Melania Trump, Meghan Markle, Taylor Swift, and the Donna Adelson Trial - MK Media Highlights

Summary

The Megyn Kelly Show

Episode: Melania Trump, Meghan Markle, Taylor Swift, and the Donna Adelson Trial - MK Media Highlights
Date: September 1, 2025
Platform: SiriusXM, MK Media Network

---

Episode Overview

On this episode, Megyn Kelly curates a series of media highlights from the MK Media podcast network, bringing together sharp commentaries and legal analysis on hot-button cultural and legal issues. Topics span the political controversy over Melania Trump and mainstream media, the complicated public images of Meghan Markle and Chrissy Teigen, Taylor Swift’s engagement as a cultural touchstone for millennials, and an in-depth legal panel dissecting the high-profile Donna Adelson murder trial.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. Melania Trump and the Vanity Fair Cover Controversy

(01:39-06:28)

• Phil criticizes the backlash among Vanity Fair staff over a potential Melania Trump cover.
  • Points out hypocrisy: progressive media celebrates Democratic first ladies but vilifies Republicans regardless of merit or achievement.
  • Phil highlights that Melania Trump, an immigrant and self-made woman, has been treated unfairly due to her party affiliation.
• Memorable Quote:
  • "My message to the staff is, bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Goodbye." — Phil (02:48)
  • “She’s the most stunning First Lady we've had, at least in decades, probably ever. ... She certainly doesn’t care.” — Phil (03:34)
• Broader Point:
  • The segment underscores the dwindling influence of traditional media vs. the democratization of content on social platforms.

---

2. Meghan Markle, Chrissy Teigen, and Celebrity 'Friendship' Stagecraft

(07:47-16:50)

• Emily and Megyn Kelly critique Meghan Markle's approach to booking guests for her friendship and entertaining show, particularly her inclusion of Chrissy Teigen and John Legend.
  • They highlight perceived hypocrisy: Meghan promotes anti-bullying but features Teigen, notorious for online bullying.
  • They question the authenticity of Markle's celebrity friendships, asserting they are superficial or opportunistic.
• Memorable Quotes:
  • "Megan forgot to add bully. The online bully, terrible asshole..." — Emily (08:12)
  • "Anybody of, like, quality, you would think, would go nowhere near this." — Emily (09:37)
  • “She is such a burden that I understand almost why she's completely disappeared when it comes to Prince Harry's charity pursuits.” — Megyn Kelly (13:23)
• John Legend Appearance Speculation:
  • Emily speculates Meghan could rope John Legend into a Christmas charity project to rival Princess Catherine, raising eyebrows over Meghan’s intentions with charitable engagement.
• Symbolism and Petty Observations:
  • The panel dives into details like Chrissy Teigen’s ‘coffin nails’ and food-handling, using them as metaphors for broader issues of authenticity and showmanship.

---

3. Taylor Swift’s Engagement and Millennial Narratives

(16:50-24:55)

• Emily Jashinsky discusses a viral People Magazine opinion article connecting Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce’s engagement to millennial cultural evolution:
  • Swift’s romantic arc mirrors many millennials: serial dating, delayed settling down as careers take priority, shifting conceptions of marriage from "foundation" to "trophy."
  • Highlights research on declining family formation and marriage rates, reflecting existential and demographic anxieties.
  • Discusses how Taylor Swift, for her fans, embodies the journey toward "true, unadulterated, effortless love," giving hope to those feeling left behind by traditional narratives.
• Notable Analysis:
  • “Marriage went from foundation to trophy.” — Quoting Paul Scalas via Emily (21:59)
  • “I think everybody wants Taylor Swift to be happy.” — Emily (24:47)
• Cultural Insight:
  • The fandom's investment is more about shared generational milestones than celebrity gossip.

---

4. Donna Adelson Trial – Legal Breakdown (MK True Crime / Kelly’s Court)

(26:38-50:09)

• Legal panelists Matt, Phil, Jonna, Katie, John, and Emily carefully dissect the prosecution’s case against Donna Adelson in a family murder-for-hire plot.
• Discussion Points:
  • Prosecution Tactics:
    • Smart prosecutors “draw the sting” — bringing up potentially exculpatory or ambiguous evidence themselves to lessen its impact.
      • “You have things that, you know, sometimes we just call them a wart, right? The case is not perfect.” — Phil (26:42)
    • Prosecution working circumstantially to methodically tie Donna to the conspiracy, despite evidence that can cut both ways.
  • Key Testimonies & Evidence:
    • Katie Magbuena Testifies:
      • Repeatedly saw Charlie Adelson consult Donna during plot discussions.
      • Donna signed checks for Katie long after the crime, suggesting continuing involvement (39:14).
      • Donna physically washed money used in payments — showing awareness of concealment.
      • "She is in there. And maybe the defense at some point is going to try to argue to the jury, really, how do you parse out when her involvement began?" — Jonna (41:23)
    • Undercover Operation ('the bump'):
      • Undercover agent hands Donna a flyer and phone number meant to look like a blackmail attempt about the murder.
      • Donna, rather than react as an innocent person might, calmly accepts it, then contacts Charlie in code — “If I’m in that jury box, I’m like, game, set, match.” — Jonna (47:06)
    • Run-Up to Testifying:
      • Donna announced an intention to testify, possibly as a tactic. Panelists debate strategic wisdom and the impact on the defense.
      • Donna’s “grandmotherly” appearance in court might contrast sharply with evidence of her active, hands-on involvement.
• Defensive Strategies Discussed:
  • Defense could have focused on “accessory after the fact” vs co-conspirator, but have not signaled that tactical theme.
  • Attempting to pin more blame on Charlie or Wendy (daughter) unlikely to exonerate Donna.
• Memorable Analogy:
  • “It’s like the smoking section in a restaurant; you can’t contain it. The jury will see Donna’s presence everywhere – she’s part of the crime whether at the center or the edges.” — Jonna (36:33)
• Legal Takeaways:
  • The cumulative power of circumstantial evidence and Donna’s incriminating behaviors seem decisive, despite minor ambiguities (“warts”).
  • The panel anticipates a strong case for the prosecution, hinging on witness credibility but reinforced by tangible evidence and Donna’s incriminating reactions.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• "My message to the staff is, bye. Don't let the door hit you..." — Phil on magazine protests over Melania Trump (02:48)
• "Megan forgot to add bully. The online bully, terrible asshole..." — Emily on Chrissy Teigen’s appearance with Meghan Markle (08:12)
• "She is such a burden that I understand almost why she's completely disappeared..." — Megyn Kelly on Meghan Markle and charities (13:23)
• “Marriage went from foundation to trophy.” — Paul Scalas via Emily Jashinsky, discussing millennial marriage trends (21:59)
• "If I’m in that jury box, I’m like, game, set, match." — Jonna on Donna Adelson’s reaction to being approached by an undercover (47:06)
• “It’s like the smoking section in a restaurant... the jury will see Donna’s presence everywhere.” — Jonna, legal analyst (36:33)

---

Segment Guide with Timestamps

• 01:39 – 06:28: Media double standards and Melania Trump (Phil)
• 07:47 – 16:50: Meghan Markle, Chrissy Teigen, and celebrity PR games (Emily, Megyn Kelly, Matt)
• 16:50 – 24:55: Taylor Swift’s engagement and generational shifts (Emily Jashinsky)
• 26:38 – 50:09: Donna Adelson murder trial deep dive (Matt, Phil, Jonna, Katie, John, Emily)
  • 39:14: Key evidence: Donna’s check signatures and washed cash
  • 41:23, 47:06: Powerful analogies, the undercover “bump” operation, and strategic mistakes by defense

---

Tone and Style

Throughout the episode, the tone is sharp, unsparing, and often satirical, with an undercurrent of skepticism toward both establishment media and celebrity branding. The legal analysis is accessible but rigorous, balancing clear explanations of strategy with moments of gallows humor and vivid analogy.

---

For New Listeners

This curated highlight reel is ideal for those interested in the intersection of politics, pop culture, and law. The episode brings both entertainment and nuanced insight, calling out hypocrisy, exploring the cultural meaning behind celebrity headlines, and unraveling the complexities of a real-world criminal trial, all with the Megyn Kelly Show’s trademark candor and edge.

Transcript

[Megyn Kelly]

Hi, we're Emoji Health, your long term weight loss solution. We'll connect you with a board certified provider to discuss your unique goals. Eligible patients can Access custom formulated GLP1 medications at an affordable fixed price delivered to their door monthly. Take our free eligibility [e-mail] and use code AUDIO40 at checkout for $40 off your first month of membership. That's joinmochi.com Results may vary. Eligible GLP1 patients typically lose 1 to 2 pounds per week in their first six months with Mochi when combined with a healthy lifestyle. Whether it's a date night, a special event or just another Tuesday, our over 800 stylists are here to help you look and feel your best. We're about personalized style that fits your life, made for real life moments.

Maurices welcome to the Megyn Kelly show live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, it's me, Megyn Kelly, and I hope you're having a happy Labor Day. We are back with a new show tomorrow, but today I want to bring you some recent MK Media podcast network highlights. We're kicking things off with Spot on with Link Lauren, then some After Party with Emily Jashinsky, some the Nerve with Maureen Callahan. And also we have our newest MK Media show, MK True Crime with our Kelly's Court franchise friends and legal experts. Last time we did this, it did really well. We heard so many great emails from all of you saying more of that. We really enjoyed the compilation, so enjoy this too and we will see you tomorrow with Ben Shapiro.

[Phil]

Just like clockwork. This happens all the time, right? The liberal literati, these folks who preach about diversity and acceptance and loving everybody, they don't love diversity of thought. And that's what we've seen with the folks over at Vanity Fair. So Vanity Fair, the editor in chief, a man named Mark Giducci, reportedly wants first lady Melania Trump to be on the COVID But the folks at Vanity Fair threatening to walk out and protest if they put the first lady of the United States on the COVID Here's what they said. I will walk out the mother effing door and half my staff will follow me. One editor fumed to the Daily Mail. We are not going to normalize this despot and his wife. We're just not going to do it. We're going to stand for what's right. If I have to work bagging groceries at Trader Joe's, I will do it. If Jiducci puts Melania on the COVID half of the editorial staff will walk out, I guarantee it. My message to the staff is, bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Goodbye. Okay, if you're a little pansy crybaby and you can't handle that, your magazine might put first lady Melania Trump on the COVID This probably isn't the industry for you, right? When we've seen in the past look at Vogue magazine and Anna Wintour, they put Jill Biden on the COVID three times. They put Michelle Obama on the COVID three times. This is what happens, right? If you're a Democrat, you could be a terrible first lady. You don't have to be good looking, you don't have to have any success, you don't have to have any good initiatives. But what do they do? Because you happen to have a D next to your name and you're a Democrat and you check their boxes, you get put on the covers, you get nothing but positive press. First lady Melania Trump, because she happens to be married to a Republican in the Republican Party and have an R next to her name, suddenly she's Persona non grata at these magazines. But you know who doesn't care, you know who doesn't give a rat's ass is first lady Melania Trump. I'm here to tell you, this is one of the most secure, confident women, right? She's been on the COVID of magazines, she's modeled, She's a high fashion, gorgeous supermodel. Okay, Objectively, I can say this objectively. The most stunning first lady we've had, at least in decades, probably ever. So first lady Melania Trump, does she care that the folks at Vanity Fair want to put her on the COVID Probably not. She's been on the COVID before. I think first lady Melania Trump was on the COVID back in maybe 2017 or at the beginning of the first term or right before the first term, maybe in 16 or 15. So she's been on the COVID of Vanity Fair. Does she need to do it again?

[Matt]

No.

[Phil]

She's probably busy raising Barron, working on the Take it Down act, working on Be Best. She now has a new AI initiative. She's focused on doing things that are actually going to help kids in this country. I don't think first lady Melania Trump cares about being on the COVID Vanity Fair. But this is what the liberal literati does. They melt down and they flip out. If a Republican woman gets anything cool or exciting, right? If you put a Republican woman on the COVID we're gonna walk out and bag groceries and like I said, my message to them is go ahead and walk out. And what's interesting to me, and I've spoken about this before, when you look at First Lady Melania Trump, right, she's an immigrant, she's self made, she came to this country, she pulled herself up by her bootstraps and made things happen, right? She had a full successful career, a full successful career before she ever met Donald Trump, before she ever became first lady of the United States, right? And she's carried herself with grace, dignity and class as she's had friends stab her in the back, right? Friends stab her in the back, turn on her, get unfair press. Time and time and time again, she's carried herself with dignity. You can even look at someone like Usha Vance, right? Think she's the first Indian, a second lady of the United States, she's the first South Asian second lady of the United States. But because she's a Republican, she is going to get bad press as well. So First Lady Melania Trump and Usha Vance, these are folks that the left would have loved, right? You've got Usha, you've got Melania, who's self made, she's an immigrant, she speaks all these languages, but because she happens to be a Republican, she gets crapped on by the liberal media. But the good thing here, and I'm looking at these quotes today, the good thing here is that these folks have no influence anymore. They just don't have any influence, right? They want to do a walkout and do some like Gandhi protest and walk out of the Vanity Fair offices because they might put Melania Trump on the COVID Go for it. No one cares, okay? With social media, everything's online now. The democratization of media in general, you guys don't have that much influence. Same with the major networks. Look at like MSNBC and CNN and all these networks, you guys don't have that much influence. No one cares. So you guys can walk out, you can go at Trader Joe's, you won't be missed whatsoever. And as you guys know, I love the first lady of the United States. I think she's great. I think she's incredible. She's been so unfairly maligned for years. If she ends up on the COVID of Vanity Fair, great. If she doesn't, I'm here to tell you, she certainly doesn't care.

[Megyn Kelly]

Let's be honest. Afternoons can be rough. Energy fades, cravings kick in. Yes, been there. Focus goes out the window. The quick fix, another coffee. But that can lead to jitters or a crash later. Or you're up all night. Peaks Sun Goddess Matcha is another option for you. Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this Matcha is not just a drink. It can be a better daily habit. It gives steady energy and helps you focus without the ups and downs. This is not any Matcha. It's organic, ceremonial grade and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil far away from pollution. It's shaded longer for more nutrients and blended by tea masters. That's how serious these guys are about quality. The taste is smooth, creamy and rich, not bitter like lower quality Matcha. It packs powerful antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady. Right now you can get up to 20% off for life plus a free rechargeable frother and and glass beaker. It's backed by a 90 day money back guarantee. So go to peaklife.com Megan that's P I Q U E life.com Megan to try it out for yourself. Again, that's Peak Life P I q u e life.com Megan I want to.

[Emily]

Show first of all Megan prepping for Chrissy and the way in which Megan introduces her. So let's get to her. Her mincing about in anticipation of Chrissy Teigen.

[Matt]

Chrissy Teigen's coming.

[Megyn Kelly]

She's the quintessential multi hyphenate model, entrepreneur, mom, cookbook author and all around foodie.

[Emily]

Megan forgot to add bully. The online bully, terrible asshole told Courtney Stodden, a young starlet who was really struggling to go take a dirt nap and find other ways of killing herself. You know Megan who told us that she was so suicidal when she was pregnant, but the royal family wouldn't let her get help and allegedly reportedly has a file this thick over at Buckingham palace investigating her own bullying of staff over there, decides who better for a show about friendship and entertaining than Chrissy Teigen.

[Megyn Kelly]

Well, don't forget Megan this year was in New York on CBS promoting the Parent Network, this charity that is supposed to protect children from online bullies, protect children from suicide because of they're being harassed online. And then she spotlights an online bully that targeted a teenager. I mean, none of it makes sense. I don't know who the first chef is. The stand. I think the London Standard made a huge deal about this this week about the first. The chef that's featured on her first episode is also accused of terrorizing his employees. So it's like is this a theme? Is that where you go when you're an a hole to Megan with love, Megan. To just, you know, try to rebrand yourself.

[Emily]

Yeah, it's like, you know, my mom always used to say, water seeks its own level. You know, like anybody of, like, quality, you would think would go nowhere near this. I mean, so. So this is. This is the next part where. Because you see, truly, I think, the desperation in who she can book for this show. And she's such an idiot. She talks about Chrissy being one of her Hollywood friends. Like, a friend. She uses the word friend who. She hasn't seen Kinsey in 20 years. So she met her at an event once, you know, and they exchanged emails, maybe. Let's look at this. Knock, knock on embrace.

[John]

Come on in.

[Matt]

Lurking back here.

[Phil]

Good to see you.

[Matt]

How's everything?

[Emily]

John Legend, her husband.

[Megyn Kelly]

I would have told H to come vomit.

[Emily]

You take it, Kenzie.

[Megyn Kelly]

Okay.

[John]

Okay.

[Megyn Kelly]

So first of all, they were both deal or no deal girls at the same time and were not friends. They were not.

[Emily]

Is that true? I didn't know that. Chrissy. Any deal or no deal girl.

[Megyn Kelly]

Yeah. And so they're. And they kind of discuss it, and you get you. Even when they're discussing it, you realize that these two are not friends, that they were not friends throughout the time that they were both deal or no deal girls. You're right about an event. They both did a promotional event for DirecTV for a super bowl back in the day. Like, back in the day. But again, these people aren't friends. They reconnect. When Meghan Markle writes her op ed about baby loss. Because Chrissy Teigen, we all know this thanks to the photo shoot she did after she lost her child, also has publicly acknowledged child loss. And I'm not trying to diminish that at all. But the. But especially in Megan's case, we want our privacy. You know, she picks and chooses when she wants her privacy. But I have a little bit I want to ask you about the John Legend appearance. I have a source in la, I have a source in London who works with a charity that Meghan Markle is still associated with. And there is fear come Christmas time. I don't have all the details, but there is fear that Meghan Markle's gonna try to do something in the music space around the holidays. And the charity is upset because they feel like it conflicts with Catherine, the Princess of Wales. Not only does she do this gorgeous choir concert, but remember when she sat down and played the piano around in that video went viral of Catherine playing the piano. I'm wondering if Meghan has roped in John Legend to try to do some sort of music project associated with this London charity to help promote her Christmas special on Netflix. Because the John Legend thing is too bizarre to me. I mean, I guess Chrissy Teigen needed him there to tell her when their child was born.

[Emily]

Oh, we'll get to that. We'll get to that.

[Megyn Kelly]

Otherwise, why is John Legend there?

[Emily]

Well, you know, they travel together all the time. They're like, Chrissy Teigen drags him everywhere. Like an emotional support spouse. She can't. And we'll see why. We'll see why in a minute. But. So this is great. I actually, I love this. I can only hope that Meghan Markle gifts us this Christmas with entering the music space. Please do, Meghan, please. I do not predict it would be John Legend though, really. I mean, those two are fame whores and they'll go anywhere. No, I'm going to think it's going to be someone more like a Little Wayne and we're going to be reenacting like the twerking video from the delivery room. It's something like that. If we're lucky. If we're lucky.

[Megyn Kelly]

Poor Jesus. Poor baby Jesus. He deserves so much more. But yeah, the charity is concerned because they're like, what is she going to do? Yeah. And really, she has been such a burden to them, demanding. She picked her own photographer for a shoot. At one point for this charity, she did not like the photos, demanded that the photos be retaken and it was going to be like at least $5,000. And the charity had to go back to her and say, we can't afford that. If you want to do these pictures again, if you need to use your own photographers, we can't afford that. I mean, she is such a burden that I understand almost why she's completely disappeared when it to Prince Harry's charity pursuits.

[Emily]

Well, yes, of course. She's really. I don't understand why these charities just don't cut her loose. Just say thanks, but no thanks. You're actually be fouling our brand. And, you know, we, we've. We've had sufficient. Now when Chrissy comes in to admire the, the finished bread, the sourdough dome which has been sliced into. There's not a lot of continuity in this production, but Chrissy has those coffin nails, which all those do is collect dirt and dust mites and debris. And she has her hair which is styled with no end of product. And then of course her face, which is extremely heavily made up. She then takes set hands and puts them all over the bread. All over the bread. To remark upon its texture and its feel. And so disgusting. It's like, I wouldn't. I wouldn't touch a thing out of that kitchen. I wouldn't touch a thing, let alone ingest it. So here comes Chrissy talking to her good. Her great best friend Megan, about how much fun she's having with 80 crew crammed into this fake kitchen. This is my most ideal day that I could imagine.

[Jonna]

So fun. Oh, yeah.

[Katie Magbuena]

Oh, my God.

[John]

The crushed on it.

[Megyn Kelly]

Here's the thing.

[Jonna]

When you sit around making this, I.

[Megyn Kelly]

Literally was just like, oh, do I want any more bread?

[Jonna]

No.

[Megyn Kelly]

And I'm like, I have to eat it.

[Jonna]

You know, it took days to make it.

[Megyn Kelly]

This was my starter. I thought it'd be good for.

[John]

That's beautiful.

[Emily]

The conversation is riveting from a really.

[Jonna]

Dense texture to this kind of fluffy, whipped goodness.

[John]

Oh, my gosh.

[Megyn Kelly]

And then how much. So weird how she makes all of this stuff before the guests come.

[Emily]

Wait, wait, wait, though. There's something discarded.

[Megyn Kelly]

The starter, which I think they need to rename that. I don't like the discard. No, it's like, I'm not a fan of that word.

[Emily]

Okay. She's. It's. It's called the discard of the starter. The starter being the sourdough mix. Who cares? But she says, I don't like that word discard. They need to rename it. And that struck me as very interesting because you are probably familiar with the concept of the narcissistic discard, and that is when the narcissist is done with you. And those who may be familiar with Meghan's narcissistic discard, just my opinion. Are Meghan Markle's father, Meghan Markle's sister, Meghan Markle's spouse, who she FedExed the wedding rings back to.

[Megyn Kelly]

Jessica Mulroney.

[Emily]

Right. The Queen of England, Prince Philip, King Charles, Prince William, and Catherine, Princess of Wales. Just off the top of my head.

[John]

This is a People magazine opinion article. I'm a millennial swiftie headline, and I'm going to say it. Taylor and Travis's engagement felt like a milestone win for our generation. I'm giggling because the way that's written is a little cringe, but I've actually written about some of Taylor's past records as milestone losses for our generation. I think I wrote a piece at the Federalist a couple of years ago about how her arc reflects the arc. A lot of millennials who do sort of serial dating and don't settle down, but clearly desperately want to settle down. And because they haven't settled down in some ways look to politics, materialism as their identity and where they find their meaning and their purpose. And I really believe this is true, that that Swift reflected that. And I think this author, again, as cringy as the headline is, is correct that Swift is again, once again mirroring the millennial generation as people hit their 30s, mid-30s and do genuinely settle down. Now there are a lot of There was a really smart conservative reaction in Compact magazine by Patrick Brown of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He said there's not going to be a Taylor Travis baby boom. And that's because they're already older. They're not old, but they're already older. Having you could, I think, fairly argue, prioritize whether willingly or not careers. And they're probably not going to be able to have that many children. We don't know that. But that's on average what we see. There's statistics. Limestone at the Institute for Family Studies has this data on how women right now in America are saying that they end up having fewer children than they wanted. That's a really serious thing for us to think about as a culture, and not an unserious point to make in the wake of all of this. But the author of the People magazine piece, Emily Rella. Oh, great name, Emily. There's so many damn millennial Emily's that I could have literally guessed that her name was Emily and I probably would have been in great shape. I was always Emily J. In class because There were like 20 other Emilys in every class that I was in. Actually a little piece of lore. I was Emily J. And everyone back home in Wisconsin still calls me mj Emj because there was so many people named Emily. That was the only way we could distinguish me. So again, just a little fun fact, I share those from time to time. Why not? So this Emily R. Writes, I for one, was shook. Shook by how emotional the news of the engagement made me. As a closet softy, I'm usually able to reel it in when big life moments like this happen. I started feeling myself tearing up with joy upon looking at Taylor and Travis's engagement photos before panicking that I was some parasocial fangirl freak, which of which there are many, we should note. But then after that passed, I found myself thinking, why, of all things, is this so hitting me so hard? Is this hitting so hard for me right now? And the author goes on to write, oh, this is awful. I'm 32, that's actually my age, and I've become comfortable with the idea that maybe it won't happen for me the way it happens in movies. I've built a beautiful, chaotic life for myself, complete with relationships, situationships, and and absolutely debilitating crushes. No matter how they've ended, they've all taught me something that has helped me define how I want to love, be loved, and experience love. But as valuable as these lessons have been, they do occasionally feel like puzzle pieces putting together a picture that will eventually be incomplete. And another part I actually skipped over this the the author writes as a millennial, our current cultural examples of love true soulmate level real el love aren't exactly a dime a dozen. This notion of yearning and desire and all or not passion has seemingly dwindled with a fairy tale ending seemingly out of reach. Too many adverbs. That's the editor in me. It's not so much that millennials stop believing in love in some jaded, brooding way. I think it's more so that we've become more comfortable with the idea that it might not happen for us in the way we once dreamed of when we were younger. Now that reflects the data from Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies I just referenced, and what Patrick Brown wrote in compact Attracting Romantic Attention, Emily R. Goes on to say or affection isn't difficult these days. Just look at the popularity of the modern day situationship, or the influx of dating apps which let you mindlessly scroll through suitor after suitor on your phone and decide in a split second whether or not you want to potentially be with this person forever based on a digital first impression. And goes on to write I mean, this is. I actually really do recommend reading this piece. And now we're here watching Taylor put a final puzzle piece into place. Every heartbreak, every devastation, every grand beginning and glimmer of hope, it all led to this sweet guy who loves her as she is. And it's because we experienced all those milestones right alongside her as we grew into new life phases at the same time that this moment of Taylor finding true, unadulterated, effortless love felt like something to celebrate. Personally, I think that's right. I think all of those viral videos you're seeing right now about Taylor and Travis and all of the anodyne reposts, people wishing Taylor Swift well. It feels like a lot. It's a frenzy. One of those watershed cultural moments. But why? I think this author put her finger exactly on the reason. This is exactly why. And I know, we have this post from Lindy Mann that we can also throw up on the scene on the screen. I thought this was a really good take too. That gets to some of this. Paul Scalas, he wrote marriage used to be the entry point into adult life, one of the first steps. Today, marriage has become the culmination of adulthood, the final step after a long run of individual experiences. People are expected to first build careers, live alone, travel, date for years, and only then settle into marriage. Marriage went from foundation to trophy. Marriage went from foundation to trophy. It is no longer the stabilizing base that anchored young people early, but an almost luxury milestone once life is already sorted out, which is precisely why it's rarer now. That's a really good take and I think it's a totally fair reaction to the Taylor Travis engagement story. There's the startup marriage versus the merger marriage. If you're Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, who have vast wealth, success, and a decade plus of living alone after college or after your career started, then yeah, you're definitely in a merger marriage. And we lose the benefits of the startup marriage in a culture that's primarily where people are primarily ending up in the merger marriage. But I just wanted to reflect on why this touched such a cultural nerve. It's not just because people really like Taylor Swift. She's been like Anne Hathaway, who's had her moments where people. The culture decides. The culture's like cold. We're sort of hot and cold on Taylor Swift, depending on what quote era she's in, even though her hardcore fan base is with her all the way. But overall that fluctuates. The mood on Taylor Swift fluctuates, but over the last couple of years, it's been pretty steady. Yeah, she's been criticized by people on the right, including myself, for her forays into politics and ideology. I think that actually hurt her music. One of her worst songs is you need to calm down and just this classist anthem that should be seen as, as probably the anthem of that like peak woke era, Capital P, capital W. And I think that she was worse off for it. It sounds like that was when she was also really unhappy. And I'm not saying I don't think it's fair to say by any means that she's like or even think or care that she's about to become a conservative. I could not possibly care about Taylor Swift's personal politics, but I think everybody wants Taylor Swift to be happy.

[Megyn Kelly]

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American Dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic personality and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian affordable visit gcu.edu I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn 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 Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad free music, coverage of every major sport, comedy talk, podcast and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.

[Matt]

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 this Adelen trial is something else, man. We've got these videos, we've got audios, we've got wiretaps, we've got it all in this trial. And the prosecution is working its way methodically through this evidence. Sometimes Matt, as you know, and as John of course knows, when you're prosecuting a case, you have things that, you know, sometimes we just call them a wart, right? The case is not perfect. And one of the things that a smart prosecutor might do is to try to bring out some of these things during their presentation of evidence so that when the defense hammers on it, you kind of have taken the sting out a little bit. And in that, in that site, we just heard that recording from one of the wiretaps. You essentially have Charlie Adelson telling his mother, you know, that she did, she didn't do anything wrong and she's got nothing to worry about. And so I think that what that was was a prosecutor's effort to kind of take the sting out of this so that this piece of it, which doesn't exactly support their case, doesn't have as much weight to be given to it when the. When the defense gets around to. To their case and to cross examination on this point so that, you know, the jury kind of takes it in stride and it doesn't sink the case because it actually, this particular piece of it is what we would call exculpatory as to Donna Adelson. But on balance, I think this trial is going along great, and I look forward to seeing what the prosecutor has next.

So, Jonna, what are your views on this? What does the defense have to work with in your mind? What is the prosecution. What points have they scored so far? What are your thoughts?

[Jonna]

No, I have a slightly different opinion of the last thought that we just saw than our. My good friend Phil as well. And here's what I think. I wouldn't call that piece of evidence so far a war. I think what the prosecution has many, many dots that they need to connect in this case, and they are connecting them. It's just not, you know, as we all know, it doesn't line up in a nice, simple linear line like they're connecting a dot here, then they're connecting a dot there. And what they're trying to do circumstantially is show the involvement of Donna Adelson in this gigantic scheme, and they're doing it through all of their witnesses. This last piece of evidence that we saw on that site, I think, can cut both ways. Yes. Is it exculpatory in one sense? If you think that a convicted killer telling a potential killer on trial that she didn't do anything wrong is exculpatory. But maybe a juror could look at that and say, well, this just shows that another level of involvement in this granny sitting at the defense table. I think the prosecution is doing a pretty good job of trying to weave this all together. And what I think that the defense did was something very surprising. It might have been yesterday when they really went at Wendy Adelson, who is the defendant's daughter. They kind of went at her like a. Like a pit bull showing no mercy. But Wendy was cool as a cucumber. I don't know if anybody had a chance to see that testimony.

[Matt]

So what are you. I'm going to toss this. This one back to Phil. When you're talking about cases like this, does the defense have to Notify the prosecution if the defendant is going to testify. When will we know one way or another if Donna Adelson is going to take the stand?

No, we. We won't know until it actually happens. And interestingly enough, a few weeks ago, in one of the last pretrial hearings, she. She announced that she was planning to testify. And now that's not. She's not obligated to testify. The defense never has any burden to produce any evidence or anything like that. The burden is on the prosecutor, and it never shifts to the defense. She has an absolute right to remain silent. And I think the. The strategy, the best strategy is between a criminal defendant and their lawyers. Wait and see how the prosecutor's case goes up, and then you can decide whether or not you think your client should or maybe needs to testify. Because a lot of times they can be their own worst enemy. Sometimes the case is going great for the defense until the defendant opens his or her mouth, and then the whole thing goes to hell. So it's one of these things where we won't know until the last minute. She's announced that she's going to testify. But that could be just a tactic to try to throw the prosecutor off. Although a good prosecutor is going to prepare for either scenario. And I promise you, if she. If she is. If she testifies, the cross examination is going to be something that you could probably sell tickets to.

What do you think? John, you've cross examined about a million people over the course of your career, and from people I've talked to, you are deadly in the courtroom. I haven't seen that yet, but I haven't seen you in court. If you had to put Vegas odds on this, what do you think at this point? Is Donna. Are we going to see Donna Adelson on the stand? And part two of that, Is she going to throw her daughter Wendy under the bus? What do you think?

[Jonna]

She's already tried to. In the cross examination of Wendy. I think she tried to do that and did it a little bit. And sidebar. My favorite part of any trial is cross examining witnesses. I know a lot of us think that. Oh, closing argument's my favorite part. No, no, no. I love cross examining witnesses, and I love cross examining them hard. And you're gonna have to do this in this case if you're in Donna's camp. This is really funny because in the beginning, in the closing and closing, in the opening statement or not even in deer, when the prosecution was asking potential jurors, hey, do you think you can convict A granny. I thought that was a little bit unnecessary. But as we watch this trial, you guys, she does present like a little granny. Even though the testimony is far different. We know from the testimony of her daughter that she was a very controlling, involved, in a sense, grown up helicopter mom. Right. From everything from her daughter's dating habits to what the kids would do, she was way too involved. And so that's not granny ish. That's very bullish. But as she sits there, just the optics, she looks kind of frail and unassuming. Jurors are watching her. They always do. So I'm interested when we fast forward into the future, when we get a verdict, if any jurors will have a comment on that specifically.

[Matt]

Well, let me, if I can add to that point real quick, there's going to be video that's going to be shown to this jury where she is trying to get the hell out of Dodge. She's at the airport in Miami on a one way ticket. She's booked to Vietnam, a country that there's no extradition treaty with. And she's seen like she pulls her phone back from the cops and it's almost like it looks like maybe she's very spry and like, almost like she's wanting to even try to fight the cops or resist arrest. So they're going to be able to contrast that, that evidence when we get to it with what they see in court and they're going to see two different things. I, I think that, I think that this whole thing about being the granny in the courtroom, to me that seems like a little bit of a charade.

Well, in the dating world, somebody who's guarding their cell phone like that is called a red flag. I think one of the. And legally it's called consciousness of guilt. Right. There's actually a formal legal recognition of that common sense thing.

Right.

When somebody's trying to hold a cell phone back or hide something, the jury's allowed to consider that as evidence showing that she might be really afraid of what might be on that cell phone. One of the things that you mentioned, Phil, you said you talked about warts. In California, we always call that drawing this sting by the prosecutors. Why don't we play the next shot if we could. And let's talk about this witness, Katie Magbuena.

[Katie Magbuena]

During these conversations with Charlie Adelson, was there ever a time when he's in the middle of these conversations with you about what's going to happen, speaking to.

[Emily]

His mother from time, sometimes he would get on the phone he'd kind of look at me weird and then just.

[Katie Magbuena]

Step out of the room and discuss whatever he needed to discuss. How many times did this particular situation happen where you were discussing what would eventually become the murder and his mother was interjected in that way that you just described? More than twice? Yes, ma'.

[Matt]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

More than five times? Yes, ma'.

[Emily]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

So this was like a regular part of the way this worked whenever this conversation came up?

[Emily]

Yes.

[Katie Magbuena]

He would consult his mother and come back and speak to you. Did he ever. Did he ever relay to you, you know, my mom says whatever he didn't.

[Emily]

He never specifically said what he spoke.

[Katie Magbuena]

To his mom about.

[Matt]

Okay.

All right. This one's to you, Jonna. What do you think? Are they. Are they drawing the sting a little bit? And. And why?

[Jonna]

And again, I. I think I disagree a little bit with you guys. I look at this evidence as helpful to the prosecution, and here's why. It's sort of like you got to remember that the jurors. Juries, jurors are human. And do you guys remember. And this is going to be a weird analogy, so stick with me. Do you remember back in the day when smoking was allowed, say, in restaurants? Right. And they'd have a smoking section over here and the non smoking section over here. But if you were in the non smoking section, you still smelled the smoke, like you can't contain it. What I see the prosecution doing here is she is connecting again these dots. She's got this witness who shows up in an orange jumpsuit. So the jury knows that she's, you know, they would have known anyway. Probably there was maybe testimony about it. They know that she's convicted of something to do with this crime. They're connecting other dots where Donna is, whether she's kind of in the center or whether she's on the outskirts, like the smoking section of the restaurant. She's there. And the jury at the end of the day is going to say, well, you know, we saw Donna in this part of the crime, and we saw Donna in this part of the crime. And then she was back over here in this part of the crime. She's involved in this crime inextricably. So I don't see this as harmful at all to the prosecution. I may be wet, but I don't see it.

[Matt]

No, you know, speaking.

I'm sorry. You know, let me. Let me go to the next thought. Phil, let me ask you about that being all wet. Let's. Let's play the next shot where she's asked about washing Money.

[Katie Magbuena]

Did you notice that the money was stapled together? Yes, it was.

[Matt]

Okay.

[Katie Magbuena]

Did you notice something else unusual about the money at that moment? I didn't.

[Emily]

What? I opened it, but a couple days after the fact, it was wet and starting to mold.

[Katie Magbuena]

The money itself was damp to the touch?

[Matt]

Yes, ma'. Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

Right. And did you ever mention that back to Charlie Adelson? I. I'm pretty sure I contacted him.

[Emily]

And told him, why is the money wet?

[Katie Magbuena]

What do you mean, pretty sure? You did or you didn't? That I didn't. Okay. And when you contact. Contacted him and said the money's wet, or you just mentioned to him the money's wet, did he have a response?

[Emily]

Yes, ma'.

[Matt]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

He told me. Go ahead.

[Emily]

Tell me that. That his mom washed the money, but.

[Katie Magbuena]

She physically washed the money?

[John]

Yes, ma'.

[Katie Magbuena]

Am. You started getting paychecks in September after the murder, which continued through May of 2016. Is that right?

[Matt]

Yes, ma'.

[John]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

And how would you receive the paychecks?

[John]

Charlie would give it to me.

[Katie Magbuena]

All right. And you admit that. That you weren't doing anything to earn that money?

[Emily]

No, ma'.

[John]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

Other than contributing to this murder?

[Emily]

Yes, ma'.

[Matt]

Am.

[Katie Magbuena]

Who signed your paychecks from the Adelson Institute? Donna Adelen.

[Matt]

All right, Phil, going back to what Jona just said. What's going on with that? We got money. We got signed checks. Tell us what's going on.

Well, other than it being a bizarre amount of obvious hearsay coming into this trial by someone who's a convicted felon who has a motive to fabricate her testimony because she's already stated she wants to get some benefit from the prosecution, although she says nothing was promised, and although she's testified previously in court in a wildly different way, putting all that to the side, if a jury believes her, you've got the. You got Donna Adelson once again showing up.

[Megyn Kelly]

Up.

[Matt]

Like Jona was saying, the smoke is one is making its way around the room. Here she is signing checks at the Adelson Institute. And even if she doesn't. If this doesn't prove that she knew about the murder ahead of time, she knew that. That this woman McBanawa was not doing any actual work at the. At the office. So she knows that she's paying her for something that's. That's illegitimate. So she knows that. And this whole conversation where, you know, McBanua and Charlie are talking about, you know, the. The conspiracy, and then he gets off the phone and he goes and talks to. To his mom and comes Back. That also kind of shows that, you know, she is sort of the hidden hand, if you will, that's behind the conspiracy. And it plays into the prosecutor's theme of her being sort of the. The mastermind. So I think that, on balance, this does move the needle forward a little bit for the prosecutor, but it all hinges on the credibility of Katherine mcmanawa, which. That's a very much an open question.

[Megyn Kelly]

Good point.

[Matt]

So what do you think? Jonna signed checks after the fact. And, I mean, that's not necessarily hinging just on her credibility.

Right.

You get. They have physically the checks, signature matches. She's got control of the accounts. What do you think as far as the power of that evidence?

[Jonna]

Pretty powerful. And, you know, this is going to be a theme in the closing argument when we get there. Like, if. If Donna Adelson really has nothing to do with anything, why is she paying a person who's not working for the practice? Why is she doing that? Why does she get nervous when she gets the bump? Why does she contact Charlie and talk in this weird kind of code? She is in there. And maybe. Maybe the defense at some point is going to try to argue to the jury, really, how do you parse out when her involvement began? Maybe she didn't have anything to do with the planning phase of this. Maybe she came in afterwards. I just think jurors are human. They're people. They're gonna see too much of Donna's fingerprints, figuratively and probably literally on a lot of this evidence, to say she's not guilty.

[Matt]

So speaking of the bump, let's play the next song, if we could, where the undercover agent actually testifies about this.

[Katie Magbuena]

You were asked to approach Donna Adelson. Is that what you did?

[Matt]

That is correct.

[Katie Magbuena]

Where did that happen?

[Matt]

I believe that happened in south Miami.

Somewhere near her residence.

[Katie Magbuena]

Okay. And did you just walk up to her on the street?

[John]

Sidewalk?

[Matt]

I did.

[Katie Magbuena]

Okay, and what did you do?

[Matt]

Well, I was instructed to walk up to her and engage her in small.

Discussion as to why I was meeting with her and then eventually handing her.

[Katie Magbuena]

Flyer and this cell phone number that it belongs to. The phone number that's written here. Are you personally going to carry that around and answer it if someone calls it?

[Matt]

That is correct.

That's solely in my hands, and I'm.

The only one answering.

[Katie Magbuena]

States117. Those are all the phone calls associated with this number. On the sheet here, we've got one from you to the adelson institute. Family business. Business. Recall that?

[Matt]

Yes, I do.

[Katie Magbuena]

Okay. And then one From Charlie Adelen to this phone number. Is that right?

[Matt]

Yes.

[Katie Magbuena]

And one from Donna Adelen to this phone number, correct?

[Matt]

Yes, correct.

You know, let's. Let's go into the next sot if we could, and let's connect these, if that's all right, if we could play the next sot and then I want to get your guys input on. On this, because I think this is amazing.

[John]

Excuse me.

[Matt]

This is Adelson. Hey, Dylan.

Just want to give you this.

Listen, don't be scared. Listen, just want to let you know that we know that your family has been taking care of Katie and her friend who helped you for quite some time after your problem of north has been solved. And I want to let you know that my brother, he's incarcerated, he helped your family with this problem you guys had up north. And we want to make sure that he's going through some rough times. We want to make sure that you take care of what he's going through.

The way you're taking care of Katie.

And. Well, this will explain it. Thank you.

Okay. And we get. We got it in the next shot. But, Phil, you're an innocent person. That dude comes up to you on the street and hands you essentially what looks like a blackmail letter. What do you do?

Well, so, you know, this whole thing about the bump, the significance of this event in the whole story of this case and this murder in this trial cannot be understated because that is what really leads to the broader investigation. That. That I think is going to ultimately ensnare Donna Adelson to the point of conviction. But there's a lot of. A lot of being made of, you know, how she reacts or doesn't react. And generally speaking, I'm not a big f. Of trying to say, all right, how someone acts is somehow evidence of something, because how. How are you supposed to act in any given scenario is really anybody's guess. So on the one hand, I'm not a fan of that kind of analysis, but on the other hand, I'm a realist. And I know that in the jury room, the jury is going to be saying to themselves, look, if that were me, I'm calling the cops. If that were me, I'm going to say, wait a minute. Help my family with the problem. What are you talking about? Who are you? I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's not what she does. She simply takes it and then goes about her day. And then ultimately, as we'll see, she calls Charlie and she makes some other statements to Charlie, that seem pretty incriminating. But that bump and her reaction to it is absolutely critical. It's going to be, I think, something that. It's one of the other, you know, pieces of the pie. But it's. It's going to, along with everything else, be her undoing in this case, because that is some powerful, powerful video evidence.

Okay, well, let's do this. Let me. Let's play the next sot, which is the actual phone call. And then, John, I want to get your. Your. Your. Your thoughts on what we're about to listen. If you play the next sot.

[Katie Magbuena]

And who is the first person that the defendant calls after the bump?

[Matt]

Charlie Adelson. I got some, but you give her to us. Getting delivered to me. Did he sue?

[Katie Magbuena]

No.

[Megyn Kelly]

That's what I thought it was that.

[John]

I'm getting this job to you.

[Matt]

Okay. Does it involve me or other people?

[Katie Magbuena]

No.

[John]

Probably don't.

[Matt]

What's that?

[John]

Probably you could choose them with.

[Matt]

All right, John, what do you think?

[Jonna]

You know, the more we listen to that, you guys, the more I think this might be the death knell for her. Why? Because. Let's go back. I agree that, you know, sometimes when we cover murder cases and the. The cameras are on a defendant and we're like, oh, we don't judge anybody. We don't know how we react in that case. In this case, it's a different analysis. Donna Adelson is being approached by a big dude on her little secure south Florida street. She doesn't run. She doesn't say, get away from me. She doesn't do what I do when I'm in Manhattan and somebody hands me a flyer, I'm like, ah, no, get away. Like, she doesn't do that. She just calmly stands there and she's gonna take it all in. And she smartly, is not gonna really say a word. Smartly. But then she processes all of that information, calls her co conspirator son, and very, very cagely. She knows. She. She's worried that they might be listened to. She doesn't want to create evidence because she's smart like a box. And she's like, well, it could involve both of us. Boom. If I'm in that jury box, I'm like, game, set, match. Really? When you take that with all of the other evidence, including the evidence they have yet to hear, but we know they will hear, that is powerful for the prosecution. My opinion.

[Matt]

Okay, what do you think, Phil? They're going to go with an accessory after the after the fact defense on this thing? What are they going to roll with?

Well, if they, if they're going to go with that defense, Matt, they certainly have given no indication of it because that would be what we call setting a theme for your defense, which normally you would bring out during your opening argument. You would say, look, she's only been, she's been charged with soliciting, she's been charged with being a co conspirator, and she's being charged as essentially the principal of this murder, and she's not been charged with any crimes after the murder. And so they would have come out and they would have said that, and they could then embrace this and they could say, well, wait a minute. Yeah, she's. All this evidence points to her being involved with and aware of the conspiracy and trying to conceal it after the fact. And we concede that this makes her look terrible and it makes her look like a criminal, which she is. But guess what? But the prosecutor didn't charge her with any of these crimes after the fact. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, jury, you have to acquit her. That would be how the defense would work if it were being employed. And honestly, if this were my case, that would probably be the defense that I would use because I can't think of another one. And so, you know, I'm sort of a head scratcher, guys. I don't know why we haven't seen anything like that, but I'm struggling to find a coherent strategy by the defense other than to maybe point the finger at Charlie and even daughter Wendy. But look, if Wendy is also a member of the conspiracy, the defense of Donna pointing that out doesn't mean that Donna can't also be a member. So this thing is all over the place.

[Megyn Kelly]

Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No bs, no agenda and no fear.