Melania Trump, Meghan Markle, Taylor Swift, and the Donna Adelson Trial - MK Media Highlights

Did you know that the United States produces 13 million barrels of crude oil every day, enough to fill 800 Olympic swimming pools?

Oil and natural gas are refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel and used to make unexpected everyday essentials like shoes, cell phones, even life-saving medicines.

People rely on oil and gas and on energy transfer to safely deliver it through an underground system of pipelines across the country.

Learn more at energytransfer.com.

Are you ready to get spicy?

These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.

Maybe it's time to turn up the heat.

Or turn it down.

It's time for something that's not too spicy.

Try Doritos Golden Sriracha.

Spicy.

But not too spicy.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.

Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly, and I hope you're having a happy Labor Day.

We are back with a new show tomorrow, but today I want to bring you some recent MK Media Podcast Network highlights.

We're kicking things off with Spot On with Link Lauren, then some After Party with Emily Jashinsky, some The Nerve with Maureen Callahan, and also we have our newest MK Media show, MK True Crime, with our Kelly's court friends and legal experts.

Last time we did this, it did really well.

We heard so many great emails from all of you saying more of that.

We really enjoyed the compilation.

So enjoy this too.

And we will see you tomorrow with Ben Shapiro.

Just like clockwork, this happens all the time, right?

The liberal literati, these folks who preach about diversity and acceptance and loving everybody, they don't love diversity of thought.

And that's what we've seen with the folks over at Vanity Fair.

So Vanity Fair, the editor-in-chief, a man named Mark Geducci, reportedly wants First Lady Melania Trump to be on the cover.

But the folks at Vanity Fair are threatening to walk out and protest if they put the First Lady of the United States on the cover.

Here's what they said.

I will walk out the mother effing door and half my staff will follow me.

One editor fumed to the Daily Mail.

We are not going to normalize this despot and his wife.

We're just not going to do it.

We're going to stand for what's right.

If I have to work bagging groceries at Trader Joe's, I will do it.

If Jaducci puts Melania on the cover, half of the editorial staff will walk out.

I guarantee it.

My message to the staff is, bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Goodbye.

Okay, if you're a little pansy cry baby and you can't handle that your magazine might put First Lady Melania Trump on the cover, this probably isn't the industry for you, right?

When we've seen in the past, look at Vogue magazine and Anna Wintour.

They put Jill Biden on the cover three times.

They put Michelle Obama on the cover three times.

This is what happens, right?

If you're a Democrat, you could be a terrible first lady.

You don't have to be good looking.

You don't have to have any success.

You don't have to have any good initiatives.

But what do they do?

Because you happen to have a D next to your name and you're a Democrat and you check their boxes, you get put on the covers, you get nothing but positive press.

First Lady Melania Trump, because she happens to be married to a Republican in the Republican Party and have an R next to her name, suddenly she's persona non grata at these magazines.

But you know who doesn't care?

You know who doesn't give a rat's ass?

It's First Lady Melania Trump.

I'm here to tell you, this is one one of the most secure, confident women, right?

She's been on the cover of magazines.

She's modeled.

She's a high-fashion, gorgeous, supermodel, okay?

Objectively, I can say this, objectively, the most stunning First Lady we've had, at least in decades, probably ever.

So First Lady Melania Trump, does she care that the folks at Vanity Fair want to put her on the cover?

Probably not.

She's been on the cover before.

I think First Lady Melania Trump was on the cover back in maybe 2017 or at the beginning of the first term or right before the first term, maybe in 16 or 15.

so she's been on the cover of vanity fair does she need to do it again no she's probably busy raising baron working on the take it down act working on be best she now has a new ai initiative she's focused on doing things that are actually going to help kids in this country i don't think first lady melania trump cares about being on the cover of vanity fair but this is what the liberal literati does they melt down and they flip out if a republican woman gets anything cool or exciting right if you put a republican woman on the cover we're going to walk out and bad groceries and like i said my message to them is go ahead and walk out.

And what's interesting to me, and I've spoken about this before, when you look at First Lady Melania Trump, right?

She's an immigrant.

She's self-made.

She came to this country.

She pulled herself up by her bootstraps and made things happen, right?

She had a full successful career, a full successful career before she ever met Donald Trump, before she ever became First Lady of the United States, right?

And she's carried herself with grace, dignity, and class as she's had friends stab her in the back, right?

Friends stab her in the back, turn on her, get unfair press time and time and time again.

She's carried herself with dignity.

You can even look at someone like Usha Vance, right?

Think she's the first Indian, second lady of the United States.

She's the first South Asian, second lady of the United States.

But because she's a Republican, she is going to get bad press as well.

So First Lady Melania Trump and Usha Vance, these are folks that the left would have loved, right?

You've got Usha, you've got Melania, who's self-made, she's an immigrant, she speaks all these languages, but because she happens to be a Republican, she gets crapped on by the liberal media.

But the good thing here, and I'm looking at these quotes still, the good thing here is that these folks have no influence anymore.

They just don't have any influence, right?

They want to do a walkout and do some like Gandhi protest and walk out of the Vanity Fair offices because they might.

Put Melania Trump on the cover.

Go for it.

No one cares, okay?

With social media, everything's online now.

The democratization of media in general, you guys don't have that much influence.

Same with the major networks.

Look at like MSNBC and CNN and all these networks.

You guys don't have that much influence.

No one cares.

So you guys can walk out.

You can go work at Trader Joe's.

You won't be missed whatsoever.

And as you guys know, I love the First Lady of the United States.

I think she's great.

I think she's incredible.

She's been so unfairly maligned for years.

If she ends up on the cover of Vanity Fair, great.

If she doesn't, I'm here to tell you, she certainly doesn't care.

Let's be honest.

Afternoons can be rough.

Energy fades, cravings kick in.

Yes, been there.

Focus goes out the window.

The quick fix, another coffee, but that can lead to jitters or a crash later or you're up all night.

Peak's sun goddess matcha is another option for you.

Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this matcha is not just a drink.

It can be a better daily habit.

It gives steady energy and helps you focus without the ups and downs.

This is not any matcha, it's organic ceremonial grade, and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil far away from pollution.

It's shaded longer for more nutrients and blended by tea masters.

That's how serious these guys are about quality.

The taste is smooth, creamy, and rich, not bitter like lower-quality matcha.

It packs powerful antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady.

Right now, you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free, rechargeable frother and glass beaker.

It's backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee.

So go to peaklife.com slash Megan.

That's p-i-q-u-elife.com slash megan to try it out for yourself.

Again, that's peaklife, p-i-q-u-elife.com slash megan.

I want to show, first of all, Megan prepping for Chrissy and the way in which Megan introduces her.

So let's get to

her her mincing about in anticipation of Chrissy Teigen.

Chrissy Teigen's coming.

She's the quintessential multi-hyphenate model, entrepreneur, mom, cookbook author, and all-around shrudy.

Megan forgot to add bully.

Yeah.

The online bully.

Terrible asshole.

Told Courtney Stodden, a young starlet who was really struggling to go take a dirt nap and find other ways of killing herself.

You know, Megan, who told us that she was so suicidal when she was pregnant, but the royal family wouldn't let her get help and allegedly, reportedly has a file this thick over at Buckingham Palace investigating her own bullying of staff over there, decides who better for a show about friendship and entertaining than Chrissy Teigen.

Well, don't forget Megan this year was in New York on CBS promoting the Parent Network, this charity that is supposed to protect children from online bullies, protect children from suicide because of they're being harassed online.

And then she spotlights an online bully that targeted a teenager.

I mean, none of it makes sense.

I don't know who the first chef is.

I think the London Standard made a huge deal about this this week, about the first, the chef that's featured on her first episode.

is also accused of terrorizing his employees.

So it's like, is this a theme?

Is that where you go when you're an a-hole to Megan with Love Megan to just, you know, try to rebrand yourself?

Yeah, it's like, you know, my mom always used to say, water seeks its own level, you know, like anybody of like quality, you would think would go nowhere near this.

I mean, so, so this is, this is the next part where, because you see truly, I think, the desperation in who she can book for this show.

And she's such an idiot.

She talks about

Chrissy being one of her Hollywood friends, like a friend.

She uses the word friend who she hasn't seen, Kinsey, in 20 years.

So she met her at an event once, you know, and they exchanged emails.

Maybe.

Let's look at this.

Knock, knock.

Oh, my God.

Hi.

No, John's.

John embraced.

Come on in.

Sorry.

I was lurking back here.

Good to see you.

It was John Legendary.

I would have told H to come.

Bomb it.

You take it, Kinsey.

Okay.

Okay.

So, first of all, they were both dealer-no-deal girls at the same time and were not friends.

They were not.

Is that true?

I didn't know that.

Christian, deal or no-deal girl?

Yeah.

And so they're, and they kind of discuss it.

And you get, you, even when they're discussing it, you realize that these two are not friends, that they were not friends throughout the time, that they were both dealer, no-deal girls.

You're right about an event.

They both did a promotional event for Direct TV for a Super Bowl back in the day, like back in the day.

But again, these people aren't friends.

They reconnect when Megan Markle writes her op-ed about baby loss because Chrissy Teigen, we all know this thanks to the photo shoot she did after she lost her child, also has publicly acknowledged child loss.

And I'm not trying to diminish that at all.

But the, but especially in Megan's case, we want our privacy.

You know, she picks and chooses when she wants her privacy.

But I have a little bit, I want to ask you about the John Legend appearance.

I have a source in LA.

I have a source in London who

works with a charity that Megan Markle is still associated with.

And there is fear come Christmastime.

I don't have all the details, but there is fear that Megan Markle's going to try to do something in the music space around the holidays.

And the charity is upset because they feel like it conflicts with Catherine, the Princess of Wales.

Not only does she do this gorgeous choir concert, but remember when she sat down and played the piano around, and that video went viral of Catherine playing the piano?

I'm wondering if Megan has roped in John Legend to try to do some sort of music project associated with this London charity to help promote her Christmas special on Netflix, because the John Legend thing is too bizarre to me.

I mean, I guess Chrissy Teigen needed him there to tell her when their child was born.

Oh, we'll get to that.

We'll get to that.

Otherwise, why is John Legend there?

Well, you know, they travel together all the time.

They're like, Chrissy Teigen drags him everywhere, like an emotional support spouse.

She can't, and we'll see why.

We'll see why

in a minute.

But so this is great.

I actually, I would, I, I love this.

I can only hope that Megan Markle gifts us this Christmas with entering the music space.

Please do, Megan.

Please.

I do not predict it would be John Legend, though.

Really?

I mean, those two are fame whores and they'll go anywhere.

No, I'm going to think it's going to be someone more like a little Wayne.

And we're going to be reenacting like the twerking video from the delivery room.

It's something like that.

If we're lucky, if we're lucky.

Poor baby Jesus.

He deserves so much more.

But yeah, the charity is concerned because they're like, what is she gonna do um yeah and and really she has been such a burden to them demanding she picked her own photographer for a shoot at one point for this charity she did not like the photos demanded that the photos be retaken and the it was going to be like at least five thousand dollars and the charity had to go back to her and say we can't afford that if you want to do these pictures again if you need to use your own photographers we can't afford that i mean she is such a burden that I understand almost why she's completely disappeared when it comes to Prince Harry's charity pursuits.

Well, yes, of course.

She's really,

I don't understand why these charities just don't cut her loose.

Just say thanks, but no thanks.

You're actually befouling our brand.

And, you know,

we've had sufficient.

Now,

when Chrissy comes in to admire the

finished bread,

the sourdough dome, which has been sliced into, there's not a lot of continuity in this production.

But Chrissy has those coffin nails, which all those do is collect dirt and dust mites and debris.

And she has her hair, which is styled with no end of product.

And then, of course, her face, which is extremely heavily made up.

She then takes said hands and puts them all over the bread, all over the bread bread to remark upon its texture and its feel and so disgusting.

It's like, I wouldn't, I wouldn't touch a thing out of that kitchen.

I wouldn't touch a thing, let alone ingest it.

So here comes Chrissy talking to her good, her great best friend, Megan, about how much fun she's having with 80 crew crammed into this fake kitchen.

This is my most ideal day that I could imagine.

So fun.

Oh, yeah.

Oh my God.

The crushed on it.

Here's the thing.

When you sit around making this, I literally was just like, oh, do I want any more bread?

And I'm like, I have to eat it.

You know, it took days

to make it.

This was my starter.

I thought it'd be good for people.

The conversation is riveting.

I'm going to go from a really dense texture to this kind of fluffy, whipped goodness.

Oh, my gosh.

And then how much of it is.

It's so weird how she makes all of this stuff before the guest comes.

There's like all of this.

There's something called discarded the starter, which I think they need to rename that.

I don't like

the discard.

No, it's like,

I'm not a fan of that word.

Okay, she's not.

It's called the discard of the starter, the starter being the sourdough mix.

Who cares?

But she says, I don't like that word discard.

They need to rename it.

And that struck me as very interesting because you are probably familiar with the concept of the narcissistic discard.

And that is when the narcissist is done with you.

And those who may be familiar with Megan's narcissistic discard, just my opinion, are Megan Markle's father, Megan Markle's sister, Megan Markle's spouse, who she FedExed the wedding rings back to, Jessica Mulroney,

right?

The Queen of England, Prince Philip, King Charles, Prince William, and Catherine Princess of Wales, just off the top of my head.

This is a People Magazine opinion article.

I'm a Millennial Swifty headline, and I'm going to say it.

Taylor and Travis's engagement felt like a milestone win for our our generation.

I'm giggling because the way that's written is a little cringe, but I've actually written about some of Taylor's past records as milestone losses for our generation.

I think I wrote a piece at the Federalist a couple of years ago about how her arc reflects the arc of a lot of millennials who

do sort of serial dating

and don't settle down but clearly desperately want to settle down and because they haven't settled down in some ways look to

politics, materialism as their identity and where they find their meaning and their purpose.

And I really believe this is true, that Swift reflected that.

And I think this author, again, as cringy as the headline is, is correct that Swift is, again,

once again, mirroring the millennial generation as people hit their 30s, mid-30s,

and do genuinely settle down.

Now, there are a lot of,

there was a really smart conservative reaction in Compact magazine by Patrick Brown of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He said there's not going to be a Taylor Travis baby boom.

And that's because they're already older.

They're not old, but they're already older, having, you could, I think, fairly argue,

prioritize, whether willingly or not, careers.

And they're probably not going to be able to have that many children.

We don't know that, but that's on average.

What we see, there's statistics.

Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies has this data on how women right now in America are saying that they end up having fewer children than they wanted.

That's a really serious thing for us to think about as a culture and not an unserious point to make in the wake of all of this.

But the author of the People Magazine piece, Emily Rella, oh, great name, Emily.

There's so many damn millennial Emily's that I could have literally guessed that her name was Emily, and I probably would have been

in great shape.

I was always Emily J in class because there were like 20 other Emily's in every class that I was in.

Actually a little piece of lore.

I was Emily J

and everyone back home in Wisconsin still calls me MJ, E-M-J, because there were so many people named Emily.

That was the only way we could distinguish me.

So again, just a little fun fact.

I share those from time to time.

Why not?

So this Emily R.

writes: I, for one, was shook.

Shook by how emotional the news of the engagement made me as a closet softy.

I'm usually able to reel it in when big life moments like this happen.

I started feeling myself tearing up with joy upon looking at Taylor and Travis's engagement photos before panicking that I was some parasocial fangirl freak, which of which there are many, we should note.

But then, after that past, I found myself thinking, why of all things is this so hitting me so hard?

Is this hitting so hard for me right now?

And the author goes on to write:

oh, this is awful.

I'm 32.

That's actually my age.

And I've become comfortable with the idea that maybe it won't happen for me the way it happens in movies.

I've built a beautiful, chaotic life for myself, complete with relationships, situationships, and absolutely debilitating crushes.

No matter how they've ended, they've all taught me something that has helped me define how I want to love, be loved, and experience love.

But as valuable as these lessons have been, they do occasionally feel like puzzle pieces putting together a picture that will eventually

be incomplete.

And another part, I actually skipped over this.

The author writes,

As a millennial, our current cultural examples of love, true soulmate level, real L love, aren't exactly a dime a dozen.

This notion of yearning and desire and all-or-nothing consuming passion has seemingly dwindled with the fairy tale ending seemingly out of reach.

Too many adverbs.

That's the editor in me.

It's not so much that millennials stopped believing in love in some jaded, brooding way.

I think it's more so that we've become more comfortable with the idea that it might not happen for us in the way we once dreamed of when we were younger.

Now, that reflects the data from Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies, I just referenced, and what Patrick Brown wrote in Compact.

Attracting romantic attention, Emily R.

goes on to say, or affection, isn't difficult these days.

Just look at the popularity of the modern-day situationship or the influx of dating apps, which let you mindlessly scroll through suitor after suitor on your phone and decide in a split second whether or not you want to potentially be with this person forever based on a digital first impression.

And goes on to write: I mean, this is, I actually really do recommend reading this piece.

And now we're here watching Taylor put a final puzzle piece into place.

Every heartbreak, every devastation, every grand beginning and glimmer of hope, it all led to this sweet guy who loves her as she is.

And it's because we experienced all those milestones right alongside her as we grew into new life faces at the same time that this moment of Taylor finding true, unadulterated, effortless love felt like something to celebrate personally.

I think that's right.

I think all of those viral videos you're seeing right now about Taylor and Travis and all of the Anodyne reposts, people wishing Taylor Swift well, it feels like a lot.

It's a frenzy.

One of those watershed cultural moments.

But why?

I think this author put her finger exactly on the reason.

This is exactly why.

And I know we have this post from Lindy Mann that we can also throw up on the scene on the screen.

I thought this was a really good take, too, that gets to some of this.

Paul Scalis, he wrote, marriage used to be the entry point into adult life, one of the first steps.

Today, marriage has become the culmination of adulthood, the final step after a long run of individual experiences.

People are expected to first build careers, live alone, travel, date for years, and only then settle into marriage.

Marriage went from foundation to trophy.

Marriage went from foundation to trophy.

It is no longer the stabilizing base that anchored young people early, but an almost luxury milestone once life is already sorted out, which is precisely why it's rarer now.

That's a really good take, and I think it's a totally fair reaction to the Taylor Travis engagement story.

You know, there's the startup marriage versus the merger marriage.

If you're Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, who have vast wealth, success, and a decade plus of living alone after college or after your career started, then yeah, you're definitely in a merger marriage.

And we lose the benefits of the startup marriage and a culture that's primarily where people are primarily ending up in the merger marriage.

But I just wanted to reflect on

why this touched such a cultural nerve.

It's not just because people really like Taylor Swift.

She's been like Anne Hathaway, who's had her moments where people, the culture decides, the culture is like cold.

It was sort of hot and cold on Taylor Swift, depending on what quote era she's in, even though her hardcore fan base is with her all the way.

But

overall, you know, that fluctuates.

The mood on Taylor Swift fluctuates.

But over the last couple of years, it's been pretty steady.

She's been criticized by people on the right, including myself, for her forays into politics and ideology.

I think that actually hurt her music.

One of her worst songs is you need to calm down.

And it's just this classist anthem that should be seen as probably the anthem of that peak woke era, capital P, capital W.

And I think that she was worse off for it.

It sounds like that was when she was also really unhappy.

And I'm not, I don't think it's fair to say by any means that she's like, or even think or care that she's like about to become a conservative.

Like, who I don't could not possibly care about Taylor Schlift's personal politics.

But I think everybody wants Taylor Schlift to be happy.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.

By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community.

Change the world for good by putting others before yourself.

Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online on-campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.

With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.

The pursuit to serve others is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.

Private, Christian, affordable.

Visit GCU.edu.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.

It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr.

Laura, Flynn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriXM at home or anywhere you are, no car required.

I do it all the time.

I love the Sirius XM app.

It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more subscribe now get your first three months for free go to seriousxm.com slash mk show to subscribe and get three months free that's seriousxm.com slash mk show

and get three months free offer details apply

This Edelson trial is something else, man.

We've got these videos, we've got audios, we've got wiretaps, we've got it all in this trial.

And the prosecution is working its way methodically through this evidence.

Sometimes, Matt, as you know, and as John, of course, knows, when you're prosecuting a case, you have things that, you know, sometimes we just call them a wart, right?

The case is not perfect.

And one of the things that...

A smart prosecutor might do is to try to bring out some of these things during their presentation of evidence so that when the defense hammers on it, you kind of have taken the sting out a little bit.

And in that site we just heard, that recording from one of the wiretaps, you essentially have Charlie Adelson telling his mother, you know, that she didn't do anything wrong and she's got nothing to worry about.

And so I think that what that was was a prosecutor's effort to kind of take the sting out of this so that this piece of it, which doesn't exactly support their case, doesn't have as much weight to be given to it when the defense gets around to their case and to cross-examination on this point so that the jury kind of takes it in stride and it doesn't sink the case because it actually...

This particular piece of it is what we would call exculpatory as to Donna Adelson.

But on balance, I think this trial is going along great.

And I look forward to seeing what the prosecutor has next.

So, Chana, what are your views on this?

What does the defense defense have to work with in your mind?

What is the prosecution,

what points have they scored so far?

What are your thoughts?

No, I have a slightly different opinion of the last slot that we just saw than my good friend Philip as well.

And here's what I think.

I wouldn't call that piece of evidence so far a war.

I think what the prosecution has.

Many, many dots that they need to connect in this case, and they are connecting them.

It's just not, you know, as we all know, it doesn't doesn't line up in a nice, simple linear line.

Like they're connecting a dot here, then they're connecting a dot there.

And what they're trying to do circumstantially is show the involvement of Donna Adelson in this gigantic scheme.

And they're doing it through all of their witnesses.

This last piece of evidence that we saw on that side,

I think can cut.

both ways.

Yes, is it exculpatory?

And in one sense, if you think that a convicted killer telling a potential killer on trial that she didn't do anything wrong is exculpatory.

But maybe a juror could look at that and say, well, this just shows another level of involvement in this granny sitting at the defense table.

I think the prosecution is doing a pretty good job of trying to weave this all together.

And

what I think the defense did was something very surprising.

It might have have been yesterday, when they really went at Wendy Adelson, who is the defendant's daughter.

They kind of went at her like a pit bull, showing no mercy.

But Wendy was cool as a cucumber.

I don't know if anybody had a chance to see that testimony.

So what are you, I'm going to toss this one back to Phil.

When you're talking about cases like this, does the defense have to notify the prosecution if the defendant is going to testify?

When will we know one way or another if Donna Adelson Adelson is going to take the stand?

No, we won't know until it actually happens.

And interestingly enough, a few weeks ago in one of the last pretrial hearings,

she announced that she was planning to testify.

And now that's not, she's not obligated to testify.

The defense never has any burden to produce any evidence or anything like that.

The burden is on the prosecutor and it never shifts to the defense.

She has an absolute right to remain silent.

And I think the strategy, the best strategy is between a criminal defendant and their lawyers, wait and see how the prosecutor's case goes up.

And then you can decide whether or not you think your client should or maybe needs to testify because a lot of times they can be their own worst enemy.

Sometimes the case is going great for the defense until the defendant opens his or her mouth and then the whole thing goes to hell.

So it's one of these things where we won't know until the last minute.

She's announced that she's going to testify, but that could be just a tactic to try to throw the prosecutor off.

Although a good prosecutor is going to prepare for either scenario.

And I promise you, if she, if she is, if she testifies, the cross-examination is going to be something that you could probably sell tickets to.

What do you think, John?

You've cross-examined about a million people over the course of your career.

And from people I've talked to, you are deadly in the courtroom.

I haven't seen that yet, but I I haven't seen you in court.

If you had to put Vegas odds on this, what do you think at this point?

Is Donna, are we going to see Donna Adelson on the stand?

And part two of that, is she going to throw her daughter Wendy under the bus?

What do you think?

She's already tried to in the cross-examination of Wendy.

I think she tried to do that and did it a little bit.

And sidebar, my favorite part of any trial is cross-examining witnesses.

I know a lot of us think that, oh, closing argument is my favorite part.

No, no, no.

I love cross-examining witnesses and I love cross-examining them hard.

And you're going to have to do this in this case if you're in Donna's camp.

This is really funny because in the beginning, in the closing and closing, in the opening statement, or not even in Vois Deer, when the prosecution was asking potential jurors, hey, do you think you can convict a granny?

I thought that was a little bit unnecessary.

But as we watch this trial, you guys, she does present like a little granny, even though the testimony is far different.

We know from the testimony of her daughter that she was a very controlling, involved, in a sense, grown-up helicopter mom, right?

From everything from her daughter's dating habits to what the kids would do.

She was involved, way too involved.

And so that's not granny-ish.

That's

very bullish.

But as she sits there, just the optics, she looks kind of frail and unassuming.

Jurors are watching her.

They always do.

So I'm interested when we fast forward into the future, when we get a verdict, if any jurors will have a comment on that specifically.

Well, if I can add to that point real quick, there's going to be video that's going to be shown to this jury where she is trying to get the hell out of Dodge.

She's at the airport in Miami on a one-way ticket that she's booked to Vietnam, a country that there's no extradition treaty with.

And she's seen like she pulls her phone back from the cops.

And it's almost like, it looks like maybe she's very spry and like almost like she's wanting to even try to fight the cops or resist arrest.

So they're going to be able to contrast that.

that evidence when we get to it with what they see in court.

And they're going to see two different things.

I think that this whole thing about being the granny in the courtroom, to me, that seems like a little bit of a charade.

Well, in the dating world, somebody who's guarding their cell phone like that is called a red flag, I think.

One of the

and legally it's called consciousness of guilt, right?

There's actually a formal legal recognition of that common sense thing, right?

When somebody's trying to hold a cell phone back or hide something, the jury's allowed to consider that as evidence showing that she might be really afraid of

what might be on that cell phone.

One of the things that you mentioned, Phil, you said you talked about warts.

In California, we always call that drawing the sting by the prosecutors.

Why don't we play the next sot if we could and let's talk about this witness,

Katie Magbawana.

During these conversations with Charlie Adelson,

was there ever a time when he's in the middle of these conversations with you about what's going to happen speaking to his mother?

From times, sometimes he would get on the phone, he'd kind of look at me weird, and then just step out of the room and discuss whatever he needed to discuss.

How many times did this particular situation happen where you were discussing what would eventually become the murder and his mother was interjected in that way that you just described?

More than twice?

Yes, ma'am.

More than five times?

Yes, ma'am.

So this was like a regular part of the way this worked whenever this conversation came up?

Yes.

He would consult his mother and come back and speak to you.

Yes, ma'am.

Did he ever relay to you, you know, my mom says whatever?

He didn't.

He never specifically said what he spoke to his mom about.

Okay.

All right, this one's to you.

Johnna, what do you think?

Are they drawing the sting a little bit?

And why?

And again, I think I disagree a little bit with you guys.

I look at this evidence as helpful to the prosecution.

And here's why.

It's sort of like you got to remember that the

jurors are human.

And do you guys remember, and this is going to be a weird analogy, so stick with me.

Do you remember back in the day?

when smoking was allowed, say, in restaurants, right?

And they'd have a smoking section over here and the non-smoking section over here.

But if you were in the non-smoking section, you still smelled the smoke.

Like you can't contain it.

What I see the prosecution doing here is she is connecting, again, these dots.

She's got this witness who shows up in an orange jumpsuit.

So the jury knows that she's, you know, they would have known anyway, probably there was maybe testimony about it.

They know that she's convicted of.

something to do with this crime.

They're connecting other dots where Donna is, whether she's kind of in the center or whether she's on the outskirts, like the smoking section of the restaurant, she's there.

And the jury at the end of the day is going to say, well, you know, we saw Donna in this part of the crime and we saw Donna in this part of the crime and then she was back over here in this part of the crime.

She's involved in this crime inextricably.

So I don't see this as harmful at all to the prosecution.

I may be wet, but I don't see it.

No, you know, speaking, I'm sorry.

You know, let me go to the next thought, Phil, and let me ask you about that

being all wet.

Let's play the next shot where she's asked about washing money.

Did you notice that the money was stapled together?

Yes, ma'am.

It was.

It was.

Okay.

Did you notice something else unusual about the money?

At that moment, I didn't when I opened it, but a couple of days after

the fact, it was wet and starting to mold.

The money itself was damp to the touch.

Yes, ma'am.

Right.

And did you ever mention that fact to Charlie Adelson?

I'm pretty sure I contacted him and told him why is the money wet.

What do you mean pretty sure?

You did or you didn't?

That I didn't.

Okay and when you contacted him and said the money's wet or you just mentioned to him the money's wet did he have a response?

Yes ma'am.

He told me

that that his mom washed the money.

That she physically washed the money?

Yes ma'am.

You started getting paychecks in September after the murder, which continued through May of 2016.

Is that right?

Yes, ma'am.

And how would you receive the paychecks?

Charlie would give it to me.

All right.

And you admit that you weren't doing anything to earn that money.

No, ma'am.

I wasn't.

Other than contributing to this murder.

Yes, ma'am.

Who signed your paychecks from the Edelson Institute?

Donna Edelson.

All right, Phil.

Going back to what Jonna just said,

what's going on with that?

We got money, we got signed checks.

Tell us what's going on.

Well, other than it being a bizarre amount of obvious hearsay coming into this trial by someone who's a convicted felon, who has a motive to fabricate her testimony because she's already stated she wants to get some benefit from the prosecution, although she says nothing was promised.

And although she's testified previously in court in a wildly different

way,

putting all that to the side, if a jury believes her,

you've got Donna Adelson once again showing up, like Jonna was saying, the smoke is making its way around the room.

Here she is signing checks at the Edelson Institute.

And

even if she doesn't, it doesn't prove that she knew about the murder ahead of time, she knew that this woman, McBanoa, was not doing any actual work at the office.

So she knows that she's paying her for something that's illegitimate.

So she knows that.

And this whole conversation where, you know, McBanoa and Charlie are talking about, you know, the conspiracy, and then he gets off the phone and he goes and talks to his mom and comes back.

That also kind of shows that, you know, she is sort of the hidden hand, if you will, that's behind the conspiracy.

And it plays into the prosecutor's theme of her being sort of the mastermind.

So I think that on balance, this does move the needle forward a little bit for the prosecutor, but it all hinges on the credibility of catherine mcbanawa which that's a very much an open question good point so what do you think jonna uh signed checks uh after the fact and i mean that's not necessarily hinging just on her credibility right you got they have physically the checks uh signature matches she's got control of the accounts what do you think as far as the power of that evidence uh Pretty powerful.

And you know, this is going to be a theme in the closing argument when we get there.

Like, if if, if Donna Adelson really has nothing to do with anything, why is she paying a person who's not working for the practice?

Why is she doing that?

Why does she get nervous when she gets the bump?

Why does she contact Charlie and talk in this weird kind of code?

She is in there.

And maybe, maybe the defense at some point is going to try to argue to the jury.

Really, how do you parse out when her involvement began?

Maybe she didn't have anything to do with the planning phase of this.

Maybe she came in afterwards.

I just think jurors are human.

They're people.

They're going to see too much of Donna's fingerprints figuratively and probably literally on a lot of this evidence to say she's not guilty.

So speaking of the bumps, let's play the next song if we could, where the undercover agent actually testifies about this.

You were asked to approach Donna Adelson.

Is that what you did?

That is correct.

Where did that happen?

I believe that happened in South Miami, somewhere somewhere near her residence.

Okay.

And did you just walk up to her on the street, sidewalk?

I did.

Okay.

And what did you do?

Well, I was instructed to walk up to her and

engage her in small discussion as to why I was meeting with her and then eventually handing her a flyer.

Okay, and this cell phone number

that it belongs to the phone number that's written here, are you personally going to carry that around and answer it if someone calls it?

That is correct.

That's solely in my hands, and I'm the only one answering.

Yeah, in states 117, those are all the phone calls associated with this number on the sheet here.

We've got one from you to the Adelson Institute Family Business.

Recall that?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

And then one from Charlie Adelson to this phone number.

Is that right?

Yes.

And one from Donna Adelson to this phone number, correct?

Yes, correct.

You know,

let's go into the next SOT, if we could, and let's connect these, if that's all right.

If we could play the next SOT, and then I want to get your guys' input on this, because I think this is amazing.

Excuse me, Mrs.

Adelson?

Hey, Do.

I just want to give you this.

Listen, you don't get scared.

Don't be scared.

Listen, I just want to let you know that we know that your family has been taking care of Katie and her friend who's called for quite some time after your problem on Royal Test was found.

And I want to let you know that my brother, he's incarcerated.

He helped your family with this problem you guys had up north.

And we want to make sure that he's going through some rough times.

We want to make sure that you take care of what he's going through, the way you're taking care of Katie and Tuothel.

Well, this will explain it.

Hey.

Okay, and we got it in the next shot, but Phil, you're an innocent person.

That dude comes up to you on the street and hands you essentially what looks like a blackmail letter.

What do you do?

Well, so, you know, this whole thing about the bump, the significance of this

event and the whole story of this case and this murder and this trial cannot be understated because that is what really leads to the broader investigation that I think is going to ultimately ensnare Donna Adelson to the point of conviction.

But there's

a lot of being made of how she reacts or doesn't react.

And generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of trying to say, all right, how someone acts is somehow evidence of something because how are you supposed to act in any given scenario is really anybody's guess.

So on the one hand, I'm not a fan of that kind of analysis.

But on the other hand, I'm a realist and I know that in the jury room, the jury is going to be saying to themselves, look, if that were me, I'm calling the cops.

If that were me, I'm going to say, wait a minute, help my family with the problem.

What are you talking about?

Who are you?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But that's not what she does.

She simply takes it and then goes about her day.

And then ultimately, as we'll see, she calls Charlie and she makes some other statements to Charlie that

seem pretty incriminating.

But that bump and her reaction to it is absolutely critical.

It's going to be, I think, something that is, it's one of the other pieces of the pie, but it's going to, along with everything else,

be her undoing in this case because that is some powerful, powerful video evidence.

Okay, well, let's do this.

Let me let's play the next sot, which is the actual phone call.

And then, John, I want to get your your

your

thoughts on what we're about to listen to.

If you play the next sot.

And who is the first person that the defendant calls after the bump?

Charlie Adelson.

I think that's from

delivered.

Gene?

Is he sued?

No, that's what I thought it was, but I'm getting it to talk to you.

Okay.

Does it involve me or other people?

No.

Probably both of them.

Why is that?

Probably need to change them.

All right, Johnna, what do you think?

You know, the more we listen to that, you guys, the more I think this might be the death knell for her.

Why?

Because let's go back.

I agree that, you know, sometimes when we cover murder cases and the cameras are on a defendant and we're like, oh, we don't judge anybody.

We don't know how we react in that case.

In this case, it's a different analysis.

Donna Adelson is being approached by a big dude on her little secure South Florida street.

She doesn't run.

She doesn't say, get away from me.

She doesn't do what I do when, you know, I'm in Manhattan and somebody hands me a flyer.

I'm like, ah, no, get away.

Like, she doesn't do that.

She just calmly stands there and she's going to take it all in.

And she smartly is not going to really say a word, smartly.

But then she processes all that information, calls her co-conspirator son, and very, very cagely, she knows she, she's worried that they might be listened to.

She doesn't want to create evidence because she's smart like a fox.

And she's like, well,

it could involve both of us.

Boom.

If I'm in that jury box, I'm like game set match.

Really, when you take that with all of the other evidence, including the evidence they have yet to hear, but we know they will hear, that is powerful for the prosecution, my opinion.

Okay.

What do you think, Phil?

They're going to go with an accessory

after the fact defense on this thing?

What are they going to roll with?

Well,

if they're going to go with that defense, Matt, they certainly have given no indication of it because that would be what we call setting a theme for your defense, which normally you would bring out during your opening argument.

You would say, look, she's only been, she's been charged with soliciting, she's been charged with being a co-conspirator, and she's being charged as essentially the principal of this murder.

And she's not been charged with any crimes after the murder.

And so they would have come out and they would have said that and they could then embrace this and they could say, well, wait a minute.

Yeah, she's

all this evidence points to her being involved with and aware of the conspiracy and trying to conceal it after the fact.

And we concede that this makes her look terrible and it makes her look like a criminal, which she is.

But guess what?

The prosecutor didn't charge her with any of these crimes after the fact.

And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, jury, you have to acquit her.

That would be how the defense would work if it were being employed.

And honestly, if this were my case, that would probably be the defense that I would use because I can't think of another one.

And so, you know, I'm the sort of a head scratcher, guys.

I don't know why we haven't seen anything like that, but

I'm struggling to find a coherent strategy by the defense other than to maybe point the finger at Charlie and even daughter Wendy.

But look, if Wendy is also a member of the conspiracy, the defense of Donna pointing that out doesn't mean that Donna can't also be a member.

So this thing is all over the place.

Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Some days call for sleek and straight, others for slouchy and relaxed.

Whatever your vibe, Old Navy has the denim fits to match.

From extra high rise to barrel, it's not just a moot, it's a whole style range.

And with jeans starting at just 22 you can collect them all snatched waist go extra high rise straight lived in staple vintage slim low slung and laid back slouchy wide you've got range your denim drawer should too premium fabric deluxe details your perfect pair or weights shop in store or online at oldnavy.com At Carls Jr.

Lateford's get the bag build your own bag after 8 p.m.

for $5.99.

Get a Cali Classic single fries plus chicken stars.

Or get a spicy chicken sandwich, onion rings plus chicken stars.

This deal is stacked!

Don't hit the sack, hit the drive-thru!

Build your own bag, just $5.99!

Only a Garlands Jr.

You build it, you eat it!

Order your bag on the app and unlock even more Burgers Insides!

Available for a limited time at participating restaurants.

Tax not included, price may vary, not valid within the offer, discount, or combo.

See ya for details.