Megyn Kelly Unloads on Oprah Winfrey's ABSURD Pro-Lindsay Clancy Town Hall Special

It happened just this past Friday. It involves Gayle King, who was very, very surprised to learn from juror Paula Devlin, who is, she's the new J-Lo, she thinks. She's seen on camera just as much as J-Lo has been in the past week, really enjoying her two minutes. But she told Gayle King something specific about the holdout juror's identity that Gayle really had to work to grapple with. Watch. I'm curious about the jurors themselves, because we know it was nine women, three men. What was the age range? What was the racial makeup? I haven't heard any of that. What was it? 70-ish to 22. And one person of color, and then everybody else was white. A lot of the jurors had children. One person of color was a person of color, a woman or a man? A man. A man. Is a holdout juror a black man? Yes. A black man is a holdout juror? Yes. Well, I have to sit with that for just a second. Was there... Why? Why? I genuinely don't get it. You presumed that anybody who would be willing to find her guilty after she murdered her three children would be white? Because all black men vote to acquit, Gayle. Someone might accuse you of racism. You better watch it. It's a racist attitude to take a group, an entire group of people, and assume they vote one way or another based on skin color. Even a black man, Gayle, can be a thinking, individual, sentient person who comes up with his own viewpoints on life, liberty, and criminality in a court of law. And if this man hadn't been capable of doing that, presumably he would not have been selected as a juror. I'm sorry, but that's just so bizarre. Of course, a black man wouldn't be the one we've all grown to hate. Obviously, when I'm thinking of who do we all hate, I'm thinking it must be a white person. I mean, that's really what she seems to be saying there. It's a very strange reaction. Why? I hope she does think on it and reports back on CBS Morning Show about why it was so difficult for her to understand. Okay, but Gayle King is the least of our problems today. NBC Boston has lost its ever-loving mind. NBC Boston could now get off if it were to commit a crime on a defense of insanity because clearly they've lost it over there. Who is running that joint? NBC corporate must step in and rein in its out-of-control station because they just did a, I mean, a full-on investigation into the holdout juror. They investigated this guy like they were looking for OJ in the White Bronco. They gave this guy a proctology exam over the weekend, and they are so proud about doing this to a juror. Wait a minute, is the juror accused of killing his three children? No, wait a minute. Why are we doing investigations of jurors? That's really, this whole segment should end right there. Don't investigate jurors. Bye. And back to our other news. Like, that's really where I'd love to end this. But because they've lost their ******* minds, I've got to tell you what they've done because now we need accountability for NBC Boston. I mean, very, very badly. And they're not the only ones. So they decided, really, truly, it would be a great idea to completely upend this man's life. And though they gave it the patina of confidentiality because they didn't report his name, they reported enough about him that it's very easy to figure out who it is, and the internet has already done its part. The name is everywhere. We will not be repeating it here. But they, of course, released enough info that any amateur sleuth who's familiar with the internet could figure it out, and they did, and query whether that was intended all along. And what they found, and they really want you to know, that this, again, juror, this juror who's, he's done nothing wrong. He voted to find her guilty. That's his sin. It's not like there was tumult in the jury room and he punched one of the ladies in the face. Like, okay, then we might be like, who the hell is this guy? How did he get on? That's not what happened. What we heard from these nutcases last week was he was arrogant. Okay, does that mean your life gets ruined after you sit on jury duty? He wouldn't listen. He crossed his arms. Is that what did it? Your life gets ruined if you don't listen to the weird hens across the table from you insisting that you have it wrong. They're very upset over this crazy soundbite that we played last week. I don't know if we have it, but it's the one where the juror is like, he really couldn't get over the fact that she viciously murdered her three children. That's this guy's sin. So what they found at NBC Boston is that this evil, evil juror had domestic violence allegations against him in his past, including a 2021 criminal charge that was dropped. But there was a criminal charge brought after his 13 year old nephew called 911 on him. And when the cops arrived at the house, the nephew allegedly told them that this juror had grabbed his wife's throat and had thrown her into a dresser. NBC Boston reports the couple is now divorced and that the criminal charge, as I said, was later dismissed for the first time since world war two, our national debt has exceeded the gross domestic product. America's reckless government spending keeps catching up with us higher inflation, higher prices, higher cost of living expenses, and higher interest payments on the national debt. Every dollar Washington spends on interest is a dollar it has to tax, borrow or print smart retirement planners prepare for potential setbacks. And they can do that by diversifying with a time tested asset known for weathering the storm. Consider physical gold from Birch Gold Group. Text MK to the number 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on converting an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA and physical gold. You don't pull the ripcord on your parachute once you've already hit the ground. Don't wait for economic turbulence to diversify. Text MK to the number 989898 and consider owning some gold from Birch Gold. The station also reports that this holdout altogether. Now, juror later had a restraining order taken out against him by the very same nephew who is now older when he sought a restraining order. By my math, he would have been 19 when he sought it. The same guy who had called 911 against him years earlier and that that restraining order appears to still be active. So what we have is a juror with an allegation uncharged several years ago of allegedly hurting his wife. The wife didn't testify. The wife said she was afraid she was going to lose custody. That does happen all the time in domestic violence cases. I'm not saying he's guilty, but I'm saying that pattern would fit. Nonetheless, it was many years ago, I think six, six years ago. And the only current charge is the nephew alleging that he got a restraining order recently after the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen wrote in his affidavit that his uncle then said, you ruined my blanking life. And this is a reference to what had happened six years earlier when the nephew called the police on him after he allegedly beat his wife and that the juror said, you've had this coming your way for a long time. That restraining order was still active when the juror was selected for the evidence. Now, there is a question about whether somebody with an active restraining order against them, never mind the earlier allegation was just an allegation that resulted in the charge that was dropped, would be bounced by any prosecutor or defense attorney in a case like this. I don't think it actually prohibits you from being able to serve. Although I'm not sure about that, to be honest, I'd have to go back and check the ethical rules. But an active restraining order to me seems like something that would lead one side or the other to bounce you. Probably the prosecution because they'd say he's anti-law enforcement. In that particular, this particular case, you would have been wrong if you placed that bet, but whatever, I'm just game playing it out in my head. There could be the NBC Boston legal analyst said, I don't see how they would have allowed him to become a member of this jury. And that's a Boston chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne. So it doesn't appear that even he who seems to be, I would assume, more familiar with the Boston rules of court there is saying it would have been a must bounce situation, but rather in the prerogative of the lawyers. Now, they also are reporting that the standard juror questionnaire in Massachusetts will ask if someone's been arrested, charged with a crime or has been served with a court order. Of course, we know that and that those boxes should have been checked by this juror. But there's a there's a thing with juror questionnaires. You see, they're not public records. And so it's unclear if the document in question is still available. It would be up to counsel to hold on to them or destroy them. So I imagine the council has them because as we just went through on MK Confidential, which is our new crime series, it's been airing Monday through Friday at 9 p.m. on both YouTube and podcast. We just went through this in the Mark Geragos representation of Scott Peterson, where what happened in that case was one of the jurors, Strawberry Shortcake, Rochelle Nice. She found him guilty after the fact she was having like emotional problems. And her counselor told her to start writing letters to Scott Peterson in jail is a bad advice. So she did. She wrote something like 17 letters and he started writing her back. And then somebody did a story on it. And now suddenly the defense lawyers, lawyers for Scott Peterson, the appellate team got very interested in this woman. She was admitting to all sorts of issues in her past, psychological and otherwise. And now they're they want to know more about Rochelle. And I believe in the course of that, either in those letters or she said something in those letters that made them go check. And it turned out she had been the victim of a crime. She had allegedly been harassed by her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend and had taken out a restraining order on her while Rochelle was pregnant. So here's a pregnant woman who's suffering the threat of violence indirectly as a result of her boyfriend. Now, the boyfriend's ex-girlfriend. But, you know, you can see the parallels and why potentially a defense lawyer for Scott Peterson might not want her on the jury, but it wasn't disclosed by her. This turned out in this turned into a juror issue like misconduct issue that is still open in the case. It's still not totally resolved. The Innocence Project of L.A. has taken up the matter and is trying to press that one on appeal. So not disclosing your connections with law enforcement along those lines can be very problematic. I don't know whether this guy disclosed or didn't. But the fact that we're even discussing this not because the juror revealed something potentially problematic, etc., but because the other jurors didn't like his verdict is insane and deeply amoral. And we should not be doing this. you