The Ilhan Omar Age Evidence, Meghan Markle's New PR Spin, and Questions About Russell Brand Accusers | Ep. 1428

Welcome to the Megan Kelly show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at NEAST. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly, welcome to the Megan Kelly show and happy Tuesday. Just one week to go until the midterm elections come and Ilhan Omar is stepping out for a private event along with America Hater Hassan Piker. Seems like a great idea. It's playing right into the narrative about her. This is the guy who said we deserve 9/11 and he tried to sort of apologize for it weekly. But this is to say controversial really under underestimates, under states, the nature of why people object to this disgusting man, Hassan Piker. And this is who she's decided to resurface with. Very nice. You know who I'd love to see her resurface with? Any original member of the Omar family? The family that clearly let her and her sister and her dad claim they were Omar's. They weren't. They were Elmys when they came over here in 1995. Let's find an actual Omar, can we? And ask questions. Let's have some journalist anywhere. Ask Ilhan Omar, do you have two sisters or just one? Do you acknowledge Sarah, who came over here with you and your dad in 1995? She lives in Nairobi, Kenya now. What about Leyla? Is Leyla, Nursayed Elmi, your sister or isn't she? She stayed in the UK with your breastband, Ahmed, when you guys came here and your other brother, Muhammad. Can somebody please ask her how many sisters do you have? Seriously, this does not require amazing feats of journalism, Chris Hayes. How many sisters do you have? Do you have any brothers? What are their names? Fucking do it. It's not hard. This is not journalism 501. Any high school journalism student could manage to spit those questions out to her as she enters or leaves an event or got forbidden, you actually get into an event because she was barring reporters last night. Perhaps you could shout it there. Like the inner information now is all over the internet as all of the random sleuths are finally catching on to the reporting that's been done by Powerline over these years in Alpha News. And it's actually amazing to me. I have to say, as you guys I think know on this program, I always cite other people's work when I'm using other people's work. It is an ethical requirement in my view and it's polite and it's just a way of honoring another person's good work that isn't your own. I am so grossed out by the influencers in the online crowd who are trying to pawn off the work of these journalists as though they just discovered this stuff, like they just figured it out. This is such give credit where it's due. No one who's looking for clicks right now just figured out this stuff about Ilan Omar and the bruzzman, the sister, the ties to the UK family, the stuff about how she had that car accident or she didn't have a car accident. She got in the back of that taxi with her sister Laila years ago and filed and a claim that she'd been discriminated against and mentioned that her sister was with her. That's not your original reporting. Just cite the reporters who actually broke those stories, it's very annoying. By the way, if you hear somebody trying to claim that stuff as their own, turn the channel, click out, unfollow because that person is a dishonest person who's just using you for clicks and you can't trust them. We are getting a bunch of information on Ilan Omar though I will say our pals over at National Review, they've been doing good reporting on her, doing firsthand reporting that I haven't seen every place else and that's great. They're actually advancing the ball. Will Chamberlain of the Article 3 project, also same, so credit to him and there is a bunch of news in the Russell Brandt trial, including some reporting that you will not hear anywhere else because virtually nobody is reporting the facts that are good for Russell. We had to comb, comb the YouTube reports about this trial, every print report about this trial and in virtually no outlet is the meaningful cross examination that his lawyer is doing mentioned in great detail. I hit a couple of the cross examination points and then they move on and trust me, I had to pour over the reports in order to find the details of how it's actually going in there. Now I don't know that it's going to change Russell's fate, but there are some important things you need to know about some of these claimants. All right, we'll get to that in a minute. We've all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare the, you know what out of you and push you into calling out a fear. But tax relief advocates takes a different approach. If you owe the IRS $5,000, $50,000 or even $500,000, TRA has real solutions to fix your tax problem. Don't lose hope. TRA can often reduce or completely eliminate what you owe. Their focus is taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. They have more than 1,000 five star Google reviews and an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS generous relief programs exist right now that can give you a clean slate. So act today. Go to TRA.com, that's TRA.com or call 800-575-6845. Again, 800-575-6845, tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people. Use a bunch of breaking news here, okay, there's at least three legal developments that you need to know about. Number one, Trump is being accused yet again of rape by some woman who the media wants you to think is the former Miss Switzerland. I mean, if we're splitting hairs, she was the runner up. I'm thinking if you are the, the woman who won, you don't want this gal being referred to as Miss Switzerland when she was just the runner up. But the Democrats put together their own report on Jeffrey Epstein, you know, in whom they're super interested now. And they want you to know that in that report, this woman who also, also claims that she was assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein, says she was raped by Donald Trump. We're going to talk about that. James Comey, former FBI director, is back charged again with criminal charges. There's a question about whether these charges are timely. The charges were brought on October 5th. They've been under seal. James Comey wanted them unsealed because, of course, he's basking in the glow of being Trump's target. He likes it. Okay. I get it. He wants to look persecuted and perhaps he is, but we'll find out in any event we'll talk about that. And then there was a raid on the home of a Beverly Hills mansion belonging to some alleged billionaire, a mega donor, Steven Klubek. And this guy was housing Eric Swalwell, who's a Democrat mega donor, I guess. He was housing Eric Swalwell, the disgraced dem who basically got pushed out of his role because he had allegedly sexually assaulted a bunch of women when the claims came forward. He denied that, but then he quit his job. And they not only, they raided Eric Swalwell, I want to get my facts correct on that because they already had confronted Eric Swalwell a while ago. They, let's see. Yeah, agents confronted Swalwell with a search warrant a couple of months ago when he landed at San Francisco airport. They seized his electronic devices, including a cell phone as part of this federal probe potentially into whether he used his Congressional office to threaten coerce or do anything untoward with young women. So they are clearly investigating those. And now this man in whose home he lived for a period of time has had his mansion raided. So that's interesting too. So we have two, well, three public officials accused of potentially criminal wrongdoing and we're going to go through them together. First, I'm just going to start with the LNOMR stuff because there are updates in that. The age in particular, how old is Ilhan Omar as you know, it does matter because if she was 18 or older at the time her father was allegedly naturalized. We have yet to see the paperwork. We have seen paperwork saying no such record exists. Look forward to seeing any proof that that is not a real record or a correct one, but assuming that he did go through the naturalization process and managed to get his daughter Ilhan naturalized at the same time, that was unlawful if she was over the age of 18. If she was 18 or over, then that was unlawful. That means she can't. at a minimum, sit in the U.S. Congress anymore, irrespective of a statute of limitations issues. She will be booted out of the U.S. Congress. She will. She must be. It is a constitutional prerequisite that U.B.A. U.S. that is in to serve in the House of Representatives. So forget what the left is telling you about statutes of limitation and so on. She will be booted at the U.S. Congress if it can be proven that she, that her birthday was in October of 1981, as opposed to October of 1982, as her staff tried to claim when they changed it after AJ Kemp and others came out accusing her of being too old and to be naturalized derivativeally under her father's naturalization. Okay, so the question is, what she born in October of 1981, as we believe, or 1982, as would save her? Here is, she currently claims she was born October 4th of 1982. But the New York Post reporting that her birthday had been listed in the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as October 4th, 1981, as well as on reference sites such as Wikipedia and in media outlets like the BBC, for the entire time she served in the state house. Remember, she was in the Minneapolis, Minnesota State House from 16 to 19 when she ran for U.S. Congress. And for several months into her congressional term, which began January of 19. But the Congresswoman's staff moved to shift the date forward by one year in May 2019 after a video from her political challenger for that U.S. Congress role, AJ Kern went viral, claimed O.R. was lying about her age. Okay, so part of this, we had previously reported to you, but that's the widespread publication of her birthday as being October 1981 was previously unknown to us. We knew about that legislative reference library, and we knew that her staff went back and scrubbed it. But now we find out it was also in Wikipedia, it was in media outlets like the BBC. And it was there for several months into her U.S. Congressional term. It's amazing because nobody at the U.S. Congress checked to see whether she was a U.S. citizen before they signed, they swore her in. We are so derelict in this country. What are we? Like banana republic, this is like, we don't check. Come on. You have to show a valid passport to get on an international flight, but you don't have to show proof of citizenship to be sworn in as a U.S. Congress person. It's absurd. The post goes on that from black Americans in Congress, published by the House Office of the Historian and the House Office of the Clerk, they write in 1995, Ilan Omer's family was granted asylum to the U.S. and ultimately settled in Minneapolis. Omar became a naturalized U.S. citizen at 2000 at the age of 17, something she's claimed repeatedly as well. Okay, there's more from Will Chamberlain of the Article 3 project, who went through Omer's book. We told you yesterday about something that Jim Garrity of National Review had noticed, which is there's a chapter in her book talking about how when the Somali Civil War began, by her date, 1989, she said she was eight. 1989 minus eight would bring you to 1981. That would put her birthday in 1981. So that's just one instance where in her memoir, she seems to be suggesting she was born in 1981, but Will Chamberlain went through all through the memoir and I'll just keep it short for you because he goes through every single mention of age and what he finds is that it's completely inconsistent on the subject of age. He says, "I went through every age she mentions in the book that could be tied to a specific date or dates, three of 11 contradict her official birthday two more are questionable." And I think he's being charitable to her because he gives her the benefit of the doubt on the start of the Somali Civil War that Garrity referenced. So what we're seeing here is she's all over the map on saying how old she is. I don't know about you, but I know how old I am and I don't think I've ever been confused about it. I remember lying about it when I first joined Fox because I felt like I was an old lady at age 33 and I told some people I was 32. I was a big sleight of hand. I was worried I wasn't going to have a long career in TV at the time. And then I immediately told people that it wasn't true. I was 32. I was 33. And any event, the point is I don't lie about my age and I think most people don't lie about their age. And if they do it, it's usually a woman trying to make herself seem younger or it's a like late teens person trying to make themselves seem over 21 so they can buy a beer. But it's very, very weird to be, you know, ill on Omar and in the U.S. Congress and writing memoirs as an adult and to not know how old you are, you know, you could make a strong case. That's the behavior of somebody who's got secrets to hide. We talked yesterday about all the evidence that her brusband is her brusband Ahmed over in the UK who then came over here and married her and then absconded to Kenya so that she could say that he left me and I needed a divorce and I have no idea how to reach him. But the truth is he was working for her sister Sara in Kenya and was very easy to find. He's also very gay. So this is not a legitimate marriage and everyone knows that. She just won't admit it. But just wanted to remind you that he also this guy Ahmed Elmi when asked by alpha news is preya samson dar responded with and we talked about this earlier quote nor do I recall being married to anyone at least from what I remember. So that's him as she's saying not to my not not not not not that I can recall not to my knowledge. I didn't marry my brother not to my knowledge and he says he doesn't recall being married to anyone at least from what he can remember again what's the matter with this family she can't remember her age she can't remember whether she married or she doesn't know whether she married her brother and her brother can't remember whether he was ever married ever married at all. Sounds legit no how do you feel so she has this event last night with we deserve 911 Hassan Piker and they barred media from the event my pal Rich McCue of news nation and I were texting about it. They wouldn't let him in. Minnesota public radio was invited and then denied access at the last minute by that Omar Fateh you know that guy he's a Minnesota state senator with the teeth everywhere he also he ran for Congress. He didn't get the nomination but so he was there and he was turning people away and he said that they were being turned away because of space concerns which is obviously a lie. She didn't want to have to deal with the media and I guess that memo wasn't widely circulated amongst her staff because they had invited some like Minnesota public radio which obviously would be in her corner when they were up on stage because they did stream it so it's not like we couldn't access it but you couldn't ask questions that's the point like how many sisters do you have ask that somebody ask that do you have a sister named Leila Nursayed Elmi and then if you're really bold ask the follow up if not why have you liked posts of her daughters and specifically called them your nieces why are there pictures of you on horseback with her daughters how do you know her how do you know her do you have a brother named Ahmed Nursayed Elmi who was raised in the UK by Leila yes or no if no if you have no relation to him why is he liking a post of your new borne daughter saying nieces straight out of the vagina why would he do that why are you calling Leila's daughters your nieces why is he calling Leila's daughters his nieces why is he calling your daughter his nieces and why did you reportedly have Leila with you in that incident where you claimed that you were attacked with racist comments by a cab driver in Minnesota and you filled out police work saying you were with your sister though you later had it redacted and a you met with a local Somali representative that night and introduced the woman who was with you as your sister Leila why did you do that you do have a sister named Leila Nursayed Elmi you have a brother named Ahmed Nursayed Elmi you have a brother named Mohammed Nursayed Elmi and you have a sister named Sara Nour who used to be Nursayed Elmi and you are Nursayed Elmi you're ill on North Saeed Elmi. So show us proof if it's not true. Explain those social media posts. Explain it. Why is Ahmed North Saeed Elmi saying he can't remember whether he was married to you? It's so absurd. Okay, so here she was with Hassan Piker last night, avoiding those very basic questions and instead suggesting that the real problem here is her good looks. Watch. I feel like the media has a tendency to highlight everything that you do, some of the things that I do, like we're just normal Americans trying to go about our day to day and trying to organize against the Trump administration in the same way that white people are doing in general, right? It's like why does this look really good on their screen? That's why they get you. You think that's why they get you? Yeah, they're like she's still charismatic. I think that's what it does. I think I can see that 100%. I agree with that. But yeah, it's very frustrating because like it's higher than looking at their, you know, Botox faces. So if we can get some nice naturally. So we're saying if the fascists were hotter than they would get more naked. There would be less of us on TV. Yeah. That's fair assessment. I see. So you see it's the Mago women, Republican women who get Botox, unlike the Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi. It's only right-leaning women who get Botox. Maybe the reason that Ilan Omar, so hot as she wants you to know she is, isn't getting Botox is it's because of her destitute financial status. Remember, she told us that in her interview with Chris Hayes about how she was really just living paycheck to paycheck and it was really challenging for her. By the way, she's just a normal American. I mean, I don't know about you. I'm a normal American. I know where I was born. I know how old I was. If I need to prove my citizenship, I could do it in the course of 30 minutes. I would find my birth certificate and I would show it to you and you'd say it was born in America. Born in Illinois, a Midwestern girl raised in upstate New York, Ilan. That's how you do it if you actually have the facts. Always had a blue passport, whole life. How about you? Just normal Americans who are hot. That's really that's going to be a great defense. But perhaps it's her financial destitution that has stopped her from getting even hotter and taking care of whatever lines may be coming across that face like the MAGA Republican women who care about looks. Here she was with Chris Hayes on how, you know, stars. They're just like us. Satu. They cited a financial disclosure for Congress that initially said that your husband's firm was worth $30 million. That was before an accountant put in the liabilities of that firm, which then brought the $30 million down to like essentially net zero, $20,000, which should make me worry a little about your husband's business to be honest. He's not in them anymore. I was like, well, that seems like a big difference between $30 million and $20,000. There was a congressional oversight body that voted that there was no wrongdoing. There's no evidence of wrongdoing. What is your financial situation? I mean, it's, you know, working, working class. I guess like paycheck to paycheck still. You know, we've got four kids. And, you know, we live, I think like a basic life. I have it to come with you. That's from 2016 while only car. I went my DC place and my Minneapolis place. And so, I mean, I don't know if that sounds like, you know, not majority of Congress, but there's some of us that don't come from wealth and don't have wealth. Oh my god. I mean, I told you when this happened, she makes $175,000 a year. And she wants to think she's on skid row. But we have more to report. To you on this front because do you remember last week when we had on the free beacons Andrew Kerr? And he reported all about her current husband, Tim Minette, with whom she hadn't a fair. He was married, and she was married too, I think. Definitely he was married. And she was his boss. She was working in the U.S. Congress. And she used her campaign to pay him reportedly $3 million, which is a little sketchy. And then he left the campaign. And now they're married. This is the third husband, not our brothers, as far as we know. Anyway, Andrew had not, he wasn't able to fully explain a few things about Tim Minette's businesses. We walked through how he formed this wine business, East St. Crue. And he formed this investment firm, Rose Lake Capital. And he formed this other company that was basically selling marijuana in South Dakota, a marijuana investment firm. And none of them went anywhere and all had financial problems and multiple were accused of fraud and sued for fraud. And one of the things that Andrew couldn't figure out at that time was how did Tim Minette and his business partner settle all the claims that were brought by investors against those firms who said, you defrauded us. We gave you a bunch of money, wanted to get in the wine or the pot or the investment business. And you misused it or you you did something nefarious that caused us to lose all the value of our investment. And we want to be paid back. And somehow Tim Minette managed to cut checks in his partner to these people for we believe millions of dollars, like several million dollars. But they had none of these companies had any money. So how are they cutting checks like that to settle the claims? Well, Andrew has updated his reporting. And he's reporting on an 11.25 billion dollar infusion. They received from some Indian billionaire, an Indian billionaire named Baizhu Ravindran. Baizhu BYJU Ravindran, the billionaire owner of the now bankrupt educational technology firm Baizhu. We do not know why he sent them two wires in June of 2024, totaling 11.25 million dollars. We do not know why it's it's very strange. Sorry, I realize I said billion. I should have said million. He's a billionaire and he invested 11.25 million in their company. We do not know why he would do that. They he's reporting Andrew is that it would there was a failed deal to acquire the 1.2 billion leveraged loan at the center of one of the bankruptcy cases. So he was trying to take over the companies via bankruptcy. But it looks like days after he sent them this 11.25 million, he demanded the return of the funds. And Andrew is reporting it's unclear whether roselate capital in particular ever returned the 11.25 million. So we just don't know there's some seemingly sketchy business dealings going on. And I do wonder whether that's in part what's being investigated by Janine Piro, her piece of the case we believe is financial. And it could absolutely encompass all of this. So yeah, query that. But back to Ilan Omar's claim of destitution. I did not realize this. We used to have a good friend in Congress, a friend of Doug's and I guess I'll he'll stay nameless for the purposes of this discussion just because I don't have his permission to tell this story. But he has family dough. He went to Congress and he shared an apartment with somebody on Capitol Hill when he went up there because he didn't want to have to put the bill for like another home even though he could have afforded it. But you know, he tried to spend as much time as he could back in his home district anyway. That's what a lot of Congress people do is they they like kind of dorm together and they get an apartment and they have like a couple bedrooms in it and they have sort of a shared living space their own bedrooms. But they do that to save money because a lot of our Congress people are not rich speaking of Nancy Pelosi. But I guess in 2023 they they changed things such that the American taxpayer now will cover lodging expenses. This is a fringe congressional benefit activated in early 2023. And so now we're giving them housing stipends and we're giving them meals stipends. What the hell? I mean, when you go to take a job in, let's say you leave New York and you go to whatever Chicago for a new job, are they, do you expect your employer to pay for your rent? To pay for your meals? No, that's what the paycheck is for. That's what the $174,000 a year is for Elon and everyone else. Why are we doing this? How much money is that costing the American taxpayer? But in Andrew's report, he points out that, quote, Omar's financial situation is anything but basic. It includes enviable taxpayer-funded perks that she accepts as a member of Congress to cover her living expenses, millions of dollars that her campaign paid her husband's former consulting firm and a mysterious 11.25 million dollar cash infusion that her husband's venture capital company received from an Indian billionaire in 2024. Omar mentioned none of this. Gee, maybe some basic research by Chris Hayes before the interview to arm himself in case we covered finances, which is very much at the front of her potential problems, would have served him well. Oh, but that's right, he had zero interest in actually asking her any probative questions. He writes that her claim that she struggles to keep up with rent on her DC home defies belief. Reading here, taxpayers have paid that bill for the past several years. The Minnesota Democrat has received $85,000 in taxpayer funds to cover her DC lodging expenses as part of a fringe congressional benefit activated in early 2023. Omar, who earns a base salary of $174,000 before the housing stipend, has not had to worry about rising grocery costs either because taxpayers have taken on that bill as well. She has raked in $33,000 from taxpayers since 2023 from another fringe benefit that covers the cost of her daily meals according to house spending records. That's incredible. In addition to that $3 million, her campaign paid her husband's consulting firm between 2018 and 2020, $3 million over the course of, let's call it three years, if it's the full 18, 19 and 20, much of which landed directly in her husband's pocket after they married in 2022. So how many millions is that that she got to enjoy millions of dollars from her constituents who donated to her campaign and she appears to have used it for herself as opposed to her campaign. That's how this sounds to, I mean, it's basically self-dealing where you're paying your boyfriend's lover/husband $3 million. Okay, sure. And meantime, the taxpayer is paying for her meals and her DC apartment and $174,000 in salary. This is ridiculous. And she's calling herself remembered like working class at all that, that utter bullshit, more lies, Chris Hayes, you suck at your job. Good God, you failed. So this is all so infuriating. Oh, by the way, not, not brought up by Hassan Piker, either, you're shocked. And for the listening audience, their little presentation last night looked like a scene out of Wayne's world, basement TV, the two of them on some shitty little, like, love seat ill on slouching down. Honestly, I'm going to give you the visual. The viewing audience already saw, but she's like down here. She's like, wait down. She's like sitting basically like a foot above her tailbone or she's a lila-pusion. I don't know which. And she can't find like the proper seating so she can sit up, like an adult, like a professional. And they're side by side. There's not even like a proper table for them to sit and have a real discussion. It's just what, what a hack. This whole thing has hackery all over it. These are, this is a woman who is used to not being questioned, to just doing whatever the F she wants. Which is why she's got her little Somali rap song, threatening the Somali members of the Minnesota community who might rat her out on the whole Elmi thing or the Somali fraud thing that it appears she slash a member of her family may have been involved in. The finances thing, she's, she knows what to do. She's the daughter of a colonel in a warlord army, genocidal army. So she knows what to do. And she's doing it. On the other side is Trump and the Trump administration. And I gotta say, I know a lot of my viewers are like, nothing's going to happen to her. I think you guys are used to like, okay, we're gonna, yeah, Tish James, she's gonna be behind bars and James call me. Sure. This one, I don't know. This has got more than your average smoke. And I do believe there's fire there. So I'm open-minded to a more positive outcome on this one, meaning at least she's out of Congress. It's not a U.S. citizen. This is obvious. It's obvious. Multiple acts of fraud by this family in my opinion. And I think she will be balanced. The only question is whether she'll also be behind bars. Okay, I want to keep going. This woman who has come forward now to accuse Donald Trump of rape. Okay, so first of all, this is all over the papers today. As though it's a real thing. And it's not a real thing. It isn't. That's pretty much what you need to know. But I'll just give you an example. People magazine. You should know people is a complete left-wing rag. I think you know that. But it, maybe you think it's a political. It's not. It is not. It hates Republicans and Donald Trump. People former Miss Switzerland Beatrice Kuhl alleges Donald Trump raped her at the plaza hotel in 1993. The new Republican Republic woman says Trump raped her and then said the show must go on. Time magazine. New details of rape allegation against Trump revealed in House Democrats' Epstein report. The telegraph Donald Trump has been accused of rape by a model in former Miss Switzerland and a report produced by the Democrat party. Julie K Brown, the one who helped break the Epstein story breaking. She's another hard leftist. She's really foul. This woman. Donald Trump was an active participant in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of young women in the mid to late 1990s, end quote. According to a report issued today by Dems on the House Judiciary Committee, the report includes one new rape allegation against Trump and calls for a special investigation of the Trump Edmonds cover up. Okay. Epstein's crimes. Let me tell you what this so-called rape accusation is. All right. I'm going to introduce you to this woman. This woman Beatrice Kuhl, K-E-U-L of Switzerland. Because she's been around for a while. She's been telling her story. She came out a couple of years ago for the first time. I think it was 2024. When we first heard her harrowing tale about what the evil Donald Trump did to her. Then there was a big New York time piece, New York Times piece in December 2025. Her story was up until now that Donald Trump grouped her, that he grouped her. And she repeatedly talked about how she is six foot one, and that her size, quote, saved her, saved her because she was able to wiggle away from him. That has been her story up until today. Any decent journalist who felt the need to do a headline about this case would write former runner-up to Miss Switzerland Beatrice Kuhl, a ledges Donald Trump raped her in 1993. Original story was grouped. Something to show the audience in the headline. This is a massive change from the story she's now been telling for years. All right. That's not in any of these. Not a one. You don't have to take my word for it. Here she is in December 19, sorry, December 2025. I can't tell what the publication is here. This is to the New York Times December 2025. This is her written interview. She was then a bank employee and part-time model from Switzerland. She said in an interview with the New York Times that during the event, one of Mr. Trump's employees asked her to meet privately with him in a suite upstairs. Almost as soon as she arrived, Miss Kuhl said, Mr. Trump began groping her, kissing her and trying to lift up her dress. I yelled. I screamed. I pushed him. She said he didn't want to give up. She said she was withholding some details of what happened because she had been subject to anonymous threats. Miss Kuhl first described aspects of the episode to the Daily Mail last year. And here is that report from October 2024 to the Daily Mail. They write, "It was only because of her height and strength that Beatrice Kuhl could fight off the former president." Quote, "I think my size saved me." She said of the 1993 incident in the Plaza Hotel, which Trump owned at the time. She's coming forward now in October 2024. What happened in November 2024? Does anyone remember? What happened? Oh, wait, I remember. Because she discovered the documentation for the trip from her home in Zurich, Switzerland, sitting in a box when she prepared to move. Oh, you see, it had nothing to do with the election. People stop. Okay. She was just cleaning. She was doing spring. Well, fall cleaning. And she found the box. And that's why she waited 30 years to come. forward and tell everybody that she had been gripped, violently gripped by Donald Trump. It was just in a box. You see, and she was moving and she found it a long time friend Swiss writer Pascal Lai-Vaz told the Daily Mail that cool first told him her story of Trump's unwanted sexual advances 20 years ago. And that her telling of the incident has not changed in the intervening years. Oh, well, it would change a lot from October 2024 to now. Not a lot. Hate to break it to you, Pascal, but she decided to amp it up. The Trump administration had denied it through Caroline Levin at the time. So here she is. She wasn't content just to speak to the Daily Mail in October 2024 or the New York Times in December 2025, but at the beginning of this year, January 2026, albeitress decided to give an interview to a podcaster whose show is called The Conspiracy Files, and here is her describing why she went and saw Donald Trump that day. That's the reason also I accepted to go and to attend and it was, how should I say? It was a dream come true. You know, I was very positive, I was packing, I was happy, I was looking forward, and then it happened totally differently than I imagined to myself. And that's where I personally met Trump and Epstein at the press luncheon. So everything started smoothly, you know? And then I turned from white to black or black and white as you want. And then the incident that was already related, you know, in the press, you know, I cannot go into details, because otherwise we have to stop the interview. I cannot talk about it just like that, but in one word, it was horror. That's all I can say, horror. Okay, so she can't talk about it, now she can't go into the details, but it was horror. Great. Okay, so I guess, are we getting ready here to amp up our charges, like are we already speaking to the Democrats? What's happening? Well, let's check back in with Beatrice and June, six months later, June of 2026, where she did a three part interview with punched up a show. And let's see if she uses the rape word here, going to read it to you. Cool says Trump first, quote, jumped on her, kissed her and tried to lift her dress. He was grabbing and touching my body everywhere he could, she claims adding, it was violent. It was quick. It was intense. I was screaming for help. And nobody came. It was bad. She then recalls him telling her to keep quiet about what happened. He threatened me. He clearly told me I must keep quiet, otherwise bad things can happen. A remark she took as a threat to her safety. As Kool previously told the Daily Mail, I was in a foreign country. I was scared that I could not go home or I couldn't come back. And so she says, I promised him that I was going to keep quiet. Kool also alleges, Epstein made moves on her that day prior to Trump's, prior to Trump's alleged assault. Epstein had introduced himself to her, she said, as Don's best friend, quote, unquote, and told her she was supposed to be his quote, prey, inviting her to a party at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Reserve. Not a word about this alleged rape, nothing. But now she's had the chance to sit down with a bunch of Democrats, preparing a report on Epstein, their new favorite subject. And in there, she finally accuses Trump of having raped her. They say that they interviewed her over several weeks. She said she was just 24. She was at a press event for a pageant at the Plaza Hotel, which he owned at the time that he reportedly grabbed her from behind, or she told them that he grabbed her from behind. He forcibly raped her in the process tearing her dress and causing bleeding and bruising on multiple parts of her body. Oh my gosh. Wow. Amazing. She didn't tell any of that to the Daily Mail or the New York Times. That's those are some details bleeding and bruising. She described the rape as brutal. Following the alleged assault, she claimed that Mr. Trump sat her on the edge of the bed, repeated his promises to arrange for a visa and admission to NYU and made her promise. She would keep quiet saying the show must go on. They do report in the telegraphs right up of this that in her original claims in October 24, she accused Mr. Trump of groping, not raping. Okay. So this is bullshit. And of course, Caroline Levitt dismissed the stuff as fake. Here the White House is also saying this is ridiculous and adding a White House spokesperson that Mr. Trump has been fully exonerated of anything relating to Epstein. So here we go again. How many elections can we rejigger this hoax? All right. Like, we already did that. Isn't like, I feel like once is enough. We did it in 2016, like they, then they tried to do it again before the 18 midterms because he was president. And now here we are. We did it again before 24 probably did it in 2020, so I can't really remember that one. And now he acts like 20, he's not even on the ballot. Now it's 2026. We're going to do it again. More rape allegations got done on Trump. Like, they're getting stale. I got to give you some free advice, find a new Republican. Like you should try this against somebody else. I'm joking. Of course, do not make fake rape claims against anybody, but this is obviously fake. Like whatever, I don't know what the actual truth is. I just know this is absolutely not to be credited given her amping up right before all the elections. Right. I'm sorry to tell you, Beatrice, I don't believe you. I don't believe all women, and I definitely don't believe you. All right, let's talk about James Comey. There's precious little information right now, and I don't feel very confident about this case because I'll just start with this. The statute of limitations on this claim that they brought against James Comey. This criminal complaint ran on, as of October 5th, they had to have charges against him by October 5th of this year. And they filed what's called a criminal information in federal district court, district court in Washington this month, meaning that prosecutors brought charges without immediately seeking approval from either a judge or a grand jury. And Comey's team has already come forward to say that doesn't toll the statute. Like that doesn't stop the statute from running. You needed to get an indictment or an arrest warrant before October 4th of 2026, and you failed. So we are now past the 10 year statute of limitations. I mean, I've got to ask you, what are they doing on team Trump? Like if you, obviously they're very determined to prosecute James Comey. I mean, that thing about the C shells 8647 is still pending. But one that was based on accusations of perjury under oath about what he leaked and what he didn't got thrown out because the US attorney that Trump had placed in the Virginia federal court in that jurisdiction got bounced, saying she was, she was not properly appointed. So the Comey case fell away. And that one's not coming back, by the way. So it's like that case and this case are, I mean, right up to the statute of limitations. So it's like, you know he's going to file his claim and you know there might be irregularities and you know you might screw up some part of the pleading. So what is this? Why would you wait until the day the statute expires statute of limitations to file this claim? Like, you've known about this for 10 years. What is the point? It's like, you didn't think you had it. You didn't want to file it. He leaned on Trump. This is how it looks to me. And they pulled the trigger at the 11th hour. And for all I know they're hoping it gets thrown out because, you know, maybe the DOJ can be like, Mr. Trump, we tried. Well, guess what? That doesn't work. He doesn't, he does not seem satisfied by attempts. He wants actual convictions. As we saw in, for example, his public chastising of Pambondi for not bringing charges. And that was the case where, you know, she'd been trying. She had brought some charges, but not all could be brought legitimately. And he was chastising her and, you know, it was kind of the beginning of her end. But it's basically, not basically, it is based on an allegation that when he was FBI director, he allegedly disclosed to the Times or to the press something about a novel use of surveillance authority that involved Yahoo and its emails. So there is suggesting that, specifically, he, looking for the exact words so I don't misstate it. The article at issue described how Yahoo used a system intended to scan emails for child pornography and spam to help satisfy a secret court order requiring it to search for messages containing a computer signature tied to the communications of a state-sponsored terrorist organization. I don't know what that means either. According to the article, the Department of Justice obtained an individualized order from a judge, a phyza order, a phyza judge, and Yahoo was barred from disclosing the matter. Prosecutors and court papers said that the Times article, the New York Times had this article about it. It came out because Mr. Comey sought to correct misinformation, which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before. So he's saying something broke about this program. It broke erroneously in Reuters. He wanted it corrected. He went to the New York Times or had his people go to the New York Times at his directive to correct it. And in doing that, he transferred classified information. That will play out more right after this break. Don't go away. Our sponsor, the electronic payments coalition says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card in the security it offers are under attack and that senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The electronic payments coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com. And consider telling Congress to guard your card. Okay, moving on the latest on Meghan Markle. Some bizarre news coming out in that case today. So first, there is a report via, let's see. Actually, I don't know who it's via. Maybe it's the Times. Yeah, it could be the Times in the UK. But the headline is that the UK police misplaced the letter that had accused Thomas Markle of being a child sex predator and that you remember how she came out. She rushed to make her statement on Friday. I knew. I knew. I'd received a letter forwarded to me by the Metropolitan Police back in. She said summer of 18 turned out to be January of 19. And then the Metropolitan Police said, we're looking into it. We're looking into it. And then it came out, okay, indeed, it's true. They were, they were sent a letter by Thomas Markle's first wife, Rosalind Loveless, that they did show to the Duchess and they said it was January of 19. But we didn't investigate him then. We've never investigated him since and we never referred him for investigation since then. That's what the Metropolitan Police said after she was the first to rush out with her statement. Well, now the report is at the Metropolitan Police. They were forced to ask the Duchess of Sussex for a copy of the letter that she was saying they had sent her, notifying her of these serious allegations against her father, but on Monday, okay, on Monday, October 26th yesterday, UK newspaper The Times reported that the Metropolitan Police failed to act on the tip off and that they were unable to locate the original letter, which was addressed to their fixated threat assessment center, a specialist unit that assesses potential threats to the royal family and other public figures. Megan kept a copy of the letter and shared it with the police at their request according to the newspaper. That was an important detail to share. I'm sorry, like I don't think Megan Markle's manufacturing fake letters about her dad, but we don't really know what the hell is going on in this case. There's a lot of sketchiness around how this all came out. And only now do we learn that they actually never found the letter allegedly in their possession. They only have whatever she showed them as I guess proving that they showed it with to her. I don't know because what we have is a letter from this woman, the first wife, to the Metropolitan Police. And then the report was that someone showed it to Megan. And then it came out that we believe it was the Metropolitan Police who showed it to Megan. And now the UK police or the Metropolitan Police are revealing via the UK times they couldn't find the letter, but they actually actually don't have whatever letter was sent. Only Megan Markle has it. Is there at least a cover letter from the Metropolitan Police saying attached is the first wife's greed on how your dad is a child's sex predator? And what letter does she have? Does she have a letter from the Metropolitan Police? Or does she have the actual underlying letter? I don't know, but it's a weird wrinkle in a chronology that has not been making perfect sense. So there's that. And then we get dueling reports, okay, listen to this. This is so classic. So hello magazine reported yesterday citing a Megan friend. She's just really, really upset a friend tells hello, quote, she keeps looking at Lily and she's in tears. She's thinking about all the children, the alleged victims. She has young children herself. It's just devastating. It's devastating. Okay. So she can't stop crying. She is in tears all the time looking at Lily and thinking about the children. Oh, and by the way, she has a new gig hosting master chef junior in Australia. I'm not kidding you. She's getting her friends to talk to hello, or they're just doing it. Just to let us know she's really, really sad about all the children that she failed to protect. But at the same time, she really would like, you know, no, she has a new gig. She's back baby. She is relevant again. And at the same time, all this hits, we get this report from the news Australia, which is exclusively revealing that Meghan Marker who recently relocated back to Britain with Prince Harry and their children will be one of the new hosts on the next season of tens. I guess that's a channel junior master chef. The source close to the production confirmed that the popular series will return in 2027 six years after its previous season with Meghan appearing alongside master chef Australia judge polling. Yeah, production for the main series takes place in Melbourne, where it's expected the children spinoff will also be filmed likely over a matter of weeks early to mid next year. With Meghan set to be based in Australia for the duration of the shoot and inside her hinted with Harry that their kids Archie and Lilabet may well join her, though no decision has yet been made. She may be too busy to see them. Harry may have to deal with it. But this is unbelievable. This is so poorly and oddly timed. Why? Why? When you are trying to tell people you are just devastated and crying all day over the poor children, do you then say, but back to me, but news about me and how important I am. You recall that she went on this channel. She already went on this show or some version of it, master chef. Maybe not the junior kind. I don't remember, but she was a celebrity guest back in July. Here was that, sought three. We've had master chef royalty in the kitchen before, but no one like this. All the way from sunny California. Please welcome to master chef Australia. The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle! Okay. Something happened. She didn't like the way they referred to her. She ruffled feathers, but I guess she got the gig because they're looking for attention. Saying that she's going to be part of your program will get you that. There's no way they would have released this, though, without her approval. Everybody has got a deal when they sign a contract with the television network on announcing the gig about how there will be joint approval of what the announcement sounds like looks like in the date of it. So there's just zero chance that she didn't approve of this announcement as she's trying to convince that she's in tears all day and like super sad about not reporting her dad, about her not reporting her dad so that he could get looked into because she just trusted the authorities who weren't investigating him, but she wants us to believe lie to her and said that they were and that she mistakenly believed that might take eight years and she was just really hoping and praying the whole time that something was going on, whatever. It makes no sense. So that's the latest out of Marka land where no one wants to move. Now we've got to talk about Russell Brand because this trial is continuing and we have quite a few updates for you on exactly what's happening there. We talked to our legal panel last week about how this is a grim case for Russell Brand in a lot of ways. The procedures as they're set of a set up over in the UK are extremely biased in favor of the alleged victim and against the defendant. He has to sit alone in this little box, can't sit next to council, can't whisper in council's ear like maybe this is something you could cross on or hey, this point she just made is not true. Nope, that's not happening. He's got to sit isolated in the box like the boy in the bubble. And the witnesses can take the stand behind a drape where virtually no one in the courtroom can see them. I believe the jury can see them and the judge, but like the people in the gallery cannot. So they're deprived. The people reporting on this case from the ability to report on she was gobsmacked. She looked stunned. She was angry. She lost her cool. That's really tough when you can't see the witness testifying. And their anonymity is protected, quote, forever under UK law, forever. You cannot say their name or do the jigsaw identification where like, you know, I say, who's Prince Harry marrying? Well, she used to star on deal or no deal, but that's all I'm going to tell you. And then, you know, Tucker comes out and reports, well, she's got a dad who's a California lighting director. And then somebody else comes out and reports, well, she is mixed race. And you know, before you know it, you have the identification. You're not allowed as news organizations to even do that to do it to issue like meaningful pieces of the jigsaw such that the identity could be unearthed. And again, this is so unfair, like what if you have a serial accuser, truly, if you have a serial accuser and you would not know that unless all the men she had accused could come forward. If they all read in the paper, oh, hey, that's Jane Doe. I dated her. Then they might come forward to, let's say Russell's defense lawyers and say, let me tell you, there's a long litany of us who she's accused. You should know this makes it a lot more challenging for team defense and an event on where they go. And I have facts to report to you that have not made it everywhere in the press because the press is just going with like the biggest highlights. And let me tell you, it takes some digging to find the facts that are that were helpful to Russell brand's defense. Last Thursday, whenever we did this last, we talked about complainant number one. And for those of you who didn't join us, there are six women. One alleges a vaginal rape, that's complainant number one, one alleges an oral rape, that's complainant number three, and one alleges an anal rape, which is complainant number five. The other complainant's alleged one complainant to has zero case. She's alleging he grabbed her arm. I'm not kidding you. Her allegation is he grabbed her arm and she thinks tried to pull her into a restroom. She told everybody the time she thought it was for consensual sex, but she didn't want. Only now, all these years later, does she alleged it was for a potential rape, and I have news on her case in a second. There was just breaking news in the courtroom. So that's one. And the other two alleged, some one alleged is actual groping of like breasts against her well over her clothes and one alleges in the workplace setting. He is somebody insisted that she give him a massage of his shoulders and she did and she didn't really want to and that he placed his face like in her nether region while she was fully clothed like near her nether region. So I mean, these are very like, let's just deal with the real deals like the serious charges. Okay, complainant one, complainant three and complainant five, but I will tell you on complainant two, the one who says he grabbed my arm. Why are we doing here? Why are we wasting our time? The judge in the case, Justice Benathin or is it Benathin? Is the indecent assault that's he's that's an indecent assault by her testimonial grabbed her arm, tried to pull her in a bathroom style. She wriggled out of it will be reduced to attempted indecent assault at this halfway stage of the trial. He tells jurors he has concluded, quote, there was insufficient evidence to support the indecent assault charge in that they should not find Russell brand and that they should find Russell brand not guilty of that allegation. He's reduced it to attempted indecent assault. I mean, it's really like absurd. How the hell do you know what he intended to do with her in there? I mean, she's been telling people, according to the trial testimony, for a long time she thought he wanted to have sex with her in there, not to rape her. And it wasn't until she saw that channel for quote, documentary that her worldview started to change. And that has been a consistent theme by all of the women upon cross examination. The defense has made them all say that they, they didn't, they either didn't think that they'd been assaulted or raped, et cetera, or they had no plans of ever saying anything about it. Many of them have on the record statements to others saying like, I was an idiot, whatever, there's no there there until they saw the channel for document, so called documentary. And that channel for documentary, which is put together by this one reporter in particular, who now we are told has served as a liaison for getting a lot of these women into the prosecution's crosshairs, was, I mean, about as one side of the hit job as anyone could ever hope for who wanted to get Russell brand in trouble. I mean, one of the bizarre things about that documentary, which was jarring, no question. And you may recall that I was very angry at Russell after I saw that because it revealed the fact that when he was 30, he was having sex with a 16 year old, which I just thought was so beyond. And when he came into the red studio, I asked him about it and I told him, I was very angry with him after I heard that allegation. And let me tell you something, he admitted that that one was true. He admitted that he did have an ongoing relationship with a 16 year old. I made a lot of news when he admitted that on my show. And he did point out that the age of consent in Great Britain at that time was 16 and he wasn't violating any law and there certainly wasn't any allegation of force that they did have a relationship. Anyway, but the rest of it was very one-sided, I mean, the whole thing was very one-sided. And what they did was they used actors to like reenact the alleged story and the alleged tales around the story, but it wasn't the actual women. And if you really squinted, you could see that disclosure written in tiny print on screen, right? At the bottom, that kind of thing. But most people walked away thinking the actual women had taken part in that documentary and given firsthand testimonials on camera so brave. And here's just an example of how it looked. And he's like, please come, just come and cut it with me. So then I gave in. He comes running out of the bedroom naked. He came at me with kisses and stuff, which was kind of fun. And then it wasn't that fun when I couldn't move or I knew what he wanted for me. He pushed me up against the wall. I'm like, no, that's not happening. We're not doing that. And at this point, he's grabbing at my underwear, pulling it to the side. I'm telling him to get off me and he won't get off. And he has that glazed look in his eye again. I was very distraught, trying to get out of the house with him being so much taller than me, like holding me up against the wall, pushing himself in me. I couldn't move. And he finally comes and gets off of me and I push him away. He blocks the door. He's like, are you okay? I'm like, no, I'm not okay. Get away from me. And he's like, well, let's calm down. Okay, so that's an actor. That is not Nadia. And for the listening audience, they are showing this woman's testimonial, like the screenshots of her, the video of her, is almost the way you would shoot a rape victim who wanted her anonymity. Like they show just her eyes and forehead, or they show the back of her head. This is an actress. This is not the actual alleged victim. But people walked away from that, quote, documentary and the scary music under the track. I mean, all of this is a manipulation, friends. That is a manipulation. Making that he was obviously guilty for women came forward. This one reporter put them all together and boom, massive problems for Russell Brand, who by the way, at the time was basically the UK's Joe Rogan. He had huge influence over there, a huge YouTube show and had gone from left to right. His politics had changed considerably. He was no longer a darling of the left. He was very, very challenging of government authority, COVID lockdowns. There was a UK minister when this thing came out who wanted him de-platformed YouTube complied. I mean, it was, like, they wanted to make trouble for Russell Brand, whose commentary was white-hot controversial. And boy, did they ever, not one of those four women is involved in the criminal case, not one. No one was either willing or persuasive enough to prosecutors to make their way into the actual trial. So they didn't actually want to participate most of them in the documentary and weren't chosen or didn't want to participate in the criminal trial. So that left a problem, right? And this same reporter who was behind In the documentary, it's come out in the trial testimony, facilitated some of these winners. women getting in touch with prosecutors so that the criminal case could be brought against brand. Now we have these women, again, a new set whose identity is protected forever more. We will never know who they are. And Russell, however, remains getting dragged through the mud by a whole new set of women, all of whom have said that they were inspired to come forward based on that documentary. And I'll walk you through the change in some of their stories from what they had earlier told boyfriends and friends. They believed was, you know, a non-criminal act into, now it's a criminal act that they want him behind bars for. Let me go back to the first claimant, okay? She's the one who claims that she was vaginally raped by Russell. She claims that they were together at this fringe event that apparently had leftist leanings. This is back when Russell was very young and he was, I think, 23 years old at the time. He was not famous. He was at this leftist event with her. She, it came out at trial, was older. She actually was older than he was by several years, I believe. And it turns out that this woman had reported that she had been raped several times prior to this because she claims that she met Russell at this event that he suggested they go to a pub and keep talking or a restaurant. And instead she invited him back to her hotel room. Last week I said apartment. It wasn't. I went back and looked at this. And her hotel room after midnight. Now that's not great. That is a very dumb thing to do. If you don't want to telegraph to a man that you want to have sex with him, I mean, it doesn't mean you have to. I'm not suggesting you cannot be raped under those circumstances. You can. But this is a not smart move at all. It's like Jane Doe showing up at that Cornell fraternity at 11 p.m. Well after she said she had 10 drinks, very fucking stupid, stupid. So this woman invited him back to her hotel room after midnight. She was older. He was younger. He was not famous. And she reported that she had been raped several times prior to this, including by a husband in an arranged marriage. He later wrote a book. I'll leave it at that. Okay. I'm just going to leave it at that. But she is somebody who had previously accused who had previously alleged she'd been raped several times. She invites him in. It's after midnight. He comes out. She goes into the bathroom and when she comes out, he's got a shirt off. Now he's just half dressed. Again, where does she think this is going? The prosecution pressed her on this. What did you think was going to happen here? Oh, I thought he was gay. I didn't think I was endangered all. There was testimony that after the encounter, so she says he threw it down in the bed. She was on the bed. I guess she didn't in the bed. He got on top of her, took his pants off and slid her pants down to her ankles, did not take the pants all the way off. And that he inserted himself in her and raped her vaginally. And he, after the fact, told her that he would love for her to meet his mother who was in town that day and also gave her his email, that latter detail we did report last week. But it is bizarre for your alleged rapist to tell you that he wants you to meet his mom who is in town for the day. She told no one about this for 23 years. She did tell several friends and co-workers, Russell Brand once asked me out on a date, when once asked me out on a date, okay, she'd never made a police report about him until after the Channel 4 report on Russell Brand. So all those years, she'd been saying he asked her out on a date and now she sees the Channel 4 thing and she comes forward and now it's a totally different story. And here it is in part in Sat 10 courtesy of the BBC's reporter. She alleges that once he pushed her, she ended up on the bed with him on top of her, straddling her. And she said, what are you doing? And he responds, saying, no, it's fine, it's normal. And she says, what are you doing? No, stop, no. That was her testimony to the police during that video recorded interview that she said, no, stop, no, out loud. She then described Russell Brand taking down her trousers and her underwear. She said her top stayed on, but he pulled down her trousers and her underwear. She didn't take it off her body. She clarified that her feet remained inside of her trousers and that she still had her shoes on. She then says, quote, he put himself in without thinking how it would hurt me. Quote, he just wanted to ejaculate. She believes it lasted longer than five minutes because she could feel the weight of his body on top of her, crushing her and making it difficult for her to breathe. And she also said what was going through her head was quote, just don't kiss me, don't kiss me. I didn't want his mouth anywhere near me. He was doing quote, lizard like things with his tongue. It was disgusting. He tried to put his fingers in my mouth. She continues saying, I remember thinking I wish it would stop. I would have said get off me, know it hurts. I completely close my eyes. Okay, so that's complainant one. And the jury is going to have to decide whether they believe notwithstanding that testimony that she was giving others about that night for all this time, that somehow she remembered or was finally willing to say that it was a rape after she saw this and that her alleged rapist gave her his email said he wanted her to meet his mother. And we don't actually even know what Russell's full story is because he hasn't yet taken the stand. Well, that's another thing. The prosecution said that they were, this trial was going to take eight or nine weeks, that their case was going to take something like eight weeks to present. It's finishing today. We believe Russell's defense will start tomorrow after three weeks. So the mountains of evidence that they had, I mean, maybe they're just super efficient. They did have something like 27 witnesses go before the jury the other day because a lot of them are just videotaped statements or written statements that they, there's no reason. The parties don't agree, don't disagree on them. You know that this witness is going to say the following. But like we didn't, we're not having a nine week to a prosecution case here. We had three weeks. So we'll see what they think about her. But I, I believe Russell brand will testify as we discussed with our panel last week. The UK rules are very draconian in inferring bad inferences around you. If you don't testify as a defendant, it's the opposite of what we have here. So not only is he going to have a bad inference that he doesn't take the stand in his own defense, which over here would be unconstitutional. He needs to get up there and say, I didn't do it and to tell the story, right? I mean, these details that we're hearing in the cross examinations clearly come from Russell. Like where else would the, where the defense lawyer be getting all this stuff? So it sounds to me like he does have a story to tell and we'll be hearing it. I think that's my prediction anyway. I have no inside knowledge, but given all that, I think he's probably going to take the stand. And what's today Tuesday? So it could happen as early as this week. I imagine if you're the defense, you'd start with Russell. So we'll see. Okay. I want to keep going. Let's go to the alleged oral rape. This is by woman number three. She claims that Russell took her that he, she went willingly with him into a bathroom. And that in that bathroom, he forced himself on her orally. Here's part of her story, as told by the BBC, sat 17. And they had sort of pleasant conversation for about a minute. And then she said he leaned forwards, put out both his hands and grabbed her breasts. She said this person who had just touched my breasts, lent towards me, just both hands grabbing my breasts, only one minute into the conversation we were having. She said she was reeling from the shock of him grabbing her breasts when he grabbed her arm and began to pull her towards the toilet. She couldn't quite remember that he'd taken his penis outside of his clothing and that he was grabbing the back of her neck and head and hair, trying to force her face down to his penis. She said to the jury, quote, he's holding onto my head and hair, quote, every time I tried to move away, he was strong and forcing me back. Then she described to the jury that he did force his penis inside her mouth. She said, quote, he wasn't very well endowed, quote, but there was a lot of pushing right to the back of my throat. And she continued saying, if I do this, maybe he won't try and rape me further, do what he says, and then you are out of here. Complain it through, you also told the court that she closed her eyes and tried not to be there during the alleged oral rape, saying, I couldn't even look at him. I was shaking. When I asked how the alleged assault ended, she did say, quote, he did ejaculate in my mouth and it went down my throat. I remember trying to get rid of what was left. Okay. So this woman, this is 22 years ago, she, she has not alleged rape again until after she saw the channel for documentary, she, the next day after the alleged incident, she told her sister that Russell brand tried to get her to give him a blowjob, not that it happened. The next day, she told her sister, he tried to get her to give him a blowjob. not that it actually happened. She told the same to a friend of hers, a former boyfriend, that he tried to get her to do it, not that she actually did it. When she was interviewed by police in 2023, she also said he tried to. He tried to get me to give him a blowjob, not that she did it. It wasn't until her second interview that it morphed into he did. So even when she first came forward, her story was that he tried to, and then it morphed to, he actually did. Now, when she got cross-examined, they pressed her on the fact that after this alleged rape where she felt so disgusting, she had, you know, he ejaculated in her mouth, that she walked down the hall, you know, out of the bar and back to the friends. She got into a car with Russell Brand and went to a second location with her alleged rapist. We talked about this last week. The cross-examination brought that up, and here's how that sounded in part, Sat 19. The defense continued saying, "So you're saying that after he ejaculated in your mouth, you went back to the party. Complain at three said, I was in a days, I was numb, I was shocked, I didn't know what was going on. I was wondering around the event looking for a friendly face, someone that I recognized. I was having an out-of-body experience." Later on, in the re-examination from the prosecution, Complain at number three said, "It was like watching myself in a movie, like I wasn't really there in my body." The defense then went on to questioning Complain at three about them ending up in the car with Russell Brand traveling to the next venue. And I'm going to say that Complain at three, this was a consistent thing that came up over and over again. They cannot remember the sequence of events that led them to getting in that car, whether they were shepherded or whether they just stumbled into the car, they cannot remember. It's very hazy. The defense said, "He invited you into the car and to the next venue and you intentionally went." Quote, "Obviously you would want to go home if you'd just been raped in the mouth. You behaved inconsistently with what you said happened." Well, this is fair point. I mean, I think a jury could actually believe that a woman who had just been forcibly raped in a bathroom would not voluntarily get into the car, which is essentially a locked box with her rapist and go to another location together. And that same person for years and years and years would only say he tried. He tried to make me do this. But I didn't to her sister, to her former boyfriend and even to the police the first time they sat down together. So there are problems with these stories that you're not really hearing much about them in the coverage of the cases. But there are problems inside that courtroom with these stories. Now, I told you the judge is doing his level best to assist the prosecution as the defense made some points on the cross-examination of witness one. The judge intervened. We talked about this with our panel last week and corrected the defense attorney giving the witness a lifeline saying, "Oh, no, this you're impeaching her improperly," which she did say the following thing when she spoke to the police. The defense was like, "You didn't tell the police that you said no, did you?" You didn't tell the police. You said, "No." And she was like, "Well, I don't know. He was on top of me. He was smushing me with his body." And the judge intervened. "You did. You did. You told the police that you said no." Like, "What the hell?" This is not, you're not the defense lawyer. You're not the prosecution, judge. You're supposed to be a neutral arbiter at least in this country. So in any event, that's what he's up against. 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, stiffness, 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 for 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. 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+ rating with a 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 infocate and to claim eligibility for your free silver on a qualifying purchase before October 30th. That's MK to the number 989898 to it today. Hey everyone, it's me Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on SiriusXM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Lake Lauren, Morgan Callahan, Emily Doshinsky, Jesse Kelly, real clear politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111 and on the SiriusXM app. I want to get to Woman 5. This is very graphic and I just, there's like no good way of talking about the details of this case without getting into the gutter. I am sorry in advance for the language that's about to be unleashed on you. And we've had like a role of this through the Jane Doe case and then that disgusting filth Alex Cooper and her evil mouth. Now this, you know, this is not going to be a pattern. I take no pleasure in these disgusting facts. But here is the story. Witness number five claims she went into Russell Brand's dressing room after she watched him in a show that she adored him, that she idolized him. And this was actually brought out on cross. I'll just play you a little of the cross by Russell's lawyer of complainant number five. Again, this is not the actual cross. It's the BBC and their reporter describing the cross examination and just listen to the like level of sick a fancy by this woman toward Russell, sat 23. The beginning of cross examination focused on complainant five's feelings about Russell Brand before the allegation of anal rape. The lead council for the defense in winter said you are quoted to have said you loved him. This is in your VRI. You idolized him. You were obsessed with him. Quote, do you think that your love calls you to do things? You wouldn't have done with anyone else to which complainant five responded no. The defense continued saying you knew he was extremely sexually active. You knew he was the son's quote, top shagger of the year, three years in a row. Now complainant number five said they didn't know he was the top shagger of the year, three years in a row. But they were aware that he was extremely sexually active. Shagger of the year. Good gracious. That was the BBC's fame under fire podcast with Anushka Mutanda Doherty reporting. So you can hear the level of devotion she had to him. I idolized him. She was obsessed with him, et cetera. So this woman testified that she went backstage with him after his show. And, you know, the defense is trying to point out if you sit through a Russell Brand show, you are going to hear Russell Brand say some very controversial things about himself. He talks openly about how filthy he is, about how it basically if you're looking to have sex, come on backstage and you'll have it. Listen, listen, I think maybe 30 C is the best example you guys play it. >> Well dressed, he must be gay. >> No, no, no. >> Look, he's wonderful haircut. He must be gay. Look how sensitive and vulnerable he is. He must be gay. >> That's great. >> That means women feel safe around me. They trust me. Then bang, pregnant, bang, pregnant, bang, pregnant. >> There you go, love. >> Be careful. >> That's a low cut dress. >> Ah, sorry. Okay. I'm only flesh and blood. I've got instincts. >> Oh, okay. >> What do you think that gesture means? The way you're touching that bowl? What does that indicate? What is that? What's the subtext of that? >> I think we've got to go to break. >> You need to lose that ring me. Because it doesn't mean nothing to you. >> Just a little bit. >> Look at him go. >> Look at him nipples. >> They could like tie him up. >> All right, this. >> We were. >> Yeah, thank you. >> It's been really a one-succeed. See you later. >> All right. Take care. >> All right. How can I do your bra just like this? >> It's fine. >> It's fine. I love you. >> Okay. So you can see in these clips he's being very handsy with male and female reporters trying to undo the bra of an older female blonde reporter there at the end. There was also this joke, which was apparently I used more than once and sat there. that they shouldn't be committing fornication or sardomy is an act of love. You're telling them the truth. You don't hate them 'cause they tell you the truth. - Oh, I think, no, I don't think you can say that that's the truth. And also, I'll be rather so annoyed if I couldn't have anal sex. It really cheers me up sometimes. (audience laughing) - So, no mystery there. But he did joke right from his comedy stage about how if you wanted his autograph, I'm gonna botcha, but it was something in the fact of he will give it to you inside your uterus and semen. It's disgusting, but this is, you know, he regularly made jokes about what a dog he was when it came to this sexual arena. And this woman, complainant five, had just finished up watching him on stage and went immediately backstage and engaged immediately in group sex with him. She and another woman participated in a group interlude with Russell Brandt. That instant, she went back to his dressing room and the report was that she, the other girl was, I think, giving him a blowjob, this girl would also, I think, give him a blowjob, but that because somebody was busy with Russell on the front, that she went around to the back door and that she was messing with him in the back door. While the other girl was messing with him in the front and there was testimony about this. They, they, they talked about this at the trial about exactly what she was doing and there was a back and forth about exactly what she did and how far it went. This is the defense lawyer, Ian Winter Barrister. He confronted her regarding the details of their first meeting backstage. He alleged that she had omitted the full extent of their consensual sexual interaction from her initial interview with the police. He put it to her explicitly that she had performed, forgive me guys, quote, rimming on Russell, colloquially known as oral stimulation of the anus. On Russell Brandt, that night, stating quote, you inserted your tongue in his anus and on the outside of his anus. They brought this up to prove that she was comfortable with and participating in explicit sexual acts involving that part of the body from the moment they met. Trying to undermine her claim that when later, they would meet back at Russell's place and he said that the question, the questioning was that he is explicitly said he wanted to have sex with her anally and that this should have come as no surprise. They'd been building up to it and she had already violated him in that way. So like, now she wants that the painting a picture on the defense of like, you want us to think this is such a horrid thing that he would do to you like where this came out and nowhere you were shocked, you were horrified. You did it to him using a different body part, but you did it to him within moments of meeting him. You went backstage and you stuck your tongue in and around that exact body part. I mean, it's very graphic. All right, so what did she say? The complainant, okay, let's see. That's it. She maintained that everything that happened in the dressing room was consensual, but she disputed the defense's specific wording regarding the back door, answering, I said that I kissed and licked that area, meaning his anus. I don't believe I inserted my tongue into it. I mean, people, what are we doing here? What are we doing here? She knew him 15 minutes. If that, she got called backstage and went down underneath and started rimming the guy. I'm sorry, this is very foul. It's not my behavior, it's hers. It's hers by her own testimonial. That's complainant five, who now is just horrified, horrified, horrified that Russell did wind up returning the favor when she came to his house. And there was testimony advancing the story around this. We did not reveal that particular piece of it the other day, but there was testimony in court that when she got to Russell's house, that they had that interlude backstage one day and then he invited her over and she came over to his house on another day and she says she had consensual vaginal sex with him that night at his house. And then he flipped her over and her testimony is, she was shocked. He started giving it to her in the back door, which she didn't want. It was very painful and she said no repeatedly. And there's been a lot of testimony at this trial from friends and relatives of hers that she present days, when she's been telling the story, has said over and over. I said no over and over and over again. Now there's a question about that, but she's at least claiming that. But it also has come out that even that night, even that night according to the defense, there was discussion between the two of them about having back door sex. I think we have this. Let's watch it. This, yeah, yeah, yeah. This is, this is via the Times radio. They're doing a show called the trial of Russell Brand and they describe some of what came out here in sat 25b. - Winter did suggest an alternative set of events to woman five, what did he say? - Yeah, so he suggested that at Russell Brand's house days later, there had been a conversation between Brand and woman five, where she apparently expressed that she had never had anal sex before. Brand in was told the court explained that he wanted to do so and would like to remove the condom, which in winter said she agreed to. Women five repeated several times emotionally, that's not what happened. She told the court she did not consent to what happened, saying we are not here to discuss my morality, but criminality. Women five said she agreed she had not painted herself in a good light, but had been consistently clear on what was consensual and what was not. - And this was something that was picked up on a little bit later on when the prosecution bar has to got the opportunity to reexamine the witness, Real Comedy Jones. She said to woman five, during that time, he spent with Russell Brand, was there any conversation about anal sex, woman five replied, no. Real Comedy Jones said, was any notice given to you about what he was about to do, again, woman five said, no. In winter suggested woman five, subsequently described to the incident in different ways to different people. How so? - It's in winter make clear that she had told a lot of people at the time what had happened to her, but he picked out on various different accounts that he led as she gave to people. In winter said that she told her romantic partner that she had had anal sex with Russell Brand, that she didn't want it, but came round to it. And woman five said, I didn't say that. I said he had forced anal sex on me. In winter also said that it was her father who first used the word rape. In winter said, when he said that's rape, you said quote, I did not feel that I had the right to call it that. And woman five said in response, in that moment in time, I went there, meaning Russell Brand's house willingly. She said she carried a feeling of guilt and shame for exactly the reason you were doing right here, making me feel I brought it upon myself. Okay, so they're alleging Russell as for permission and receive permission, both to do it in that way and to take off the condom. And I'm sure we will hear more from him if he takes the stand on that. Since then, we've had friends of complainant five take the stand or testify in some way. A friend of hers who was with her at Brand's gig back in 2009, she told the court that complainant five told her about this interlude and said that Brand had anally raped her. She told the court, I said specifically, did you say no and she said yes lots of times. In the defenses cross another witness who said her friend had claimed Brand had without consent raped her anally said complainant five may not have specifically used the word rape actually in this conversation. The prosecution re-examined and she said she and her friend did have multiple conversations about the alleged rape and in them the word rape was used. That's very ambiguous, whatever. The point is they've gotten her, the prosecution has gotten her to verify that at the time, the girl said, I said no lots of times. There is an ex boyfriend who gave testimony on behalf of complainant five and he recalled a similar story that she had said she did not wanna have anal sex with Russell Brand, she'd been flipped over by him. And this boyfriend said she surrendered to it eventually. She did say no, but she surrendered to it. On cross examination, the defense brought up that during his initial statement of the police, he had said that she did not wanna have anal sex, but that she quote, came around to it. You heard that there reported in that sound, but as well she came around to it. This ex boyfriend said he did tell police that And he signed that statement. I was happy with it, but it wasn't. quite what he meant. It was a summarized version. So we're trying to kind of get out of that. The manager of Complenet 5 said her friend told the manager that she was bleeding back there, that brand was very angry and shouted at her. We went over some of that. A colleague of Complenet 5, this is the person who was connected to that reporter, Rosamon Irwin. She recalls the complainant becoming very upset when she got a phone call from someone about the channel for a report. And that Complenet 5, more present day, told her and others about the alleged rape. She said she didn't want it to happen. She had said no. She said Complenet 5, alleged brand had said I will be gentle and that he said he would stop if she wanted him to stop. But then she says he didn't. And then by the way, the witness said that years later, the witness said that after suggesting that she speak to this reporter, the alleged victim, said to this witness, I'm not sure my story has much in it. I was an idiot, young and stupid, probably as much to blame. We shall see my friends where this goes more on this entire trial as we get it. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda, and no fear.