reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Megyn Kelly discusses a significant day for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, focusing on a hearing that could potentially expose misconduct by Fulton County DA Fanny Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Allegations suggest that Wade engaged in a kickback scheme with Willis, whom he allegedly had an affair with, raising questions about conflicts of interest in the prosecution of Trump. Testimony from Robin YY, a friend of Willis, claims the affair began in 2019, contradicting the prosecutors' statements that it started in 2022. The defense has obtained phone records showing over 2,000 calls and nearly 12,000 texts exchanged between Wade and Willis before their claimed affair began, suggesting a close relationship. The judge's ruling allows for further examination of Terrence Bradley, a witness who has previously expressed reluctance to testify. The stakes are high, as the judge could disqualify both prosecutors if they are found to have lied under oath about their relationship. Kelly emphasizes the ethical implications of prosecutors lying to the court, which could lead to serious consequences, including disbarment. Phil Holloway, a legal expert, joins the discussion, highlighting the importance of due process and the potential need for a new prosecutor if Willis is disqualified. The conversation shifts to the broader implications of the case and the political motivations behind it, with Kelly suggesting that Willis's ambition may have influenced her handling of the prosecution. Later, Kelly covers the tragic case of Laken Riley, a nursing student murdered by an illegal immigrant, discussing the implications of immigration policy on public safety. Mary Katherine Ham joins to analyze the political responses to the incident, criticizing the left for downplaying the connection between illegal immigration and crime. The discussion also touches on the disturbing reactions to the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, who protested against perceived injustices in Palestine, and the valorization of his act by some political figures, raising concerns about mental health and societal values. The episode concludes with reflections on media bias and the challenges of free inquiry in journalism, particularly in light of recent controversies surrounding the New York Times and political discourse.

Megyn Kelly discusses a significant hearing in Fulton County regarding former President Donald Trump, focusing on testimony from Terrence Bradley, a friend and former lawyer of special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Bradley's testimony was marked by evasiveness and a lack of recall, raising suspicions about his credibility. He claimed not to remember key details about the romantic relationship between Wade and Fulton County DA Fanny Willis, despite having previously communicated specifics via text to defense attorney Ashley Merchant. Kelly highlights that Bradley had previously told Merchant that the affair began before Willis hired Wade, contradicting their sworn statements. The texts exchanged between Bradley and Merchant reveal that he was confident about the timeline and details of the relationship, including where they met. Despite this, on the stand, Bradley claimed he was speculating and could not recall the information he had previously provided. The judge ruled that Bradley had to testify, dismissing claims of attorney-client privilege. Kelly emphasizes that the texts serve as substantive evidence that contradicts Bradley's courtroom testimony. Phil Holloway, an attorney and guest on the show, notes that the text messages are crucial for impeachment, as they show inconsistencies in Bradley's statements. He explains that the judge can consider these prior inconsistent statements as evidence, potentially impacting the case against Willis and Wade. The discussion also touches on the implications of the Georgia State Senate's investigation into the Fulton DA's office, which has issued subpoenas for text communications related to the case. Holloway suggests that if the judge finds evidence of fraud, it could have serious consequences for Willis and her team. The conversation concludes with speculation about the motivations behind the prosecution and the potential need for an independent investigation into the conduct of those involved.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing Donald Trump's imminent arraignment in New York, where he faces criminal charges related to a hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels. The legal implications of the case are explored, including questions about the statute of limitations and the appropriateness of prosecutorial discretion. Arthur Aidala, a trial attorney, shares insights on the Manhattan court system and the nature of the charges, emphasizing that there is no clear victim in this case. The discussion shifts to the political ramifications of the indictment, with Aidala suggesting that it could ultimately benefit Trump politically, despite the serious nature of the charges. Kelly and Aidala also touch on other legal challenges Trump faces, including civil cases and potential issues in Georgia and related to classified documents at Mar-A-Lago. Dave Ehrenberg, a prosecutor, joins the conversation, asserting that the case against Trump is not weak, despite the complexities surrounding the hush money payment. He highlights the testimony of Jennifer Weisselberg, the estranged daughter-in-law of Trump's former CFO, as potentially significant, while also acknowledging the challenges of proving intent to defraud in this context. As the arraignment approaches, the hosts discuss the logistics of the event, including security measures and the possibility of a gag order being issued by the judge. They express concerns about the implications of such an order on Trump's ability to communicate with his supporters and the media. The conversation also delves into the broader implications of the indictment for the Republican Party and the upcoming presidential election. Polling data indicates that Trump's support among Republicans has surged since the indictment, complicating the positions of other GOP candidates like Ron DeSantis. Victor Davis Hanson joins the discussion, criticizing the legal and political motivations behind the indictment and arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent. He emphasizes the perception of unequal application of justice, particularly in comparison to other political figures like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The episode concludes with a reflection on the potential fallout from the indictment, including the impact on Trump's political future and the broader implications for American democracy. The hosts express concern about the divisive nature of the current political climate and the challenges facing the Republican Party in navigating these turbulent waters.

Megyn Kelly discusses significant legal developments involving President Trump and the Georgia case led by prosecutor Fanny Willis. Trump is appealing a ruling regarding his claim of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, with skepticism from the DC Circuit Court. Meanwhile, allegations have emerged against Willis from a Trump co-defendant's attorney, Ashley Merchant, claiming she is in a romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, which could lead to ethical breaches and potential criminal charges against her. Merchant's motion suggests that Willis's actions may compromise the integrity of the case against Trump and other defendants. Victor Davis Hanson joins the discussion, expressing skepticism about Willis's integrity and the political motivations behind the case. He notes that if the allegations against her are true, it could undermine the prosecution's credibility and have broader implications for other politically motivated cases against Trump. The conversation touches on the political landscape, with both hosts noting that the scrutiny of prosecutors like Willis may reflect a growing public awareness of perceived abuses of power in the legal system. The discussion shifts to former First Lady Michelle Obama, who has expressed concerns about the upcoming election and the importance of leadership. Kelly and Hanson analyze her recent comments, suggesting that her resurfacing in the political conversation may indicate a potential future role in politics, although they remain skeptical about her actual candidacy. The hosts also discuss the Republican primary landscape, highlighting Nikki Haley's rising poll numbers in New Hampshire and the dynamics of the race. They speculate on the potential for other candidates to drop out and consolidate support against Trump, while acknowledging the challenges of overcoming his established base. The conversation concludes with reflections on the broader implications of the current political climate, including the potential for a third-party movement to emerge as a response to dissatisfaction with the two-party system.

Megyn Kelly discusses the recent closing statements in the Fanny Willis disqualification hearing regarding the prosecution of Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia. The hearing lasted about three hours, with both sides presenting their arguments. Judge Scott McAfee is expected to issue a ruling in the next two weeks. Phil Holloway, a local attorney, notes that the defense effectively highlighted text messages as evidence suggesting that Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade may have lied to the court. He emphasizes that the judge only needs to have grave concerns about their truthfulness to consider disqualification. The defense argued that the relationship between Willis and Wade began before he was hired, which raises ethical concerns. Dave Arenburg expresses skepticism about the evidence of lying, suggesting that while there may be smoke, he is unsure if there is fire. Mike Davis believes the judge will disqualify both Willis and Wade due to serious ethical violations, including perjury and conflicts of interest. The discussion also touches on the implications of Willis's public statements and how they might prejudice the defendants. The defense argues that her comments in a church setting could be grounds for disqualification, as they may have influenced public perception of the case. As the conversation progresses, the panelists speculate on the likelihood of disqualification, with Holloway estimating an 80-85% chance, while Davis believes it should be 100% if the judge follows the law. They also discuss the potential fallout for other defendants who have pleaded guilty if Willis and her office are removed from the case. The episode concludes with anticipation for the judge's ruling and its implications for the ongoing legal proceedings.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing various legal cases, including the Kansas City Chiefs fans found frozen outside a friend's house, and the trial of Michelle Traconis, the alleged affair partner of a man accused of murdering his wife. Traconis is on trial for allegedly helping dispose of the victim's belongings after the husband died by suicide. Kelly emphasizes the importance of free speech, promoting a bottled water company, Freedom 20, which supports the right to offend and express oneself. She then introduces her guests, Arthur Idala and Mark Eiglarsh, who discuss a recent incident in New York City involving migrants arrested for allegedly assaulting police officers. The guests express frustration over the leniency of the judicial system, particularly regarding bail policies that allow suspects to be released without bail. The conversation shifts to the case of Daniel Penny, who is facing charges related to a subway incident. Idala highlights the disparity in treatment between Penny and the migrants who assaulted police officers, noting the lack of accountability for the latter. The discussion touches on the broader implications of crime and bail reform in New York. Next, the hosts discuss a bizarre case involving three Kansas City Chiefs fans who died from fentanyl overdoses after visiting a friend known for making drug cocktails. Toxicology reports reveal the deceased had lethal doses of fentanyl in their systems. The conversation raises questions about the responsibility of the friend, dubbed "the chemist," who was inside the house during the incident. The dialogue transitions to the ongoing legal troubles of Fanny Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, who is facing scrutiny over her personal relationship with a special prosecutor involved in the Trump case. The hosts speculate on whether this relationship could affect the integrity of the case and whether she should recuse herself. The show also covers the trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of a school shooter, who is being charged for her alleged negligence in not recognizing her son's mental health issues and for providing him access to a firearm. The guests debate the merits of the prosecution's case against her, with differing opinions on parental responsibility in such tragic circumstances. Finally, the discussion shifts to Alec Baldwin, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges related to the shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust." The hosts analyze the complexities of the case, including the responsibilities of actors and crew members regarding firearm safety on set. The episode concludes with a focus on the Alec Murdoch case, where a judge denied a motion for a new trial despite juror testimony suggesting influence from a court clerk. The guests reflect on the implications of the case for the legal system in South Carolina and the importance of accountability within the profession.

Megyn Kelly discusses the upcoming Supreme Court arguments regarding whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president due to allegations of insurrection. Trump is appealing decisions in various states attempting to remove him from ballots, arguing he should not face criminal charges for actions taken while in office. The panelists, Mike Davis and Dave Aronberg, debate the likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor, with Davis suggesting the Court will avoid making a precedent that allows states to independently disqualify candidates. They also discuss the implications of Trump's potential election on ongoing prosecutions against him. The conversation shifts to Trump's immunity claims in a separate DC case, where he lost an appeal asserting that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged for actions taken while in office. The panelists express skepticism about the expedited timeline set by the DC Circuit Court, suggesting it may be politically motivated to influence the upcoming election. The discussion then moves to the Georgia case against Trump, where allegations of misconduct by prosecutor Fani Willis are emerging, including claims of a personal relationship with a special prosecutor. The panelists speculate on the potential fallout from these revelations. Kelly also covers the conviction of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of a school shooter, for involuntary manslaughter, highlighting the precedent it sets for parental accountability in mass shootings. The panel agrees on the significance of the case but raises concerns about the implications of holding parents accountable for their children's actions. Lastly, Kevin O'Leary joins the show to discuss the economy, inflation, and the challenges facing American workers. He emphasizes the importance of merit-based hiring and the impact of social media on business. O'Leary warns of potential bank failures due to poor management and rising interest rates, predicting a consolidation in the banking sector. He also addresses the changing workforce dynamics, particularly among younger generations, and the need for adaptability in hiring practices.

Megyn Kelly discusses significant developments in the Fanny Willis case with attorney Phil Holloway. Trump's defense team filed a brief revealing extensive cell phone records showing over 12,000 text messages and 2,000 voice calls between Willis and investigator Nathan Wade in 2021, contradicting their claims of a platonic relationship. The data suggests overnight visits, raising questions about their testimonies under oath. Holloway emphasizes the implications of potential perjury, stating that if they lied about their relationship, it could undermine their credibility in court. The DA's office is crafting a response to challenge the interpretation of the data, asserting that their relationship did not become romantic until after Wade was hired. Holloway believes more evidence will emerge, potentially revealing further misconduct by Willis, which could jeopardize her position and the integrity of the prosecution.

Megyn Kelly hosts a discussion on the ongoing Fanny Willis case, featuring guests Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis. The hearing has seen significant developments, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and the implications of Willis's relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor. Kelly expresses skepticism about Wade's honesty and finds Willis's testimony entertaining yet unconvincing. She consulted Phil Houston, a deception detection expert, who indicated that Willis exhibited signs of deception. Davis argues that Willis's testimony was disastrous for her case against Trump, highlighting her questionable hiring practices and financial dealings with Wade. He points out that she paid Wade significantly more than qualified candidates and questions the legitimacy of her cash reimbursements for trips they took together. Kelly and Davis discuss the implications of Wade's testimony, particularly regarding his credibility and potential perjury in his divorce proceedings. The conversation shifts to the testimony of Robin Yti, a former friend of Willis, who claims that the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade began earlier than they admitted. This testimony raises doubts about their credibility and the legality of their actions. Davis believes that if the judge finds either Willis or Wade lied, it could jeopardize their positions in the case. The hosts also touch on the racial dynamics of the case, with Willis invoking her identity as a Black woman in response to questioning. They express frustration at her attempts to deflect from the core issues of the case by introducing race into the discussion. As the hearing progresses, the hosts speculate on the potential outcomes, including the possibility of disqualification for Willis and Wade. They discuss the broader implications of the case for Trump's legal challenges, including the upcoming trials related to the hush money payments and the Mar-a-Lago documents case. In conclusion, the hosts emphasize the importance of the judge's ruling and the potential consequences for all parties involved, particularly Wade, who faces significant legal jeopardy. The discussion wraps up with a preview of upcoming developments in the case and other legal matters involving Trump.

Megyn Kelly discusses the ongoing Fani Willis case involving former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants, highlighting a hearing that could impact the case's future. The defense claims that DA Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade financially benefited from the case and were in a romantic relationship before Wade's hiring. The judge is not expected to rule immediately, but the hearing may indicate whether Willis and Wade will be removed from the case. Jesse Kelly joins Megyn to discuss the implications of the case, emphasizing the corruption at the local political level and the potential consequences for the country if Trump is legally destroyed. They express skepticism about the integrity of the legal system and the motivations behind the prosecution, suggesting that political ambitions drive these actions. The conversation shifts to Trump's legal challenges outside Georgia, particularly the Mar-a-Lago documents case, where trial dates are being debated. Jesse speculates that Trump's team may be strategically delaying trials to avoid conflicts with the election timeline. The hosts then address the Biden administration's handling of immigration, noting a shift in public opinion as illegal immigration becomes a bipartisan concern. They discuss the political ramifications of immigration policies and how they may affect future elections. Finally, they introduce a docu-series by the Independent Women's Forum that examines the dangers of allowing trans-identifying males into women's prisons. Amy Ichikawa, a former inmate, shares her experiences with a trans-identified male in her prison, highlighting the emotional and physical safety concerns for incarcerated women. Kelsey Bowler emphasizes the need for women's voices to be heard in this debate, advocating for their rights and safety.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing the New Hampshire primary, highlighting Nikki Haley's campaign and her recent victory in Dixville Notch, where she received six votes against Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the significance of this primary for Haley, with New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu emphasizing the importance of a strong showing. Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke join the discussion, expressing skepticism about Haley's chances against Trump, who leads significantly in the polls. Lowry notes that polling in New Hampshire can be unpredictable, but the momentum appears to favor Trump. Cooke agrees, suggesting that it feels inevitable Trump will be the nominee, despite potential legal challenges he may face in the coming months. They discuss Haley's shifting messaging, with her now claiming she is running to win rather than just to perform well. Lowry believes Haley's chances are slim and predicts she may drop out soon if she does not secure a strong result. The conversation then turns to Ron DeSantis, with Cooke reflecting on his campaign's failures and mistakes, particularly his inability to connect with voters and his focus on niche issues rather than broader concerns. They discuss the importance of charisma and performance in presidential campaigns, contrasting DeSantis's executive abilities with his lack of engaging communication skills. As the discussion progresses, they touch on the implications of Trump's legal troubles and how they may affect his candidacy. Lowry argues that the indictments could energize Trump's base, while Cooke expresses concern about the potential fallout from these legal issues among moderate voters. The hosts then pivot to the border crisis, discussing a recent Supreme Court ruling that favored the Biden administration over Texas's efforts to secure its border. They criticize the federal government's handling of immigration and the political ramifications for the Democrats, noting that the issue is becoming increasingly pressing for voters. Finally, they address the ongoing developments in the Fanny Willis case against Trump, highlighting allegations of impropriety involving Willis and a special prosecutor. The discussion raises questions about the integrity of the prosecution and its potential impact on the case against Trump, with both Lowry and Cooke expressing skepticism about Willis's ability to continue as the lead prosecutor. The episode concludes with a reminder of the importance of the New Hampshire primary results and their implications for the Republican race.

Megyn Kelly discusses the ongoing legal challenges faced by former President Donald Trump, highlighting significant developments in his cases. The Georgia state court of appeals will review an appeal regarding the disqualification of DA Fani Willis, a notable turn in Trump's legal strategy. Meanwhile, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida has indefinitely postponed the trial date for the classified documents case. Stormy Daniels' recent testimony in Manhattan has drawn media attention, with her statements appearing inconsistent with previous claims. She testified about a traumatic encounter with Trump, yet her past remarks suggest a different narrative, raising questions about her credibility. Legal analysts Phil Holloway and Julian Epstein weigh in on the implications of Daniels' testimony and the prosecution's strategy. Holloway notes that Daniels' credibility issues could undermine the prosecution's case, while Epstein suggests that the jury may lean towards a hung jury due to the complexities of the legal arguments presented. They express concerns about the political motivations behind the cases against Trump, comparing them to past political prosecutions. The discussion also touches on the potential repercussions for Fani Willis regarding her public statements and conduct, as well as the broader implications of the legal proceedings on the upcoming election. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the unpredictable nature of the trials and the potential for significant legal outcomes that could impact Trump's political future.

Megyn Kelly welcomes Representative Dean Phillips, who is challenging President Biden in the Democratic primary. Phillips believes Biden is "in decline" and too weak to run again. The discussion also covers significant legal news involving Donald Trump and Hunter Biden. Kelly highlights a legal controversy in Georgia involving District Attorney Fanny Willis, who is prosecuting Trump and others for election interference. Allegations have emerged about Willis's alleged affair with a special prosecutor, which could undermine the case against Trump. Legal experts speculate that this could lead to the dismissal of the case due to potential impropriety. Hunter Biden's unexpected appearance at a House Committee hearing, where he ignored a subpoena, is criticized as an example of privilege. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace confronts him, questioning his motives and calling out the perceived double standards in how political figures are treated. Legal analysts discuss the implications of Hunter's actions and whether he could face contempt charges, drawing parallels to other political figures who have faced legal consequences for similar actions. Phillips shares his personal story, including the loss of his father in Vietnam and his journey to Congress. He emphasizes the need for integrity and accountability in politics, criticizing both parties for corruption and unethical behavior. He expresses a desire for bipartisan cooperation and calls out the culture of silence that prevents politicians from addressing wrongdoing within their own parties. On various policy issues, Phillips advocates for securing the southern border, addressing the crisis of illegal immigration, and ensuring that veterans and their families receive adequate support. He discusses the need for a more compassionate approach to immigration and asylum policies, suggesting reforms to prevent exploitation by cartels. Regarding Hunter Biden, Phillips acknowledges the ethical concerns surrounding his business dealings but emphasizes that the American public is more concerned about pressing issues like healthcare and the economy. He believes that Biden's administration has failed to address these concerns effectively. Phillips also addresses contentious issues like abortion and transgender rights, advocating for a woman's right to choose while suggesting that minors should not make irreversible medical decisions without proper age considerations. He expresses a desire for empathy and understanding in discussions about these topics. In closing, Phillips reiterates his commitment to addressing corruption and fostering bipartisan dialogue, positioning himself as a candidate who can bridge divides and bring about meaningful change.

Megyn Kelly opens the show celebrating the disqualification of Fulton County DA Fanny Willis from the Trump election interference case by a Georgia appeals court, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battles against Trump. The court confirmed that the indictment against Trump and his co-defendants remains intact, raising questions about who will take over the case. Legal experts, including Ashley Merchant, who played a crucial role in Willis's disqualification, discuss the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the impropriety of Willis's relationship with a co-prosecutor, Nathan Wade, which compromised the integrity of the case. Merchant expresses her excitement over the ruling, noting that it validates their claims of impropriety and suggests that an independent prosecutor would likely dismiss the case due to lack of probable cause. The conversation highlights the potential for the case to "die on the vine" under a neutral prosecutor. The panel discusses Willis's intent to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, though they predict the court will not take the case, given the strength of the appellate ruling. The discussion shifts to the broader implications of the ruling for Trump and his co-defendants, with legal analysts asserting that the case is effectively over and that Willis's actions could lead to further scrutiny of her conduct. The panel reflects on the political motivations behind the prosecution, suggesting that bias against Trump influenced Willis's decisions. As the conversation continues, the hosts and guests express concern over potential disruptions from political adversaries as a new administration approaches. They also touch on the broader context of Trump's legal challenges, including ongoing cases and the implications of his presidency on these legal matters. The show concludes with a discussion on the media's portrayal of Trump and the shifting political landscape, emphasizing the resilience of Trump's support despite the legal challenges he faces. The panelists express optimism about the future, suggesting that the ruling against Willis could restore some faith in the justice system and benefit Trump politically.

On the Megyn Kelly Show, the discussion centers around the Georgia election interference case involving Donald Trump and others, focusing on District Attorney Fanny Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The court is set to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding motions to disqualify Willis and Wade due to alleged improprieties, including a personal relationship that may have led to financial benefits for Willis. The defendants, particularly Michael Roman, argue that the relationship between Willis and Wade creates a conflict of interest, as evidence suggests Willis has paid Wade over $650,000 in taxpayer money since he was hired. The defense claims that the couple took multiple trips together while prosecuting Trump, with Wade allegedly covering most expenses. Willis denies any financial benefit from hiring Wade and asserts they were not in a romantic relationship at that time. However, Wade's sworn affidavit contradicts this, claiming their relationship began after his hiring, while the defense argues it started earlier. The judge has allowed witness testimony to explore these claims, including from Wade's former divorce lawyer, who may testify about the timeline of the relationship. If the defense can prove that Willis and Wade lied under oath, it could lead to their disqualification from the case and potential criminal charges. Legal experts on the show express concerns about the implications of these developments, suggesting that if proven, both Willis and Wade could face serious consequences, including disbarment. The discussion also touches on the broader political ramifications of the case, with implications for Trump's legal battles and the integrity of the prosecution. The conversation shifts to the political landscape, discussing the implications of recent elections and the potential for changes in leadership within the Democratic Party, particularly regarding Vice President Kamala Harris. Speculation arises about possible replacements, including Susan Rice, but doubts are raised about her viability as a candidate. The episode concludes with a critique of societal trends, particularly regarding the treatment of older individuals in volunteer roles and the pressures of modern identity politics, exemplified by a 90-year-old woman who was dismissed for not understanding the need to include pronouns in her communications. The hosts express concern over the prioritization of political correctness over experience and reality.