. You know, it's like she's trying to make it into like an empowering moment. I will not allow you to like this is one of your constituents trying to figure out whether you're a criminal. That's that's what the feds are alleging here. Like you can beat him up all you want. But the voters are going to have the final say on whether you get this job again. Well, I was thinking I'd vote for him for president. I love that guy. He's all over it. You know, she's just like distraction.

I mean, it's racist, you know. That guy was on. Just blows him off. All right. So what do you make of it, John? Do you think, you know, I don't know. How do you like the government's chances in this case from what little we know?

You know, but these cases, when you're prosecuting these cases, they're fairly easy to prove. I mean, not for nothing, but if you fail to dot an I across a T, sometimes that can come back to bite you. She's like, my husband managed everything. My husband managed the taxes

and all this paperwork. It wasn't me. Yeah, and not a great excuse. We've seen it happen in the past where husband and wife both go to the clink for something like this. She should be a little bit more contrite, especially since she wants to run again. She decided that that person who stood up at the town hall is not going to vote

for her. So she blasted him and she did it in a pretty rude way, too. There was a much more diplomatic way to answer that question. Hey, look, assert your innocence. That's great. I'm all for it. I do criminal defense work. But if you're a public figure and you're running for public office, you need to be a little more diplomatic and a little more contrite. And oh, by the way, don't break the law. And don't wrongly indict a bunch of cops who you accused of doing stuff they never did and never apologized for what you put them through. This is not her moment. This is not her. No. OK, let's talk about the whopper in the time we have left class action lawsuit attempt in the, uh, U S district court for the Southern district of Florida, where Mr. Walter Coleman, this is the opening line of the article in the Washington post. He thought his burger King burger was going to be large and satisfying as glorious as the advertising advertisements portrayed it. But Coleman and countless others felt cheated when they discovered the actual size of their burgers.

So and what they're mad that the that the Whopper was kind of lame. They expected more. Yeah. Size matters, I guess. Right. I mean, I don't know. I looked at this and I thought, oh, you know, Shakespeare, let's kill the lawyers. I mean, enough already. I mean, look at the ad. They're always a little bit different than really the burger you get. Why have a class action? I mean, I think there's more important things to pursue in our lofty profession.

That's just my two cents from out here in Seattle. I just looked at that and thought, OK, maybe the ads look like it's better than it is. Isn't that what life's all about? We see ads always look better. Like this picture we're showing on YouTube, like the lettuce is always so fluffy, like in that picture. They say you never get fluffy lettuce in a burger that you get from fast food restaurants, Jonna.

Like what is this guy thinking? In real life, they always look like the sweaty little hockey pucks. I have not consumed a fast food burger and I don't know how long. I think if I were dying and I had to order some fast food, I'd get fries and a shake that's about it but i look they actually might win the whole where's the beef lawsuit right i don't

they might win but i mean who really wins just the lawyers are going to make money off this burger king might put a little more you know weird meat in their burger no and then what the day they're not going to this is going to be dismissed. Um, I think, I mean, maybe I could be wrong, but, uh, if, if this guy manages to get past emotion to dismiss, he's going to be a very rich man because Burger King has a lot of, they may not have a lot of meat, but they have a lot of dough, but I'm Bob. Thank you. Enjoy the clams casino. I'm here every Tuesday. Ladies. Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Don't miss the show tomorrow when we have Buck Sexton and Dana Lash and we'll see you then.

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