The Megyn Kelly Show - Classified Docs in Biden's Garage, and Evidence Against Idaho Suspect, with Alan Dershowitz, Sharyl Attkisson, Marcia Clark, and Mark Geragos ｜ Ep. 471

00:00:00.540 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.

00:00:12.220 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday.

00:00:16.400 Oh, we've got a great, great show for you today.

00:00:19.560 In just a bit, we're going to have a powerful combo on Kelly's Court.

00:00:22.660 Talking Idaho, Mark Garagosa, Marsha Clark, the Dream Team back with me.

00:00:26.360 Plus, Cheryl Ackeson is coming up with a lot of thoughts on these Biden documents, among other things.

00:00:32.320 But we're going to begin today with Alan Dershowitz on this breaking news that we had yesterday into today,

00:00:38.980 continuing developments that a special counsel has been appointed now by the Department of Justice

00:00:43.620 to look into the Joe Biden classified documents mess.

00:00:48.580 Yes, another special counsel for another classified documents story.

00:00:52.060 What are we doing? What are we doing?

00:00:53.960 We learned yesterday that this has been going on for months in secret, so-called transparency, nowhere to be found.

00:01:00.940 No media reporting.

00:01:02.840 I guess if you're Joe Biden, you get to find your own documents and break the news yourself after managing it for three months behind the scenes.

00:01:09.520 So why are we just finding out about this now?

00:01:11.880 And what the hell? Why is it drip, drip, drip?

00:01:14.040 Why is it like, OK, we found one, but then, oh, God, there's another.

00:01:17.300 Oh, wait, no, there's a third.

00:01:18.380 And like, who is managing this? Right.

00:01:21.080 It raises all sorts of questions about the ineptitude of those supporting President Biden on this.

00:01:28.400 And more importantly, what the legal ramifications of all of this are for Donald Trump, for Donald Trump.

00:01:34.560 Yeah. For Joe Biden, too, I guess we'll talk about it.

00:01:38.360 Joining me now, one of our MK show favorites, Alan Dershowitz.

00:01:40.980 He's a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Price of Principle.

00:01:47.480 And man, is that a subject he knows a lot about, having lived it personally for a long time.

00:01:52.300 Alan, great to see you. How are you?

00:01:54.180 I'm doing great. Thank you for having me on.

00:01:55.860 I always enjoy talking to you.

00:01:57.880 Good. And I love your podcast.

00:01:59.520 I always listen to it. Very informative.

00:02:02.060 So, OK, I mean, you tell me what you think.

00:02:05.860 I think this special counsel looking into Joe Biden never would have happened had they not been going after Donald Trump this aggressively.

00:02:12.660 It's I don't think it's going to lead anywhere, even though they've gone after civilians for far less than what Joe Biden has admitted to doing.

00:02:22.760 But the thing I'm most interested in is how, in your view, does all this affect the case against Trump?

00:02:28.300 Because now, just to update the audience, as I mentioned in the intro, we have not one, not two, but three discoveries of Joe Biden holding classified documents, including top secret documents at three different places.

00:02:41.700 His his Washington, D.C. office that was connected to his work for University of Pennsylvania after his vice presidency, his home in Wilmington, Delaware, out in the garage next to his Corvette.

00:02:54.040 And now a third disclosure late yesterday of a document, at least coming from inside that same home.

00:03:01.500 What do you make of it?

00:03:02.380 Well, first, I think there will be more disclosures, not only of documents improperly handed handled by Biden, but by previous presidents.

00:03:10.640 This is something that must have been happening for years and years and years.

00:03:14.240 And it was only the fact that the Justice Department went after Trump so aggressively with a search warrant and with a complete search of the home that has even made this a story.

00:03:26.380 This is a perfect example of tit for tat politics.

00:03:29.620 The Democrats go after Trump improperly, unconstitutionally.

00:03:34.460 And now, of course, the Republicans are are going to get even and the victims are the American public who don't benefit from this.

00:03:44.140 In the end, nothing will happen.

00:03:46.980 I rarely ever make perfect predictions on the media here.

00:03:51.240 I'm going to make a 100 percent certain conviction.

00:03:54.020 There will be no criminal prosecution of Donald Trump or of Joe Biden.

00:03:58.420 They cancel each other out unless, obviously, more information comes out than Joe's obstruction of justice or Richard Nixon type behavior.

00:04:08.120 But this makes it clear as can be that you can't have a double standard of justice, particularly when two people are running each other against each other for president.

00:04:19.420 That's why special counsel was appointed, because they appointed him against Trump.

00:04:23.780 So they had to appoint him against Biden.

00:04:25.640 Everything has to be equal and one will cancel out the other. 0.90

00:04:30.840 I totally agree with everything you just said.

00:04:34.080 This is window dressing on the Biden side to make it look like they're both being treated the same for what would normally be a slap on the wrist.

00:04:42.080 Like, OK, give us back the documents.

00:04:43.620 And I realize Trump went further than that and said, you know, kept arguing past the point of return.

00:04:49.740 And now they actually claim that he lied through a lawyer about having given back all the documents when, in fact, he hadn't.

00:04:56.340 They'll they'll fight all that out, maybe.

00:04:58.300 But the bottom line is, in the mind of the American people, this is classified information being kept by a former vice president and a former president.

00:05:07.480 And they're going to see it as the same.

00:05:09.080 And if they get different treatment, you know, it's going to be extraordinary under any circumstance, Alan.

00:05:13.860 But especially when you're talking about the unprecedented act of indicting criminally a former president, which they are thinking about doing to Trump.

00:05:22.180 Yeah. Look, I think there are very few things that all Americans agree on.

00:05:26.040 But the one thing that all Americans agree on is that the Trump situation is different from the Biden situation.

00:05:33.140 Half of America thinks that Biden is worse.

00:05:35.720 Half of America thinks that Trump is worse.

00:05:38.020 And each of them has a point.

00:05:40.880 Trump was worse in the sense that he didn't come forward and disclose immediately.

00:05:46.040 There may have been some misstatements.

00:05:48.660 There were materials found after there were assurances they wouldn't be found.

00:05:52.180 On the other hand, we have Trump being the president of the United States at the time, having the ability to declassify material, whereas Biden was the vice president, didn't have the ability to classify material.

00:06:06.080 Also, with Biden, there was this delay.

00:06:09.140 Why a delay between early November and the midterm elections?

00:06:13.600 And then why a two-month-long delay?

00:06:16.480 And there are also speculation that Biden would never have revealed this information had the media not gotten wind of it.

00:06:24.980 Now the question is, who leaked it to the media?

00:06:27.680 Who's out to get Biden?

00:06:29.400 Who was out to get Trump?

00:06:31.060 This reflects the worst, the worst of American politics.

00:06:35.180 I'm actually starting to wonder, this is a little tongue-in-cheek, if Joe Biden is behind this whole strategy because he doesn't actually want an indictment of President Trump.

00:06:47.040 He's offering something that would make it less likely because he'd prefer to run against him.

00:06:52.460 That he said publicly, that's the one thing that'll guarantee I run again.

00:06:56.600 And he really believes Trump's beatable.

00:06:58.840 Well, look, this certainly does keep him in the political game.

00:07:09.200 There are all kinds of machinations in politics.

00:07:12.320 We don't know what the motivations were.

00:07:14.740 I think the most likely scenario is that both of them simply screwed up.

00:07:20.680 They didn't do anything in order to sell classified material to the Chinese.

00:07:29.140 You know, each are claiming a China or a Russian connection.

00:07:32.520 It's very conspiratorial.

00:07:34.700 When there are two options, you know, malice or stupidity or callousness, you always go for the stupidity and the carelessness.

00:07:41.140 And so I suspect that both sides were careless.

00:07:45.240 I suspect that previous presidents were careless, too.

00:07:47.700 And that before this investigation is over, we will find classified material in the possession or having been in the possession of previous presidents as well.

00:07:58.880 For me, the implication is let's change the law.

00:08:01.920 Let's have far less classification.

00:08:03.920 By the way, Biden could do very interesting as the president.

00:08:06.480 He can now declassify the Ukrainian material that he got when he was vice president so he can allay all suspicions that he took this material for an improper purpose.

00:08:19.380 He now has the power for purposes of transparency to declassify.

00:08:24.580 Now, there may be some stuff that's very secret and shouldn't be declassified, but much of it can now be declassified.

00:08:30.660 And let's hope that in the future, A, we have narrower classification laws, B, narrower criminal laws, this idea of weaponizing the criminal justice system, each side against the other.

00:08:42.180 It's let's include a willfulness, a specificity requirement in the law before you can charge somebody with criminal behavior.

00:08:51.300 By the way, that should apply not only to former presidents.

00:08:54.020 It should also apply to people in the army, low-ranking officials, many of whom have suffered grievously from having accidentally or inadvertently taken home a piece of classified material.

00:09:07.180 So the time has come to review this whole mess of criminalizing classified material.

00:09:12.340 Let's make it simple.

00:09:14.140 Let's create a single standard.

00:09:16.300 And let's put this behind us.

00:09:18.720 I, once again, agree with literally every word you just said, all of it.

00:09:22.620 We overclassify.

00:09:24.220 I guarantee you, Carter, Obama, George W., Bill Clinton all have classified documents sitting someplace in their homes or apartments right now.

00:09:34.220 And we just don't know about it because they didn't have a nosy national archivist who decided to poke the bear.

00:09:40.300 And in Biden's case, they didn't have lawyers who went back for some reason to take a hard look to see what's there.

00:09:47.100 And there's a lot of debate about what made his lawyers do that.

00:09:50.320 Is it is it just the Trump scandal?

00:09:53.940 Did they want to make sure?

00:09:55.040 I mean, I don't know.

00:09:56.000 Those are some of the questions we have to answer.

00:09:57.260 But here's my this is my question for you, having agreed on everything.

00:10:01.020 Here's the sticky wicket.

00:10:02.320 Andrew McCarthy raised this over at National Review.

00:10:04.840 What about people like Kendra Kingsbury, former FBI analyst who right now is looking at the prospect of 10 years in prison, potentially for taking classified documents and keeping them at her personal residence?

00:10:22.100 The lead prosecutor in this case, David Raskin, who was subsequently tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland to assist in the Trump document investigation at Mar-a-Lago, he argued Kingsbury knew her personal residence was not an authorized location for such storage.

00:10:37.660 And having unauthorized possession of these 20 documents relating to national defense was not OK, he says she willfully retained the documents and failed to deliver them to an officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive them.

00:10:54.560 Now, he Andrew raises the point that The Washington Post did a report on Kendra back in December trying to say, see what's going to happen to Kendra?

00:11:03.360 That's what should happen to Trump.

00:11:04.940 Right.

00:11:06.100 Her case looks an awful lot like Joe Biden's, too.

00:11:09.480 And that's what these special counsels, the DOJ, that are going to have to deal with, that they've gone after Jane Doe's much more aggressively than they are likely to go after, in particular, Joe Biden here.

00:11:21.580 But that's the problem with special counsel, why I generally don't like them.

00:11:25.180 They have a specific person who's targeted by them.

00:11:28.860 They don't look at comparative cases.

00:11:30.920 They just look at the single case and they have to look at comparative cases.

00:11:34.140 Look at Sandy Berger. 0.52

00:11:35.100 Sandy Berger is the best example.

00:11:37.080 He's a good guy.

00:11:37.920 I like him.

00:11:38.760 A terrific lawyer and a very good aide to President Clinton.

00:11:42.540 But he was writing a memoir and he got lazy and he went to the archives and he stuck some secret material in his socks and maybe his underwear and he got a slap on the wrist.

00:11:53.620 Now, it hurt him.

00:11:54.600 It was a big slap on the wrist because it hurt his career.

00:11:57.220 But there was no criminal, you know, imprisonment, no search of his home, none of that.

00:12:03.520 And so you have to have a single standard.

00:12:05.480 And these people who are now being investigated or previously have lost their security clearance based on this kind of material ought to have them restored.

00:12:16.080 And we ought to go back in time and create a single standard based on what we do with Biden and what we do with Trump and what we did with Hillary Clinton and what we did with Sandy Berger.

00:12:28.040 You can't have one standard for Democrats, one for Republicans, one standard for high ranking people, another standard for low people, low ranking people who just want their jobs back.

00:12:39.120 Now, the special counsel appointed to investigate Biden again, like kind of air quotes on this, because I mean, we both agree it's not going anywhere.

00:12:45.940 Is Maryland U.S. Attorney Robert Herr, who was nominated by then President Donald Trump in 2017 and recently worked in private practice.

00:12:54.440 And this here's the question.

00:12:57.760 And then you have a different a different prosecutor, a special special counsel looking into Donald Trump.

00:13:03.940 The special prosecutor looking into Trump, I think, was probably on the precipice of charging Donald Trump, of indicting Donald Trump prior to this.

00:13:12.820 And I wonder what's going through that guy's mind now, because you say he's not supposed to really look at the comparative cases.

00:13:19.560 He's supposed to be looking at Trump only.

00:13:20.960 And in that lane, the Democrats and maybe the special counsel, they're outraged, Alan.

00:13:26.980 They're outraged over Trump because, yes, it's true.

00:13:29.820 He didn't just discover documents that may have belonged to the National Archives and not him and then call them up and say, here, come take them.

00:13:38.800 Several other steps happened.

00:13:40.200 He sort of obfuscated.

00:13:42.560 He said no.

00:13:43.800 He submitted this sworn declaration by his lawyer saying we've given everything.

00:13:47.600 And then it turned out they hadn't given everything.

00:13:49.620 And maybe there are reasons for that.

00:13:51.120 Maybe we'll learn at some point why they did that.

00:13:53.540 And it'll sound less pernicious.

00:13:56.180 But this guy, is this guy going to be persuaded?

00:13:59.260 Because to me, it's a political argument.

00:14:00.920 You look over the Biden lane, you say, what's this going to do to the fabric of the country?

00:14:04.040 It's a huge deal to indict a former president.

00:14:06.820 We've never done that before.

00:14:07.920 Oh, now you're going to so like all the considerations to make him not do it are political, not legal.

00:14:13.180 That's the point I'm trying to get.

00:14:14.520 No, it's it's it's bad to indict a former president.

00:14:17.480 It's 10 times worse to indict a man running for president against the incumbent who appointed you for office, which is why I never believed even before.

00:14:27.620 And I wrote this even before these recent disclosures about Biden.

00:14:31.800 I never believed that Garland would accept, even if there was a recommendation from a special prosecutor to prosecute Trump.

00:14:40.160 You cannot prosecute Trump if you didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton, if you only gave a slap on the wrist to Sandy Berger.

00:14:48.000 And now, of course, with Biden, it's impossible.

00:14:51.180 But I do not believe that Garland would have indicted the man running against the man who appointed him for president.

00:14:59.380 That would create such division in this country that it could lead to what happened in Brazil.

00:15:05.800 That's the danger here.

00:15:07.720 And we're already a divided country.

00:15:10.200 Let's put this behind us.

00:15:12.300 Let's understand that everybody makes mistakes when it comes to classified material.

00:15:16.500 Let's clarify the law.

00:15:18.820 Let's stop weaponizing the criminal justice system. 0.98

00:15:21.720 Let's stop doing tit for tat politics as if two right wrong to wrongs make a third wrong.

00:15:29.560 And here are you going to put wrong.

00:15:31.460 Let's talk about how it would play out, because I actually disagree.

00:15:33.380 I think Trump is about to get indicted, but I don't think there's any way they can do that now.

00:15:36.820 Either way, either way, we both agree they can't do that now.

00:15:40.580 I'm just not going to.

00:15:41.180 So what would happen if the Trump special counsel said Biden documents be damned?

00:15:46.500 I don't care.

00:15:47.180 It's not the same.

00:15:48.240 Biden kept him next to his Corvette.

00:15:50.520 So it's different.

00:15:52.320 But anyway, he thinks he's got Trump by the jugular.

00:15:54.620 You know, he's like, hey, he lied under oath or his lawyer did and all the stuff that may have been exciting him and other Democrats.

00:16:01.680 What happens if he says, I don't care?

00:16:03.880 I do want to indict him.

00:16:05.220 Does he have the final say?

00:16:06.780 Does Garland have the final say?

00:16:09.180 And would anybody be allowed to consider the politics of it?

00:16:12.960 Well, Garland definitely has the final say.

00:16:15.180 He would not say he's considering the politics of it.

00:16:17.840 He would say he's considering not only justice must be done, but must be seen to be done.

00:16:22.620 And if you have half the country believing that a double standard of justice has been applied, he's not going to do it.

00:16:29.800 You know, I wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled What About-ism? 0.83

00:16:34.440 That's what the Hillary Clinton people were saying.

00:16:36.800 They were accusing the Trump people of arguing what about-ism because Trump was always saying, well, what about Hillary Clinton?

00:16:43.980 What about Sandy Berger?

00:16:45.480 And I defended what about-ism.

00:16:47.920 I think in America, you have to have a single standard of justice.

00:16:51.540 So it's fair for either side to say, well, what about the other side?

00:16:56.520 And so there are two alternatives.

00:16:58.300 One, indict them all.

00:16:59.820 And the other is indict none of them.

00:17:01.620 And I think the result will be to indict none of them.

00:17:04.000 And I hope by you bringing up these other cases of people in lower level positions who are now subject to criminal investigation or losing their security clearance,

00:17:14.380 I hope we go back and rethink all of those and reconsider all of those and let people get on with their lives and start anew and make it clear what the rules are and apply the rules fairly to everybody,

00:17:26.980 set up procedures for every president when they leave office to make sure they don't have the ability to decide what's brought to Mar-a-Lago or what's brought to the Corvette garage.

00:17:36.900 That becomes something that the government of the United States takes responsibility for doing.

00:17:41.060 Mm-hmm.

00:17:42.320 And just as a reminder for our audience, the Justice Department policy is not to indict any sitting president,

00:17:47.220 but that does not prevent them from indicting somebody who loses his run for a second term or somebody who decides not to run for his second term.

00:17:56.100 So Joe Biden in this imaginary world would still potentially be on the hot coals.

00:18:00.680 But again, neither of the lawyers you're listening to right now believe that that special counsel investigation is going anywhere.

00:18:08.000 The really interesting threat is what does it do to Trump?

00:18:10.500 Go ahead, Ellen.

00:18:11.820 People may very well move for the impeachment of Biden based on this information,

00:18:17.740 and I would be just as opposed to that as I was to the impeachment of Trump.

00:18:23.020 In order to impeach, you have to have treason.

00:18:25.520 It's not treason.

00:18:26.480 Bribery.

00:18:26.900 It's not bribery.

00:18:27.660 Or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

00:18:30.600 None of this fits that criteria, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republican tit-for-tat politicians will have hearings on this.

00:18:39.840 I hope they're not like the January 6th hearings, which were the worst hearings in American history since McCarthyism.

00:18:46.180 The other side had no chance to cross-examine.

00:18:48.380 The other side had no chance to subpoena.

00:18:50.340 I hope that isn't repeated by the Republicans, but it may be.

00:18:56.400 And so we may see indictments, although I think we won't see them.

00:19:01.280 We may see impeachment.

00:19:02.380 We may see an effort to get impeachment.

00:19:04.120 And of course, there are now enough Republicans in the House to impeach.

00:19:07.240 All you need is a simple majority.

00:19:09.080 But I hope that doesn't happen.

00:19:10.620 And if it does, I will defend Biden as vociferously as I defended Trump, even though I disagree.

00:19:17.520 Trump did.

00:19:17.880 No, it's 100 percent going to happen if they prosecute Donald Trump.

00:19:22.820 I mean, Joe Biden will be impeached if they prosecute Donald Trump and not go after Biden.

00:19:27.800 Though great, principled and brilliant Alan Dershowitz.

00:19:31.840 What a pleasure.

00:19:32.420 Thank you, sir.

00:19:33.840 My pleasure.

00:19:34.440 Thank you.

00:19:35.480 All right.

00:19:35.700 And coming up next, Cheryl Ackeson, another brilliant, principled person, will join us on exactly how this has gone down.

00:19:41.740 She's seen some red flags in the messaging that we're getting.

00:19:44.580 And she's always great on red flags when it comes to our elected officials. 0.99

00:19:48.980 We are continuing the Biden Classified Documents conversation with Cheryl Ackeson, host of Full Measure with Cheryl Ackeson.

00:20:00.400 Welcome back, Cheryl. 1.00

00:20:01.780 So I just want to get to sort of some of the messaging on this, because there is a real question about why this came out, at least the first the first batch that were found on November 1st, right before the midterms, and why they kept it silent for so long.

00:20:15.500 And then there's a second question about why, when they found this first batch at his office in Washington, D.C., connected to University of Pennsylvania, they didn't then say, oh, man, we better search every place right now so we make sure we have all potential errant documents collected so we don't have to piecemeal get discovered and get found out on it.

00:20:41.060 And they're not. It's been a mess. So I have lots of questions.

00:20:44.860 But here on the question of transparency is NBC News, which is very interesting, right?

00:20:50.760 Just to have the left wing media raising real questions of President Biden on this, of his press secretary on the promise of transparency he made to us.

00:20:59.820 Sot one. Do you acknowledge that the fact that the White House did not reveal this to the public, despite the fact that you've known about it for months, undercuts the president's promise of being transparent with the American people?

00:21:13.520 But we. But here's the thing. They were transparent.

00:21:16.620 There was there. There was transparency in doing what you're supposed to do when these when these items were discovered.

00:21:23.220 Not with the American people. Look, we I'm here standing in front of you answering these questions. 0.88

00:21:29.820 Cheryl, is that transparency?

00:21:32.220 Well, it's not. But also, I will point out, we're taking the word of the people involved in the alleged misconduct that they did what they said they did when they said they did it.

00:21:44.320 I think they probably did conduct a search. And I'm assuming these sorts of things just based on history and what we've seen in the past.

00:21:52.160 I don't think they did wait to discover these other things. I think they probably did conduct a big search.

00:21:57.560 I think it's a mistake to rely upon the things that we're hearing now reported by the media or by the Department of Justice or by Biden's own lawyers.

00:22:06.720 It's a mistake to take that at face value and assume that's an accurate representation of what really happened.

00:22:12.060 But I would suggest when you say they should have conducted a global search at the time, I think they did probably.

00:22:19.520 But that shouldn't have been them. That should have been special, independent people, you know, clear to see classified information that would have been called in.

00:22:28.580 So there could be, you know, an ethical sense to this investigation that we could refer to.

00:22:33.800 And isn't it funny how anything that could be negative to Donald Trump was leaked by the Department of Justice repeatedly, but nothing that could be damaging to Biden seems to be leaked until they're ready for it to come out, whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop stuff or whether it sees these things.

00:22:49.540 Because we know now Department of Justice officials can keep a secret when they want to keep a secret.

00:22:54.760 Good point. Yes, exactly. So we don't know how we're being spun or misled.

00:22:59.240 What they're telling us this week is the first batch at that office in Washington, D.C., connected to his think tank, that they were found November 1st.

00:23:08.460 The second batch was found December 20th in the garage. And I don't know when batch three was found.

00:23:16.440 They say it's a document. We'll see. But that's another one classified document that was found inside Mr.

00:23:22.560 Biden's home in Willing Wilmington, Delaware.

00:23:25.400 And the thing that's really aggravating, among others, is how flippant Joe Biden is being about this after lecturing us on 60 Minutes about how horrible Trump was.

00:23:36.460 Here's just as a reminder, quickly, let's go back to the way he initially characterized the keeping of classified and even top secret, which is what he's done by his own admission, documents off property or unsecured or not with the National Archives.

00:23:49.540 So we saw it. Joe Biden in September, late September, September 18th on 60 Minutes, stop five.

00:23:56.680 When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor of Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself looking at that image?

00:24:08.040 And now asked about batch two that was in his garage at home. Listen to him.

00:24:36.300 Classified material. Next year, Corvette. What were you thinking?

00:24:44.540 Let me get a chance to speak on all this, God willing, soon.

00:24:48.560 But as I said earlier this week, people and by the way, my Corvette's in a locked garage.

00:24:53.580 OK, so it's not like you're sitting out in the street.

00:24:55.680 But anyway, yes, as well as my Corvette.

00:24:59.920 Wow. I'm sorry, that is just I guess he has no choice but to take that approach.

00:25:07.800 He's not going to say, hey, I'm I'm guilty of the most heinous thing now that I said Donald Trump was guilty of the most heinous thing.

00:25:14.480 But again, Megan, it makes no sense. There's obviously still a lot of blanks to be filled in that there was suddenly a search conducted by, you know, thousand dollar an hour lawyers of these places right before the election.

00:25:27.560 After Joe Biden's been president all this time, there's a reason all this took place.

00:25:31.320 I suspect people knew well prior to the time we're being told they discovered the first batch of documents, that there were potentially or or maybe definitely classified documents in some locations that President Biden had.

00:25:43.420 And there's even a chance that they knew someone working with Biden or whoever his minders are, that they knew when he gave that interview in September and when they were attacking Donald Trump, that Biden had committed some violations that could be seen as similar.

00:25:57.920 So the question to that is, why would they not stop him from commenting on these things?

00:26:04.220 Why would they press so hard on the Donald Trump documents?

00:26:06.720 And I don't think the thing I'm about to postulate is necessarily what happened, but they make us think this way by the scheming that's happened in the past.

00:26:15.500 What if they, whoever they are, already knew at the time they picked the fight with Donald Trump about the documents and decided to go to the FBI raid instead of communicating with him and dealing it in a civil matter?

00:26:27.920 What if they, whoever they are, get Joe Biden to come down hard and say what a terrible violation this is, only to then reveal at a key point in time to them when they wanted out that he did something that could be seen as similar.

00:26:44.820 And now he's in, as I call it, a Kobayashi Maru Star Trek reference, sort of a no-win situation because he's boxed himself in.

00:26:52.720 Who would be engineering that and who would want all of this to be happening right now?

00:26:56.700 I don't have the answer, but we know nothing happens by accident.

00:27:00.340 And these narratives don't make it on the news.

00:27:02.540 This story is not out because investigative journalists did hard work.

00:27:06.140 This story is out, or even because of leaks, because they, whoever they are, wanted it out right now in this exact way.

00:27:12.960 Eric Bolling was asking me the other day, I went on his show on Newsmax and he was saying, could it have been someone like Hamila Karas?

00:27:22.200 Maybe some, some civilian by, you know, who we've never heard of, like who would have an interest in compromising Joe Biden or hurting Joe Biden?

00:27:29.060 But I was saying with Alan Dershowitz could go the other way.

00:27:32.020 It could be Joe Biden doesn't want to see an indictment of Donald Trump because he, he recognizes he'd like to run against Trump.

00:27:39.420 He thinks he can beat Trump.

00:27:40.560 He thinks, you know, I beat him once, I'll beat him again.

00:27:42.760 And I don't know if I could beat Ron DeSantis.

00:27:45.340 Why don't I do something to stop the Trump prosecution?

00:27:48.560 That doesn't really hurt me that badly politically.

00:27:50.500 Well, I think if I'm just speculating here, but I think if that were the case, it would be easy enough for Biden to signal that there shouldn't be a prosecution.

00:27:59.620 And I don't think Merrick Garland, even though he's independent, can do what he wants.

00:28:03.440 I don't think he would prosecute if Biden were to send a signal that, hey, this is a former president.

00:28:08.340 Oh, come on, Cheryl. He doesn't interfere. 1.00

00:28:10.400 Biden does not interfere with Merrick Garland.

00:28:12.940 Okay, so, so then let's go further.

00:28:14.760 I think Biden could signal to Merrick Garland not to prosecute Trump and people would buy that based on the fact pattern that we have.

00:28:23.240 He wouldn't have to go to the trouble of setting himself up to create this big ruse to make Garland not prosecute.

00:28:29.820 Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

00:28:30.580 And even like all of it leads me back to that other question, which is under any scenario, whether it's somebody trying to hurt Biden, whether it's Biden trying to get rid of this prosecution of Trump, whether it's just Biden being, you know, inept.

00:28:44.760 I don't get why we're having piecemeal.

00:28:48.580 Guess what?

00:28:50.020 Another big reveal.

00:28:51.860 You know why?

00:28:53.540 Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say.

00:28:56.960 Whatever.

00:28:57.360 The lawyers just happen to be reviewing his think tank and who, by the way, sends their lawyers to go empty out their think tank.

00:29:05.080 And, you know, now they're officially saying, oh, those documents were found in a locked closet.

00:29:09.240 When Biden spoke about it personally the other day, he said in in a closet or maybe in a box and or may or may not have been locked.

00:29:19.680 And now they're like, oh, but it's only a dozen documents.

00:29:22.100 But Biden used both the term a box of documents and boxes of documents.

00:29:26.440 So even in his recitation, I realize we can't put a lot of stock in the way he speaks, but it was all over the map.

00:29:33.400 And now we're being told second tranche in the garage.

00:29:36.260 And then we are told only one document in inside the home, all of which we question.

00:29:41.880 But why would it be handled so haphazardly?

00:29:45.360 And so, I mean, it's like the Three Stooges running this operation.

00:29:49.940 I don't think so, Megan.

00:29:51.020 I think this is they're not they're shrewd people who manage information for whoever they're managing it for.

00:29:58.260 And this was thought out.

00:29:59.780 It didn't have to come out since it happened months ago.

00:30:02.740 It didn't have to come out on the day it did.

00:30:04.740 And whoever decided to release it thought this out how they, in my opinion, based on experience, they knew the first day that they were going to take a certain period of time and release more information the next day or when that happened.

00:30:17.320 And there's a reason for it.

00:30:18.780 I can't say what it is.

00:30:20.440 One bit of speculation would be we know people who manage information in the past have taken advantage of the drip drip syndrome.

00:30:27.680 When you get a little bit at a time, you inoculate people past the initial shock.

00:30:33.180 If you if you put it all out there at once, wow, three different places so far that classified documents have been found, including in his house.

00:30:40.800 Maybe that's a worse bang than they wanted to get or thought they would get if they said, here's what we found one day.

00:30:47.560 Oh, there's a little more.

00:30:49.000 Oh, there's a little more.

00:30:50.800 Someone has whoever's pulling strings on this story has decided this is the way they want it to be out.

00:30:57.200 I don't get the sense it's as haphazard as I think they would like us to assume.

00:31:02.000 Let me ask you whether that makes sense.

00:31:03.480 And we just to underscore for the viewers, again, we're speculating here on the many conspiracy theories that are out there, like who could have done it?

00:31:09.180 Because it doesn't make sense as delivered.

00:31:10.720 That's that's one thing we agree on.

00:31:11.800 We don't know why it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make much sense, you know, for the reasons that we discussed.

00:31:17.980 But politically, I don't see how that, you know, if you're Gavin Newsom, let's say, let's go to the crazy place.

00:31:25.020 Gavin Newsom somehow knew about this and is doing this or Kamala Harris or just Democrats who don't think they can win with Biden and want him to go because he's too old and he's infeeble and he's infirm.

00:31:32.560 Um, how how is this a campaign deal breaker?

00:31:37.740 How like, oh, he can't be the nominee because our best issue against Trump is he stored classified documents inappropriately.

00:31:47.960 And now we've handicapped our ability to argue that because Biden did it.

00:31:52.620 That's how that is weak sauce.

00:31:54.140 This is all legal dispute.

00:31:56.240 The politics against Trump are he's a madman.

00:32:00.220 He says the crazy things.

00:32:01.680 January 6th.

00:32:02.740 It's not like the documents thing.

00:32:05.780 Well, there's also let's postulate something else again based on experience.

00:32:09.640 We know to to understand that what we're hearing is not the whole story in general, because that's what experience taught us.

00:32:16.280 But what if at some point in time they were hiding this?

00:32:20.940 Clearly, they were hiding it from the public, but it came to be understood or believed that it would come out at some point, whether because there's a Republican Congress or because people inside the Department of Justice were saying, if you don't talk about it, we're going to have to talk about it soon.

00:32:34.980 Pressure was building.

00:32:35.780 Maybe too many people know about it.

00:32:37.200 Who knows?

00:32:38.540 But maybe they felt that they had to put it out in a way that they felt would be least less damaging than if the FBI or did a raid or the Department of Justice held a big news conference and said it.

00:32:49.640 They thought this would be a way that would be a softer landing for something that would come out anyway.

00:32:54.520 And let me mention, there's a funny little story of something that happened at CBS about the drip drip, the idea that you can float a little something out there and then add to it.

00:33:03.880 When Bill Clinton was accused of having the affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, his some of his top people leaked to CBS News as White House correspondent when I worked there, that they were going to announce that Bill Clinton kissed Monica Lewinsky, but nothing more.

00:33:18.640 This is before any admissions had been made, but that he kissed her.

00:33:22.280 They were going to float that out there themselves.

00:33:24.480 They gave it to CBS.

00:33:25.940 CBS reported it without saying who gave it to them.

00:33:29.700 They didn't like, meaning the White House, the reaction.

00:33:32.720 They floated that trial balloon.

00:33:33.960 They didn't like what people thought about and how they reacted to that revelation.

00:33:37.840 They then held a press conference saying that it wasn't true.

00:33:41.320 So the same people that planted the story then denied the story and CBS was in the position of not saying or for whatever reason not wanting to say, hey, the White House is the one who gave us the story.

00:33:52.580 Now they're making us look bad like we have a false story, but they're the ones who told us.

00:33:56.220 They just sort of ate what sounded like a bad story.

00:33:58.840 I tell that long thing to to show how there's all kinds of behind the scenes machinations going on that will say, try this out, see how people react, announce a little bit of this, turn it around.

00:34:11.300 I just think there's a lot going on that we don't know about.

00:34:14.720 Yeah. And you get used as a reporter at these, you know, Biden friendly outlets a lot.

00:34:20.320 We've seen that, too, where they know they'll just put it on the air.

00:34:22.760 The standards that used to govern journalism are no longer.

00:34:26.580 Do you remember after Vincent Foster's death, the White House counsel that worked under Bill Clinton, who committed suicide?

00:34:35.720 Some people thought maybe there was something else to it.

00:34:38.500 But do you remember the Whitewater file that was in his office, a controversy surrounding the Clinton White House?

00:34:44.900 They were take it was taken from the White House right after that happened, which is illegal and improper.

00:34:50.540 Nothing's supposed to be changed or moved.

00:34:52.220 But Hillary Clinton and one of her aides were said to have rooted around in Vincent, Vince Foster's office prior to the FBI getting hold of it.

00:34:59.440 And then do you remember a Clinton lawyer showed up with the file some days later, turned it over?

00:35:06.180 I don't know if it's in a briefcase or file folder.

00:35:08.160 We don't know what had happened to the file in the interim, but he represented it as, oh, here's the file.

00:35:13.320 Nothing's happened to it.

00:35:14.340 No explanation for why I was I took it for several days.

00:35:17.980 But believe us, this file is exactly as it was the day that that I originally had it.

00:35:23.580 I mean, there's just so many crazy things going on all the time that I think media sometimes accepts.

00:35:28.960 So another little sidebar back then when that was happening, one of the White House people hired to spin the press on all of this came to CBS and met with us just sort of a behind the scenes meeting and showed us the file and said, you can look at this Whitewater file and you can see there's nothing incriminating in it.

00:35:46.740 And we sat around in this room and I was just this young journalist, sort of a new kid.

00:35:50.800 But I asked I was the only one who said, ask the question.

00:35:53.880 We don't have a chain of custody for this, though.

00:35:56.720 You're representing to us.

00:35:58.060 This is what was in the file, but we don't know what was in the file the day it was took versus the day it was returned.

00:36:04.400 And the lawyer for the White House actually said, well, that's true.

00:36:07.080 But I'm representing to you that this is how the file was right on our system here.

00:36:11.500 Oh, OK, sure.

00:36:13.680 I do think it's interesting that.

00:36:16.740 NBC, Christian Welker asked that question, but MSNBC is ready to run cover for President Biden.

00:36:24.900 This is Mika Brzezinski today, Friday morning, with her take on it.

00:36:29.540 Classified documents in private hands is something Republicans downplayed constantly until the shoe was placed on the other foot.

00:36:37.300 And unfortunately for them, the Trump shoe that dropped was much bigger and entirely different in the key issue of willful intent to obstruct.

00:36:49.220 Many Republicans just aren't smart enough to figure that out.

00:36:52.260 And they can't figure out that this week's developments actually make it more likely.

00:36:57.540 The DOJ moves on Trump.

00:36:59.520 In the end, what is most important here is intent, willful intent to obstruct.

00:37:06.480 What we know is that the Biden administration immediately handed over the documents.

00:37:11.220 We also know that Donald Trump held off even in the face of a subpoena.

00:37:17.280 OK, so that was this morning.

00:37:18.420 Many Republicans aren't smart enough to figure that out, that this is about willful and of intent to obstruct.

00:37:26.260 And they can't figure out that this week's developments actually make it more likely that the DOJ moves on Trump.

00:37:31.100 Last I checked, Mika Brzezinski does not have a law degree.

00:37:35.160 You know, it's been a while since I practiced, but I did practice for 10 years.

00:37:38.260 Alan Dershowitz, way more than any of us.

00:37:40.700 And it is not actually more likely that the DOJ is going to indict Trump.

00:37:45.740 She doesn't know what she's talking about.

00:37:47.280 But clearly she and I'm sure many others in the left wing press will wind up there, Cheryl, running cover for the president. 1.00

00:37:53.960 Go back to her saying what we do know is they turn the documents over right away.

00:37:59.340 I don't know that.

00:38:00.440 You know, it's interesting when the press will take someone's word for it with no evidence and then question everything.

00:38:06.640 Another side says we have no evidence that they did turn everything over right away.

00:38:11.520 We weren't there.

00:38:12.180 We don't know when they were truly discovered.

00:38:13.920 We don't know who first may have seen them before the lawyers were called in.

00:38:16.860 We don't have any of that information.

00:38:18.200 So I certainly think, you know, when reporters try to say what we know, if they weren't in the room, stuff should all be attributed.

00:38:25.140 They don't know that that happened.

00:38:27.260 And then I go back to Trump.

00:38:29.040 What they see is obstruction.

00:38:30.500 You could see the argument, but you could see as Trump wasn't hiding anything the way they've had the past couple of months, he was actually negotiating because.

00:38:40.680 Taking his viewpoint, he didn't think that he had to return those documents or he was negotiating their return.

00:38:47.160 So see that as obstruction, if you will.

00:38:49.540 But there's certainly a different argument that can be made, which was actually being had prior to the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago home.

00:38:56.600 Hmm. Well, shifting gears now, while we're on the subject of MSNBC, I've got to mention Joy Reid in this disgraceful exchange that happened the other night.

00:39:09.180 OK, Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida was on.

00:39:12.300 He had been one of the possible alternatives to Kevin McCarthy, favored by the more conservative group that held out on some of these requirements they wanted Kevin to accede to.

00:39:21.520 And. And he went on to his credit, this is a Republican, again, deep conservative, you know, deep south conservative of Florida, went on Joy Reid's show, which you don't see that often.

00:39:32.380 Right. So he goes on there.

00:39:33.600 And as there's a great piece in media, I'd have to say, dot com, where they said this, this, the headline is Joy Reid's aggressive, inept interview of Congressman Byron Donalds demonstrates what her show is all about.

00:39:46.860 In addition to being completely flat footed on the facts when she tried to cross examine him about things like Social Security and he just completely ran roughshod over her.

00:40:00.140 And she was so it was embarrassing, Cheryl. I don't think we have that part cut, but it was embarrassing because she. 0.61

00:40:05.920 Yeah, we do. Oh, we do. OK, we have a little bit. Let's start there about her just trying her caught flat footed on the facts. 0.99

00:40:12.000 It's not nine. Do you know that Social Security is going to be insolvent in 20?

00:40:16.120 It is not going to be. That is not true. That is actually not true.

00:40:18.600 No, it's actually not true. It's actually not true. It's actually not.

00:40:22.360 But it's actually not true. Financial community. That's actually not true.

00:40:25.520 Social Security will go insolvent. That's actually not. Those are the facts.

00:40:28.400 That's not true. Should we not prepare for that?

00:40:30.380 Meanwhile, the government's own watchdog is basically saying it's going to be 20, 30, 33, two years earlier than Congressman Donalds said.

00:40:38.580 So if anything, he was being generous to the government. This is what you do when you don't know, have your facts.

00:40:43.460 It's just not true. It's not true. It's not true. Where are your facts? Where where's your knowledge?

00:40:47.800 She wasn't prepared and she was she couldn't argue it.

00:40:50.920 So she just kept trying to talk over him and 11 times said, not true, not true, not true.

00:40:57.300 The active misleading. Let's start there. What are your thoughts?

00:41:00.600 Well, I think it's it's not uncommon. Sadly, I see more examples than I'd like to see of people on the air.

00:41:07.820 I try not to do this myself. I may have been guilty of it in the past, but I try not to comment on stuff and make definitive statements on things I can't possibly know or that I haven't researched enough to know.

00:41:19.020 It's OK to say I don't know or to listen to somebody. But yes, that just sounds foolish.

00:41:24.700 And that's kind of surprising, because I think as long as I can remember, we've had projections about Social Security's insolvency.

00:41:31.960 So I don't think that's even newsy. And it's kind of sad that she wouldn't know that or at least listen to him and understand that she might not have all the information.

00:41:41.860 Right. And she just she doesn't have the humility to admit when she doesn't know something. 0.89

00:41:46.760 Right. Exactly right. She just wanted to pick a fight with him and try to represent that. 0.80

00:41:50.400 Her worldview must be correct, even if she's lacking the facts.

00:41:54.240 This was the most disgraceful part, however.

00:41:57.560 Honestly, if it had been a white anchor asking this question of Congress and Donald's, there would be outrage.

00:42:05.580 I guess she gets away with it because MSNBC always makes excuses for her racism against black people, against white people. 1.00

00:42:13.740 Here's the soundbite that has gotten a lot of tongues wagging, though, sadly, no reaction from the bosses at MSNBC over this outrage.

00:42:21.140 Sadi.

00:42:21.360 One of the things that I don't know that you said it, but members have said is that they wanted to highlight the diversity of the conference.

00:42:30.120 There are four African-American members in the House caucus, the Republican caucus.

00:42:34.920 There are 56 members in the Democratic caucus. So just it's more diverse.

00:42:39.400 So do you not believe that the idea was to make a diversity statement by nominating you?

00:42:46.000 Well, actually, first, that was not the idea because I was in the room when the decision was made by people who chose to nominate me.

00:42:51.500 And you still not explained how you how you've never been in leadership.

00:42:55.960 Are you going to let me answer your question?

00:42:57.020 Tell us.

00:42:57.860 OK, number two. Now, let's go back.

00:43:00.360 The reality is, is that a lot of members actually do believe in my ability to lead.

00:43:04.220 They do. Am I to be despised for my youth because I've served one term?

00:43:08.020 My members know that I have the ability to engage other members through the conference, but it's even bigger than that.

00:43:13.060 Listen, we were at an impasse last week in our in our speakership elections.

00:43:16.400 We got that done. Kevin McCarthy is now speaker of the House.

00:43:19.360 At the same time, I was working with members on both sides of our conference to make sure that we can get the job done.

00:43:24.720 And we did. And that's the only thing that matters.

00:43:28.100 Cheryl, just FYI, it wasn't just Joy Reid.

00:43:30.380 Cory Bush just always can be counted on for something hateful and racist, said he is not a historic candidate for speaker.

00:43:39.380 He's a prop. OK, so this this is what we get from, you know, people like Joy Reid, people like Cory Bush, the diminishment of this guy, because whatever he can be historic, he can be a minority.

00:43:52.940 He says Republican things and therefore he must be diminished and attacked even on the basis of his skin color.

00:44:00.380 Well, some of those who constantly resort to the same arguments, even when it doesn't apply, have proven the point that when everything's racism, nothing's racism.

00:44:08.960 And then they come full circle and become racist themselves by acting as if everything's racism.

00:44:14.180 I also don't understand the suggestion she made that somehow the Democrat conference was better because of its diversity.

00:44:20.780 And yet had the Republicans indeed nominated him for diverse reasons, that would somehow be bad.

00:44:26.380 And I do think one thing I heard a lot of people say when that was going on, maybe this is an aside, that he was too young and too new.

00:44:34.740 And I say as an outsider, a lot of people would love to see somebody come into a position of power that doesn't owe a bunch of people.

00:44:43.000 If you understand a little bit, I understand a little bit about how the power structure works on Capitol Hill.

00:44:48.760 I've had members, both Democrats and Republicans, talk about what they're allowed to do and not allowed to do based on donations and the party and so on.

00:44:55.880 And if you took someone fresher, who is not beholden to the same interests and make no mistake, Democrats and Republicans on the Hill often work for corporations and interests, not us.

00:45:06.800 They're working for who's paying them, not the salaries, but the donations.

00:45:10.940 It could be a benefit and not because he's black, but because he's young and fresh and coming from an outside viewpoint.

00:45:17.940 And boy, when he talks, he sounds very bright and very well informed on the topics I've heard him comment on.

00:45:24.600 Oh, my God. He crushed her. The whole thing is worth watching.

00:45:28.020 I saw it on YouTube. Kimberly Klasick, who ran for office down in Baltimore, tweeted it out.

00:45:33.120 She came on the show in our infancy. It was fascinating and brought my attention to the whole thing.

00:45:38.340 It's worth your time if you haven't seen it.

00:45:40.060 Meanwhile, just not for nothing, but his wife has been attacked as well in a racial way.

00:45:45.700 She's white. And people who saw this interview and or other exchanges tweeted out things like surprise, surprise.

00:45:53.180 His wife is never mind. Somebody else tweeted, no surprise.

00:45:57.360 He has a snowflake for a wife. Another tweeted, I'm embarrassed and ashamed.

00:46:01.900 Seen his wife. I'm not surprised. This is what they have to deal with because he is a black conservative.

00:46:08.120 We've seen it time and time again. It's just sickening.

00:46:11.020 All right. Stand by, Cheryl. So much more to get to. So happy to have you here today.

00:46:13.760 Thank you for being with us. And Cheryl stays with us past the break into our next hour. 0.57

00:46:17.760 Don't miss that. I've got to ask you about Diamond and Silk.

00:46:25.760 Diamond has passed away, sadly. My God, so did Lisa Marie Presley, which is just it's hard to get your arms around.

00:46:33.440 You know, it's like this poor family, Elvis. And I think Elvis's mother died at a similar age.

00:46:38.980 And we can get to that in a minute. But I want to stay on Diamond of Diamond and Silk now.

00:46:42.740 Lynette Hardaway is her actual name. She died earlier this week at just 51 years old.

00:46:49.620 And her older sister is Silk. They were sisters doing sort of their pro-Trump thing and became very, very popular.

00:46:56.880 And honestly, like I love these ladies. I was on the receiving end of some of their attacks, but they were fun to listen to. 1.00

00:47:02.640 And it's like their whole gig was entertaining and became a big hit.

00:47:08.440 They got tons of social media subscribers on YouTube, 2.4 million followers on Facebook and so on.

00:47:13.900 And they also struck a deal with Fox Nation, the streaming platform associated with Fox.

00:47:19.000 So, you know, normally when somebody dies, OK, you know, it's sad.

00:47:24.060 People talk about it and then you move on and talk about what their legacy was.

00:47:26.780 Mark Lamont Hill, who, you know, he's bounced from cable channel to cable channel, but is now a Temple University professor.

00:47:36.640 He decides to tweet out the following Diamond of the right wing Trump loving duo Diamond and Silk has died in late November.

00:47:46.300 Remember, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19.

00:47:49.580 The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines.

00:47:55.280 You cannot script this stuff.

00:47:57.820 He goes on to add, I have no idea how she died.

00:48:01.400 Right. Remember that.

00:48:03.060 I have no idea how she died and I don't claim to know her vaccination status.

00:48:07.440 I would, however, find it sadly ironic if Diamond died from anything related to COVID, especially if it was preventable.

00:48:16.300 Like Herman Cain, she would have paid an unnecessarily heavy price.

00:48:21.300 Unbelievable where this guy's going.

00:48:24.080 And then Silk responds.

00:48:25.860 I will not allow you or any other mofo the opportunity to disparage, slander and lie on my sister and I. 1.00

00:48:33.000 Where's your proof that my sister was ever hospitalized due to COVID and that we were fired from Fox?

00:48:38.800 Investigate before you celebrate.

00:48:40.740 You have until 12 noon today to retract that.

00:48:42.640 Then he responded in a long thread.

00:48:45.200 But basically, here's the highlight.

00:48:47.240 I'm not celebrating.

00:48:48.020 I base my tweets about the hospitalization on news reports.

00:48:51.020 As I noted yesterday, some have since taken them down.

00:48:54.120 I have yet to see anyone retract.

00:48:56.240 Media reports of your firing are numerous in numerous outlets.

00:48:59.920 I was also told this by a Fox exec.

00:49:01.500 Then he goes on to say, I haven't actually heard you say the November hospitalization for COVID didn't happen.

00:49:06.200 But if you're saying that, then I accept that.

00:49:08.080 And I happily retract.

00:49:08.960 Would you leave this poor grieving sister alone? 0.73

00:49:11.040 My God, you know, like disengage and say you're sorry and go away.

00:49:14.660 Like, good gracious.

00:49:15.640 By the way, then he claims that he went and he looked at her book and claims that in her book she made clear that she was fired.

00:49:28.900 Well, Cheryl, my team actually went back and, in fact, read Diamond and Silk's book.

00:49:34.740 And Mark Lowent Hill is not telling the truth about what he read in there.

00:49:37.800 They did not.

00:49:38.560 Their book does not make clear in any way, shape or form that they were fired.

00:49:40.900 In fact, it talks about how they were told exactly the opposite by all the Fox executives,

00:49:44.640 that their licensing deal that they had with Fox Nation remains in effect and that these were fake news reports that disparaged them.

00:49:52.340 Right. So anyway, all of it is so distasteful.

00:49:55.760 And I'll add to it this Bishop Talbert, president of the Springfield, Massachusetts, chapter of the NAACP tweets out the following Lynette Hardaway,

00:50:06.060 a.k.a. Diamond from the MAGA Trump supporting duo Diamond and Silk died from contracting what she called a hoax, better known as COVID-19.

00:50:15.980 The irony is palpable.

00:50:16.980 Even the NAACP, their instincts are not to say something kind about a very prominent black person who has died.

00:50:26.360 We don't know the cause, but to decide it was because of COVID without evidence and disparage her.

00:50:32.960 So what do you what do you make of all this?

00:50:35.360 Well, isn't it similar to the syndrome of the black conservative representative from Florida?

00:50:40.400 I think this is sort of a script that can be written about a lot of different scenarios.

00:50:45.160 And I do think it's very sad and then complicated when it comes to COVID, because as we've learned,

00:50:52.100 it is deemed OK by the information minders to speculate about anything regarding someone dying of COVID, whether they did or not, whether there's evidence or not.

00:51:00.720 But never OK to speculate about somebody who is vaccinated being harmed by an illness that is known to be affiliated with vaccination.

00:51:08.800 So it's that double standard that people seem to be able to justify however they feel or whatever they want to say accordingly.

00:51:17.140 And it makes no logical sense.

00:51:19.180 But, yeah, very sad.

00:51:20.720 That's exactly right.

00:51:22.000 It's like people got hammered when Damar Hamlin went down on that field with the Buffalo Bills for saying, did he recently have the vaccine?

00:51:31.240 I don't actually find that an outrageous question because myocarditis in young men is a known side effect now.

00:51:38.400 People are admitting it within the medical community of, in particular, the Moderna vaccine.

00:51:43.940 And we've got really smart medical professionals who are repeatedly saying, be careful about these boosters, especially if you're in that age group, but for everybody.

00:51:51.400 So asking the question, you know, is that something we should look into?

00:51:55.960 I don't find that as offensive as well as this, which is, I mean, this guy, Bishop Talbert, is saying she died of COVID.

00:52:03.100 How does he know?

00:52:04.140 I haven't seen that hasn't been reported anywhere.

00:52:07.160 She called it a hoax.

00:52:08.180 She died of this hoax.

00:52:09.060 Like all of this is so irresponsible and disrespectful.

00:52:12.380 And of course, these leftists who went nuts on people for, for, you know, questioning whether Damar Hamlin had recently been vaccinated will say nothing in response to this.

00:52:23.040 Well, you know, I hope this isn't too far off into left field, but if, if we hadn't been able to question whether people who get lung cancer and smoked, there was an association there.

00:52:32.980 We would never have unearthed that if scientists would not have been able to do the studies or collect the data.

00:52:38.640 These injuries, including the football player Hamlin's have to be reported under our safety system for, for this very reason to the vaccine adverse event database.

00:52:48.660 It's not up to anybody at this stage to say it is or isn't caused by the vaccine because they can't possibly know because we don't know all of the vaccine effects.

00:52:57.140 And by the way, side effects from vaccines, according to scientists can occur.

00:53:01.160 People don't, I think, widely understand this weeks, months or years later, depending on what it's done to a body.

00:53:06.980 That's why the database collects all reports of these injuries after vaccination.

00:53:12.100 If doctors are properly reporting them and they're not so that patterns can be discerned that aren't otherwise obvious or didn't show up in clinical studies.

00:53:21.200 But beyond that, as you mentioned, we know there are heart effects and stroke and certain other disorders that have been acknowledged to be part of the vaccines.

00:53:30.920 We're not even just talking about the mysterious ones we don't know about yet.

00:53:34.140 So it's logical to ask the question the same way we ask a question.

00:53:38.080 If someone has lung cancer, we kind of in our minds say, I wonder if that person smoked.

00:53:43.000 It doesn't mean that's what caused it, but it's a rational, logical question to ask.

00:53:47.700 And it's something that scientists absolutely should be asking and studying and news reporters should be asking.

00:53:52.460 And the fact that it is omitted from virtually every news report I see shows you that there's an information management underway that I think could be very harmful to us understanding, you know, the true profile of these vaccines.

00:54:05.880 Yes, yes. It's not the same. Mark Lamont Hill had tweeted out.

00:54:09.460 Did she die of covid? That would be a shame.

00:54:12.120 This wouldn't be a story. But he took it to a totally different place in saying and suggesting that she may have died of the very thing she did.

00:54:18.900 He was clearly trying to attack her politically, which is just in bad, bad form.

00:54:23.780 I mean, it's just it wasn't anyway on that.

00:54:28.260 But did you say that DeMar Hamlin's injury or that his injury must be reported under VAERS?

00:54:33.400 I mean, I know I didn't read any reporting on whether he'd been vaccinated or not.

00:54:36.740 I assume he had to be right. Didn't all the NFL players have to.

00:54:40.640 That's my assumption. If not, then no.

00:54:43.100 But here's the problem. Doctors aren't asking.

00:54:46.220 I have been around, I'll tell you, a couple of young people, a 20 something year old pregnant woman I know who came to a place I was wearing a heart monitor and I asked her what was wrong.

00:54:56.680 She said she and she was vaccinated and boosted.

00:54:58.920 She's having all these heart impacts. And I said, did your doctor report this to VAERS as required?

00:55:03.940 Certain illnesses must be reported under the CDC's guidance.

00:55:07.640 And she said, no, we never asked if I was vaccinated.

00:55:10.320 This is, to me, bordering on criminal. The doctors are seemingly looking the other way.

00:55:16.740 Can they be that ignorant of what the rules are?

00:55:19.000 And the FDA and the government and CDC are not cracking down or reminding doctors to report all of these things.

00:55:25.380 And I think almost none of them are being properly reported to the database that finds patterns.

00:55:30.280 And let me say, years ago, for example, I broke the story that Viagra can cause blindness.

00:55:36.200 Based in large part by going through the medicine adverse event reports that are collected after any kind of injury shows up after you take a medicine.

00:55:46.180 That's how these things are found. FDA should have been looking for it and they were on a parallel track.

00:55:50.420 But I saw it. It's it sometimes stands out like a sore thumb.

00:55:54.980 If this stuff isn't reported, we won't find these new patterns.

00:55:57.940 And maybe that's what some want. That's, I think, exactly what some people want when it comes to the vaccines.

00:56:03.080 Oh, my God. That's just crazy. That's just I mean, it's deeply disturbing to me how we're just not allowed to talk about the adverse side effects from the vaccine.

00:56:11.660 It's it's killing people and it needs to be stopped.

00:56:15.740 You mentioned the FDA. There is news just this week that was celebrated widely.

00:56:21.460 And I know you've been watching the FDA and its erosion.

00:56:25.680 I think it's an erosion. Maybe they've always been this untrustworthy.

00:56:28.840 But the news that was celebrated by the media was that the FDA had granted fast track approval to an experimental Alzheimer's drug.

00:56:38.220 And we, of course, are all very concerned about Alzheimer's.

00:56:40.820 It affects way too many Americans.

00:56:42.960 We'd love to see a breakthrough.

00:56:45.220 And the news was that they fast track approved a new drug that clinical trials showed can slow the progression of the disease.

00:56:53.160 Licanumab, developed by Japanese drug maker Isai and Biogen, said to be the first treatment shown to delay cognitive decline from Alzheimer's, which affects over six million people in the U.S.

00:57:08.480 But there's more to the story and you'd have to work pretty hard to find it, Cheryl.

00:57:13.900 Well, you know, I'll be digging into this for my show full measure, but I already reported on the precursor controversy to this, which was what I'm told is a similar drug called aducanumab, which was likewise fast tracked by the FDA, despite all kinds of weird things happening.

00:57:33.160 None of the FDA advisors wanted this drug to be approved, thought it would be effective and safe.

00:57:37.460 There were safety signals.

00:57:39.080 There were questions about conflicts of interest with the FDA and the company that wanted the drug marketed.

00:57:44.840 There were there's questions about whether it works at all and the harm that it could do.

00:57:48.380 This goes on and on.

00:57:49.560 And there are currently, as far as I know, unresolved, multiple unresolved investigations about this.

00:57:54.740 And here they go and quickly do another drug sort of in the same way, according to some who are watching it.

00:58:01.480 And I turn to and will be turning to Public Citizen, the Watchdog Group.

00:58:05.960 I think their website, citizen.org, they've already written a letter about this to the government, raising questions about it.

00:58:13.100 And they've been following the aducanumab case very closely.

00:58:16.460 But I think, again, there's every reason to suspect all kinds of conflicts of interest because we've had so many of those between our government agencies and the industries that they're supposed to regulate, particularly when things happen that don't make a lot of sense.

00:58:30.460 And you do have to dig for that information, because, like you said, the media is not widely covering these controversies the way we used to before drug companies were paying for so much sponsorships and advertisements on our on our airwaves and on our stations.

00:58:44.560 But, yeah, that's, you know, controversy.

00:58:47.760 Yes. So we can't trust the government.

00:58:49.080 We can't. We've learned during the covid thing.

00:58:50.660 Do not trust the American Academy of Pediatrics at all.

00:58:53.780 I'm sorry, but I don't trust them one bit after all the recommendations they made in covid, despite the science, despite the studies coming out.

00:59:00.960 I mean, universal studies that would come out and they would just completely discard them, their advice.

00:59:05.100 I think they still want children to be masked right now, indoors, outdoors.

00:59:09.100 Doesn't matter. I'd have to go back and check.

00:59:10.800 But every single recommendation they issued was in line with really the far left, the most covid hawk position you could ask for.

00:59:18.640 And now they're advocating early surgery for obese children, early meds and surgery for obese children.

00:59:27.800 And I get how problematic obesity is young, old.

00:59:31.520 I get it. Trust me. We just talked about this last week.

00:59:34.000 But they're now OKing weight loss surgeries like a gastric bypass for 13 year olds.

00:59:41.640 So explain to me, Cheryl, how we have a country that now is celebrating body positivity and putting women like Lizzo on the front of magazines saying this is beautiful.

00:59:55.880 Shut up with your fat shaming. This is healthy, literally healthy, they're saying.

01:00:02.060 And at the same time, quietly, they're saying, but we need to cut open the 13 year olds who look like that because otherwise they're in grave danger for their health. 1.00

01:00:10.340 Well, it doesn't make sense, except you can, I think, logically guess that there is lobbying from whatever industries or device companies or medical companies stand to benefit hospitals or so on, stand to benefit from whatever procedure is recommended by the guidelines or the divisions du jour.

01:00:28.240 We consistently find conflicts of interest there. And this one, I'm like you, makes no sense from a medical standpoint, from a mental health standpoint.

01:00:37.760 And I think it's in the same genre of a lot of other recommendations we've had over the years from this society and other medical societies.

01:00:45.540 And I've done reporting on you may have done some of your own with medical experts like Dr.

01:00:52.360 Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, like Dr.

01:00:57.320 Marsha Angel, the former first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard Horton,

01:01:02.160 the editor of the Lancet Medical Journal, saying things like, we can't trust most of what's published in medical journals because it's so conflicted.

01:01:10.780 The science has been so taken over and influenced. And I think it's one of the biggest stories of our time that our politics have been taken over.

01:01:18.280 The science and medicine have been taken over. Federal agencies have been taken over. The media has been taken over.

01:01:22.840 It's really hard to get a straight story and just straight information on so many topics today.

01:01:29.680 This is horrendous. It's like we put out these magazines celebrating, you know, obesity.

01:01:36.880 We really do. Saying obesity is bad and it leads to a lot of health problems and it's you shouldn't encourage it is now considered bigoted.

01:01:44.000 And so, you know, I'm not saying that a 13 year old is necessarily reading these magazines that are doing this, but it's the messaging right now in society.

01:01:51.880 And if you would say something about it, somehow you're bad. And then when they get you, you get some 13 year old who's morbidly obese.

01:01:59.320 Let's let's cut them open. Let's let's shrink his stomach down to the size of a walnut. 0.99

01:02:03.240 And by the way, I know from not personal experience, but a family member that surgery can lead to serious complications later in life, serious complications later in life.

01:02:16.420 So you don't proceed into a gastric bypass willy nilly. And to give it to a kid who may not even be in puberty is really crazy to me.

01:02:27.620 In any event, listen, Cheryl and Full Measure are well worth your time.

01:02:31.360 This is where she does her in-depth reporting and you can take it to the bank.

01:02:34.940 She's always thorough and careful and factual. And this is one of the many reasons we love her.

01:02:39.560 Thank you for being here, Cheryl.

01:02:41.020 Thanks, Megan. Have a great one.

01:02:42.260 You too. Coming up next, Marsha Clark and Mark Garagos on Idaho and whether this really is an open and shut case.

01:02:55.020 Today, we have an all star Kelly's Court panel.

01:02:57.720 Marsha Clark is an attorney and New York Times bestselling author. 0.99

01:03:01.360 She became a household name after working as the lead prosecutor in the People versus OJ Simpson murder case. 0.90

01:03:07.760 Also joining us today, Mark Garagos. Mark is a trial lawyer and managing partner of Garagos and Garagos.

01:03:12.680 His previous high profile clients include, oh, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, just to name a few.

01:03:18.560 Marsha and Mark, welcome back to Kelly's Court. Great to have you both.

01:03:22.400 So this was just handed to me during the break. I'm going to put all sorts of caveats on it.

01:03:27.300 It's from our friends over at The Daily Wire.

01:03:30.240 It seems it seems like a typo to me, not by The Daily Wire, but by Brian Kohlberger's lawyer.

01:03:37.120 But I'll read you what they're reporting.

01:03:40.100 The headline is suspected Idaho killer requests documents related to, quote, co-defendant who has never been mentioned by police.

01:03:50.260 I'll read to you from the report this week.

01:03:52.400 Kohlberger's Kohlberger's public defender and Taylor filed motions requesting, quote,

01:03:59.300 any written or recorded statements by a co-defendant and the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant,

01:04:08.620 whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney, etc.

01:04:18.760 The. OK. And then. Yeah.

01:04:23.660 And as you know, that this particular defendant previously asked members of law enforcement if they had arrested anyone else in connection with this crime.

01:04:30.720 I got to say, this sounds like a it sounds like a typo, like a like a cut and paste by a busy public defender.

01:04:37.380 But what do you think, Mark?

01:04:38.780 Well, I was just going to say, normally I would say in a vacuum, I would agree with you.

01:04:43.980 I'd say it's a boilerplate discovery request, cut and paste, as you say, that went out there.

01:04:49.760 However, put this next to and this is why I'm fascinated.

01:04:53.700 I want to see what Marsha has to say about this.

01:04:55.900 There was a sealing order on a search warrant.

01:05:00.720 And the sealing order had language that I have, frankly, never seen or I can't remember ever having seen,

01:05:09.000 which was they did they part of it was they did not want law enforcement to be exposed to threats or intimidation in and expose the investigation.

01:05:21.360 Now, exposing the investigation, I've come across a zillion times.

01:05:24.740 That's standard operating procedure.

01:05:26.440 Threats to law enforcement leads me to believe that there is something that apparently they missed and or a thread that they missed or didn't or got out in front of their skis.

01:05:38.560 Remember, the officers had said, we're 100 percent certain this is the guy, nobody else.

01:05:44.680 I think there is a suspicion that there is somebody else or someone else in the mix.

01:05:52.240 Well, Marsha, let me read what Mark's referring to just to color it in for the audience.

01:05:57.680 This is the search warrant for Brian Kohlberger's Washington state apartment, which has been temporarily sealed.

01:06:07.300 That's been sealed.

01:06:08.460 They haven't shared with us a search warrant.

01:06:10.380 They've shared with us the affidavit that was in support of the arrest warrant.

01:06:13.680 And it was very detailed.

01:06:14.660 But for some reason, they're sealing the search warrant for the guy's apartment, which was requested on the same day as the arrest warrant, December 30th.

01:06:22.980 But now we see why they're sealing it.

01:06:25.400 They say this is going to remain sealed until March 1st, potentially earlier.

01:06:29.720 But as of March 1st for now, this is what they said in asking for the sealing prosecutors and police.

01:06:36.640 Premature public disclosure of the details in this law enforcement investigation will create serious and imminent threat to effective law enforcement and could result in the premature end of this investigation, which could create a threat to public safety.

01:06:55.280 What are your thoughts?

01:06:56.900 I think there are many.

01:06:58.620 What Mark has said is a potential.

01:07:01.940 But let me tell you about some of the background in the development of this case.

01:07:06.640 This case kind of went crazy on social media.

01:07:09.260 And a lot of people were in there speculating about others that may be involved and then out and out dogpiling these people with no evidence, nothing but speculation, imagination, and just putting together two plus two and equaling eight.

01:07:25.600 And so some very innocent people got dogpiled for at least a few moments on the Internet.

01:07:30.020 And by moments, that could be days.

01:07:31.480 I'm not sure.

01:07:32.640 So it has been going kind of in its way viral.

01:07:36.100 And people looking for attention, which always happens on the Internet, are coming out, spewing all of these theories about who might have done it and why they did it.

01:07:44.560 And that is a danger to any investigation.

01:07:46.720 It's a danger to law enforcement because it encourages people to come forward who really have nothing relevant to say.

01:07:53.280 It encourages – it discourages people from coming forward who actually have something important to say.

01:07:59.820 And it, of course, might subject law enforcement themselves to all kinds of threats and horrible responses on the Internet.

01:08:09.160 This has become now a force in our criminal justice system.

01:08:12.020 It lurks around the edges and sometimes it even invades to the middle.

01:08:16.680 So we have a very serious problem with that.

01:08:19.240 And I think that sealing would be an appropriate way of tamping it down.

01:08:23.780 You just don't want to let out information that could be the way you catch a liar or the way you spot the truth.

01:08:30.620 Those details are the way you test what witnesses say.

01:08:33.240 And if you let those details out, you run a very real risk of skewing the investigation.

01:08:38.400 But, Mark, don't you think – I mean, the warrant in support of the – sorry, affidavit in support of the arrest warrant is 18 pages long.

01:08:45.980 We have so many details from that.

01:08:47.760 Why allow that one out into the public domain but not this one?

01:08:52.440 Well, I don't disagree with you at all.

01:08:55.640 I was speculating – and that's all we do here, I guess – but I was speculating that the defense might have requested that that be – remain sealed.

01:09:08.040 But I – you know, the cynic in me thinks that because the officers and the police department had taken so much heat, as Marcia describes it, that they wanted to show –

01:09:20.380 And one of the – I believe it was the chief had indicated that once it was unsealed, they would be vindicated, so to speak.

01:09:29.140 And I suppose that that's one explanation.

01:09:32.280 I still think there's something else going on here.

01:09:34.660 I suspect that there is another source profile of DNA or something else that was found at the scene.

01:09:42.860 I just don't think – you know, the – when you take a look at the timeline of this, and you know that there is a DoorDash driver there at 4 a.m., and you know that there is a spotting by DM, as they call the person in the affidavit, of somebody in the hallway.

01:10:01.860 There's just – I believe that there is more here than meets the eye, and we're just not going to see it.

01:10:08.100 And I think it's one of the reasons that the defense so readily said they would waive time until June on their speedy trial rights to the preliminary hearing.

01:10:17.340 Why? Explain that. What do you mean?

01:10:20.160 Well, look, normally in a – it's a capital case.

01:10:23.780 And in a capital case, you've got to dot all your I's, cross all your T's.

01:10:28.300 You do a parallel investigation.

01:10:29.980 However, to continue the preliminary hearing with no bail for your client for six months is quite, quite a step for anybody to do.

01:10:42.560 And normally you take more what I would call bite-sized chunks.

01:10:46.700 You put it over for 30 days for a status conference.

01:10:49.200 I think that there's a lot more going on here behind the scenes than we're even remotely aware of.

01:10:55.340 I don't think the defense thinks for a second that we're going to continue it for six months because we need to do a parallel – just a parallel investigation of our client.

01:11:06.840 I think that they think they've got a lot more going on or a lot more to work with, and they think that law enforcement is pursuing some threads that may be exculpatory.

01:11:17.420 I don't see any other reason why you would continue the preliminary hearing for six months because, remember, you also give the prosecution the opportunity to take away your preliminary hearing, which is the last thing you'd want to do if you're the defense in this case.

01:11:34.160 They could go to a grand jury.

01:11:35.520 They could indict.

01:11:36.460 Then you never get a chance to cross-examine any witnesses.

01:11:40.100 Marsha, what do you think of that?

01:11:41.160 Is that true?

01:11:41.860 Yeah.

01:11:42.240 So here's the thing.

01:11:43.500 Mark's right.

01:11:44.040 But it's also the possibility – what the defense is wanting to do is let the case drop out of the headlines as well.

01:11:50.860 There can be multiple motives for this, and the more you take the heat off the case, the better off you'll be.

01:11:57.660 That's a possibility that feeds into the additional one, that the police are going to come up with a lot more evidence.

01:12:04.040 And this is something that I was looking at.

01:12:05.860 A knife stabbing is a very messy way to commit a crime, and you come up with all kinds of hair, fiber, DNA, of course, all over the place.

01:12:15.820 The fact that they sealed what they're – the portion of the search warrant that says what they're searching, where they're looking, tells me that that might be a tip to it.

01:12:25.660 And they are going to come up with stray DNA because you can't tell when DNA was deposited.

01:12:30.520 Even if you have an alternate suspect in terms of another profile that shows up that doesn't match the defendant, it may not have anything to do with the case, or it may.

01:12:40.620 We don't know.

01:12:41.800 But I think there's a lot more evidence they're going to be coming up with if they're doing that kind of testing, which I imagine they would be.

01:12:47.540 And six months is probably more than enough time, I think, to at least see if there's something there for the defense to work with.

01:12:54.080 Well, that's the question.

01:12:54.800 So what you just said, more than enough.

01:12:56.480 It's more than enough.

01:12:57.180 Like, they talked in the affidavit, they wrote in the affidavit that they got the dad's DNA out of the garbage two days before they made the arrest.

01:13:07.940 So it didn't take them long to turn that test around at all and match it, according to what they say, to the button on the knife sheath.

01:13:16.040 And they said that that showed them that the DNA on that knife sheath was 100 percent the son of Michael Kohlberger, the dad living in Pennsylvania.

01:13:26.440 In any event, two days.

01:13:28.100 They've had the bodies of the victims since day one, which was November 13th.

01:13:33.980 So and now they they definitely have Brian Kohlberger's actual DNA at this point arrested on December 30th.

01:13:40.600 Here we are, January 12th, right?

01:13:42.780 12th or 13th.

01:13:43.420 I'm constantly off on my dates these days.

01:13:44.900 13th, Friday the 13th.

01:13:46.060 Losing my mind.

01:13:47.120 The 13th.

01:13:48.000 OK, so they've run that test.

01:13:50.920 How much?

01:13:51.400 Why does the prosecution need six months?

01:13:53.840 Well, because there's going to be a lot more.

01:13:55.640 That's oh, my goodness.

01:13:56.800 That room, that whole house, the entry, the exit, the windows, everything you can imagine is going to be tested for everything.

01:14:04.180 DNA, fiber, hair, touch DNA.

01:14:06.760 I mean, it's just that the list goes on and on, Megan.

01:14:09.460 They've only scratched the surface at this point.

01:14:11.400 So I think that there's going to there's this crime scene, I am sure, is going to be chock full of all kinds of information.

01:14:18.920 And it takes a while to get to analyze it all.

01:14:21.960 And you have to do it carefully, too.

01:14:23.460 You want to be careful about contamination.

01:14:25.140 You don't want to mix samples.

01:14:26.640 So I can see where that would take some time.

01:14:28.780 Six months, I don't know.

01:14:30.280 But I do think that my earlier theory that they also the defense also would like to get the heat off of this case may play into the amount of time as well.

01:14:39.380 So good luck.

01:14:40.760 Tell us, Mark, what's going to happen.

01:14:42.300 Yeah, go ahead.

01:14:43.140 Say what you were saying.

01:14:44.020 Then tell us what's going to happen at that preliminary injunction hearing.

01:14:46.680 Well, she makes a couple of really good points.

01:14:50.100 But sometimes I've actually thought of that.

01:14:52.520 Put it out.

01:14:53.160 Continue a case.

01:14:54.200 It'll damp it down.

01:14:56.740 No good deed goes unpunished sometimes because of the opposite sometimes happens.

01:15:01.020 In this case, look what's happened just in the last couple of weeks.

01:15:04.840 All of a sudden, there's been a shift in the media from Idaho to Massachusetts in terms of kind of the focus and toggling between the cases.

01:15:14.140 There's a separate murder there.

01:15:15.920 And if you also, also to Marcia's point, if you take a look at some of the body cams of the police going there to the location and these kind of ragers or parties that are going on there, you could have a potpourri of DNA and other kinds of evidence there.

01:15:32.220 So I can see that as well.

01:15:33.940 Well, but this is why and I want to talk about the preliminary hearing, but this is why Brian Kohlberger's apartment is probably, if not as interesting, maybe more interesting than the site of the murders.

01:15:46.000 Because if you find DNA from the victims back at his place, that's ballgame.

01:15:52.760 I mean, that's that's ballgame.

01:15:54.020 You find blood evidence or anything, you know, so and that's the search warrant that they were after.

01:15:59.760 That's being sealed.

01:16:00.820 The evidence in support of getting that search warrant is what's been sealed and they're not sharing with us, which leads back to the thing, Mark, about what the hell is the co-defendant reference about?

01:16:10.400 And, you know, maybe we're just reading too much into, again, a cut and paste from by a busy, ill-paid lawyer.

01:16:16.280 We're actually trying to reach her right now to ask that question.

01:16:20.540 My team is calling.

01:16:21.820 I will know within a day or two because this is going to blow up.

01:16:25.660 But or is there more significance to it as you, you know, as you put all the pieces together?

01:16:31.000 I don't think she's going to be able to respond.

01:16:31.640 I think she's under a gag order, as I remember. 0.93

01:16:34.200 Well, because she could say whether she committed a typo.

01:16:36.280 I think they're erring on the side of casting a wider net.

01:16:43.960 You know, there's all kinds of to Marcia's point about the dog piling and the trolling on the Internet.

01:16:50.100 There's all kinds of theories out there and all kinds of other alternate explanations.

01:16:55.940 This is a field day like nothing.

01:17:00.500 Yes, but there is no co-defendant.

01:17:02.660 There's no co-defendant.

01:17:03.820 The reference makes no sense right now unless they've secretly arrested somebody else and didn't tell us, which seems out of the realm of possibility.

01:17:12.580 And unless there's somebody who's in the crosshairs who they're looking at.

01:17:17.460 So unless not arrested yet.

01:17:19.460 Yeah, hasn't been arrested.

01:17:20.860 Right.

01:17:21.300 Oh, my gosh.

01:17:22.200 That would be a huge headline.

01:17:23.120 All right.

01:17:23.640 Let's let's zoom out for a second and talk about some of the latest evidence that's come out in the case and where you think it stands now.

01:17:29.020 Because, you know, I remain where I was a week ago, which is and I'm sure they're going to find more DNA.

01:17:34.860 But right now, his touch DNA on the button of the knife sheath ain't going to do it.

01:17:40.940 And most legal analysts, Marsha, are saying, right.

01:17:43.820 But all the surveillance tapes of what appears to be his car, you know, coming to the crime scene 12 times before the actual day of the murder, seeming to surveil them, showing up on the night in question.

01:17:56.940 You know, he was clearly seems to have been at least in the very close area between 405 and 420 when the murders were committed.

01:18:03.360 And then right back to Washington Pullman where he was living.

01:18:07.140 I still feel like, OK, I don't like that doesn't show him walking into the apartment that like in the cell phone tower evidence.

01:18:15.740 That's not a slam dunk either.

01:18:18.820 Well, look, you put it all together, it's going to have to be one of these mosaic situations where you have the touch DNA on the knife sheath.

01:18:27.080 And then you have, by the way, just the fact that that knife sheath is in the bedroom, is found where it is.

01:18:33.320 I mean, the other people who live there are going to say, I've never seen that thing before.

01:18:36.220 So don't forget there's going to be that kind of really basic testimony about this.

01:18:40.720 This doesn't belong here.

01:18:42.060 So and it's got his DNA on it.

01:18:44.520 That's in itself significant, I think.

01:18:47.240 But then you have on top of that, the car being found in the location and behaving in strange ways.

01:18:53.360 Parked there between certain times, but also before them.

01:18:56.420 The car was spotted there by surveillance cameras before the fact, for weeks before the fact, which indicates the possibility of stalking.

01:19:04.380 And then you have the cell phone pings that corroborate the movements of the car.

01:19:08.720 Then you have the observation by DM, the other girl who lives there, that makes it very clear the intruder is there.

01:19:18.160 And also she has the one characteristic of bushy eyebrows that did go along with his appearance. 1.00

01:19:23.880 And that's not the strongest thing.

01:19:25.400 And I'm never a big fan.

01:19:26.420 Of eyewitness identification cases.

01:19:28.940 But when you start to put it all together, it is starting to look that way.

01:19:32.960 Now, you're right.

01:19:33.680 At this point, it's not a slam dunk.

01:19:36.940 It looks very much like it's moving in that direction.

01:19:39.500 But that's why they're continuing to investigate.

01:19:42.020 And, you know, of course, they're going to turn his apartment upside down.

01:19:44.840 They're going to turn this crime scene upside down.

01:19:46.780 And we're going to see a lot more in days to come.

01:19:49.860 Go ahead, Mark.

01:19:50.560 What are your thoughts on all that?

01:19:51.420 I don't disagree with with Marsha.

01:19:53.840 I think that you've got to me, it's probable cause all day long.

01:19:58.340 However, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

01:20:02.180 There's so many holes in this.

01:20:03.780 I've had I can't tell you the number of murder cases that have that have turned out that the cell phone evidence ended up exonerating my client as opposed to showing that he was guilty.

01:20:17.880 As I'm sitting right here, I could be using my phone and it could be pinging onto two towers 12 miles away from each other just by virtue of the amount of traffic on one of the towers.

01:20:33.580 So I've never been a fan of the cell phone triangulation.

01:20:37.260 It's a good tool to try to get you there.

01:20:40.340 But I've used it to show that somebody was 40 miles away at the time of the crime and exonerated them.

01:20:47.000 So that's not going to that's not going to get them there.

01:20:49.860 They also the fact that the phone was not being used during the two hour period.

01:20:56.080 I know law enforcement speculates that he turned it off.

01:20:59.440 There's other explanations like he wasn't there.

01:21:01.960 So those kinds of things, you get jury instructions to say two reasonable alternatives.

01:21:06.960 You've got to pick the one that points towards innocence.

01:21:09.480 They need more evidence.

01:21:11.600 What, Marsha? 1.00

01:21:12.480 I'm sure they agree.

01:21:13.720 Yeah, I'm sure they and I'm sure they're going to get it, too.

01:21:15.740 Does all the stuff we're hearing right now like about his possible online use like social media postings and we don't know whether it was him, but certainly, you know, Internet sleuths and a former FBI agent has been weighing in on this repeatedly online saying they believe they found his presence.

01:21:33.040 His postings in online chat rooms under the name Papa Roger and the name inside looking one in particular stands out where this Papa Roger posted before before evidence of the knife sheath was made public.

01:21:46.180 Again, I cannot believe this is this is crazy because that does sound like it's from the killer talking about it being a large fixed blade knife, I think makes most of us think about, oh, they studied the wounds on the victims and they have an estimate of what committed those wounds.

01:22:14.200 Whose mind goes to they found the sheath and they have other postings by this guy that suggests it may indeed have been Brian Kohlberger.

01:22:21.360 So the cops are going to know this.

01:22:22.780 The D.A., the cops, they're going to know whether he he posted as Papa Rogers and inside looking.

01:22:29.340 They're probably searching his computer already having all that.

01:22:32.120 But would that all come in?

01:22:33.360 It can they have to they have to establish a foundation to prove that he had the access to the computer and it also goes to the weight.

01:22:43.180 So the computer that is in his house was the originator of these postings you're talking about.

01:22:49.860 And the one that says there they probably found the sheath is very interesting.

01:22:54.020 I don't know why you would go there.

01:22:55.800 There are people who carry knives around that don't have sheaths.

01:22:58.740 So I don't know that that is, to me, a very interesting possibility.

01:23:02.680 But you have to remember, they will if they can trace the signal back, they can certainly say it came from this computer.

01:23:08.400 What they probably will not be able to do, but you never know, maybe they can, is establish that he was definitely the one who who sent the message unless they do it through other means.

01:23:19.720 For example, they have records that show he was over here at a certain period of time, over there at a certain period of time, home at a certain period of time when no one else was there and had access to the computer.

01:23:30.720 They'd have to find that kind of extraneous information to pin down the fact that he had to be the poster.

01:23:36.680 But it could be done.

01:23:38.400 I got to ask you a follow up on that, Marsha, because you came on the show not long ago.

01:23:43.120 We discussed Casey Anthony and your own reporting on that case where you took a hard look at the records, the search records and the various search engines on the Casey Anthony computer at home.

01:23:56.300 And you you felt that you were able to determine it had to be Casey Anthony who made some of those incriminating online searches because you were able to say they were done like minutes before.

01:24:06.940 George would have had to be at work. And apparently he showed up, we believe, on time.

01:24:11.180 And you were able to conclude there's only one person who would have gone back and deleted all the incriminating searches.

01:24:17.600 And you could show it was Casey Anthony. You weren't the prosecutor on this case, but you were looking at as a legal analyst so that you are.

01:24:23.600 That is something that's admissible and that you would take a hard look at. How can I prove the person was at home near that computer when this search was done?

01:24:29.780 Right. It would be very important. And so you have surveillance camera footage. You have other witnesses who may have seen him.

01:24:36.080 You have odometers on the cars. You have all kinds of things to prove the movements of the people involved.

01:24:40.780 And especially if the mother and father that are the people he's living with, let's say, were at work at the time that this message was sent.

01:24:48.500 And he was the only one at home. That sort of thing is what can narrow it down and actually turn it into some compelling evidence.

01:24:55.560 Mark, you wanted to weigh in. I was just going to say, one of the ways that you do that, and I've done this in a couple of trials, is if you can show forensically that somebody accessed a particular computer and it was password protected and they entered the password prior to logging on, and then you do a reverse engineering of the IP address, that's about as compelling a testimony as you can get to show that it was the particular person.

01:25:24.480 Mark, as a defense counsel, let's say we go to the preliminary hearing in June and the DA, the prosecution says, we've got his DNA at the crime scene.

01:25:34.820 We've got his touch DNA. We've got saliva, something, hair of his on the victims, and we have their DNA in his car or at his home or we found bloody clothing.

01:25:47.580 I mean, is that ballgame? Is it over? Like, what happens at that point?

01:25:51.500 Well, there's a couple of different things there that you can kind of mix and match. If they find the toughest things, the sheath, if I'm the defense lawyer, does not bother me because somebody, you can have an explanation for that.

01:26:06.740 There's an innocent explanation for that if it's on the button. Somebody else had the knife, obviously some other person.

01:26:13.680 The bushy eyebrows, that doesn't bother me. If, in fact, as you posit, that there is victim's DNA in his apartment, that's a real problem.

01:26:25.940 I don't know that it's game over, but that's a real, real problem.

01:26:29.800 If he has other DNA of his other than just the touch DNA on the button at the at the location, that's also a significant problem.

01:26:41.640 And that's what I guarantee you they're looking for. They're trying to put together either at the house, in the car or at the location.

01:26:49.180 Right. But of course, Marsha, I don't have to tell you, DNA that the rest of us think is foolproof and is going to lead, you know, guaranteed to a conviction can be manipulated and represented by defense counsel in a very different way.

01:27:04.840 Yeah, for sure. I mean, they're going to want to say contamination. They're going to want to say mixing samples.

01:27:10.520 They're going to, you know, all of that is going to be in the mix.

01:27:13.220 But don't forget, Megan, today is not back in 1995 and people are very familiar.

01:27:18.660 DNA is not the the mysterious question mark box that it used to be.

01:27:23.880 And when people hear DNA nowadays, they do get that largely it goes right and largely it doesn't tag somebody else.

01:27:32.820 You know, they doesn't tag the wrong person. And I'm sure they're going to be very careful in handling the samples.

01:27:38.000 I would imagine knowing that that's going to probably be the most significant evidence that they get at the kind you're talking about.

01:27:45.220 The defendant's DNA all over the room, the victim's DNA in his room, that sort of thing.

01:27:50.980 That kind of combination is I think it's a knockout punch if that's what they come up with.

01:27:56.700 So, Mark, what's going to happen at the preliminary hearing? Like what what should we expect?

01:27:59.960 Well, if there is a preliminary hearing and I still have my doubts that the prosecution just to explain that.

01:28:06.960 So what you're thinking, the prosecutor may say, ah, forget that.

01:28:09.380 I'm just going to go to a grand jury because there are two different ways you can.

01:28:11.920 I mean, is it maybe arrest?

01:28:15.120 Preliminary hearing or grand jury are both what are called probable cause proceedings.

01:28:19.920 Is there enough to hold somebody to answer for trial?

01:28:23.160 I always jokingly say now probable cause hearings have deteriorated to the point where is my client breathing?

01:28:31.580 And but basically you get in a preliminary hearing the ability to cross examine the witnesses that for a good prosecutor.

01:28:42.160 They want that because a good prosecutor is going to say to themselves, I want to see how this witness is going to do.

01:28:47.560 I want to see how my cop's going to do. But if you're leery of your case, if you want if you're if you don't think you've gotten to the point where you've got that, as you guys call it, the knockout punch.

01:28:59.180 You go to a grand jury where there's no pesky defense counsel in there asking questions.

01:29:05.500 The witnesses are somewhat choreographed in the grand jury.

01:29:10.760 The grand jurors can ask questions, but the prosecutors in there and the prosecutor can deflect or do whatever they need to do.

01:29:18.120 And then you get a probable cause determination and you don't have to do anything until you get to trial.

01:29:25.140 Well, fascinating.

01:29:26.300 Oh, well, it's a little bit skewed to the defense side with regard to grand jury.

01:29:30.760 There are other reasons, such as protecting witnesses who are in danger or when you're worried about the news media getting a hold of things and, you know, distorting evidence or affecting witnesses, memories and testimony.

01:29:43.280 Why don't they just do it that way in this case, Marsha?

01:29:46.940 Why wouldn't the prosecutor just do that grand jury? 0.93

01:29:49.540 Well, as what as Mark said, I think that that's it's always been my preference, actually, to do the preliminary hearing.

01:29:55.580 I want to see how my case holds up.

01:29:57.080 I want the defense to expose themselves as much as possible on cross-examination.

01:30:01.420 Or if I have witnesses whom I'm afraid will disappear, I can preserve their testimony at the preliminary hearing.

01:30:07.460 And if they are gone at the time of trial, it can be read into the trial before the jury.

01:30:12.640 If you don't have that, if you go grand jury, you don't have that ability to do that.

01:30:16.680 So there are advantages and disadvantages to the preliminary hearing.

01:30:19.640 If you're a really good prosecutor like Marsha was, you go you you don't want to go grand jury.

01:30:25.840 You want to be afraid of nothing.

01:30:28.560 She's proven that time and time again.

01:30:31.460 Marsha, Mark, thank you both so much for being here.

01:30:33.300 Let's do it again soon.

01:30:34.820 OK, great.

01:30:35.380 Thanks, Megan.

01:30:36.400 All right.

01:30:36.720 We'll be right back.

01:30:37.360 We'll be right back.

01:31:07.360 When he was five years old, he presented flowers to the Archbishop of Munich, announcing his intention to one day become a cardinal.

01:31:15.900 He would go on to become a priest in the early 1950s, Archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s, and true to his childhood wish, a cardinal in 1993.

01:31:26.940 In 2005, at the age of 78, he was elected pope following the death of Pope John Paul II.

01:31:33.080 Upon his election, Ratzinger took the name Benedict XVI.

01:31:36.360 He then stepped out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square and called himself a simple, humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord.

01:31:45.400 He was known as a brilliant teacher and a social conservative, dubbed God's Rottweiler for his staunch protection of the church's doctrine, never bending with the changing times.

01:31:54.760 In 2008, during his first visit to the United States as pope, he held mass in Yankee Stadium before a crowd of nearly 60,000.

01:32:03.060 He told the crowd authority, obedience.

01:32:05.920 To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom.

01:32:12.600 During his papacy, Pope Benedict found himself handling one of the church's biggest crises in decades, as allegations of clerical child sex abuse piled up.

01:32:23.040 In 2010, the pope admitted, quote,

01:32:24.840 He met and apologized directly to some victims, but critics always felt his actions were not enough.

01:32:40.220 In 2013, Pope Benedict shocked the world, becoming the first pope to resign in nearly 600 years.

01:32:45.140 He would spend the remainder of his days living inside Vatican City, dying on the last day of 2022 at the age of 95.

01:32:53.900 His successor, Pope Francis, overseeing his funeral, calling Benedict a faithful friend to Jesus, saying,

01:32:59.940 May your joy be complete as you hear his voice now and forever.

01:33:05.540 Rest in peace.

01:33:07.420 Before we go, I wanted to bring you one edition of the MK Mailbag and let you know what the viewers are saying.

01:33:13.720 This one from Bill is interesting, says, MK, you've said many times you will not say the name of mass shooters so as not to give them notoriety.

01:33:22.100 I agree with you.

01:33:22.940 But why are you saying the name of the University of Idaho alleged murderer?

01:33:27.940 That monster should not get any notoriety. 0.80

01:33:29.880 So, Bill, it's a good question, but there's a distinction.

01:33:32.800 The experts, psychological experts, have told us that in the case of mass shooters, they are looking for notoriety.

01:33:39.020 The point of the murder is the notoriety.

01:33:41.380 There is no reason to believe that that is true in any random crime, including this one.

01:33:45.560 We don't know what the motives are, but we've seen a pattern in the other lane that urges caution on the part of responsible journalists.

01:33:52.800 And we are in the business of normally reporting facts, dates, times, and so on.

01:33:57.560 So that's the reason for the distinction.

01:33:59.740 I appreciate the email.

01:34:00.680 You can email me, Megan, at MeganKelley.com.

01:34:03.080 And have a great weekend, everybody.

01:34:04.400 Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

01:34:09.660 No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - January 13, 2023

Classified Docs in Biden's Garage, and Evidence Against Idaho Suspect, with Alan Dershowitz, Sharyl Attkisson, Marcia Clark, and Mark Geragos ｜ Ep. 471

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript