Russell Brand Takes the Stand, and Jennifer Lawrence's New Face, Plus SHOCK SC and MN Polls, with Mark Halperin | Ep. 1429

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Wednesday. What a show today, my goodness. There are some shocking new polls out today. With six days to go until the midterms, we will get to them with NextUp host Mark Halperin. He'll be joining us in our next hour. But first, major updates in the Russell Brand rape trial. Brand taking the stand as we predicted yesterday in his trial this morning, UK time. The comedian faces seven charges related to six female accusers who claim he touched them without their consent or had sex with them without their consent. Brand denying the allegations under oath and blaming that 2020 was a mistake. Because he was blaming the documentary when he got crossed for his current legal troubles and, you know, for all these other women coming forward. And he's not wrong. That's exactly what they all testified to. I'm not sure why she thought, the prosecutor, that she was making big points on that. Obviously. I mean, the women conceded it. So, like, why is it a big gotcha for Russell to say, yeah, I blame that so-called documentary for what I'm doing here, for why I am here. All these women accusing him now of rape or sexual assault said nothing. For two weeks, he was in jail. For 23-plus years, in many cases. And, in fact, they were telling other friends and family, most of them, that they weren't raped or there was, like, he attempted to have oral sex with them, but they didn't do it. And it wasn't until they watched this piece that they were like, oh, I'm a victim. Oh, and yeah, actually, I did give a blowjob. Oh, and it was against my will. I mean, this is what he's up against. So the cross-examination, you know, we don't have videotape. We only have write-ups from a very anti-Russell brand press corps over there that has every interest in making him look as bad as possible. And, boy, they do do their best, don't they? They certainly do their best. they? I was talking to a friend of mine who's been listening to our coverage over in the UK. And this person was saying that they went back and listened to some of that BBC podcast about Russell that we've been citing as we play the clips of the BBC reporter who's been in court each day. And he did point out that on one of the episodes, she refers to all the female complainants who are testifying as very brave. How do you know they're brave? Maybe they're actually political activists. Maybe they are women who have reimagined what happened with Russell Brand because they don't like his politics. Maybe they are like Jane Doe in the Cornell case and they just feel bad about consenting to certain sex acts after knowing him for about two minutes and they wound up feeling dirty and decided to blame the man as opposed to themselves. What is that? Like, stop. It's not an appropriate word. for a BBC objective news reporter. Get it together, right? And what's really crazy, I told you this last week, but we are like one of the only places you can go for actual analysis of this trial. And the reason is in Great Britain, if you agree to go sit in the courtroom every day and listen to the testimonials, you're not allowed to pair it with analysis. All these channels are getting dragged right now because the ones that are sitting in there providing us with what happened, the details of what happened. They've turned off their comments and people think it's because they don't want to get dragged for their coverage. In their defense, they're doing it because the system over there is draconian. If you engage in analysis after you've sat and watched the facts come out and then you've reported on those facts, you're in violation of the court's edict that you may not engage in analysis. This is why we chose not to go over there and cover it. I'll let the others cover it and tell us what happened in there. But my ability to provide analysis on this case is far more important than my ability or the need to have me sit in the court and act as a stenographer for you. I can let other people do that. And then we absolutely will be analyzing every single day. And if the British court doesn't like it, he can pound sand. We fought a whole war so that I don't have to answer to you, sir. It's just absolutely obnoxious saying it that way because our panel last week was suggesting I shouldn't go to London because we've been so free about analyzing what's happening inside that courtroom. Too effing bad. I'm not a Brit. I'm an American and I'm an American journalist. And I can say whatever I want when it comes to legal analysis of a trial over there or here. I don't have to abide by your rules. This is it's insane the way they run things there. Veterans Day is coming up and Birch Gold Group is commemorating it with something I think you're going to appreciate. From now through October 30th, for every $10,000 you purchase from Birch Gold, you will get a free patriotic silver round. And there's no limit on how many you can earn. Birch Gold can help you convert your existing retirement savings into a gold IRA in whole or just in part without spending one dime in taxes or penalties. For current and former military, they will waive fees for the entire first year on purchases of any amount. Birch Gold has earned an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and served tens of thousands of customers, including our listeners and viewers. Just text MK to the number 989898 for a free info kit and to claim eligibility for your free silver on a qualifying purchase before October 30th. That's MK to the number 989898. Do it today. Here's what we know. We didn't get to yesterday the fact that one of the last witnesses for the prosecution was Russell Brand's assistant. He had a former personal assistant take the stand. And I would say she wasn't critical, but she wasn't particularly helpful to Russell. She testified that Russell was insatiable, that he talked about sex all the time, that at one point he asked her whether he could go have sex again. I don't have it in front of me, But that was basically where she went. It wasn't helpful for him, but it wasn't devastating. It was basically just painting a picture about how he behaved. Her name was Helen Berger. We actually have some of it, again, from that BBC podcast, Fame Under Fire, reporting on what she said was her experience working for Russell, Sat 23. So she said, quote, when I would go to Russell Brand's flat, he was always in his underwear as he loved walking around in his underwear with no shirt on. She continued saying, quote, working for Russell Brand was one of the hardest jobs I ever did as he had nonstop energy. I worked a lot and was exhausted emotionally as he was a lot to deal with. She commented on his sexual behavior, saying, quote, he had an insane sexual appetite and was sleeping with people day and night. And she also continued saying, making an observation on how he was after sexual encounters, saying, quote, he never seemed happy after sex, more so depressed. And there was some more included within her statement that was read out loud to the jury about his behavior around sexual encounters and his behavior and relationship with sex more broadly, saying, quote, there were times at his house when we were working on a deadline and he would get antsy and joke with me, saying, quote, may I go and have sex now? She also said that women would often come over and it was clear they were there for sex and that she'd excuse herself and let herself out. But that after a certain point, she became aware that Russell Brand didn't always know these women and that he'd met them primarily through MySpace. As well as recalling some of the alleged sexualized behavior she remembers while working for Russell Brand, she also said, I never witnessed him do anything against the law, nor did anyone disclose anything like that to me. I did see Russell Brand treat women poorly. I'd seen bad behavior before, but this was on another level. But just to reiterate, there was a clear statement from his former personal assistant that she had never seen anything criminal, nor had anyone reported that to her. OK, so there you have it. It's, you know, that's he could have done worse with a personal assistant coming out and speaking about him. It really wasn't that bad. And then things wrapped up and then we got to today. Russell Brand did take the stand. It began around 6 a.m. Eastern time. I think the UK is only four hours ahead of us right now, given the daylight savings. I'm not sure it's four or five, but in any event. So they got started this morning, first thing, and I'm going to go through it with you. Okay, so here, I'm going to start with the direct questioning. His lawyer, Ian Winter, who has been doing the cross-examinations of the complainants, was his interlocutor who walked him through his testimony before this jury that has heard so much about him as he has sat there for three weeks hearing these women through tears and, you know, emotional testimony tell absolutely terrible stories about him. So I'm sure the jury was looking forward to hearing from him directly with great anticipation, not to mention he's a big star now. there's always that added element of it. The UK Times reported he showed up in a dark suit with his usual team of supporters, including his wife, his manager, and his father was there today, took his seat in the dock quietly, adopted the bolt upright position that he has mostly stayed in throughout the course of the proceedings. His hands were placed on his lap. First, the jury was read four pre-prepared statements that Brand gave to police between November 2023 and July 2025 after these charges were brought. On all four occasions, he denied ever having non-consensual sexual activity. His first statement read, quote, as I have repeatedly stated publicly and written about extensively, I led a very promiscuous life in the past, which I have spent years openly denouncing. On 16 September 2023, this is Russell in his written statement, or a pre-prepared statement, I guess I should say, a defamatory and fictitious documentary was broadcast and conducted by the UK Times. The jury was read four pre-prepared statements that Brand in conjunction with the publication of two national newspapers containing false anonymized allegations, which led to unprecedented media reporting. He went on to say that the media and the police, quote, publicly invited additional allegations to be made, quote, which has resulted in further encounters to be invented or reimagined. Again, he is blaming that so-called documentary. We went through it yesterday. They used actors to portray anonymized, quote, victims. The actor put the alleged victims' complaints into the oral spoken form and then were filmed as though they were the actual women with a very small disclaimer on the screen to show the audience that they were actors. But I'm telling you, that matters. An actor can portray a woman's story sometimes better than the actual woman. Let's say the woman is a liar or has something to hide. The actor would have none of that holding her testimonial back. The actor would have none of that holding her back. The actor would portray a woman's rape story probably empathetically and persuasively and wouldn't be telegraphing any of the doubts, fears that come with lying or exaggerating, fears of a backstory emerging, et cetera, that the actual woman might project. Body language is how the vast majority of our communication takes place. This is all manipulative. And as the women spoke, they ran this scary music track under their testimonials. This was dropped on when he was beloved by the left, which he was for many years, but once he had migrated toward conservative politics, as so many people do as they get older. That's when they decided to take down Russell Brandt. He was huge in the UK. And when that documentary hit, again, in air quotes, there was a push by the woman in the British government to have him deplatformed. YouTube did it. So this is the situation he was in. This is, of course, why he says the media and the police. And there was, testimony that this one journalist in particular was shepherding these other women to the police. Not one of the women in the documentary wound up participating in the criminal charges against him. These are other women facilitated in part by this one journalist. So yeah, he said that he believes the media and the police publicly invited additional allegations to be made, which has resulted in further encounters, he says, to be invented or reimagined. I think reimagined is a It happens where women have consensual encounters with men that they feel dirty about after the fact. And they, quote, reimagine it into something non-consensual, which conveniently totally exonerates them and their virtue while demonizing the man. And who cares if you can't stand him, if he's politically controversial, if you think he must be a bad man anyway, if you since have learned he was incredibly promiscuous and kind of a dirtbag toward women in the way that, you know, as soon as he's a man, he's a man. He was done with them. He'd shepherd them out the door. You're you could be angry and reimagine. It's basically his defense, all consensual, reimagined or simply invented. He testified about his exploding fame after marrying Katy Perry. We talked about that, too, when he was here on this set. He said he achieved staggering fame after marrying her in October of 2010. He agreed with the defense lawyer that he was very famous by 29, 2009. But the defense lawyer that he was very famous by 29, 2009. And he said he was very famous by 29, 2009. And he talked about that when he was here on the show about how Katy Perry was determined to become the biggest pop star in the world. And that she did it, you know, for a time she was. And he was her spouse at the time. And while he had achieved some fame on his own prior to that, it was nothing like what happened when he married her. I mean, I will say my own life, I have noticed there is a rock star stardom, which truly is. There's a reason they say, like, he's a rock star. It's next level, next level. Like, it is sort of Beatlemania level for some of these singers. And it can be life changing for sure. He told the court what we heard in that soundbite that we played on our show, which was that around the time of that so-called documentary, his baby son had to open heart surgery. And it was a very stressful time. And then he testified that the hospital refused to let him stay with his son, quote, due to the materials published, which is just shocking. He said his entire life has been consumed by these allegations. Okay. He talked about the accusations in the documentary, saying they took a massive personal toll on him. He was asked by his father, Ian White, were you able to persuade a single person with relevant evidence to come and give evidence on your behalf? Brand said, I have not. Winter said, would they touch you with a barge pole? Brand said, no. He later told the court he did not consider it to be a documentary. I call it a TV show, he said. But he was trying to say that he had struggled to find anyone to help him recreate these events, come forward to say, you know, it's not true, etc. Because that Channel 4 dispatches piece was, quote, devastating. And it was clearly meant to be, clearly meant to be. Regarding now remembering certain details, because it has emerged that, as I told you a minute ago, his initial statement to police denied any non-consensual activity, said this is all the fault of this defamatory and fictitious documentary, and believes he was set up by that. But it did not take on the one by one with details or with an independent memory. And yet today, as you'll hear in a minute, he did have an independent memory of these women. And he needed, through his defense lawyer, to set up how that happened. He claimed that he was unable to remember any of the six complainants before, you know, when he was, when he gave his written statements. However, he said today, he did remember some of the details. In relation to the alleged encounters, Ian Winter asked what changed. Brand replied that there had been a variety of new information regarding each of the complainants, including video interviews that they had given, visits, or one particular specific visit to a location of an alleged event. So he's saying that he's been listening to them, seeing them, hearing them recount the stories directly, and going to some of the places they allege they happened has rejiggered his memory, which actually could happen. Certainly seeing the women testify about it. I mean, I think that would probably bring it back for you. I don't have the greatest memory for events that have happened a long time ago, but I think seeing the person testify. I swear, I have the Brad Pitt disease, facial blindness, where if I don't meet somebody five times in person, I don't remember them. And it's, people think maybe it's because I'm well-known. That's not it at all. No, no, no. I've had this since my lawyering days. If I don't meet you like in person, lay eyes on you and watch and listen to you, I don't remember you unless I've met you multiple times. It's very embarrassing sometimes because people are like, what do you mean? I've been on your show. Now, if they're sitting across from me on the show for two hours here in the studio, I would remember, but like via satellite for a quick hit on the Kelly file. And then all these years later, I'm like, no, I got nothing. Sorry. Um, so I can relate to people who have that problem. In any event, he says he was, his memory was restored by seeing some of them. Um, his lawyer, began by going through each of the allegations in the indictment and asking him if he committed the offenses. He replied no to each one. Okay. Complainant one, she's the one who alleges a vaginal rape. I'm going to short form this for those of you who've been following our coverage. For those of you who haven't, please listen to our podcast last week with the lawyer panel. I think it was Thursday. We took a deep dive Wednesday or Thursday. Then again, yesterday we updated the story Thursday, but quick form, um, three complainants, alleged actual rape, one complainant, three oral complainant, five anal. The other three alleged some sort of, I mean, alleged fondling, really not really. Complainant two alleges he grabbed her arm, tried to pull her into a bathroom stall, but she got away. And that's been reduced from sexual assault or indecent assault to attempted indecent assault. It's a joke. This one should not be in here. Then there is a complainant who alleges he, I think fondled her against her will. And then there's one who alleges at work together in the same building. She was told to give him by somebody else, a massage on his shoulder. She did some of that. And that when he entered the room, he put his face down in her genital area. She was clothed, but like he was too close for comfort. So, I mean, let's just focus where the real thing is, which is the three alleged rape counts. That's complainant one, three, and five. One, she alleges that they went to a political event. It was a labor party, British conference. That's a leftist party. And that this is back in 1999. His politics were leftist. He was a kid. He was like 23, 24. I mean, he was an adult, but I'm just saying versus where he is now, 51. And they were hitting it off. He wasn't famous. She was several years older than he was. And he said, let's go to a pub and continue our conversation. She said, no, come back to my hotel room. It was after midnight. We talked about it yesterday. Not a good move if you don't want to have sex with a man who you've just met. Don't take him back to your hotel room after midnight. That's a bad idea. And let me tell you why it's relevant. It's not that you waive your right not to be raped if you make that stupid choice. It's that for this charge and for the others, whether Russell Brand reasonably believed that he had consent is relevant. Like if his defense can prove that he had consent, he believed he had her consent. All of that's going to factor in. She invited me back to her hotel room after midnight. I was the one who suggested we go to a public place to consider our chat. She said, no, come alone with me, stranger. Back to my hotel room. She's the older, more sophisticated one. He did. He pointed out that he asked her, and she pointed this out too, to take his photograph, which she did. That picture was introduced as evidence in trial. He had his shirt off and his pants on. She had just come out of the bathroom, she says, when she noticed he had taken his shirt off. His point is basically what rapist asks his victim to take photos of him in the apartment? Just so we can be super sure there's a record of my presence here, half naked. They had sex on the bed. She says it was rape. He says it was consensual. And then he gave her his email and said he wanted her to meet his mother and left. And that was that. Now she claims he foisted her pants down. She still had her shoes and socks on, still had her pants around her ankles when he had sex with her against her will. And she says she made that clear. He says, absolutely not. Okay, so here is Ian Winter asking Brand about it. She also told the jury she thought Brand was gay. That's her excuse for inviting him back to her hotel room after midnight. I thought he was gay. I felt sexually safe with him. Brand told the court she invited him to her hotel room. He thought at the bare minimum, it's better than sleeping in shared accommodation with his team at the time, which I guess was his other option. He testified that he went to her hotel when he was 24 and hoped and thought there was a reasonable possibility of sex. They did have sex, he said, adding he would have asked questions throughout the ordeal, such as, and there was a lot of that kind of testimony from Russell today. I would have said, I would have approached it like this, which clearly is a substitute for an actual memory. It's one testifying to one's general approach, how one would do it. And I mean, I think any of us could do that. You know, if you think back on your own encounters in your life, in the, in that department, you could probably characterize your general approach to a sexual encounter and what you would have done. And I think that's a great way to put it. I think that's a great way to put it. And it is being allowed by the court. He was asked if he got consent from complainant one when he had sex with her. Brand told the court, quote, consent is fundamental, essential, necessary, and indeed in many ways more important than sex itself. That is classic Russell Brand. He likes to, to string multiple adjectives together to make his point. He's, and he's very articulate. Consent is fundamental, essential, necessary, and indeed in many ways more important than sex itself. I gave it a shot. Brand said there was no question in my mind that I got consent from this woman because of the talking and the intimacy. He described complainant one as vivacious, vital, loquacious, and unusual. There he goes again. But those are good adjectives. That makes you believe he did know her. He does remember her. Vivacious, vital, loquacious, and unusual. I mean, loquacious would be, I suppose you could glean that from her testimonial on the videotape, but in any event, or in court. Said he remembered the pair fooling around, flirting, and messing around in her room. Said there was kissing on the body and sex with a condom. Said he did not force her to take photographs of him topless. I don't know how you'd make someone take photographs, he said. Did you make her take photographs? Asked his lawyer, no. Brand said he remembered using a condom because that was the way that people had sex in 1999. That was the cultural programming. Brand said he had hoped the woman would remain in contact with him after he gave her his email address. The defense asked, did you give her that email address? Brand said yes. Why? So we could remain in contact. Were you seeking to hide from her or run away from her? Brand said no. That is relevant. I'm trying to remember, to be honest with you. I can't remember. There was testimony from one witness, a male member of Russell's team, after one of these encounters where he said Russell seemed to want to get out of the town that next morning. I cannot remember whether it was with complainant one. But if it was, that's what they're going for here. Were you seeking to hide or run away from her? No. Did you hope she might get in touch? Yes. He added that he has no memory of whether or not she did get in touch after the fact. We have some of that in Saw 5. The guy's name is Mark. Let's watch it. The journey to where they were going to be performing at the Fringe event that Russell Brand was bragging in the car about how he wants to sleep with 5,000 women and how he's really good at waking up women on nights out. He said he spent a lot of his time in the car talking about women. That after they'd done their performances and just after their last show, that Russell Brand disappeared. Mark Panero says we didn't know where he went until he came back the next morning, rushing us out of the accommodation where we were staying, taking our coats off the hooks and throwing them at us and saying we have to leave. Now, Mark Panero said that after this, Russell Brand became homeless for a period of time and actually moved in with him. And it was during that time that they lived together that he asked him about what happened in Bournemouth after that cabaret event. And Russell Brand admitted he didn't leave because he had forgotten about an audition, that he did have sex with a woman while he was there. And things may have got, quote, a little bit heated and a little bit out of hand. OK, so she was talking about the cabaret. I'm not exactly sure. I'm pretty sure this was in response to Complainant 1. So I'll have to tie this together with my team. But my team is telling me this was a friend testifying about Complainant 1. In any event. Russell saying he did not seek to run away from her and that it was entirely consensual. Now, I'm just going to jump, you know, the way this went in court was direct exam with Russell. They went through all the complainants and then the prosecutor got up and did a cross for I think it's more edifying if I switch right now back and forth between defense and prosecution per complainant. This is how the cross sounded on Complainant 1. And I'll get back to the general cross also seemed to try to set up Russell as a derelict. As you heard of that goal of sleeping with 5000 women, he was asked about that. He did not. He said that was not a goal. He doesn't recall that conversation. He doesn't agree. They tried to get him to speak to consent generally, and he said it was important, etc. They tried to say that wasn't always your attitude. Not between 1999 and 2009. Russell said it was consent is absolutely non-negotiable. They set the business up about you blame Channel 4. Don't you? Yes. You blame the media. Yes. They're trying to this is setting up their closing where they're going to say he blames everybody but himself. They got him to admit that he was obsessed with sex in his younger years, which he gave up pretty easily. And then they started to get to the the specifics. By the way, the prosecution also asked him if he was pretending in those earlier statements with the police. Not to remember his alleged sexual encounters with the complainants when he was first interviewed. And the prosecutor suggested that this was a pattern with Russell Brand consistently failing to recall the incidents until evidence was shown to him, including photos of the of sometimes inside his home. You couldn't pretend you couldn't remember because you saw the evidence was there, said the prosecution. I disagree, said Russell. She pressed him on why he didn't hand over his phone to the police when he was first asked to. He said, I didn't understand. I didn't understand. I was required. I'd happily comply with any requests for info and so on. Then they got into some stuff about complainant five. OK, but oh, here's one thing on complainant number one. The prosecutor asked him. About suggested that he was pretending to be gay, suggesting that he did this sometimes to gain the trust of women, in particular, the woman he's accused of raping in a hotel room in 1999, complainant one. And recall, she had testified, I thought he was gay. He was sexually safe to me. Then the jury was shown a short extract from Brand's book, which was called My Bookie Wook. published in 2007, in which he wrote a caption next to a young picture of himself. The caption reads, this is the exact moment when I decided to act gay to attract girls. It took 15 years to produce results. The prosecutor said, that's something you would do, wasn't it? That was something you would do to make girls trust you. Brand replied, no. That's not a good moment for Russell Brand. No question. That's a point for the prosecution. The first complainant said, that's what he did. That's why she trusted him. Brand wrote that he had decided he would do that exact thing in his own book. And then when confronted with it by the prosecution, he denied the plan he outlined in his book. So you got to score one for the prosecution on that. Complainant one, she asked Brand whether he could remember prancing around the hotel room after meeting her at that labor party conference. And he said he could not remember. Um, the prosecutor said she was shocked when she came out of the bathroom saying you were prancing around. Brand said, I don't remember that. He said it was possible that he jumped on the bed like an ostrich. When accused by the prosecutor of manipulating his story to fit around the woman's evidence, Brand replied, I'm really doing my best to answer the questions as put to me. The prosecution, there was a brief break, but she went on. She had said that there was no kindness, no sweetness, in this encounter with complainant one. Brand denied that he knew her, that he knew the woman in the hotel room, uh, was shocked and scared when he started to take off his clothes. Talking about the encounter, he told the court, quote, as best as I can remember, there would be kissing for initiation. I presume again, those catch words that seem to telegraph. This is my general approach as opposed to my specific memory here, quote, mouth to mouth, kissing, moving slowly towards someone playing. He denied not caring whether the woman wanted to have sex with him. Uh, Riel Carmi Jones, that's the name of the prosecutor, asked, you pushed her on the bed against her will, didn't you, Mr. Brand? No, he said. You just didn't care whether she was interested in having sex with you or not, did you? You didn't care, did you? Yes, I cared very much. Brand said he was looking for, quote, more than consent from the woman, adding he was seeking her approval. He told the jury he was asking questions such as, do you like this? Carmi Jones asked him, are you quite sure, Mr. Brand? He replied, approval in its broadest sense. Carmi Jones asked Brand, are you making this up as you stand here, Mr. Brand? He said, seeking her approval and no. So you get the effect. This is rather dramatic. Um, a squaring off of the person who has been the lead prosecutor pushing, putting, wanting to put him behind bars potentially for the rest of his life. Matt Murphy told us last Thursday, the penalty for rape in the U.S. is $1,000. That's a lot of money. The penalty for rape in the U.K. is life. Up to. It could be less than. This is scary. Against a very large star who has both cultural and political power and has admitted that he was incredibly, like, devastatingly promiscuous in his younger years, something that he says he's really atoned for since then and had to wrestle with, but never proceeded without consent, which we have witnessed testimony was not true. A prosecutor who clearly believes it's not true. On to complainant two. This is the joke of the woman claiming he grabbed my arm. Why is, how dare they fold her in to the other women's case? But here we go. Brand's lawyer asked him about this, in which it was alleged she tried to drag a female worker into a toilet in 2001. I mean, the testimony was he grabbed her arm. He tried to pull her into this stall. She rested away from him, and that was the end of it. The testimony was also that she wasn't spending all those years thinking he tried to rape her. She thought he was going for a consensual sex act in there. It didn't work out. Like, only after she saw the documentary did it turn into he tried to rape me. Winter asked whether Brand intended any non-consensual assault, sexual or otherwise. Of course not, he said. Brand said he did not have any recollection of taking woman two by the arm. If you did, were you trying to force her to engage in non-consensual activity? No, said Brand. The prosecutor, in cross-examination, on number two, asked about this. She said to Brand, asked him if he quite enjoyed having sex in toilets at the time. He admitted, yes. Carmi Jones asked, sex in toilets happened a lot, didn't it? He answered, yes. Carmi Jones asked if he remembered there being a struggle when he grabbed the woman's arm. He said he did not recall. So that's not great for Russell because we do have a woman who says she does recall. Complainant two says she remembers the whole thing and she testified to it in detail. And, you know, that's that's not great for him because they're going to be left with complainant two's direct testimony, which is reiterated here in SOT6 by the BBC podcast. Watch. Listen. Complainant number two said, I like your t-shirt. I want one. To which he responded, you can have it. And they told the jury that they said you've got to give it a good wash first or words to that effect. They then said that Russell Brand asked them where the toilet was in the office and they were happy to show him where it was. They walked him down the corridor, but then quote, his demeanor changed. He grabbed my forearm and was trying to pull me into the bathroom. Complainant two said that he was pleading with her, saying, come on, come on, trying to drag her into the bathroom. When questioned by prosecutors, how hard was Russell Brand pulling you? Complainant two said it was hard. It wasn't a gentle pull, but I'm a strong, sporty woman. I'm stronger than the average woman. I was trying to pull her. I was quote, wrench myself back into the corridor. The prosecution asked complainant two, how were you responding to Mr. Brand when he was saying, come on, come on, and trying to pull you into the bathroom and complainant two told the jury that they said, quote, what are you doing? Are you mad? Let me go. They also said repeatedly that they were trying to wrench themselves free from his grip and that he looked like a wild eyed maniac. So unfortunately for Russell, that's the detailed testimony on the other side. And then there's him saying he doesn't remember, but doesn't sound like it's a attempted, um, attempted indecent assault. So the penalties for that would be far less than what we're dealing with on the others. Let's get to complainant three. She is the one who alleged that she, um, she met her at a party in a bar in 2004. She says after a minute of conversation, he suddenly groped her breasts and then quote, dragged her into a bathroom stall, locked the door, toilet seat, and forced her to give him oral sex. Brand testified that he had recently visited that bathroom to jog his memory of the event. We've seen a picture of the bathroom, uh, a photo of it. So we all can see it now. And he said, seeing that bathroom jogged his memory of the event, he told the court that he was told quote, this bird here really wants to meet you mate. Yeah. When he got to the party in Soho. Sorry. It's just funny. And I'm also laughing at my inanity when it comes to trying to do a British accent. The comedian described woman three as being life pixie ish and energetic. Brand said that it was typical for women at that time to show visible evident enthusiasm, which was palpable when they met him. He said that he had invited the woman into the laboratory to fool around and had never grabbed any woman's breasts without her consent, because that was a bad idea. Quote, if your intention is to charge, harm and seduce again, more generalized language, here's the exterior of the bathrooms available at that pub where they had the party in 2004. So him saying, I wouldn't just grab some woman's boobs at the bar, though. I would suggest we go into a lab and get it on. And at this point he was famous and was having success with that act. When asked by his lawyer, winter, whether the woman was happy to do so, he said, yes. Winter asked brand, whether the there was any question about whether he grabbed the woman's breast shortly after meeting her. Brand said, absolutely not. That is not the way I would have behaved. It's obviously criminal, but it's obviously vulgar. But again, this is generalized language. He's saying, I wouldn't have, you know, I wouldn't have. It's not exactly the same as I didn't, which he may also have said, we're going off of other people's reporting here, but it's just a notation that I see throughout the the write-ups of his testimony. No, I mean, look, this is the problem in allowing these women to come forward all these years later, 20 plus years later. I mean, would you have a detailed recollection of whether, like, I think the best you could say in a lot of this is, hell no, that I wouldn't do that. I don't, if you ask me, have you ever grabbed a man's crotch in a bar? I would say, no, I've never done that. No. And then I might add, I wouldn't do that. Like I, it's not my MO. If I like a guy in a bar when I was younger, um, I don't know. I think Russell's got a difficult challenge here since he's had sex with so many women and probably short of sex encounters with so many women. Maybe in some of these instances, he's relegated to talking about his general practice. That's not the way I would have behaved. Obviously criminal and obviously vulgar. He said, although it was possible, here we go, that he took his penis out of his pants during that encounter in the bathroom, the pair did not have oral sex. And keep in mind, this woman herself has been saying for years, they did not have oral sex. What she said. was that he tried. He wanted her to perform oral sex on him, but it didn't happen. It wasn't until the Channel 4 documentary that she changed her story. And by the way, Complainant 1, 2, same thing. For 23 years, Complainant 1 has been telling a very different story. She didn't say a syllable about it for 23 years, except good things. And then comes, she sees the documentary and now suddenly she's been raped by him. This is such a difficult situation for any man. So Russell says, it is possible he took out his penis during that encounter, but they did not have oral sex. The best I can recollect, there was kissing, touching, fondling. It's possible I would have taken my penis out of my trousers, he said, but because people were banging on the door, the environment was unsuitable for him. To quote, get off, by which he meant achieving an orgasm. That was the testimony he gave on Complainant 3. Here was, in part, the cross by the prosecutor. Riel Carmi Jones asked Brand about this woman. When she put it to him that he groped her and then dragged her into the toilet, he denied it. What were you inviting her to the toilet for, asked Carmi Jones, for fooling around. Brand admitted. Carmi Jones asked if he recalled telling the victim, oil sport, come on, when she protested. Brand said, I don't remember. All you were concerned about was getting yourself off, said the prosecutor. The trial has previously heard from Woman 3, who told the court she had been drinking six or seven vodkas before meeting Brand. The prosecutor suggested it was obvious that she'd been drinking. Brand said, yeah, I suppose so. I mean, this is good. That actually helps Russell's credibility with this jury. Asked if that made her more vulnerable, Brand responded, I agree alcohol makes people less effective. When the judge, Mr. Justice Benathan, or I don't know how you pronounce his last name, interjected to ask him to clarify, Brand said, effective human beings. It is a deleterious substance. The prosecutor asked, what were you inviting her into the toilet for? For fooling around, making out, he said. Asked why he did not fool around in the bar. Instead, Brand said, because it's better to do these things in private. In the toilet, Carmi Jones continued, Brand said private was the best word to describe his reason for going there. Brand was asked about using bathroom stalls for encounters. He said going in and out of bathrooms did not attract a great deal of attention during the time of the alleged offenses. When asked by Carmi Jones if his behavior was normalized by his peers, he said in the media in the early 2000s, people going in and out of bathrooms did not attract a great deal of attention, maybe an eye roll or an eyebrow raise. Okay. Complainant four, four. Complainant four, here is some, this is for the BBC, describing what this woman alleges in her testimony, her direct testimony, which happened, you know, last week, 13. They were inside a small room and came out into a smaller holding section when, quote, he just leapt on me. They described how Russell Brand lunged forwards and began to kiss them. They said, quote, it was a flash of light. They said he wasn't alone. There was a woman with long, dark hair with him and three other men. When they were asked to describe the kiss, they said it was frenzied. It was hard. It was very, very hard. I would say it was sloppy and it was wet. He was kissing all down my neck and his hands were all over me. He touched my bum, my breasts, my waist. He was pushing his body against me and I was up against the wall. Again, they clarified it was rough and then said, quote, it was violent. At one point, they said they managed to put their hand up between them and Russell Brand and push him off and tell him to fuck off. At which point he lunged backwards and in a laughing way, went ha ha and looked at the other people who were around. Complaintant number four told the jury that not one of the other people, the women or the three men that they said were there, stepped in or said anything during the time they alleged they were assaulted by Russell Brand. So this allegedly happened at a radio station many, many moons ago, back in 2004 or 2005, when the woman was in her 20s. Let me give you a feel for how she was cross-examined. Described by the BBC and SOT 14. But the defense was offering, how do you even know it was Russell Brand? You didn't check with anybody who is it. You didn't say to somebody, this has just happened to me who can corroborate your account. And complaint number four said, I knew who it was because I watched him on Big Brother. They said, I watched him. I knew who it was immediately when it happened. I'm absolutely sure that it was Russell Brand. The defense continued saying, in one statement, you said that there were three men there and one woman. In another statement, you said there were four men there and one woman. And complaint number four said, I can't exactly tell you who it was. I can't exactly tell you who it was. I can't exactly tell you what I gave the account saying there were four men there. I remember there being three men and one woman. And the defense said, well, then that's corroborating witnesses. That's people who would have come forward and backed up what you had to say. In fact, wasn't one of them a member of staff at the place where you worked? And this is where complaint number four really did get quite emotional. They were crying and having difficulty catching their breath, saying, this man was mauling me and no one did anything. I looked at the woman. I was pleading with her, hoping she'd step in, but she didn't. And the defense is using the fact that there were witnesses, none of whom intervened in this public encounter, to make the point that how bad could this have been? You really want us to believe that you were in the midst of a sexual assault and you had all these eyewitnesses and nobody fluttered an eyelid? That's not plausible. And the witness got upset, saying, it is plausible. It did happen. And the fact that they didn't intervene upset me. Here is the defense questioning Brand about woman four. Okay. He asked the defendant, in your view, jumping on a woman and sloppily kissing her, does that turn you on sexually? No, replied Brand. The defense asked, is that likely to lead to any sexual intercourse with a woman? No, said Brand. Winter then asked, did you do what she said you did? To which Brand replied, no. The cross-examination by the prosecution on that went as follows. These are just highlights. I'm not giving you the whole thing because we haven't, this all just happened hours ago. So we're doing our best to pull together. How it went for you. Reserve my right to update these descriptions as the week goes on and we get a better handle. Carmi Jones asked him, you don't remember complainant four at all? Brand said he did not. The prosecutor added, are you being selective with your memory? Brand said he was doing his best to cooperate, to try to remember what happened in the period being discussed. Carmi Jones said, it wouldn't have troubled you to engage with a woman in the workplace, to engage in sexual activity. Brand replied, in private. So he's admitting he would have, but. Contesting this woman's allegation, which was that it was in public. Okay. Moving on to complainant five. And this is the most disturbing case out of all of them because it is very graphic and the details are very X-rated and have had me saying words on the air. I never thought I would. Um, like yesterday, complainant five. This is a complex one. Agreed. She was obsessed with Russell Brand. She idolized him. She had the hots for him. She went to see him perform at a show and went backstage immediately after, got called back and went with another woman. And immediately a threesome began. She, the first thing she did was engage in a sex act on Russell Brand. And here is, here is, okay. Okay. So then, well, let me go sequentially. That's how they met. She performed a sex act on him backstage. Another friend gave him a blow job and she was in the back door doing things back there. Um, the next time they got together, she came over to Russell Brand's house by his invitation and she showed up and she knew that they'd be having sex. And she agrees. She willingly had vaginal sex with him. She says he then flipped her over and forced anal sex on her and took off his condom and then treated her badly when it was over, like scolded her for the mess that was on the bed and kind of walked out. He, he denies this. He says she's the one who introduced any backdoor action given what she did at that backstage encounter they had within 10 seconds of knowing him. And that then there was more discussion about, um, anal sex prior to the moment that they did it, that they'd been teasing each other about it, that she said she was curious about it and so on. And that when they actually did it, it was totally consensual. Like he did not do that against her will. They had been teasing and titillating and building up to it. And there was a reason he did that with her. Um, so here is how that went. His lawyer asked him about complainant he told the court he had a striking and memorable sexual encounter with that woman in his dressing room before the alleged incident in which he claims she was raped. He testified that complainant performed oral sex on his anus straight away without any introduction. That's a quote. I mean, think about what we're talking about. What we're dealing with here. He said the complainant performed oral activity on the backside of me. He added, nobody has ever done that to me straight away without any introduction. He said it was very striking and memorable, even for someone with my experience. He said he found it extremely exciting. I'm not done. We got to do the rest of the complainant five and we'll do that right after this break. Okay. And then after we're done, we'll bring in Mark Halprin. What a day. Hope you're buckled in. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal meth? to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger. This is where Burna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammo and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Burna 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 as 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. Their pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the Compact Launcher being sourced in the United States. Burna is legal in all 50 states, but get this, it requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. And Burna is trusted by hundreds of police departments, too. Try before you buy. Visit Burna.com to find a Burna dealer partner near you. That's B-Y-R-N-A dot com. We were in the midst of discussing complainant number five and her allegations that she went to Russell Brand's house after having had an interlude with him backstage and that while she intended to have sex with him, she did not intend to have anal sex with him. And that he allegedly forced it on her, something he denies. This is Russell now speaking to his lawyer, Ian Winter. When last we left off, he had testified that within 10 seconds of meeting this woman, she was performing a sex act on his backside, backstage at one of his events. And then he invited her to come over another separate time. He said, and they exchanged numbers, asked what he meant. Oh, okay. So here's what you need to know. Apparently he saved her number in his phone with a T next to it, as well as an AP. He had both the letter T and then separately the letters AP. And he also put an asterisk next to it, which he told the court, meant never forget this individual. This is a memorable encounter. Brand said that he was interested in kinky sex and told the court that woman five later agreed to go to his house. The Guardian reports that he had saved the initials AP and he told the court that that meant anal play. The UK Times reports that Brand explained the T by telling the court it denotes the word tart. Followed by her name. Brand told jurors that he was enthusiastic about meeting her again. He told the court he invited her to his flat where they had consensual sex. When asked by Winter, his lawyer, whether he had used a condom, Brand said he did. Recall complainant five claims that he was not, he did not while he was performing the objectionable act. He said he generally used condoms in first sexual encounters, particularly and especially if the partner wants that. Winter asked him, asked Brand whether they moved on to anal sex. Brand told the court that they did and that the woman said it was her first time. Winter asked Brand whether the woman expressed any reluctance to which Brand replied coyness one might say. Winter continued, did you say anything about seeking to persuade her? Brand replied that he did telling the court he said, quote, something along the lines of you'll love it. Brand told the court that the woman consented to continuing sex without a condom. So he is admitted. Brand said the woman had not said no or told him to stop as they were having sex. She testified that she did so repeatedly. And once she came forward with this allegation, which was again after the documentary and not before, she told everybody she talked to about it that she had said no. But that again was only a recent story brought forth by the documentary. But since she started telling the story, she has been saying that she said no during the middle of that act. He is denied. He is denying that. Did she tell you to stop or that she didn't want to proceed in that way? Asked Ian Winter. Brand replied, no. Did you know that she had been in some pain following the incident? I did not. Now the prosecution gets up and asks him, okay, oh, because Brand had testified it was a marvelous night when he had this threesome with complainant number five and another woman backstage at Hammersmith Apollo in 2009. That was the first encounter. By the way, we did go back. The male who testified that Brand wanted to get out of Dodge the next morning quickly, that was indeed in response to complainant one, the woman who invited him back to her hotel room after midnight. He did testify that it was after that interlude, which was a cabaret performed by this man and by Russell on the night of a labor party. So the cabaret was what was throwing me off, but I guess it was a combined event where labor had some event and then these guys performed. So in any event, there you have it. It was after complainant one that a man testified he, Russell, the next day seemed to want to get at a Dodge, which is why Russell's lawyer was pressing like, you gave her your email. You said you wanted her to meet your mom. Were you in any hurry to leave? No, no, I wasn't. Okay, so back to complainant five. Brand had said it was a marvelous night when he had that threesome. One of the women accused him, okay, the anal rape, yes. Carmi Jones put it to Russell Brand that this was an example of Brand never leaving without a conquest because the woman had refused to have full sex with him backstage. Brand replied, that actually went down as quite a marvelous night by the criteria of the time. I mean, you've got one strange woman in the front, one strange woman in the back. I'm not sure any man would be demanding a whole hell of a lot more in the field of sexual encounters for the evening. Brand denied that he was cruel when he allegedly asked woman five to brush her teeth before having sex with her. Do you remember? If you recall this, witness five, complainant five, claimed that when she got there to his house, she wanted him to take a shower, or he wanted her to take a shower. He wanted her to brush her teeth. She didn't like that. She felt like this was somehow demeaning to her and she didn't know what he was implying. So the prosecution brought it up. Was it cruel when you told her to brush her teeth? Russell responds, and by the way, this first line is entirely true. Quote, I completely agree with that. It's like, I've told you this before, but when I was going through my separation from my first husband, I was using my therapist. I love this lady. She was so wonderful, my lady Amy. And she was like, well, have you told him, you know, that you think this thing or that you think that thing at the time? And I was like, that's mean. Like, I'm not going to say that to him. That's mean. And she said, meanness is saying something with the intention to hurt the other person. Saying something that the person might not like to hear, but that is true, and you're saying it for a purpose other than to hurt, that's not meanness. That's honest communication that could actually advance your relationship and your connection. And so I mean, like, no one had ever framed it to me like that before. And it was actually really true. And so, you know, it's like, meanness is when you're trying to hurt. If you just have commentary, whether it's to a partner, a friend, you know, a coworker, or you and me sitting here while I do this show, that's unflattering or like not complimentary. It's not mean if it's true and it's intended for the purpose of whatever, advancing your relationship with the person, making the person perform better, doing social commentary, what have you. This is actually a very true statement. Cruel means deliberate malicious intention to harm. And then he goes on to say, I agree that it was not kind, he told the court, addressing his alleged request for her to brush her teeth. Riel Carmi Jones, the prosecutor, suggested asking her to brush her teeth was a ploy to put her in a place of subservience. Okay, I don't, why is she going here? Like, what is this? I would think that the anal rape would be the highlight and not the teeth brushing. Brand said that, alleged, Brand said that if he did ask someone to brush their teeth, it would have simply been for them to, quote, refresh their breath. The whole action was rough and violent and just about your pleasure, wasn't it? Asked the prosecutor, Brand. It potentially was about my pleasure, but it was not rough or violent. Denied that complainant five was, quote, begging him to stop. Acknowledged that he took off a condom during sex, but said, the woman had agreed to it. I mean, that's helpful to his credibility because he didn't have to admit to that. It's, you know, her word versus his. It's a he said, she said, but he's giving her that point that he did take it off. The prosecutor asked Brand why he did not reach out to woman five when she told him that he had treated her. Oh, because after the fact, they had a text exchange in which he said he wanted to see her because he wanted to do more to her. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something like, I want to push you further. And she said, you pushed me plenty far enough you treated me like an animal. And she said that he then replied, sorry, no one has seen that text exchange. It comes from the woman's memory only. So now he's getting asked about it saying, why didn't you reach out to woman five when she texted you that you had treated her like an animal? Brand said he would now, but did not at the time. He said he apologized in a text. So he's admitting that, adding, if someone is upset and feels they have been treated badly, I do and would apologize. So again, it's not actually an admission that he did that exact one. It's that that would be my general practice. When asked if the woman was, quote, just another conquest in his goal to sleep with 5,000 women, which Brand had denied saying, but a friend testified he had said that, Brand replied, I really don't know the number, but it's difficult to dispute that that is how I conducted myself in the pursuit of willing. Sexual partners. Then there was last but not least a complainant six. This involved a woman who said she met Brand while working on a project for channel four in 2009. This is the woman who said she was told to give him a massage by somebody else on his shoulders and that he put his head around her groin area. And she didn't much appreciate that. And this is how his lawyer questioned him. Let's see. Winter said, are you guilty or innocent of these allegations? And Brand said, I'm innocent. And there's nothing that I have in front of me that speaks to how the prosecution crossed him. That was the direct exam question by his lawyer. Are you guilty or innocent? I'm innocent. And it looks like either they're there was no cross on this specific witness or it just didn't make the press yet, or it didn't make its way in front of me. So I don't have any other information to you. So there is one other detail that you should know about complainant five, the one with the backdoor complaint. Russell testified today that after their alleged encounter, they, he believes they sat and watched TV together, which is diametrically opposed from her testimony that he got up. He said, he was like, look what you did because there was a mess all over the bed, ordered her to clean it up and left his testimony was no, they actually hung out and may have watched TV together, which is not exactly the behavior of someone who has just committed a rape. Um, so it'll be up to the jury to decide whose version they, they believe, uh, court has, ended for the day and will resume tomorrow as the defense will continue its case. It looks like Russell's testimony is done. Um, we believe perhaps I'm wrong and they'll pick up with a bit, a bit more redirect or overnight. They'll think of another thing they needed to raise on cross, but we believe his testimony is done and that the defense will continue with its case. And this case will probably go to the jury rather, rather soon, as opposed to being an eight to nine week trial. As the prosecution had initially said, oh, my team, finding just a bit more on complainant six and what happened. Um, okay. Let's see. Upon cross-examination by the prosecution, let's see. Brand agreed his behavior that day. Oh, because they were at channel four and they were doing like a taping and he was reportedly refusing to do anything unless he got his massage. So somebody told this woman who worked there to give him the massage and he allegedly put his head near her groin and like sniffed, was like, oh, my God, I'm going to die. And he was like, oh, my God, I'm going to die. The allegation again, you heard, are you guilty or innocent? I'm innocent. She says he did this thing. Brand agreed that his behavior that day, refusing to complete the recording was quote, petulant and childish saying it doesn't sound like good behavior asked if he remembers asking for a massage via his two male colleagues. Brand says he does not adding quote, it doesn't really make sense. He tells the jury, he quote, can't see what benefit would be derived from putting his head in the woman's lap asked by the prosecutor. If he had found it funny, Brand responds, I don't remember. I don't think it's funny now. He tells the court he did not sexually assault the woman. OK, so that's in some in substance, the end of the back and forth. Russell held his own, was not pushed into too many damning admissions, gave enough to look like in part, at least a truth teller, didn't did not wear the condom during that one act, did behave badly around women. You know, I'm not proud of what I did, did like having sex in the back door action I got backstage with complainant five. Extremely exciting. Did program her in as a tart and an anal participant. I mean, those are not great admissions for him, but in a way they help him because it makes him look like he's he's a truth teller and, you know, is drawing the line at accusations of non-consent. But the women had free reign in that courtroom and have spent the past three weeks painting him as a crazy rape rapist. Who was, as I said last Thursday, running around like a male dog around a bunch of female dogs in heat. You know, like he couldn't get enough, couldn't hear the word no. Within moments of meeting you would whip it out and try to have sex with you. You know, like almost like it's just dangerous to be around this guy. He's trying to grab women and drag them into bathrooms. He's filling them up at bars. He doesn't care if there are witnesses. He doesn't care if they say no. This is this is the prosecution's case. Like he was on some conquest to bang 5000 women within a time. He talked about sex ad nauseum in his comedy routines and very vile and vulgar terms, not just in his comedy routines when he gave interviews and and, you know, in his personal life, his personal assistant talking about how he loved to be naked all the time. He was asking me, can I have sex again soon? You know, obsessed. And Russell has painted that picture of himself in his own book and in part on the stand. The line he has been drawing is never without consent. He made the point, you know, to be honest, I I didn't need to do it with women who weren't consenting. I had thousands of women who did want to consent. Like that was not a problem for me. I had lots of women throwing themselves at me and I did not need to force anybody to do anything. And some of these women. You know, we're obsessed with Russell like complaint complaint at five. And there is at least a plausible case to be made that she did these things. She felt gross about after the fact because it was Russell Brand and she was excited about it. And I think that's and she didn't want to reject him and she didn't want to look like a spoil sport. And the jury will make, we'll get to make the decision about whether that's true. Okay. Let's keep going. I'm going to bring Mark in in one minute, but I just want to spend a minute on something else that's in the news. Okay. And it has to do with Jennifer Lawrence, the amazing Hollywood actress who of course is best known for is it silver bullet playbook? Why is it best known for the hunger, hunger games, silver, silver linings playbook, um, with Bradley Cooper and the hunger games is how most people best know her. She's incredible. She's extremely talented. She's very likable. If you see her in interviews, she's just completely charming and she is stunning, stunning. Well, she's on the cover of New York magazine right now. And the headline that is everywhere is she's, she gets real about wanting plastic surgery. Um, you know, when she gets older and she is looking forward to at some point getting a faceless lift, they say that it's the cut, which is an offshoot of New York magazine. She's had a boob job and one day plans to get a facelift, but look at this picture. If I didn't tell you that that was Jennifer Lawrence, you probably wouldn't know it was her. She looks completely unrecognizable. She does not look like, herself. And very clearly, the reason for that is she has had her upper eyelids done. Now she is only, uh, 36 years old. She appears to have had this procedure at 36, which is very young for something like that. But the important point here is we have a Jennifer Gray situation where a very famous actress has done something so dramatic to her looks clearly via a cosmetic surgeon, though she's not copying to that surgery in this interview, that she is now no longer recognizable. Here's Jennifer Gray of dirty dancing and Ferris Bueller's day off, et cetera. When she got that nose job, you could not tell it was Jennifer Gray. She had, if she wanted to go into the witness protection program, they could not have done a better job of hiding her identity. And now one of the most famous, beautiful, stunning, talented, actresses in Hollywood has done it again, very clearly. Again, this is not one that she's admitted to. Again, she's reportedly admitted to a boob job and to quote baby Botox. She told Vogue that last September saying, I can't really get very much done. I need to have movement in my face. So I get baby Botox, but I can't do a lot. She listed her reliance on facials explaining if my skin is going to be a little saggier than I'd like, at least it looks dewy and pretty. She also gave an interview to Vogue in which she said, I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. I can't do a lot. She denied, is it buckle fat removal? It's either buckle or buccal. She's open about the plastic surgery on her mind, they wrote, in this era of secret tweakments and deep plane facelifts. Quote, oh, I'm really nervous about those fat transfers, but I support other people doing them because I want to continue to watch and see what happens. I don't know about that though, she said. I mean, I'd love to have a buckle fat removal. I can't because everybody would know, but just know that I do want that. So this isn't about that though. This is about the eyes, the windows to the soul, and how dramatically she has changed one of the most beautiful faces in America. And let me tell you, she's not the first one to so dramatically change her face that it is now making national news. Type in Jennifer Lawrence and Google it. Go on Twitter and type in her name on the search bar and see what comes up. I mean, everybody is stunned. They cannot believe it. Believe she's done it. And it reminds me of what Renee Zellweger did to her eyes. She was another one, just like Jennifer Lawrence, who was kind of famous for her hooded eyes. And she became super well-known for having them. And then she clearly got the eyelids done. There's nothing wrong with that. Women do it. I'm not judging. I'm saying they went too far to where when Renee Wells did it, she was not the first one to do it. And I'm not judging. I'm saying they went too far to where when Renee Zellweger first got that done, she looked unrecognizable. And guess what? There's pretty good word on the street. She had to go to another plastic surgeon to add fat back into her eyelids to correct another surgeon's overcorrection, which is why Renee Zellweger again looks like Renee Zellweger. And Jennifer Lawrence, I am begging you to do the same thing. Why is with a surgical invention always considered better than without a surgical intervention? I realize it's individual choice, and I don't judge any woman who wants to do something to her face. That's the beauty of modern cosmetic surgery. But less is more, my friends. Less is more. Tweaks, like she said in that interview, not massive changes that will set tongues wagging. Less is more. Tweaks, like she said in that interview, not massive changes that will set tongues wagging from coast to coast. It's kind of like what's happening with the GLP-1s right now. Very clearly, in my view, the Kardashians, like Kim, are using GLP-1s. But I've got to say, Kim Kardashian looks amazing. She's always been the prettiest Kardashian. And her body looks amazing. She's got all those curves, which clearly she's had manipulated with the flat abs. That's how you do it cosmetically. She clearly had fat injected into her rear end and whatever. And she's got all those curves, which clearly she's had manipulated into her rear end and whatever. I don't know exactly how she's done it. But that rear end is not normal or natural, neither are the boobs. But she's got the flat stomach. And so she clearly has, in my view, been on a GLP-1. But she looks good. She didn't overdo it. I don't know if it's a dosage thing or what. But she doesn't look anorexic. She doesn't look unwell. But all these celebrities like Margot Robbie, she looks skeletal. We've talked about that actress. I mean, Charlize Theron, while I'm on it, when I'm on the cast of Bombshell, she looks skeletal. What's the name of that actress? What is it? Who's the actress who's like, she's attacking me back now? I can't remember her name. She starred in House. I said she looks skeletal. What is it? Yeah, Olivia Wilde. She, too, looks skeletal. Skeletal with the deep orbital sockets. Thin, I think, we can universally agree, is generally considered attractive as opposed to skeletal, which is not. I'm just really concerned. I think a lot of these people have an unwellness that then explodes when they get into Hollywood. Maybe it's been kept under wraps or it's been controlled because there wasn't such a drug to let you go full anorexic. But who's still prescribing them, the GLP-1s, now that they are skeletal? They clearly look anorexic. Anorexic, not to mention what's going on with Ariana Grande, who, of course, looks deeply unwell. On the plastic surgery front, it wasn't that long ago that we were talking about Demi Moore, whose face looked so drastically manipulated at that runway show, remember? That we spent a long time talking about how alarmed we were. Clearly, she had had somebody give her a facelift do her lips. I don't even know what happened. Again, everybody was talking about it. She had it undone. It's clearly been reversed. So there's hope after these massively botched procedures, or if they're not botched, they're just far too aggressive. It's no accident to me that a lot of these are happening in the entertainment industry where there's so much scrutiny on your looks. It's sad, really. I don't know. I think there was something that Jennifer Lawrence. Oh, gosh. What did she say? Do I have that? She had said something about her mom. Is that in today's packet, you guys? Yes. Oh, it's on camera. Okay, good. So it's in SOT 35. Now, listen to Jennifer Lawrence talking. Oh, you know why? Because she went on the sex podcast. Good Lord. And she revealed something. She was talking about some of the brutal acting feedback she got from her own mom. And this is very telling. Listen here, SOT 35. What is the most brutal piece of acting feedback you have ever gotten in your career? My mom at the premiere of The Hunger Games said she could tell in every scene when I had my period. Water retention, I guess. I think we've got to swear. Imagine a day of me being on camera that that doesn't go through my mind. You now will never film when you're on period. You're like, I'm so scarred. Don't put me on camera. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, that is very telling that the mother would make such a cutting comment to her own child who's starring in The Hunger Games and crushing it. I mean, like, what mother would say anything other than, oh, my God, you're incredible, honey. I'm in awe of your talent and how stunning you looked in every scene, which is true. Like, look, it's just my own theory that that's where the insecurity starts. And continues, notwithstanding the fact that you're now an Oscar winner. You could star in any film of your choice. You are absolutely still the toast of the town. I don't know why you'd make such a drastic decision like this. Please, please fix it. And speaking of the disgusting sex podcaster, she put out a promo for this interview with Jennifer Lawrence, which is just downright bizarre and seems to be a drama. And she said, I don't know why you'd make such a drastic decision addressing her critics, who absolutely include yours truly, but by no means is it limited to me, who have been ripping on her disgusting, filthy, evil messages to the young women of America, encouraging them to give it up anally on the first date, encouraging them, saying she's proud of the people who have had threesomes, talking about some young woman who is taking two D's in the V, or possibly in the V and the A at the same time. Like, this is something to celebrate. And this is a great story she wants to share with everyone. This is her messaging. This is her imprint on American young women. And now I guess she's going to clean it up with the following comment in her promo. I was a big slut, but I'm not anymore. There's always going to be a part of me that's sloppy and dirty, but I like that with all the other parts of myself. Can you say the same about yourself, fucker? Can you forgive? Are you any good at that? Okay. Should we start the interview? Okay. So it's a Silver Linings playbook reference, and she also is clearly using it to try to rehabilitate herself. And it's a fail, because while it's true that this woman now is married with a new baby and hopefully is not still whoring around as she spent her entire young adulthood doing, she's in her 30s. This is not her 20s. What about all the women she has coaxed and cajoled and encouraged into those very self-harming behaviors? What about them, Alex? Proud of that? How do you get that back? I'll tell you how. It's between you and your priest in a pew or a confessional box. Good luck to you. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, Mark Halpern's here on some amazing breaking news stories on the presidential or the political campaign trail, including a confirmation of the dirtiest of dirty tricks in the Alaska Senate race. Stand by. When it comes to supplements, we all know there are two things that matter, that it works and that you can trust it. Rather than just tell you about Relief Factor, we often bring you what their real customers have to say. One, Jim, said he ran out of Relief Factor twice and that both times his aches and pain came back. Once he restarted it, He says he felt better again. As Jim puts it, quote, you know something's working when you run out of it. I know many people who have used Relief Factor and had it work for them, including yours truly. I took it from my shoulder and then ordered it again and both times found real relief. They make it easy to find out if you're going to join me and Jim as a satisfied Relief Factor customer and talking about how much it helps you tackle your daily aches and pains. Three weeks for just $17.76. Simply go to relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4-RELIEF. You will connect with their friendly local team and they will do everything they can to help you. And maybe you will be sharing your story with them and with me soon too. 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 and 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. More. It's bold, no BS news only on the Megyn Kelly channel, Sirius XM 111 and on the Sirius XM app. We've got some shock new polls from the New York Times in key Senate races. First of all, the Democrat Annie Andrews is now tied with the Republican Darlene Graham in South Carolina. That's not great. And there's news in Minnesota, too, where Republicans had really been hoping that Michelle Tafoya, the well-liked former sports journalist, could potentially beat the loon who's currently the lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, in the race to take over the Senate seat there. But this New York Times poll, and even they are admitting it's probably an outliner. Outlier is showing Flanagan up by 14 points over Tafoya. I call bullshit on that one. Joining me now is Mark Halperin. He is the host of Next, Up with Mark Halperin on the MK Media Podcast Network. Go and subscribe to Next, Up right now so that you sound smarter than you are on all things politics. You can check about out on YouTube as well. Mark, welcome back. So Darlene Graham, South Carolina is now tied. Is that real? I think it is based on the fact that I've talked to Republicans for a long time. I had Annie Andrews, the Democrat, on my show on Next, Up a few months ago, and I've been tracking it closely. And it's a strange confluence, overall negative environment for Republicans. Senator Graham is not a strong candidate, and Annie Andrews is. And she's run a very strong race. The governor's race there is also close with a black Democratic nominee there, and that's going to help with turnout. So I still wouldn't go to Ladbrokes and put it all down on the Democrat, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she won. Oh, my Lord. I mean, if she loses, that one, for sure. She's going to be blamed on Trump because the only reason Darlene Graham is the senator from South Carolina is because her brother died. Trump put her, got her put into his seat and then said she's going to have to be the candidate. We want her to be the candidate to actually run. A lot of people said, OK, she can finish out Lindsey's term. You know, we can live with that as the sister, the sudden death. But like to actually make her the candidate was always risky. It happened because Trump made it happen. Yeah, unambiguously. You know, the president will probably be blamed for some other stuff that aren't necessarily his fault. This one's his fault. And, you know, no one should be surprised. You know, she had that iconic moment in the debate where she said she didn't really know much about foreign policy and national security. It's not her thing. It's not her thing. Do I look too skeletal? You look good. You look good. Very good, Mark Halperin. Don't change a thing. Don't want to don't want to get too skeletal on you because I know you don't like that. I'm not going to pull a Trump and start talking about your rear end. Or my iron shoulders. You know, she's not running good. She's not doing a good campaign. She's barely raised any money. She doesn't do a lot of campaigning of campaigning. She's only agreed to one debate. And there's all sorts of reasons. The confluence of factors. Again, she's a weak candidate. Andrew's a strong candidate. The Democrats are having a moment. And and the black vote, you know, it's just it's just an iron law of southern politics. If the Democrats can find a way to swell the turnout from black voters and make it five percent more of the overall turnout, they go from having no chance to win to having almost no chance to lose. And she may be doing that again in conjunction with the gubernatorial nominee. Good gracious. I want to tell you this. Annie Andrews, the Democrat, currently showing a 26 percent chance to win on the prediction market. How she Darlene Graham's at 74 percent. That's double from the beginning of the month for Andrews when traders had her at just 12 percent or sorry, 13 percent. So she's doing better on the calci market. But, you know, they haven't factored in this latest poll. Yeah. By the way, our sponsor, Calci, reflects what traders actually believe. It's real time odds on the midterm elections. Give it a try by using code Megan Kelly or you can click the link in our description. New users get 25 bucks for you when they trade 25 bucks. So her odds are going up. But that that market probably doesn't reflect it. Well, the biggest the biggest tell beyond the poll is the president's going to South Carolina again. He was just there and he's going again tomorrow to campaign for her. He wouldn't be doing that if they didn't see a serious problem. The South Carolina race means a lot, a lot, a lot of these races, Texas, Iowa, Ohio. They say in the Republicans say, look, we're even or we're a little bit behind, but that's good enough. The president's going to cause a surge of MAGA voting and the Democrats just aren't going to win these races because of the political physics here and the laws of political gravity. We'll see. He wouldn't be going again if they didn't think she could lose. Yeah, clearly they've got internal polls which are showing them there's trouble because the president does not waste. Time in the lead up to the actual election day the week before going down to South Carolina, which is redder than red. If he doesn't have to. What do you make of that? I mean, we should not be losing on Team Red or rational South Carolina. But let's go to Minnesota, where that was an exciting possible seat for Republicans because that's a blue state. But Michelle Tafoya is so charming and likable. And has run such a smart race. She actually has been showing up in some of the polls over the loon, Peggy Flanagan, who begins every appearance with a land acknowledgement. But 14 points. I know they say and Nate Cohen said the New York Times guy, Minnesota is notoriously very hard to poll, very hard to poll. So like even he's saying pump the brakes in caution. But that poll has the feeling of the Ann Seltzer poll of the Des Moines Register prior to 2024. Well, it's not 10, 14 points. And again, this is. The inverse of South Carolina, where the candidate quality advantage goes decisively to the Republicans. Michelle Tafoya is a great candidate. She's won a great race. Peggy Flanagan, not a great candidate, not run a great race. But the governor's race there with with Senator Klobuchar at the top of the ticket is not great for Tafoya. The fact that it's a big Democratic year. She is very smartly just like Mike Rogers next door in Michigan. These are Republicans who are saying, hey, people don't like incumbents. People don't like corruption. Let's run against, you know, the state Democrats rather than running against, obviously, Donald Trump. So she's certainly going to do herself a lot of good in terms of showing people how to run in a blue state as a Republican. But her chances have always been long simply because of the nature of the state. But I don't think she's down 14, but I think she's down more than outside the margin of error at this point, because as the race closes, Democrats are coming out. Every other day. We get an update in the Michigan Senate race between El-Sayed and Mike Rogers. Here's my like I haven't been tracking it that closely, Mark. I know that the Republicans are doing what they would do to any candidate with El-Sayed's family ties, which is basically try to make him a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he did write a letter in support of someone in the Muslim Brotherhood who was the president of Egypt. So, like, the ties are there. They're not completely making this up. But unlike every other time. Like, back in my days at Fox, this would have worked like a charm. When we were closer to 9-11, people were very wary of, you know, anybody with ties to what looked like radical Muslims. And it's not working this time, or at least it's not working the way they hoped it would. And I think it's for two reasons. You tell me what you think. Mike Rogers is a dud. He seems like a nice guy, but he's a dud. There's no charisma. And secondly, the Israel thing is huge right now in all of these midterms. It is. It's like the 800-pound gorilla, because you look at how independents feel about Israel and our closeness with it. They blame it. blame Israel for getting us into the Iran war, which nobody supports anymore. And the gas prices are high. And they're looking to make somebody pay for those decisions. And those people are named Republicans. So I think that is why they're having such a difficult time driving El-Sayed's poll numbers down. And El-Sayed, he's kind of annoying. His interviews are, you kind of want to slap him around a little bit, like shut up and just answer the question. Some people find him charming and fairly good looking. This is what I've seen people talk about. He's young and he's energetic. And he went on Fox News and he had some sort of friendly interviews. So I don't think that El-Sayed will lose in Michigan. I think Mike Rogers is going to lose, as he did the last time, to the equally deplorable Elissa Slotkin. What do you think? Well, I agree with almost everything you said. I think Mike Rogers is the kind of Republican who gets elected in Michigan. They don't necessarily need flashy. They like solid. They like Midwestern. So I don't think Mike Rogers is necessarily the problem. But I think you are right. They haven't knocked him out. You know, if you go back four months ago, the Republican playbook was knockout Tallarico, knockout El-Sayed, knockout Flanagan, knockout Andrews in South Carolina, take their liberal positions, some of which they've run away from, and knock him out. They may not win, but the Democrats may not win, but they haven't knocked him out. You're right. This guy has not been knocked out, but he has not closed the deal either. He's not closed the sale. So I don't know who's going to win Michigan or Texas. I sort of took a vow four days ago. A lot of data. I don't think you can tell who's going to win either of those races. There's just too much weird stuff. But that guy needs more black vote than he's getting. He needs more young independent vote than he's getting. He needs more Jewish vote than he's getting. He needs more working class vote than he's getting just mathematically to get to a majority. So he's probably the favorite given just the climate. But I wouldn't be surprised if he'd lost it because Mike Rogers is in the game right now. And his folks feel confident because he did run two years ago that he can win. It on the ground with turnout if it's if it's within the margin of error. If Mike Rogers loses, I don't want to see him ever again. I think I think I think you'll get locked in. You get your way. He had his chance twice. And El Sayed, like he couldn't stop either one of them. I mean, she's awful. She's the one who's out there threatening criminal charges for people who want to go work for Trump to try to discourage people in their late teens from taking a job in Republican politics, even though she says, oh, I have Trump voters who voted for me. I want to, you know, the aisle. Oh, F off. It was a lie. And then there's El Sayed with all the Muslim Brotherhood stuff. So, OK, we'll see. I'll just I'll just say just to say one other thing real quickly about the Israel point you made. This guy said in the debate two weeks ago that he couldn't answer a quote unquote hypothetical question about whether Israel or Iran was a bigger threat to the United States. And he paid no no apparent political price for that. That shows you the power of the issue. It shows you that a lot of the critiques of him as well. He couldn't possibly, you know, win given his positions on Israel. No, the establishments of both parties still don't get that. That may not be a position they like, but it's not disqualifying. And in some ways, it's a positive with some voters. No, El Sayed is going to win because of his position on Israel. That's what I think. I, of course, am following both sides of the Republican Party on the Israel issue. And I know very clearly how the Dems and the independents feel about Israel now. Not for it. Not not in favor. I see is that they they are happy that El Sayed will hold the line against too too much closeness between the United States and Israel. And they do blame Israel right now for getting us into the war with Iran. They don't blame Iran. They blame Israel. I agree with I agree with you. I think that's a reasonable answer. You know, so people are misreading that entirely. I think he is he is getting praised and propped up for answering it that way. Let's talk about Alaska and the tricks that just came out in The New York Times, which as we were on the air first hour, it hit that they have indeed uncovered the fact that, you know, because in this race, the listening audience knows there's Mary Peltola. She's the Alaska Democrat running for this seat. And she's up against Dan Sullivan, the sitting GOP senator. But the Democrats, we knew it was like generally the Democrats found another Dan Sullivan to get him on the ballot to split the Republicans vote. And confuse voters. And now The New York Times just breaking the news that indeed it was a staffer for Mary Peltola who received unusual instructions from top campaign aides. Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can. The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state. And they found a Dan Sullivan like in some fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by Aaron C., who announced his candidacy for Senate. He is Dan J. Sullivan, unlike Dan S. Sullivan, as in sitting senator. Dan S. Sullivan is the one Republicans, if they want to vote GOP, should vote for. So what do you make of The New York Times breaking this dirty trick in detail? It's great reporting. It's brilliantly written. And you have to say, if you're someone who believes The New York Times will never do anything to hurt Democrats, they did here. I may be wrong, but I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I may be wrong about this, but I think it could decide the race. It's such a dirty trick. And to The New York Times and to the public, almost everyone involved who they reached lied about it. And we know they lied because they've got the text messages that illustrate the conspiracy. And their main source was the top person in the campaign who left the campaign. They're trying to claim she's disgruntled, but the texts aren't disgruntled. The text messages tell the tale. And, you know, I don't know that there's a crime that was committed here, although there's speculation about that already on X. But I think there's no doubt that she's either going to have to say, all my top aides were engaged in a conspiracy central to our election strategy, and they never told me about it. Or she knew about it. And I really do think unless the Alaska local press just covers it up and doesn't ask about it, I really do think it could take a race that was close and get them solved and reelected because they did something that's cool. I'll say at a minimum, dirty pool. Would you say dirty pool? I would say dirty pool, but at a minimum, but they lied about it. And, you know, lying about it, it just I don't think it's going to sit well with the voters there who will say this goes beyond just the kind of normal lying that people in politics do. I agree. This is despicable what they've done up there. This is like trying to confuse elderly Alaskan voters into pulling the lever for the wrong candidate. I mean, that's just disgusting. And the conspiracy touches several organizations. It was kind of the ringleader of it who did way more than just recruit this one extra to insolvent into the race. It touches her campaign. It touches the Democratic Senate Senatorial Campaign Committee. And it also apparently touches the law firm, Megan, of one of your favorite lawyers, Mark Elias, the Democratic campaign super lawyer whose law firm apparently, according to the text messages, shocked was involved. Yeah. You wouldn't think Mark Elias would be involved with such a thing, would you? Yes. Speaking of despicable, that's that is just so gross. So hopefully that will help. Dan S. Sullivan get the votes that are intended for him when this election rolls around, as opposed to Dan J. Sullivan. J. for just visiting. Just kidding. I have to say about just found off the coast of Alaska. I have to say you said that his town is only reachable by air and sea. Do you know that's also true of Juneau, the capital of Alaska? There are no roads there. I was going to say that kind of describes most Alaskan towns, including the state capital. I will say credit to the Times because they also they broke a story about Mary Peltola abusing her staff and making the staff feed her lizard meatball all the time. You love that detail. You bring that up every episode. Pretty much. It's a good detail. Little meatball. It's a good detail. I agree. I'm with you. It jumped right out of the story. My my long, long time assistant, Abigail Fine, and said, oh, suck it up and feed the lizard. Shut up. It's not that bad. Um, OK. Where do I go next? There's a lot more. Uh, what what are we looking at now? Because, you know, Harry Enten is out there, Mark, and I know we are both fans, but he is saying things that are actually really scary about the Democrat takeover. He admits that the GOP is going to hold on to the Senate if there's that same polling error that we've seen in so many elections where there's a secret three percent swing to the Republicans favor. But I saw him do some long hit on CNN yesterday. It was uncharacteristically meandering for him. And it was talking about like bloodbath in the House in particular and possibly the Senate as well. So what do you think? I think Harry needs to use fewer props. He's using a lot of props lately. It's got like top hats and bowling pins. Um, what I think is based on my reporting with with people in both parties, it's not a prediction. It's not a guess. It's not a hope and a dream. It's talking to people in both parties. There's probably a 30 percent chance that there is a blue wipeout. And if there is that blue wipeout, it's Democrats could win eight Senate seats or nine and they could win 35 House seats. Again, I'm not predicting it, but a lot of Republican sources who see a lot of private data at very high levels of the party who think that's possible. And then you're talking about Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Alaska, maybe still Kansas, South Carolina. You're talking about Maine. You're talking about a lot of seats falling and seats in the House falling that people aren't even talking about. If that doesn't happen. And again, I think it's kind of binary. I think if there's no blue wave, Republicans save a lot of these seats, not all of them, but they save a lot them in the Senate and probably keep control of the Senate. So I know. All the reasons we did a whole segment on NextUp about it. We're doing one again tomorrow. Why the polling often understates Republican support. It is possible that it's actually understating Democratic support. So nobody knows nothing about nothing. Well, what you're saying going into. Yeah, this is I've said for months is the most confusing term I've ever covered. But I think I think it's a little bit clarifying to say without a blue tsunami, without massive shift of Hispanic vote, young voters, working class voters, independent voters, suburban voters and without depressed rural turnout, without all those things, I think it will be Republicans will do pretty well under the circumstances. If all those things happen and they can, it could be massive. So so I think the I think the floor you're like if if all the people vote Democrat, it will be bad for Republicans. Well, it's just what I'm saying is that the swings in those demographics have to be historically large for Democrats to take the Senate and to win more than a dozen House seats. And that the chances of that happening are not above 50 percent, but they're not they're not nothing. And that's again, that's talking to Republicans who look at the data and say there could be and you see it in some places in the early vote. You see it in some of the polling that could happen. So that's as clarifying as I can get. Democrats will fall short in a lot of these races we're talking about, including South Carolina, including Kansas, including Ohio, including Iowa, unless there's this big national wave. And these things do tend to. To be streaky. Yeah, usually covered in these election nights. You see you see a couple fall. You're like, oh, OK. And they tend to go. It's like if you see three go, you're probably looking at another four that are going to go. And, you know, you got to batten down the hatches and get ready for bad news if you're on the team that's losing. Mark Halperin, a pleasure. Great to see you, my friend. Thanks for coming. Never skeletal. Good to see you. No, you look great. Tomorrow, somebody else is not skeletal. Stueberg here. He'll be here. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda and no fear.