Fani Willis turns court into Jerry Springer; Trump prosecution dead?

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, so glad you're here. Brian Killmee Joe. It's not gonna, this week's not gonna go out quietly for any stretch.

I mean, today in New York City, we'll find out what's gonna be left of President Trump's empire, at least until he can get an appeal going. We're gonna see how much he's gonna be fined. We'll see how that's going. We have so much to talk about. We're also following a few other things, and that is the breaking news happened over in Russia.

We know the vice president has just spoken.

So, before we get to our first guest, which will be in 10 minutes, we have an attorney, Alexei Rigdon, does a great job to put in perspective all the Trump trials. And then Tom Caraco, he is a senior fellow with the International Security Program. He's a missile defense project expert, and we want to get him on his Russia and what they can or cannot do in space. We are waiting for the Fannie Willis Day 2 Carnival to take place.

So, let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. I think there's a you Fairly direct answer. That serves the Interest of the American people, forget Republicans and Democrats, forget the Congress, and that is to release the transcript. Yep, Newt Ingrich talking about the Robert Hurr investigation 2024.

Now, even most Dems think Joe will not be running four more years, but four more years in 2024, as his pushback on Robert Hurr's investigation and feigned rage about not knowing the date of Bo's death blows up in his face. Robert Hurr will be coming in for a hearing, and he has a lot to say. Number two. Because you're sitting with someone today that actually wants to make a difference. Because they deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees.

Because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket. I certainly will not be choosing people to date that work under me. Yeah, turns out that might not be the case. That was Fannie Willis in 2020. You know, the DA over in Fulton County promising not to have sex with employees.

Oops. A Jerry Springer revamp, the credibility of the prosecutor of the Georgia case, spent 10 hours bending the truth, exposing the corruption at the core of the case against Donald Trump, who was in New York courtroom today to find out about his first criminal trial, which will be against Alvin Bragg, March 25th. Plus, he finds out today the fate of his own fortune. Number The timing of the announcement of Navalny's death was a mafia-style message from Putin to those NATO allies, to his opponents domestically in Russia, trying to manipulate the West into thinking that they can compromise on Ukraine. Alexey Navalny is dead.

Russian opposition leader Navalny died in prison. He was alive yesterday. The cause unknown, but he has been in isolation for weeks. The message is clear. The timing is designed to send fear to NATO allies and get the nuclear capabilities in space out of the headlines.

Perhaps I will bring you the latest.

So, Alexey Navalny, 47 years old. What should you know about him? First off, this is a guy that Vladimir Putin feared. Why? This guy was sending drones into the backyards of Vladimir Putin's huge complexes and compounds and all the oligarchs and show how much money they're robbing from their people.

This was a guy that ran in 2013 for mayor of Moscow and got 27% of the vote as if it was going to be a legitimate election. This is a guy that was so feared and popular by Vladimir Putin, he was poisoned. And thankfully, he was able to get Medevac out to Germany where he got some great medical care and he was revived. And while he was got have you brought out of a coma. And instead of staying out in exile and maybe nipping at the heels of Vladimir Putin and being a provocateur, he went back.

almost knowing for sure that he would be jailed and he was.

So he gets jailed and spends a year with a bunch of trumped-up cases and horrible prisons. The last one was a penal colony right by the Arctic Circle. And when you saw him on video, I think a month ago, you saw that this guy's probably about 6'4. He looks about 130 pounds, but he's not complaining. He saw a bigger cause.

This is Navalny talking on Sixty Minutes about how Vladimir Putin tried to kill him, cut one. You have said you think that Mr. Putin's responsible. I don't think I'm sure that he's responsible. For poisoning him.

And now he's dead.

So, keep in mind, he was sauna on video yesterday. I don't know why we weren't showing it on the network, but now we're not. We're actually seeing the Fannie Willis trial begin. But this guy's a guy with just tremendous courage. I think that the type of courage in many respects similar to Mandela, I'll go in jail for my people.

I know injustice when I see it. And he said the older Vladimir Putin got, the crazier he got. He's a megalomaniac, 21 years in power. General Jack Keene joined us earlier and talked about why Navalany matters, cut six, and the message we should be getting.

Well, we can only speculate uh at this point, but I mean we The pattern of behavior is obvious. You've already discussed it. If you're an opponent of Vladimir Putin's and you're a serious opponent, you're likely to die. I mean, he's killed his opponents on the streets. He's poisoned them.

He's imprisoned them as he's done here. This is probably the most popular opponent he's ever had. And it's not surprising that he has met his death one way or the other. are likely at the hands of Putin and his thugs. By the way, just on the court, and I'll finish this, it looks like Wilbus Bonnie Willis will not take the stand for a second day suit.

She's full of surprises. First, she had a subpoena so she wouldn't have to take the stands. I said, okay. And then she says, I'm going to take the stand, and just creates havoc yesterday over the course of seven hours. And then today he says, I'll be back.

Not going to be back. No more questions.

So Congratulations, you created chaos. Does anyone take that Georgia case seriously now? Nobody. Back to Navalme. Kamala Harris is at the Munich Conference representing the administration in the country.

Obviously she wants The Ukraine aid passed. Obviously, it's not been brought up in the House yet. It passed through the Senate.

So, first, she commented. On the death of Navalny. Me keep in mind, it's just bizarre that President Biden you know, it's nine o'clock now, you know, nine o'clock Eastern time when you're listening to this. This this came across at like seven ten Eastern time in the morning. Get him up.

Put out a statement, write a statement, have them sign it, but instead, this is the first thing we hear, cut two. We've all just received reports that Alexey Navalny has died in Russia. This is of course terrible news. which we are working to confirm. My prayers are with his family, including his wife Yulia, who is with us today.

And if confirmed, this would be a further sign of Putin's brutality. Whatever story they tell, Let us be clear. Russia is responsible. And we will have more to say on this later. And then she went on to a normal conference where she rips the Republicans for not supporting her without saying Republicans for international aid.

The problem is, and I've been saying this to nauseum, most of you don't agree, but there is a necessity to give Ukraine the weapons they need to continue to pound the Russians and defend themselves in their own country because they got bigger plans. This guy is absolutely insane, Vladimir Putin, but he's evil, but not crazy. He just wants expansionists, doesn't care about his people, willing to use them as sacrifices. Do you know this guy is actually recruiting in Nepal and Cuba and bringing them over to fight in the freezing temperatures in the Ukraine? That's how desperate he is.

But the problem is, she never acknowledges, does She never acknowledges that the problem is the border. And the problem is domestic issues here. And the problem is that she was in charge of the border.

So she's directly responsible. The worst collapse in the history of our country. Do you know 73% of our country, 73% of the country, in a recent poll. Say That the border has collapsed and is a crisis. That was her first job.

And she's out condemning Republicans for saying fix the border first. We'll get into where it's at now because there is some news on that legislative front coming now from the House, thanks to the Problem Solvers Caucus. We'll see what you think of it. I want to give you a little bit more textures of what's going on elsewhere. First off, what happened with the court case yesterday.

I'll kind of save because we're about to do that on the Trump trials. But the other thing that I wanted to bring across is what happened with the President yesterday. President of the United States basically watched in about 20 minutes his push to dismiss the Alvin Bragg case thrown out the door. The judge was dismissive. He was condescending by all reports and basically said, no, this goes forward.

And now it's going to be first up, Alvin Bragg and Michael Cohen. Yes, we have made the state case, a city case, a federal case, and the first one that President Trump will be filing about an event that happened allegedly in the 90s that affected the election in 2016. I'm looking at the calendar. It's 2024. That's the urgency, really.

You listen to the Brand Kill Me Show. When we come back, I'm going to talk to legal attorney. Attorney Lexi Rigdon. She's going to be with us too. She has offered her analysis.

And keep in mind, too, the The hearing is in a little bit of chaos because Fonnie Willis will not be testifying.

So that kind of messes with the format a little today. Ultimately, a judge will decide if these kids, Nathan Wade, these lovebirds, and Fonnie Willis stay on the case or if the case even lives. Brian Kilmead Show. Don't move. Politics, current events, and news that affects you.

Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Kilmead. But that was cute.

But I didn't give him money outs uh in a contract. What happened at no, we're gonna answer it since you said it. He worked. He worked more hours than he was paid. And The county paid him for the work that he did.

So don't be cute with me and then think that you're not going to get an answer. I don't need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who's ever footed my bills completely is my daddy. I probably had some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion.

So I don't know that it was a conversation. As you know, Mr. Wade is a Southern gentleman. Me, not so much. I think we have to.

I very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness. I very much want to be here. Not so much that you're hostile, Miss Willis. It'd be an adverse witness. Your interests are opposed to Miss Merchants.

Okay. A contrary to democracy, your honor, not to mine. Right.

Now, that's a very mature approach. What a joke. Fonnie Willis, in case you do not know, she was supposed to testify. She's not supposed to testify at all, because that's why they fought the subpoena. They were looking to bypass her.

She wanted to be bypassed. Got so outraged in a temper tantrum, gets on the stand, and for the next eight hours dominates the airwaves. I found it interesting, but I don't know if it helped her or not. I know one thing, it made a comic book version of this case. Does anyone take it seriously, even though the consequences are real if it goes forward?

Lexi Rigdon joins us now, and she's an attorney legal analyst. Lexi, first off, the news. She will not take the stand today. We can only speculate why. First off, do you think she helped herself yesterday?

I think that she helped herself. I was watching other networks' coverage of this, and some of the more liberal networks really thought that she came across as very strong, and of course, she's very indignant, and why wouldn't she be? And I actually heard somebody say on one of these other networks, I think she's in a better position. I don't agree. I think that she came off as defensive.

She was one of the most disrespectful witnesses I've ever seen, either in person or on T V. If I were her attorney, I would have been absolutely mortified by the way that she acted and the entitled manner in which she acted. The fact that she is the DA, I think that's why she felt like she could get away with that. But I don't think that she necessarily helped herself. I think that both her and Wade Did not, their stories just didn't make any sense.

And so I think that the state probably figured this morning, we're just going to cut our losses here. There's nothing more that she can say. She already got her talking points out. She said she's not on trial. She said Ashley Merchant and company were lying.

So I think that they probably figured we don't need to subject her to another day of this because it's not going to help.

So the goal is this: to impress Judge Scott McAfee. This is what Mike Tower's attorney did, tried to do yesterday, when his attorney when his attorney got up there and said, look, They're compromised. This is a romantic relationship. The reason this guy got hired in his prosecuting is because, even though he has nothing on his background that shows that he should be, he has given charges to felony before, that he should be working this case against the president of the United States. And then you see all this personal vacations, and they came back and said, Well, we don't really have any records of this.

We were friends, and the relationship started later. Don't believe my friend's testimony when she said the relationship started in 2019. And all that relationship, we did everything in cash. I paid him back for all this stuff, so it's not traceable. But ultimately, what is the judge looking for?

The judge has said that his focus of this inquiry is on direct and indirect financial benefits.

So the fact of when their affair began, I think, is. relevant in terms of why he was appointed. And also it's relevant because they both claim that it was not prior to his appointment. But the crux of I think what the judge is going to be focusing on is whether she actually had a financial interest in the case. And that's why their trips And of course, the the prosecution side has tried to make it seem like, oh, this is so irrelevant.

You guys are just beating up on us for having a personal life.

Well, of course, that's not it. You're taking trips. You as the DA are taking trips with a person that you appointed who's not qualified to do the job, that's a serious appointment for a very serious case. Taking trips with him after he was appointed and he's being paid by taxpayers. And also, you don't need to actually find actual prejudice to the defendants in this or any case.

to have For the court to find that there is a conflict that is disqualifying. It just has to, even the appearance is enough. Because think about it, you might never be able to find actual prejudice. We're never going to know what was said behind closed doors. We're never going to know if they got together and said, you're going to be paid handsomely for this.

So instead of indicting one, let's indict 17 or 19 so that we can churn the file.

So we're never going to know that.

So just the appearance of it is enough.

So We're going to find out the judge. I imagine he's going to make a quick decision on whether this goes forward. But if it does go forward, what do you think this does to the quality of the case?

Well, people are going to look at her. They're going to see corruption. They're going to say, look at Nathan Wade and go, what are you even doing there? And they're going to bring this case up. But I think it makes it look like, as I mentioned before, the Jerry Springer show.

Oh, a hundred percent. If the judge finds that the behavior, the actions were not disqualifying and the case moves forward, it's already cast a paw over the case. And what they should have done, if I had been her or him the night before yesterday, when all of this stuff was gonna come out about me, because it's either gonna come out and I'm gonna stay on the case. And it's going to mar my reputation and it's going to call into question even if eventually there's a guilty verdict or I'm being disqualified. Either of those things are such a bad result that what they should have done the night before this is said, you know what, Uncle, we're not going to do this.

And at that point, they could have said, this is for the good of the people of Georgia, this is for the good of my office. We're just going to disqualify ourselves and not put everybody through a spectacle.

Now they can't because they've already participated in the spectacle and they had too much hubris. To look at this objectively and step down.

So if it goes forward, I don't know, maybe it's even another appeals issue for if there are convictions. But if they are disqualified, then what I had said yesterday on Fox and Friends First is that there is an existential threat to the prosecution. Because at that point, if she's disqualified, her entire office is disqualified. As in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, remember the jogger that was murdered in Georgia, that case was transferred by the Attorney General's office in that state to a different prosecutor's office. And so if that happens here, if there's a conflict, a new DA looking at this might just decide not to bring charges.

So I don't know, but that's a possibility. Real quick on we own less than a minute. The President of the United States is going to find out about in the civil trial how much money they they're going to say he owes, maybe $450 million. He's going to appeal right away. What happens in the interim?

Can they take that money? Do they man that bond? Do they destroy his business? I think he would probably ask for some type of a stay and he would appeal and they're not going to be able to just they're not going to be able to just take the money right away and he doesn't I'm sure he doesn't have $450 million to give right away anyway.

So much like in the other cases where it might be in some type of an escrow, it's not going to be business, force him to sell properties? He would have to ask for he'd have to ask for a stay pending appeal, which hopefully would be granted so that a higher court can figure out if the verdict was the right one. Could not be more corrupt in my view. It's all about elections. Thanks, Lexi.

If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. This is not. An active capability? But It is Potential one that we're taking very, very seriously.

This is not an active capability that's been deployed. And though Russia's pursuit of this particular capability is troubling, There is no immediate threat to anyone's safety.

So it was just crazy. Over the last two days, we hear about Russia has a nuclear weapon looking to and they're prepared to blow up all our satellites in space, essentially blinding us, especially our military. Is it true or not? Why did Mike Turner come out? And say, I need to have this declassified.

Why did he show all the bring it to the floor? Right, prior to Jake Sullivan briefing. The entire committee. Tom Carrico joins us now, Senior Fellow of the International Security Program, Director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I'm still trying to make heads or tail of what goes on.

Is Russia capable of putting a nuclear weapon in space to blow up our satellites?

Well, good morning. First of all, I think it's important to emphasize and recognize we don't know yet what this is. It is significant, of course, that Representative Turner made this kind of a A veiled press release, kind of an indication. He's a very careful representative, and he's never done something like this before, so that's interesting. Uh, there have been some press reports that suggest that it is uh clearly a space issue, a space capability.

Uh, there have been other press issues that it is somehow uh related to something nuclear. It could be a nuclear device, it could be a nuclear-powered thing that is perhaps an electro electronic warfare or something like that. We don't know yet what it is, but to your direct question, uh, of course they're capable of doing it. Uh, putting something into orbit uh is a very old hat. And nuclear weapons do not weigh that much.

After all, so of course they're capable of doing it. It happens to be a violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but you know, that's probably the only. uh arms control treaty that the Russians haven't violated lately, so I wouldn't put any too much stock in that either.

So, Jake Sullivan gave the briefing yesterday behind closed doors, and here's what the speaker said about it, cutting.

Some details have leaks. There's lots of conjecture. But what we're permitted to say in an unclassified setting, it is that it is a very serious matter. It does involve Russia. It's not a matter that can involve delay.

It's something we have to address seriously. And on an immediate basis, and we are. I want you to know that the White House gave us information today. They were going to remain in close contact with leaders of Congress on the issue, and it will be dealt with. There are steady hands at the wheel.

The United States can't rely on other nations to handle matters like this. Uh we must do it ourselves.

So we'll see what happens. We know the Russia threat is real in Ukraine. I mean, they've moved nuclear weapons to Belarus. We know that for sure. We know now they have a tight relationship with North Korea.

In a term for artillery, they're helping them with their nuclear program. These are not good this is not good news. No, that's true. I think, nevertheless, Speaker Johnson's comments that you quoted there are also important. This is the reason.

The salience of all different kinds of counterspace capability that our adversaries, Russia and China, and other folks are investing in. This is the reason that the United States and other countries. you know, set up first in the first instance of space command. And then, of course, also the Space Force. And that standing up of especially Space Command recognizes that, no kidding, space is a warfighting domain, and we have to think that through and the implications of that, just as other maritime and aerial and land domains.

It's not a sanctuary. And so, you know, the same country, Russia that brought us the butchers of Buka and all the atrocities in Ukraine over the past two years, look, they don't operate by the same set of rules or quote-unquote norms that we do. And many of the things that we might think are unthinkable, they might not.

So we know that Alexey Navalny has been killed. He was seen on video. If we're to believe what we were seeing yesterday, February 16th, he was looking emaciated, but was up and around. And you could see the video that he was actually smiling or mocking a judge. It was in Russian.

I couldn't understand it. But now he's dead. And he's forty-seven years old. Uh they said he died of natural causes, which the Russians always say. But what is the message you think Vladimir Putin's trying to send, knowing that all the Western leaders are meeting in Munich at the security conference?

Yes, falling out of a window defenestration, which involves a lot of gravity, is also, I guess you could say, a natural cause. Look, point out that President Biden was asked about this in 2021, and he was asked what would happen if. Navalny ended up being killed. This was in a a press conference, and President Biden said that the results the consequences for Russia would be quote unquote devastating.

So we'll see if that's the case. There's a lot that's happened, of course, in the past two years. Since then, with the whole Ukraine thing. But I would just say: look, again, this is. These are folks, these are our adversaries that don't play by the same rules as we do.

They're quite willing to kill their political enemies and sometimes terribly and terrible means. He was, after all, being held above the Arctic Circle. It couldn't have been very pleasant all around. But I think the lesson here, the object lesson here is that Russia, and I would say China as well, operates by different rules, and they're pretty ruthless. And that's the message they don't mind sending the West.

I mean, in a way, that's helping sell. skeptics that Russia is a belligerent, obstinate power, that it has an expansionist goal, and you need to support Ukraine. In a way, it kind of goes against what he was hoping, and that's Western support to Wayne. Possibly so. That's still an open question.

We need we're waiting yet to see the supplemental pass in Congress. Right now, it's an open question when and if that will come through. Putin might have thought he could this was a good time to do it because he's seeing some support for Ukraine, for instance, waning. I will say the Germans and other folks recently have announced Some positive developments in terms of doubling or quadrupling ammunition transfers to Ukraine relative to the past. But in real terms, they're going to need a lot more than that.

So I think don't let the foot off the gas just yet. Tom Carrico joins us now. He is the Director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Tom, no doubt about it. China has increased Exponentially, their nuclear program.

But yet they're not involved in any types of treaties, agreements, even to violate. Should there be any agreement without China's participation? Look, agreements are valuable only in as much as you are confident that they're going to honor them. And so the proof of the pudding is in the eating on that particular question. And so an agreement is not a security blanket.

It's only valuable if we have confidence that it will be verifiable and that it will be enforced. And so I'm a little bit hesitant in terms of just reaching for an agreement to appease us, to make us feel better. What we believe need to focus most on is staying the course on our own nuclear and conventional modernization. Where are we at with that? It's coming along, but I'll tell you, we're not building Virginia class submarines or Aegis destroyers nearly at the pace that we have said for years and years that we need to be doing.

We're not building We're starting to ramp up, but we're not building the long-range hypersonic or, frankly, garden variety cruise missiles even that we need in the numbers that we need to deter Chinese adventurism.

So, there again, it comes down to dollars, it comes down to budgets. We've got to to appropriate for these things. The Department of Defense has to give the defense industry the solid and sustained and Congress does too, the solid and sustained demand signal so that this can be done. Lastly, I was on with the Spa uh former Space Force Cyber Command. Officer, he told me yesterday that the Air Force is standing in the way of Space Force modernization.

There's stuff that they could be doing, and they were getting so frustrated by the Air Force looking to maybe. protect their territory. Have you found that? Could you know anything about the dynamics there? Yeah, I I would say that look the Department of the Air Force now encompasses both The service, the Air Force, and the Space Force.

So they are kind of unified under one department, after all. At this point, the Space Force has been around for a couple years. They're beginning to kind of feel their. Feel the roads, and they're getting some pretty decent. Pretty decent funding.

That's not to say that inter-service rivalries aren't going to be perennial. You know, the Marines and the Navy are going to be able to hurt progress, right? Tom, it just can't hurt progress. Sure. Got it.

Tom Carrico, thanks so much, Tom. Appreciate it. Have a great weekend. All right, thanks. All right, your turn to to speak.

We're keeping you up to date, by the way, on the latest news from Georgia and the courtroom, where we found out that Fonnie Willis will not testify. I mean, it's opposite day with her. Yesterday she wasn't supposed to, she storms in and says, put me on.

Somebody's lying, either her best friend or her. Because she said the best friend said this relationship started in 2019 with Nathan Wade would show a direct conflict of interest. And she says, now more like 2019 end in 2023, right before the Right before the case started. Nobody's buying it, and ethically, it's a joke. I think the whole department, the whole county court looks bad.

It's up to the judge to decide to remove her from the case. And is there a case where someone else has got to ramp up on it? And would anybody else have charged 17 people along with the former president for what they say was trying to overthrow the results of an election? By the way, Donald Trump leading by about six points in Georgia. Weird.

I think the governor's got to step up and say something. Wouldn't you say that? This is an embarrassment to the state of Georgia. I'm no Trump apologist. Didn't like what he did in the election, but this has got to stop.

Love to see a presser about that. You listen to the Brian Kill Me show.

So glad you're here. Learning something new every day on the Brian Killmead Show. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Don't let the legalese fool you.

This is epic. This is monumental. If things are going in the direction we think, Fonnie Willis lied to the court, it's game over for her. She will be disqualified. It's a mess for the office, to be clear.

Regardless of what the legality is, it is a mess for the office and something they're going to have to deal with. They're going to have to put in front of a jury that is seeing all this playing out. It might be appropriate for Ms. Willis to consider. removing herself from this case now and turning the reins over to a senior official in the district attorney's office and let him or her handle it.

Because this is getting ugly and it's getting messy, and my guess is it's not going to get better. I wanted to play that and Eric and Allison cut it because it's MSNBC and CNN. I don't want, you know, the legal analysts are not biased. I mean, I have Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, best in the business. But I want you to hear what other people are hearing on other channels because many people don't want to flip, and I appreciate that.

That helps us.

So I'll help you guys out by giving you an understanding. Because legal is almost almost as if it reminds me of sports in that after the game is over, you need analysts. You don't need people to tell you the losing team won.

So, these people look at this and go, My goodness, I want Trump convicted, and this is not going to help, or it's going to help. Like, listen to Mika Brzezinski, not a lawyer, cut 30. The fiery testimony yesterday from Fulton County District Attorney Fonnie Willis. Her appearance on the witness stand came in a hearing connected to the Georgia election interference case. It was Incredible.

I will tell you, Willie, when Fonnie Willis stood up, came into the room and said, I'm here, I'm going to take the stand, I thought, oh boy, everybody, everybody sit back. This is going to be something. She was defiant, she was upset, she was. Angry? Um, and many would say she was asked a lot of degrading questions, yeah, degrading questions because her behavior.

And because she ran on Uh, we ran on. We don't think people should have sex with co-workers in the office. That's how she got her job. And guess wh who's doing that? Her.

In fact, we have that cut, right? Yeah, I think it's it's on the sheet. Here's what you are. This is her in 2020, I think, running for office, which we found out later yesterday was a lonely period in her life. Because you're sitting with someone today that actually wants to make a difference.

Because they deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees. Because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket. I certainly will not be choosing people to date that work under me. Let me just say that. That's what she ran on.

And guess why she's on trial today? Because she didn't tell the truth about it. Then she does tell the truth about it. And now there's a problem with when this relationship started because ethic violations regarding this case. And this these these people seemed totally unworthy to try the former President of the United States.

Where no other state has done this, they're going to be the first. And why do they like these state cases? Because if the president becomes president again, the former president becomes president again, he cannot pardon himself from a state case.

So he might be leading the country from prison. Theoretically, it could happen, but I don't see it happening. Number one, there's a strong case against it just on its merits. If the president has good attorneys, he's certainly paying them enough. And then you look at these carnivals of inadequacy that we're watching right now put that case together.

But what bothers me most is they didn't bring it up yesterday, and I guess it's because the judge said I'm only looking at this relationship and how it relates to the case and ethics violations. But you know what they're trying to bring up already. You're talking to the White House. You're talking to Jack Smith. You have invoices for meetings with White House counsel.

So, don't tell me for a second that this is not part of a greater conspiracy to get the President out of this race or make him or hurt him in the polls, just enough. That he loses To Joe Biden. And as Mark Thiessen pointed out yesterday, and I think it's an important point. Senator Fetterman, not yet close to recovered from his stroke, which he seems to have recovered from, and that's great. Not able to speak or campaign.

One. Joe Biden's not going to come back like Fetterman came back. Joe Biden's suffering from age. And being overwhelmed in the position, he shouldn't be in that position, he shouldn't be running for office. And you'll see it today on One Nation Saturday.

Uh at nine o'clock. We got some cuts from people in the New York Times just talking about what they are saying behind closed doors, that people see Joe Biden, who haven't seen him in a while, and they cannot believe how he's aged and they notice there's a big difference from the guy that was Vice President of the United States. In terms of people that were not impressed with that testimony, how about Jonathan Turley, cut twenty-three? What was really damaging here is the fact that both of these attorneys now stand credibly accused of filing false information with courts. That's what they're prosecuting defendants in this case for.

And in the case of Mr. Wade, when they went through the interrogatories that he answered in the divorce case, most of us view those answers now as demonstrably false.

So the question is: if she didn't have this personal relationship with Wade, would she really be keeping him around under this cloud? No, of course not. But When you have somebody that's great at divorces and car accidents, he's invaluable to trying the president. That is his background. According to reports, he has never tried.

No, it's fact. He has never tried a felony case, but he's getting $660,000 to try this case. Out of pure merit. Or, where exactly do they go? What I love is, and I found it frustrating but entertaining, never answered a question.

would always go into way too much color. And way too much background information rather than just saying, yeah, we dated. He stayed over my apartment. That was my best friend for 30 years. I have a differing account.

Instead, my former friend betrayed our friendship. Why? For telling the truth? We're not going to see any more of this. I only care about this as it relates to President Trump.

He's going to be also finding out about his personal fortune this today, on this Friday. Brian, kill me, Choe. Keep it here. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian In Kill Mead.

Brian Kilmead here coming here from 4826 in Midtown Manhattan, where all chaos is breaking loose because you got president with two trials back to back. I mean, he's got to be in court today to find out about his personal fortune, the verdict on his civil trial, which to me is a total joke. There's no plaintiff except for an ambitious woman, Letitia James, who ran on getting President Trump. And number two, with the other thing that happened yesterday, and that's the president trying to get his Alvin Bragg trial dismissed, he was not successful. The judge was curt and dismissive and condescending.

Standing by right now is Jonathan Churley to go over this. And we also have this hour going to talk to Congressman Jason Smith about a new bipartisan. Problem Solvers Committee. Proposal to not only get foreign aid, but also address the border. I think we'll find very interesting.

Before we get to Jonathan Churley, let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. I think there's a. Fairly direct answer. That serves the interests of the American people.

Forget Republicans and Democrats, forget the Congress, and that is to release the transcript. Of the interviews, I think it's five to seven hours of Joe Biden in the Oval Office 2024.

Now, even most Dems think Joe will not be running for four more years in 2024. His pushback on Robert Hurd's investigation and feigned range about not feigned range about not knowing the date of Bo's death. It turns out that blew up in his face, I'll explain. Number 10, because you're sitting with someone today that actually wants to make a difference. Because they deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees, because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket.

I certainly will not be choosing people to date that work under me. Oops, sorry, guess I did. A Jerry Springer revamp: the credibility of the prosecutor. That was, by the way, Fonnie Willis in 2020. The credibility of the prosecutors of the Georgia case, spending 10 hours bending the truth, exposing the corruption at the core of the case against President Trump, in my view, who is in a New York courtroom finding out when his first criminal trial will take place.

Circle March 25th. Plus, he finds out today the fate of his billion-dollar fortune. Number one. The timing of the announcement of Navalny's death was a mafia style message from Putin to those NATO allies, to his opponents domestically in Russia, trying to manipulate the West into thinking that they can compromise on Ukraine. Jennifer Griffin talking about Alexey Navalny passing away, dead in prison, right by the Arctic, in horrible conditions.

Russian opposition leader has now passed away, and we know the cause. Vladimir Putin. The message is clear. The timing is designed to send fear to NATO and their allies while they're at the Munich conference. And joining us right now to discuss what's going on domestically in these trials is Jonathan Turley.

We're actually watching right now, too. I think that Navalny's widow has just spoken in Munich. She was there. The daughter goes to school with Stanford. Uh just tragic.

Uh great figure. Uh Jonathan Turley, welcome back. Thank you. First off, Fonnie Willis shocked everybody by coming out in the afternoon and said, put me on the stand, even though she had she was fighting the subpoena to put her on the stand. And then today, she decides I'm not going to take the stand.

Is that a good move not testifying?

Well, I think it's a good move to do anything other than what she did yesterday, which was to ignite herself on fire in front of millions. I mean, the Testimony was embarrassing. She came in, she was obviously very angry. And she proceeded to lash out against opposing counsel, the media and virtually anyone else who is asking questions about this relationship. How does it relate to the case going forward?

I mean, for example, what are they looking for? They're looking to see if there were ethical violations. Was she paying her boyfriend money to lead a case? He does not have the qualifications for it. What was he doing with that money?

He went on vacations, about six vacations, at the same time they were dating, at which time she says, I paid him back with cash. Yes, it's a very serious question. I think that One of the most pressing questions for me is that both Willis and Wade are now accused of filing false. Material with the court, including a sworn affidavit from Wade.

Now, the one thing that came out of the testimony yesterday is what I think was Clearly, false answers on those interrogatories. In my view, the opposing counsel did a very good job in showing that Wade's answers to a couple of questions about having sexual relations. I with anyone any other person, was clearly false. And Wade just kept on saying, well, I just read that question to mean something that it didn't say. And the counsel was sort of dumbfounded and said, I just ran into the question.

It asked for any sexual relationship that you've had in your marriage or during your separation all the way up to this date, I believe, in May twenty twenty two. And you said no.

Well, you just Told us that you did have a relationship during that period with Willis.

So The problem is that they're prosecuting people for that offense. They're prosecuting people in this case for filing false. material and claims with the court.

So how do you do that? How do you prosecute people for something that you now stand accused of?

So, I want you to hear what another attorney said on another channel, MSNBC, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, Cut 31. From the get-go, this was about whether the defendant could prove a conflict of interest existed under Georgia law that warranted disqualification for Fonnie Willis. And at least based on what we heard yesterday, maybe they'll have more today, but they came up short. They came up short in Wade's testimony.

The witness, the friend who took the stand, was impeached. And this is the sort of thing that when you're presenting evidence, you don't want to have happen. But it turns out that this witness resigned in lieu of being fired from the district attorney's office. That threw her testimony about the timeline of the relationship into doubt. Ultimately, at the end of the day, yesterday, it was just a big nothing burger, Willie.

There was nothing that showed that Fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade had the sort of financial conflict of interest that Georgia law recognizes, something akin to a prosecutor who. Only gets paid if they win a case. That's the classic case at Georgia law where there's a conflict that results in disqualification. That just wasn't there yesterday in the courtroom. You see it differently.

So do I, actually.

Well First of all, I wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a nothing burger. Ever. First of all, there's the issue of what we talked about just before, but also, how do you know? I mean, the reason that there's no evidence is that these two attorneys just came and said we use cash and there's no record, no receipts. And yes, that creates a real evidentiary problem, but it doesn't answer necessarily the question.

For the court, but also the Department of Justice has prosecuted people for. Essentially, kickbacking money for the use in vacations, trips, and airplane tickets.

So this is not some bizarre theory that's being pursuit is something that the U. S. government has actually prosecuted people for.

Now, does that mean that the judge is going to feel that this case has been made with enough sufficiency. You know, I I'm not too sure of that. I think this puts the judge in a very difficult position. I think that it's clear that Willis acted unethically. I think it's clear.

that she and Wade are harming this case. But the judge could very well say, I don't feel like I have enough evidence to disqualify you. But I do think I have enough evidence to refer you to the bar.

So, for the case, what are the scenarios that could happen? They could kick them out and say, you're off. And then they got to re they someone else has got to get the case? Yeah, many people have been suggesting that the case itself could be. Effectively dismissed by the judge in light of the scandal.

I've said all along that I just don't think that is likely. You don't see that in many of these cases. The most the courts will generally do is to disqualify the attorneys. The most extreme measure in these cases has been to transfer cases. to the to another office for them to prosecute.

But it's very doubtful that the court would toss out the case. There's a grand jury that met they approved indictments, and I don't think the judge is going to change that. Uh now whether Willis or and or Wade our counsel on the case. remains a very significant question. Is there a chance that they could continue?

Sure. And they will have succeeded in putting their personal agenda and interests ahead of their office and their case. I think that their conduct after the allegation Is even more troubling because I think most attorneys would have seen this, particularly in Mr. Wade's case. As a clear reason for me to withdraw.

You know, even if he thinks that he's been wrongly accused. There's enough misconduct here on his part, enough questionable behavior. that you would think that he would remove himself from the case.

Well the other problem is with her story, she's got a best friend that has a different story that said their relationship started in twenty nineteen and uh and she's like, Well, she's not my friend anymore.

Okay, good answer. Uh Judge uh Scott McAfee will make the decision. Do you think this will be a rapid decision? I think it will be. I think that he's going to not give it from the bench.

He'll probably take a couple of days to consider it. I think that he is in a rough place here. I think that what he saw yesterday probably shocked him. coming from Wade and Willis. They were adopting Positions that were transparently weak.

You know, the funny thing is, they're prosecuting. Chrome. Over the meaning of the word find. You know, that's one of the things that they've emphasized in their prosecution: that when Trump said all you need to do is find roughly 11,000 votes, and they say, well, that could only mean he's telling them to go essentially invent them or create them. Trump has said, no, what I was saying is I want a recount because that's all I would need.

So saying that it's going to change hundreds of thousands of votes is really not the issue. I only need to find 11,000 votes.

Now, we can differ on which interpretation is correct. But They're basically saying you that's clearly incriminating. But when it came to their own actions, They weren't remarkably nimble. You know, she was they they read to her the requirements under local rules that she should not be hiring or paying people she's romantically involved in. And she said, well, that's just for employees.

I view him as an agent because he's under a separate contract. And it's a type of argument you would never accept as a prosecutor. Right.

We do know that we got a lot of color, way too much, and not enough fact. And here's an example. I paid for a bunch of stuff. I think we did two different wine. Tours.

That you do, which are pretty expensive. I think I bought him. He likes wine. I don't really like wine, to be honest with you. I like Grey Goose.

So you think that was important for the case? It was. This is the first product placement in a major criminal case. And I think that she could really get a lot more of that cash if she just goes to Grey Goose and says, pay up, okay? I mean, I just.

Totally pegged your product on national television for tens of millions of people. Right.

They could say, you know, we first met at Home Depot. We bought lumber because it's always the most affordable. And then we love the home and garden stuff. We both have a passion for gardening, and the shovels that they have are just fantastic if you act now.

So that would have been interesting.

So we're not going to see anything today. When you look at the New York trial, real quick, Alvin Bragg's going to get the start on March 25th, at which time they got this surprise evidence. Besides the Stormy Daniels situation and the other woman that happened in the 90s that came up in 2015, that they allege a payment was made prior to the 2016 election. They got this surprise evidence. Do you have any idea what they're talking about?

No, and I've been a major critic of the Bragg case, which I think is openly and flagrantly political. This was a case that even the lead prosecutor in that office before Prague Bragg refused. Bragg himself turned it down. And then the pressure built, and he went ahead and brought this case. And it's a case that effectively takes a federal crime that the Department of Justice found no evidence to prosecute and then bootstrap it into a state case.

It's r it's ridiculous. And it shows the effort that they had to take. But this apparently is what New Yorkers want. You know, they've got Bragg and they have James. Two people who are openly political, who promise to bag political opponents.

And New Yorkers seem to want it that way, that this is the type of legal system that we want in New York. Yeah, it's amazing that they keep electing me. I don't know anybody that is assured by this. Letitia James is even to the left of the left.

So we'll see what happens there because the jury, I'm worried, gets picked from the people that put them in office.

Well, I think that's look, like the fact is that the two worst jury pools for the former president are in New York and DC. And there's a reason why Jack Smith divided his case. He didn't bring everything in Florida. He wanted it in DC, where he and he ended up getting a very favorable judge, and he got one of the best jury pools he could hope for. And that makes a big difference.

And that's why a lot of defendants end up pleading guilty even when they assert their innocence, because this system can be heavily weighted against them. Jonathan, I look forward to getting your reports. We have so many trials. There's so much nuance to it. I don't know how you could take a day off, but you probably can't.

He's a constitutional law professor at GWU, but he first and foremost, he's his Fox go-to guy. Jonathan, thank you. Have a great weekend. Thanks, Brian. And we'll see what happens downtown in New York City today.

All right.

So when we come back, I'll be able to squeeze in some of your calls. And then we have Congressman Jason Smith. There's a bipartisan, excuse me, a problem solvers bill in the House that handles border security and foreign aid. I'll give you some detail. I'll get it from Jason Smith in a moment.

Don't move. Expanding your knowledge base. It's the Brian Kill Meat Show. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show.

that we all came away with a very strong impression that the administration is taking this very seriously and that the administration has a plan in place. We look forward to supporting them as they go to implement it. I think the Department of Defense today has indicated that what we're discussing is a Russian anti-satellite weapon. I do know that the administration has the The belief that along this way they're going to be releasing additional information about that. But in the interim, I've got great faith in what the administration is currently doing to address this matter.

And I appreciate the support and the working relationship on a bipartisan basis.

So that is Congressman Turner, Chairman Turner. I'm so confused. Look, if the Russians have this capability to blow up satellites, it's devastating. I know in a space race, we usually do pretty well. We're way ahead of them in almost everything.

We were cooperating together. I'm not saying it's not possible or they're not doing it. But We're just hearing different things about what they're capable of in the timing of this statement. I think Mike Turner is really serious, and I think that he sees Russia as a big threat. And I think he's frustrated.

That haven't done more, as the administration always dawdles. But I don't know what changes after Jake Sullivan briefs us.

Now we know it. I know people should. Go ahead and understand that Russia will do everything to destroy us. as well as China. And now they're combined together.

Although China to a degree is a little bit wary. And then you got Iran in there, you got North Korea in there. and what other devious uh people like the Houthi rebels on down.

So it's an interesting world that's happening right now. I just wish we had somebody else in charge. When we come back, there's a bipartisan bill that might be coming out of the house. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

The timing of the announcement of Navalny's death was a mafia-style message from Putin to those NATO allies, to his opponents domestically in Russia. It's also he's sending a signal that his main opponent, the main conscience inside, the only one of the last dissidents in Moscow, is announced dead ahead of him running for re-election in Moscow and also giving interviews trying to manipulate the West into thinking that they can compromise on Ukraine.

So there you go. That is Jennifer Griffin reporting from Munich, the site of the Security Conference, after the death of Alexei Navalny at 47 in a brutal prison right by the Arctic Circle. He is a leading dissident. He is fearless. He was out there as an opponent of Vladimir Putin, as evil as the day is long.

Congressman Jason Smith joins us now for the House Ways and Means Committee. He's got his plate full anyway. Congressman, your reaction to Navalny's death and the evil which is Vladimir Putin. You know, Brian, it's absolutely terrible of what happens, but it shouldn't surprise anyone of what Putin does and his behavior.

So what's happened there? I mean, one of the lead Individuals that was opposing him, his plane went down just a few months ago.

So this happens over and over. This is the traits of Putin, and this is why he's not a friend to the United States. Right.

What do you think that does for Ukrainian aid? I really believe it has no effect on Ukrainian on the Ukraine aid. I think the members of Congress are following the sentiment of the people who sent them to Washington. And that's how they're going to be voting whenever it comes forward. In the House of Representatives, Speaker Johnson has been crystal clear that any Ukraine package needs to make sure that it comes with the policies to secure the border.

We haven't seen that.

So until those policies come forward, I don't see it passing the House of Representatives.

So I'm sure you heard that Brian Fitzpatrick unveiled a bipartisan alternative to the Sarin Foreign Relations Bill. The overview is for a one-year period, put the remain in Mexico, change the asylum laws, put it into place. I think he has building what's left of the money for the wall. And in turn, you get some aid that would last a year. $47 billion for Ukraine, $10 billion for Israel, $4 billion.

for the Taiwan region, Indo-Pacific area. Have you seen it? I haven't seen that bill, but that is basically more a line on what Speaker Johnson has been saying. The Remain in Mexico policy, Brian, that policy alone could help reduce the activity at the southern border by more than half. It was a successful policy that worked under President Trump.

The President of the United States, Joe Biden, should put it back in place. But unfortunately, in his first 100 days in office, Brian, he rescinded 94 different executive orders on immigration. It's pretty so you haven't heard gotten details of this? Because it came out at 7 a.m. in the morning.

Um I have not. I have not seen the details of that, but members are filing pieces of legislation all the time, and it's not one that has been brought up yet. All right.

So you don't okay. You don't think this is something that's going to have much legs? Or you just you would have been contacted if it was being going to be taken seriously?

Well, we're not in session from this point on for another week.

So a lot of the activity will happen whenever we return. But I will reiterate again, Brian, that for the Ukraine supplemental to pass, the Speaker of the House has made it crystal clear that we have to have policies that secure the border. If those policies are in the legislation, I could see it where it's going to have a vote. Right.

That would be interesting. What about this whole bypass situation that's happened twice in 20 years where they bypass leadership and just put a piece of legislation on the floor? Dispensation That's a discharge petition, and that is something that we've seen it happen a couple of times. It is very, very rare. But whenever you look at a majority that is just by a few votes, it makes it much more likely that a discharge petition could happen.

How do you feel about it?

Well, I wasn't very happy with just a handful of people removing our Speaker of the House. There were only eight Republicans that joined with every Democrat to go against the will of the majority of the Republicans in the House. This would be the same activity, which I think is wrong. We should not have a minority group of Republicans join with every Democrat to overcome the will of the majority of the Republicans in the House. You'd be interesting because obviously, I think you missed Kev McCarthy's leadership.

I think you agree with me. Nothing against Speaker Johnson, but he does have any experience in leadership. Boehner, before he was Speaker, was in a leadership position. Paul Ryan was chairman of Ways and Means, your job. But I think you're paying the price for somebody that has a very slim majority and very little experience.

Speaker Johnson is a great man, and that's why he got elected speakers because he gets along with more people than most members of this conference. But being speaker, Brian, requires a A lot, a lot of work and it's it takes some training. It's it's tough to jump into just being speaker overnight. Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, um John Boehner, they had preparation for a long time serving in leadership positions and and and knew how to how to handle certain situations. But Speaker Johnson is doing as good as as any member I think could possibly do right now.

So let's take a look at what happened in the special election. What is your takeaway from Tom Swazi's win? And the fact is that he embraced border security and ran from Joe Biden and won a district that George Santos won by five. And some are saying between abortion and now this new position on the Democratic enlightenment on the border, they found themselves a winning formula. What do you think, Jason?

Well, you also have to think, Brian, he was a three-term congressman for that same district before, so he had the name ID. The Republican nominee, great candidate, but didn't have the name ID that Tom Swazi did. Plus, we were outspent by a huge margin in that race. And that also has a fairly big impact. But it's good to see that the Democrats are starting to take notice that we do have an issue at the southern border.

We do have an issue with crime. And Swazi ran against Joe Biden as far as he possibly could in that election. And that tells you a lot. Joe Biden is only going to bring down their ticket. Yeah, I guess we'll see.

So, how do you feel about these retirements? Mike Gallagher, and you lose Congressman Green? You know, we have retirements all the time, every two years for various reasons. Of course, it's been a tough year, Brian. We saw the removal of the Speaker, like I pointed out, and a lot of members are frustrated, and they feel like they should go different directions.

And you can't blame them for that. But you know what? I'm in it for the fight. I'm in it for the American people, and that's why I'm the only returning aid committee chairman in the next Congress that's running for reelection. But that's okay.

We'll have the experience to help lead, and we'll continue to do that. Is there a plan? I think you guys are vying for about 30 seats. They're going for about 38 seats. Is there a plan to hold the House?

Absolutely. I've been to over 30 states in the last year campaigning for members and candidates, Brian. We have incredible candidates that are running, and we are preparing the appropriate game, the strategy to move forward. And I feel like we're not only going to win the majority, we'll pick up seats. We have a lot of very competitive seats.

that Democrats were in, that we've came so close to win, now we're going to win. It will make it easier in Virginia, in Michigan, in Alaska, in Washington State, in California.

So these are places where I think that we're going to have a very, very good shot.

So we know about the Hunter Biden situation, and we know too that Tony Bobolinski, you weren't in the committee, but he just blew up this whole story. Had direct links and meetings with Joe Biden. They were selling the family influence, met with China, got money from China, had the text message that said 20% for the big guy or 10% for the big guy, whatever it was. Democrats couldn't land a hand on him, and now the transcript's going to come out shortly. But there's also another story.

Suddenly, the New York Times is interested. They said an FBI agent that came out and talked about the Bidens in Ukraine ends up making up that story. He was an FBI resource that they thought was impeccable, and he ended up having information on Ukraine. You guys demanded the 702, I think, from him, or the whatever that when you give a private interrogation and they record the form, they finally get it forward, and they go, Well, the guy's lying. What does that do to the case in the impeachment quest?

You know, from our case, the impeachment inquiry through the House Ways and Means Committee came from the IRS whistleblowers. And that is what we have been following, the facts in regards to the two very credible IRS whistleblowers. And the facts stem so many different directions. That's not going to affect what, example, what we've been going through. Just this week, you brought up Tony Bobolinski's testimony.

He actually confirmed what the IRS whistleblower said to us. And that is, Joe Biden was the brand that was being sold all over the country for access to him in the tens of millions of dollars. I mean, we have numerous witnesses that we've been bringing in for depositions that continue to confirm what the IRS whistleblowers have highlighted. And that is it's truly it's a family business and that Joe Biden was not just a participant. As Tony Bobolinski says, he was an enabler into the whole process.

We have Joe Biden who stood up before the American people when he was running for president. In a debate, when he was asked the question about whether his son receives money from the Chinese, he said, absolutely not.

Well, guess what? Tony Bobolinski testified this week that, in fact, he sat down to the time, location, and place with Joe Biden in 2017, three years before that comment, to explain for 45 to 60 minutes of all of the business relationships that they have with the Chinese. Give me a break. He also said he was not involved in his son's business dealings. Tony Bodolinsky said he wasn't just a participant, he was an enabler.

And we're continuing to uncover more evidence showing that Joe Biden was very intimately involved in the Biden family enterprise. Were you you weren't there, were you? I was not there, but my team was represented in the depositions throughout the entire time.

So I heard that the antagonists, Jamie Raskin and Dan Goldman, Goldman was almost in tears because he had no answer. And Jamie Raskin misportrayed what Tony Bobolinski said. And now the transcript's going to come out. That's going to be important.

Now, soon the transcript's going to come out. I imagine, even as early as today. The transcripts will come out. It will be made public. What I will say is, is from my interpretation of the people that were in that room, That without a doubt, in all the depositions, they've never seen that kind of behavior from the other side in how they interacted with Tony Bobolinski.

The guy is an intelligence officer, a decorated veteran who became a self-made millionaire. And can I just add a Penn State wrestler?

So he's not going to be intimidated by a bunch of people who weren't there because they don't want to hear the truth. I think he's very equipped to handle it. My sense is he did, and soon we'll see him in public testimony. Thanks so much, Congressman. Brian, it's great to be with you, sir.

All right, Chairman, I should say, Chairman Jason Smith, thank you so much. Have a great weekend. Listen, when we come back, your turn, 1-866-408-7669. We thought we were going to be seeing highlights of day two of Fannie Willis on the stand. She shocked us yesterday by showing up, and she surprised us again today by not showing up.

We'll tell you what it means also today. We're supposed to get a verdict on Donald Trump civil trial. We know that they already found him guilty before it started of fraud, and they're going to fine him as much as $430 million. What happens while they wait an appeal? Does his whole company stop?

Does his sons get suspended? Are they going to force him to put his properties up for sale? We'll see. Brian, Kilmey Chair. Remember to check out Brian's show, One Nation, Saturdays at 9 p.m.

Eastern on Fox News Channel. If you already have plans, set up that DVR and watch when you get home. That's One Nation, Saturdays at 9 p.m. Eastern on Fox News Channel. Be there.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. Mr. Wade had a form of cancer. It makes your allegation somewhat ridiculous.

I do appreciate the characterization. I'm not trying to emasculate a black man, but I'm just telling you. I'm sorry, what? I'm not going to emasculate. A black man.

Did you understand that? She's really a delight to be around, right? Everything's got to be about race about her. Do you remember her Martin Luther King Day speech that a African-American woman is or a black woman is always targeted? We got to be special.

You just got to not have relationships with special prosecutors that aren't qualified and try the President of the United States and try to put him in jail before an election. How about that? I'm pretty sure the color of your skin does not matter. But these are the cases that are going on right now, and I think there's three of them. I just think that judging by what Sean Hatterty said last night on his show, he's got great contacts with the president.

Former President, I think that they expect to really be slammed, really be slammed when it comes to this final judgment. And that would be $480 million and then putting everything into a trust and not letting them actually do their business while they wait an appeal. And then with that, a lot of times you have to Put it into A receivership.

So Uh while you while you do that You can't really conduct business.

So what do you do with a business? I mean, how do you not conduct and run a Run a golf club? How do you not be able to run a building or a hotel or whatever they whatever they own around the world? You can't.

So, you have somebody else run it and you run it into the ground.

So, anybody else who's considering running for president should keep that in mind. This is why successful people want no part of this. Number one, you get 50% of the country not liking you. George Washington said the same thing. Number two is they'll go after you personally and financially, especially if you're a Republican and you win.

Here's what Alina Bahaba, who's represented the President in a myriad of cases, had to say yesterday after their quest to get the Alvin Bragg case dismissed. Cut 35. Watching this trial today, watching what was happening at that hearing, they're all the same. I have to be honest with you. I've seen it time and time again now.

I've had the pleasure of working for the president for the past few years, and I can tell you this is all corrupt. It is all absolutely election interference. There is no way, as you point out, that the stormy case would come about now in the middle of an election, in the middle against the leading candidate. And you know who that was brought from? Michael Cohen, real reliable source we have there.

So the desperation is real. The Trump derangement syndrome is real. And it is pathetic and obvious.

So the Michael Cohen thing is the big hurdle, and I watched this last night. By Cyrus Vance, who passed on try in this case. And he said, the Michael Cohen thing, you can't do the case without Michael Cohen, but Michael Cohen's got problems.

So a lot of people become state's witnesses. Sammy the Bold, for example, got it.

So he goes to prison, pleads guilty on stuff that has nothing to do with Trump, stuff that he put on his own taxes. All right.

So he gets put in jail. If he wasn't representing Trump, he wouldn't have been in problems, but they raided his office when Trump was maybe one month into office.

So they raid him, he goes to jail. Then when he gets out, he admits I didn't do the things I pled to.

So, right there, you become a problematic witness. What else are you going to admit to and say that you don't believe?

So, Michael Cohen is going to be the key witness to talk about what the president did, the payments he made, and there's got to be a way out of it. Keep in mind, in a time in which we don't put People that beat cops into prison in New York. We put the 82-year-old CFO of Trump, the Trump organization, Alan Weisenberg into Rikers Island. Think about this. But the city's running rampant.

We got Venezuelan street gangs running the Bronx. The slamming. Pedestrians into the poles in order to grab their bags and their wallets. And we're trying to get the CFO of the Trump organization in Rikers. That's what they're focusing on today, and the Attorney General sits in the court the whole time.

She takes it as a trophy. It's working the other way so far with the election. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, welcome to the final hour of the week, or one of the final hours of the week, depending on when you're listening around the country, around the world.

Keep in mind, too, we got the podcast rolling, and you go to BrianKilmeChill.com, you get it anywhere. Also, on the Fox News app. What you do is hit on watch, and then you just page through. You can watch Fox News, Fox Business, and then you could watch this show, or you could always watch it on Fox Nation. And this hour is going to be big.

We're following all the breaking news events. We could be getting two things with President Trump. We're also seeing that we're waiting for President Biden to make some comments on the death of Alexei Navalny, the dissident who was jailed by Vladimir Putin, who's a threat to him. Shannon Bream is standing by, and Jeff Benedict. He's Jeff Benedict's book called Dynasty.

They did an Apple series on it. It's the true story of the creation of one of the greatest teams in history in any sport, and that's the New England Patriots, led by Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft.

So he's going to be with us with an exclusive look, with some sound bites you have not heard before. I know you can't get enough football, so let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. I think there's a. Fairly direct answer. That serves the the interests of the American people.

Forget Republicans and Democrats, forget the Congress. and that is to release the transcript. Yep, 2024.

Now, even more Dems think Joe will not be running for four more years in 2024. His pushback on Robert Hurr's investigation, and now we find out phony rage about not knowing the date of Bo's death and why did they bring it up. It turns out he brought it up. Number two, because you're sitting with someone today that actually wants to make a difference. Because they deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees, because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket.

I certainly will not be choosing people to date that work under me. That's kind of interesting to run on that and then do just the opposite. A Jerry Springer revamp, the credibility of the prosecutor of the Georgia case, spending 10 hours bending the truth, exposing the corruption at the core of the case, perhaps. Donald Trump wants it to go away, obviously. They want her to go away, clearly.

Today, she decided not to show up.

Well, yesterday she surprised us by showing up.

Well, the court is proceeding right now on some channels. We'll talk about it. Number The timing of the announcement of Navalny's death was a mafia-style message from Putin to those NATO allies, to his opponents domestically in Russia, trying to manipulate the West into thinking that they can compromise on Ukraine. Alexey Navalny's death, the Russian opposition leader, died in prison yesterday. The cause, unknown, most likely torture.

The message is clear. The timing is designed to send fear to NATO allies, perhaps, and get the nuclear capabilities in space out of the headlines. I'll bring you the latest. Let's bring in Shannon Bream. Shannon, what a morning we've started with.

Oh my goodness. We're in one of those seasons where you hardly know where to start because there are so many breaking stories. There are so many court cases. I don't think. It's going to slow down this year either.

So, what we had, too, is Alexey Navalny died at 47 years old. He's in one of the most brutal prisons in the world by the Arctic Circle. We know we saw him yesterday on video. Obviously, anyone can manipulate anything these days. He looked gaunt.

His head was shaven, but he was still hanging in there. And now he's dead.

And we saw also that our vice president spoke out about it and reacted. Here's what she said: cut to. We've all just received reports that Alexey Navalny has died in Russia. This is, of course, terrible news, which we are working to confirm. My prayers are with his family, including his wife Yulia, who is with us today.

And if confirmed, this would be a further sign of Putin's brutality. Whatever story they tell, Let us be clear. Russia is responsible. And we will have more to say on this later. So the wife was actually at the Munich conference, and his daughter's at Stanford.

And she says: if it's true, I want Putin and his cronies and friends. to know that his government, to know that they will be held accountable for what they've done to the country, my family and my husband, that day will come very soon. Hopeful, but Vladimir Putin just is insulating himself more and more. Am I right? Yeah, and the question is, is he doing this because he feels empowered or is he doing this because he feels threatened?

Because it's one of the two. I mean, you know, everybody out there is like, we just have to wait to see what the Russians tell us about the death. We know whatever we get is going to be some kind of sanitized version. And as the vice president said, regardless of the exact circumstances, the truth is Russia's responsible. This guy has been poisoned.

He has been imprisoned. He returned to Russia knowing this was going to happen to him in 2021 after being poisoned. This is a courageous guy. You've got elections coming up in mid-March. And he is somebody that no matter what they've done with him, he would not be silenced.

He was still getting messages out through his attorneys and on social media. And so going into those mid-March elections, is this like Putin's like, I've had enough. We got to silence this guy. You know, did he feel threatened or does he feel emboldened? Like.

Nobody's touching me. I'm continuing to encroach on Ukraine. That hasn't slowed down. None of these world leaders want to call me out and stop me in the way that makes any real difference, and I'm going to just take out my enemies. I don't know what happened with Mike Turner.

I still can't get to the bottom of it. I hear all these theories about Russians in space with nukes blowing up our satellites. He can't keep it quiet anymore. He came out with it. Jake Sullivan briefed people with it.

He wants to declassify all of it. There's pushback on the other side from Congressman Himes. Here's Mike Turner yesterday, cut nine. That we all came away with a very strong impression that the administration is taking this very seriously and that the administration has a plan in place. We look forward to supporting them as they go to implement it.

I think the Department of Defense today has indicated that what we're discussing is a Russian anti-satellite weapon. I do know that the administration has the the belief that along this way they're going to be releasing additional information about that. But in the interim, I've got great faith in what the administration is currently doing to address this matter. And I appreciate the support and the working relationship on a bipartisan basis.

Right, so what was that about? That's a question. What was this about? Threat, the information about it has been collected with raw intelligence. It's been out there.

People have known about it. The White House has been aware.

Some folks on Capitol Hill have been aware.

So it's the timing that gets everybody.

Now, Jim Himes, the Democratic congressman who ranks there on the committee with Mike Turner, has come to his defense for people who have said, Is this about trying to push FISA? Because there's a ton of controversy and bipartisan backlash to FISA as it currently exists allows the government to get information, to surveil in ways that people felt was very abusive during the Mueller investigation years, the Russia stuff, Carter Page, all of that. Or is it about pushing more Ukraine funding across the line, showing that Russia is a threat? You know, Jim Himes comes out and says, I know Mike Turner to be very serious when it comes to issues of national security. I don't think he's playing games with this.

So that kicks us back to what is the timing of this about? You mentioned Jake Sullivan. He appeared very ticked from the White House the day that this came out. Himes had said to Turner, I don't think you should release this statement. Turner did it anyway the next day.

Let's talk about this court case today. What about the decision for Fonnie Willis not to show up in court today to try to keep control of this case? I think there was enough said on that stand yesterday that, you know, the other side of this case was sort of like, okay, we've heard enough here. The thing is, I haven't seen a smoking gun that gets her kicked off this case. The judge has to decide: is there a perception that would influence this case or is there actual data?

I don't see receipts. They both, she and Nathan Wade have gotten up and testified under oath and said that they essentially started dating after he started working for her and then they split all the costs.

Now, when you talk about all the repayments being in cash, you can't trace that, but it also means there are no receipts. There's no smoking gun that, aha, here's where he paid for stuff. Aha, here's where they were dating before.

Now, you got the testimony of the old friend of me person who said essentially, I know that they were having some kind of relationship. Yeah, let's hear that. Let's hear that. Cut 17. This is Robert Yearty.

Robert Yurty. You observe them do things that are. Uh Is it common among people having a romantic relationship? Yes. Such as can you give us an example?

Hugging, kissing. That is an example of a romantic relationship. Would you confirm that from your years in law school? I'm just saying, hugging and kissing, you could define that even further. You know, was this a French situation?

Was this a peck on the cheek? I don't know. She definitely is saying that this was a big thing, which would have been well ahead of when they admit, which they're saying early 2022.

So, you know, there have been efforts to portray this woman who testified as a disgruntled former employee, that kind of thing.

So, listen, everybody's telling different stories under oath, under oath.

So, this judge has to make those decisions about veracity, those judgments. I mean, does it does it bother you? I mean, you know people that you go into your law school class and you think, well, that's the smartest person I've ever been in class with. And then I looked at what was going on yesterday. What the hell was that?

That was a sideshow. That was almost an embarrassment to your profession. The judge was ticked. And it wasn't just that he was mad at one person. Like, he's mad at multiple people, it seemed like, in that courtroom, including the witness who is the DA, including multiple of the attorneys, including the one where you remember where he said basically the guy, just like sit down.

We're done. Like, you're not listening to me. This is turning into a freak show. This is a guy who is known for wanting efficiency. He's got.

I mean, hundreds of cases on his document, including murder cases and all kinds of things. He doesn't want to fool around. If there's something here, great, let's hear it. Let's do it. If not, quit wasting my time.

I'm a judge. I'm busy.

So yesterday, the president tried to get a dismissal of the Alvin Bragg case. It didn't work. That didn't surprise you, I'm sure.

So March 25th, we're going to start seeing this trial. People say it's the weakest. When they say they bootstrapped a local case and made it a federal case, could you put that in layman's terms? Yeah, basically. What they're saying is, you know, this is this hush money case with Stormy Daniels.

They're trying to tie it to felony election counts of, you know, election interference campaign, election campaign, things that are federal in nature. Everybody that has looked at this case, not everybody, the majority of people have looked at this case have said, including people across the ideological spectrum, this has not been done before. This is not going to work. But a New York jury, you know, they seem ready to move ahead against President Trump on a number of things. And maybe they do on this case too, but I do think it's the weakest of those he's facing.

The problem is, it takes up weeks of his time during the middle of a campaign season. I think it works for him because he'll come out and give his pressers every day after court and say, like, they're after me. This is what they're doing. And for the majority of his base, that has really caused them to double down with him. And it's forced his opponents, the GOP rivals, to have to come to his defense and say, this is all railroading.

And, you know, these are people who are trying to convince you to vote for him for you. Instead of him, and they've had to do that. But you still want to see a conviction. You could look at four years in prison, but you see a conviction, does it change things? They say the one case, the January 6th case, I guess they did a study, or Mark Penn did a study and thinks that's the only one that really affects the numbers.

But I've got to ask you about what's going to happen today. Maybe right now, the judge is coming out with his penalty against the Trump organization, and Letitia James has asked for a penalty of $430 million. And then possibly putting all of his businesses in a receivership.

Now, he's going to immediately appeal and ask for a stay on this. Can you let us know the type of, can you let our audience know the type of things Trump could be looking at, the different scenarios? Yeah, I mean, there are these giant fines that they're asking for, hundreds of millions of dollars. There's also a prohibition on him doing any business in New York, which, as you know, he has been for decades a successful businessman there with a ton of different businesses.

So, I mean, that would be enormous. There is also something involving his kids that they would be banned potentially from doing business for like five years, but not a lifetime ban that he would be facing.

So, I mean, this is one that is very difficult for him financially. I'm not sure if you're a good person. But obviously, what happens in the, while you're waiting for the appeal, do you have to put up a bond? You don't want anything. York State, I'm not exactly sure what would happen there.

They feel confident his legal team does on appeal that they have a number of things they can take up with respect, the way the judge handled this and all that kind of stuff.

So they feel good on appeal, but it will be interesting to see what they try to impose in the interim because there's definitely going to be an appeal. Right.

So that'll be it if he can move forward and wait for the appeal because if he has to pay that penalty, the only person I know with that type of money is Neil Cavuto. Listen, and he's good for it. Right, and I don't think Ellen did to Trump, though. I've been watching his show.

So that's the thing. I don't think that those two are in cahoots. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're not.

So, Shannon, have you changed your show at all, knowing what's going on in Munich with Novalni and everything else? A little bit. I mean, we have Senator Tim Scott with us and Governor Sununu to us. They're going to be our 2024 folks. But I've added a legal panel because I think there's so much legal to discuss.

We'll have Jonathan Turley, Tom DuPree with us, too. We are talking with the White House and do hope to have a very strong foreign policy guest from the White House to talk about Russia, Navalny, Israel heating up again in Gaza, all of those things.

So we're hopeful that the White House will have somebody to come talk with us. It would be interesting if the White House does decide to communicate. It is kind of interesting. The Vice President President beat the President out to comment on Navalny's death. And he is on the record saying there'll be harsh consequences if they do die, if he does die in prison.

Yeah, what are those consequences going to be? Yeah. All right, Channel. We're going to be watching. Do you want to know what's on One Nation?

I do because first of all, I watch on Saturday night to prep for my show. Right.

I mean, do you even start prepping until I'm on? I got Ron DeSantis.

Okay. He'll be on. He's governor of Florida. And then I'm going to have the Ruthless Podcast on. They're going to do my lead.

Yes, they are fun. And then we're going to go into some of these other things. We're going to also go with Trey Gowdy to break down some of these cases. He's got a deep voice, a very good communicator. He's got a very good show on Sunday.

And then I think I'm going to end with a song. And it's going to be the last five minutes. Um no dancing. Or I'm going to have Rosanna Scotto talk about what's happening in New York City and her interview with the mayor who's trying to get rid of the Sanctuary City status.

So that's what I'm hoping to put together in an hour. I like it, but I do think the song requires a dance. Have you picked the song yet? Can I pick the song? Pick it my way.

Well, that is how you do live your life. Right now, I'm just picking up video just to go through my life.

So, I'm going to split the screen with my life on one side. I've got some things to submit. I'll reach this to Allison. Put it in an email, and I'll see if I can work it in.

Okay. Thanks, Shannon. We're going to watch your show on Sunday. Fox News Sunday's own Shannon Bream. Back in a moment.

Bye. Expanding your knowledge base. It's the Brian Kill Meet Show. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead.

Would this capability, if deployed, violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that bans nuclear weapons in space? It would violate longstanding international obligations of Russia, but I can't go further than that today given the limitations on what I can share.

So What is going on? Out of nowhere, we watch Mike Turner, very serious guys. I'm worried about this. And then we have Mike Johnson come out and say, don't worry about it, don't panic, reacts to after Jake Sullivan briefs everybody on the Russians probably have a nuclear having a nuclear capability to blow up all our satellites in space. It's kind of interesting.

I mean, they're having trouble getting tanks, as I mentioned yesterday. They have to use tanks from a museum because they're out. They have to borrow from North Korea because they're out of guns. They don't have any ammo. About a million kid fighting age men have left the country rather than fight for them.

They're having to beg Cubans to put on a jacket and come over there and fight in the Ukraine. Why they would do it, I don't know. At the same time, they got a sophisticated space program, where to believe. I don't know. We'll see where it goes.

We'll see where it goes from here. The bigger story is what they did to Alexei Navalny.

Now, keep in mind, they knew there was going to be worldwide condemnation if he died. And at 47, he's dead. His wife is at the Munich conference. They know he was alive on the 16th. At least it's time stamped in.

He evidently was in solitary confinement for a series of days, came out, went to stand up and lost his balance, seems to win the video. And I can't hear that. I don't know Russian, but they're going back and forth. But he's kind of making fun of the judge, and he was laughing backwards. And that's the last time he's seen alive.

Now he's dead. Think about this. They knew this day was coming, but until it comes, you never can comprehend it. And now she sits there with all these world leaders, knowing that the evil one, Vladimir Putin, sits in power right now. And people are debating whether to give Ukraine the weapons they need.

Let them win. You give them the weapons, they will bleed the Russian stride. Because they know this is a stupid war fought for stupid reasons. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

And the Pats will look to 24-year-old Tom Brady, making his first ever NFL startup quarterback. Let me tell you something. The spotlight's gonna be on this guy and see if he can produce. I was the backup quarterback. Coach came over and was like.

Okay, Drew's out. Tom. You're in. You better get ready to go. I did everything I could do to get ready, and I really approached practice like it was the game.

I'm not taking anything for chance. For Coach Belichick, you're in for this week. In pro football. Nobody's entitled to anything, nobody gets anything. You have to go out there and work for it, perform at a level at which you earn each week.

We all have to prove ourselves competitively. to each other and to our teammates. There you go. And that is A Little of Dynasty, the brand new series out on Apple, based on the book by Jeff Benedict, best-selling book. He's author of so many best-selling books, but this one is about the rise of the New England Patriots under Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick, and Tom Brady.

Listen, they might be the most dominant team in the history of sports over the longer period of time in a time in which it just doesn't, you don't even get back-to-back championships, let alone six championships, six Super Bowls, and they dropped out and they came back. And it was, but that's like you got the first number one pick in the draft and you held on to them. This guy was a six-round pick famously. Bill Belichick had just gotten fired from the Browns as they move cities. And of course, Robert Kraft bought the team with no experience, just a lot of money, and a great businessman.

And somehow the mix worked. But there were a lot of stuff going behind the scenes. And you always wanted to know what the real story is. Jeff Benedict found the real story. But, Jeff, you were kind enough to mail me yesterday the 10-part series.

I have a special screener, so don't call me. I'm not allowed to show it to anybody else. But I saw the first two parts. You're already getting stuff I didn't know. How did you get these guys to talk?

And congratulations. Hey, Brian, thanks. And thanks for having me on. It's always a pleasure to be on with you. The book was a great launch pad for a docuseries, Brian.

I wanted to turn this into a television series even before I started writing the book. And I was really fortunate to get with the same filmmaker who turned my Tiger Woods book that I did with Armin Katayan into an HBO documentary. And we were really fortunate because we had access to 35,000 hours of archival video that no one had ever seen. Even the Patriots didn't know what they had in their archive. They've been filming all this stuff for 20 years and just storing it in an archive.

And we were able to go through it. And a lot of what you saw in those first two episodes, the kind of raw footage that you were referring to, was tucked away in the archive. And it just gives you a look at these players, Brady, Belichick, Bledsoe, all of these guys, Bill Parcels, in a way you've never seen him before. And it's really compelling. I had my jaw drop so many times as we were going through this footage.

How did you get it? I mean, did you just pay a price? How much for it?

So, the way you get the footage like this was obviously we partnered with the Patriots in the sense that this is their archive. And I had the cooperation of the team when I wrote the book. I was inside the organization for, as you know, for two plus years. And then we pivoted to turning it into a docuseries, which is a completely different animal than a book. But that partnership was really critical.

And as Imagine Documentaries and Apple TV Plus joined, and Matt Hamachek, the director, we worked with the Patriots. They gave us access to their archive. And it was just, it took a long time, though, to get through all that footage. I mean, you see the first apartment, the Teddy, that. That Tom Brady stayed in, and how happy he was when he made the team as a six-round pick.

The feeling he had when he wasn't getting drafted and uh. All these other quarterbacks getting drafted ahead of him. Nothing against Chad Pennington, but wouldn't the Jets love to have switched that pick? And Karmazzi of Hofster University was picked ahead of him by San Francisco. No one thought he'd be that good.

He ended up being great just coming into his home because people underestimated his will, it seems. And by the way, if you're smart enough to be watching the show, Jeff is on Skype.

So if you go on the Fox News app, you can see the whole show, and you just go over there until you get to Fox News radio. Here's Teddy Bruski, the outstanding linebacker, talk about what he thought when Brady walked in and took over, cut 52. Mom gathered us around. And like I remember thinking, oh look at the kid, he's trying. For anyone that says, oh, yeah, we knew Tom was gonna lead us to victories, that's bullshit.

I mean, come on, this guy's never done anything for us before. I can't stand it. Run it again. Huddle up and run it again, Brady. From that first practice on, it's like, okay, can you run the huddle?

Can you grasp the offense? He didn't know what he was doing at times.

So that is the reality because Drew Bledsoe gets hit by Mo Lewis of the Jets. He almost dies, and no one knew. They gave him $100 million. He started the beginning to give the New England Patriots hope, obviously. Bill Parcells comes over, and they start winning for the first time ever.

They only had one, you say in the book, one home playoff game in about 20 years. But when Bledsoe goes down, They go to Brady. Did they know what they had, Jeff? No, they didn't know what they had. There was no way they could know.

I mean, when we talk about how everybody passed over Brady. That's how he ended up the 199th pick?

Well, the Patriots passed over him, too. I mean, they had a bunch of picks before they got to 199. But when they got to 199 and saw that Tom was still up there, they were shocked that no one else had picked him up. And so they took him. And it's interesting, Brian, because the last thing the Patriots needed in 2000 was a quarterback.

They had Drew Bledsoe. I mean, he was considered that he was a hundred million dollar man. They didn't need a quarterback. They took him because no one else did, and they thought he's the best talent left on the board. We'll see what happens.

When Drew went down, I think by the time Drew went down, Bill realized there was something different about Tom Brady. He certainly couldn't have foreseen what was going to happen, but he really wanted Tom in there. And at the beginning of that season, Brian, what's really interesting is the beginning of that season, Bill actually told Robert Kraft that. If he was going to put the player in that he thought he should at quarterback, he'd be playing Tom. But he couldn't do that because Drew was a hundred million dollar guy.

But then two games in, Drew gets hurt. He has no choice. He puts Tom in. The real issue was: well, what happens when Drew comes back and he's medically cleared? And you know, because you watched the first two episodes, that's what that drama is all about.

Bill Belichick makes arguably one of the gutsiest calls in the history of the NFL to stick with Brady, the unproven guy, and it panned out. And the fact that Kraft let him do that. There aren't many owners that would have had the backbone to allow their head coach to do something like that and stand behind him. And, you know, because you mentioned in the book that Drew Bledsoe said, I met with Kraft. I said, what can you do about this?

And if I make this move, it's not going to make either of us happy. It's going to get me outs with the coach, and then the coach is going to be mad that I do it, even though he pays his salary.

So Belichick and Brady will work together. Here's how they describe their relationship: Cut 53. Tom understood his role on and off the field, how to help the team. He prepared extremely hard individually on his fundamentals, his techniques. Tom, I feel like, got the best out of me because he was so well prepared that I felt like I had to keep up with his preparation.

I think Coach saw something in me that he could work with. We had quarterback school and there was me and Coach Belichick. We'd sit in there and we just were football junkies from morning, noon, night. That's all we did was talk about football. I loved working with Tom every day, seeing the game through the quarterback's eyes and understanding what he saw.

I think those are things that helped me be a better coach. Coach Balicek taught me so much. I could not be the player I was without him.

So they're saying that now. But when they were going through it, Robert Kraft is not appreciated enough about how he kept those two working together because there was a fracture there. Without giving away the series, Lucien, you bring us behind the scenes. What could you tell us?

So, good question. And let me just say one thing about the clip you just played, Brian. Tom used the word junkie. He said we, Bill and I, were football junkies. Junkies are addicts.

We think of that usually in terms of drugs. They're football junkies. They were literally addicted to football and winning. And that's one of the key reasons why they were so unbeatable together, Bill and Tom. They were an unbeatable pair.

And so in comes the Robert Kraft situation for your question. As time goes on, and this series will take the viewer there, not in episodes one and two. But by the time you get to the latter episodes, you see some of the stress fractures that come in a long marriage. And Bill and Tom are married for 20 years. And the last 10 of those years, I think Robert Kraft's biggest role as the owner.

It's the invisible role is keeping those two together. That's the diplomacy factor, the shuttle diplomacy that he plays because he had a unique relationship with Bill and a unique relationship with Tom. And he went back and forth Making sure that both guys had what they need to keep them together because if they'd been left to their own devices, Tom and Bill would not have lasted together for 20 years.

So one thing about Bill Belichick, they say he's different behind the scenes and And I don't know how you feel about it, then he is in front of the camera. He says two or three words. But evidently, he's not the most wordy guy when it comes to players. And it's a brutal business. If you're done, even if you won three Super Bowls, you're cut if you're not good enough.

All right, get somebody in cheaper. They seem to one thing that seemed to work. Is he treated Tom Brady worse, equal, if not worse, than everybody else? And that, in a way, helped Brady be one of the guys, didn't it?

Well, it helped a lot of things. You know, think about it, Brian, because I know you're a big consumer of sports. Sports. If you ask yourself a real honest question, how many star quarterbacks? I'm not talking about rank and file, but look at the big names: Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, John Elway, Russell Wilson, with his own suite and his own play.

It's amazing as compared to what Brady got. Go ahead.

Sorry. Yeah, but if you look at the guys I just listed, how many of them do you think would have been able to do what Tom did in terms of submerging his ego, taking that kind of, I'll call it punishment, but I mean, Bill rode him harder than anybody else on the team. The greater Tom became, the harder Bill rode him. And all of the other players got in line because the star was in line. I mean, it's kind of hard to step out and say, hey, when Tom Brady is taking it, when Randy Moss comes to New England in 2007 and goes to his first team meeting and sees Bill Belichick tearing into Tom Brady, You can't help but just drop your jaw and go, wow.

I mean, I guess if Tom has to do that, we're all up signing up for this. It was uh what allowed bills Coaching style. To do what it did for that team. That's why it's the pair of them. It's not one guy more important than the other.

It's the pair of Brady and Belichick that's magic. And, Jeff, here's your proof: Mac Jones melted. You know, he came out more highly touted than Brady. Mac Jones coming out of Alabama, great friends. Nick Sabin, him, great quarterback.

He just got worse and worse and worse. And now you have, when Belichick walks into Cleveland in their last years, Bertie Kozar is a local legend, but born in Ohio, wants to play for the Browns. And he comes in and goes, Yeah, his skills have waned. Let's cut him. Cuts him without a backup.

And now the team starts losing. He had to have armed guards on his block.

So he walks in and goes, Oh, Drew Bledsoe, $100 million, future of the franchise. I think the other guy's better. I'm just playing him. I don't care.

So that's so it's such an interesting mindset. It is, and it sounds ruthless, and actually, Brian, it is. It is ruthless and it's cold blooded, but this is the NFL. It is the most competitive it's the most competitive team sport in America. And at the end of the day, we measure success by one thing.

Do you win? And Bill Belichick In his methods, he won more than anybody else.

So it's kind of hard to sit here and armchair quarterback and say, well, you know. He won and he won with Tom and it's because Tom had that mentality. Yeah, Jeff by the way, Jeff Benedict here, he's talking about his books now, a docu uh docuseries on Apple T V. You gotta watch it. And it's when's it available, by the way?

Today? Right now. It's on right now. Yeah, once you watch, you're not going to be able to stop.

So I want you to hear a couple of things. They had Spygate and they had Deflate Gate. The Spygate, did they actually look at the footage of the Rams practicing before the Super Bowl that allowed the greatest show on turf to be neutralized in New Orleans the year of 2001 and the 9-11 attacks? You two at halftime. I was actually there.

Here's what Robert Kraft said to Belichick when he asked him about Spygate, Cut 55. I went right over to Bill and I said, let me ask you something, Bill. How important to us is something like that on a scale of one to a hundred? And he said to me, one. I said to him, Then you're a real schmuck.

Wow, is that angry? You want to br bring some color to that story? Yeah, I will, because if you put that in the timeline, that's seven years into the dynasty. The Patriots have won three Super Bowls at that point. This is the start of the 07 season, and they've just got Randy Moss to the team.

They're about to go 16-0, but this is the first game of that 16-0 season in the Meadowlands against the Jets. They throttle the Jets. Randy Moss goes wild, but the game is overcome by what happened at halftime because the Patriots had a guy on the sideline who was taping the signals of the Jets' defensive coach. And they got caught, and it turned into a massive, just a massive scandal. And eventually, Belichick owned up to it.

The Patriots were fined and punished. Did it have anything to do with why they beat the Jets? No. Did it give them an advantage in that game? No.

That was kind of Kraft's question to Bill. Like, then, why was this happening? But that, Brian, that changes a lot of people's perception about the team was affected by what happened in the Meadowlands that day with the Jets. But it also did something else, Brian. And this is what's fascinating to me.

That season, after those allegations were levied against Bill and the team. They went on a literally on a rampage. They were clubbing teams. Punishing them to basically demonstrate what they were. And I mean, they went undefeated that year.

Until. Until they get to the Super Bowl and face the Giants for the second time, and one of the most epic Super Bowls ever, right? Because the Giants slayed the dragon that game with an incredible helmet catch in the final minute of play. I mean, it's just epic stuff. You can't make this stuff up.

I know. And you didn't. It's in Dynasty. It's all facts backed up by the people with cooperation from the players. Jeff, congratulations.

I know what a titanic task this is to write the book and to do the series. I can't even imagine. But I love it. And I'm a Giant fan. This is one of those things like the Jordan.

Series, you don't have to be a basketball fan. If you like people, this is a real life soap opera and what they had to do to sacrifice to get victory, and then maybe give you an idea why everybody's struggling separately since. Jeff, thanks so much. Congratulations. We're going to watch Apple TV tonight.

Thank you, Brian. Always a pleasure. All right, when we come back, big news about Joe Manchin. Don't move. It's Brian Killmeade.

From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead. I may be wrong, but I believe COVID hit in 2020.

So I was asking about 2019. In 2019, did you spend any time in California? Before COVID was even... here in the United States. Remember I lived in South Africa and I've traveled the world.

I knew COVID was coming. before. I knew COVID was around before. They may have announced it in in 20. But in fact, I knew about it and I knew what was happening in 19.

Wow. I wish you would have told somebody. Exactly. That's Fanny Willis's father. Yeah, that is John Floyd III, Fanny Willis's father.

Different last names, obviously. And he spent some time reportedly with a radical group, the Black Panthers. But he's on the stand talking about the I imagine the focus is the threat that his daughter was under why she moved out, right? Yeah, partially that and about boyfriends and we also learned that in twenty nineteen he never met uh Wade, but she had a boyfriend named Deuce. All right.

Is this gonna is this gonna help Trump get off or? No? I'm not answering that. You're not? All right.

So, listen, I want you to watch One Nation. Saturday, it's going to be unbelievable. We're going to have Ron DeSantis on. He's going to be talking about Nikki Haley. Should she still be in?

And Donald Trump's policy on Russia and what else is going on, retail crime. We're also going to be able to talk to Trey Gowdy about all these cases developing and the ones that are coming straight ahead, especially the New York one in March. And then Rosanna Scotto, too, on Mayor Adams trying to get rid of Sanctuary Cities. 9 o'clock. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcast, Amazon Music with your Prime Membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Mm-hmm.