Menendez Brothers Could Be RELEASED, with Mark Geragos, Plus Megyn on Early Voting and How to Unwind | Ep. 927
43:20 Share

This lasagna was so cheesy. My plate was filled with saucy slices. Then a flimsy store-brand plate... No, no, no, no! ...ruined it. Next time, get Dixie Ultra Plates. Three times stronger than the leading store-brand 10-inch paper plate. Dixie, make it right. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. ♪♪

Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and today's weekend special episode. This past week, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon announced he is seeking the resentencing of Eric and Lyle Menendez, whoa, who killed their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in the 1990s. Gascon filed paperwork on Friday to remove life without the possibility of parole, that sentence, which if his move is approved, then

the brothers could walk free in a matter of weeks.

Cyber attacks are on the rise, with corporate megastores falling victim to data breaches that could expose your private information. Now these same megastores are lobbying D.C. politicians to pass the Durbin Marshall credit card bill. According to our sponsor, Electronic Payments Coalition, this bill could leave you even more vulnerable to credit card cyber attacks, while megastores pocket billions in additional profits.

Learn more at guardyourcard.com and then consider telling Congress to guard your card. The Electronic Payments Coalition says Americans lose when politicians choose. Again, that's guardyourcard.com.

Joining me now, the Menendez brothers attorney, and that's Mark Garagos. He joins me now. Mark, great to see you. Whoa. Your reaction to this. I have a couple of bones to pick first. First of all, I've been doing your kind of, what do you call it? Kelly's court. Yeah. How long have I been doing that? Four years. That's complete. Okay. And it's been completely put aside while you're in election days.

deep in the elections, which I understand. However, I did. Somebody sent me. Did you do a segment with Mark and Arthur about this case? I think it was one of the many agenda items we did on a lengthy court the other day. Yeah, we did. But we always seek you first if we're going to talk Menendez. You're just a busy man. Well, because.

I know, but I do. There were a couple of misstatements, not so much by Mark, but by Arthur, which I was if I see him in New York this weekend, I'm going to I'm going to have a couple of bones. Good already here to educate. OK, good. Well, set the record straight. So tell us, first of all, your reaction, because this is huge.

Yeah, I mean, look, we filed, you'll, I'll get into the weeds for a second. We filed a habeas based on Roy Rosello, which is the Menudo member who has said and declared under penalty of perjury that Jose had raped him as well, by the way, in their house. Apparently Jose felt that was a safe space. And also on a letter that was found

by Robert Rand, I believe, and Nary, back in 2015, that ABC had, which in that letter, which was, we've been able to date to eight months prior to the killings, Eric was complaining to his cousin, Andy, about the abuse. And that corroborates Andy's testimony, who unfortunately died in 2001. So that letter was not found until in his effects some 15 years later.

Okay, the letter is important because it's showing long before the actual murders, Eric was telling somebody that his dad was abusing him. And it also is helpful because they didn't tell their psychiatrist that they were being abused. But here's Eric telling a friend. And that's one of the things, if I remember correctly, he was cross-examined on like, oh, you know, you told Dr. Ozeal a lot of things, but you didn't tell him you got abused. And the response was something like,

Do you know anything about abused children? Like it's really not something they run around shouting even under these weird, tragic circumstances.

Well, you know, you'll appreciate this. One of the reasons I was fascinated with this case and have been for many years, in 94, I tried a case with a woman named Yoshi Kale, and I tried it in the LA Superior Court. We were able to use the battered woman's defense in her case. She was charged with murder. And in that case, she ended up getting a voluntary manslaughter ultimately, and then sentenced to probation.

On the record, in the transcript, in the Menendez case, and I remember in real time, the judge at the then DA's urging said, well, I understand that battered women's defense is now something that's available in California. However, it does not apply to children, and children are not able to take advantage of this idea of negating the malice for murder because of abuse. Can you imagine where we were in the 90s?

And even they played this recently. 2020 did a retrospective on the case, given everything that's going on with it. It was very good. They had a lot of Barbara Walters interview with the boys. I remember watching that when I was young and this was actually happening. And I had forgotten about the prosecutor saying this incendiary thing and soundbite 48. Listen. First of all, that man cannot be raped. Lastly, necessary equipment to actually be raped.

The prosecutor telling the judge men cannot be raped. I mean, it does give you a flavor for how backward we still were when this case was tried. What people I think, you know, because I saw that same thing and I've watched it. That was Pam Bozanich. And Pam was the prosecutor in the first case. And boy, she's gotten quite a bit of hate directed in her life.

direction. In fact, to the point where there's an interview that I saw somewhere where she was saying, all you TikTokers, I'm armed. I've got guns all over my house. Oh, boy, Pam. Don't hurt Pam. Yeah.

I mean, Pam did have a couple of people who had killed their parents on her hands. It's just the whole question really almost from the get go was what is the penalty? What which crime is it? Is it manslaughter? Is it murder? Is it something that they should be acquitted on? Given I don't even know if acquittal was ever a possibility, Mark, but soon into it, we knew they had done it.

Yeah, acquittal was not really what they are arguing at the time. In the first trial, Leslie Abramson, who I remember well, I haven't seen her for years, so she's retired. But Leslie was kind of the go-to criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles at that point. She was arguing forcefully and put on almost 50 witnesses as to the abuse. There were two juries in that first trial, one for Lyle, one for Abramson.

Eric, both juries came back hung, but not between murder and acquittal, between murder and manslaughter. It was negating the malice. It was a homicide. They had admitted doing it. Both of them testified, both defendants testified in the first trial. And the jurors, when they were presented with the evidence and the relatives and all of the factors with the experts, fully half of them said, this is not a murder case. That...

That literally was snatched from them in trial number two. Trial number two, one jury, same judge. But you know what had happened in the interim? OJ was acquitted eight days before evidence started in trial number two. You know,

who ironically, the DA at the time was in a fight for his life and knew that he had to pull out all the stops. Pam Bozanich was not the prosecutor who tried case number two. David Kahn was, who's now dead. And David forcefully and effectively argued for Judge Weisberg, same judge as trial number one, to change a number of his rulings

and not let them present the abuse, the fulsome abuse defense. And that's why they were convicted. And one of the reasons, if I remember, is because they had never raised allegations of abuse, like there was no way of proving it. There wasn't like. But, you know, now we know that these cases have been discussed more in the public eye over the past 30 years. It

There's not usually some evidence of it with little boys. I mean, there wouldn't be. It's like, it's a he said, he said. And unfortunately for Lyle and Eric, their side of the story was being brought up under the worst possible circumstances where they did need to get out of a very serious, you know, possible death sentence, life sentence. So they were not given the benefit of the doubt. But I do think that Minuto testimony was,

is everything, Mark. I mean, it caused me, and you know me, I'm much more prosecution-oriented. I do think your client, Scott Peterson, is guilty. But the Menendez brothers are a different story. I affectionately call you my little pro-house, so, you know, as a hope for the prosecution. I wear it with a badge on. Speaking of which,

For those who don't know, I've known you since you were a cub reporter. Yes. Scott Peterson. It's fine. So, but on this one, I do see like the whole question was, was Jose Menendez an abuser or wasn't he? Because if he was unleashing the horrific sexual and other abuse on these boys that they claimed, I think any feeling person wouldn't have said, oh yeah, great. You killed them. But what,

would have understood there are mitigating circumstances here potentially that the jury should at least hear about, which they didn't in the second trial. And when the guy from Menudo came out and said in that documentary on Menudo on the record, and then as you point out under oath for you in trying to seek a new trial, he said this same guy who was a music executive, Jose Menendez, he raped me. I like, did you ever get to talk to him, Mark, about why he didn't come forward during the

Was he even around during the trail? Is that why you... Well, part of the problem is you hit on a couple of great points there, as you always do. But with boys, it is not as easy to determine these kinds of things. With little girls, you can. I mean, there are ways...

for the examiner to do forensic examinations that are at least consistent with abuse. And you can find, there are findings and things like that. That is not the same with boys, number one. That's just from a medical and a scientific perspective. From a cultural perspective,

30 years ago, people were not willing to accept this. This was just a bridge too far for people to say, yes, I can see that. I can understand that. And they didn't understand, I don't think. And frankly, I think one of the things that has worked to the advantage from a legal standpoint, one of the only things that I will take issue with Leslie Abramson on, Leslie has said, you know, no amount of petitions, no amount of...

kind of groundswell of the younger generation is going to help. Now, I take a little issue with that. I think that the fact that people re-examine this well before the Ryan Murphy series, well before actually the habeas that was kind of brought to my attention, is that people did not understand, that particular generation did not understand that these things can and do happen. And that, I think,

is important in terms of the evolution of the culture. And as I had mentioned before, the law is always trailing behind where the culture is in terms of kind of our evolved understanding of abuse. Eric and Lyle Menendez were living in California when they killed both their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez in the late 1980s. They were brothers separated by just three years, Lyle, the older Eric, the younger, and

While initially they tried to say it might have been a mob hit, we don't know who did it, it quickly became clear that the boys had done it themselves and had, with shotguns, brutally murdered their own parents sitting in their T-shirts.

TV room one night that it had been planned out that they had purchased the guns a couple of days in advance with a friend's ID and that they had confessed to their psychiatrist, Dr. Ozeal. And then he revealed the tapes. He had some lover, a girlfriend who went to the cops. She had heard the like this woman was a mess and this doctor was a mess. But nonetheless, they got caught. And the latest evidence

docu-series on it seems like it's full of bull, Mark. I mean, it just, I'm so, docu-series is not a thing. Like that's, stop using the word docu. Like docu should be followed by mentory and then we know what it is. But I think they did this to Linda Fairstein with the Central Park Five story. And I think they did this to the Menendez case on this. I think they did it to Michael Jackson too, where they call it a docu-series. It's really just drama through the eyes of someone like Ryan Murphy. What do you think?

I couldn't agree more. In fact, you hit on what I have been saying. People have been saying, well, did the Ryan Murphy series help this? I said unintended consequences. It was such a caricature of what it was that there was a public backlash. The backlash was helpful. I don't think that the

the so-called docu series, as you call it. And that's where, once again, where I invoke Leslie Abramson, who I think somebody caught at a gas station or someplace and said that I don't watch that piece POS at all. And I tend to agree with her. It was ridiculous, but it has, it has at least bubbled up, if you will, to the consciousness of what was happening. And I think that,

We filed this habeas 18 months ago. We sent over a draft petition invitation to resentence to the DA about six months ago because I wanted the DA to take a look at what I was going to present, take a look at what's called the C file, which is the Department of Corrections file.

And I wanted them to join or initiate the resentencing. That is what the D.A. did yesterday. OK, so let me play his soundbite and then you tell me what's really going on here with George Gascon. It's not 40. A very careful review of all the arguments that were made for people on both sides of this equation.

I came to a place where I believe that under the law, resentencing is appropriate, and I am going to recommend that to a court tomorrow. I believe that they have paid their debt to society, and the system provides a vehicle for their case to be reviewed by a parole board, and the parole concurs with my assessment, and it will be their decision. They will be released accordingly.

We're very sure not only that the brothers have rehabilitated and that they will be safe to be reintegrated in society, but that they have paid their dues. All right. So what's what's really happening? What's going to happen? Let's just start there. What what is going to happen now? Because there's been a lot of I don't want to say misreporting, but.

Part of why I had invited the district attorney to initiate the resentencing months and months ago is there are some legal quirks, one of which is if the DA initiates it, which they have now done, after that press conference, they went over and they filed

the request for resentencing. Now that triggers the ability for us to request a hearing with the judge, which we will do in short order. That judge now has the ability to resentence them. And the judge does not

is not bound by the D.A. recommendation. So the judge has the ability to recall the sentence and start afresh. They are in a legal zone where the judge can do and I believe should do. And we will urge him to recall the murder, sentence them to a manslaughter and release them immediately. And could it be, Mark, that you will go to that hearing and then they will walk out free men?

It could be, yes. And I've said from the get-go, I wanted them over here for Thanksgiving. I'd bring them over for Thanksgiving. I mean, that's my goal. So if I get the hearing or we get the hearing set in front of Judge Ryan within a short period of time, the one thing that is uncontested and unrebutted

They have these, I referred to before the C file. The C file is 35 years, 34 years of, maybe closer to 30, of their history in the prison system. Then the resentencing deputies said yesterday, and I think the DA and

conceded this and actually said it, they have some of the most impressive work in prison. And it's even more impressive when you consider the fact that for the last almost 20 years, they had absolutely no hope of ever getting out. They took the position

mentor others. We're going to help create this green space environment down there at the prison. It's just it's beyond impressive. So it seems like most of the family members, you know, who are in a tricky spot, obviously, given the nature of this crime, are in support of the boys being released, the men being released. Now they're men. But I did see an attorney for Kitty Menendez's brother on CNN this morning.

And she was saying that Kitty Menendez's brother has objections to this. Here it is in Stop 41.

Anderson doesn't believe that those allegations actually, he believes they're allegations, that it didn't actually occur. And based on what he saw during the trial, he thinks that essentially that was made up evidence by the Menendez brothers' attorney. There is this letter that has emerged as a part of the renewed scrutiny on this case that indicates that there might have been some abuse. Does that

potentially become a game changer in all of this if it can be further established? Well, I suppose it might, but that's also, it's so theoretical, right? And the problem with this letter is that we don't exactly know when it was written. It may have been written by one of

the brothers. But we don't know when it was written. Their problem with Mr. Gascon is that he's had this case for 17 months and it's only 11 days before the election where he's trailing by 30 points and he knows he's going to lose so he can get free publicity by holding press conferences. And we certainly hope that that's not what his motivation was. Interesting point there at the end, Mark.

Yeah, I know. I've known Kathy Cady for 30 years. The one thing that if the CNN person was going to do a fair interview, might have asked her is, by the way, are you listed on the opponent for George Gascon's website as endorsing him? So talking about political and out of the 250,000 lawyers in California, how is it that they found one of the 20 lawyers who's an ex disgruntled deputy DA who

as the lawyer, by the way, why didn't your client Milton Anderson, why did he turn down the invitation to go talk to the DA's office? And by the way, why does your older sister Joan, why did she say that you, in fact, your client, Kathy Katie Milton is an abuser? And why is it that 24 of all of the other family members have all uniformly come out in support? And I was a witness to

I hate to peddle in this, but I sat in the meeting with the 20-some-odd family members who met with the DA's office, not yesterday, but well before. And the DA could not get them to stop talking about the abuse that Milton, her Kathy Cady's client, had heaped on other family members. It's an awful situation. But

but not something that you would not expect because generally in abusive families, there is this kind of generational repeating of abuse. And unfortunately, Milton, based on what the family members have told me, told the DA and everybody else, is somebody who's an abuser. Oh, boy. All right. Well, Milton's not here to defend himself, so I'll assume that he denies this charge. Which

Which is why I said, I don't know anything about it other than what I have heard from the family members. The family members are uniformly behind the brothers with the exception of this one, you know, I hate to say crazy Uncle Milton, but with the exception of the one family member who just happens to find a lawyer who just happens to be endorsing gas. It's very interesting. And by the way,

If Gascon, as she says, knows he's going to lose, then why does he want the publicity of doing this? Why wouldn't he wait until after he loses? To change the trajectory of the race or I mean, who knows? I don't think much of Gascon, but it doesn't surprise me that he might be looking for publicity. It's possible.

doesn't mean it's the wrong result. But, you know, in his defense, in his defense, what he mentioned yesterday, and we've seen it, and on the criminal defense side, if you do the kind of work that criminal defense lawyers do, you have to believe in order to get up in the morning that people have...

an ability to change or redeem themselves. And in Gascon's defense, he has, well before the Menendez brothers, for three years, has initiated resentencing for over 300 people, 28 of them convicted of murder. And out of all of those 300, only four have reoffended and not

for any kind of violent act, but for technical violations. Well, yeah, these are not these are not two young men who had some, you know, multiple murder spree. It's like clearly there was a you know, as I've said this before, somebody said it to me one time about this case. And I thought it was a good point.

A parent murdered by his child has really received the ultimate F in parenting. You know, it's there. Obviously, something went very, very wrong in this household with both parents and both children. Our our mutual friend, Adam Carolla.

who at one point was my podcast partner. Adam is the one who I thought crystallizes the best. Adam's got teenagers, Latalia and Sonny, twins. And Adam would say to me for years before I represented the Menendez, he says, if Nat...

If Natalia goes into Sonny's room on a Friday and says, Sonny, let's go blow mom and dad's face off on Sunday. And Sonny says this Sunday or next Sunday, Adam's point was, I think I have failed as a parent. And I'm not really worried.

Yes, I know. All right. So in that 2020 retrospective, it's still available on podcast. If you guys want to listen to it, it's good. It's only a couple of weeks ago. They resurfaced Barbara Walters interview with them. As I pointed out, here's a bit of Lyle and Eric describing their relationship with their father, Jose, in this 1996 interview with Barbara. Describe your relationship with your father. Brutal, painful, torturous, and yet, uh,

I admired him because he was so strong. He was everything that success was, that I was taught that success was. And I thought that he was the most powerful and brilliant person I had ever met. I was his firstborn son. That was very important to him. And he was a very forceful and, I think, very brutal person.

My bond with him was, I thought, strong because we had been through so much together. You know, it's confusing to some people to hear them say anything nice about him, Mark, right?

Yeah, and by the way, I think, I don't know about you, but that to me is what resonates with they're not making this up and it speaks volumes because it's, can you imagine what the how the brain processes that kind of abuse and, and the kinds of

cross currents that you have to go through. I mean, I've sat and listened to experts for hundreds, if not thousands of hours, talk about how the brain copes with abuse and how the brain deals with these kinds of trauma and what the healing process is and things like that. Well, I'll give you, I'll give you one other point in your favor on this, that letter that surfaced that you say you've dated to, you think eight or nine months before the murders in it. This isn't, um, Eric, um,

in great detail saying he comes in and he does the following things. This is what he does. This is the amount of times I've been doing it. It's caused me great strife and pain and upset. Like that's to me how somebody who's just laying the foundation for a murder defense would sound, there'd be more in there. He sounds to me more like somebody who really did have this happening to him, who was embarrassed and ashamed about it as all abuse victims are, you know, unnecessarily, but it comes with the territory. They shouldn't be ashamed. They, they, they haven't done anything. Um,

But that's how the letter reads to me. I couldn't agree more. And you've heard me, I think, say it before. And I forget who first penned it. Otherwise, I give credit. If these were the Menendez sisters, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about getting them out of prison. OK, but but let me let me before we get too soft on them, because I've got to be the pro-ho again for a second. Yes.

They did go on a spending spree after the parents were, after they killed their parents. And that was so, that was one of the worst things they could possibly have done in terms of being found, you know, guilty of murder or manslaughter because the public was looking at it like, what the, they're celebrating. And the prosecution's theory in part was they wanted the parents' money. They were worried Jose was going to change his will. And Barbara asked them about that a bit in SOP 44. Here it is. There are people who,

A great number of people who think that you two are spoiled brats. What do you say to them? I don't know that there's anything I can say to them. Because I came from a family of wealth, it doesn't make me spoiled. I'm just a normal kid. Oh, Eric, you're a normal kid who killed your parents. Yeah, I know. And you still say you're a normal kid? Well, I didn't have normal experiences, but I am. I did that...

And there's not a day that goes by that I don't think about what happened and wish that I could I could take that moment back. Is it hard for you? It is. It is difficult to be a whole 28 years defined by a day. What about the spending spree and the financial incentive and all that?

You know, I could be wrong, but my memory is, and it hasn't been in the forefront of kind of the challenge, but my memory is in real time that the DA had gone to the grand jury with a financial gain special circumstance and that the grand jury rejected it. And I have also talked to

to experts over the years in many different contexts. And the experts will tell you that that is not necessarily. In fact, I had a case, another murder case back in the 90s, where the person who was and it was a male who was raped.

then took the credit cards of the rapist and went on a spending spree. And I remember at the time, back in the 90s, the expert explaining to me that's a way to punish the perpetrator. And I suppose you could say, oh, it was for financial gain. It was this or that. But I think it's consistent with somebody who's working through that kind of trauma. I mean, I guess looking back, I feel like clearly they wanted them dead. They...

they claim they were being tortured by the father and that the mother was complicit and had no life. Cause a lot of people want to know what about her? Why did she have to die? That is a big question. I mean, I think that's probably a lot of why they got the life sentence and you know, like she wasn't abusing them. Although there was, I don't know if there may have been some testimony to that effect. Um, but what do you say to those people, Mark, who say, what about her?

Well, there was a rule in that house that was enforced by Kitty, that if Jose was with one of the sons down the hall in a bedroom, you could not go down the hall. And I have heard that from the victim's

family themselves. And I was with Joan just yesterday. Joan is the 92, she turns 93 next month, older sister of Kitty. She is the most forceful proponent for getting them out. So if

if Kitty's own older sister, who was more of a protector of Kitty than anybody, is advocating, who am I? Who is anybody else to say no? We're here to stand up for Kitty. Her own sister is saying let him out. Okay, so final question. What are the percentage odds that Lyle and Eric Menendez will be at your house this Thanksgiving? I'm going to say better than 50-50. How's that? I don't want to presume...

I don't want to presume I'm the judge, but if if the law is filed and if the facts pan out exactly as they should, they should be out as soon as we do a hearing. I guess I do have one more question. This judge reputation for being tough in these cases or not, you know, is this somebody who could be persuaded that they should be let out? Yeah.

He's a fair judge. He's a very fair judge. I've known him as long as he's been on the bench, I believe. And I've always thought the world of him. And by the way, for those who might say, well, you're never going to say anything negative before he makes a decision, I've known him.

in a million different contexts at the Superior Court. He has been assigned by the presiding judge for years in this position to handle these kinds of cases, meaning resentencing and writs and things of that nature. He's one of the smartest guys on the bench. All right. Well, we will be watching. Mark Garagos, such a pleasure. Thank you so much for joining us today. Megan, it's always good to see you. Thank you. See you soon. And we will be right back.

with your questions. Don't go away. Four years of crushing interest rates, runaway inflation, and reckless government spending. And who is paying the price? You are. That's who.

You might have bills stacking up, debt collectors on your back, and you might be barely able to keep food on the table. Well, Done With Debt can be a way out. They have developed new aggressive strategies designed to get you out of debt permanently without bankruptcy and without loans. Done With Debt stands between you and your bill collectors. They can go head-to-head with these persistent creditors, getting balances reduced, interest rates slashed, and even penalties stopped. They

They create a plan to end your debt fast and put more cash in your pocket every month. And right now, Done With Debt is accepting new clients, but you need to act fast because some credit relief programs expire. Before you even make another payment, consider a visit to donewithdebt.com or just call 1-888-322-1054 right now. Speak with one of their debt relief strategists for free. Go to donewithdebt.com. That's donewithdebt.com. I'm Meg

I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave,

We'll be right back.

Go to SiriusXM.com/MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com/MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply.

Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. It's time for another edition of You Can't Say That, or Think That, or Do That. Oh, wait, this is America. And today we're talking about seasons. It's October, which means that it's that time of year when the leaves are changing colors and the pumpkins come out. In other words, it's fall or autumn. But according to a recent column in Nature magazine, two scientists and researchers say using the terms fall and autumn

autumn is actually completely inappropriate. You see, it's a sign of your bias, a bias that you may not even know you have if you are watching this right now. The terms are not inclusive, you see, and neither are the other seasons. Summer, winter, and spring are exclusive. They're not inclusive. I'm

Of whom? What sort of bias is this that they've identified in you? Well, describing October as autumn is actually just your northern hemisphere bias talking. Yes, these two researchers are from Australia. You see where their seasons in the southern hemisphere are very, very different. They say the practice of using, quote, region specific seasonal markers should be ended.

and immediately. But thankfully, these scientists have given some suggestions for how we can be more seasonally inclusive in order to avoid a, quote, Euro-American-centric approach. Only use months instead of seasons. They would also like science conferences to, quote, respect work-life balance by understanding that January in the Southern Hemisphere is like August.

August, for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, we should be avoiding using those months for work travel to respect our Aussie friends. So remember, if you are thinking about calling the next season that kicks off on December 21st winter, you're being very offensive. And you can't say that. Oh, wait, this is America where it's fall.

And now it's time for Asked and Answered, where I answer some of the questions that you guys have sent into our show mailbox. It's Megan, M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com. And joining me for that is my executive producer of the show, Steve Krakauer. Hey, Steve. Hey, Megan. How's it going? Got some great questions today. And I'm going to start with one. It's a little bit

Morbid. But I think it's actually an interesting question. This is about the election coming up. It's from Joshua. And he wants to know, he says, with Jimmy Carter looking on his deathbed, remember that video we showed? He said it's a no-brainer that they had cast his vote early. They've made a big deal about him casting his vote for Kamala Harris. Is it constitutionally legal to count a dead person's vote? How do they reconcile that? And then, good point, on that same thought process, shouldn't we all vote early? For every election for the rest of time. Right, just in case.

I think that, yes, I've seen an article on this and it is legal, though it depends on the state. But I think in Georgia, right where he lives, it's it's OK if so, if you as long as you're alive, when you cast the ballot, that's that's the bare minimum that's required. If you die after that, but before Election Day, it's kosher. But check your specific state. But I'm sure the Jimmy Carter people looked into it. I'm not sure.

I don't know. I think the bigger problem in his case is he did not seem compus mentis at all. That really looked like a case of elder abuse. It was disturbing. I can't believe his family did it to him, but...

Whatevs. You do you. The vote counts either way, apparently. Okay. Good to know. Suzanne has a question. She says she's a therapist, one of the few in the DC area that refuses to affirm. So interesting. You can identify that. Suzanne in the DC area. She's also a mom and she says that she has seen you write about some potential blowback for kids. How does a family handle this? Do you worry about your children being bullied or treated differently because of your views on controversial topics?

Well, that's a good question. Thank you for that, Suzanne. I don't think the blowback would come to my kids for anything I've said or done. But of course, I share my opinions with my kids and I think my kids share some of them, not all of them, but they're coming to their own decisions with their own minds on these issues. And obviously, I'm an input. I'm a major input.

to the way they see the world. And I'm conscious of that. Like, I know, obviously, I'm an authority figure and kids look up to their parents and, you know, we're still in that period before they're 16 where they disregard everything we say and do. So I try not to abuse it just by indoctrinating them. You know, I just try to say, look, this is how I feel about it. This is what the other side says about it. Because they could get blowback. You know, there are these issues, especially the trans issues, very dicey.

But I do think it's what's true is true. And if speaking the truth gets you in, quote, trouble, then there's something wrong with the system you're operating in. Like that system might need to be busted up. It might need a disruptor.

like your kid or you. Not everybody wants to play that role. I make very clear to my kids, there could be consequences to you in taking on any of these issues and they have to decide whether that's for them. But I definitely am not telegraphing like, don't make trouble. I'm not that person. And I'm also not, go put on your warrior hat and pick fights everywhere. I give them the information, I arm them with it, and then the rest is up to them.

Right. Right. Well, our last one kind of relates to that. It's from Robin. She says you get fired up on the show over there. A lot of very important issues and concerns. But how do you release all the stress and worries at the end of your day? Thank you for that, Robin. I the show is actually my stress reliever. The show is my stressor for sure. It's my therapy. These two hours, if I if I don't get to do the show, especially on a day where there's nonsense in the news, like things that need to be fact checked or bullshit media stories are being spun. I get aggravated like I don't feel right.

It's like a warm bath for me, the show, in that way. So I use this show and have this experience with all of you that I hope is somewhat cathartic. It could fire you up, but hopefully then it feels cathartic.

And in my free time, I don't know. I don't really have that much free time. I've recently become an exerciser again. Net over the course of my life, I'm more of an exerciser than I'm not, but I was in a very long lull. So I've been doing a lot of that. Doug and I love going for a walk, especially in these fall colors. That's super fun. So, you know, we'll just text each other. Are you free to do a loop around the neighborhood? Like free for a loop.

Uh, sometimes I play with the dogs. There's no exhausting my red dog, as you know. And, uh, I do a lot, a lot, a lot of audio, a lot of audio podcasts, a lot of audio, um, books, um,

Not as many shows. I will confess one of the shows I really like to pop on, like if I'm cooking dinner, is Curb Your Enthusiasm. That's the difference between me and Larry David. I can still enjoy him as a person and a talent, notwithstanding his politics. I know he would not feel the same about me based on Alan Dershowitz's story about him, but that's too bad for him because I wouldn't want to cut out half of the performers in Hollywood or maybe all 90%.

based on their politics. So I like that show. A lot of F-bombs even for me, to be honest, Steve, but I love the show. It's hilarious. It's hilarious. Great one. You know my show, by the way? What? Judge Judy. Really? Relax with an episode of Judge Judy. Yeah, I have them on my DVR. I'm just ready to go if I have like a free 20 minutes. Clearly you don't have problems hanging around strong women all day.

True. True. Good point. That's funny. There's something in there. I got to talk to your wife, Megan, the other Megan, about this. I want to know more. That's funny. All right. More next week. All right. Yeah. Keep them coming. Megan, M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com. Thanks for joining us today, everybody. Have a great weekend and we'll speak to you Monday. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.