The so-called hush money trial is back in New York City, and P.J. Crowley is being questioned by the prosecution. Meanwhile, down in D.C., the question of whether the President is immune from criminal prosecution is being argued before the Supreme Court.
00:11:22.880Hmm. This is the Muslim population of the UK is growing and the support within that population for Hamas is strong.
00:11:31.260Nearly 50 percent, according to the latest poll of UK Muslim support Hamas.
00:11:35.840And the majority of those do not believe in the rape or murder allegations against Hamas.
00:11:44.380Notwithstanding Hamas taking the time to videotape them and put them all over the Internet.
00:11:48.520These these Muslims say, no, it didn't happen. So what do you make of it?
00:11:52.880Well, we have an interesting situation in the UK where I think most people here support the right to protest peacefully.
00:12:01.380No one's got any problem with that. And it must be said that the majority of people doing these protest marches and they're very big marches every week are doing so peacefully.
00:12:09.680But there is a significant number of them who are using pro Hamas banners or chanting about Hamas or chanting about Intifada or chanting from the river to the sea.
00:12:20.620Now, that is open support of a terrorist organization. Hamas is a terror group prescribed by the UK government.
00:12:26.760So when you do that, you're actually breaking the law.
00:12:28.840And one of the big arguments that's been going on in this country is about the police not doing more to root out the people who are openly supporting a terror group.
00:12:37.020I mean, I had an extraordinary interview, Megan, on my show where there was a man who'd been an NHS, National Health Service doctor,
00:12:43.840for 20 years running a surgery. And on the quiet, he was also running an organization that has also just been prescribed in this country as a terror group.
00:12:56.420And so he was this extremist spewing all sorts of extremist stuff in his private life under a different name and then calmly going into a national health surgery every day and treating patients, some of whom would have been Jewish.
00:13:13.320Now, the interesting part of this, I think, is that we have an unusually high Muslim population here compared to percentage-wise America.
00:13:21.740We have almost as many Muslims in the UK as you do in America, nearly 5 million.
00:13:26.320But we only have about 200,000 Jewish people here.
00:13:30.180So it's been very intimidating for Jewish people, particularly in London, where these marches are going on.
00:13:34.760We had a guy at the weekend who released footage of himself being stopped by the police and told he was looking openly Jewish,
00:13:43.240which was an extraordinary thing for a policeman to say, and the police apologized for it.
00:13:47.720But that gives you some indication that if you even look Jewish, then the Metropolitan Police, the big London police,
00:13:55.580they are telling you not to go out anywhere near these marches in a capital city of a supposedly free and open democracy.
00:14:03.440So I think that's what's causing a lot of tension.
00:14:06.400And you're seeing a lot of the similar stuff now on the campuses, at colleges in America, which is, if you're Jewish, you know, I'm an Irish Catholic.
00:14:14.080So I can only equate some of this to what I was like being an Irish Catholic actually in London when the IOA were bombing the British mainland.
00:14:23.680And that was an uncomfortable time for Irish Catholics, but nothing quite on this scale.
00:14:28.000And I think that what is going on for Jewish people in New York and Chicago and the other cities where this is happening is very intimidating.
00:14:36.900And if you're now being told to stay at home and not go into your college where you paid huge sums of money to be educated because of your ethnicity,
00:14:46.380because you're Jewish, then that is completely outrageous.
00:14:49.040Yeah, that that can't happen. I mean, here we're you know, we love protests.
00:14:54.560We love free speech, as you know, and we're trying to figure out where to draw the line because we've never seen anything quite like this in recent history where people are openly screaming death to the Jews on college campuses in America.
00:15:06.360And that's a bridge too far. Right. But some of the other slogans would be permitted.
00:15:12.060But we do have, let's say, today, Governor Greg Abbott down in Texas saying arrest them all.
00:15:16.440Everybody's getting arrested. That's not OK, really. That's not OK.
00:15:20.100They're allowed to say we're allowed to say hateful things here. You know, our Constitution does protect hate speech.
00:15:24.600So it's I think everybody's trying to figure out where the line is because it's gotten so extreme.
00:15:29.100And when I look at what happens in the UK, it looks to me to be extreme to that thing with the Jewish guy was incredibly disturbing.
00:15:35.380The fact that the cops were saying just being Jewish with the yarmulke on is provocative.
00:15:41.160He himself is provocative. So I wonder about the multicultural aspect of this, Pierce.
00:15:46.760Is it working like can you have an open and free society when you have all of these immigrants come in and change the fabric of the country who have no no inclination and no aspiration of assimilating into British culture?
00:16:02.020Well, look, I think the honest answer to that is rather like America.
00:16:06.900We have welcomed millions of people to this country, millions of migrants, many of whom have enriched our society.
00:16:15.460That has to be said off the top. America was built on migrants coming in.
00:16:20.100The UK has millions of people who've made their homes and who've contributed.
00:16:23.220So let me just say that at the start. But I do think that we're entering into a very strange period where the language around this is being deliberately censored or depicted as something else.
00:16:35.860And I'll tell you why I say that. You may have seen that we have a problem with the boats that the British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is determined to stop the boats.
00:16:42.760What are the boats? Well, these are dinghies which criminal gangs are using to bring dozens of people at a time on small little dinghy boats across the Channel from France and dropping them on the southern coast of England.
00:16:57.380And the total numbers involved are about 40,000 people a year.
00:17:01.340Very sadly, only this week five more people died.
00:17:04.040These are women, children, desperate for a new life.
00:17:07.200And I completely understand their desire to do that.
00:17:08.920But they're trying to come in illegally. And many of them are dying across the Channel.
00:17:14.740But it's 40,000 people a year are coming in.
00:17:17.780The much bigger issue in the UK, which people don't want to talk about because they instantly get branded racist, which I think is ridiculous, is that last year we had a net legal migration of nearly 700,000 people come into the UK.
00:17:32.780Now, we're a country of just over 60 million.
00:17:34.620This is nearly one-sixtieth of our entire population coming in in one year from all over the world.
00:17:42.540The UK is a very desirable place to live, as is the United States.
00:17:45.740Well, we simply cannot support that kind of level of legal migration, never mind what's happening on the Channel.
00:17:53.380But it's just unsustainable to say that nearly a million people are coming year after year after year into the UK when we already have all our services, education, health, infrastructure, and so on, are already creaking at the seams.
00:18:08.800This is going to put more and more pressure.
00:18:11.040And in reference to your point about the cultural issues, it creates a lot of tension, obviously, between people who are here and have made their lives here and born here and so on, who suddenly see the whole fabric of their town or their village or whatever it may be completely changing.
00:18:29.740And they know that the government hasn't provided enough infrastructure to sustain this level of migration.
00:18:35.960So the far bigger problem for me here is not actually illegal migration.
00:18:50.820I'm just somebody who recognizes this is going to be a massive problem.
00:18:54.940I mean, for me, it is definitely cultural as well.
00:18:58.100I do not want this culture from, you know, the places that a lot of these migrants are coming, coming to America.
00:19:06.100I don't want it coming and taking over American culture.
00:19:08.320I don't want to have to worry about me or my daughter walking down the street in a tank top and getting harassed by somebody who's really much more in favor of the Sharia and wants to, you know, women only to be escorted as they walk.
00:19:21.820I don't want any of their views on women, frankly, to be coming to the UK, which I love, or to America.
00:19:26.740But it is that there was a poll from the about the UK Muslims on their support for Sharia.
00:19:34.640A new poll found almost a third of British Muslims think it would be desirable to implement Sharia law within the next two decades.
00:19:42.420That means, you know, your kids and mine who will be facing this like I don't this is where I always revert to then stay stay where you are.
00:19:51.780Stay in your own country if that's what you want, where it's like there's no way of stopping it without enforcing immigration laws.
00:19:59.260And then without British people having these frank discussions and not caring whether someone calls them a bigot.
00:20:19.240But we're not going to have Sharia law in this country.
00:20:21.340But, you know, again, it comes back to if you allow millions and millions of people from other cultures to come in and enough of them who come in want to have Sharia law, eventually, you know, you could see a potential danger that this begins to force itself onto a national agenda and could potentially get embraced.
00:20:41.660So I think that's what's concerning people.
00:20:43.920You know, we don't want Sharia law in this country.
00:20:46.700And the sad thing for me is America has, I think it's about five million Muslims, like I said, most of whom have been assimilated very well into American society.
00:21:10.680Yeah, we're talking about extremists and people who will happily publicly embrace a terrorist organization who have recently committed one of the most heinous terror acts in modern history.
00:21:21.940And the people who I think are very stupid people on these pro-Palestinian marches in the campuses, for example, when you see young students, they clearly don't know a lot of them what they're doing or why they're doing it.
00:21:34.460They don't know their history of the conflict in the Middle East between Palestine and between Israel.
00:21:42.260They don't know enough about the history to make a considered view about this.
00:21:45.480They've just been probably told by TikTok that they should be supporting one side over the other.
00:21:53.120So a lot of them are just, you know, I would love to just give them a basic history quiz about the 75-year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and see if actually what they knew and see whether they can make a considered view about what side they felt they should be supporting then.
00:22:09.840Because I've got great sympathy on both sides in this war.
00:22:12.880You know, I've always had historic sympathy for the Palestinians and the plight of so many people living there.
00:22:17.720It's an awful way that many of them have had to lead their lives.
00:22:20.420And, of course, half the people in Gaza were under 18.
00:22:23.260You know, this is a very, very young population who have – it's not their fault about what's going to be going on with Hamas.
00:22:29.680But Hamas has proven itself to be a despicable terror group.
00:22:33.400And it is unsustainable that you allow a terror group like Hamas to continue having any kind of leadership or authority in Gaza.
00:22:40.680So, you know, these things have to be confronted.
00:22:43.420The question then becomes, well, what's the best way to confront it?
00:22:46.220There are legitimate concerns about the way Israel is going about this.
00:22:49.800But I do always say to people on the Palestinian side, how else should Israel have responded?
00:22:55.740You know, when you have an existential threat to your existence.
00:22:58.600I mean, look at what happened in America after 9-11.
00:23:01.120We responded with massive force, and the civilian-to-military kill rate was a lot higher and less favorable to us than what Israel is doing right now.
00:23:10.980I want to move on because I don't have you for too long today.
00:23:16.340He's got a case being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court right now.
00:23:19.020He's got the head of the National Enquirer, former David Pecker, on the witness stand right now talking about this deal they struck to cover up for Trump and try to bury bad stories and promote good stories and hit his adversaries with negative stories.
00:23:33.360First, let me just ask you, because you've spent your life in news.
00:23:37.740I mean, you've been writing, you know, for newspapers long before most people even knew you on cam.
00:23:42.800So what do you make of this deal, and would it ever have struck you that this was illegal, this kind of thing is illegal to accept money from somebody or give money to somebody in order to quash their story or kill it, as the saying goes?
00:23:58.520No, look, I ran two of the biggest tabloid newspapers in Britain for 10 years, and this kind of deal in different ways goes on everywhere with all newspapers around the world.
00:24:09.480You know, if you have a massive star and there's a damaging story about them and they want to suppress that story, then sometimes they'll give you a better one about themselves to kill off the other one.
00:24:19.920Or, you know, there's always some kind of deal that could be done.
00:24:23.180When I just realized this would be the first case, Megan, that was going to come up with before, because some of them are clearly, I think, more serious and more legitimate and better cases to answer for Trump than others.
00:24:57.960But either way, either way, I don't care.
00:25:01.220And I don't think most people care very much.
00:25:03.500And I think that what's happened here, you've got a clearly politically motivated prosecutor who's a paid-up Democrat.
00:25:09.780You've got a judge who's obviously a Democrat as well.
00:25:12.580And they've decided to throw the kitchen sink at Trump by jacking up what should be just a state misdemeanor at worst into some sort of huge seismic federal crime.
00:25:22.940Well, all the polling I've seen on this shows that most Americans aren't buying this.
00:25:27.160They don't think that Trump committed a crime here.
00:25:29.360And they think it's a massive overreach by the prosecution.
00:25:31.780So I think I heard you at the start, and I totally agree with you.
00:25:35.280Whatever happens here, you know, A, Trump may get acquitted.
00:25:39.740Because there might be one member of that jury that just goes, you know what, this is ridiculous.
00:25:44.800And demeaning, frankly, for America to drag a former president of the United States, one of the 40, 45 people who held this incredibly high office,
00:25:53.780to drag them through such an unedifying and petty courtroom fiasco for weeks on end,
00:26:00.640when he should be legitimately allowed to campaign as the nominee for the Republican Party for the next elections.
00:26:07.300I think there's, for all sorts of reasons, this seems to me a ridiculous start to this legal battle against Trump.
00:26:14.660But whether he wins or loses, you see, I think he either wins, because one juror has common sense,
00:26:19.980or he loses, but actually gets martyred in the process.
00:26:24.020So spectacularly, I watched the scenes this morning, going into court,
00:26:27.260with people chanting Trump, Trump, Trump, and four more years, four more years.
00:28:50.640She is apparently getting back into the podcast lane thanks to this far-left pro-women Lemonada company.
00:28:59.660Richard Eden over in the Daily Mail, your old hot, has a piece today saying they're struggling to get this thing out of the starting blocks.
00:29:06.960No podcasts are even expected any time this year and not until 2025.
00:29:10.980And the podcast, by the way, is going to celebrate the joys of cooking, or at least something she's doing.
00:29:17.620Her Netflix show, I guess, is going to celebrate the joys of cooking, gardening, entertaining, and friendship, Piers.
00:29:24.960She's going to be teaching us how to be a good friend.
00:29:28.840I can't wait to find out from Meghan Markle what that's like.
00:29:32.860Well, as one of the many friends that she cut off, spectacularly, the moment she got a bit of royal action, along with her entire family, of course, on both sides, apart from her mother.
00:29:44.280I don't think Meghan Markle is in any position to be lecturing anybody about friendship.
00:29:48.920I mean, it always made me laugh, but the Archer World website, their charitable foundation, says it's dedicated to compassion.
00:29:56.280I mean, it's hard to imagine two people who've been less compassionate in the last few years to the ones around, their loved ones, than these two, right?
00:30:05.860This is two people who trashed all their family, you know, whether it was her father or whether it was Harry's entire family at a time when Prince Philip and the Queen were both dying.
00:30:16.480There they were on national television, from Oprah Winfrey to Netflix to whatever, you know, as the Spotify guy put it, whatever grift they could get paid for, up they were, trashing their families.
00:30:30.740So the idea now that they're reduced, or that certainly Meghan Markle is now reduced, from somebody who, you know, remember Meghan, she had a fairytale royal wedding that was seen around the world.
00:30:41.920You know, the carriages drawn down to Windsor Castle and so on. It was an amazing event. Everyone in this country, I'm in the UK at the moment, everyone loved that marriage when it happened.
00:30:52.580There was universal support for it, euphoria. It was only their behaviour in the first year of their marriage when they began to behave rankly hypocritically, lecturing about poverty whilst having half a million dollar baby showers, you know,
00:31:06.160to lecturing us about the need to watch our carbon footprint and using Elton John and George Clooney's private jets like taxi cabs.
00:31:14.120And it was the constant hypocrisy that they got picked up on by the media, and then they couldn't handle the criticism from the media.
00:31:21.240And then it all turned hostile. Then they started suing everybody. And the whole thing got so toxic, eventually they just say, we've had enough of this.
00:31:27.640We're not going to do any more dreary duties on a wet Wednesday, which is what you have to do to earn your royal titles in the estimation of the public.
00:31:36.600And they decamped off to Montecito, bought themselves a massive mansion.
00:31:41.020And they were supposed to be doing it, Meghan, if you remember, this was going to be their liberation, their freedom.
00:31:46.320And it was supposed to make them happy.
00:31:47.740I've never seen two more miserable people who've never stopped whining and suing absolutely everybody in the pretense that this is because they found their liberation and freedom.
00:31:57.660If you're so damn happy and free and liberated, shut up, stop whining, complaining about everything.
00:32:03.920But they're obviously not happy. And it's obviously been diminishing returns where when you trash your family again and again and again, eventually there's not much left to say.
00:32:11.980And people don't really want to hear it. It's like the Spotify guy said, they're just a pair of grifters who just want to trash their family for loads of money and not put a shift in to do proper work.
00:32:21.160You and I know how hard it is to do this kind of thing properly.
00:32:24.620You know, it's a lot of work with a dedicated team and you put the hours in and you've got to be creative and high energy and really put graft in.
00:32:32.860These two wanted to do massive deals with companies and then not do any work.
00:32:37.080Nobody wants to see her next podcast. Nobody listened to the first one.
00:32:40.140And that's for this thing she's now doing with the ridiculously long name that no one can remember, but she's going to try and be the new Marvel.
00:32:48.260Whatever. I have to write American Riviera Orchard C footnote 47 for the remainder of the name.
00:32:55.580Right. And she's now got all her celebrity, you know, sort of B-list, C-list mates putting out Instagram posts about her jam.
00:33:01.880And it's like, how the mighty fall. This was a woman who had it all in this country, who literally had it all.
00:33:09.320And he's now flogging jam from her kitchen in Montecito while her husband runs around fuming about absolutely everything and everyone because he knows in his gut, he knows what he's lost.
00:33:22.280And eventually those chickens will come home to roost.
00:33:26.780And then she will be touting their eggs on her stupid website where she's wearing evening gowns while walking around her mansion that we're supposed to feel sorry for her because she's in.
00:33:36.960I love it. But on the grifter subject, one of the funniest things that was Bill Simmons, who said that at Spotify, I've never, never seen such a pair of grifters.
00:33:43.680They wouldn't do any work. She got paid all this money. She barely did anything. Him, too.
00:33:48.180And now she signs this pod deal with his lemonada. We're not getting a podcast for years.
00:33:53.160And then she decides to sign this deal with Netflix. She's done nothing other than now this show she's going to do on cooking and friendship.
00:34:00.340Finally. OK, we'll believe it when we see it. And then finally, she's got her little Riviera thing going.
00:34:05.440We're so far. We've had. One jar of strawberry jam.
00:34:11.900I know. It's sort of lazy and a bit pathetic. You know, this is somebody who demands that we use the title Duchess of Sussex.
00:34:23.480I come from Sussex, which is a county in the south of England. I've spent more time in Sussex than the last month than Meghan Markle has spent in her entire life.
00:34:34.160She's your ruler, Piers. I didn't know that she's your.
00:34:36.340She ain't my ruler, Meghan Kelly. She is somebody who, listen, as I've said to you, I think, many times before, if they actually want to do this kind of thing and trade themselves around as sort of, you know, celebrities and do that sort of circus, then they can do it.
00:34:53.580But they can't do it with the royal titles. They shouldn't be using the royal titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
00:34:58.840Bestowed on them by the monarchy, an institution they constantly complain about and trash whenever they get the chance.
00:35:05.380Fine. If you want to go off and be celebrities in California, do it.
00:35:16.900You know, she got lucky, met her prince, dragged him out of the bosom of his family, dragged him away from the monarchy, which bestowed those titles on them,
00:35:25.100and has now ruthlessly, with him, exploited those titles for massive personal gain.
00:35:30.700And I think it's disgusting and hypocritical.
00:35:34.700I hope that King Charles, who obviously is massively distracted by his illness, but I hope that King Charles, at some stage, just has that conversation and says,
00:35:42.280you can't keep the titles, I'm sorry, but you can't keep demeaning the status of being a member of the royal family
00:35:48.560and attacking the family and the monarchy and retain your titles.
00:35:52.540You can just be Harry and Meghan, and see how you get on, by the way, when you're no longer royals, because the answer is not very far.
00:36:33.360The issue of presidential immunity front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court today, and this is an important one, not just for Donald Trump, but for the country.
00:36:41.980Joining me now, Harmeet Dhillon, managing partner of the Dhillon Law Group.
00:36:46.660So you've represented Trump in connection with the efforts to keep him off of the ballots in various states successfully.
00:36:52.940And now this argument goes to something much bigger and wider about whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes at all for anything during his time in office.
00:37:06.220It's not about whether once he leaves the office he can be prosecuted.
00:37:24.860I was looking at my watch because how long this has been going on.
00:37:27.860It's been almost three hours and the government is still arguing and answering a series of hypotheticals from the justices.
00:37:37.460So what I heard from the president's very able lawyer, John Sauer, is a kind of a clear test that would make it very easy for the court to determine whether presidential immunity should apply in this case.
00:37:53.400And that is you look to whether these are official acts of president as opposed to private acts in his private life while he was the president.
00:38:04.180And then there are a number of both legal and policy arguments that they went through to underlie that.
00:38:11.060And what the government lawyer, Dreben, came out of the box arguing was very different.
00:38:16.980And the longer he argues, the more he's positing different considerations and levels and layers of tests that would, in effect, make it impossible for there to be a bright line rule.
00:38:28.780And that's the real problem, because the whole concept of presidential immunity, Megan, is that presidents, while they're in office, are dealing with literally the most important decisions in the world.
00:38:39.300And they have to be able to make quick decisions in the public interest without fear that their decision may ultimately subject them to prosecution, perhaps, like in this case, many years down the road.
00:38:51.180And so bright line tests are really what's indicated, whatever the rule is, not what I've heard this morning from the government.
00:38:57.820He wouldn't be prosecuted unless he's a bad guy.
00:39:01.540We can rely on the grand jury to protect us.
00:39:05.680And grand juries don't indict people without substantial evidence, which is actually nonsense.
00:39:17.320So there was a bit where he was arguing openly, you know, you know that the prosecution, the prosecutors in this country, they would never go after somebody for political purposes.
00:39:32.620Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough.
00:39:45.620Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law?
00:39:53.860Well, I am defending the Court of Appeals judgment.
00:39:56.720And I do think that there are layered safeguards that the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct.
00:40:08.020We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence.
00:40:20.080A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution under Waite v. United States.
00:40:26.620It's not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do.
00:40:36.220So if if I in the two hours almost that we've been listening to the government's case and it's still ongoing, the only clear rule I heard out of Michael Grieven's mouth effectively was trust the government, trust the DOJ specifically.
00:40:51.940The DOJ officials will never give bad advice to the president.
00:40:56.420They will never do anything that's not protective of the best interests of the country.
00:41:00.280Of course, not trust the president, who is actually elected by the people and by the states and the Electoral College, but trust the DOJ and its thousands of unelected priests of the law.
00:41:14.640We have seen in the last few years, Megan, that, you know, you and I are both lawyers.
00:41:18.960I'd say at the beginning of my career, I might have thought I would give the government the benefit of the doubt, not trust them.
00:41:24.340But to this today, I say that I cannot give credence to what DOJ officials are doing, saying or recommending.
00:41:31.780It is not in the public interest in many cases.
00:41:34.300I've seen that time and time again, in First Amendment cases representing Project Veritas, in the cases involving COVID, which I went to the court many times over these issues.
00:41:45.680Time and time again, the government has made the wrong calls in my lifetime.
00:41:50.040And in this case, this particular prosecution is rife with official acts.
00:41:57.580And so the bright line rule, I think, is the correct way to go for the court.
00:42:01.040And I think many of the justices are struggling with how do we fashion a rule that then incentivizes people and gives them clear guidelines so that we aren't here over every single act of a president and there isn't a chilling effect on the presidency.
00:42:15.640And, you know, right out of the box, John Sauer made the very good point that if we don't have a bright line rule, that is the rule we're advocating here for President Trump, effectively, all living presidents could be prosecuted for their acts while in office.
00:42:32.040For example, the weapons of mass destruction argument under President Bush, the droning of American citizens by President Obama, the open border that President Biden has been allowing today.
00:42:48.320Do we want presidents to be able to be prosecuted for that?
00:42:51.380And the rule that we're articulating for says no, that they should not be prosecuted for official acts.
00:42:56.900But when you listen to the argument and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is really digging into even, you know, there was an argument I hear advocated for some of the justices that even all of the official acts of president shouldn't be immunized from a prosecution, that we should then look at whether certain things are core acts of the presidency or whether they're acts that a president did,
00:43:22.000but they're straying beyond the core acts of the presidency and to acts that overlap with other branches of government.
00:43:29.880So the longer I listened, the less clear it became from what the government is articulating here.
00:56:11.140I think what's going to happen and, you know, given the rule articulated by the president's lawyers at the outset for strategic and also,
00:56:19.320I think, integrity reasons, the the the best case scenario is this case gets remanded with instructions to the D.C.
00:56:27.100Circuit or the trial court to apply existing precedent to parse out that a significant part of this indictment should be simply
00:56:35.920tossed out as ineligible under constitutional framework because that sorry to interrupt you.
00:56:42.080But that because that what that will do is is decide what's Trump actually going to get tried on?
00:56:48.180What what is fair game for a jury to actually look at and what's not?
00:56:52.500But all of that is very helpful for Trump, Harmeet. No, because it's absolutely because it first of all, it's delay.
00:56:59.460And second of all, it's my belief that nothing that falls into that private category is also should make it to a jury because there's First Amendment.
01:00:16.020That has been the nation's experience.
01:00:17.800OK, I just wanted to say that listening to Sam Alito there, you know, they they do kind of live in an ivory tower,
01:00:25.180but they know what's happening in the country.
01:00:27.120But he was talking about how, you know, prosecutors are going to do this thanks to a bitter opponent in a presidential race isn't going to cause instability.
01:00:43.040What's interesting is that President Biden himself may not be feeling the pain of potentially facing that
01:00:49.620because a separate special counsel has ruled that he's too feeble minded and old and, you know,
01:00:57.460depraved, frankly, mentally to stand for trial.
01:01:01.620So this is a triple jeopardy in that sense that the one guy who is orchestrating this witch hunt clearly from the White House is the one guy who some DOJ officials think can't stand trial.
01:01:37.720And I mentioned in the intro to this show, Maggie Haberman listening to Pecker.
01:01:43.580And I'll just give you a quick bit on what he's saying this morning.
01:01:48.200He is talking about how he had an exchange, several exchanges with Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer,
01:01:55.240and they came up with a system that would create a payment voucher voucher for Karen McDougal, the playboy playmate who was threatening to come forward about her affair with Trump for for McDougal's lawyer that the prosecutor was getting louder.
01:02:10.540She reports as he drills into a critical element of the prosecution's case that these payments to Karen McDougal were made to influence the election.
01:02:20.140He's getting louder to make the point.
01:02:22.500He is identifying exhibits that corroborate the story about McDougal.
01:02:28.340Pecker admits straightforwardly when asked that he did not, quote, want this story to embarrass Mr.
01:02:33.700Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign.
01:02:37.220Per The New York Times, this is the crescendo of his story about Karen McDougal and hugely powerful testimony for the prosecution.
01:02:46.180Haberman says the testimony is leading into a clear story about knowingly violating campaign finance laws.
01:02:54.680And, Harmeet, it is true that David Pecker, the American Media Inc., already struck in a cooperation agreement with the government so that they wouldn't get prosecuted.
01:03:06.900And Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking the law by doing these acts.
01:03:12.960But he actually went to jail after pleading guilty to a bunch of stuff.
01:03:16.920It had to do with these taxi medallions and all this stuff.
01:03:18.700But just because somebody strikes a cooperation deal or pleads guilty to a crime that later gets brought against someone else does not mean the crime was legally sound or valid in the first place.
01:03:32.740And what I really think, and I'm open minded to, OK, maybe they've got this legal theory.
01:03:39.740I want to be right more than I want to be loved by an audience.
01:03:42.680What I see here is still to prove, because they're arguing this campaign finance violation, to prove there was a campaign finance violation for them to do all of this, a campaign donation that wasn't allowed, you have to prove that the only reason one would ever engage in such payments to a woman like Karen McDougal or a woman like Stormy Daniels or a doorman with his alleged story about Trump, which has been disproven,
01:04:12.680would be to advance a campaign, would be to advance a campaign.
01:04:27.580I don't care what Pecker says about his concerns Trump might lose or what Trump, even Trump could take the stand and say, I did it because I didn't want to lose.
01:04:37.400And it wouldn't matter given the nature of these payments.
01:04:46.580Where is that guardrail in what's allowed in terms of the testimony?
01:04:51.680And ultimately, I feel like the guardrail is going to be missing on the jury instructions, too.
01:04:56.820Well, look, this this case is a complete travesty of justice.
01:04:59.500And I don't say that just as a lawyer who's represented President Trump against Stormy Daniels and won $600,000 total in judgments against her.
01:05:06.360I mean, that is the most biased possible witness.
01:05:08.140She owes him currently over $300,000 after some offsets.
01:05:11.460Secondly, it is very clear at the time of those prosecutions where Michael Cohen pled guilty that he was he was incentivized, as many criminal defendants are, to compose, to make up allegations that literally had little or nothing to do with the underlying strong allegations that the government had against him with respect to taxi medallions and a bunch of other misconduct on his part.
01:05:35.000This other stuff was swept in there for purposes of planting the seed for this prosecution.
01:06:05.000And if there is a mixed motive for a payment under campaign finance law, federal campaign finance law, the candidate wins.
01:06:11.840And that is the case here, that there is a mixed motive for any such payment.
01:06:16.980And that is buy peace, save money, protect your marriage from frivolous allegations, as a as a famous man about town frequently has to do.
01:06:28.020And so it is actually an open and shut case.
01:06:31.200And what the judge did in this case, Judge Judge Merchant, is outrageous.
01:06:33.840Outrageous. He has prevented President Trump from bringing in campaign finance experts who would have advised the court that there is no finance violation here.
01:06:55.040And, you know, this morning with Harvey Weinstein case coming down and the reversal in the in the New York court, that literally what's happening in court right now in this Trump case is what the highest court in New York has said is impermissible.
01:07:09.940That is OK, wait, wait, this is great. This is this is big. I want to I want to talk about this.
01:07:13.480Let me just set it up, though, because, yes, this is important.
01:07:15.460And thankfully, the Megyn Kelly show audience is smart and informed because we've gone neck deep on the Harvey appeal with our pal Arthur Idala, who argued it.
01:07:24.960And so for those of you who love Arthur like I do, go, Arthur.
01:07:28.160Yeah, he won. I know we don't like Harvey, but that's a separate matter.
01:07:31.700We care about due process and we care about rule of law.
01:07:34.060And what happened is today, Arthur Idala won. He was on the show explaining how he felt about how the argument went.
01:07:40.680He knew it was going to be kind of tight. He's trying to get the conviction of Harvey Weinstein on these sex assault and rape claims reversed, not because he or I don't know what Arthur thinks, but not necessarily because of guilt or innocence, but because the process in trying Harvey was unfair.
01:07:56.020He was deprived of his due process rights because New York allows everything in against somebody who gets accused like all your bad acts.
01:08:04.380If you had taken the witness stand, everything he'd ever done, every woman who ever had an accusation tested or not would have been allowed to take the stand against him.
01:08:12.460It effectively deprives this person of their right to take the stand.
01:08:16.800Here's Arthur explaining some of it on our show just like a month ago.
01:08:20.020They tried to introduce women who rejected him under the premise that, see, these women who he's not charged with, they rejected him.
01:08:31.020So it must be true that the women who he's charged with rejected him as well.
01:08:36.480And that just demeans women. And that's what I told that to the judges.
01:08:39.600I mean, what, all women react exactly the same way?
01:08:42.080Of course not. There were more women who testified against him, who never went, who was never charged with, never went in front of a grand jury,
01:08:48.840than with the women who he was actually charged with.
01:08:51.600She said, how could this be a fair trial when it's a he said, she said case, and you took the he said out of the equation and you added more, she said, she said, she said, that he wasn't even charged with.
01:09:03.220So we are waiting, honestly, on pins and needles.
01:09:05.480Three men on the panel, can they go home and tell their family, yeah, I'm helping Harvey Weinstein out.
01:09:10.340I mean, I don't know. I hope they can.
01:09:12.500I pray they can for our whole system of justice.
01:09:14.520For every defendant in the United States of America, I hope they have the strength to say, yeah, I'm helping a bad guy.
01:09:22.700Because under the law, he wasn't treated fairly.
01:09:26.760By the way, Harvey's going to stay in jail, but explain how this helps Trump's case.
01:09:30.420Yeah, no. So just I'll finish my thought, which is this is prior bad act kind of evidence that that is got nothing to do with the case under prosecution, really.
01:09:41.400And the idea that somebody did something similar in the past and he's a bad guy because of that, that's literally a backdoor way to just smear him in violation of due process.
01:09:50.000And the New York's highest court has ruled that that there is very clear precedent that says that you can't do that.
01:09:56.340So I think we can all agree Harvey Weinstein, total scumbag.
01:10:00.980OK, however, it's enough to prosecute him for the actual acts that they were able to get him on within the statute of limitations.
01:10:07.480And if he's retried, they can still get a prosecution based on his disgusting behavior in the case at trial, as opposed to his disgusting behavior in a number of cases where the statute of limitations had passed, the witnesses, you know, memories had faded.
01:10:20.500And, you know, he's going to be in jail for a long time and on both coasts for his horrible behavior, regardless of this.
01:10:29.800And if this rule were applied in the New York case against President Trump, this David Pecker stuff, which has now already tainted the jury, is reversible error and requires a retrial without this evidence there.
01:10:42.360And with a different judge who's incredibly biased under New York law, had an obligation to recuse himself.
01:10:56.940My gosh, so many of our stories like coming together that we've been covering on this show.
01:11:01.740It is very fascinating to me to see how the Harvey Weinstein case might actually help Trump.
01:11:06.900And I do wonder whether that that ruling that Judge Mershon made the other day, you guys remember this saying everything could come in, you know, virtually everything could come in.
01:11:16.380Not the sexual assault civil verdict against Trump that was won by E. Jean Carroll, but the defamation verdict and the civil fraud verdict and the Access Hollywood, not the tape, but the transcript.
01:11:31.540All of these are alleged prior bad acts, at least some of them are, and they've been permitted.
01:11:38.340So it's not that this ruling is saying no prior bad acts can come in.
01:11:42.000There's always been an exception to that rule if they can prove pattern, for example.
01:11:48.520And we'll have to figure out how and just how much this could help Trump, either actively in this trial or on appeal.
01:11:55.740In the meantime, as I said, Harvey Weinstein's not getting out of jail.
01:11:58.400He's been sentenced to, I think, 16 years by the Los Angeles courts, and the New York DA has already said he's going to retry Harvey, so we're going to have another trial, for sure.
01:12:18.940But win or lose, he should be convicted, if convicted, based on the testimony of the women who are subject to cross-examination and the rules of evidence and who show up in court to present their story.
01:12:31.760You should not be convicted based on a slew of past acts that aren't at issue here or a slew of women who haven't had the full vetting that a criminal trial around them might lead to and so on.
01:12:45.240And we can't keep depriving men, effectively, of their right to testify, because everything but the kitchen sink could come in against them.
01:13:05.180If I were President Trump, I would just run this on loop.
01:13:07.280I would start every campaign ad with it.
01:13:09.400But I couldn't—I mean, I could believe my eyes, but it sounds like he still manages to surprise me with his utter daffiness, and I just can't believe his wife is allowing this.
01:13:21.960Duggar, if this ever happens to me, honey, step in.
01:13:30.560Don't let me humiliate myself like that.
01:13:32.540I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.
01:13:36.920It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.
01:13:45.140You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
01:13:52.480Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
01:13:58.980You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
01:33:04.680I've been telling folks about this at the so-called Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin that has been dubbed Frankenstein's Lab.
01:33:14.240We are getting closer and closer to actual dehumanization.
01:33:20.040And, again, that is in the state of Texas that this person came to in order to have those surgeries.
01:33:27.160Look, I'm just so tired of playing, using the left's language, playing with the idea that we want to make this illegal for children because it's wrong,
01:33:35.460and we know that you cannot turn into something that you were not born as.
01:33:39.760I think that we need to stop having that conversation and start shifting it to there's no reason that we should allow mentally ill humans.
01:33:47.020I don't care how old you are, if you are mentally ill and think that you should be chopping off your healthy body parts,
01:33:53.220we should not even participate in that conversation as if that's a thing that we should allow mentally ill adults to do.
01:34:22.140This is a 27-year-old woman who had a total hysterectomy, got rid of, I don't know, there's like some hole that's left for urination, nothing else, and everything else is gone.
01:34:32.280And the first rule of medicine is do no harm.
01:34:39.620I noticed something very, very interesting at the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday.
01:34:44.320So yesterday, I'm going to relate back to the transgender issue, I promise.
01:34:47.320But yesterday was the Idaho abortion law argument and basically whether there is federal preemption for medically necessary emergency abortions that would override Idaho's nearly complete ban on abortions.
01:34:58.740And Justice Alito got the Solicitor General of the United States, Liz Proligar, to make what I thought was a shocking concession.
01:35:06.440I saw Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation tweeting about it.
01:35:10.300Alito basically asked the Solicitor General of the United States, is a mentally health-induced abortion ever truly medically necessary?
01:35:17.980And the Solicitor General said that it's an issue of brain chemistry.
01:35:22.440I guess that was her way of describing mental issues, but not a physical issue.
01:35:27.220So the takeaway from that is, okay, well, what about gender dysphoria?
01:35:31.040Is that an issue of brain chemistry and not actually a physical issue demanding that we go ahead down below and chop off Mr. Winky Wink or do this Barbie so-called gender-affirming care that you're referring to?
01:35:42.080I thought that was a shocking concession from a Democratic Department of Justice with potentially very serious long-term ramifications if the right side of the legal aisle is willing to pick up that argument and run with it.
01:35:53.340And I'll just make one final point really briefly here.
01:35:55.720You know, this whole thing about chemical castration for minors, this is one issue where America is way to the left of even the Europeans.
01:36:03.740So Scotland, just like a week and a half, two weeks ago, said that they are not going to have the NHS, the public taxpayer-funded health insurance agency over there.
01:36:12.080They are not going to have NHS involved in taxpayer subsidization of chemical castration for minors.
01:36:17.360England had said that already earlier last year.
01:36:25.980So I think you take these factors combined, it continues to be what I say is a winning issue for the American right if we just pick it up and run with it.
01:36:32.120I'll give you the last word on it, Sarah.
01:36:36.860I think the way through is that all of these detransitioners are going to be the answer.
01:36:41.080They need to sue the hell out of all of these hospitals that are doing this irreversible damage to them.
01:36:47.160And you won't change the minds and the hearts of these evil doctors, but what you will do is scare them into thinking they might go bankrupt.
01:36:53.600And I think that that's the only way out of this.