Transcript of FBI Arrests Meghan Markle’s Father, Neocons’ Pathetic Attempt to SPIN Iran War, Plus Crazy Fallout Continues Over Amy Griffin’s Memoir | Ep. 1436

She claims she recovered memories while she was using MDMA of childhood sexual abuse that she allegedly suffered. She was platformed by Oprah and Gwyneth and Drew Barrymore, etc. And then it came out via The New York Times that there was another girl who grew up with Amy in Amarillo, Texas. Amy was from a well-off family and was very popular and so on. This other girl was from the wrong side of the tracks and had been in a foster home and did not come from a family like that, who had all of the experiences in Amy's book and basically was suggesting she's the only one who had them, that Amy had conveniently seemed to have, quote, remembered what had happened to this woman in her book, not something that had actually happened to Amy.

Or so The New York Times report seemed to intimate. They found this other girl and kind of left the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Well, then that other gal from the wrong side of the tracks, who's now all grown up, filed a lawsuit against Amy, claiming her story had been appropriated, that she published private facts and so on. And Amy, with her billions cross-claimed, that's playing out. Then she accused that girl of defamation and on and on. There they go back and forth.

The girl from the wrong side of the tracks claims, forgive me, she's going by Jane Doe. Her name is Jolene. It's just it's already out there, so we're just going to go with it. Jolene alleges that these two had a meeting in 2019 in Palm Springs, California, where Amy flew out and met with her at Amy's request, and that this is all sort of a setup before Amy published The Tell. Amy says that's entirely made up. She did not go out to Palm Springs in 2019. She did not meet with Jolene.

That this is a made-up lie. One of these two women is a psychopath liar. And the mystery of this case is playing out in forum after forum. The New York Magazine just did an in-depth thing trying to rehabilitate Amy. Obviously, the big news about Jolene's existence was broken by The New York Times. Billy Bush has been doing amazing work on this story. Maureen Callahan is the first one to bring it to the screen.

And Billy has advanced the story more than anyone. And now we have a report in Semaphore that Amy Griffin actually tried to ruin the life of The New York Times reporter's child in retribution for The New York Times piece, that she tried to stop The New York Times reporter's daughter from getting into a university. I mean, this has gotten so crazy. A charge Amy denies. This has gotten so crazy.

We've brought you the story before in its initial iteration, and we've talked about it with Maureen on this program. I know Amy Griffin a little. Full disclosure, we're not friends. I just, you know, we've seen each other in some of the same circles and we have mutual friends. But, you know, I'll go where the story takes us. So we are doing a deep dive on this in our second hour with the lawyer for Jolene. So get ready. It's going to get very interesting.

had child pornography in the Philippines and in Mexico, where he's been living for the past ten plus years. But now the U.S. Department of Justice says he has been keeping what's known as child sexual abuse material in two Los Angeles area storage units that he's had for nearly 20 years. We told you about this yesterday. We told you that his son, Thomas Jr., had made clear that his father also has storage facilities in the United States, in and around Los Angeles, that they have been on an autopay for $700 a month for years now.

He knows because he sees the automated receipts, he said, to his email. And he had made that clear, clearly to the FBI and the press. And indeed, unlike the facility in Mexico, which the father had apparently failed to pay the bill on, which made it discarded, which made it possible for that facility to allow the daily mail to go in there and search through the materials. And they reported that they saw and found hordes of child sexual abuse material, including Thomas Markle with underaged naked girls, that he had photos of underaged naked girls and that there and that he was in some of at least one of these photos.

This facility was locked up and not abandoned, so it needed to be searched, if at all, by warrant, which the FBI promptly obtained. They had clearly done it yesterday or maybe by the time we had our discussion or they'd been processing it. And today, this morning, he was arrested. According to the Department of Justice, the photographs found include sexually explicit photographs of Thomas Markle Sr. with prepubescent girls, and they are using the term photographs and girls, plural.

You can see on your screen now photos from the Daily Mail of Markle being taken into custody by federal agents at the 82-year-old's Maravida Senior Living Care home in Lakeland, Florida, this morning. He is in a wheelchair. He has got handcuffs on. He is charged with one count of possession of child pornography. If convicted, he would face a statutory minimum, sorry, maximum of 20 years in federal prison. Again, he's 82 years old. He is also reportedly there in this facility getting dementia care, which, of course, the authorities will soon be probing whether that is real or feigned, given the trouble that he is in.

There's no doubt that if, in fact, the feds have what they say they have, we will be getting more charges. One count to me seems like just a placeholder so that the American FBI could establish dibs on him, as opposed to the authorities in the Philippines, who had made an announcement yesterday that they were close to making an arrest. And obviously, we would work with them. We're we're allies with the Philippines, and we do extradite to the Philippines and vice versa. But it seems the FBI has been considering what the story is with this American citizen since the news broke in the UK Sun paper SUN.

And he's been living in Florida now for, I think, the better part of the last year. He had his leg removed in December of '25 in the Philippines due to some problem. And as of December, you know, the following year, well, we're almost there. As of October, November 2026, he's been living in the United States. He had come back to Pennsylvania, we are told, and then had moved into this facility down in Florida. And the FBI went to this facility in Los Angeles, where he lived for the majority of his life and where he raised Meghan Markle and clearly got a warrant for those two storage facilities.

I'll give you the report on what we know. According to an affidavit filed with the complaint against him in October 2026, law enforcement learned that an individual signed an affidavit regarding their discovery of suspected child sexual abuse material among his possessions in the Philippines. Law enforcement also interviewed another individual who disclosed that Markle rented a storage unit in the Los Angeles area. This is clearly a reference to Thomas Markle Jr. Information from the first individual later led agents to a second unit pursuant to a judicially authorized warrant or two pursuant to judicially authorized warrants.

FBI special agents searched two storage units registered to Markle. He has rented both storage units since 2008, with his most recent payments on both made last month by autopay. Inside the units, agents seized approximately 78 items, including slides, film negatives, and books that contained suspected CSAM, meaning child sexual abuse material. The affidavit describes three of those images. They just they don't need to go into more detail. They just need to get their arrest warrant.

So you keep it bare bones. You get the guy under arrest. You can obviously always add charges and allegations, which I'm sure they will do. The first bullet is two images, they say, depict an adult man whom a witness identified as Thomas Markle Sr. with a nude prepubescent girl. The third image depicts a nude prepubescent girl in a room that appears to be part of a motel chain in the Philippines. The affidavit also describes additional photographs that appear to show Markle with children in various stages of undress.

This is dark, man. If convicted, he would face the statutory maximum of 20 years. I told you that. The first assistant United States attorney, Bill Assali, works for Trump. Obviously, he's been in the news quite a bit, says as follows, quote, Mr. Markle is accused of possessing child sexual abuse material, including photographs depicting himself with minor girls. These allegations are extremely serious, and we will prosecute Mr.

Markle to the fullest extent of federal law. Kash Patel weighing in as well, saying, quote, this FBI will use every single research at our disposal to protect innocent kids. Any predator who targets children will have zero safe haven in this country or anywhere they try to hide. Markle has not given a statement in response to the latest developments, but has previously strenuously denied any wrongdoing, specifically in relation to the possession of any child sexual abuse material. Speaking to The Mail on Sunday, declaring, quote, I'm not a pedophile.

I've never done anything bad to a child. Never. He dismissed the allegations as a bunch of lies and suggested he was being framed. Again, you know, we talk about detection deception a lot on this show just because of my relationship with Phil Houston and having taken his deception detection classes so many times. And this is classic non-denial denial. I'm not a pedo. If I say to you, I went through four boxes of your materials in a storage unit that I found, and I found tons of images of prepubescent children naked in your things.

Would you respond? I am not a pedophile. Would you respond? I've never done anything bad to a child. Never. No. Think about it. You, if you truly were innocent and that was not your stuff, you would say, that is not mine. I have no idea what that's doing in there. That's not mine. You might go on to add after that, I've never seen images like that, nor would I. But to go to I'm not a pedophile, okay, because it's almost like a way of telling the truth while you're not telling the truth for for some people, because who knows how his sick mind works.

Maybe he actually thinks he's not a pedophile if he's guilty of this. And we have to go with the if since he's denying it. But maybe he's like, oh, you know, a pedophile is a person who does the following ten things and I only do nine of them. You know, it gives them wiggle room where they're more comfortable. But a truth teller, what do they do? They go right to the allegations because they're very comfortable with the allegations and their denial of them. No, I have never, never looked at an image of a child being abused, of a child naked in a sexual act.

Ever, ever, never seen one, never downloaded one, never paid for one, and never had one in my possession. And you will never find such a thing in my possession because of the fact that I've never seen or downloaded or looked at one. Right. Like, ask me as many questions as you want. Let's go. Like, just for the people playing at home, we now have alleged child sexual abuse material found in Thomas Markle's storage units. Well, there's a dispute in the Philippines about whether they were found in his home, as his son claimed, or in a storage unit, as daughter Samantha Markle later tried to clarify.

But in facilities that are his in the Philippines, in storage units in Mexico, Rosarito, where he lived ten miles south of the border. Why does an American go to live ten miles south of the southern border? Is California not beautiful enough for you? Are things better with Mexican laws somehow? And now in Los Angeles, in a Los Angeles storage facility. This is very dark, and I'm sure we'll be getting reaction from the royal family at some point.

Right now, what we're being told is Meghan Markle's team, she through a spokesperson, is declining to comment. Good move. You've finally learned that, huh? It was two weeks ago today that she rushed to put out her paper statement saying, I've known all along. So desperate was she to rehabilitate the accusations that she was coldhearted for not seeing and keeping her children away from Thomas Markle for the past eight years that she rushed to tell us all she had committed a far more grievous sin.

She sat idly by for eight years while he was obviously still participating in this behavior. I don't think someone who gets off to child sexual abuse material magically is cured of it at age 74, which is what he would have been when that letter went from his first wife, Rosalind Lovelace, to allegedly the Metropolitan Police. And now it was in the paper that she sent one directly to Meghan as well.

Either way, Meghan knew for eight years that her father was accused not only of looking at child sexual abuse material, which does make you a child abuser, but of actually abusing little girls like physically, because Meghan made sure through her leaks to the press that we knew she had accused him of that, of that second piece of it when she sent him the letter breaking up with him in December 2025, when he was getting the leg removed in the Philippines. So Meghan clearly had been told by that letter from his first wife, her mom, Doria Raglin, was his second, that he not only looked at images of the children, but actually physically himself was abusing them.

And she sat by doing nothing. How do I know that from her? From her. That's where things stand today. It's disgusting. It's stomach turning. And there's really no good outcome here for anyone other than future children. Because look, you know as well as I do, if you you know, why do we have why do we have pornography? Forget child pornography. Why do we have pornography in this country? Because there's a market for it.

Hello. Because there's a market for it. Because people want to pay to watch that. Same is true for child pornography. If you got rid of the market, you would get rid of the acts of the behavior when it comes to child sexual abuse material. And the so the point I'm trying to make is looking at these images is clearly not a victimless crime. Like, oh, well, it would have been made anywhere. Or, you know, there are perverts out there who do that. No, he was part of the market for it at a bare minimum.

If these allegations are true and drove the need for more of it to be produced. And now we're learning from our own FBI that he allegedly is on camera abusing little girls, prepubescent little girls, which is the definition of a pedophile. It's just there's no excuse. And I don't let Harry off the hook either. He said nothing either. He knew just the same as she did. They said absolutely nothing this entire time.

This father is sick. If any of these allegations are true, absolutely disgusting and sick. And I don't care if he has dementia, if he's missing a leg, if he's old to effing bad. He should spend whatever years he has left behind bars, rotting, rotting. For the moment, he is denying all of it. We'll see. And we'll see what the Philippines authorities say, too, because, as I said, they reported yesterday that they were very close to issuing an arrest warrant of their own.

You know, the FBI moves a little faster and clearly did not want this guy. They didn't want the Philippines going first. That's my guess. And I agree with them. I'd rather see him tried here in an American courtroom. Who the hell knows what the standards are over there? I can't imagine they're great. One of the reasons why people move there who like to abuse children. They're in Thailand, another place he loved to frequent. You know it and I know it. That's the latest on Markle. I want to talk to you about Russell Brand.

There is a report now on his first night behind bars because he was not behind bars pending trial. He was free. He was with his wife, Laura, and their children. But now there's a report via The Sun, UK Sun, Brand had to hand over his clothes in reception at the jail before being stripped, searched, and scanned. He was then taken to an induction wing and given a first night pack, which consists of toiletries, including a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a food pack, including cereal, tea, milk, and sugar.

The packs also contained treats, including polos, juice sticks, and digestive biscuits. Obviously, they're in London. Biscuit is a cookie. Brand was also handed one toilet paper roll and given two pairs of gray prison issues, prison issued jogging bottoms, plus t-shirts and sweatshirts and underwear. He was allowed one three-minute phone call behind bars. They presume, as do I, it was to Laura. But that will be his only call for a week, as all phone numbers have to be approved and assigned a pin.

Brand understood to have been whisked to either Wandsworth or Belmarsh. Those are two London prisons, was monitored around the clock and blocked from socializing with other inmates. His first night meal was, I don't even know what they're trying to say here, was an inedible microwave offering in reception. It's in quotes, inedible. Somebody says it's inedible. It's disgusting. Staff conducted a first night interview in which they asked him about his state of mind and checked that he was not a danger to himself. New inmates are also asked about their religious beliefs.

He was offered a Bible. He was also offered a vape pack tomorrow, meaning today he will be assessed by a nurse and a well-being specialist. Now, there was something very interesting that happened yesterday online, as many people were horrified at the guilty verdict in this case. And this is this is one of the posts that caught my attention. This woman, who is an entertainer in her own right, according to her profile, her name is Samantha Presti, and I at least I believe she's an entertainer.

She's she's got a screen grab of herself on TV, and she had the following post in in defense of Russell Brand in 2006. She writes, I refused to have sex with Russell Brand. I was in his London flat. There was a lot of heavy petting, and we were both down to our pants. I think she means underwear. He didn't pressure me when I said no. He wasn't angry or abusive. Everything that happened was consensual. I stayed the night in his flat and felt safe.

This is right smack dab during the middle of the time when they said he was like a crazed animal, unable to control his behavior. Between 99 and 2009. This is 2006. I stayed the night in his flat and felt safe. I have had countless non-sexual and respectful encounters with him since. I only heard about the so-called open secret about, you know, what a doggy was when a comic mentioned it on stage at this year's Edinburgh Film Fringe Festival. I have been in the comedy industry for almost ten years and worked as an actress, dancer, and model before that.

I had a friend who was invited over to his flat around 2014, 15. She also refused sex. She did not have a problem with him. So based on my own experience, and I am a sexual assault survivor, she writes, unrelated, I find these rumors hard to believe. The entertainment industry is a cesspit of spiteful, manipulative, envious, and opportunistic people. These women apparently only came forward after being approached by journalists. I went straight to the police after my own unrelated sexual assault.

Admittedly, that got me nowhere. And based on that experience, I have not bothered to press ahead legally with other unrelated sexual assaults. But I didn't go to the press either. Innocent until proven guilty. Well, and here a jury said he was that he was guilty. Some of us have a very hard time agreeing with that and just don't agree. It's just this just looked like a setup, frankly, by an activist journalist who was determined to bring him down, who has very different politics from Russell.

And this person was very instrumental both in putting together that so-called documentary and by the testimony we heard at trial of getting women to participate in the police investigation. And they were not the same. None of the same women that was in the documentary was willing or was useful in some whatever way. I don't know why they didn't wind up participating in the criminal case. Either they said they didn't want to, or the police said that they weren't interested. Now we have two more additional criminal claims that may be brought.

And for what purpose is that? Just to make sure Russell spends the rest of his life in prison. Is that necessary? He's about going to get sentenced on Monday, probably looking at 5 to 10. And we don't. Is that not enough to keep him away from his children on 22-year-old charges? I mean, the the anal rape claim is the biggest joke of the charges that were brought against Russell. That's the only rape claim he was found guilty on. The other three are sexual assaults. The one complainant alleged he grabbed her boobs at a bar and then dragged her into a bathroom stall and forced himself into her mouth.

That it was an oral rape. The jury said, we don't believe the second part, but we believe the bit about the boobs. What the hell kind of a verdict is that? We believe you were telling us the truth, that he grabbed your boobs, but that you were lying about dragging you into the stall and forcing himself on you orally. What a bizarre verdict. The other woman, her allegation was like he sniffed her crotch. That's a sexual assault. We're going to talk jail time, 6 to 18 months for a sniff.

That's where we are. It's really this ridiculous allegation of anal rape that's going to send Russell potentially to jail. And this is, I mean, and not and not for an insignificant amount of time. I mean, again, this is just just so you know, this woman, when first contacted by the media by a reporter about Russell Brand, the one who alleged the anal rape that's now been he's been found guilty on set. And I quote, I'm not sure my story has much in it. I was an idiot, young and stupid, probably as much to blame.

That's the woman whose story is going to send Russell away to jail. That and sniffed the genitals, grabbed the boobs. That's not a lie, but forced his penis in my mouth. That is. And another woman who said he aggressively kissed her. He aggressively kissed and grabbed my bum, she said. Then she told him to fuck off and he laughed. And that was the end of it. He's going to go to prison for that now. Okay. Like, I'm sorry, but this is absurd. The the the Lord. That's what they call their judges saying that Russell will be facing a significant custodial term.

We went through the likely calculations on the sentencing guidelines on our show yesterday. It's posted on our YouTube right now. You can you can check it out. Okay. A couple of other things before we switch to the Amy Griffin latest. When it comes to the fallout from Tuesday night's election, the amount of spinning that's going on by the Neocons who cheered on this war from the start, like Mark Levin, is dizzying.

I mean, it's truly it's head spinning. The the new line I mentioned this with Jesse Kelly yesterday is it wasn't the war that people were voting against. It was the ceasefire agreement. That's that's what they were voting against. That's what caused the anger against President Trump. And you see, that's so convenient because that's JD Vance. JD Vance was the person behind the ceasefire, not Trump. JD Vance went rogue, went to the Iranians, and without Trump's blessing, negotiated a potential ceasefire.

And, oh, innocent Trumpy had no idea that his vice president was doing that to try to call an end to this war. Who are they fucking kidding? This is so absurd. The whole narrative is so absurd. No, I have to tell you, I got news for you. It was the war. It was the actual war that they didn't want. They didn't want to launch another Middle East war. They had been promised by Donald Trump that he wouldn't do it, especially in the Middle East. Any war at all, but especially in the Middle East. He did it. He didn't explain it. He didn't ask for permission. He didn't get Congress, our representatives involved, or ask for their permission or their participation.

Then he refused to explain it to us. And we were mad. Many of us, millions of Americans, saw it as an enormous betrayal. And then on top of that, the gas prices doubled. And we got mad at that, too, especially people who are living paycheck to paycheck. That's what happened. It had nothing to do with the memorandum of understanding. Trump's approval rating went back up like a hockey stick when news that there was a memorandum of understanding broke. It spiked.

People didn't give a shit what was in it. They didn't care what the terms were. They just wanted it to end. That's all they wanted. And it was the Mark Levins and the Mark Twains and the Ben Shapiro's of the world who were saying, it's terrible, it's terrible. We can't do it. This is absolutely insane. We need to finish the job. And of course, the Iranians did their job for them because they didn't live up to it. The war, the war renewed, and we've been stuck in it ever since. But at least JD tried. And to his credit, at least Trump tried back in the spring of this past year of 2026.

Like the revisionist history is laughable. It's so pathetic. Yesterday we had Mark Levin, who literally was on the radio saying, it's not my fault. It's not my fault. It is your fault, Mr. Supreme Court. We're going to get two Democrat announced appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, most likely because of you. Because of you. Because you put Israel first over your own country, which he does every day. That's it's a day ending in Y for Mark Levin.

And he took to the airwaves with a similar message. But he's very, very mad. Not only at JD Vance, but of course at the at the podcasters, the evil podcasters who were unhappy with Trump's war. Take a listen.

Little Adolf Pedro from with this. He demanded that his gropers go out and vote Democrat. I'm getting to a point here. Vote Democrat. We have Megyn Kelly, who is out there trashing the Republican Party left and right, trashing Donald Trump left and right, trashing our war effort left and right. She claims to be upset about the midterm elections. What did any of them do to help turn out the vote?

Any of them? They did absolutely nothing. They did the opposite. They were there to dispirit the base. They basically were regurgitating the talking points on the Iran war that the Democrats use. In fact, that the that the enemy uses, the Islamo-Nazi regime. These people are so buffoonish and so imbecilic. They're effectively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'm in a different business. My business is honest commentary. Not to be anybody's jock sniffer like you. All right. Don't get me started, micro. We're going to have to go again. You want to go again? Let's do it. Because our country's in ruins today because of you. Because of you. All I want to hear from you is you're sorry. That's it. I want your sorry ass to say you are sorry to the rest of us for what you helped do.

The absurdity. It's it's not the president's disastrous decisions, you see. It is the criticisms of those decisions that led to Tuesday night's debacle. It's not the president. The president must be absolved of all decision making around Iran because Mark Levin supported it and helped make it happen. He and Bibi Netanyahu and Mark Twain. It was in the Wall Street Journal. It was Tyson, Jack Keene. Obviously, Mark Levin's Twitter and show made very clear he was one of the chief advisors, etc.

Okay, so it's not, but it's not. It can't be Donald Trump himself. He no, it's not Donald Trump. It is the criticism of his decisions. The decisions must be treated as invalid and only celebrated. Mr. Pravda. That's what he wants us to be. It's a no. It's a no. It's unbelievable the dishonesty that he is shoveling down the throats of the poor Fox News viewers who have come to trust him over the years, as he's called the great one by Sean Hannity over and over.

He loves that moniker. He leans in life, liberty, and Levin. It's more like Levin and lies. That's what you're getting. It's absolutely absurd. And Mark Tyson's column in The Washington Post is equally dishonest. It is all about JD Vance and how he struck that memorandum of understanding and how terrible it was and how dare he. It was when he went rogue and struck the MoU and not Trump's decision making. This is the same crowd that when it was reported by The New York Times and confirmed in several publications that it was Netanyahu who went into the situation room and talked Trump into launching this war.

It was Israeli intel that found out the Ayatollah was going to be above ground for this critical meeting. We could bomb him. We could get in. We could get out. And that it was Marco Rubio who wasn't. He was not super in favor of this. He was one of the ones reportedly who said, I wouldn't believe Bibi JD Vance, who said, let's not do it at all. This makes absolutely no sense. It would be a mistake. And others who were in the situation room, his American advisors who said, do not trust him. Do not. And President Trump did. And what happened day one after we launched this war? Marco Rubio came to the microphone and said, we did it because of Israel.

He said that. It was obvious anyway. That didn't deprive President Trump of his of his agency. Obviously, he made the call. But we're talking about based on what? What information was in front of him? Who talked him into doing it? And the answer was Bibi Netanyahu with an assist from the Mark Levins of the world and the Mark Tyson's and the General Jack Keene. Read the paper, the paper of record, the Wall Street Journal, which has very good sources inside Fox and inside the admin.

And The New York Times reporter dovetailed reporting dovetailed. That's what happened. And all the same crowd when the punditry class came out and said, why the hell are we letting Bibi Netanyahu talk us into launching a war in Iran that President Trump ran against doing that his base does not want? That's going to cost the Republican Party massively at the midterm elections, all of which was predicted on this show and many others. What? Why are we listening to him? The answer from this crowd was the president makes his own decisions.

How dare you try to try to take that away from him? The the the president isn't told what to do by anyone. That's what they said. Don't don't you dare try to put this on Bibi. We all have to run cover for a foreign government's leader. No, we don't. We don't actually. It was all President Trump. Okay, but then when we got to him trying to settle the war with this MoU, he had no agency. Help me keep up.

I'm really having trouble following the logic. And as a lawyer, I love logical reasoning. I love linear thinking. Walk me through it. I'm wide open minded. These are lies, people. You know it. I know it. And Donald Trump, Jr. knows it, too. Mark Tyson's out there calling JD Vance disloyal. This was an act of disloyalty for JD Vance to put out that tweet saying, we all know why we lost on Tuesday night. It was the war that the people who were Trump Vance voters in 2024 were asked by the pollsters, what could they have done differently to have changed your vote?

What could they do in the future to change your vote? They said, end the war in Iran, put America first, fight inflation and focus on the cost of living and change the relationship to Israel. That's exactly what his tweet said. He said, we lost because of the war. And Mark Tyson is out there calling him disloyal, trying to create a wedge between the president and JD. Why didn't he say this is the most courageous and greatest decision a president has ever made in modern American history? Because it wasn't. Because he's not an idiot hack who's only out there to do the bidding of the neocons.

There's conflicting reporting on it. Either way, here's what Donald Trump, Jr., who I think is pretty loyal to Trump, Senior, had to say. Watch.

And according to a chart going around on X, the approval number graph was basically identical to the price of gas. Okay. I've seen a few talking heads, guys like, you know, Mark Tyson out there trying to claim that the Iran war had nothing to do with Republicans losing. Right. There's no downside to the Iran war. Disgusting, actually. And, you know, whether you think it was the right decision or not, the Iran war is largely what shifted voter sentiment and caused this wave.

Right. It jacked up the price of gas. We also campaigned on not getting into these things, and we don't have to debate whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing. I don't have any of the details. I'm not privy to any of that in terms of the intelligence, but it was definitely something after Afghanistan and Iraq that we probably didn't want to be into.

It's no accident. This was the same crowd that hated Trump all along. They never wanted him. They didn't think he was neocon enough. They didn't like his anti-war rhetoric. And then as soon as they realized they could potentially turn him, they could get him to do the bidding of Israel, of Bibi Netanyahu. They loved him. That's when Mark Levin put his arm around Donald Trump and held him in almost like he was giving him a nougat in a way that was emasculating of the president of the United States. Yeah, you're my you're my boy.

You'll do what I tell you or else. And Trump did. Trump did it in an act that nobody fully understands to this moment. He never took the time to explain it. It was a complete reversal. He had been warned exactly what would happen. Tucker went in there and is on the record as having said I told him he was on this show. He told us all that it was going to decimate his political base. It was going to cost him mightily at the midterms. It could launch World War III. All of our allies in the region would get hit as proxies of the United States. He told him all of this, and he reported that President Trump understood.

It wasn't that President Trump rejected all of that, saying, no, no, no. He understood. He heard him, and he did it anyway. And nobody understands fully why what happened there. But this is absurd revisionist history to now say that decision had nothing to do with the election on Tuesday night. It was just the memorandum of understanding that people were reacting to, you see, because that's when we we waved the white flag and we could never recover from the white flag. It gave the IRGC a leg up. And we've been suffering ever since because of that moment where we tried to end it.

These people want endless war, my friends. They they think nothing of sending your boys or mine off to fight these pointless wars in the Middle East. The time to remain silent and say nothing and trust the machine. And surely governments got our best interests at heart is so over. The electric gets it because that's what they were saying on Tuesday. It's over. It's over. Military industrial complex ruling our lives is over.

We thought we were saying that when we put Trump back in office back in 2024, but now we really mean it. And it's deeply disturbing because I'll tell you what had to happen. The Democrats had to be returned to power to teach a lesson to the Republicans who violated all of their campaign promises when they ran. Trump and his coalition, all of them. Obviously not all of them. I mean, he closed the border, which was great. He's done a lot of good things on the trans agenda, as you know, and I've given him credit for that.

But these were some big ones. Not starting a new Middle East war, the transparency on Epstein and so on. And now today, the president is out there tweeting about the stock market because the Nasdaq, which is dependent in large part on tech stocks, had a correction yesterday, went down about 10%, which is technically a correction, which is a bad thing. And the president tweeted out, it's all your fault. You're to blame. You, you, the American people, you have only yourselves to blame.

That's unbelievable. The reason that the tech stock platform went down is because there were some 40 ballot measures on the ballots on Tuesday across the states about data centers, which are necessary for the AI revolution we're having that nobody voted in favor of either. And at last count, virtually all of them had passed to ban the data centers. No one wants this in their community. Nobody. In fact, there's a reason.

There's a theory that one of the reasons why Greg Abbott lost, even though he was a very popular three-term governor down in Texas, is because of this issue, because his opponent kept highlighting the problem with the data centers and he kept defending them. But be that as it may, the voters voted against data centers. No one wants this in their town or their community. It's creepy. People worried about getting surveilled. They use up all the energy, the the dangers to the water supply, all of it. They don't want it. They don't want it. And they don't want to facilitate the takeover of AI bots of all American jobs.

They don't want it. They were never asked what they were told. Once again, by President Trump, who failed to sell it, was, shut up and fucking love it. Shut up. Whoever wins AI wins. That's it. This is we see the AI oligarchs ticking up toward trillionaire status. Trillionaire status. Okay. Then there's Walt Z, the red baron guy. Not not a trillionaire. Can't pay the mortgage. At least not before the good people of America donated $5 and $10 and $100 to him.

And now his GoFundMe was up to almost $800,000. And sweet Walt Z finally said, shut it down. I have enough. You should donate to other people. Okay, but that guy has got his finger on the pulse way more than the AI oligarchs over at Anthropic and ChatGPT, OpenAI, who are racing us toward employment extinction without getting our buy-in. People are stressed about this and choose not to even think about it. It's like, I don't want to know. But while it's on a ballot initiative, hell yes, I'm voting against it.

I don't want a data center coming to my town. That's why the tech stocks went down, because all the people who are invested in these stocks that, oh, shit, I guess there's going to be a slow roll on us. Yes, there is. And the president says, you have only yourself to blame. It's your fault. Maybe it's your fault because, like the Iran war, you failed to even try to sell it to anybody. You failed to explain. You failed to address our fears. You failed to help us understand why we shouldn't be fearful of this. What's going to happen on the long term employment for our children?

Why don't you walk us through something? Stop telling us Epstein. Who cares about Epstein? The Iran war, of course, you have to have it. Period. And AI centers. Whoever wins AI wins. Stop. Why don't you reason with us? Why don't you treat us like what we are? Your boss. We are your you work for us, not the other way around. Start acting like it. So it's infuriating. The whole thing is just damn infuriating.

There is some good news coming out of the past couple of days, like Laura Loomer is giving up her show. Thank God she's a fucking lunatic. She let me show you a screen grab of the number of tweets posts on X that she has posted over the past 48 hours. Look at this. This is clearly a mentally unstable person. Use your eyes. You don't need me to tell you. Look at this. This is obviously a deeply disturbed person.

And in the wake of this, she pulled her show. Great. Good. Step away from the microphone, touch grass and get yourself the help you obviously so deeply need. Mark Levin's is not much better. Look at his. It's also I mean, it's like it's crazy. But the number of tweets, look at this. Crazy, crazy mad tweets. He can't stop himself. So angry. You need to spend some time in front of the mirror as you have that finger pointing, sir. That's where you belong right now.

So it's great. It's great that these people are are recognizing how deeply problematic they are, whether they'll say it explicitly or not. That's why they're spiraling, quite obviously. I'm going to highlight one other thing. Rich Lowry was on this show on election night, pointing out that in the elections of '94, when Republicans returned to power, it was such an overwhelming mandate for them that they actually elected a guy who Rich had lunch with, along with another friend of his who invited him.

And Rich found out that the guy we had just elected to, you know, to Congress was a homeless man within the last year. My God, we're not really screening. Guess what? It happened again. There's another person who just got elected in this Democrat wave who was homeless within the last year or two. Not to mention the guy who withdrew saying, I have health problems. I don't want to do it. He got elected. There's a report that some 19-year-old got elected in one jurisdiction. That's such was the wave of Tuesday night. And like JD Vance said, we all know the reason why.

Like, they didn't need Amy Griffin. None of those women needed Amy Griffin in order to succeed in their businesses. But she's taken her husband's money and she's invested in these things. And now she's founder, founder and, you know, an investor in her own right. Okay. I mean, sure, it's fine. She's got four children. As I said, I've known her loosely and I never had any problem with her. She's always very nice to me. However, this whole mess around this book is absolutely unbelievable.

And I don't know, I'll tell you upfront, I don't know who's telling the truth. The lawyer for the one gal, Jolene, is going to be here in a minute. We invited Amy's lawyer. Actually, we were going to have both lawyer teams come on this show and have a debate not long ago. And then they had a court hearing and they said they couldn't. And then Amy's team went dark on us. Jolene's lawyer is still here. He's coming. Amy's lawyer is not. But they have given us a statement, which I will read when we get to that. But here's the story. Amy Griffin, in my view, was not satisfied with being a very, very, very rich person who was on the board of the Met and all the other fancy things she had and all the celebrity, you know, friends she had.

She, I believe, wanted celebrity for herself. She wanted to feel special herself. And so she wrote this book called The Tell in March of 2025, which was allegedly a memoir. In the book, she claims that she was raped and sexually assaulted by a teacher back in Amarillo, Texas, when she was in middle school, whom she calls Mr. Mason, which is a pseudonym. Now, the catch, the twist in this book is that Amy claimed for the entirety of her life, since it happened at age 12, she had no memory of it.

She did not recall the rapes and sexual assaults. That is until she underwent MDMA assisted therapy. MDMA is ecstasy. In other words, she didn't, quote, recover these hidden memories until she was under the influence of an illegal drug and in the hands of God knows whom administering it to her and walking her through this so-called process. Or so her book claimed. The thing is, that book was not met with skepticism from America's celebrity elite at all.

And the problem is when Hollywood stars masquerade as, quote, journalists, they always fall down in the job and humiliate themselves. Of course, I speak of Oprah, but also Gwyneth and Reese. I mean, it's just you should stick to your lanes, sweetheart, because you're all very good actresses. I mean, Oprah, who could who could criticize her acting? What? What? In her interview with Meghan Markle. Okay, let's be honest, she's lost a step or two.

But Gwyneth is a good actress. Reese Witherspoon is a good actress. And the pass that these women gave Amy Griffin, who I mean, it was truly it was like a mutual star fucking that happened when she went on their programs. And the reason she got this book to be published, because when you pitch a book, you have to say, here's how I know I'm going to get publicity, because no book can make it anymore unless they get some publicity. And of course, Amy Griffin was like, I know Gwyneth. She's one of my best friends. Reese Witherspoon calls this woman her best friend.

Drew Barrymore and I, Oprah and I, we're all in the same circles. And these women, it's a very dangerous game because when you interview your friend, your, quote, best friend, and when you're not even a journalist, the audience needs to be told this is not an objective interview. This is not even an attempt to bring you truth. This is going to be an ass kissing. I am going to pucker up my lips, smear them with lip gloss, and affix them to the ass of this billionaire's wife.

That's what you're about to see. That's what they should really disclose, as opposed to leading people to think they're going to see a journalistic enterprise. And especially, especially in the case of a woman alleging recovered memories about sexual assault. You know what? Maybe a hefty dose of skepticism would be in order. Can we rely on so-called recovered memories? Should we be providing a platform for this woman to come out and smear this unnamed man whose identity everyone has figured out from the clues in her book?

Like, literally everybody. Interestingly, that man hasn't said anything about Amy's book, which has many of us wondering whether that man may have received some sort of a settlement agreement or an NDA. We don't know. We have no idea. It's one of the many things I'm sure will come out in the course of this lawsuit if Amy ever lets it get to the actual discovery phase, which so far she is fighting. But let me take you back to when the book launched, March of 2025, and give you a feel for how it was treated by these faux journalists.

What she discovered about herself, about her past, made me recognize how powerful the desire to forget is, and also how powerful the desire to remember is, and how your life can change when you reconcile the two.

She claims it is, but there's a lot of forgetting, a lot of forgetting. It's strange. So here's the story. That book, thanks to those celebrities, became an instant hit. It sold over 100,000 copies by September of last year, one year ago. And that is also when doubts about Amy's story became a national story. Maureen Callahan on The Nerve went out and started kicking the tires on this. Because if there's one thing Maureen does, you know, she's very funny and she's snarky and she's fun.

But if there's one thing she takes deadly seriously, it's abuse stories. If you've watched any of her coverage, she is not f around on that subject. And she had been seeing all these Amazon comments on Amy's book page on on Amazon and all these regular women who said they were actual survivors were calling bullshit on her book, saying, I don't believe this. It doesn't have the ring of truth. The stories that she's telling them are hollow. It she this lacks a certain shame and level of detail and retelling, just the art of retelling it that an actual sexual abuse survivor will have in her story.

And that was interesting. I remember seeing that. I thought that that is interesting. Thank God I don't have that experience in my past. And so that didn't jump out to me. But that's what women were saying. Maureen took it on. And then The New York Times took it on. And not only did The New York Times take it on in a way and by the way, it was a woman named Katie Rosman and her partner, whose name I don't her reporting partner name I don't have in front of me, but they took it on. And not only did they raise questions about these so-called recovered memories, but they went down to Amarillo, Texas, and in a shocking moment, if you're following the story, they revealed that they found a woman who said she had been abused by a teacher in Amarillo, Texas.

She went to middle school with Amy Griffin and remembered her at the same time from The Times piece, quote, some of the descriptions in The Tell of Ms. Griffin's being assaulted are eerily similar to the abuse she this Jane Doe Jolene we now know herself endured. She said she has since retained a lawyer, unquote. Well, that woman again, her name is out there. It's everywhere. It's I'm just going to give you the first name because it's unnecessary to go for the full.

But her name is Jolene. She filed a lawsuit last March in Los Angeles County Superior Court. All right. This is already like a bombshell that The New York Times dropped. There is a person who had this happen to her and her name is Jane Doe slash Jolene. Tongues were wagging. No one could believe it. Like, wait a minute, did Amy steal this story? Did she steal the story? And that's the word she really can't stand. She doesn't want anybody saying she stole it. And I'll get to that later. But that's that became the question. Did she steal the story of this woman who actually was from the other side of the tracks?

Well, not only did The New York Times drop this story, but then Jolene filed a lawsuit against Amy, saying she did steal Jolene's story and that the abuse actually happened to Jolene, not Amy, that the stories in Amy's book are Jolene's, not Amy's. Well, Amy Griffin unleashed the full force of a billionaire against this Jolene, who has no money and was living in foster care for most of her childhood and did have an independent rape story at the hands of a teacher, though it wasn't Mr.

Mason. It was another teacher at the middle school who promptly left the school after Jolene's alleged abuse. This teacher left. And so there wasn't a litany of girls coming forward about him because he peased out of there. Don't know what happened to him, but Mr. Mason stayed at the school, went on to go into school management, and never had another accuser ever come forward ever against him. Not a one. In fact, when The New York Times did its story, they interviewed the sheriff who Amy did go talk to in Amarillo about Mr.

Mason, only giving the real name, but conveniently didn't have that meeting until statute of limitations on that claim had just run out. Damn. So close to extracting justice for the crimes against you. If only you had known when the statute of limitations ran. If only somebody like an Amy Griffin had a lawyer who could have advised her on things like statute of limitations before she sat down with the sheriff and told her story. Oh, come on. All right. Look, I obviously I have a healthy dose of skepticism. Perhaps I'm making up for the lack of it from, yeah, Jenna Bush, Hager, and Oprah and Gwyneth.

There is reason to be skeptical. I don't know who's telling the truth. I will reiterate that. But Amy Griffin unleashed the full weight of her billionaire bank account on Jolene. She Jolene sued Amy in California, Los Angeles Superior Court, which is where Jolene had been living. And Amy countersued with what's called an anti-slap motion, where you basically go in and say, this is such bullshit.

These claims against me, I want this dismissed right away. And if you do dismiss them, I want my attorney's fees and I should get them. This happened in the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case. Remember, Justin sued her for defamation. She responded with an anti-slap motion. The court granted her anti-slap motion. And that's what led to Blake Lively saying he should pay all of our attorney's fees and they should be, you know, I don't know, eight figures. Ultimately, I think it was like 400,000 bucks that happened there. It was an anti-slap motion where you step in and you say, this is such bullshit.

You know, these claims that are being filed, you got to get rid of them right away. You can only do it in certain types of cases. So she filed an anti-slap against Jolene, who had filed, I think, a total of seven claims against Amy. The judge upheld five claims and dismissed two. Amy tried to paint this as a paint this as a massive win. It wasn't. Jolene's case survived. Five out of I mean, trust me, I've filed and been on the receiving end of dozens and scores of legal claims when I was practicing law for ten years.

And that's a win. If you maintain five out of your seven claims, it's a win for you as the claimant. But Amy painted it as a huge victory. Okay. And not only and now she's saying we want $400,000 in fees or something like that for our motion. And she says it's not about the money. All I really want is for Jolene to admit she's a liar. Okay. If Joe if Jolene is a liar, she should admit that and put us all out of our damn misery. Amy then goes to Nevada, where Jolene had since moved and filed her own independent cause of action against Jolene for defamation, saying, you are defaming me with these by saying I stole your story.

F off. You stole my story. And she is focused, Amy, in this lawsuit against Jolene in federal court in Nevada. She is focused on saying basically the theory of her case is Jolene allegedly knew nothing about anything in Amarillo until The New York Times reporter went to her and said, have you read The Tell? And Jolene said, Jolene said, no. What's The Tell? Oh, it's his memoir that Amy Griffin, who he went to school with, wrote.

Why don't you read it? And Amy's theory of the case is that Jolene read this book and said, aha, opportunity. This is a billionaire. I'm going to say she stole my memories, that these are my memories and that she stole them. Now, how did The New York Times find Jolene? How did they find her? Well, my guess is they had not only The Tell, they had Amy's book proposal that she had sent out to publishing houses when she was trying to get this book published. And in the book proposal, she offers a few more details about a character she calls Claudia in the book.

And she mentions Claudia because she suspects in the book that Claudia also got abused. And part of her search in the book is to get Claudia to confess that she, too, has been abused, Amy believes, by Mr. Mason. And she writes about Claudia was this girl from the wrong side of the tracks who lived in a group foster home who had blunt cut bangs and blonde hair. Well, that matches Jolene to a T.

Those details were in the book proposal. Clearly, The New York Times reporter saw them, and it didn't take much to figure out who that was, who was in the middle school with Amy at the time, with blunt cut bangs and blonde hair, who was living in a group home for foster kids. I mean, come on, how many could there be? They tracked down Jolene, and that's how they broke the story of, holy shit, there's another woman who says these memory memories are hers. So but Amy's theory in her lawsuit is that this Jolene has nothing to do with Amy's story whatsoever, that she's actually not Claudia.

I guess there were allegedly two girls with the blunt cut blonde bangs who were both in foster care. I don't think so. There weren't. It was just Jolene. So it's weird that she's now saying there was a different girl who was Claudia, who we believe did not live in foster care and did not have this hair and so on. But her theory is that Jolene saw an opportunity because Amy was a billionaire. And she said, you know what? The New York Times is here. I'm going to go with this.

I'm going to say Amy stole the story from me. I'm the real Claudia. I am from the wrong side of the tracks. This did happen to me. And so she kind of created a character based on me without my permission. And she stole my memories of this Mr. Mason. Only my abuser was not the Mr. Mason. It was this other guy who's at the school. And here is a bit from Amy Griffin's audiobook of The Tell recounting her, quote, recovered memories of one of the alleged rapes in a bathroom by Mr.

Mason. Stop 50.

The solidness of it, feeling its weight in my hand, had made it real. The floodgates had opened and electricity surged through me from the top of my head down to my toes. Why didn't anyone save me? I screamed. Why didn't anyone protect me? I thrashed wildly, tearing at the seatbelt. I can't handle this. My body jerked and convulsed involuntarily, my muscles seizing.

There was so much rage pulsing through me. I could have shredded the seatbelt into ribbons.

The frilly dress was pulled up over my head, and I was bent over a desk while he was raping me from behind. I could feel the weight of the dress over my head, blotting out the light. This doesn't make sense, I said. When would I have been alone at the dance? Next, I was in the girls' locker room with my hands on the metal locker, bent over at the waist. He was behind me. I felt the cold metal under my hands as he moved back and forth.

I stared at the horizontal slats in the locker door. Could I be making it up? I asked. But I knew that I wasn't. I was just trying to build a trap door in the scene, looking for an out. The fact of these memories was almost leaden as if it were weighing down my body. I felt it in my chest cavity, the certainty of this deep truth. And I sighed heavily.

She also says that it was she, Jolene, who borrowed a dress for that dance, and she borrowed it from Amy Griffin. She says she was wearing it when she, Jolene, was raped by a teacher, that it was the buzz of the dance. People knew because she then returned to the dance. She was taken off the dance floor by her rapist teacher. Then she returned sometime later and that she looked disheveled. Her hair was everywhere and her dress was soiled.

She says she returned the dress to Amy. It was Amy's dress that she had borrowed, and she returned the dress to her later and then told the story at their church group of what had happened to her when they were both 12 or 13 years old. So she alleges Amy knew. Amy knew from the dress and that that was Jolene who had her dress over her head thanks to a teacher who was raping her and blocking out the light and making threats to her. Specifically, if you tell anyone, I'll rip your teeth out.

Amy says that's not true at all. She says this is a grifter who saw these details in The Tell, decided to claim they were hers and to do a money grab against a woman who's very rich. But here's the problem among many. Jolene alleges much more than just that Amy stole her story. Jolene alleges don't forget The Tell came out in 2025, but Amy had written an article about it prior to that, and I think 2023, and had been allegedly starting to write in even earlier than that, sometime as early as 2020, possibly.

I can't remember the date of the MDMA, but it was prior to the publication of the book, obviously. And Jolene alleges that in 2019, Amy Griffin called her and said, I want to come see you. And that Amy Griffin did come see her in Palm Springs, California, where Jolene was living. And that at that meeting, Amy Griffin said, I'm a girl boss and I know you are, too, to Jolene, who I believe was volunteering at a sexual assault center, you know, sexual assault healing center, and started listening to her, some of the big companies that she's involved in, and said to Jolene, oh, wouldn't it be fun if we exchanged postcards?

Here, there's postcards in this coffee shop. I'll write my address on one and give it to you. You write your address on one and give it to me, and then we can mail them to each other. And Jolene said, okay, fine. She says we did not discuss any sexual assaults at this meeting, but this meeting happened in 2019. And Jolene says I did send her sort of an anodyne postcard, said nothing after the fact. And Amy never sent me one. But clearly, Amy had her address and clearly had her phone number because it was Amy who reached out to Jolene to begin with and asked for the meeting. And Jolene didn't really much seem to understand why they had a meeting, but they had a meeting, she says.

Well, here's where the rubber meets the road. Amy says that never happened. She was not in Palm Springs in 2018, 19 or 20. She has never met with Jolene, you know, as adults, that that is a complete fabrication. Okay, so now here at one of these women is a psychopath liar. I mean, truly, this is where we are. Either Jolene has stolen Amy's story claiming it was hers and Amy stole it from her and for some reason made up extraneous shocking, shockingly risky details like they had an in-person meeting in Palm Springs in 2019 that didn't happen, which would be a huge risk.

If Jolene is making this up, walk through it with me. She has no idea what Amy Griffin was doing in 2019. She has no idea. Amy Griffin could have been traveling the world with her billionaire husband. She could have been living in India. How does she know what Amy was doing? She's not going to be able to sustain this. That's a huge and, may I say, unnecessary risk if her only goal is to do a money grab and say she stole this story. I was sexually assaulted. Why does she need to say they met at a coffee shop in 2019?

What's the point of that? It's not necessary and it's very risky. On the other hand, is Amy Griffin, this person who is on the board of the Met and all these other companies and so integral, according to her, to all these successful businesses and literally best friends with Reese Witherspoon and Gwyneth Paltrow and the like, who's living, you know, the most jet setting life a person can live. The husband's extremely successful. Obviously, he's no nutcase.

Is it possible this woman is such a pathological liar that she is telling us she didn't go to Palm Springs when she did? What an extraordinary lie that would be. She's saying we have a private jet. They do. They have a sick one. Look, it didn't go there. I can produce the records. Now she's she's resisting discovery. She hasn't actually produced records in this case, but she claims the jet didn't take her out there. Now, that doesn't mean she didn't take a first class flight out there.

And there is a question about whether Amy possibly attended some sort of an art show out around the Palm Springs area around this time and may have had some follow up correspondence with an artist after the fact. That's a question, not yet proven. But there's no because let me tell you what happened in this case. Recently, in September, New York Magazine tried to write a clean up article for Amy. It was obviously a clean up article saying they could both be true.

Maybe both women were sexually assaulted and, you know, maybe there's some crossover of memories, etc. But like it both happened to both of them. And they they cited a gym teacher who was like, oh, I believe everyone, you know, that kind of thing. A female. That's that that cannot be right. One of them is lying because either that Palm Springs meeting happened or it didn't. There's no two ways about it. Amy knows whether she went to Palm Springs in 2019 and Jolene knows whether Amy Griffin came to see her in 2019.

And this is where you get confused, right? And here's another point. Okay, so so now we know one of them is lying for sure. So if they're lying about that, then they're lying about the rest. I don't buy it happened to both of them. Bullshit. No, no, one of them is lying. One of them did steal it from the other. And whoever's telling the truth about the meeting in Palm Springs is the one who was sexually assaulted. And whoever is lying about that meeting is the theft, the thief. That's how I see it.

So here's more additional crazy details. Now Amy loses the anti-slap motion. She only gets two claims dismissed, but five more will proceed against her in Los Angeles. Now it's time for to produce discovery documents, sworn interrogatories where you have to answer questions like, did you go to Palm Springs in 2019? Under oath, though. Under oath. And so on. So things are going to start to get tricky. Does Amy produce any documents? Does she go forward with a discovery in this case?

No, she files an appeal on the loss of those five claims. You know, she didn't get Jolene's five claims stand. So Amy's decided to appeal, which stays discovery. Okay, that's you're allowed to do that. That's not nefarious in and of itself, but she knows damn well it's going to stay discovery, which is stayed right now in that litigation. Now, she's still got the Nevada lawsuit that she filed against Jolene for defamation that is going forward. And I'm going to ask the lawyer in a minute, but I believe Jolene's going to start to get discovery in that case.

So it'll be very interesting to see what Amy does about that. I think that case will get to discovery before the one in L.A. And, you know, you sue somebody for defamation. Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation against you. So Jolene is absolutely going to try to prove that what she alleges in her complaint, which is that Amy stole her story, is true. But here's a complication on the Jolene side. These are facts that are potentially good for Amy. Jolene alleged that in 2022 or 2023, forgive me, I don't have it all in my head.

Someone going by the name of Dominic Dominique Price contacted her. This is part of this is part of Jolene's story about how Amy stole her story. She's got the church meeting back when they were 12, when she says Amy learned all about it. But she's also got this. She says after that anodyne 2019 meeting they had out in Palm Springs, California, which Amy denies, that Jolene was contacted by someone going by the name of Dominique Price, who said, I'd love to meet. I'm a Hollywood producer and I've heard about you and I'd love to learn more about your story, that she met with this Dominique Price, that she gave him the whole story, all the details, the bandana, the boot on the back.

I'll rip your teeth out, all of it. And that they had a meeting or a couple of meetings and that it was progressing along to where he was clearly going to ask her to sign the rights to her story over to him. And a friend of hers who was a lawyer told Jolene, you should get the contract in writing before your in-person meeting and I will review it before you go out there. So that Jolene alleges she said to Dominique Price, I would like to see the contract before I come. And that Dominique and some female underling of his with whom she was also dealing, like got defensive and shut down and she never heard from them again.

As soon as she brought a lawyer or a legal document into it, they disappeared. And she has Dominique Price's phone number. And Jolene in one of her complaints included this fact about Dominique Price contacting her. She gave the life story. I mean, query how any legitimate Hollywood agent would ever have heard of Joelle's, sorry, Jolene's story and like reached out, knew how to find her. This is all very sketchy. And Amy's team responded by saying the number that she's listing here leads to an actual person named Dominique Price who starred on Treasure Island, who was a reality TV star.

And this person is saying, I have nothing to do with Jolene, Amy Griffin or anybody else. I don't know why the hell you're dragging me into this. I don't know her. I never called her. I didn't offer money for her life story. I don't know the Amy Griffin team. I have no idea who any of you people are. So ask yourself this, is Jolene pathological enough to make up some guy, give his phone number? It does link back to an actual person named Dominique Price, who is an actual reality star, who is going to tell the world he has no idea who the hell this woman is.

What's happening here? What's happening? Why would Jolene take a risk like that? Why would she even have the phone number of a reality TV star who starred in Treasure Island if, in fact, that person had not contacted her? Why? Again, if you just want a money grab, why the hell make up extraneous details like this? But if you're pathological, maybe you do this. And if you're pathological on the Amy Griffin side, maybe you say things like, it all happened to me and I didn't go to Palm Springs when I did.

One of these two women has a serious problem with the truth. So that that's a point on Amy's side that this Dominique Price says, I got nothing. I did not contact her. But Jolene's team is pointing out that Amy's book reveals, and it's true, that she did hire private investigators to, quote, help her investigate her, quote, recovered memories. Was this a private investigator hired by Amy posing as Dominique Price, giving a phone number, going so far as to give a phone number that would link back to a real person named Dominique Price that would potentially embarrass Jolene if she were ever to come forward with it?

Amy says no. She says, I have not been in contact with Jolene, nor has anybody on my behalf. But she admits to the use of private detectives. Now, the firm that she's believed to have used, Kroll, is going to get a subpoena. They are definitely going to get subpoenaed in the litigation and they are going to have to answer whether they or anyone connected with them had a meeting with Jolene, reached out to Jolene in any way, under a pseudonym or not.

And that'll all be known. Okay. Like any and all investigators who work for Amy are going to be subpoenaed and going to have to give testimony under oath, as will Jolene. A couple of other other iterations that I'm going to bring in the lawyer here. I need to stay with me. That's where things stood. The dueling lawsuits, the weirdness on each side, the bold lies by one or the other. Who the hell knows? Then we had the New York Magazine piece hit, which was an attempted rehab of Amy.

Maybe they're both telling the truth. And Amy made a woman Amy's claiming is the real Claudia. Remember, the tale has Amy's alleged stories of abuse and then a character named Claudia who Amy suspects may also be a victim. There's a scene in the book where she, like, goes to Claudia's house and she's going to, like, she can't remember if it's the book or the proposal, but she's she's going to, like, say to Claudia, like, it happened to you too, right? And Claudia, instead of saying hashtag me too, says, no, nothing happened to me.

But then in the book, Amy gets a postcard later from Claudia with a more suggestive message about maybe it did. And Amy says this nutcase who's suing me, claiming I stole her story, wasn't even not only did I not steal her story, but she's not even Claudia. She's not Claudia. She says there's an actual Claudia. That's not the woman's real name, but there's another person who is Claudia. And she made this other person available to the New York Magazine reporter. And the New York Magazine reporter said she had a Zoom with her.

And, uh, I don't know. This woman, she doesn't vouch that this woman had a story like Jolene's, where she lived on the wrong side of the tracks and was at a group foster home and had the blunt cut, you know, blonde bangs or any of that. But she does say that she had coffee with Amy at a coffee shop where Amy told her about her sexual assault experience. And so a couple of the details matched what did wind up in the book. And Amy says, not only did I meet with the real Claudia, but I went with my ghostwriter, who, by the way, Amy didn't Amy told everybody she wrote the book.

She she went on the round. She she let people compliment her writing. It wasn't true. She she did not write the book. She had a ghostwriter named Sam Lansky who wrote it. And this guy says he was at the meeting with Claudia too. So that's another wrinkle. And if true, potentially a good fact for Amy, although Claudia's details did not match what Amy had said about this character in Amy's book proposal. Those details matched Jolene.

So we have the New York Magazine piece, the attempted rehab. Okay, fine. The next thing we know, the next and current chapter is a report in Semaphore, which is a Ben Smith publication. He worked at the New York Times for ten plus years, I think, then founded Buzzfeed, etc. Ben Smith reports in Semaphore that Katie Rosman, the reporter at the Times who broke the story, has had her daughter threatened by Amy Griffin.

Now, keep in mind the connection. Ben Smith was at the New York Times for ten years. Who do you think gave him that story? Katie Rosman alleges that Amy Griffin went to, we believe it was the University of Michigan. Not sure about that yet. She went to UVA. Her husband, I think, went to University of Michigan and told them that Katie's daughter, 17-year-old minor daughter, was applying to the university and that she should be blackballed, that she should not be offered admission to the university.

This is unbelievable. I mean, this is stunning. If she did that, then there's something seriously wrong with her. I can't say for sure it means she's the liar in this dispute, but there's something very seriously deranged about her that is threatening and trying to harm a reporter's child because you don't like what the reporter wrote about you. I mean, that is truly next level. And I will tell you that we have done our own reporting on that piece of the story, and we can confirm that the Semaphore reporting is accurate.

There's actually more to it. There's more to it. We've been able to confirm one school at which Amy tried to stop Katie's daughter from getting in. And there could be more. There could be more actions taken by Amy to harm Katie's children. This is beyond fucked up. She denies it. We confirm the report. Our reporting is that it's true.

She denies it. On top of that, enter Billy Bush, who has been, I mean, like a dog with a bone in this story. I had no idea Billy Bush was this good of an investigative reporter, but he has been. And Billy Bush has been blowing the doors off of this story. I mean, you know, as I said, Maureen covered it. We covered it here. The Times took it up. New York Magazine did its thing. And Semaphore, Billy Bush has been owning this story.

And Billy Bush was at a wedding recently. Ron Meyer used to be the head of of CAA, this big Hollywood talent agency. His daughter, Jennifer Meyer, was married to Tobey Maguire. They got a divorce. She just remarried to somebody else. You may have seen it in the papers. Tobey Maguire performed the ceremony. She and he remained on such good terms. Well, it was star-studded. Leonardo was out there and Demi Moore. And, you know, I think Bezos was there and Billy Bush was there.

And, you know, this is his world. He's obviously a Bush, so he's got political connections, but he's been, you know, at Access Hollywood for all these years. And, you know, he was obviously a part of that Trump tape and wound up losing his job with NBC, all the stuff. But Billy's been around. He's a great reporter and a great guy. He goes out there and because he's been like a dog with a bone with this thing, he goes on to his show called Hot Mics with Billy Bush and reported that Amy Griffin was at the wedding along with her husband, the billionaire John, and that he had heard she went to the wedding with the intention of confronting him.

And he she did confront him. And here is Billy reporting on how that went in SOP 52.

She's threatened to bankrupt media publications and individuals, including me. I've spoken to many of her friends and they're sickened by the behavior. And then she pulls up in my face and she says she's shaking. She's shaking, like sweating and shaking. And she says, you don't know me. How could you accuse me of stealing the cover art for my book? She said, why don't you believe me? And she goes, you know, you're abusive, she says. I'm like, abusive? What are you talking about?

This is all happening right after this beautiful wedding. But, you know, I was calm and cool the whole time. Everyone kept coming up to me, you know, later, holy shit, what just went down? Oh, my God, are you okay? You handled that beautifully. Other well-corroborated allegations. Amy tried to blackball another person's kid from a nice all-girls private school. Got that direct. Two sources. It backfired. It got immediately back to me. And she told people with whom she had lunch the day before the wedding that she was going to ruin me.

She said she was going to sue me into oblivion, bankrupt me, and make me homeless. These are from the people sitting at the table. Okay. It all got back. Instead of owning any of this, she's trying to overpower everyone with her money. And it turns people off.

And I don't know if they have any connection. But what I do know is that they were in defense of Amy Griffin and they had a problem with my reporting and they thought that it was appropriate for them to threaten my children because they disliked what I was reporting on.

And think of like the way Billy described Amy's confrontation of him at this wedding was she was shaking with anger that she went over to him and did the you don't know me that she came, she spilled her purse out everywhere. Demi Moore is like, you can do this, Amy. He's fine. Don't be so afraid of Billy. He's a nice guy. You can do this, whatever. And was seething with anger at him. And he said, look, this is not the time or the place. But she was determined to have her confrontation and was reportedly telling others she was going to get him.

Like there is something going very wrong here. Her lawyer, Jolene's lawyer is here. Before we end this hour, though, I want to read you the following from Amy's legal team. They say Jolene accused Amy of selling of stealing her story and passing it off as her own. That accusation is false. Amy has never met with Jolene, nor did she hire Dominique Price or anyone else to extract Jolene's account of abuse. Amy did not pick this fight. She was defamed and dragged into California court to answer against outlandish accusations.

Amy has every right to defend her integrity. Amy has never taken a position on whether Jolene was herself abused. That's not what these cases are about. All of this ends as soon as Jolene admits Amy did not steal her story. Steal, I think, is the operative word here, folks. Jolene's lawyer joins us next. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and that now they're messing with your credit card.

And we are confident that discovery will reveal evidence. And and also, this is a question for the jury. Like you said, it either happened or it didn't happen. And we think that's a perfect issue for the jury to decide.

So help us understand why this Dominique Price, who Jolene says came to extract her story, said he was a Hollywood talent agent and then went missing, is a real person with a real number you guys listed in your complaint that leads to the real person who is a reality TV star who is saying, I have no idea who this person is and I don't know Amy Griffin either.

These calls happened around the same time that Amy Griffin admittedly launched an investigation in order to corroborate her memories. And when we brought all those facts together in the anti-slap filing, the judge said that we had sufficient circumstantial evidence to have a merited claim. Now, we are in the infancy of this case. We have earned the right to discovery. And the big questions here are there's an investigation.

Who called who? When did they call who? And how did that investigation proceed? Those are the main questions that we intend to pursue in discovery.

She did send her a postcard and some of the details that Amy wrote about Claudia in the in the book seem to have been verified by this woman who is supposedly the real Claudia. So what did you make of the reporting by the New York Magazine reporter that they met with the real Claudia and she's not Jolene?

It has not been disclosed to us yet. And, you know, near the time our motion to compel that very issue was pending, that's when the appeal came.

Presumably, the reporters believed that this detail had been cut from the final draft to obscure Claudia's identity. What they did not know is that it was cut from the book because after the proposal was circulated, Mrs. Griffin met with the real Claudia and learned she had not grown up in a children's home. This red herring led the reporters to Jolene, the only member of Amy Griffin's class who grew up in a children's home. So they're saying that the identifying information that led the Times to think that Jolene was relevant here was from the book proposal.

Amy changed it later when she realized the real Claudia, this person she suspected might also have been abused, did not grow up in a children's home. And that it's just unfortunate for Amy that the New York Times sicked itself upon this woman, Jolene, told her to read the tell, and she decided to insert herself in this story as Claudia when she never was.

But the dress the real Claudia borrowed was pink. It was pink. It was not floral patterned. It was pink. Jolene claimed it was floral patterned because the tell said it was. But that detail had been deliberately changed during the editing process to protect Claudia's identity, as proven by extensive documentation of the book's editorial process. So this is one of their pieces of evidence that Jolene made it up, that she said, oh, I was wearing a floral patterned dress I got I borrowed from Amy that wound up soiled after I was the one who was allegedly raped.

And Amy saying, you don't know what you're talking about. The dress was never actually floral patterned that I loaned the real Claudia. It was pink, which you would know if you were the real Claudia. I just changed it to floral colored or floral patterned in the book to protect the identity of the woman who actually is Claudia. Aha, you're the fraudster.

So whether the change of one detail, as they claim, blows up our entire case, I don't see that as the case either. I really, really don't. So we will get to to the bottom of what the exact appearance of that dress was. And yeah, go go ahead.

Later, that same person helped our client try to remove the stain from the dress before our client returned it to Ms. Griffin.

And Amy says, I had already told the story publicly. It was already written in draft form. It was and I had told it to the Amarillo sheriff prior to that date. So my story did not come from Jolene, who didn't tell anybody who you're even alleging is affiliated with me. And I deny he's affiliated with me until April of 2022. Right. Do we agree that that's Amy's claim?

And then we allege, after, our client returned the dress in a plastic bag that is akin to a scene in the tell.

I remember that her story involved being sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a teacher in the school she went to while she was growing up in Texas. Some of the specific details I remember from what she talked about in 2016 was that she was assaulted at a school dance that the teacher involved put his boot on her back, threw her against a wall and stuffed a bandana in her mouth. I remember those details because they were so specific and disturbing, and they have stuck with me to this day.

She says it is not uncommon working at a place like this to for some a grown up to tell minors an experience of their own that they've had in order to get them talking or make them feel safe, like they're not the only ones this has happened to. I mean, that's I have to say pretty good, Zach, because that this woman's affidavit proves that at a minimum, Jolene was telling a story of her own sexual assault with details that would later appear in the tell long before the tell was conceived, the MDMA kicked in, before any of that took place.

What I can say is that it feels like a battle of truth against money and power. Does your client believe that Amy Griffin or her people are surveilling her?

You know, when trying to determine who's got the motive to lie, why shouldn't people believe it's Jolene who has no money as opposed to Amy, who has everything and one might argue no reason to lie?

I think that's obviously a possibility.

And we say that that's a contradiction in itself. You can't, on the one hand, say, I can't confirm if what happened to me happened. And then, on the other hand, say, these are my stories and they're mine alone.

So she's she's losing. She's losing a lot. These reports about her threatening a reporter's child, trying to stop her from getting into university. This is all very, very bad stuff, irrespective of what the truth is around this controversy in this case. So my prediction, for what it's worth, may not be much is that she will settle it and hopefully we'll have you back on, Zach, when when and if it resolves.

I think it was Penguin. Penguin Random House is the publishing company. The imprint is called the Dial Press. Report by Lachlan Cartwright. He's a Vanity Fair contributing editor now. Is that they it is highly unlikely that they will go ahead with the paperback, according to people familiar with the situation. The actual person at Dial Press is named Whitney Frick, who I guess, you know, the editor, the person who brought it in. They say that Penguin Random House insiders have acknowledged that publishing the tell, while initially a literary sensation, has turned into an embarrassing blunder.

They also say it has hurt the career of the once high-flying Frick. When contacted a spokesperson for Amy Griffin, for Dial Press, for Random House, etc., did not respond to requests for comment about the publication not releasing being released in paperback form. We are also told that now Rolling Stone is doing a very deep dive into all of this. And that's not all we know of. At least one other news investigation that may be underway.

So this is not going away. It's not going to stop. And it doesn't sound like Amy Griffin is handling the questions about this story very well, but she should be. I mean, I will say this if she made this up. Because again, it's tough to get to. It was an honest mistake since if she went to the 2019 meeting and is lying about it, then there's an intentionality here. But maybe there's some innocent explanation for that. Maybe Amy was also on drugs back then and didn't doesn't remember.

I have no idea what happened at the 2019 meeting. But if Amy had genuinely recovered memory memories that weren't hers and made a mistake here, there is an off ramp for her in just owning it that she has a great life. She actually, you know, notwithstanding all the threatening, I always thought she was a very nice person and she seemed like a very happy person. How could you not be? She's got four great kids. She's got a great husband who seems very loving toward her. She's got the world at her feet. You know, their their townhouse in Manhattan is basically like an entire square block.

It's one of the nicest things you've ever seen in your life. She's got it all. They've got a huge private plane. They've got the best private schools. Like, fucking enjoy your life. Enjoy your life. This the need, if that's what this is about, to be relevant because you've got a disorder or you had abuse or, you know, you're you're hanging around with Reese and Gwyneth and Savannah Guthrie, who's a friend of hers and, you know, all these stars and you need to feel special too is something that you should discuss with your therapist, not a drug person who's giving you MDMA.

I mean, like an actual therapist who can help you heal the thing inside of you that makes you have to say founder and girl boss, allegedly. I've got news for you. Those of us who actually have founded our companies and created entities that we genuinely run from scratch, don't talk about ourselves like that. Just stop that. That's embarrassing. That's that weakens you. Right now, at this moment, even with this embarrassment, you have a great life.

Walk away. Say litigation is extremely stressful. It was worse than I knew. And I stand by my story, whatever you want to say, and get back to leading your great life. Leave Jolene alone. If I were you, I'd be cutting her a check like ASAP to make her go away. And because you may have stolen her story. But even if you didn't steal her story, even if she's stealing your story, this is not worth it. It's not worth it. You have more money than God. If you cut her $1,000,000 check, it would be a rounding error.

You would never feel it. She'll go away. Sounds like she had a tough life and that she's a good person. She's been helping kids who've been abused as children. So maybe you just take the high road. You cut her a check. You say, I would like to avoid the stress of litigation, which by all accounts is causing you to pull your own hair out. That there are reports that she's like literally pulling her hair out. She can't she's been in like the fetal position, so upset with Billy and so on. Like, this is not worth it. We only get one go round.

And honestly, if you're involved in any sort of a litigation, that's my same advice. Having done these cases for ten years, like it's very stressful. If you can get out of it amicably, well, do it. Unless you think it'll set a precedent. You know, in my business, we don't like to set precedents, which is why I have Brian Friedman to go after anybody who messes with me, which is lovely. But my point is simply, she's not in that position. She's not going to have repeat litigation over this book. So that's my thought. And, you know, maybe privately, you don't have to admit it publicly. If you stole this woman's story, you should apologize to her, give her a check, help make her life better, and putting an end to this will make your life better too.

It's going to be amazing. People in a year will forget about this whole thing. You know, you can just say, oh, whatever. It's a confusing time. MDMA. You should be careful. Be careful when you go through this. It can it can cause some bad things to happen. It can cause you to get very confused. I think people would throw you that bone. Okay, we're going to leave it at that. What a week. Thank you all so much for being here with us. A lot of emotional swings. But jeez, the news is crazy, right? We went from the election to the Thomas Markle arrest, Russell Brand being found guilty.

This wacky story, which 100% is going to be made into some sort of a movie, is it not? Like, my good God. Stay tuned and have a great, great weekend. We'll see you Monday. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show. No B.S., no agenda and no fear.