Welcome to the Megan Kelley Show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every week day at Neast. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelley. Welcome to the Megan Kelley Show. Happy Monday. What a week we're about to have together. We are going to have a special report on the stunning plane crash in Florida yesterday in just a bit. We are awaiting an NTSB briefing and we have our pilots on standby. They're going to watch that. We're going to watch that and then we will dissect exactly how this happened. First though, it is election eve and man where there are a ton of interesting developments in several key states over the weekend. I mean, what you need to know is it's all trending according to all the pollsters terribly for the GOP. You're shocked. Shocked. I know. I mean, I'm still interested to see how it's going to go. I actually am interested in no matter how it goes. I think that if the Republicans lose big tomorrow night as they're expected to, I do think the reasons why are going to be the most interesting thing. What are the voters trying to tell Republicans? What did they do or not do? The people are pissed off about and looking to punish them for. If they don't do poorly and they actually managed to hold on to control of the Senate or keep it tight, it's going to be a massive polling failure. It will be the end of polling. So that's what I'll be looking at and we'll be talking about tomorrow night. We'll have live coverage for you. Of course, beginning at seven. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger? This is where Berna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Berna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammo and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Berna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, it's slim, and it hits like a sledgehammer. We love ours. The same size is a smartphone, allowing women to conceal carry everywhere comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second. That's a lot of power to stop aggressors in their tracks. Her pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80 percent of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the United States. Berna is legal in all 50 states, but get this. It requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. And Berna is trusted by hundreds of police departments too. Try before you buy, visit Berna.com to find a Berna dealer partner near you. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Something bigger happened over the past 48 hours than politically speaking than what happened in Michigan. Oh my gosh. I don't know. I feel like if you're right of center, it's kind of like a popcorn eating moment. But if you're a leftist, you are very, very angry at Haley Stevens right now. Haley Stevens, she was all like a bull. But no, no longer. She's a Democratic representative, Haley Stevens. She's been forced to give up her seat because she ran for Senate. So she's winding down that congressional office. And the reason she's not in this thing anymore is because she lost to L. Syed in the Democrat primary. And now he's in it. I mean, in this bloody battle against Mike Rogers to the very end. This is one of the most watched races in the country. So she was set to attend a unity event with the Michigan Democratic Senate candidate, Syed, where she was going to, you know, appear with him at this black church with James Clyburn, who's, you know, a god of Democrat politics and was a civil rights figure. And they were going to have this unity event in Michigan. And L. Syed needed a unity, unity event or at least one involving Clyburn because he's not doing very well with black voters. And he's not doing great with Jewish voters. And Haley Stevens is her fiance is Jewish. And he had already come out to say he's not voting for L. Syed. He's going to vote for Mike Rogers. But she said I'm voting for Abdul, as she calls him. Okay. But we talked on Friday about her weird statement. Okay. Do you remember when we discussed that she put out this weird preemptive statement saying, I look forward to the event with L. Syed on Sunday, where he's going to apologize for everything that has upset me on the Israel question. I mean, that's really what she said. I'm only slightly rephrasing it. She wanted him to condemn this ad that Jenk Weeger of the young Turks put out suggesting high costs of groceries in Michigan were caused by money were sending to Israel. And then she also was like, and I expect him to apologize for his own words. L. Syed separate it apart from this ad with which he had nothing to do. I want him to disavow the ad and I want him to apologize for his own words. And I remember when we were talking on Friday saying, this sounds a little odd. Like is is Syed really going to do that? And the only reason it was possible is because he has got the anti Israel vote. They will not be voting Rogers. So was it possible? He was going to throw a bone to the Jewish voters of Michigan who are very, very pro-Israel. They're not all Jewish voters are not a monolith. Some couldn't give two shits about Israel. Some are very upset about the Israeli government and some care about Israel more than they care about the United States. Some do. Sorry. It's true. Not all some. And that was the question about whether he'd be throwing a bone to that latter group and or the middle group. You know, like, hey, I'm sorry. I hear you. Well, the answer is no, because he came out and said, I don't want her coming to the unity event. I'm in a unified with James Clyburn only. I don't want her. And then by yesterday afternoon, Haley Stevens, whose pinned tweet on her ex account was talking about defeating Mike Rogers and how important that was endorsed Mike Rogers. She endorsed the Republican. All right. Now, it's very funny to me because there are definitely some, some Democrats who are trying, who like, don't like El Sayed who are trying to spin this and some Republicans now as a huge moment. I got to be honest. I have my doubts. Does anyone give a shit what Haley Stevens says? It's true. Do they care? I think the Democrats care because they, they see this as a betrayal. And they're mad. She did anything to risk El Sayed's chances. But does she really have a huge constituency? I think you're, if you're a Michigan voter and you had doubts about El Sayed and you normally vote them. I suppose this could be permission for you to vote for Mike Rogers. But I doubt it. I just, I don't think she has any influence. Who gives a shit what Haley Stevens says? That's my own take on it. But watching the drama is highly entertaining. So she decides it will be a good idea for her to go on with Anderson Cooper last night on CNN. It was amazing that the whole exchange was fantastic. It was like a 15 minute exchange. I felt bad for Anderson. He tried, he, he tried valiantly to get straight answers out of this person. If you're going to do something like this, like truly an 11th hour change of heart, going from Democrat to Republican and you were in the Democrat primary, you better be able to explain it very clearly, cogently and ideally persuasively. But she looked like a deer in the headlights in this interview. She looked terrified that she was there at all. Why'd you go on and she dodged and weaved like OJ in the airport for the Hertz commercials? Was it Hertz? Anyway, she was jumping over the turn styles and dodging players left and right all in order to avoid just answering very basic questions about you, you have the pinned tweet. You said on Friday that you wanted people to vote for Abdul Al Sayed and you said you were voting for Abdul Al Sayed. Then a matter of hours passed and you did a complete 180. You didn't just say, I'm not going to vote for him. I'm just not going to vote. You did not say, whatever, I'm feeling less than enthusiastic now. You did a 180 and endorsed the Republican. So Anderson Cooper does his best to try to get this gal to say, oh, why? By the way, you'll notice her really heard Mr. Gander accident accident. It's kind of waned because now she's talking more like a normal Midwesterner who does have an accent but didn't dial it up to 11 to try to get people on her side. IE, she's a phony. This woman is a phony, which some of us said during the primary, whatever. Here she is with Anderson Cooper. Watch this. This is about Abdul getting angry and angry and saying, I don't want these these people in the world.
my campaign, you know, I'm not going to stand up. We say he didn't get angry or from midnight last night to this morning. So I mean, did something changed your mind? I'm just curious, like, was there a specific aspect? You certainly weren't on the phone with me at midnight, and I don't think I was on the phone either, but I have great respect for Congresswoman Dingell. And you know, she is a pillar of always trying to talk to her last night, just as Senator Slocken is, by the way, you know, she's carried a lot of water here. She's, you know, a, a, going to be a senior senator and things along those lines. The deal is Anderson is that, you know, what? This is a weight off my shoulders. I'm being straight with everybody. You know, I'm trying to help the Democratic Party. I felt the same way with Platner and his Nazi tattoo and then the cases of abuse. And I'm just one person here, all right? That's it. And I'm voting for Democrats up and down my ballot. Okay. Yeah, so yesterday, I'll say yes. Don't be a part of this. That's fine. I mean, just say it. Just say why you want my Rogers now. Here is the truth. I think two things. One, she was pissed. He disinvited her. And I don't blame him for disinviting her because rather than making it a unity event, she threw a little hissy fit and demanded that he say all the words she demand. He say, say them out loud. Apologize. She pulled a BLM. Say it. Say it. Condemn the ad. He had already said that's not my ad. And I really wish people would stop trying to glam on to my candidacy with their issues. Okay. That's what he said about the Genkweiger ad, which suggested that they couldn't buy groceries in Michigan because of that we have to use the money to pay to kill Palestinians and Gaza. Um, he was, she wanted a disavowal. You know, you have to say it the way I want you to say it. And then you also want top of that need to apologize. Apologize for your own words. She said, which she thought had come close to what that ad telegraphed and she didn't like that. Okay. You know what you do when you feel like that? Like Haley Stevens felt and demanding all this. You, you don't say yes to the unity event. You don't. Here's, I'm reading from her statement on Friday. I have learned from Democratic Party leaders that Dr. L Sayed has heard the deep concerns of the Jewish community and is now for the first time in this campaign formerly condemning that ad for what it is. That is why I accepted Congressman Clyburn's invitation to appear with Abdual on Sunday. Uh, I urge voters and the press to confirm it with Abdual directly. So she's admitting she just heard it through the third parties and, you know, go pressure Abdual to do it. But the ad did not invent its argument. It dramatized one Dr. L Sayed has made in his own words throughout this campaign that Israel is the reason Michigan cannot afford schools, healthcare and childcare. The standard here is simple. If those words are wrong when a political action committee supporting his campaign says them, then they are equally wrong when Abdual says them and Abdual has said them from the start. I therefore expect him to apologize for those statements as well. Abdual promises to get money out of politics. He can begin by getting Israel out of his explanation for everything. Michigan for, uh, he can begin by getting Israel out of his explanation for everything Michigan cannot afford. Then she adds, and it is my hope and expectation that out of the same respect for Michigan's black community, he will take down his own advertisement featuring white Christian nationalist Tucker Carlson and insult to the congregation that will welcome us on Sunday. So you got it. Tucker's got to be condemned. Abduals got to renounce his own rhetoric on the subject of Israel, a foreign country that is not the United States of America that has been behaving very controversially. And it is fine to have negative opinions about just like we do about our own government. Hello, but no, he's got to disavow his earlier comments. And I'm sure it all has nothing to do with the fact that Hayley Stevens has received 39 million dollars from APAC, which is the lobby, the lobbying group supporting Israel and its interests, 39 million dollars. So I think that the two offenses that Hayley Stevens suffered that caused her to decide she wasn't endorsing Abdual anymore. She's now endorsing my scratches are one. Abdual was pissed off by her clearly antagonistic statement and said, don't bother coming to the Unity event on Sunday. We're good. I don't need you. And two, she's been paid a shit ton of money by a lobbying group that clearly really did want all of those things to be said by El Sayed. She couldn't get it. And I know she was under enormous pressure by that group and others to disavow because they've decided that Abdual is an anti-Semite. And look, I don't deny that Abduals got some very sketchy family connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and so on. But I have not heard him behave in an anti-Semitic way. I think he's got serious problems with Israel. And if in fact he supports the Muslim Brotherhood, they are anti-Semitic. And he did write a letter about Muhammad Morsey back during the Arab Spring when he, you know, 15 years ago. But most of the controversy around him involves his family connections, a sister-in-law and somebody else in his family and his mom. Now, you can impute those connections to him. That's fine. I have no problem with you doing that. But I'm just saying like to demand that he be denounced because he's allegedly anti-Semitic. Well, we have to hear the specific statements and then you got to prove it and then you got to prove it to the Democrat Party, which itself has the same concerns about Israel as he does. That's why he's winning in Michigan. Hello, that's why he's running against a Republican Neocon and that issue is extremely stark between the two of them. He, he, Abdul has been totally critical of Israel. Mike Rogers is more of an old school pro-Israel Republican Neocon. So the all of this has been dominating the race and bubbling up to the surface and it doesn't surprise me at all. Nord has surprised me that she throws Tucker Carlson under the bus and it has nothing to do with him allegedly being offensive to black people. Okay, he's not. So stop it. This is what the left says about anybody who's conservative. Never mind on Fox News. She throws him in there clearly as a little, you know, like as a scare because APAC hates him too. So he can't go. Abdul can't have an ad. By the way, that ad has Jesse Waters in it. It has Tucker. I think it has Martha McCallum. It has a bunch of like conservative personalities who have interviewed Abdul saying something nice about him in the course of the interview. Please hello. That's the price of admission. Jesse Waters gave him a very tough interview, but he was a charming host. Calm down. So that's what's happened. And now instead of talking about affordability in the, you know, 11th hour of this race, the Democrats are talking it's everywhere about this intro party civil war caused by this crazy lady, this Ailey Stevens. And not only has it spun into, okay, who's to blame. You know, what changed her mind and that couple of hours where she said, okay, I'm going to vote for Abdul still. I still endorse him. Don't vote for Mike Rogers to 180. I'm not doing any of that. We don't know. But now it's spun into is she under the course of control of her husband or fiance? It's truly they're trying to make her, if you see, if you saw the Elizabeth Holmes documentary, they're trying to make her into Elizabeth Holmes and he's Billy Evans, like a controlling spouse. That's what the accusation against Billy was. As I said to you last last Friday, I see it a little differently, but whatever, like she has no agency. This congresswoman is like, oh, someone's got to rescue her from the evil fist of her Jewish fiance who's voting for Mike Rogers as if she can't figure out her own path forward. This US congresswoman who's been very strong in her stated beliefs thus far and had been saying she was going to vote Abdul all along. And what was the straw that broke the camel's back? He was mean to her. It's giving Cornell seven vibes. She was, she was fine with what happened until they yanked her invitation to the Halloween party. And then she went jihad on their asses. And that's what what appears to be happening with Haley Stevens. Abdul told her not to come. And he'll have no fury like a woman whose invitation has been rescinded. I mean, that's really what we have seen here in the past 30 to 40 days on two major fronts, one political, one cultural on the campus of Cornell University. Okay, let's watch a little bit more from this interview because it's really stunning and it's entertaining. Anderson is trying to get at her reversal suggesting
She knew about that Jenk Wieger ad. When she was still saying she was on team Abdul and she was going to vote for him. And just so you understand the reference here, Jenk Wieger started the young Turks. He works with Anna Kasparian, a friend of our show. His nephew is the controversial podcaster Hassan Piker, who said we deserve 9/11. He's out. This guy's crazy. He's way out there on these issues. Nick is not as far out there, though he's clearly a fan of Hassan Piker. Here's the exchange in the 17 that I want you to hear next. When you endorse him, you keep in referencing the uncle. I assume you knew about the uncle and whatever else he and Hassan Piker. I guess I still unclear, I mean, it sounds like last night was a really big night where a lot built up what the turning point was. Well, that's your assumption, Anderson. I mean, that's your editor's plan, and I certainly didn't say that. But you're willing to be at a campaign event for him. You wanted to be at a public event with him up until some point, I guess, yesterday. And it's just an interesting change. And I think a lot of people are curious to try to understand it. Was that a question, Anderson or no, I wanted to see if you wanted to fill in silence, but you don't. Oh, yeah. Oh, that's how it went so awkward, so uncomfortable. She did not do well. He asked her about her August post about Mike Rogers. Watch that. Back in August, you posted on social media, quote, Mike Rogers will be another rubber stamp for Donald Trump's dangerous agenda. We can't afford to give MAGA another Senate seat in November. How do you, why is it okay now? Why can't you afford now to give MAGA another Senate seat in November? Why is it okay to have the Democratic Party and a top nominee that, you know, ejecting, you know, this type of, or injecting rather, this type of, of anger and lack of kindness. That's all. Okay. So it's the anger and lack of kindness. That's what you're talking about. And there's others who feel the same way, you know, anger and lack of kindness. I'm sorry. I don't want to talk over you. The anger and lack of kindness. No, no, no, no. It sounds like you're upset with me too, Anderson. No, I'm not. I'm just, you're not really answering any of my questions, so it's somewhat frustrating. You're saying the anger and lack of kindness, again, that seems to point to you being disinvited to this event. Is that to you? Correct. Is that his anger and lack of kindness? She just, she wouldn't answer. We would have played it for you, but it was another dodge. And I do think it was a tell there was she said, I just don't think it's, you know, appropriate or whatever the word was to have him ejecting. That's the tell. That's what she's really mad about. He ejected her. He does not want her to come to his unity event. Who could blame him? Can you imagine if you would won the primary over this mini? And she was like, I'll go to the unity event as long as you say the following five things exactly as I want you to. Fuck off. You lost. That's what I'd be saying too. And then she changes it to his sin was an ejecting. It was injecting what? Injecting what? Her and lack of kindness toward her toward her. It's all about Haley Stevens. It's very amusing. I mean, listen, the Democrats made their own bed. I didn't nominate Haley Stevens. I thought she was bizarre. We mocked her endlessly when she sounded like this when she dialed up that Michigan accent by about five or six points. We tried to warn them, I mean, what more could they reject our advice? This person should not have been your representative. She should not have been one of your last final candidates. And now she was like the moderate one, guys. Abdul, he's like DSA, last night he was on 60 minutes arguing to get trainees back into girl sports. The guy's a problem. So they could have gone with him or they could have gone with a moderate and they chose as their moderate, this nutcase, who is, she's a phony and she's about herself. And now they are stuck with Abdul who said this to Ross Dutat on 60 minutes last night. What about, since this is a flashpoint in these debates, what about the rights of parents to control their children's education, because a lot of places where there's tension between Islam and Muslim voters and what I'm calling cultural liberalism are around issues like what is taught in school, what happens with transgender kids on sports teams and so on, right? Like these are places where rights are in conflict, right? Do you, what do you think happens there? I don't know that that's actually true. I think we manufacture these social issues because here's the thing about it. Ross, you have an iPhone in your pocket probably, or is an iPhone or a Samsung, you have a phone in your pocket, right? You can get access to everything and anything in the whole world, all the world's information in your pocket. The notion somehow that you are going to prevent your child from being exposed to something that you may find disagreeable and that that is going to be because of school is so profoundly outdated, because of course you have all the information and they have all the information. I mean, I'm just going to say like a lot of the cultural war issues that get fought right now are about trying to distract us from the fact that we can't afford our gas, can't afford our groceries, can't see a doctor are worried about whether or not our kids are going to have a good life. And instead, we're out here talking about who gets to play what sport, which, you know, should be the question of the people who govern sports. I'm not running to govern sports. So a dodge. A dodge. He tries to make it sound like those of us who don't want boys and girls sports are really just trying to deprive our children of the knowledge that there are gender-confused people running around out there who call themselves trans something. That's not it at all. It's a safety and fairness issue and he's dishonest, he's lying. So but here's one of the many reasons why the Michigan race is so interesting. On the one side, you got Mike Rogers, who as I say, is your old school Neocon Republican. I mean, straight out of the Fox News playbooks, sir, got 2010. So pro-Israel, he's reportedly got two people working for him right now. Reports drop site news and they drop the receipts on this who are registered as foreign agents for Israel. Not long ago, the Mike Rogers campaign denied that this person Abigail Ronson, who's the spokesperson for him, was in fact working for him. But they point out in this well-sourced report that in fact, she has been making statements as a campaign spokesperson to media outlets, including to drop site news using an official Rogers campaign email address. And the New York Times as recently as this week also got one from her. So she does work for the Rogers campaign and there's another one too, registered as foreign agents for Israel. So I mean, as pro-Israel, as you can get on team red. But this is in a state that's more blue. And you know, the entire Democratic Party and the vast majority over 80% of independence now are very Israel critical, very not Jewish critical. And I would urge everybody to understand the difference on that. Okay. Whatever your frustrations are about Bebe Netanyahu and what Israel has done in fighting this war or five fronts and so on has nothing to do with your average American Jewish person. Okay. Nothing. If you're, if there are Jews here in America, there are Christians, there are others who've decided to make Israel their top issue. But the vast majority of Jewish Americans are living their own lives, not living or dying based on what happens with Bebe Netanyahu. They're worried about their kids like you and I are. They're worried about having enough money for a vacation here or there. They're worried about paying their health care, all that. So just let's be super clear on the difference. In any event, there's Rogers. On the other side, you got, you got El Sayed who has again, all these types of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an extremely controversial organization and, you know, we've done countless segments with Ion, Hershey Ali and others on their connection to Islamism, you know, Islam racism. I think I'm saying that correctly. But like, if you're an Islamist, that's different from being a Muslim. Now some people will argue this. But if, I mean, if you are a true devotee and you're, you're really following the edicts of the Quran, you are in seriously controversial territory when it comes to Western values, treatment of women, the separation of church and state. And sure, your feelings in some corners about Jews and I do mean Jews in this context. So I understand the hesitation, the concern, the questions that some Jewish Americans have about him.
Um, but the overwhelming base of the Democrat Party and the independence are very critical of Israel and they care more about separating our country from that one. When it comes to foreign policy decisions and how money is spent and so on, then they do about virtually anything else. So Democrats and Michigan are, that's why I think they're leaning toward L.C.I.E. and away from Mike Rogers. And that's why they're very angry at Haley Stevens for making this declaration, telegraphing to those pro-Israel Democrat voters who feel really torn and I get it, um, that it's okay to vote for the Republican. And while I don't think she's an influential figure, you know, could she have some sway on some, some swath in the middle in a very, very tight race? Potentially, I guess, I guess certainly the Democrat Party is reacting like she does because they're all so mad at her, um, though L.C.I.E.E. and the wake of her endorsement of Rogers has received over a million dollars in new campaign donations and there is some question about whether it has backfired. So we will see in Michigan how the voters actually feel and how this issue is going to be divided. You know, when I, I don't know what I do in Michigan, I, I just, I could never pull the lever for L.C.I.E.D. but I am very, very, very over the Neocon Republicans, very over. And I look at those two men and I think, okay, L.C.I.E.D. wants to endanger my daughter by putting boys in her sports and my Rogers wants to endanger my son by sending him off to go fight another foreign war in the Middle East because that's what Republican Neocons have done, which I am completely against. So I'm glad I don't live there, um, I voting Connecticut and I will be voting Republican up and down the line. But I, it's, it's not easy. I mean, here they have no chance so you actually don't think you're sending anybody anywhere. Um, if I lived in a state like Michigan, I, I just, I hate to say it so cowardly, but I, I might stay home because I wouldn't want the blood on my hands. I don't, I do not support anybody who's going to get us involved in another Middle East war or ramp up the one that we started under President Trump. I don't. Well, I think Mike Rogers is a good man. He's way too pro war for me. And L.C.I.D., he's a fucking cook. He's a far-left progressive nutcase DSA guy who is as lunatic left as you can find on every single cultural and social issue. He 100% would be voting to pack the Supreme Court, add Puerto Rico and DC as states. How could you support that? This is the situation we find ourselves in. It's a binary choice. You got to rank lessers of two evils or kind of, you know, not voting to is in a way a support of one sucks. I don't have the answer. Uh, okay. I want to keep going. I do want to tell you just the, the final thing about how now her supporters are suggesting that she's under the coercive control of the fiance. Listen to 19. This is former Steven's advisor, Caitlin Legacchi, talking about her relationship with the fiance whose last name is Turkish. Listen here. I don't know if it's abusive and it's absolutely toxic. Um, I, you know, I've spoken to some fairly close personal friends who are concerned that it is emotionally abusive. She's increasingly isolated, you know, her campaign staff is no longer around. Her official staff got cut out of all the decision making and, you know, they were as surprised as anyone by this. So she's on an island with this guy who's like, not very nice to her, um, you know, like on the campaign, he would always show her the meanest tweets about her, like every time somebody would tweet something nasty, he would send it to her and then she would send it to us and be like, why are they saying this about me? And it was just so clearly designed to spin her up, to make her distrustful of the people around her, to make her think that nobody actually cared about her. So you know, she's now isolated from her staff, isolated from a lot of her friends in Congress, like, I say, isolated from a lot of her friends in Michigan now. So there's the narrative. She doesn't have agency, it's the nasty husband who's like coercively controlling her. Here's a little bit more in 19B. This is, um, her last name is McMoro. She ran in the primary against Syed and, um, she and, and Stevens and she lost and also Debbie Dingles there. She's the Congresswoman from Michigan. She actually went on with Anderson right after that Haley Stevens exchange and was like a deer in the head like she was scared shitless. Just run with all these women, own it, grow up own your opinion and spew it. You know, like, I, like, God, it's very frustrating to me to see weak women. I can't stand it. Here's 19B. I've known Haley for a long time and I don't know curfew, I'll say, I don't. But to see him out there so publicly, I mean, I can only speak for, for myself, um, but my husband and I talked about this and my husband said, if he ever tried to speak for me the way that we see happening now, he's like, you would leave me. Sure. Uh, yeah, it's, it's hard to watch. It is. Is it hard for you to watch as well? Congresswoman Dingle and we'll get to the issues. I just want to. Yeah. Good news. It's very hard. Haley Stevens told me at midnight last night this was all room and was not true. That she would go with Rogers correct, and then five hours later, correct, she's standing shoulder shoulder. He texted me at 745 watching you on, uh, MS now heart, heart, heart. And by the way, I, I talked to, look, I'm just upset, I'm very concerned. It's sad, but I, I don't want to be distracted anymore. But what I said on CNN, she scripted with me and approved last night. Okay, so she, something made her reverse and they're going to go with it was the husband. Here's a couple more, um, former governor Blanchard, who's a friend of Haley Stevens describes a serial 48 hours former Michigan governor, Jim Blanchard, long time friend and supporter of Haley Stevens says he was having dinner with her on Friday with her and the fiance. And that Stevens was excited to attend the church service with Jim Clyburn and Abdul El Sayed. Now keep in mind, she hadn't received the ejection to use her word. Oh, wait, now that was just a mistake. She had not been rejected or stiff armed by Abdul yet from the Sunday service. Blanchard said that Stevens's fiance, Jason Turkish, began chiting her at the dinner. He was working her over the way he was saying it was everyone is disappointed in you. They did everything they could to help you. And then immediately after you lose the primary, you endorsed him. He was all distraught, he said, he was all strung out about Abdul. I let her know he's not a good influence. Oh, thanks for more governor Blanchard for telling me my fiance's not a good influence on me. Sure, that went over well. Blanchard remained in touch with Stevens throughout the weekend and expected her to attend the church service. He only found out from the news that she was at the service with Rogers and endorsing him something snapped in her. She's gonna be on snapped in the next week. And it snapped in 24 hours. Blanchard told Zach Gourciot of state affairs and I don't know what Blanchard clearly pained by the situation said several times. This is not the haily I know and lamented Turkish's quote terrible political judgment. One more for you. Jordan Acker. By the way, her former campaign manager and half of her staff has left immediately. They were so horrified that she endorsed my Rogers. I mean, I don't blame them. It's like if you were working for Donald Trump and then suddenly Donald Trump said, you know what? I'm not endorsing JD or Marco. I'm endorsing AOC. You probably flee his administration too. That's how they see it. This person Jordan Acker is serving as a regent at the University of Michigan. He's a former attorney in the Obama administration says he's a friend of Haley Stevens, posted the following on X. Yesterday morning afternoon and evening I spoke with Haley several times at 8.58 this morning. She told me she intended to remain silent. I don't know. This had to be yesterday morning because it was yesterday that she announced she was going for Rogers. I don't know what changed in the two hours that followed. I want to believe she was being truthful with me. I've known her fiance, Jason Turkish for years. I respect him as a brilliant lawyer and advocate for disabled Americans. He's legally blind. But I've become deeply troubled by his behavior. I've heard serious concerns about the treatment of Haley's staff, friends, and allies. My own experiences have only deepened those concerns. It's painful to watch someone you care about go through something like this. It is even more painful to worry about the influence of those close to her. I don't know what happened this morning and I won't pretend that I do. Haley is my friend. I'm deeply concerned for her well-being. She deserves dignity, independence, and the freedom to make her own decisions. Oh, come on. Well, this is ridiculous. Haley, blink twice of ear in there. Can you see me? Say Michigan or like, come on, this is ridiculous. Her friends are so worried she's being heaved-hold right out of the Democratic Party, which is what's happening, that they're trying to blame the Jewish fiance who was the first to say he was voting for Rogers. Come on. This is ridiculous. Blah, blah, blah, blah. It goes on for here. Turkish, by the way, is President and Managing Partner of Nyman, Turkish PC, which is a law firm specialty.
and litigation disability law and social security claims, they met, he and she, after the 2022 elections cycle through a mutual friend, their first conversation centered on tax credit legislation, like all great romances do. Stevens was pursuing this legislation to help seniors and people with disabilities make their homes more accessible, a friendship developed with the pair talking regularly, turned romantic in early 2026, amid Stevens Senate campaign, they decided to marry in May, but waited until after the primary to announce their engagement. And as I mentioned, he is Jewish, his father was born in Israel where their relatives still live and his grandparents were Holocaust refugees. The two of them planned a trip to Israel to meet survivors of the 10/7 attacks, including visiting the site of the music festival targeted in southern Israel. He lives in a suburb of Detroit. There you go. That's the latest from the Michigan race. I want to keep going because there's a lot of other news happening today. Cheese, where do I begin? It doesn't look good. The latest polls, as I mentioned, are absolutely dreadful for Republicans. If you look at the latest polls, you will just feel depressed. I have to tell you, it's basically Dems plus four, five, up to seven in virtually every single race except for Alaska in possibly Iowa. So the thing of the last breaking minute thing, it's happening and they're all breaking toward the Democrats. So that could be a bloodbath tomorrow. If it's not, polling is dead. The Alaska Senate race, the fake Dan Sullivan, you know, the one who was like in the remote town who got recruited by the Peltola campaign. She's the dem to run against the incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan. He's missing. He's scrammed. You cannot make it up. The Daily Mail reports that he has disappeared from the tiny fishing town of Petersburg, where he lives as of earlier this week. We have no idea where he is. A source told CBS that she saw him flying to Anchorage on Monday, just days before the bombshell reports accused or broke the story. His final destination, however, remained and remains unclear. They point out in this piece that other Petersburg residents, this is his town where he lives in Alaska, never received any campaign ad materials, not a single flyer, not a single brochure from the former school teacher. One fisherman told CBS, I don't think it's a serious candidacy. I have not seen a platform. You've caught on, sir, good for you. Another called Dan J Sullivan, the faker, a hoaxer, or as the Daily Mail refers to him, Dan Sullivan 2.0, which I liked. He's out, but he's still on the ballot, so it doesn't really matter where he is, except if they need to arrest him, which they might, because the Trump administration is seriously looking into both civil lawsuit and a criminal probe. Both of those, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Alaska, Michael Heyman, confirmed both the civil lawsuit and the criminal probe, although not mentioning these specific crime that's being investigated. There are many, the best one that people have mentioned is the conspiracy against rights where you conspire to deprive someone of their constitutional right. That seems to be the favorite Jonathan Turley. Fox News, do we have that you guys? Can you bring that over? He was on Fox News late last week, outlining some of the serious problems that this behavior has raised. Mary Peltola came out, MPR had a sound bite of her explicitly saying she didn't know about it. That's the first we've heard her say that because her chief of staff who she fired is the main source for all this, and it's not just some bitter ex-employee. She provided The New York Times with text messages and emails and dates and other people who could confirm the meetings, the many meetings, Mary's top, top staffers were having in order to make this happen and she wants us to believe she had nothing to do with it. Well, we'll see about that. We, we will see because the US attorney and their investigators have subpoena power. So it's not like The New York Times, they actually can make Mary Peltola answer these questions under oath and can get her emails and her text message and her entire cell phone for that matter. She's in a lot of trouble and Dan S Sullivan, the incumbent senator, is actually seems to be benefiting a bit from this whole controversy because Alaskan's are pissed. She's a liar at a minimum. She's been saying all along the campaign had nothing to do with it. And now she's been outed. And I don't believe her that she didn't know anything about it, do you? I mean, do you believe that? I don't believe that for one second. She knew. You're telling me the chief of staff and all these staffers are working on it. And she has no idea like, gee, where are the staff? What meeting are they having? Bull. It's not some huge thing either. It's not like she had 200 staffers. It's like a small group who worked directly for her. She knew she had to have known. Here's Turley on Fox last Friday. These 30 subpoenas is equivalent of a saturation bombing campaign. 30 subpoenas is a lot. And they are hitting every possible target here, which is one of the reasons why the lawyers of this campaign should remove themselves immediately because they're going to have to lawyer up. And most importantly, they have a conflict of interest at this point that is probably insurmountable. Now putting a decoy candidate on the ballot is not a crime. But filing things about that action, concealing it can be. You can trip a lot of wires here. Now that the subpoenas are out, there's going to be a lot of people talking to federal investigators saying false things. The federal investigators is a darling of prosecutors. It's a violation of 18 USC 2001. And some of these people are going to cooperate. Mary, Mary, they're closing in. It's getting a little hot in here, isn't it? It's getting hot in Alaska. So that will conclude the amount of good news there is for Republicans in advance of tomorrow night. I'll give you the polls. The final New York Times polls. Texas has Talleriko up seven over Paxton, Michigan. They're showing El Sayed up 11 over Mike Rogers. Maine, the cousin, Stupor, Troy Jackson, up six over Susan Collins. The article does know polls are imperfect. Six years ago, Ms Collins had trailed in every survey before the election. And she still won reelection comfortably. That's certainly a dynamic for her in particular. So do not count Susan Collins out, especially over that dude. Ohio, they've got Sherrod Brown up five over John Houston. Nobody knows who John Houston is. He took JD Vance's seat when he went to be Trump's of EP. All we know is that he has a nice ass and Trump really admires it. Truly. That's what people know about John Houston. Sherrod Brown was the, was the Democratic Senator before. People still think that he's the Senator. He's got very strong name recognition out there. And unfortunately, that may be helping him as he's up five over Houston. Kansas, Adam Hamilton, up five over Roger Marshall. So Adam Hamilton is the preacher who he's running as a Democrat, but he used to be a Republican. He's, you know, very moderate to put it mildly. He's apparently very well liked, like universally well liked and has a real shot in Kansas, even though they haven't elected a Democrat to the US Senate in a hundred years. Let me tell you what Roger Marshall did this week and this making bad headlines. They unleashed an attack on him saying, okay, he's a doctor that he went after some patients with bill collectors and actually like sick criminal penalties on some of them. You, you get negative ads. I don't know, like some of them you respond to if they really hurt you, most you just kind of let, that's what I do. People launch negative attacks on me all the time. 99 percent of them I just ignore and they go away and that's fine. This guy went to a staff and said, we got a respond, we got a respondent. And they reportedly said, no, no, no, no, Roger, we don't got a response. Just, there's so much coming at the voters right now. Just stay on message. Positive stuff. What are you going to, what are you going to do for the voters? And he apparently did this himself, hired the camera crew, cut it himself, and released it himself. When you watch the first couple lunch, you're like, oh, I see why he did it. Then you get to them about like 15 percent in and you're like, holy shit. Now I see why they told him not to. Watch. I'm Dr. Roger Marshall and you should know the truth about Adam Hamilton's ads. Their faults plain and simple. When I practice as a small town OB doc, often serving as the only OB in the middle of 40,000 people, my wife and I decided to take care of everyone regardless of their ability to pay. We wrote off hundreds of bills monthly and one of every five patients received pre-care. Now to ensure that 40,000 kansans would still have access to care, we didn't have to keep the lights on. So we occasionally handed some accounts over to collection agency just like nearly every private medical practice does. To be crystal clear, the Kansas Bill of Rights ensures that no one can go to prison because of indebtedness. And I would never wish that on any patient either privileged to serve. My involvement in any patient's account ended the minute it was turned over to an outside agency. I never had anyone arrested, not once, and Adam Hamilton knows it.
Cancels deserve to know the truth and now you do Sir that was not And of course it only amplifies the negative attack on him. So it's really not a good idea not a good idea, sir Okay, he is down as I said five points to this Adam Hamilton who seems like a Smart bet at the moment in Alaska I mentioned Alaska and Iowa the only two places with good information for Republicans showing Peltola up to Over Sullivan and Alaska that's margin of error. Of course Iowa showing Josh Turek up one over Ashley Henson I have yet to find anybody who doesn't think Ashley Henson the Republican is going to win So that would be the safer bet there There's much more to discuss. We'll put a pause in it for now because we got to take a break But we will be right back. Don't go away. If you run a small business you know that managing daily cash flow is one of your Biggest ongoing hurdles whether you are handling unexpected equipment repairs purchasing bulk inventory or waiting on unpaid Invoices timing is everything and traditional banks while they move too slowly everybody knows that Between weeks of tedious paperwork and endless corporate red tape Legacy lenders can easily stall your momentum when you need capital the most That's why you need to check out Cardiff They deliver high speed working capital directly to business owners without the delay Their simple online application takes just three minutes and checking your options will not affect your personal credit score With over 20 years in business and more than 12 billion dollars funded nationwide Cardiff understands how entrepreneurs operate and they stand behind American founders every step of the way If your business has been open for at least one year and generates at least 20,000 dollars per month in revenue You can secure up to 500,000 dollars in working capital approval in minutes funding same day Head to cardiff.co that's c-a-r-d-i-f-f.co/mk today real growth fast funding cardiff borrow better Update for you now on the Ilhan Omar saga the new york post Got its hands on the marriage application the marriage license that she had to fill out when she was marrying her alleged Brother the brosband back in 2009 Okay, so that this would would have been I'm an according to her her name was Ilhan Omar marrying Ahmed Nursahid Elmi They got their hands on the on a certified copy from the head of in county Minnesota government that shows They say initially Her surname was written as Omar and then you will see on this graphic she crossed it out and replaced that with Elmi Then it looks like a final edit reverted it back to Omar again My friends she did not know what her name was She was not able to fill out a basic form from the look of it She's got Ilhan Very clearly over there on the left. So it's not like she thought this was the line for the husband's name She writes Ilhan and then she cannot decide on the middle name and the last name and you can see there Sure, if there is an Omar see where it says Omar over on the far right well too below that there's two things crossed out right below it One looks like Elmi and the thing below that looks like Omar again So it's like she and Abdullah Abdullah ahi is her alleged middle name under her Ilhan Omar moniker. It's Ilhan Abdullah ahi Omar So she decided ultimately to go with the name that she had That she's been using that I assume she got her naturalized citizenship under But you can see even this woman doesn't know what her middle name is and the first attempt seemed to do the same thing It she used to it seems like the first crack at it was Ilhan Abdullah ahi Omar Then she crossed crossed out Abdullah ahi Omar and appears to have written something Elmi I think it's probably Said because the name is Nur Said Elmi though. I can't read what scribbled out there And ultimately she goes back to that name of Ilhan Abdullah ahi Omar this is incredible I mean she the woman doesn't even know her name but here's the problem She didn't want to lie on an official document so she clearly was wrestling with Which one to put down? This is just one One P in a whole soup of peas that will ultimately be felt by Ilhan Omar when the full extent of the law comes down against her The criminal investigation remains underway and speaking of criminal investigations. There is news now in the case of Thomas Markle senior the father of Megan Markle who's married of course to Prince Harry the daily male as we came to air on Friday had discovered a trove of boxes and materials containing what it said were clear Child sexual abuse materials in Thomas Markle's abandoned Rosa Rito Mexico storage unit They got access to it because if you have one of those units and you stop paying and you are considered to have abandoned it It's basically Somebody else is to grab and they rolled the dice and got lucky down there as journalists well now Mexican authorities have gone into the unit and the daily male reports that Guardia Nasiinal officers who identified themselves as state sex crimes investigators swooped in on the five foot by 10 foot vault three miles from Thomas Markle's former home in Rosa Rito just after midnight local time A day ago It was rented to her father in 2017. He fell behind in the payments two years ago He moved to the Philippines in early 2025 without emptying the storage facility The daily males tip off prompted an immediate investigation involving both US and Mexican officials as we reported to you first last week FBI agents are working out of the Tampa field office that was broken by the mk show close to The Lakeland Florida senior living residents where Thomas Markle is staying After having his left leg amputated in December 2025 in the Philippines Obviously the FBI would have jurisdiction if he is currently in the United States Which he is and is suspected of having child sexual abuse material on him here Or we would be working with our foreign partners if they had a viable criminal case against him and needed assistance in making an arrest um The daily male reports that also involved our southern california-based FBI officials whose job it is to coordinate law enforcement activity with their counterparts south of the border Rosarito is apparently only 10 miles south so not too far from california A copy of the search warrant has been obtained by the mail It reveals investigators were authorized by a judge to look for quote evidence consisting of child sexual abuse material And the alleged commission of the crime of human trafficking in its aggravated form One agent visibly recoiled and declared i cabrón a Spanish phrase that can mean holy crap or oh damn while viewing the material According to an onlooker. It's no joke a lot of these guys and they can be women too, but who work in child sexual abuse units are can can have serious emotional Problems they don't last very long. I mean imagine if this were your job You had to look at these images all day and you did it in order to catch bad guys, but unlike these perverts You you found it nauseating you know you you recoiled upon even just a few images of it Like this guy did all those things like there were more than a few in the storage facility But imagine if this were your job all day every day. It's no wonder they don't last long in these units So this cop obviously disturbed by what he found They itemized all the material a computer thumb drives VHS tapes the stack of magazines before closing up and sealing the unit Now they say that the public prosecutor in Mexico will submit a written report to the court within one day But it is expected it will take weeks to examine all of the seized items Now Thomas Markle just before Saturday morning's raid was spotted being pushed between care homes in florida He told the daily mail on Saturday. I had no storage units in rosarito By the way, there are some reports now that he is Saying he has dementia He was accompanied by his daughter Samantha Markle and her boyfriend Mark Phillips Mark Phillips decided to speak with the press Defending his girlfriend's father as Samantha sat nearby, but did not speak reports of the mail He said quote the only statement that you're going to get is that Thomas Markle doesn't even have fingerprints on the stuff in the Philippines He didn't even ever touch it the whole time it was there He can't be charged Markle never had it in Mexico either he says the FBI has no jurisdiction in Mexico Thomas Markle senior hasn't lived in the states in 10 years Even if there was bad material then the statute of limitations ran out five years ago. This is all bullshit
Okay. Remember the old too many excuses means no excuse. We're there. There's no fingerprints in the Philippines. He never touched it. He never had it. The stuff in Mexico, the FBI has no jurisdiction there. He's lived outside of the States for the past 10 years. But even if there was bad material, the statute of limitations has run. This is all bullshit. Very skeptical on the Samantha Markle boyfriend claims they've got a lot to deal with. Then there was this report in the UK times that Megan allegedly wanted to go public in 2019, which you know, we she's been telling that story since the news broke two Fridays ago about her father quote, but was advised by the police not to do so. Now this is parlaying on something she's already claimed that she was shown this letter by the Metropolitan Police and that through a friend, she got out that she was allegedly told to stay quiet, which we don't believe because the met wasn't investigating it. Why would they tell her to stay quiet? All they had was the ramblings of a first wife who was an alcoholic embittered and apparently was seven page single space letter that was like really ranting and raving. So it seems like one of those things where the Metropolitan Police felt like they had to forward it on to Megan, but like it's starting to make a little bit more sense now why it wasn't in all hands on deck situation. And it doesn't sound like they necessarily believe this woman that doesn't excuse them. I'm just trying to understand their decision not to treat this as very serious. Seven pages handwritten delivered by post in January 19 to the Met's fixated threat assessment center. This is all very curious. I mean, how is this allegedly alcoholic first wife who's elderly and rambling and bitter? No, to target the fixated threat assessment center within Scotland yard within the Metropolitan Police. That doesn't make sense to me. Megan would have known that. So what happened? Did the first wife Roslyn Loveless contact Megan and say I've got to got to tell somebody this stuff and Megan said send it to them. So I've got cover. I don't know what happened here, but there is zero chance that Roslyn Loveless knew exactly to whom to send this letter given her alleged state. She alleges in this letter reports this publication. Again, I'm reading here from the UK times that Thomas Markle had sex with a child in the US. Now that we did not know, we know from Megan's breakup letter that she sent to her dad that was read to him when he was in the Philippines, getting his leg removed in December of 2025 in that letter she accused him of molesting children, which we assume she got from Roslyn Loveless's letter of January 19. But now this is the first time we've heard that Loveless accused Markle of having sex with a child in America. And that he regularly traveled to the Philippines in Thailand because he claimed that 12-year-olds are legal there. That we had heard that she was alleging that in the letter. They write that it's understood that Megan 45 was handed the letter by one of her royal bodyguards who assured her, quote, leave it with us will investigate it. Okay. So now it's a bodyguard who gave her the letter because the information on this has been all over the board. She alleged that someone wrote to the Metropolitan Police and that she was given the letter. Then she had third parties clearly go to the newspapers and say, she was told that it was being investigated and to stay quiet. We among others called bullshit on that saying, why would the Metropolitan Police say that to her when we now know they were not investigating, they were never investigating. And now we get this, that one of her royal bodyguards said, quote, leave it with us will investigate it. So she thought her royal bodyguard was going to investigate her father who was living in the Philippines at the time. No, in Rosarito, Mexico at that time and then moved on to the Philippines. Does that make sense? Doesn't to me do not get it at all. The same officer is said to have advised the Duchess not to go public at a time when she was being criticized for cutting ties with her father without any explanation. On Saturday night, the Metropolitan Police, which did not investigate, was still trying to identify and track down the officer. This group would only have been interested in what it meant for the security of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Having assessed that, they should have thought about the wider consequences. I don't know to whom this quote is attributed. We should find out. But look, this is raising more questions down. Which royal bodyguard? Who is it somebody who works for the royal family to this day? Because if that person told her allegedly that leave it with us, we'll investigate it. Did the palace investigate it? What did they know? And when did they know it? Why should we let them off without a scratch on them? If they knew, if the royal bodyguard who clearly works for the royal family knew and said that, they need to do a full investigation on who it was and whether that's true or whether this is just bullshit leaked to the UK times by people trying to cover for Meghan Markle and who's in a lot of trouble over admitting that she knew. That she knew. That was a policing source as my team who said the business about this unit would only have been interested in what it meant for the security of the Duke and Duchess. And they should have thought about the wider consequences. So again, who within the unit? Who? And do they admit that they told her? And all of this is secondary because the real bottom line is whether they told her any of this or not, she knew for seven years that there was no outcome. Why didn't she go back and figure out what was what? Why didn't she go back and say what happened with the investigation that you told me you were conducting? Was he guilty or not? Is an arrest coming or not? Why or why not? This she cannot answer, which is why I believe she's just having random friends leak things to the Daily Mail. OK, we're going to take a quick break, right? And we're going to come right back. We have more for you here, including we're going to be bringing in our pilots to give us the very latest on this horrific plane crash in Florida. Our sponsor, the electronic payments coalition says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card in the security it offers are under attack and that senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The electronic payments coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. Want to bring you the latest in the Russell brand trial. We are also standing by for this NTSB presser on what happened with the horrific crash of that lear jet in Palm Beach County, Florida yesterday. It happened just eight miles from the president's Florida home at Mara Lago and there were nine souls on board. We are told to to crew. We believe and seven passengers. We are awaiting details on exactly how it happened and what the investigation looks like. It should be underway any moment now and when we get that information, we will bring it to you and we also have our official pilot guest standing by who is going to walk us through what actually happened here. First though, we want to get into what has happened in the Russell brand trial which has now gone to the jury. The jurors have been dismissed for the day so they're not actually deliberating it yet. Keep in mind the UK is a few hours ahead of us but they've recessed and the defense and the prosecution are officially done. How about that? I think in total this was four weeks, supposed to take eight or nine, took four. It's very difficult to assess the closing arguments without having been in the room because the way a lawyer communicates, the way he or she argues, the way they use inflections on their words and so on matters. Also, who's got a better relationship with the jury? Who's been more charming? You know, we saw that and kept with Kevin Reddington. Now we know that that jury was made up of a bunch of crazy leftist loons but they bonded with him and the prosecutors in that case were lackluster and they were tough to bond with but he was very good. I mean, I would never take that away from him. I don't buy his argument but he's an excellent lawyer. He knew how to behave in front of a jury and the question here is how are they behaving? I imagine everything in a British accent and with polish and with some level of charm.
But of course, it's an uphill battle for Russell because it's very tough to charm your way out of multiple rape and sexual assault allegations. So his lawyer has got a steeper mountain to climb. Let's go through what we know. We gave you the prosecutions closing on Friday. If you care to hear about that, go back and listen to that show. It's on YouTube right now. First, and not just first, but throughout the defense lawyer hit on the so-called documentary. I mean, can I tell you this seems to be their main overall defense? And while I have to tell you, I don't find that persuasive as a defense, I think it's a clever move because it's exactly the kind of thing that if you're looking to let Russell brand off, you could make the argument in the jury room. It was the documentary. It was that dispatches program. That's what the name of it. That's what misled people. That's what made women reimagine their encounters with him. It is the one thing that gives the jury permission to reject all six women's accounts if they're leaning that way, but don't feel they can because of the evidence, et cetera. So it is a clever move. I see why they're doing it. I see how the so-called documentary was very unfair to Russell, believe me. I just think it's tough to suggest six women saw it and were suddenly rejiggered into reimagining something that they thought was consensual into now suddenly its rape. I'm more persuaded by Russell's political evolution, causing some women to reimagine what happened between themselves and Russell. But whatever, that's just me. I'm not on the jury. So, you know, who cares? Who cares whether I'm persuaded? Let me give you the highlights here. His lead barista in winter recites an 1864 quote from philosopher John Newman. What I insist upon here, no, I can't do it. Now that I am bringing this portion of my discussion to a close is this unmannedly attempt of his in his concluding pages to cut the ground from under my feet, this I call poisoning the wells. He points to the dispatches program as having poisoned the well of justice. He tells the jury that Russell had consensual sexual encounters with many, many women asking jurors to put out of your mind and any distaste. You may feel for the way he lived his life that way of living is not criminal. He urges them to do what the journalists totally failed to do, put all condemnation completely out of the mind and apply pure cold logic to the question, are we sure on the evidence we have seen brand did do what is alleged? He criticized the program as one sided, produced in a dramatic manner with actors, playing the parts of anonymous women making allegations. He took umbridge with the description of it as a documentary, so did Russell while on the stand. He added that no journalist spoke to brand during the making of it other than to protect their defamation risk by asking him for a right of reply and on from there. The defense told the court brand is innocent. Casey Winter reminded the jury of what he called the devastating impact of the allegations against brand pointing out that in 2023 when all of this hit, the hospital would not let him go to the bedside of his baby son just after he had undergone heart surgery such a pariah was he made by that quote documentary. He told the jury that when he Russell told the jury when he gave evidence last week that it was quote devastating to have that happened. The blocking of brand from the hospital says winter tells you the extent to which public opinion has been perverted and corrupted. If it caused doctors to shun him, how many more people would have been caused to ostracize brand if doctors were affected in this way asks his lawyer. Winter tells the jury it caused people to change what they thought about events that had happened a very long time ago because they now see what has happened through the lens of that program. It caused people to shun Mr. brand positively wish him ill before his trial took place and refused to stand by him and give evidence for him. You remember Russell testified upon being asked by winter. Could you find any witness to come forward to you in this trial and he said no, no one whatsoever wanted to testify on your behalf and he said absolutely no one. And they were trying to make the point he's been made a pariah like no one will touch him with a 10 foot pole and perhaps that's the dynamic going on with the complainants in this case too. He runs through each of the six complainants in the case discussing their evidence and suggesting the impact of that program was enormous on them. He quoted the fifth complainant. This is the one who accused him of an anal rape. And watching the program she said it was the first time I'd felt a monumental change. I got it. It wasn't me. Winter asks when wonders what her evidence would have been if she had not seen the program. He says the six complainants are not random or independent as the prosecution has been saying throughout its case and it's closing. He says the prosecution put great weight both in the opening and closing about the fact that these women all emerged independently they don't know each other he added there is nothing random at all about them. They have all come forward because they have been brought at the invitation of that program and they say the very existence of these women is fundamentally corrupted. The existence of them is complainants is fundamentally corrupted by that program and the publicity and renders this fundamentally unfair. He tells the jury is quite surprising that not one of the women who alleged that they were raped by brand made that complaint to him. He says it's one thing not to report the incident to police or to one's employer but to not make it known to the alleged salient is something else. None of the complainants quote resisted or screamed or even tried to leave. He's saying and there was testimony to that effect. He's saying does that sound like women who are being raped who weren't consenting not not a single one resisted screamed or tried to leave never mind confronted rustle on it. Of the fifth complainant again that same gal who alleges this he says she didn't roll over or kick out or try to stop him in any way from doing this to her. The defense also flags the complainants words to her then boyfriend a few days later I own that I had made the decision to go to his home. Brand was seeking approval and adoration from women said his lawyer Mr. Winter it's an extremely curious feature of this case that out of many many women brand had sex with from 99 to 2009 the period of the charges only three say they did not consent. He's using Russell's enormous numbers in the sex field now to benefit Russell. He had a goal of 5,000 three women three say he didn't consent at a 5,000 if this guy's running around is randomly raping women or Lee vaginally ain't Lee wouldn't there me more. Wouldn't there and wouldn't there be testimony that there had been resistance screams running accusations or attempts to leave which there weren't. He suggests that that is a hole in the prosecution's case saying they don't have a case thesis as to why brand allegedly rape these three women and none of the thousands of others. He told the jurors what matters is brand had an immense amount of sex and none of it was unlawful. He added disgusting distasteful immoral who cares it's irrelevant to your consideration. He had told the jury that living a highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful however morally distasteful you may find it. He returns to that theme now saying even being manipulative in the pursuit of consensual sex is completely lawful. Okay, he had to do this because part of the testimony that had come out was that was not good for Russell was on complainant one who says she brought him back to her hotel room after midnight after seeing him perform at a leftist labor event and Russell was some entertainment. They went back there and she didn't feel threatened by him she felt sexually safe with him because she thought he was gay. And then the prosecutor in crossing Russell brought up a passage from Russell's book in which he says he will sometimes act gay to put women at ease around him. And here you have his lawyer saying even being manipulative in the pursuit of consensual sex is completely lawful. He says brand was seeking approval and seeking adoration. He rounds on the prosecution's case saying that in desperation they turned to that autobiography it's called my bookie walk of Russell's to use what was written against him. "Let me just try to kill that off," says Winter. He tells the court in 2007 he wrote a funny book my bookie walk it contains some jokes. He says the prosecution wants the jury to take what he wrote eight years after the event and somehow use it as evidence of what he was doing in 1999. He then asks do you remember the photograph of brand as a seven year old child dressed somewhat effeminantly? It was so obviously a joke but the joke is it didn't work. That's the depth the prosecution has had to stoop to to show why a complainant won invited brand back to the bed suit bed sit in the middle of the night. night. When Brand was cross-examined last week, the prosecution accused him.
Again, of trying to act gay to gain the trust of women and the caption of that picture in the book reads, "This is the exact moment when I decided to act gay to attract girls. It took 15 years to produce results showing the picture on the board here for the viewing audience." The defense discussed the evidence of Helen Berger. That was Brand's personal assistant who talked about how he was obsessed with sex and was constant, never seemed satisfied after he had it between 2006 and 2007. Winter said it's an unusual situation where both the prosecution and defense used the same evidence to show two completely different arguments, saying the prosecution used Berger's evidence to show that Brand's promiscuity and insane and his insane sexual appetite. The defense used it to establish Brand's highly promiscuous and insane sex appetite, but also the fact that he was very open about what his sexual needs were. Winter says Brand has always been extremely open and public about that promiscuity, pointing out that he's disgusted on stage in his jokes and in his books, which is true. He says Brand was pushing boundaries, his comedy was fresh and radical, and a lot of people found it very, very funny. His onstage persona was rooted in that honesty. Russell Brand's lawyer said this, "The women who accused him described his behavior as normal after the alleged incidents and that this cannot have occurred if he was guilty. They would never use that word." He points out that the first complainant who accuses Brand of raping her in 1999 during that labor party conference, doubted she had been raped, saying she second-guessed herself and told the police so when she contacted them. It's simply not possible for you to be raped and think it is normal. He tells the court the first complainant previously said she behaved normally on the day after the alleged rape. He tells the jury this is a moment when the window opens and a chink of light comes through. A little chink of the truth comes through. They thought it was normal at the time. He tells the court there's no evidence Brand is some kind of a psychopath who rapes people and thinks it's normal. The fact that he behaved normally during and after all of those rapes tells you what you need to know. He believed they were all consenting and by the way his belief is required. He has to have believed that he did not have consent in order for this to be rape. In the case of the first complainant, he adds you would have to be a psychopath to be raping someone and asking them if they were enjoying it at the same time. He says Brand left his actual email address, rapists do not do that. He left photos she had taken of him, rapists do not leave their photographs and he kissed her goodbye or tried to when he left. He said not one of the complainants reported these allegations to the police at the time telling the jury if a wrong has been done to you, you're entitled to have it investigated. The best moment you have of achieving a conviction is at the time when the evidence is at its freshest. It doesn't get better sticking a massive 20 year delay into the situation. He says the absence of a complaint just supports the defense's position. His lawyer returned to what he called poisoning of the well. He opened the closing argument by making that reference. He says the failure to report at the time has led to a monstrous delay which adds a second element to the poisoning of the well. He puts it to the jury that an understandable argument for the delay would be there is no shame in being the victim of a crime. I came to understand that I bore no shame and so reported it. But he says no complainant has put forward that reasoning. He tells the jury they all come forward for reasons of the TV program. Not for reasons personal to themselves, that's true and it's a good point. He complains of the rank unfairness of trying to litigate something so long after the event. Amen. Saying it's impossible now to know what the allegations would look like if raised closer to the event. The case would be radically and fundamentally different. He says there would have been many witnesses to some of the alleged incidents now all lost to the passage of time. That's true. That's why normally we have statute of limitations that will protect defendants from having to defend their behavior some 25 years after the fact. He tells the court that the delays in reporting the allegations mean all parties end up litigating in a quagmire of doubt and decades old recollections. We invite you members of the jury to remember that delay is a corruptor of justice. It is in the way of justice. Some people will say justice delayed is justice denied. What were you doing in 1999? He asked them telling them to put their hand on their heart and consider if they would be able to explain exactly what they were up to back then. Very fair point. He also says in opposition to the prosecution's suggestions that brand has changed his evidence over time that brand has been completely staggeringly honest with you. The court's reminded that the fifth complainant's phone number was in brand's phone as in 2012 with T space AP next to her name. Brand told the court during his evidence last week that T stood for TART, AP stood for anal play and O2 asterix meant that it was an interaction he did not want to forget. The fifth complainant, we've been over. Ian Winters said the prosecution has attempted to suggest the way this woman's name was saved was fabricated. He counters this saying, it would not be in brand's phone in 2012 unless she had given it to him and saved her name in that way. He sarcastically suggested to the jury, you think you're at some point going to get done for rape. And so you record her number in that way adding, would you really save it as that? If you were worried this woman was going to come back and accuse you of rape someday? Basically how stupid could Russell be? Not stupid. It's what his lawyer is saying, it's a good argument. Ian tells the jury that details in the case really, really matter. The details are what makes you sure when they add up, they make you sure when they don't, they're in doubt. He points out what he terms inconsistencies in the first complainant's allegations that make it impossible to convict in this case. Again, that's back to the one who alleges vaginal rape. The woman alleges she was raped after this conference. She points out the date the alleged rape took place is missing or shrouded in the depths of time. He suggests her evidence is unreliable as to what day the rape took place. A Wednesday, a Thursday, a Friday, he says she couldn't remember what day she got home either. He's staying on the first witness here. Oh, actually, no, this is Russell's friend Mark Penero, a former roommate of Russell's who he was the first witness for the prosecution, and he remember testified that Russell wanted to get the hell out of Dodge the next day seemed like he, you know, suggesting he had something to run from. He says the jury should discount Mark's evidence. He told the court that brand was actively acting strangely on the morning after the alleged rape, ducking and diving, hiding from police sirens. Tells the court brand did not run away. What's brand supposed to be doing, running and dodging for hours and hours and hours? He says the truth is that brand would have needed to check out by 10 a.m. adding the details or what really matter. He says we invite you to conclude there is no evidential basis to conclude Mr. Brand raped complainant number one. He says the complainant's repeated use of the phrase quote her office to describe her bed sit, which I think just means her bedroom in the hotel, is because there is a real problem with her describing it as her bedroom, because then she would have invited a stranger back to her bedroom after midnight on the night she met him. Winter goes on. She invited him back and she consented to sex. The defense moved on to the second complainant who accuses Brand of attempted indecent assault in 2001 when she says he tried to drag her into a toilet at MTV. Remember, this is the nut case, I'm sorry, this woman is a nut, she's like, he grabbed my arm and he tried to pull me into the bathroom in all these years of it. She's been saying she thought it was to have consensual sex. Now suddenly it's to rape me. He was trying to drag me all these 20 years. I said it was for consensual. Now I say no rape. He says he was behaving like a crazy lunatic. But when she put her foot down and said no way, he accepted it. The defense also points to a piece of courtroom theatrics during the prosecution's closing speech on Friday when real carmy Jones, she's the prosecutor used to stopwatch to time 20 seconds of silence demonstrating to the jury the number of seconds the complainant says brand battle to pull her into the male toilet. He said you were treated to just 20 seconds of silence, but it was not silence at the time of the alleged attempted indecent assault. Instead, he says brand was pleading begging and asking her to go in. The lead defense barrister added she now obviously genuinely believes she would have been assaulted or worse in that bathroom. That's what she says. He says, but the defense's case is that the women have reimagined what it has characterized as consensual encounters. Okay. Turning to the third complainant who alleges that she was forced into giving him oral sex in a bathroom stall. He says there are two essential problems with this woman's case. As a reminder, the woman claims, the lawyer says she did not tell anyone brand had grabbed her breasts or raped her in the mouth until September 2023. He calls it a very curious thing that she did not give full details when she called a friend in the early hours of the morning to tell him what had happened, but failed to say that she had been orally raped, pressing the point of the importance of lack of consistency. Winter tells the jury consistency. I'm only banging on about it because it's fundamental. And she had earlier been telling people, Russell.
tried to get her to give him oral sex. It only changed to two. He forced me to after she saw the documentary. Discussing the allegations of complainant number three, he said in September, 2023, 19 years after the alleged assault and rape, she gets wind of the forth coming TV program. He highlights a text she sent to friends saying people were calling and texting her to tell her about the program. He reminds the court that she said in evidence I managed to get away before he could properly do anything to me, that she had said that managed to get away before he could properly do anything to me. He says this is consistent with what brand himself says. Nothing significant happened. The lawyer suggests the complainant's description of brand to her sister, that his quote, eyes had gone completely blank. This is in 2023 and appeared to be possessed had been influenced by the program. The woman said in her evidence that after the alleged oral rape in the in the bar toilets, she got into a car with brand and others to go to another bar. He asked how remotely possible, if you had just been raped in the mouth, that you get into the assailant's car. It is completely inconceivable that you would choose the car instead of going home. She chose the car. She chose not to say anything to anyone in the car. She chose to go into the bar fly. In the bar, brand was distracted, maybe by other women there. Maybe she got rejected. Who knows? On the third complainant, he said he watched it and that it would have caused her to think about her encounter with him. We do know that she knew that something was coming about brand and that it was about him being a rapist or a sexual assaultor. It would cause her to think, what is it that happened to me? He tells the jury the woman had not told her sister about the alleged oral rape until after the program. Did she get that from her memory? And she had never professed before or was the well poisoned. It's very effective. He's threading the same argument through each of the women's testimonial. He highlights a text. She sent to a friend saying people were calling and texting her to tell her about the program. He reminds the court that third complainant said in evidence, I managed to get away before he could properly do anything to me. He says that's consistent with brand saying nothing happened. Okay. Third complainant, blah, blah, blah. Yes. Okay. I told you all of this onto the fourth complainant. This woman felt that a alleged that she, he felt her up at a bar like all over her breasts and started kissing her. He says, this woman's allegations are more akin to someone jumping out from behind the bins or to a maniac jumping on you as you come out of your place of work. He says it happened in front of up to five people. And it's telling. She did not say she said anything to those people, but simply looked at a woman who she said was with brand, but who did nothing. He asked why she didn't verbalize to those people. Why are you doing nothing to a woman in trouble or call them to help her and immediately take action to raise it with her employers? He says as with the other complainants, she was affected by the documentary. The exaggeration is the direct consequence of that program. He drew her attention, their attention to her description of brand as of average height. No one could say brand is of average height. He told the jury. He's six foot two. His conclusion to the jury is we reject, we invite you to reject this sham, this claim. Sorry, this claim. Okay. The fifth complainant, she's deeply problematic. There should absolutely be no conviction on complainant number five, who accuses brand of anally raping her. The lawyer says she was an obsessed fan. Says people would give her her birthday gifts wrapped in photos of Russell. You may think that completely clouded her judgment and caused her to behave in the way she behaved in the dressing room, extraordinary behavior, which can only be explained by that level of fan behavior. Of course, they heard what she did to his backside within two seconds of meeting him, naked in the dressing room. Directing the jury to photo shared on Facebook of the complainant taken on the night of the gig and chuckling slightly winter says she was on the face of it, having a fantastic time with a star she was obsessed with. He said the question is, did the fifth complainant consent or may she have consented? What matters to you is the evidence at the time. She went to his house the week after the threesome in his dressing room. She went there. She was prepared to do whatever he wanted. He says it was for that reason. She now blames herself. He quotes what he called a graphic line given by the complainant in her evidence, even the horror and people's faces. When I later told them what had happened was not enough to make me believe I didn't deserve it. She didn't feel she'd been raped. She felt discarded and used said in winter. He mentions the evidence of the woman's former boyfriend who in his police statement said she quote came around to anal sex. In another dig a journalist, he said the ex-boyfriends police interview shows how fundamentally important it is that when you have police officers taking these types of statements, when they are in the hands of journalists, you have no idea what they are. She went there and she consented and she wished and wished she hadn't done it. Flagging a voice note, she later left in which she said she had not understood at the time that what she alleges happened is considered rape. The defense says that if the complainant thought she was consenting, then brand two would have been under that impression. They spoke about the sixth and final complainant. This woman said brand sexually assaulted her when she was working at Channel 4 on a project with him in 2009 asking her for a massage, putting his head in her lap. They heard that brand's breath felt hot on her genital area. The defense lawyer said he asked very few questions of the woman because brand has said he cannot remember the alleged incident at all. He said no sexual assault took place. It was just a massage, a thoroughly inappropriate one, but not a sexual one. Flagging an inconsistency in the complainant's evidence, he said she told the Sunday Times Journalist, she was wearing a chunky jumper, meaning sweater and a pair of jeans at the time of the alleged incident. Later to police in the court, she was wearing black cotton trousers. He says this was after the dispatches TV program. When she spoke to the journalist, there was no vaginal breathing mentioned. Adding vaginal breathing does not exist as a concept at this point in her story. Unless the sexual breathing element of this offense can be provided, it's just a massage. Winter calls the alleged sexual assault the perfect example of the poisoning of the well. The woman didn't say anything that fundamentally makes it a crime ever until seeing the program, this was not a crime. His lawyer again raises the question of how there are only three rape allegations when brand had sex with many, many women. How is it that none of these claims came to light during me too? It could not have been more publicized. How was it that none of them thought that what happened them had been a crime during me too? Referring to the program again, he says they needed to be told the things in the program to make the jump. Coming to the end of his argument, he invites the jury to conclude that there is a fundamental failure on behalf of the prosecution to build a case thesis for why brand, quote, raped just three women in isolated occasions over 10 years when he had sex with many women completely, consensually. He commends brand for what he calls his striking honesty. He tells the jury that promiscuity is lawful, adding that it is the point of the law to draw the line between lawful and criminal. He says criminality occurs when there is no consent adding that means that everything else is lawful. It is I am afraid lawful to be unkind while having sex or after having sex or after having sex. It is I am afraid lawful to be disrespectful or rude or to behave like a crazy idiot. It is lawful unless then until it becomes non-consensual. That is why this case needs solid, consistent, reliable evidence that Mr. Brandt took what he wanted from these women without their consent. He did not do so and not one of these women alleged that he had behaved criminally toward them until very many, many, many years had gone by and only did so once the well of justice had been corrupted and contaminated by the TV program. Until the ground went from under his feet and the public mind poisoned against him. None of them came forward at the time. They did so after his final words to the jury. We invite you to return a verdict of not guilty. Praying for a Russell. I don't know guys. The UK is even woker than we are. I don't know anything about the jury other than they have been led down a path by the mere presentation of all six of these witnesses together that tells them the judges on the side of the women and that the women are somehow brave and courageous if you listen to any of the media reports. And Russell's politics have been well publicized in a left-leaning country that is not going to be inclined to like him. I am very worried that Russell's going to be convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The jury officially begins it's deliberating tomorrow and we will stay on it as they do. We are going to take a break and then when we come back because the NTSB briefing has been occurring as you and I have been talking. We are going to tell you what happened and we are going to analyze this horrific plane crash down in Florida. Everyone's talking about weight loss injections because the results can be so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite but what if you are looking to lose weight but are not interested in painful weekly injections especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects. That's why doctors Creators created a weight loss.
supplement called lean. And the results could be remarkable. Lean says the studied ingredients in their product have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite and cravings so you are not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. You could get started with 20% off and free rush shipping, adding lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan, visit TakeLean.com and enter mk for your discount. That's promo code
[email protected]. We have to bring you the latest on the breaking news out of Florida where a lear jet private plane that was traveling from Texas to the Bahamas plunged from the sky Sunday afternoon, slamming into a roadway outside of Palm Beach, killing all nine on board. The video and pictures of the crash are truly horrific. But the audio is, I mean, it's just, it's too much to bear. We're going to start with what was captured on a dash cam as the crash occurred. This was poached by a person named Akki Kusisto. It happens so quickly, it's, it's not, there's nothing slow mo about it. If you've seen it online, you know what I'm talking about. The crash cam footage of the plane, it's just so quick and so we slowed it down here. You can see that it was in fact a jet that crashed nose first into the ground erupting into a fireball. Thomas Chapman from the National Transportation Safety Board, which will investigate this crash just a few moments ago, spoke about what we do know about this crash. Watch. About 1037 eastern time, the aircraft departed Austin, Berkstrom International Airport and route to North Elutra, Bahamas with nine people on board to flight crew and seven passengers. After takeoff, the flight proceeded towards the destination while establishing contact with various ATC facilities along the route of flight. About 1247 PM eastern time, the crew transmitted to ATC that they were encountering light clear ice, which was manageable and also moderate turbulence. While in contact with Miami Air Route Traffic Center, the crew transmitted that they were at 35,000 feet with moderate turbulence with altitude deviations of about 700 feet. The crew reported the outside temperature was -47 Celsius, which is -53 Fahrenheit, and they were managing the ice, but were in moderate turbulence. Very soon after, the crew transmitted, we are picking up precipitation, requesting to climb to 37,000 feet if able, which was approved by FAA Air Traffic Control. Less than 30 seconds later, a transmission from the airplane announced a descent followed by a Mayday call. About 1248 eastern, the airplane transmitted, we are in an overspeed condition descending with the rest unintelligible. Subsequent communications described that the airplane was descending rapidly and gave an altitude call out, sadly, all aboard were lost. We also have the terrifying final moments of audio from what we believe was the co-pilot. We believe there were two pilots in the cockpit and that the woman speaking is a co-pilot, not flying the plane. Although the NTSB said that that is under investigation today and would not confirm who was the lead pilot, pilots in the know will tell you that one flies the plane and one deals with the comms, and you will hear a pilot dealing with the comms, female, but a warning. Viewer discretion is advised. This is awful to hear. So, Roger, say outside, intercept, negative 47 degrees Celsius from energy in the eye, but it is moderate, turbulent, to a direct viewpoint. Okay, November 722, Bravo Delta, Roger, let me know if you need anything else. I'm reporting you in the Mayair space right now. Thank you. Do you have any better rides? Let us know. Let us know. No, no. And now we're picking up precipitation. We need to climb 370, able to go to Delta. >> Remember 72 Bravo Delta Roger, climb the main thing, climb the 370, no further rising in the present any processing. >> climb 370 to go to Delta. 72 Bravo Delta, we're descending 8000, made a made a, we're descending 10,000 feet per minute. >> Time to go to number 72 Bravo Delta Roger. >> We're going to number 72 Bravo Delta Roger out to your discretion. Let me know what you mean. >> We're going to cross into the ground 72 Bravo Delta. >> We're going to number 72 Bravo Delta, I'm here with you constantly. >> We are descending 22,000 feet and we are banking 60 degrees. >> We're going to number 72 Bravo Delta Roger. >> We're going to number 72 Bravo Delta. How do you hear? >> Oh, God rest their souls. >> That pilot you just heard was just 20 years old. >> Multiple news outlets have identified her as Natalia. >> Godelha, Phil Jarera, Phil Jarera. >> The New York Post spoke to her mother Camilla, who said that her daughter had been working as a commercial pilot for just nine months. >> She told the Post quote, I knew that a plane was going to take her away from me. >> I always knew it, but I was so proud of her. >> I know she was living her dream. >> Camilla's husband told the Post that Phil Jarera had 1,300 hours of flying experience. >> Natalie also reportedly texted her boyfriend just 10 minutes before the crash, writing quote, >> I've got turbulence. I've got ice. >> According to her family, Natalie wanted to be an airline pilot but was still too young to apply for a job at American Airlines. >> Joining me now to discuss what he thinks happened up there is Steve Scheibner. He's a former airline pilot and host of the Captain Steve YouTube channel. Steve, welcome back. This is so disturbing and to listen to this young woman's screams is just bone chilling. What do you make of what happened? >> That's just, it's very hard to listen to. I think there's certain things that the human condition is not meant to either hear or experience. It's hard on the mind and the spirit at the same time, but yet it's out there. This is one of the worst tragedies. I think because we have the audio from inside the cockpit, it's very hard to digest. >> It's rare that we have it because typically we have to wait for the black box. Here you had it via air traffic control, which is often available. People listen in on this and that's how we have this one so quickly. Let's just start with the question on everybody's mind, which is what is a 20-year-old doing behind the wheels of an aircraft like this? >> A lot of people, that's where they start their career. To get on with a regional airline or a major airline, you've got to have a minimum of 1,500 hours. To build those hours, you'll get a job flying for a charter outfit someplace. Some people are crop duster. Some people will fly a lear jet for a Part 135 carrier, which is they don't have the same 1,500 hour requirements. You can get on, build your hours to get on with an airline. It's actually very common to see somebody of that age behind the stick of a lear jet, especially in the right seat as a copilot in this situation. >> It was weird. I thought that the NTSB wouldn't confirm that she was in the copilot role as opposed to the main pilot. Is there any doubt in your mind she was in the copilot role? >> They haven't confirmed that yet. I listened to the NTSB briefing and Tom Chapman got asked that question. He said, "Well, we don't know who's who just yet." Although, typically, the reason that most people think that was the copilot wasn't because she was female, because that's who talks on the
radio when you're airborne. So it'd be the pilot monitoring at that point. Whoever the pilot monitoring was, typically, is referred to as a co-pilot. That just means the other pilot the captain was flying the airplane now. It's not, it's probably not true that a 20-year-old would be the captain just yet. That's probably she's working her way up to that position. But we don't know yet. There hasn't been confirmation that she was a co-pilot. It may have been the other pilot flying who wasn't the captain. Maybe she was. But again, that that'll come out in the days and weeks ahead. I have to say I'm definitely 100% against any sort of DEI in pilot hiring pilots, surgeons, or really anything. I'm just against DEI in general. And I don't know whether that played any role in this woman's hiring. And I understand the pilots online who are very critical of her screaming and saying she was not professional. But I have to say, and honestly, I've complained in the past about young female pilots flying my own plane and not doing well. I told the audience a story that happened with a girl who looked like she was about 20 with a ponytail up here. Her name was Maddie. She did not do a good job. And when I confronted her about it, she literally ran off the plane. So I'm not defending all female hires or all young female hires. But I have to be honest, what I heard was somebody who for her age was remarkably composed given what was happening to her. What did you hear? Yeah, I heard the same thing. I think she was very courageous. She gave us a blow by blow what was going on knowing that her life was about to end. And that it takes a certain amount of composure. My experience with flying I flew with the men and women. They're all excellent. I've never I never flew with a female pilot that wasn't top-rate. But I would challenge anyone, male, female, you name it. If you're in that situation to not lose it a little bit, your voice is going to change a octave or two when you're at a 60 degree angle of bank and you're hurling down towards the earth at 20,000 plus feet per minute. And you know you're not going to pull out of it. There's the I think the point of finger that the female thing that's just that's the internet. The internet does that. And I think you're right. And I would probably fly with her any given day. Wow. I mean she was so young the her parents have highlighted that you know this was her dream. There was an article. I mean a news report done on her by CBS 12 in 2023 because she got her pilot's license while still in high school. Here's a bit of that in stock four. I like being different than everyone. So to me I think it's like cool that well like it's not really an opportunity. I kind of just didn't do it and this is how I ended up. But I think it's kind of cool. Some people think that it's like weird because I can fly planes but I can't drive a car. I mean I can but a lot of people think it's funny. I think it's funny and I now want my license really bad. Okay so putting the gender thing to the side. The question is this is young. This is a very young person to be. I mean I know you say this somewhere up there but to me it seems like we don't let you rent a car until you're 25 years old. This person couldn't lawfully drink. She was considered too young to have a glass of wine and yet we're going to put her behind the controls of a lear jet with the lives of nine people dependent on her. Tell me why I'm wrong. That seems too young. Well she's not the only pilot in the cockpit so there's another pilot with her presumably a more experienced pilot. Everybody's got to start someplace. That's the key to all of this. If we want if we're going to force pilots to retire at age 65 and we've got a pilot shortage at some point you got to get into the workforce. So what is too young? I think a lot of times a young pilot like that they're eager. They're in the books. They study really hard. They've got to overcome a lot of obstacles in terms of people not thinking they can do the job. Listening to that little interview with her she sounds like a pilot. She's just confident. She knows what she wants. She's going to go out and do it and it takes years and years to get to a place where you get to be like a first officer at American or Delta or United. It took me 10 years to get to that place. I had to start someplace. I didn't start much older than her. So you know the FAA's got restrictions on all this sort of thing. You can fly before you turn 16. You can't get a license until you're 16. I think you can't get instrument ratings until you're 17. But a lot of those younger pilots are into the books. They know the numbers better than anybody else and then coupled with an experienced pilot that has got the stick and rudder skills. That's the best way to learn and the best way to go about building your hours. So again, you know we don't know what happened to this. The NTSB is going to look at the airplane. They're going to look at the pilots and they're going to look at the environment. I think the place they need to focus in on first is the environment. It look like they flew into a thunderstorm and the weather conditions I think are going to have a big factor with why that airplane dropped out of the sky. Let's talk about that because you heard her describe and the NTSB reiterated. First they say light clear ice with moderate turbulence. Then they talk about an altitude deviation of 700 feet. It's minus 53 degrees Fahrenheit outside and very soon thereafter say we're picking up precipitation. They ask for permission to climb to 37,000 feet and the air traffic controller says that's okay and no sooner does he give the okay for that than they talk about their rapid descent and she's calling may day may day. By the way, I mean, I think we all understand may day to be a cry of distress but what is it officially? What does it officially mean when a pilot says that to air traffic control? Yeah, may day means you're declaring an emergency and at that point a lot of things go into motion. Air traffic control starts to clear everybody out. You get whatever you want if you declare a may day. If you want a lower altitude if you want to turn left or right that's completely up to the pilot's discretion. You don't have to ask permission for that. You're telling air traffic control that you're in some sort of distress and basically you're piloting your airplane with no other inputs. So she declares a may day but it's already well into this rapid descent. It's what happened to the aircraft prior to that that led up to the rapid descent. That's where the NTSB is going to focus and I think that's where the weather had the biggest impact. So describe if they're taking on ice and there's precipitation and there's an altitude deviation of 700 feet. Does that mean what that's what's being caused by the turbulence to your aircraft? Yeah, so she checks in and says a couple of things. She gives a lot of great information. You don't normally get this from a pilot. She says we're managing the icing right now so they were already experiencing some icing which I'm telling you at 35,000 feet is extremely rare. You're usually above it all at that altitude. It's very cold. They ask her what the temperature is outside and she says minus 47 that's minus 53 degrees Fahrenheit. That's typically how cold it is at 35,000 feet. So it's not more cold or less cold than normal. That's just very cold. Then she says later on that they're they're experiencing moderate turbulence and that the aircraft is losing or gaining plus or minus 700 feet. That's extraordinary. I would call that severe turbulence not moderate turbulence but every pilot has a little different interpretation of what that is. That might be where some of the experience level comes in. If you can't hold altitude, that's severe turbulence to me. Severe turbulence now is a different beast altogether. Your aircraft is semi out of control. She also keys up the mic after that and says now we're experiencing precipitation. There's I've very rare that there's precipitation at 35,000 feet. What the question I've got is did they know they were flying right into what appears to be and I have to say appears to be a thunderstorm. Is on the radar you can see that big yellow and then red center. That's typically a thunderstorm and was there radar not working? Could they not see that? Did air traffic control turn them into that? Did they ask for a turn? Prior to that, they took them into that. The pilots should have seen that on their radar scope and avoided the FAA rule is 20 nautical miles away from any known thunderstorm. So you have to stay 20 nautical miles away. So you don't try to fly over it and you certainly don't fly through it. So that's where it's a combination. Right there you can see it's right over it. It's a combination of things. It's the little pilot's decision was was it led by air traffic control? What was working or not working on their aircraft? Did they see that and did they know? And did they just try to fly over it? All of those are going to be questions that I would have if I was running the investigation. I try to find out in the weeks ahead. You can't outrun a thunderstorm. Sometimes they build so quickly you can't get over top of them. That's the thing. So this thunderstorm seems to have gone high up. Forgive the pedestrian language, but it seems to have gone very high up in the sky. And so it seems like they may have been having trouble getting on top of it because she tried. They wanted to go up to 37,000 feet. They got the permission. And that's That's where the trouble started. So is there a problem with a Learjet?
Somebody was talking about updraft, which I didn't understand, but they said that could have been a factor here. So, the Leard Shedder regionally was at 41,000 feet. They descended back down to 35,000 feet. My presumption is because it was a smoother ride at 35. When they get down to 35, they get back into moderate turbulence. That's where we first get her reports. Now, what goes on inside a thunderstorm is there's updrafts and down drafts. Think of cylinders in an engine going up and down like this. And what happens is when you get, for instance, hail comes out of the bottom of a thunderstorm, what's happened is all the moisture inside of it gets shot up in an updraft. It goes up so high it freezes. It gets heavy enough and then it falls down and it comes down the down draft. Comes down the down draft, gets picked up by an updraft, goes back up again, and the hail ball will begin to grow to the point where the storm can't sustain it anymore and it falls all the way down to the ground. Now, there was no indication yet that there was hail inside this thunderstorm, but that's the convective activity going on inside. It's extreme friction. That's why you need to avoid these things by about 20 miles. If you try to fly over it, they're building up so quickly that sometimes you can't get on top of it. So I don't know that they were trying to go over top of it. I think at 35,000 feet the ride was so bad. They were just looking for any other altitude to get to, to get to a smoother ride. But I think, if I was at the NTSB investigating this, I would be looking at the icing component of it because they already reported icing and then they reported precip and you got the cold temperature. There's a thing called super-large, super-cooled large droplets, SLDs and SLDs at certain altitudes, like 35,000 feet, if you fly into a storm, will adhere to the leading edge of the wing, but they're so large that they don't freeze immediately. They flow back to the middle part of the wing and then they freeze to the wing. It builds a ridge like a little mountain on top of the wing and it totally disrupts and kills all the lift on the wing. So not only is your aircraft picking up weight because of the ice, the wings now stop producing lift and those wings turn into like a vending machine. It's just a big hunk of metal out there and the aircraft can't sustain flight anymore. The aircraft then dips down that one wing, she said, was 60 degrees angle of bank down. You saw that in the picture as it came down and hit the ground. At that point, the aircraft is knife edging out of control and it's virtually impossible to pull it out of that because of the conditions on the wing at the time that cause the loss of lift and that's what creates this kind of missile effect of an airplane coming straight down as you can see in the picture. So when she says it's banking 60 degrees, that's going forward like it asks up, you know, the nose down or that's going on the side. Right. So you can see that now at this point, the nose is completely down just before it impacts the ground. But at first, the wing, one of the wings is going to lose lift first and I think it was the most likely the right wing because she says we're 60 degrees. I think she said right wing down, but I might have just made that up but 60 degrees down and then the nose of the aircraft falls through. So the aircraft stalls, the wing falls through, you begin to knife edge, but as you're accelerating down, the nose, the aircraft wants to be aerodynamic. So the nose then falls through. They just simply can't pull the aircraft out of that strong G force. It's forcing the airplane down. Besides the fact that their wings are covered with ice, you know, there's not enough time for all that to melt in the basically 60 seconds it took for them to go from 35,000 feet to impacting the ground. At what point was it unrecoverable? I think somewhere in the middle of her transmission, again, I think if it was if it was an icing condition that caused this stall and this knife edge, I think it was unrecoverable probably right from the beginning. Because she says I'm looking here again, she asked if they can go to 37,000 feet to presume we'll leave to fly above the turbulent air, but moments later she declared a May day. He said what's the outside temperature? She said minus 47 degrees Celsius. We're managing the ice, but it is moderate turbulence. Let me know if you need anything else. I'm just working you into my airspace right now. She says now we're picking up precipitation. We need to climb. Roger, climb and maintain. We're descending 8,000 May day, May day. We're descending 10,000 feet per minute, declaring an emergency. We are in and oversee condition. I'm not sure if that's the correct transcription. I don't know. Descending 20,000 feet per minute. I mean, at that point, is there any saving an aircraft that has ice on the wings and you're going down 20,000 feet per minute? Most likely not. Most likely not. The FAA has four different categories for icing. There's trace icing, which is you see a little bit of icing, but it's no big deal. It's not really building up. And there is a light icing where it's starting to build up in every airplane. Most airplanes that that layer has either anti-icene or deicene equipment on board. You might want to wait for a little bit of ice to build up on the leading edge of the wing and then you just what we call dust it off. You just turn on the deicene equipment and it breaks up and your wing is smooth again. There is moderate icing where when you get into moderate icing, you want to get out of it as quickly as possible because you're constantly using your deicene equipment to keep up with the ice build up on the wing and the fuselage. There's a final category, severe icing, that's where those SLDs, those super cool large droplets would impact a flight like this. That overwhelms the anti-icene or deicene capability of an aircraft and the ice builds up so quickly that you can't get rid of it and then it adds weight. It kills the aerodynamic lift over the wings and the airplane falls through like you saw. I think what happened was they were at 35,000 feet. They were in a really bumpy ride. They were looking for to get out of the precip that she reported. But that precip was those SLDs building up on the wing. This is all theory, by the way, it's just I'm based on all the information I've got at this point, building up on the wing. When they go to climb to 35,000 feet, just that little bit of pulling back on the nose to start to climb, you lose, they were right on the edge, they were right on the margin right there. When they pull the nose up a little bit, the airplane departs, it immediately stalls and it's unrecoverable. I think at that point, if the wings were covered with ice in the scenario that I'm describing, but again, there's no problem because the anti-SB doesn't, as I said. Yeah, we don't know. Can I ask you about, we've all sat in the plane on the tarmac while they say we've got to get the deicing machine out here and we can't take off yet. Nobody ever complains about that. Everybody knows that the deicing machine is important on their big commercial aircraft, but I mean, maybe they did that on the Lear Jet. I have no idea where they started in Austin, though it seems unlikely in Austin, Texas, that they would need it. I mean, when you're in the air, is there no deicing? Like how do you prevent re-icing when you're in the air like this? Right. So it's not the same as on the ground. They're going to apply a fluid, sometimes it's a jelly. It has a holdover time that gets you to the runway and a clear wing and a clear tail for takeoff and for a certain amount of time after that. Once you're airborne and they've been airborne for hours in this flight, there's no more of that type of deicing. But most airplanes will have some sort of a deice or an anti-ice system. My Boeing triple-7 had an anti-ice system. It sensed when ice was forming somewhere on the outside of the airplane and it turned itself on automatically. So it was heat in the leading edge of the wings and it was heat in the outside in a cell of the engines. That heat turned on would melt any ice so it wasn't a problem. It happened automatically. But the pilots would monitor it. If for some reason it didn't turn itself on, as a captain, I could flip a switch and I could turn it on. So that's a major airliner. This layer most likely had some sort of a deicing system where the pilots are going to monitor as you said, we're managing the icing, which to me, my interpretation of that is they're looking out the window and they can see ice building up on the windshield wiper because it's metal. And that's where you first see ice build up and you see a certain amount of it. Then you flip the switch, you dust off the wings, you heat up the wings, the anti-ice goes off the wings. So you don't want to leave it on all the time is because if you leave it on all the time, it might melt and then create an ice bubble over your deicing system. And now your deicing system is ineffective, it won't get rid of that ice bubble that's over the top. So they'll turn it on and off, on and off. She said they were managing it, but then she said we're running into precip and I can't tell you how rare precip is at 35,000 feet. The way to not get into that situation is to avoid the precipitation and the thunderstorm. You've got to fly more than 20 miles away from those things or you're going to get precip at 35,000 feet at minus 47 Celsius. One of the questions they were asking the NTSB was does this look like a pilot error or an air traffic control error probably for this exact reason because it isn't the route you travel and whether you're going to go into the storm or not more controlled by air traffic control. You know, with the three factors that they look at are the pilots, the plane itself and then the environment. So the environment we've already talked about with the weather, why did the pilots fly into a thunderstorm, did they not see it on the radar screen in front of them? I don't know. Was it working? If it was in office?
and it wasn't working, then that's a factor. But then that begs the question, you gotta let air traffic control know that you're kind of flying weather blind, at least you're not being able to see anything on the scope in front of you. We don't know any of that. What I do know from the air traffic controller is that he said, you're on the edge of my screen, you're on the edge of my system, you're just coming into my airspace. So that air traffic controller might not have had that cell on his screen like the previous one did, or like the flight crew should. It ultimately is the responsibility of the flight crew not to fly into a thunderstorm. So that's what the NTSB is gonna look at. They're gonna look at all those factors and they're gonna put them together in their investigation and find out was it a combination of just, was it one thing to contribute to just the weather, just the pilots or a combination, both usually in the final analysis, it's a little bit of everything. There was a question about the stabilizer on the plane, a horizontal stabilizer, is that what it's called? - Yeah. - Just to make sure I'm not saying the wrong thing. - You got right. - That weather, some have said that the plane, they think as it's coming down and that's still grab that we have, is missing its horizontal stabilizer, which many pilots online have said, there is no controlling your plane, your layer jet, if it's missing that, on this graphic, we're looking at here, Kevin, what's the horizontal stabilizer? - So it's that little T bar right at the top, okay, that makes the letter T, it's the horizontal part of that, the vertical is the rudder, and then the horizontal is at the top. So as I was looking at that picture, that's still frame that you had just before they hit the ground. We saw that late last night and you're not really sure if that's AI generated. It's, most everybody is saying that that's a real picture from the second before impact. It looks as though the horizontal stabilizer is missing off the aircraft. Now the question is, and this is where the. - Nothing horizontal. In other words, that the tail of that aircraft, you can see that the vertical part going straight up, but you can't see the little horizontal wing, not wing, but little like sort of flanking out to the right length. - You can see the wings, you can see the wings still there, but you should have two tiny wings at the back of the airplane and they're not there. So the NTSB is going to say two things. Did they come off prior to the airplane starting its descent, and that's what caused the descent, or because of the overspeed and the G-load and the forces, the G-forces on the airplane, that horizontal stabilizer came off. Tom Chapman at the hearing just now said two interesting things. He said, there it is, and this is a quote, some evidence of aircraft break up prior to the impact. So I think they're already looking at the fact that they think part of the airplane, probably those horizontal stabilizers came off. And he said further after that, many, we may find parts away from the impact site. So I think there are already kind of clued into the fact that this airplane, parts of it came apart prior to it hitting the ground. - Mmm, gosh. The news on who was on board the flight has been very hard to find. We only know about the one pilot's identity right now, but this is just hitting. It's just to be of the Palm Beach Post. A married couple and their two children were reportedly among the nine killed on this lear jet that crashed according to the Palm Beach Post, the couple and their two toddlers were identified as being aboard the doom jet when it crashed near West Palm Beach. On Sunday, the outlet is not disclosed more about their identities, but said they interviewed family members on Monday, one of the couple's fathers told the outlet. It's quite a blow. We had a daughter, her husband and two grandchildren on the plane. Oh my gosh, this is so awful, Steve. I just, I can't imagine what those poor families are going through right now. The only thing that makes sense about any of this to me is at least one unconfirmed report that in some of these transcriptions, you know how people enhance the sound. You can hear Natalie doing what she was doing, giving data about the plane and its descent. And, and reportedly in one of these, you can hear the co-pilot who may have been flying the plane saying they are a father, which is the only thing that makes any sense. To me, that's, at some point that's what an experienced pilot would understand was appropriate. Yeah, it's the human side of this thing is always just so tragic. And to hear that there were toddlers on board that just breaks my heart as a dad and a grandpa. We, my producer and I prayed, we cut a video today on this. It's being released now. We prayed prior to it. We always prayed for the families and the victims and that air traffic controller who had to listen to this happen in real time. You know, those people have real lives too and they have to go home and, you know, and function after listening to somebody perish on your watch. It's, it's as hard as it gets, Megan. It's just as hard as it gets and it just breaks my heart to even have to talk about these things. But, you know, we're both in the business where we have to report on certain things that are very unpleasant. It's, it's, it's too much to get your arms around. The only comfort that I have found today and reading up on it is somebody who said, you know, you think of all these poor people out there who died terrible deaths of cancer or some debilitating disease and they have to live with that knowledge for a long time and a lot of them have to suffer very, very long times knowing what the end is, especially if they've been given, you know, a fatal diagnosis and it's very difficult. Yeah, that's an emotional burden on a lot of people. They can see the upside, a lot of these folks by saying, you know, they can say goodbye and so on but it's a lot to tax on a human soul and the only comfort in this one is, well, that could have, I mean, it would have been absolutely horrific. At least it was brief. At least it was, you know, 20 seconds of horror and then it was over. But there's all sorts of conspiracy theories out there. Cap, and you know this, people are saying, where's the plane? It's just a big like hole in the ground. Can you explain for those who are wondering where the plane went, where it went? Well, it's physics. I mean, Tom Chapman said, they asked him about the debris field. One of the reporters, he said, it's a half a mile long debris field and the debris is rather small. And those airplanes are not, it's not a big ship at sea. It's not a battleship. It's an aluminum shell that's very lightweight on purpose. So when it hits the ground at those G forces, it's going to disintegrate. It just did. You know, there's no conspiracy here. It's just that's the way the physics of this whole thing will work. So I'm not surprised that they don't have much to go on. They're just minuscule little parts after something hits the ground that hard. We pulled a picture of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where of course United Flight 93 went down on 9/11. And it was a similar problem that it went down with such velocity. There wasn't a traditional plane carnage or sort of fuselage that you could see. It just must have hit with such velocity there, too. Of course, there was a battle in the cockpit. As we now know, by the passengers who tried to make sure that plane did not go into the US Capitol as we believe the hijackers intended. But yeah, I mean, that's there's going to be very little to recover. And by some miracle, no one on the ground was killed. This could have been so much worse. Yeah. That's the only silver lining on all of this is the the NTSB said there was one minor injury to a gentleman on the ground. But nobody was killed on the ground. So there's one positive takeaway from a really horrible tragedy. It just breaks my heart to even talk about this, but it is what it is. Just to round it back to the pilots, my own takeaway in listening to you as a nervous flyer is it's better to fly commercial than private because there are different rules and different capabilities of the planes. That's number one. Is that true? Yeah, it's complicated, but you're going to get the training is top rate, the maintenance is top rate, the airplanes are expensive. They're sophisticated. You're going to get two or three or sometimes even four pilots. Like I said, for me to get to that place to get hired by a major airline and then become a captain at that major airline, it was a lot of dues paid over a lot of years. So you've got that experience level, that judgment, that wisdom, that maturity, which begs the question, why in the world are we forcing pilots out of age 65? I've been retired for a year now. I wear cheaters, that's about it. All right, I mean, great health, I should still be flying an airplane. It's holding up reading glasses. Right, but in the infinite wisdom of Congress, I'm too old to fly. I might be a safety risk at this point. That's ridiculous. That needs to change for sure and to keep that older judgment and wisdom in the cockpit and somebody's got to start someplace, right? So she's 20 years old, she's, again, she's got the world by the tail. It's a sad story because of that. I don't cast any dispersions upon anybody that's young. I think they're eager. They learn their systems. They get qualified. They pass the same check rides that I passed. If she passed it three years younger than I did, good for her, good for her. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I hear you on allowing the more experienced pilots in there. We don't know anything about the second pilot and how experienced he was, but it does seem like they needed somebody in there who could read radar and could understand
the risks to the Learjet and its horizontal stabilizer, et cetera, in going right into a thunderstorm. That's what we all hope we have is an experienced pilot who says, "In fact, what you're saying about the severe turbulence, back when I was a lawyer, I flew all the time." That job just required a lot of flying depositions, hearings, and other states, and so on. Flying out of Chicago, "Oh, here, we flew in some terrible, terrible weather." I remember the pilot saying, because we had bad turbulence on a flight, and I was scared. We were all holding on to each other, and I said, "Is this severe turbulence?" And the pilot said, "We would not fly in severe turbulence," like we will not be getting this aircraft into a situation where we're looking at severe turbulence, and I felt comforted by that. But you're saying it sounds like they may have had it on this plane. So something went wrong in the charting of the route or where they were told to go. They shouldn't, basically, they shouldn't have been there to begin with. And by the way, many of the commercial airlines had canceled their flights through Palm Beach yesterday. Yeah. Well, that's the what it should have could have afterwards in all of this, but the airlines are not allowed to be dispatched through known severe turbulence. So that's the plan on the ground. Now, once you get into the air, can severe turbulence present themselves? Yeah. But once you start to get into moderate, I'm already looking for an exit strategy, so we don't get into severe. I had one flight many years ago, probably 2014, 2015 time frame, where we hit eight seconds, only eight seconds of severe turbulence. It was clear air turbulence. We didn't see it coming. We were already in moderate, so we had asked the flight defense to take a seat in the back. But it was the roughest ride I've ever had. Four passengers got injured in three flight attendants, but they were the people that weren't strapped in. So we had the seatbelt sign on. We told everybody, I made a PA, everybody, make sure your seatbelt is fast and including the flight attendants. For some reason, there were seven people that decided not to strap their seatbelt in. And that's those are the people that got hurt. So none of them seriously fortunately, but- I'm looking for one of those, you know, you go on the, you go on down a Disney and you go on the space mountain, I'm looking for one of those things on my airplane seat to come down, to click, to hold me, like I definitely wear the seatbelt at all times. Yeah. I just get, but we have seen a lot of these smaller jets go down and you know, it's something about the lear. It's got that reputation of like a lear jet, you know, like it's, it's something that, like, the rich and famous would take, they discontinued the airplane, I think. They no longer make them. But the horizontal stabilizer thing sounds a little disturbing it like that thing shouldn't come off. That should be so, so strongly affixed that it could never come off. I don't know if it would have helped here. Things like the NTSB wouldn't say so either. They asked him, the question was, when the pilot was making transmissions about gathering precipitation, is it the right maneuver to climb the 40,000 feet as they requested? He said, I don't know that I would describe it as the right maneuver, but it's one of the possible. I don't know. Would you fly a lear jet still? There's, that's a complicated question. I would fly a lear jet. It's a safe airplane. Would I, am I looking for another job? No, not at the moment, but would I fly one, yeah, absolutely reliable airplane, very safe. You fly any airplane through a thunderstorm and you're going to have problems. It doesn't make any difference what it is. That fly, Dubai flight, they got hijacked and descended so quickly, the runner came off that airplane. But the rest of it stayed together, which is a minor miracle, you know, Boeing built a nice solid airplane there. They're building a nice solid airplane, but there's limits to everything, Megan. There's only so much you can expect out of a product and when it's, it's hurling towards the ground at maybe two or three times, it's, it's normal speed and all the G loads on it, something's going to give way. I'm surprised that the wings were still attached when it hit the ground. It was, it was descending so quickly, but again, the investigation is going to find out when the horizontal stabilizer departed, if it did at all. And was it the cause or was it because of the rapid descent? Wow. Thank you. Thank you so much, Captain Steve. It's great to see you. You've got your own YouTube channel. The people should check out at Captain Steve on YouTube and you can see his download as well. Thank you so much for always coming on and helping us and doing double duty. My pleasure. Oh, God. God rest their souls. Pray for the families who are going to be dealing with a lot of grief now. It's like we're going into Thanksgiving. We're going to the holiday season. That poor dad, a study had a daughter and a son-in-law and two children. They were two grandchildren and all of whom were on the plane. As the identification will come out, the sad stories will come too and this is like, hold your family close, make good decisions. You know, it's like, I think a lot of people look up flying private as a privilege and a luxury and there's a real question about whether that's true. You know, I've had to do it many times in my line of work and I always get scared. I'm not a good flyer. I always feel more safe on a big plane and if given the choice, fly the big plane, there are sometimes when you can't. You can't get into this location and I always get scared. You pray that the pilots have had adequate training. You pray that the plane is safe and I will say that there are some services, like you just go through a broker and they get you some pilots and you have no idea who the pilots are. You know, are they experienced? How many hours? Like, there's no standards and then there's some companies that have higher standards and higher prices too. If you can go commercial, go commercial. It doesn't matter. Coach, business, first, whatever, it's been a long time since we've had a commercial airliner. I'll just leave it at that because we don't want to say things like that out loud. Depending on my love to all of you, we will be back tomorrow for full election coverage, both during our normal programming and then again as the events start. Unfolding in the evening and the results start coming in at 7pm, I hope you'll join us. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda and no fear.
PodcastTranscript AI