The Howie Carr Radio Network
Brett Tolman on Judge Merchan's Bizarre Behavior in Hush Money Trial | 5.21.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 2
Today's podcast is brought to you by Howie's new book Paperboy. To order today, go to HowieCarShow.com and click on store. Live from the Aviva Trattoria Studio, it's the Grace Curly Show. We've got to bring in a new voice, a young voice, a rising voice, Grace Curly. You can read Grace's work in the Boston Herald and the spectator. Especially Grace, Grace Stand-up. Here's the millennial with the mic, Grace Curly. Welcome back everyone to the Grace Curly Show. Thank you so much for joining us today. I wasn't lying when I said we had a great show planned and we have Brett Tolman, former U.S. attorney with us now. He's also the executive director of Write on Crime. Thank you Brett for coming on the show. The Grace Curly Show audience really loves hearing from you and so I appreciate your time. Yeah, Grace, thanks for having me on. I love being on your show. Brett, I wanted to start with this information that we got about Robert Costello's testimony and I want to backtrack a little bit here on this Hush Money trial. You've previously described Michael Cohen's credibility as being on life support. What was your reaction to the news yesterday that while on the stand, he admitted to stealing. Now, I've seen different reports on this 30,000, 60,000 but a lot of money from the Trump organization. I would just love to know what your initial reaction was to that news. Well, I think the prosecution was surprised actually and that's always a sickening feeling. If he was on life support prior to that, then he was certainly D.O.A. at that point. You have a witness that is confessing to a major felony and on the stand that is unknown by the prosecution. If they didn't know, they would have fronted it in their direct examination and they would have let the jury know. So it looked like they were revealing everything and all of their dirty laundry. But they didn't, which is very rare to be caught off guard to have a witness on the stand to testify and admit to a felony. At that moment, as a prosecutor, if you did know that, you could not pursue the case if you truly were dependent on this witness, which they are to convict Donald Trump. Yeah, and there are, I do want to talk about Robert Costello's testimony from last week a little bit before we get into the eye rolling and the stare downs. But there were some discrepancies as to whether Robert Costello acted as Cohen's lawyer or just gave him legal advice, but putting that aside, his testimony last week through a major wrench. I should say another wrench because there's been plenty of them in the prosecution's case. His conversations with Michael Cohen, depending on who you believe, but I think in this case, Robert Costello seems to be at least a little bit more trustworthy than Michael Cohen by contradicting Michael Cohen's claims that Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels payments and made them with election concerns in mind. Brett, that is really, that's destroying what this whole case is based on. Am I over-exaggerating and saying that Costello's testimony was like a nail in the coffin for the prosecution? No, I don't think it's an over-exaggeration. I think if this case were being officiated over by a judge that really didn't seem to have a personal interest in the outcome, it would be after this testimony on Costello when the defense rests and the prosecution is finally done, when the defense files a motion for a directed verdict saying there's not sufficient evidence or the facts do not justify submitting it to the jury, I would say 98% of all judges in the country would have directed the verdict and dismissed the case. And that actually brings me to my next question, which is about the judges bizarre back and forth with Costello yesterday. So this is a judge, as you mentioned, he's already been accused of having conflicts of interest, he's put gag orders on Donald Trump, and he doesn't appreciate Trump and others calling out the conflict of interest that his daughter has by being part of the Democratic consulting firm. But his most recent behavior admonishing Robert Costello's testimony and admonishing him for supposedly staring him down, obviously we don't have cameras, Brett, so we can't really confirm this, but staring him down, rolling his eyes, a lot of it had to do with his eye movements, you know, side eye, we don't have video, but is this normal? I'm going to ask you in this way, is it normal for a judge to be so aware of someone's body language and so hypersensitive to a witness's demeanor on the stand? It's extremely abnormal, I have seen it happen, and here's grace when it happens. When you have an individual who has massive insecurity, they also have their ego driven, and then you add on top of that, they have a personal interest in the outcome of the case. When they are under that sort of pressure, and let's face it, a case of the century, when they're under that much pressure, you start to see them react the way you do because they actually emotionally cannot cope with all of that. So when the defense puts on Costello, this remember is a former federal prosecutor, he's practiced in New York for many, many years, he's well respected, and he takes the stand, and it is not just that the judge started to get upset and irritated. He was, in fact, ruling in a way that I also have never seen. The defense attorney would ask a question and wouldn't even get to what the full question is. There would be an objection, and the judge was sustaining it. I've never seen that, and then the cherry on top of this disaster of a case is when this judge got so irritated at a witness, he threatened to strike the witness's testimony, which he had already allowed to go to the jury and had already found to be relevant and admissible. If that doesn't tell you what this judge is willing to do, that would be an illegal order by the judge to strike the record of evidence that has been submitted to the jury that he already found admissible and relevant. Now, you're listening to former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, you probably see him on Fox all the time. I saw you on there this morning, Brett. Every time I look up for my desk, you're on TV. But I wanted to go back to this here for a second. Compare that behavior that you just mentioned. The behavior that Judge Merchant was utilizing while he had Costello on the stand, versus, and I think this is important for people to know, just to pose that for us, versus the way he was behaving when he had Stormy Daniels on the stand, Michael Cohen on the stand, was he being as harsh with his rulings? Was he cutting people off as much, or was it a different type of behavior towards those witnesses? This is something that is obvious to those that are not necessarily lawyers, but let me put sort of a microscope on this. The judge has a rule of evidence, so the rule that controls what comes in and the jury gets to see, and it's called Rule 403. And Rule 403 says that you cannot admit any evidence that is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, or is irrelevant or confusing. That's the rule, like the rule that has to be followed very closely, or else you risk overturning a conviction on appeal. There wasn't a single instance in which this judge exercised the authority he's supposed to under Rule 403, and eliminated what Stormy Daniels wanted to say, what Michael Cohen wanted to say. Over objections, he allowed in evidence and testimony that was irrelevant, confusing, and unfairly prejudicial. He hit all three of the no-no's in terms of what you allow the jury to see. Now, Brett, if you had to make a prediction as to how this jury is going to, you know, what decision they're going to come to, I know they're deliberating, I think, on May 28th, so there's still a little bit to go. We have closing arguments next week, but if you were a betting man, what would you say? Great. I used to say that I believe there would be a hung jury, but this was before Castello is before Michael Cohen's revelation. I think New Yorkers, while they might not be politically in the same camp as Donald Trump, I think they've opened the door to a possibility for an acquittal in this case, given how poorly the case was presented and the behavior. Now, I still think a hung jury is really a strong possibility, but with what has happened lately, I put in the realm of a possible chance that you get an acquittal in this case. All right, I like the sound of that. Brett, I wanted to ask you about a few different subjects here moving on from Donald Trump in this Hush Money trial. I don't know if you've been following the Karen Reid trial here in Massachusetts, but my question for you has to do with this defense, the third-party culprit defense. So in this case of Karen Reid, and if you don't know all the details on it, that's okay, they're presenting this third-party culprit defense, and it's kind of taken on a life of its own. It's gathered a lot of interest from the media and from people on the outside. And my question for you is, in cases where a third-party culprit defense is brought up by the defense, is that typically a successful way to go about things? Is that usually play well? Is it a typical thing to see it take on such a life of its own and almost become the focus of the case as opposed to the actual person on trial? Yeah, it's risky. You have to walk a fine line because if the jury gets a sense that you don't have a sufficiency, the facts don't really support it, then it's going to backfire miserably. The defense typically when using that sort of defense is hoping to create enough confusion, hoping to create any semblance of doubt that at least they have hesitancy in convicting the defendant. It is a strategy that you do not see very often because of the fact that most often the facts, while they might point to accomplices or they might point to others that participated, rarely do you have the sufficiency of facts to actually absolve any guilt of the target of the investigation, and that's when it backfires. Got it. Okay, and now, Brett, another topic moving on from that that I wanted to ask you about. We now have this video of Sean P. Diddy, as a lot of people know him, Sean Combs beating up his ex-girlfriend. It's a horrible video from a hotel in Los Angeles. I guess they had it for years and somebody paid them to keep it. He paid them to keep it under wraps. That's what I've read. But no legal charges have been filed against P. Diddy thus far. The feds are saying this could be a human trafficking investigation. When do you think we will see charges filed? Why is it taking so long? And from what you've heard about this case, what is kind of the size and scope of this in your opinion so far? Is this going to be a massive case? Is there a lot here that we don't know about at this point? Well, yes, I'm kind of reserving judgment in terms of how large it is because there is the potential that it's substantial. We do know that there are swirling allegations. And if, in fact, they can make a connection on the trafficking side. And remember, trafficking can be... it doesn't necessarily have to be just an individual out of South America that's pushing children and women into a life of sexual slavery or otherwise. You can traffic here in the United States. The defendants have done it in terms of collecting girlfriends and utilizing them and using girlfriends or wives or spouses or friends to curry drugs or to peddle other criminal paraphernalia. It's something that we have to see. It is strange to me that something so violent and horrific as the underlying video was not pursued. I understand that there's financial interest oftentimes, but it does send the message that the rich and the powerful can get away with things that everyday human average citizens cannot. Yeah, and you know what I was just thinking, Brett, is that I understand that sometimes these investigations are pretty massive and they want to make sure they have all their ducks in a row and they want to make sure they have enough evidence to actually get a conviction when they eventually bring forward these charges. But then as a human being, you sit here and you go, "Okay, well, while you're doing that and collecting all these things, if this stuff is ongoing, then there's more victims that are at the mercy of these predators because you're trying to get all of your evidence or whatever. How long do you let it go on for? It's got to be a fine line. Last thing I want to ask you, Brett, is Pete Eddy took to social media to try to clear his name. I think that ship has sailed as someone who's been so involved in the legal world. Do you think that these celebrities and these high profile people, do they just not listen to the legal advice or are there lawyers out there who are saying you should go on and make a statement on Instagram? No, I think the opposite. I think lawyers, when you're dealing with someone that has the fame that they do, it has the reach that they do in the media and social media, they are accustomed to being the king or queen of their world. When a lawyer comes in and I've advised clients and said, "Don't do A, B, and C." The wealthier they are, the more powerful they were before they fell, the more often they are willing to ignore that advice. It was a really bad decision. Who knows when the charges will be brought? I'll tell you, Grace, that once they executed search warrants, that's the moment when they better be prepared to charge fairly quickly because they have to secure victims, prevent additional victims and to try to protect the existing victims. Absolutely. Brett Toman, thank you so much, sir. Everyone should follow Brett on Twitter @TomanBrett. You can also go to rightoncrime.com where he's the executive director of Right On Crime, so check out that website as well. And you can follow them on Twitter @RightOn Crime. Former U.S. attorney Brett Toman, friend of the Grace Curly Show. We really appreciate having you on, and we will be right back. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. Welcome back, everyone, to The Grace Curly Show. Today's poll question is brought to you by Silva and Salinas, a small law firm with a proven track record of big results, whether it's family law, criminal defense, or some other legal law. If you look at the results, whether it's family law, criminal defense, or some other legal concern, Mark Salinas and his team are with you from start to finish. Mark is such a great guy. Ever since we started having him on the show, people just love to hear from him. He's very trustworthy, he's very calm. He's someone you'd want if you're in any sort of trouble or bind, or you're just concerned about something. So you can learn more at Silva and Salinas. If you go to SSlawteam.com, that's SSlawteam.com. Jared, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com, is how would a guilty verdict affect Trump, help him, hurt him, or it won't have any impact? I'm going to say, and I liked hearing from Brett Tolman that he thinks there's a possibility that they get an acquittal. I agree with him. I know I'm a constant, I'm a little bit of a naive optimist here, but I do think that there's a chance. Because Jared, you know what it is? It's two things are fighting against each other. New Yorkers hate Donald Trump. They're very liberal. I get that. David Marcus was on the show. He said, Sapphire Blue Manhattan, it's going to be hard to get a fair verdict. But you know what it's fighting against? What I put a lot of stock in is that New York BS detector, that the reason why you love New Yorkers, the old school mentality of, you know, if you can make it here, I know I sound so cliche. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. They know BS when they see it. I think of the guys in New York who are, like, at the construction site going, get Joe Biden out of here. And I don't even mean politically. I just mean the New York state of mind of, we can smell BS for a mile away. We're not going along with this. I do think that that's possible. I mean, I was with you, and I was with David. Like, there's no way New York jury in a New York courtroom is going to find anything other than a guilty verdict. But then the star witness admitted to stealing money from the guy. And it's like, okay, I didn't see that coming. Even even the most ridiculous blue-haired, blue-state anti-Trump jury can't be like, yeah, no, he's guilty. Yeah. Like even that. Yeah. And so I still think, but if it does happen, if he gets guilty verdict, I'm going to say it's between it either helps him or it does nothing, but I'll stick with my original. It's not going to change anything. 40% of the audience says it won't have any impact. 58% think you will help him and 8% think you will hurt him. I'm sorry, 52% think you will help him. So two things I want to get to when we come back is one, Biden made a major mistake yesterday during a speech. And this one is not humorous at all. This was a really serious mistake. And I think a really disrespectful mistake. We'll get to that. And also Bill Maher making waves. He was on with Greg Gutfeld, and we've got some great sound from that, so you're not going to want to miss it. We'll be right back. Live from the Aviva Trattria studio. Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curley show. It was so nice to talk to Brett Tolman about the Trump trial, about all these different cases, and something he said, excuse me, that I really wanted to hit on is about Michael Cohen and how his test and money was on live support. And then he revealed that he stole all this money, and that's when you knew this whole thing was unraveling. If that was even possible, it seemed like it was already unraveled. But Ellie Honig, who's becoming one of my favorites on CNN, had this to say about his revelation. Can I cut 13? I think the revelation, though, this morning about the theft of $30,000, which was doubled because they covered his taxes, so $60,000, it came out in a glancing, unclear way on direct. It came out like a bomb earlier today. I don't know how much they can do to fix that. It just, at a certain point, it is the fact Michael Cohen did steal this money. And what makes that really so important, Wolf, is it's not as if Michael Cohen was just stealing on the side. That'd be bad enough. The problem is he was stealing from the exact reimbursement at issue in this case. So the prosecution's core argument is Donald Trump knew what that $420,000 was all about. He was totally read in on it. Turns out Michael Cohen was stealing from him within that $420,000. And it does make me think that Brett Tolman's take on this. And, you know, it's similar to how Jared and I feel about it is that, yeah, New York is blue. Yeah, they hate Trump. Yeah, the jury's probably biased. But they, they also have a breaking point. Like they also have a level where they just think this can't get any worse. We cannot convict this guy when everybody they brought up as like a who's who of who not to trust. Even a New York jury has a breaking point, Jared. That would be my takeaway from this. Let's hope at least fingers crossed. And we can get back to this, but I did want to highlight something else here because I don't want to leave anything on the table. Did you see what happened last night at the White House? I did not actually. This is new to me. So Monday evening. Now, keep in mind Joe Biden's busy days are typically Wednesdays because that's the day where Trump's trial takes a recess. And so Biden has to hit the campaign trail running. He sometimes even gets up at like 1130 and works until two. It's a very, very chock full schedule for him. Well, last night, Monday evening, he's at a Jewish heritage celebration. It's at the Rose Garden at the White House. And he's addressing the group of people that includes parents of some of the hostages that are still being held captive by Hamas. And in reference to one of the hostages, the named American, Hirsch Goldberg Pollen, he references him and tries to say that he's at the Rose Garden. When his parents were there, Hirsch's parents were there because they've been going around and I've been keeping an eye on these parents because I find them so. I find their resilience really breathtaking. I can't get over it. I can't get over. They get up every single day. As frustrated as you might think we are with Joe Biden and how he's handling this and all of these Hamas loving hippies on college campuses. It's hard to fathom the degree of terror and anger and sadness and despair that these parents are going through. And they must feel like nobody even cares. They must feel like they're losing their minds, that their child's being held hostage by Hamas. And most people wouldn't even know this man's name. Now, if Trump were president, it would be everywhere. You would know this man's name without a doubt. But because Joe Biden's president, the 23 year old who's had one of his hands amputated is just mentioned occasionally because they don't want to make Joe Biden look bad. And then you get there at the Rose Garden. And I'm sure they're disgusted with Joe Biden. Maybe they're not, but I find it hard to imagine that they can stomach this guy, but they have to, because it's more important to them to get the word out that they want their son to come home. That is more important than however they must feel about Joe Biden and the way he's handling this or mishandling this. And then Joe Biden decides to say that their son is here today, even though he's not. Can I have cut 15? And here is the day is Hirsch go Goldberg Poland. And still, he is not here with us, but he's still being held by a mosque. I do not like this man. I don't think, and there's some gaps he makes that are funny. This isn't funny. Their child is being held. And I know he's 23, but he's their child, you know, and he's being held hostage. And this administration has let Israel down as far as standing up and being an ally. And a lot of it comes from the top. A lot of it comes from Joe Biden. And to not even bother, maybe it's prep work. Maybe it's cognitive decline, but that's not an excuse. It's like, don't say anything. Don't get up there and speak. If you can't figure out who's there and who's not there. If you as the president of the United States don't know that this kid, this young man is being held hostage, then don't give an address at the Jewish heritage celebration at the Rose Garden. You moron. It's insulting. And it must make their stomachs turn to hear him. Hear this. Hear this. I hear this. I'm surprised he didn't make a joke. That would be very, you know, in line with his brand. If he cracked a wise joke at that point. Just despicable. 844 500 42 42. Let's play a few cuts here. One of the textures. One of the textures said this and I was actually really glad because sometimes I get good sound and I think, yeah, maybe people want to hear it. Maybe they don't. But one of the textures that grace you should really play Bill Maher and Greg Godfeld. He did a great job. We will play that. But I wanted to play first a cut from Bill Maher on HBO describing the Harrison Butker situation for people who haven't been following this Harrison Butker is where is he ranking now Jared as far as worse people in the world. I think he's still sub orange man, but he surpassed Elon definitely. Okay. So we're behind Trump ahead of Elon in the rankings and there's still room for growth. Like there's still a chance that if he gets out there, I don't know what else he could say to really amp up his maybe if he, you know what he could do, he could support a border wall and that would really get him closer to Donald Trump. Harrison Butker is the kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs and he made a commencement address at a Catholic private Catholic school. He's a Catholic man and he espoused Catholic virtues. He espoused Catholic beliefs and that has really bothered a lot of people who think he's horrible and think he should be fired. Some of the horrible things he said. He loves his wife. He thinks her vocation is a homemaker. He thinks she does a wonderful job. He doesn't think he'd be able to be who he is if it wasn't for his wonderful, beautiful wife and he cried about that. That is one of the really, really disturbing parts of this speech. And so now there's been all these ideas like fire him. The NFL has come out and condemned him because the NFL doesn't like any misbehaving. When it comes to their players. So they were quick to come out and rebuke his speech. And some people like the Kansas City star has that paper has suggested, Hey, why don't you tell Harrison Butker to hit the road and we'll put in a woman kicker. We'll have a female kicker. Now, of course, as we pointed out yesterday, that opens up a whole new can of worms. Suddenly we have to bring biologists onto the team. Someone has to let us know what a woman is. Maybe Kamala Harris has to get involved. It's kind of a mess. But Bill Maher had the same reaction to this. There's so many people listening to this show, which is like he can't even figure out where this guy ticked everybody off. Can I have cut for please? Some of you talking to this, the women here, some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. Okay, that seems fairly like modern. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I don't see what the big crime is. I really don't. And I think this is part of the problem people have with the left is that lots of people in this country are like this. Like he's saying, some of you make a long to lead successful careers. But a lot of you are excited about this other way that people, everybody used to be, and how can it, can't that just be a choice to? And I feel like they feel very put upon. Like there's only one way to be a good person. And that's to get an advanced degree from one of those factories like Harvard. I love that breakdown of the speech because I remember hearing about it and seeing all these women on social media slamming Harris and Buckner and I was like, what did this guy say? And, you know, he said things about pride month and that's something where I could understand the left losing their minds over it. They don't just, they don't agree with every single belief that he has. And that's okay. As a lot of people have been telling us on these campuses, when you want to burn television to the ground, having different opinions is okay. I guess it's okay if you hate Jews. It's not okay if you're a Catholic. So people were very upset by this. And I remember hearing that actual part, that part that drove people nuts about saying to women, hey, if you want to have a career, you know, I'm sure a lot of you will go on to have great careers. And a lot of you are excited about becoming mothers. And it's such a weird knee jerk reaction to take a man empowering women to become mothers or, you know, lifting up people who are mothers and celebrating that. And take that as a dig at people who choose something else because I don't think that's how he meant it. I don't think he was trying to put anybody down by saying if you don't do things this way, then you are somehow, you know, not as valuable. I think he was just saying, hey, this is a message that doesn't get delivered as much as it should. Mothers are wonderful. It's a great vocation. If you want to be a homemaker. And, you know, what Emma Foley said, she's on vacation this week, but she was on on Friday and she made such a great point I never thought of. She said, the real focus of his speech. It wasn't an attack on women. It wasn't an attack on men. It wasn't accusing women of failing or men of failing or anything like that. It was a sense that both sexes have abandoned the home. And that's a problem for the family structure. There's a real give and take. It's a partnership to, you know, create a family and to have a home and to, you know, it's been a building block of civilizations and we both kind of abandoned it in our own ways. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and saying that's part of the reason we're seeing a lot of violent crime. That's part of the reason we're seeing a lot of unhappiness. And it's not one size fits all. It doesn't mean everyone has to do things a certain way. But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, hey, this is a wonderful thing. Like, he started to cry talking about his wife. But Bill Maher is right. The overreaction is just, it showcases how far gone, a good part of the country has gone. And the other part that he talks about, now this was on Greg Gutfeld, he's talking about Republicans and Democrats and disagreeing and how it's gone too far, where it's gone beyond politics. And now it's just, you know, not liking people who have different political beliefs than you do. Can I get cut to please? We are just calm down, Bill. Now I understand all the rumors about you are true. I don't know what that means. But we are polarized. I don't think we can deny that. The point is that we can also be friends. Let's not pretend that these disagreements are not profound. Let's just say, okay, they are profound. But you know what? There's 90 other things we could talk about, which we wouldn't disagree on. And I can't hate you. I've said it a million times. You can hate Trump. You can't hate all the people who like him. It's half the country. And I am certainly not blind to Donald Trump's fault. I get it why people choose to vote for him. You know, somebody who's conservative said to me, what you don't get, you liberals don't get about Trump, is that we don't like him either. We just see him as a bulwark against the nonsense on the left. And I understand that, because there is a lot of nonsense on the left, and that's in my book too. I'll never forget I was at a dinner, and it was for my younger sister. And we were with some of her college, she was in college at the time. We were with some of her college friends and their parents. And we're at this dinner, and my parents are sitting there. My parents are, you know, Trump supporters. But it was a great weekend. It was Family Weekend at her school. And one of the parents at the dinner was talking about Trump and how you really didn't like Trump. This is when Trump was president. He's a jerk. He's a jerk. He's a jerk. He's a jerk. He's a jerk. And my parents knew my sister just wanted everyone to get along, and, you know, so they didn't really say anything, didn't say anything. And then finally, towards the end of the dinner, towards the end of the night, the guy once again says, "I just think he's a jerk. I just think he's a jerk." And I remember my dad looked at him and he said, "You know, at least he's our jerk. He's our jerk." The other president, Barack Obama, was everybody else's jerk. He was going around all over the world, you know, apologizing for Americans, this giant apology tour, going to Iran, giving them billions of dollars. Donald Trump's our jerk. And we appreciate that. And I'll never forget that because it's like, that's a little bit of what Bill Maher's saying is, yeah, he's not always going to deliver the message in the way that you'd want somebody to. But he's not afraid to deliver the message. And he's going to deliver our message, which is important to people. People want to feel represented. People don't want to feel forgotten. And I also love the idea of, yes, you can disagree with people about politics, but you should not make it the focus of your relationships. Like, if you find yourself dying, and I've had this before with friends, where it's like, I can tell they're dying to bring up politics. They feel like they have to do it. They have to confront me with the fact that our politics don't align. And it's like, yeah, I know. That's lost on me. I know you hate my politics. I know you think I'm crazy. Magga right wing Republican. I get that. That's okay, though. I can sit at a dinner and talk about other things with you for 45 minutes. If you find yourself unable to do that, like you have to bring it up. It's your moral obligation to let someone know that you don't like their politics. You're a fool. You're not changing anything. You're just making everybody miserable. 844-542-42, something that doesn't make everybody miserable. Omaha Steaks. Omaha Steaks is the best, and it's especially great for the dads out there, because Jared, you know on Father's Day, the moms a lot of times we want to go somewhere. We want to have a brunch. We want to, you know, the dads really do love a grill. A delicious blam and yawn to put their feet up and just relax. Maybe even Jared, I'm sure you've got some hot dogs on deck for your Father's Day. It's a simple thing. We just, you know, just some meat to grill, and especially on that day, we do the grilling. But meat to grill and feet to put up, and that's really all you want for Father's Day. So you want to do the grilling, too? Absolutely. Just once I want my steak cooked the way I like it. Oh, my gosh. I'm kidding. My wife is fantastic. She's a fantastic. But if you had to say, is she overcooking it? Is she undercooking it? No, actually, she cooks it very perfectly. Okay. Good answer. Yeah, but yeah, I was joking. Yeah, but with Father's Day right around the corner, what do you give the man who has everything easy? Jared said you give him an Omaha steak or one of their delicious. I mean, there's so many options, chicken, hamburgers, hot dogs, fish, everything's delicious. And a world-class dad deserves a world-class steak. The Father's Day experts at Omaha Steaks have made it easy to put a big smile on the big guy's face this summer with hand-selected gift packages starting at just $89. Just go to Omaha Steaks.com and use promo code GRACE at checkout for an additional discount when you shop gourmet gift packages for Father's Day. With Omaha Steaks, the possibilities are endless. There's so many delicious premium proteins for you to choose from. So go to Omaha Steaks.com. Don't forget to use promo code GRACE to get the exclusive savings. Shop for unforgettable gifts that are guaranteed to make dad's day and do me a favor when you go to Omaha Steaks.com. Please use promo code GRACE at checkout to save on exclusive packages starting at just $89. This is a really great gift. It's an easy gift and it's a gift that won't go to waste, which is so important. We'll be right back. Hi, it's Toby from Cape Gun Works. I'm taking all your firearm and self-defense questions every Tuesday. Join Grace and me for 2A Tuesday, Tuesdays at 2PM. This is the Grace Curly Show. Welcome back to the Grace Curly Show. We got a great hour planned for you next. We got Toby Leary joining us at 2.20 and so much more. Marie, your next stop. What's going on, Marie? All right. I guess when I listen to you every day, and I love it, the next hearing aid. I'm saying going on. On her panel, when she said she heard Karen say, "I told him. I told him three times." I hit him. Yes. Did I kill him? Did I kill him? Yes. Did I kill him? A question rather than a statement. So, Marie, part of it is, she didn't say I killed him. She said, "I hit him. I hit him according to Jennifer McCabe." Now, leading up to that, I do think there was, and we heard about that today in the testimony, there were conversations where Karen Reid was asking, "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?" So, I don't know if it was an evolution type thing, or if she got to the point where she just said, "You know, I hit him. I hit him because she figured that's the only logical conclusion." Or maybe Jennifer McCabe did miss hear her. I was getting the sense that a lot of the details on this were murky, or the details that were very clear to people were just specifically chosen to fit their narrative. That's just my take away, Marie. Thank you for the call. We'll be right back. We got a lot more to get to. Alan Dershowitz is weighing in on Robert Costello's testimony. We'll have that sound for you when we come back. (upbeat music)