The Megyn Kelly Show - ABC Pays Trump Millions to Settle, and Government Deflects About "Drone" Truth, with Emily Jashinsky and Eliana Johnson | Ep. 966

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing the massive media news about the ABC News paying Donald Trump $15 million and apologizing for George Stephanopoulos' comments during a March interview, the defamation lawsuit at issue and whether Stephanopoulos really defamed Trump, the real reason ABC settled, and more. Then Emily Jashinsky, host of "Undercurrents" on UnHerd, and Eliana Johnson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, join to talk about the shocking defamation settlement between ABC and Trump, the worst parts of the Stephanopoulos segment in question, what this could mean for other defamation lawsuits involving the corporate media, CNN and other media colleagues calling out ABC News for "bending the knee" and settling with Trump in defamation suit, why Trump might start suing more media outlets that lied about him now, CNN backtracking over the possibility their viral Syria prisoner report was staged, the possibility the were duped in a set-up, exclusive comments from Trump’s attorney to the show about why ABC News settled the defamation suit, the latest developments in the Caitlin Clark story after her Time Magazine selection, one WNBA owner’s bizarre suggestion that Time Magazine should feature the entire league rather than Clark, the federal government still claiming they don't know what the "drone" swarms on the East Coast are, their contention there's nothing to worry about but refusing to say why, Trump saying it's time the Biden administration be honest with the American people, and more.Jashinsky-https://www.youtube.com/@undercurrentsunherdJohnson- https://freebeacon.com/ Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldFirecracker Farm: Get yours today at https://Firecracker.Farm/Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Monday. Have you gotten all your Christmas shopping done yet? I have not. And it is a stressor. It is like as your kids get older, you don't even really know what to buy. It was so much easier when they were younger. Anyway, God bless everyone. And I hope it's going better for you than it is for me. If you have great ideas for a 15, 13 and 11 year old, I would love to hear them. You can email me, Megan, at megankelly.com. And before the week is through, I'll offer you some of the ideas I have come up with. Maybe we can share and contrast.

In any event, today, we start with this delicious news. I mean, you never see, you never see these media organizations held to account for their vile lies they tell about Donald Trump. I mean, it's rare to see it happen at all. And trust me, as a media figure, I'm not clamoring to see media figures get sued for defamation for, you know, mild sins or even moderate sins. But this was just so egregious. And they did it over and over and over again at ABC News. They didn't care. They clearly enjoyed saying what George Stephanopoulos said. It made them feel good about themselves. This is George Stephanopoulos's, I'll just leave the dirty teen joke there, that that's how he feels about saying nasty things about Trump.

And finally, it came back to bite him. I would love to see what's in his text messages to his producers because I guarantee it just cost ABC News $15 million. That's almost certainly what happened. So you may have heard this over the weekend. Trump sued ABC News and ABC News caved. They collapsed. They gave in like that and quickly settled the case with President-elect Donald Trump after the network's top star, George Stephanopoulos, had been ruled by the judge to be required to sit for a deposition. He fought it. He didn't want to have to do it. And the judge late last week said, well, you have to. You said a bunch of dumb shit. You've been sued for defamation. I've refused to get rid of this case thus far. And you must sit like any other defendant, you privileged whatever.

You must sit for a deposition and answer questions from Trump's lawyer. Trump earlier in the case had said, I'll sit for deposition, but not right now because I'm like running for president. So I'm kind of busy. And the judge gave him a delay. But the judge also looked at Trump and said, you must sit too. You got a little time on your hands. I'm aware of your job. So Trump was going to have to sit too. But Trump, we know, is willing. Trump sat when he was getting sued by E. Jean Carroll. Remember, that's that famous exchange with her lawyer. He's like, you, for example, would never be my type. When she said, did you say you can grab women by the, you know what, and they'll let you do it, and you're in a star. And he said, well, for thousands of years, that's been true.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, that was Trump sitting for a deposition in a civil lawsuit that was against him. So he will do it, but George Stephanopoulos would not. He got the order that he would have to testify under oath and they caved. They collapsed. They gave in and cried uncle. It's sad because I would have loved to have read that deposition transcript. You guys are probably familiar with the absolutely disgusting interview that led to all of this with George Stephanopoulos. We did a big episode on this because he had on Congresswoman Nancy Mace back in the spring. And remember, he was disgusted that this rape victim could back

someone who he kept claiming had been found liable for rape. That was the defamatory statement over and over and over. And we pointed out that that was false. And I believe we even suggested that Trump should sue him, that that was completely inaccurate, wrong, and it was liable. And we focused on the fact that he thought it would be super fun and really like make him look good to go after a rape survivor, Nancy Mace, and really twist her facts and her words in her face. Like if you were raped, how could you support a rapist? You claim you're a rape victim. How could a rape victim support a rape? Great, great positioning. You're idiots.

Stephanopoulos is an idiot and so are his producers. Because let me tell you, in all my years at Fox, nevermind my shorts did in NBC, the producers have a couple of main jobs. One is to arm the anchor with facts. Fail. Okay, fail there. And two is to protect the anchor. You protect the anchor. And so if the anchor is out there saying something colossally stupid, usually if you have a great producer, they'll get in your ear to say, no, it's this. No, it's that.

Be careful. That happens with me all the time on this show. My producers, the ones who run heard on various segments that I'm doing, if they realize I've said something inaccurate or that I'm searching for a factor constantly in my ears, that's why I wear these headphones to say, it's this or it's that. This whole thing that you're watching and listening to is a team effort. And 10 times that, 100 times that on ABC broadcast news and a Sunday show like the one George Stephanopoulos sits for. Partisan hack. He's been there a long time. It doesn't make him any more

respectable. He's a partisan hack. He started off as a partisan hack and he remains one. He's just too ball-less to own his partisan nature and wants us to believe that he's straight and narrow now, notwithstanding all those years helping Bill Clinton. And the irony of him going after a rape supporter in that way, how could you support a rape supporter? My God, the nerve to support a rape committer. After his years running the war room, tearing down Bill Clinton's sexual assault accusers, I mean, it's just rich. So now the whole thing has cost him his reputation and his company $15 million. Okay, we're going to get into all of this. There's more on the media front, not only with him, but also here. we brought to you on Friday with Hugh Hewitt, in which we questioned CNN's Clarissa Ward's report about allegedly stumbling into this dramatic rescue of a Syrian war prisoner. He's there under the blanket and there's no bucket for waste that we can see. And he's as clean as I am sitting

on this set, even though he says he's been behind bars for three months and five or four days without food or water. And he's not blinded when he sees the sun and all sorts of weird things. Well, there's an update. Joining me now today for the full show, the EJs, Emily Jashinsky, DC correspondent for Unheard and host of Undercurrents, and Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon and co-host of the podcast Ink Stained Wretches. For those of us who have been holding our breath for the past several months, we can finally exhale in the wake of this presidential election, right? Work can finally be done on the major issues that this country's facing. And one of the most

significant is our national debt. Look, the fact is our nation's broke and that debt is a house of cards that cannot be quickly dismantled by anyone. So the strategy remains the same when it comes to your investments. You might want to diversify your savings. Virtually all the experts say that's a good idea. This is why I want to tell you about Birch Gold. So many things are out of our control

and out of our president's control that it really can be important to have a safe haven for your savings. Birch Gold Group can help you if you would like to convert all or part of an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold, which is like a hedging of the bets. And the best news is it does not cost you

one cent out of pocket. You just text MK to 989998, and you get your free info kit. And plus right now you will receive a free one ounce silver Eagle for every $5,000 purchased silver Eagle coin. Protect your savings with Birch Gold. Text MK to 989898 and claim your eligibility for free silver today. Ladies, welcome back. Are you enjoying the MNBC meltdown and collapse as much as the surrender in this case as much as I am?

I'll start with you, Emily. Well, I'm also enjoying really ABC's peers in media freaking out because of the ABC settlement. I mean, that's been, I think, equally as delicious as watching so many people now criticize ABC for, quote unquote, caving. And, you know, what was a pretty serious case? I mean, that it's just in the last 24 hours that so many different people in media are now accusing ABC basically of enabling Trump when they were staring down the barrel of a very, very problematic deposition, being in litigation with an incoming president, and all of that would entail for their

for the incoming administration, their coverage of the incoming administration. I mean, like you said, I'm not cheering on like lowering the threshold for defamation for journalists. And I don't necessarily think this lowers the threshold. I think it really was a very, very serious case. So all kinds of schadenfreude to be enjoyed this morning. You know, the thing that got them in trouble, Eliana, was he went out there, repeatedly said that a jury had found him liable for rape, which is not what happened.

A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse. And they said no on the rape charge. Then the judge wrote up his like interpretation of what happened. Obviously, this judge was not a Trump fan. And the judge, Lewis Kaplan, wrote as follows after the fact when Trump was seeking a new trial, the judge wrote the finding that Miss Carroll failed to prove that she was raped within the meeting of New York penal law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump raped her. As many people commonly understand the word rape. OK, nobody even understands what that means.

Other than this judge wanted someone to see the word rape and Trump's name in a headline. But the fact remains, the jury's verdict is the jury's verdict, and no judge can change it with words after the fact or their post-verdict interpretation. The judge can throw it out. The judge can lower the charge potentially by throwing a charge out. But he can't increase the charge from sexual abuse to rape. It's not a possibility. Neither this judge nor any other. And the bottom line is Trump was not found liable for rape by this jury. And despite that fact, George Stephanopoulos went out on the air in that interview and sounded like

this, sought to. And you've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. I'm asking you a question about why you endorse someone who's been found liable for rape. Someone who's been found liable for rape, you have to answer the question. Why are you supporting someone who's been found liable for rape. Someone who's been found liable for rape, you have to answer the question. Why are you supporting someone who's been found liable for rape? They are afraid to come forward, as you said, because they are defamed by those who commit the rape. You don't find it offensive that Donald Trump has been found liable for rape. Well, actually,

what you're doing is defending a man who's been found liable for rape. I don't understand how you can do that. The judge affirmed that it was in fact rape. Donald Trump was found to have committed rape. That's just a fact. And that's why he's now having to pay $15 million or his news organization is Eliana. So what do you make of it? This is astonishing for a number of reasons, a couple of which we haven't touched on yet, but I really can't recall a case in which a major national news organization had to pay a sum like this to a celebrity or politician in the US. And that's particularly because the protections for news organizations are so high.

So you can't be sued just for saying something untrue. Can't be sued for libel or defamation for saying something untrue. Trump would have had to show that George Stephanopoulos did so with actual malice. That's the standard. And it's a very high standard. But this case never went that far. And I think that's the question, is ABC actually might have had a strong case because it is so hard to win these lawsuits. And the question is, why did they settle? Why did they settle and why did they settle now? Was it that they didn't want to be involved in litigation with the sitting president of the United States? Or was it that they knew very embarrassing and unflattering things would come out in the discovery process

or that Stephanopoulos would be forced to make embarrassing admissions in a deposition? We don't know. But to me, there are some serious unanswered questions about why the settlement was made and around the timing of it that lead to speculation around those things. I have to assume that it was one of those things and that paying $15 million now was less painful for them than going through a potentially humiliating or embarrassing discovery process. But you know what, what they also skipped was the motion for summary judgment phase, because that's filed after you get depositions from each side. What normally would happen is they take Stephanopoulos' deposition, they take Trump's deposition and whoever else's that they

wanted. And then you get all your deposition transcripts ready and you file as the defendant a motion for summary judgment, meaning give me a win here, judge, and dismiss this defamation claim against ABC without a trial. Because here you can see right here that everyone admits the judge said this. But the problem is that they didn't do that. So they wanted to get out of this before they even had that serious shot at getting it dismissed altogether by the judge. They, which tells me they didn't want him sitting for deposition. That's why they paid the 15 million. That plus they were probably, yes, a bit on bended knee because they're afraid of Trump. Not so much in his capacity as a plaintiff, but in his capacity

as the president elect. And they need him. ABC News needs to have a relationship with him. And this is no way to do it, to continue to lie about him, to maintain that your lies were justified. You were allowed to tell them, notwithstanding the fact that it is indisputable he was not found liable by a jury for rape, as Stephanopoulos said over and over, Emily. He said, yeah, you wrote the clip of him saying, that's just a fact. And it's sort of the problem

with people like George Stephanopoulos and crystallized in one perfect example. That's just a fact about something that's absolutely not a fact. In fact, it was found the opposite. Like literally the jury answered no. And it's also interesting. I mean, we haven't even touched on the rank misogyny in that interview, which is just maddening to watch. He's telling Nancy Mace exactly how she should feel about this as a woman, as somebody who's survived sexual abuse. But he also, Trump was, I believe in this judgment, found liable of something much lower than rape, which was sexual abuse, which George Stephanopoulos could have used that. There's something very particular about wanting to

accuse Trump of being held liable of rape that they knew better. I mean, they wanted to use this Aaron Blake Washington Post story they put up on the screen if people were watching this and saw the ABC clip. They used this Aaron Blake Washington Post story about what Judge Kaplan, who was trying to like hedge and show there was wiggle room on, you know, how people understand rape being different than the legal standard of rape. It's just ridiculous for a judge to be involved in. They wanted that Washington Post story to give them license to say that it's just a fact when the jury said something completely different.

And it didn't, I mean, it doesn't hold, it does not hold any weight or credibility. It's just a ridiculous claim. So it didn't work out for them, clearly. If George Stephanopoulos had said, the judge found that. That the finding Miss Carroll failed to prove that she was raped within the meaning of the New York penal law does not mean she failed to prove that Mr. Trump raped her.

If they want to say that, which I grant you is far less catchy, they would have been fine. I mean, that's the problem. They were trying to take this judge, trying to throw E.G. and Carol a bone, but the judge knew that the judge could not declare Trump a rapist. So it's just kind of like, well, the finding that she didn't prove she was raped doesn't mean she failed to prove he raped her. As many people commonly understand the word rape, like all of this is so fucked up that the judge was doing this at all. Like, what are you talking about? The common understanding of the word rape? There is a statutory definition of the word rape. It was provided to the jury and they checked no when they were asked to decide whether Trump had done that. They check like this is

an egregious statement by the judge anyway. But let me tell you, as somebody who does this all the time, talks about legal rulings and things that are dicey about people, we bend over backwards, bend over backwards to make sure we track the exact language, because if you don't, that's how you get in trouble. We're not perfect either. But if we screw it up, we'll come back on and correct it. We'll come back the next day and say, okay, here's what we meant to say. They never did that. I don't know whether Stephanopoulos had 10 producers in his ear saying over and over, not rape, not rape. I think they didn't say that. I think they did not

do him a solid because they popped up that article that you just pointed out from the Washington Post as like his proof, you see? And so this segment was long. It was like 15 minutes long. That thing pops up and he's like, there, I have it right there because the Washington Post wrote this. And I guarantee you that's his team trying to help him out. Like, yeah, yeah, it's rape. It's rape. And what you really needed was a damn lawyer to say, or someone who knows how to read a legal opinion to say that doesn't excuse his statements over and over that a jury found him liable for rape. It's not true. But the thing is, Eliana, they were, I guarantee you,

the whole crew was so gleeful about attaching this word to the vile Trump, they couldn't help themselves. I'm actually not sure if in their own mind, they even distinguish between sexual assault and rape and that they themselves may be so convinced that Trump is guilty that they elided the two things. You know, we just don't know what happened behind the scenes, but it's perfectly plausible to me that they dislike their visceral dislike of Trump goes so far that that they weren't all that familiar with the the distinctions that the jury made, frankly. You have to prove when you're suing when you are a public figure claiming that you have been defamed, as Trump was claiming. And by the way, to the point you raised initially, when that happens as a public figure, people have

the highest ability to say bad things about you. The first amendment protects speech and it really protects speech about public figures. And it really protects speech about political public figures or political acts taken by public figures. It's a political person in the public sphere that has the most protection you can get under the law. So that's why the media generally gets away with saying false things about politicians as long as it doesn't reach this extremely high standard. And that high standard is it has to be malice. And what is said with malice? And what does that mean? It means with knowledge that it's false. Like I'm knowingly lying about you. I know you weren't found liable for rape and I'm saying

it anyway. Or the more frequent standard is the reckless disregard for its falsity. So you don't care. So this is a scenario where this is what got Fox in trouble with Dominion, where Dominion's sending in letter after letter saying, this isn't true. There's no evidence for it being true. Here's this that proves it's not true and that that proves it's not true. And all you have on the other side and saying it's true is like the unsupported declarations of Sidney Powell. That's how you get to reckless disregard of whether in fact it's true. So it has to be like, really, it can't just be like, I didn't do my homework. That's negligent. That's not reckless. Okay. So the standard is very high.

And this is why I think that there were texts and there would be instant messaging between George and the team. All of that, that's all what the anchors use. And I used it many times too at Fox and at NBC, where you're corresponding with your, Stephanopoulos guaranteed was corresponding with his producers during that whole segment. And I guarantee you that those communications don't reflect well on anybody and anyone involved. And it could possibly be the team maybe saying it's sexual abuse, it's sexual abuse. And George refusing to acknowledge that. And then perhaps the team finally just realized they weren't going to bend him and threw up that Washington Post article. But whatever it is, it didn't look good for him, Eliana. I think we can agree on that.

Right. It's a really bad look. And I would add to this, it sets a scary precedent for two other libel suits that are underway, one against CNN and one against NBC, that are far stronger cases and have progressed much further than ABC News let this one progress. The one against CNN is about an incident that occurred on Jake Tapper's show where a former military veteran who was, or a military veteran who was working to extract Afghans out of Afghanistan during the collapse of the government there, CNN insinuated that he was engaged in fraud. So this has to be sending a chill, not just through ABC, but like CNN and MSNBC cannot be feeling good today. You mentioned, Emily, that I think you were the one, I forget whether it was you or Alian, I think it was you talking about the disgusting nature of the interview to begin with, right? There was not a good look for George Stephanopoulos from the start, as I mentioned in my intro, going after a rape survivor. She was only 16 when she was

raped, Nancy Mace. And obviously any thoughtful person would say, that is not the soft spot I want to exploit for purposes of looking tough on my show. I mean, think of the level of douchebaggery in order to think that'll be a fun way, one to really hit her with over and over. And then even in the line of the clip we showed, you have to answer, fuck off. I am here as a, as a courtesy to you. I don't have to do anything. You don't like my answers, don't invite me back. I don't have to do what you tell me. All of it is so, he's such a bully and all the statements and the approach are evidence of what an arrogant prick bully he is. How he treated her, how he spoke about Trump,

how he came after her with his demands to do it the way he insisted. And here is a little bit just to remind the audience of that dynamic as he aggressively went after Nancy Mason, sought one. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw? It's a shame that you will never feel, George. I'm not trying to shame you. You are. I'm just asking you. And I find it offensive, and this is why women won't come forward.

Women won't come forward because they're defamed by those who perpetrate rape. I'm asking you a very simple question. And I answered it. You're shaming me for my political choices. I'm asking you a question about why you endorse someone who's been found liable for rape. Just answer the question. I'm questioning your political choices because you're supporting someone who's been found liable for rape. You're not answering the question. I think it's disgusting. Well, you're welcome to say that, but you're also, you have to answer the question. What you're doing is defending a man who's been found liable for rape. Okay, by the way, let's just show them the jury form, okay? You heard it over and over. Been found liable for rape, who a jury found liable for rape. Here's the jury verdict form. I can't read that. But I remember that it says,

did he commit rape? And you can see we highlighted here, it says no. And then they say, did he commit sexual assault? And it says yes. But look at that. It was clear as day. This is what the jury found. And Stephanopoulos would not adhere to it. Emily, so yeah, this speak to the dynamic of the overall exchange. Well, yeah, I mean, so he is, you can tell like a dog with a bone. He will not let this question go. It's one thing to just ask Nancy Mace the question, although it's, to your point, Megan, laughable that George Stephanopoulos, who very famously defended Bill Clinton in some very scummy ways for many, many years, thought that he was the guy who should put this question to Nancy Mace, that him as a man, he should be rhetorically beating down on Nancy Mace over and over and over again with the moral credibility of a journalist to just make sure that she has her

feet held to the fire on this question. I mean, that is laughable. Nancy Mace did a really good job of saying that you're shaming me. She performed fantastically in that. And just to the point about the jury sheet right there, it's so important because he is saying this is a fact. And as we were talking about, maybe there's this like left wing feminist opinion that the judge is getting to in that like op ed that the judge wrote so inappropriately that says we can broaden the definition of rape to include all of these different things. That is actually something feminists have tried to do despicably for a very long time. So you can maybe make that argument, but you can't say that it's a fact. And so while he is trying to push Nancy Mace further and further like a dog with a bone on this really

disgusting line of questioning, truly shaming her, as she said rightfully. He also, he doesn't have the moral credibility, nor does he have the journalistic credibility. It is a total farce. It is the problems with journalism in one perfect segment. Exactly right. And then, so that happened in March of 2024, that segment.

And by the way, just in case people have forgotten, Bill Clinton was accused multiple times by multiple women of sexual abuse, assault and rape. And who defended him? George Stephanopoulos at every turn with much more credibility than E.G. Far more. George Stephanopoulos created a whole war room to defend Bill Clinton. So for him to sit there and look at Nancy Mace and say, how could you support a rape support, a rape defendant, a rapist, someone found liable for rape? How could you support somebody like that? The only thing missing from Nancy Mace's great response was, how could you, George Stephanopoulos, you ran a whole war room trying to tear down those,

don't lecture me on what's going to stop rape victims from coming forward. But what's going to stop them is people like you and your buddies for Bill Clinton, who insulted them, called them trailer trash and unleashed the greatest legal teams in the country against these poor women who had absolutely no means to fight for their dignity and to protect themselves and from other women against your predator boss. Okay. So just stop. Anyway, George Stephanopoulos was not called out that way. He's been called out by people like us, but this is the first time he's really had to own up for his terrible behavior. In one of the many ways it was terrible. Two months after he was with Mace in March of 2024,

he goes on Colbert, which is on Arrival Network, CBS, and look at this. Now you're being sued for defamation. Why? Because of an interview like that. I was interviewing a congresswoman named Nancy Mace, who used to be highly critical. My hometown, Charleston, South Carolina. Yes, Charleston, South Carolina, of Donald Trump. And she famously started her political career in a statehouse, when she was in the statehouse, talking about being a victim of rape. And so I asked her how she could be, as a victim of rape, how could she support someone who a jury has found liable for rape? Trump sued me because I used the word rape, even though a judge said that's in fact what did happen. And in fact, we filed the motion to dismiss last week, but she, she's now fallen

on, and she, she tried to say that I was the problem for asking the question rather than he being the problem because a jury found him liable for defamation and sexual abuse. Okay. So what's so galling about that, Eliana, is as you well know, when you're involved in litigation, you know, like if I get involved in litigation, I would never make a comment out about it publicly because it's stupid. It's estupido. You don't do it because it can come back to haunt you. And it was absolutely foolish for him to go. But you know why he did? He knows that for sure. The ABC lawyers told him that he had swagger around this. He was like, I know I'm only four foot two, but I'm going to take down the president. F you big man.

I'm George Stephanopoulos. He's got the Napoleon complex and he felt the need to try to act like a tough guy. Well, that's where the malice comes in, where not only have you been apprised that you made a factual error that impugned somebody's character by saying a falsehood about them on national television, you then go and repeat it and dig your heels in once again on national television. And so that I think is actually pretty good grounds for showing malice where you say, not only did I do it the first time, but I was right. I was right. No apologies. Because the pretty easy way to get out of these things is to do what ABC News has now done, where you put a correction up and say, we regret the error. But that is not that is not the attitude that George Stephanopoulos took in the Stephen Colbert interview after the litigation had been filed. They could have avoided this whole thing if the very next week on his show,

he went out and said, I would like to apologize to President Trump. Totally. He stated the following things. Those things were not true. This is what I should have said. That's it. That shows a potential jury or judge.

You didn't have actual malice in your heart. You did your best to correct the record. It doesn't necessarily totally exonerate you, but as a practical matter, it does. And instead, you had him out there, matter, it does. And instead you had him out there again, little Napoleon trying to show how tough he was, um, because you know, he obviously had something to prove. Oh, and by the way, so he, he made their comments in March. In May, he goes on Colbert in July, ABC news's motion to dismiss this case was denied. Denied. They tried to get it dismissed on the papers and the judge said, no, they have stated a claim. This can be seen through to discovery.

So that was July. Hello, folks. We're knocking on the door of Christmas and Hanukkah right now. So we're in December. So if once they lost the motion to dismiss, they easily could have settled it then, you know, we know what comes next discovery. We got to turn over our texts, our documents. We are definitely going to have to give George over. They knew that producers on the show are going to have to give an over for deposition that we're going to have motion practice and possibly a trial. So they didn't even let it get, they, they let it go through. I assume they had a discovery where papers were exchanged. They would have had to in order to have George's deposition ordered. You can't take somebody's deposition without

having seen any of the papers or the texts or anything behind it. And I assume that happened. And now he was about to have to sit. I really think something about George sitting was what made them fold because it's not unprecedented for talent to have to sit. You know, we saw it at Fox news that the Murdoch sat in the Fox news dominion case, Rupert Murdoch sat, um, not all the talent sat, but talent have sat in these losses. Jake Tapper, you point out, he sat. But George Stephanopoulos would not sit. And there's a reason for that, my friend. Meantime, Emily, here is a taste of the media meltdown around this as they're getting the vapors over any sort of white flag being waved at Donald Trump's SOC 24. But it seems to me that there's a lot of this bending the knee going on. I mean, to me,

it seems this is a time for our industry to stand firm because Trump is not going to change his ways when he gets back in the Oval Office. He's going to continue to say things that need to be fact checked. And you can't have the news industry worrying about this sort of stuff when they're just simply doing their jobs. Well, if some bend the knee, others have to stand up straighter. You know, the former Time magazine editor Richard Sengel said this morning,

Trump has sued dozens of publications and media outlets in the past, trying to, quote, intimidate the press into self-censorship, not to actually win any particular case. He did win, in this case, with a big payment. But that broader concern about self-censorship is one to actually win any particular case. He did win in this case with a big payment. But that broader concern about self-censorship is one that I know many viewers and readers are worried about. And ultimately, Jim, as you know, we work for them. We work for the viewers.

Okay, first of all, if George Stephanopoulos bent the knee, we'd be looking at a lily pution. I'm like, where'd George go? What happened to George? That's a stand-up straighter.? You have to stand up straighter. Even straighter. Get straighter. We have to go super tall, Emily, now that ABC News is cave. The rest of us have to be even mightier

to stand up against the giant. No acknowledgement. They did the wrong thing. Why don't they just get a lawyer before they have these discussions to advise them? Well, here's what's infuriating. These are the defenders of capital T truth, right? I mean, first of all, does Jim Acosta not realize that his network settled with Nicholas Sandman in another

very, very serious defamation case? So I guess they bent the knee in that one. So maybe his moral credibility is also in question. But secondly, these are the guardians of capital T truth. CNN ran those famous ads during the Trump administration about how they'll tell you something is an apple or a banana when Trump is telling you it's an apple, they'll tell you, no, it's actually a banana. They are so sanctimonious. And yet they are the ones in this case who are defending George Stephanopoulos for doing actually a really shitty thing, which is telling people that they are hearing a fact when what they are hearing is an opinion. And that is just about, as far as I'm concerned, one of the very worst things that an anchor, a host, somebody who was

telling you I'm coming straight down the middle. I think that's one of the worst things you can do, because that is exactly why your audience comes to you. They want to trust you. They want to trust that if you're telling them something is a fact, that it actually is a fact. And it's not just your editorializing, but that was pure editorialization on Stephanopoulos' behalf with an assist from the judge and the Washington Post, but it was opinion nonetheless. And that is, I think, one of the biggest sins in journalism is to tell people that you're just playing it straight and when you're actually opining. And so actually what his peers should be doing is saying, you screwed the rest of us here in a really big way, and we are going to do better because of it,

to the extent they talk about this being, quote unquote, chilling. I hope that it does have a chilling effect. I'm saying that even as a journalist against some of this really, really bad behavior that is misleading people who are desperate for facts. So if you're telling people you're delivering facts, just do it. And to the extent you're not, I do hope it chills that. We have the ad here. Remember this? That was a great one. This is an apple. Some people might try to tell you that it's a banana. They might scream banana, banana, banana over and over and over again. They might put banana in all caps. You might even start to believe that this is a banana.

But it's not. This is an apple. Oh my God. Facts first, it reads. CNN. Zucker classic. Yeah, personally done at his request, reportedly. So yeah, I guess that's not how the jury saw it.

They saw an apple, and it was George Stephanopoulos who saw a banana. That's really what happened. He saw the banana. He saw the banana being misused in ways the jury did not. And this jury was not on the same page. It's really amazing to watch it all go down and to watch the suffering. Jim Acosta and Brian Stelter not saying this is a moment to reflect on how to be more careful. And you know what would be a great idea. Bring in a defamation attorney to educate all of us. Um, be so that

we don't make a similar mistake. Instead it's, they bent the knee. The rest of us have to stand stronger. And you know what I think should happen now, especially given that and sort of this reaction across the left wing media. I think Trump should start writing letters to the people at MSNBC who called him a rapist over and over and over. I mean, now he's got a settlement for $15 million. He's going to his presidential library and they had to pay attorney's fees, a million bucks,

and they had to issue an apology and a statement on their reporting, admitting that it was false. If I were Trump, I'd be having my lawyer do a LexisNexis search for all the people who said in a factual way, I mean, you could say, I believe he's a rapist or it's obvious to me he raped her, right? That's all fine. That's opinion. But you cannot say, as Stephanopoulos did, he is a rapist. He raped E. Jean Carroll. That's defamatory. So if I were Trump, I would spread the pain around. You know, the most astonishing thing in the Acosta-Stelter clip is that they're defending as some matter of journalistic integrity,

the right to say false things about the president of the United States and to misinform their viewers on national television. One would think the reaction would be, you know, this is unfortunate, but we have such a major responsibility that we do pay a price when we screw up and don't correct ourselves in and don't correct ourselves promptly and tell our viewers the truth in a in a prompt manner. And fortunately, here at CNN, we don't have anything to worry about because we just strive to bring viewers the truth and the straight facts every day. But I mean, it's this this is not the one I would really try to stand on principle on. No, it's not. Let me tell you something. This is why we did a

long episode that we released over the weekend about how the Duke lacrosse case, you know, the fake rape case unfolded and collapsed and how it was really the beginning of what we now call wokeness in the media, the way they covered these stories, how they, they choose a side based on skin color, potentially class, um, privilege and gender and how they never learned, even though that case blew up in their faces, they just never learned. They doubled and tripled down and so on. It's a good episode. You guys should listen to it. I actually got some sweet notes about it from the players' families. So we did that. And we were pointing out that the media, that that's the reason that this alternative ecosystem was born, you know, the digital lane. And I said on the show,

necessity is the mother of all invention. You know, people just, they realized over time and Trump really helped how dishonest the media was and is, and just demanded someplace else to go. And then bit by bit, it started populating and they, they fled, they fled the mainstream, so-called mainstream, in incredible numbers. The GMA is cratering in the ratings. We've talked about MSNBC now regularly getting, I mean, slashies in the demo, which is below 50,000. Slashies is true shame, shame, shame. You would never want to look the boss in the face if you've gotten slashies under 50,000 in the 25 to 54 year old. That's what sets your advertising rates. And the collapse in the overall is what goes to how much your cable subscribers are going to renew

your deal for. How much are they going to pay to have MSNBC or CNN on their lineup? Less this go around than they did the last, that's for sure. Because the power of these networks is diminishing quickly. So they're going to lose money in advertising and they're going to lose money in their subscription fees that they get. And then you look at what's happening in our lane. And my executive producer, Steve Krakar, said this to me just recently, because we keep an eye on our numbers. It made news back in July when our YouTube feed beat the YouTube feed of NBC News, CBS News, the BBC, Sky News, and many others. Okay. It made news, made national news. November, which was a presidential election, as you know,

not just for Megyn Kelly, but for all those same organizations. As far as I know, CNN and all these others made a big deal out of the presidential election too. In November alone, we just on our YouTube, this does not count Sirius XM audience. This does not count a podcast, our podcast audience. It does not count social media audience, just YouTube. In one month, we had 194 million and a half, 194 million views. Okay. Almost 200 million people were watching this show in November. Think about it. How did the others do? NBC News, we crushed them by 50 million. CNN, they beat us by, we had two thirds of their audience when we last looked at it in July. We had two thirds of what they were getting on YouTube. CNN, we killed them this time. They lost to us too. They got 155. We beat them by 40 million. I could go on. I mean, the mainstream nets, they lost to us. That's all of them. That's Jake Tapper. That's Anderson

Cooper. That's the 9 p.m. lady who never smiles. That's the morning show. That's all of them. All of them together lost to just this show. Yay. Good for us. I'm happy to have a victory lab. I won't lie, but it's really not about that. The point I'm raising is they're collapsing. And my God, I shudder to think what's going to happen this month when all their audiences fled. That was when their audience's interest was at its peak. Our numbers are still very strong. So are Fox's. Anyway, the point is, how can this model continue, Emily? How can these anchors continue to be paid these mega millions dollar sums? Rachel Maddow took a pay cut for her one hour a week from $30 million to $25 million a year. But there is just no way that this business model can be sustained for much longer.

Well, no, I'm glad you brought that up because as you were going through those numbers, I'm thinking in my head, the overhead that sustains this model that is losing to much more nimble and leaner operations is astounding. I mean, if you look at, I mean, just even the bare bones like Joe Rogan said, it's so funny how upset many people in the corporate press get about Joe Rogan because he's just out there with like his whiskey on the table and cigars on the table in a room. He has like two camera views. It's just like insane how competitive that is with these operations that have, you know, their midtown glossy newsrooms with just CNN plus, I think is what it was called. But just, it was such a disaster because they didn't have the guts or the courage or the wisdom

to say what needs to happen on something like CNN plus, not only do we need to take the overhead down and get on this off ramp to the digital world, we actually need to understand the content demands of our audience, which would be, you know, they understand you can draw a line from Duke Lacrosse to the Rolling Stone, Virginia rape hoax piece to the Aziz Ansari Me Too movement piece. Like the American people sort of see what's happened and the CNN audience sees what happened and they find it interesting. And they now want people to be way more authentic in their delivery because they lost their trust as they sort of traced that line in real time. So a lot of people's lives get ruined

unjustly, were lied to over and over again about politics. So I mean, they are not willing to create the content, they might be willing to like sort of take the playbook, you know, and sort of look at the numbers. But they're not gonna see improvement if the content itself, like it's one thing to have a good YouTube audience and to take your costs down and be a little bit more nimble and build digital platforms.

It's another thing entirely to give people the content they want and that's where they're gonna go wrong. Yeah, they don't get it. We played that soundbite last week of Leslie Stahl talking to Peggy Noonan like, I don't know why this is happening. Why? Why is the legacy media collapsing? Hello, Leslie, you should come on. I will explain it to you. I'd be happy to.

There's a lot of examples at CBS News. And by the way, ABC News, this is just the latest, you know, that we're talking about. There was a day not long ago where that hot mess that they air in the mornings called The View had to issue not one, not two, not three, but four corrections, legal corrections, four legal notes. We only have three of them on camera, but look at this. Sorry, everyone. I have another legal note. Both Trump and Pam Bondi have denied allegations of a quid pro quo. I have a legal note. You want to take this one, Joy? Matt Case has long denied all allegations and has not been charged with any crime. That's true. Also, another legal note, Pete Hegseth's lawyer said he paid the woman in 2023 to head off the threat of a baseless lawsuit. He has denied any wrongdoing. That's eventually what they did at that debate, where once again,

they tried to fact check only one side. And then when their fact checks got back checked, they cowered, they cowered in fear. I mean, this is a pattern with them. They're lucky. It was only 15 million. We're not done with the media. Um, Trump has just announced he's suing another, another outlet. We'll talk about who it is. And we've got to get to what happened with Clarissa Ward, not to mention the drones. Don't go away. Looking for the perfect gift, or maybe just a treat for yourself, or something that people are not expecting, like a hostess gift or something for your spouse that they would never predict. Think about this. Firecracker Farm hot salt. That's fun. Who's expecting that? that they would never predict. Think about this. Firecracker Farm hot

salt. That's fun. Who's expecting that? But everybody would love it. It's an awesome gift. It's beautifully packaged and unlike anything else out there. Tasty, handcrafted, totally unique, perfect for anyone who loves bold flavors. It's not your typical salt. Every stainless steel push grinder is packed with amazing flavor. It's available in heat levels from mild for people like me to wow, like my friends in Texas. So there's something for everyone. Every sprinkle brings out incredible flavor without overpowering your dish. Firecracker Farm hot salt is made with love by a small family business. Plus a percentage of every sale goes to support charities Operation 300 and the Pipe

Hitter Foundation. But here's the thing. Firecracker is a small operation, so they can only make so much at a time, especially during the holidays. There's always a chance they will run out. So get it while you can. It's the perfect gift, but you don't want to wait too long or you could miss out. Firecracker Farm Hot Salt, handcrafted, flavorful, and unforgettable. Get yours today at firecracker.farm. Unbelievable what's happening right now. I've got to tell you, it's just, the meltdown continues. Here's Steve Schmidt from the discredited, vile Lincoln Project on the Stephanopoulos ABC News settlement.

Quote, the pace of capitulation will increase and along with it, a deep freeze will settle over most of America's newsrooms, end quote. Well, I've got news for you, Steve Schmidt. If Trump winning against ABC News or getting them to settle in that case causes a deep freeze in any given newsroom, then they're doing the news wrong. Because those of us who cover him and the other side fairly have no fear whatsoever. I mean, all you can do is your best to remain factual and to label opinion as such. No one's perfect. ABC News isn't expected to be perfect, but when they screw up or any other newsroom screws up, you're expected to own it. And the law acknowledges that. Welcome back to the Megyn Kelly show.

Today's show is brought to you by Grand Canyon University. GCU believes the American dream starts with purpose and can help you fulfill your sacred calling. Find your purpose. Visit gcu.edu. And if you go to GCU, I bet you learn a little bit about the First Amendment or at least have the opportunity to and should understand that while it's vast and very protective of speech, it is not complete. There are exceptions to your abilities to say certain things. And you may not defame someone. And the standard for defamation is very, very high. And you will not be found liable unless you breach it. ABC News was not found liable. They settled this case because they knew they knew either what they did was wrong, what they said on paper, or when they put George under oath was going to be extremely embarrassing or that the risk was simply too great in proceeding to trial. Back with me now,

Emily Jashinsky, DC correspondent for Unheard and Eliana Johnson, editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Okay, here's more. Brian Stelter, ABC News settled Donald Trump's defamation suit against the network and George Stephanopoulos because this problem needed to go away. An ABC executive remarked, unconditioned of anonymity. Ooh, big scoop. Okay, V goes on, but, but the speculation about why ABC agreed to settle and why now and why at such expense is not going away. This is not a scoop. This is nothing because it needed to go. Hello. Yeah. You get it now, right? We all, we all totally the light bulb went off. Here is something that what happened. Here is something that just happened. Trump is down at Mar-a-Lago, as you know, and just announced another lawsuit that's coming, not against a media figure, but against Iowa pollster Ann Seltzer.

Listen to this. I'm going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time. And then just before the election, she said I was going to lose by three or four points. And it became the biggest story all over the world. And in my opinion, it was fraud and it was election interference. And we'll probably be filing a major lawsuit against them today or tomorrow. We're filing one on 60 Minutes. You know about that, where they took Kamala's answer, which was a crazy answer, a horrible answer. And they took the whole answer out and they replaced it with something else she said.

OK, just correcting there. It looks like they're going to file it against the Des Moines register, the, the paper for which Ann Seltzer works and not necessarily her personally, but obviously it's all based on her. By the way, just, just a thing for the viewers. You heard Trump there say, and in my opinion, it's fraud. In my opinion, it was fraud. Why does he say that? Why does he add that phrase? Because he understands what the legal limits are. If he says they committed fraud and they didn't, they could sue him. That's that's what he's worried. So he couches it as opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment. And if George Stephanopoulos had said, in my opinion, he raped her, he would have

been protected, too. He can say that he cannot go out there and say a jury found him civilly liable for rape because that's a factual statement and his statement was not factual. So you heard him there outlining his cases there. He just settled the one with ABC. He's got one against now coming, I guess, against the Des Moines register about that poll that he says was fraudulent. And then you heard him reference there. He's also suing 60 Minutes for $10 billion. Is that right, guys? $10 billion for their editing of the Kamala Harris interview. And there is another lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Committee for its behavior around the honor it gave the New York Times for its coverage of the Russia hoax. And while that third one sounded the most absurd to me, it's just survived motion practice. A judge refused to throw it out on the papers. And it's as crazy as it sounds,

like David Axelrod just sent out a tweet describing it as he's suing the Pulitzer Committee for honoring the Times coverage of Russian election interference. That's not exactly right. He's actually suing the Pulitzer Committee for its own statements about its decision to honor the Times. It was asked to do a review by Trump who was complaining, saying, why are you honoring them? Everything they reported turned out to be fake. And they did a review and they came back and said, and I'm reading here, the separate reviews, we conducted reviews, the separate reviews converged in their conclusions, colon, no passages or headlines that, that no passages or headlines contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that

emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes. And Trump's contention is that's absolutely wrong. There were many, many facts that emerged to show the New York Times had it dead wrong on the Russia hoax. And you saying that was a further defamation. You, the prize committee, defamed me. That's fair game. That's not just, hey, you shouldn't have given the honor to them. That would not be a good lawsuit. So there's the Pulitzer Prize one. The lawsuit against 60 Minutes, I will say right here, is laughable and should go away. It is absurd. They are dishonest and should be shamed. But it's not illegal to make an edit that helps one candidate versus another. That one's going

nowhere, in my opinion. Don't know about the judge in the case. Maybe it's a Trump-friendly guy that could get him passed a round or two. but that's not going anywhere. In any event, the way the media is going to take this, Eliana, is it's an all-out assault. It's retribution. And what I see is a litigious guy who's continuing in his litigious nature and doing what he's always done, Sue people who say nasty things about him. Yeah, Trump has always had lawsuits as a weapon in his arsenal. And what's surprising, we said this is astonishing that the ABC News lawsuit succeeded. So what's surprising is when they're meritorious, when they have success,

when George Stephanopoulos and ABC News are forced to pay $15 million because they were so sloppy. So I have not seen or read about the three that you just mentioned, but it does strike me that the CBS News one, while I know that the three of us have talked about the CBS News won while we I know that the three of us have talked about the CBS News edits and Trump's claims about them on the show. Look, what they made, what they did may have been wrong. We may take issue with it, but I I sort of doubt they transgressed a law there. And and the Pulitzer one, I just don't know anything about. I would have to go read their statements. But it shouldn't be surprising to anybody that Trump is suing all these people. He's one of the most litigious people in the country. So, you know, let's just expect lots

of legal fines. I will say, though, where he files the suits is important. The ABC News lawsuit was filed in Florida, which meant that unlike some of the other lawsuits that we've seen brought against Trump, which were successful because he faced hostile juries, I think that the ABC News suit had more likelihood of success because ABC News would have faced a hostile jury in the state of Florida. I believe I'm trying to look this up here. I believe the lawsuit against CBS News, which is based on an allegation that they somehow committed consumer fraud by submitting a dishonestly edited interview with Kamala Harris, is in a Texas state court, which would be very helpful to Trump. And I believe if I'm not confusing my lawsuits, that it's in front of a Trump appointed judge. I'll go back and look at that. But I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, it's in Texas and it's in front of a Trump judge. So that's probably what they're banking on. And CBS News is saying this case should be bounced to New York, where we are based and where we committed this alleged offense and where we can get a more left wing judge that maybe Trump did not appoint. So, yeah, no. I mean, by the way, plaintiffs forum shop all the time where they try to file the lawsuit in the jurisdiction most favorable to them. And even we'll see how all these play out. Look, all these organizations have more money than God. They can easily they have lawyers on staff, general counsels and so on. And they can use some of their profits that they've earned in defaming and maligning Trump unfairly for all these years to hire outside counsel to handle these things. Right. Like these are two sophisticated parties suing one another. Right. Like Trump is a sophisticated party. CBS news is a sophisticated party. And so is ABC news. And so is the Pulitzer prize committee. They can, they can handle this litigation. He's trying to send a message. And by the way, I mean, like, it'd be nice if you could

get some of the people who called you Hitler, but the problem is that's opinion. No one said as a matter of fact, he's Hitler. Um, So that one, you know, you can get away with. Okay, I want to move on from- Well, they probably got very close to saying that. Yeah, like he's Hitler incarnate. He's actual Hitler. Right. I think that's actually going to be really interesting.

And I actually don't think this is going to cow the news rooms from negative coverage of Trump. It's their bread and butter. It's their oxygen. They won't know how to speak if it's not for that. And some people are like, well, they've already been calmer. They've already been calmer. You know, you know why they've been calmer? Because Trump's not doing anything. There's very little to talk about right now. You just wait. You just wait until Trump gets back in office. None of these news organizations is going to be saying, well, he won the popular vote. Well, he has a mandate. Well, you know, we're going to we're going to back

off because we want to get Republican viewers watching. That's not going to happen. They're going to go back to their normal Trump derangement syndrome selves and do what they normally do. And it's not like they defame him every day. What Stephanopoulos did there was really egregious. And if you don't go to that level on your defamation, he probably will ignore you. But if you do what he did, you can and should be sued. That one is totally fair. So I don't predict a chilling effect. I think they love bashing him too much.

Oh, great. Is this, let me just ask my team a question. Is this, is this on the record that is this readable out loud? Yes. Okay. Sorry. So we, as I said at the top of the show, reached out to Trump's lawyer in connection with the, the settlement with ABC News and the $15 million. And okay, just making sure, hold on, sorry, forgive me, because we don't normally let this play out live on the air, but I'm just getting it. Making sure this is on the record, not just on background before I read anything. Okay, we've got to find out. We've got to find out. Forgive me. We don't want to commit similar sins to our, the colleagues we've been ripping on, but to the extent we can read it,

we will, uh, in just a minute. Okay. Here's what we should do. We're going to put a pin in that. We'll get back to it, but let's move on to Clarissa Ward because I don't know if you gals saw the reporting. Did you see it, Emily? You're smiling. Oh yeah. I'll never forget it. Indelible. Okay. It was indelible. So for the audience members who didn't hear us talk about this with Hugh on Friday, and you should, because we went back and we really deconstructed that moment. Clarissa Ward of CNN walked into what was supposed to be a prison in Syria with some handler who was associated with the new Al Qaeda adjacent group that's just taken over Syria. And her handler walked into the prison with her. And one of Bashar al-Assad's prisoners was still in prison. She said everything was open. All the cells were open and the people had like

left, but there was one that was locked. And so she said, we had the guy shoot off the lock on this one cell. They made us turn off our cameras, the cameras go off, and then they open the cell after this guy has now shot off the lock and they walk into the cell, which looks pristine, pristine, except for one blanket neatly laid out. You don't see anything. I don't know what's off camera to be fair, but I didn't see a bucket of human waste or human waste or anything. There's certainly no trash, no clothes, no debris anywhere. Looks clean. Underneath the blanket emerges a man after several like, hello, hello, hello, hello. He's lying there. Then finally he emerges like a Phoenix. Hello. And Clarissa Ward represents that this is like an, oh my God, it's a prisoner. Look, we found somebody. And then it gets very dramatic and

she holds him. You're okay. You're okay. You're okay. You're okay. Meanwhile, she's not speaking Arabic, which she says she does speak. She's speaking English to the guy. Okay. And she says that this is one of Assad's prisoners. Then we see them outside and she's like rubbing his back. There he is. And look how clean his outfit is. He doesn't have a scuff on him. He doesn't have dirt on him. His fingernails are clean. His hand is shaking, supposedly. He says he's been in jail for three or four months and he's been in captivity without food or water for four days. Looks fine, doesn't squint when he first sees the sun. We don't know. Well, some online sleuths noticed a lot of these things. And by the way, we also reported that when Clarissa gave her report to Jake Tapper after the fact,

she said she offered him her cell phone so he could call his family. And his response was like, no. She said he was too in shock to call his family. I think we're probably wondering where the guy was for four months. Probably wondering dead or alive, but like didn't take the offer. all this stuff is suspicious and made it look very much like Clarissa and her brethren at CNN were used to dump out a little propaganda to the rest of us, which is a sin, especially in this line of reporting. It's the number one risk. You know, after getting shot, it's the number one thing you worry about as a foreign correspondent, that some group is going to use you in a clever

way where you become their mouthpiece unwillingly. And now there was a reporter who has been in captivity twice in Syria who was like, this stinks to high heaven. Syrian prisons are as dirty and messed up and covered with debris as you can get. And this doesn't smell or look right. And now we find out that they've done more investigating the sleuths. And the name that Clarissa Ward and CNN attributed to this guy was not correct. It did not prove to be true. The sleuths have been looking into this. It is not the man she said it was.

And now CNN has been forced to conduct an investigation. They've launched an investigation to see what happened here. Eliana, I feel like we kind of know what happened. It was actually a Syrian media watchdog that called CNN on this. Was CNN in on this or were they duped? Did they want and were they making a made for TV moment? Did they participate in this or were they totally hoodwinked? And reports about the man's actual identity were that he was a member of Bashar al-Assad's military forces who tortured those who refused to bribe him. That's what the Syrian media watchdog is saying. So he's a torture. Not only was he not a prisoner Assad, he was a henchman of Assad's.

So it's pretty far off the mark for CNN. Wow. So what was he doing in the cell? Like, if that's true, I can see him wanting to pretend he was a prisoner of Assad's as opposed to an alleged torturer who was working on behalf of Assad, but he would not have been locked up by Assad in a jail for four months. You know, one presumes if this is all, if this is the nature of the relationship. So we, even if that's true, Emily, we don't if this is all if this is the nature of the relationship. So we even if

that's true, Emily, we don't know why he was in this cell with a lock on it and what the game was. Yeah, it may be that he actually duped the rebels who they themselves duped Clarissa Ward and the CNN team. I think it does look like a combination. Yes, it's double do, which is I mean, this is perfectly fits the propaganda that Jelani and the rebels right It's a double do. liberating Syria from Assad. And so literally liberating a man from a prison is sort of exactly what you would expect to see from them. And it's actually so on the nose that you would expect for a pre-produced package by CNN. Because unless I'm wrong, this didn't air live. This was a pre-produced package. They had voiceovers and all of that stuff prepped. This should have gone through a lot of layers of editorial oversight.

And so it's one thing for Ward to get duped in the moment if it were happening live or something like that. It's an entirely different thing to have a name and to have so many details. I mean, whoever's editing this package, producing this package, would have had the same questions theoretically that people immediately had on the internet about the nature of the setup.

Why does this look like it's staged? Why does this all seem so strange? Those questions would have been asked in production. So it's all very, very, very odd. But it does show the sort of credulousness. I think at the very least, it shows a credulousness of being led around by the rebel group and having this opportunity to see someone be literally liberated when the propaganda line is about liberation. It just seems it should have seemed to them too good to be true and that it didn't, I think, is pretty suspicious and unfortunate for their credibility. Eliana, the statement, this is per the rap, is CNN to the rap. We have subsequently been investigating his background and are aware that he may have given a false identity. Then they say no one other than the CNN team was aware of our plans to visit the prison building featured in our report that day.

The events transpired as they appear in our film. The decision to release the prisoner featured in our report was taken by the guard, a Syrian rebel. We reported the scene as it unfolded, including what the prisoner told us with clear attribution. We have subsequently been investigating his background and are aware that he may have given a false identity. We are continuing our reporting into this and the wider story. On Sunday, it was VerifySci, I think it's short for Syria, a website

that describes itself as an independent and unbiased platform specializing in fact-checking in Syria that cast doubt on the man's claim. The website's writer, Abdul Salam Al-Hamwi, wrote that the man, who identified himself as Abdel Garbal from Homs, claimed he had been in prison for three months, and then he got into some of the facts that suggest that's not how that looked at all. Then they search for records for a man named Adele Garble, could not find any. Instead, they claim he's actually this man named Salama Mohamed Salama, who's also known as Abu Hamza, a first lieutenant in the Syrian Air Force Intelligence, who is well known for his behavior. And it goes on in some of the details that you already offered. Here's the thing.

You're kind of in the business of checking those things out. If you're CNN and you're Clarissa Ward, it's really not like that big a sacrifice to take an extra day. No one's like going to beat you to that story to kick the tires and figure out whether this guy really is who he says he is. And CNN also has reporters and producers all around the world, I'm sure, including in Syria. So do you think this is a case of just negligence, downsizing, if in fact they, well, they've already been embarrassed because they reported the wrong name from their own admission. Negligence, downsizing, or just too good a story, Emily? Like it's just too good? Their star reporter looks like the next Christiane Amanpour. Let's do this thing. I think it was probably too good. I mean, at the bare minimum, you wouldn't ask for a name unless

you were going to check it. But at the bare minimum, check the name. I mean, they could have been in touch with a Syrian fact checking outlet. Now, it's very hard to do this stuff in Syria right now, because there's so many different factions and lines have shifted and allegiances have shifted. So I understand that it's hard. But if you're going to put if you're going to air it, and you're going to be so dramatic when it airs, you're going to really push it. Man, just the fact that they don't seem to have checked the name, done the most basic thing, checked the name. And there were all of these obvious questions that people on the internet raised within like 10 minutes of the thing airing. That just tells me they were too excited to like really, as you said, kick the tires and do their due diligence.

It just probably seemed too good for them not to use. And like, you know, it could be an even bigger story. Like, oh, my God, we found an alleged torturer. Like, has he been hiding? What did he have a fallout with his side? Why is he in this prison? Was he really in this prison? Was he placing the diddy fool the rebels into doing like if I were CNN, I'd be like, this is like, let's get to the bottom of it before you hit air.

Let's get to the bottom of what really happened there. It's even more interesting if you go to air with, here's what happened as it unfolded. Then we found out he was lying to us. This is who we found out he is. Like, that's a great story, but it doesn't really support the narrative that Clarissa, Mother Teresa, went in there and rescued the poor, sad little man who hadn't eaten and rubbed his back. I'm telling you, it's like, is this the same network that let Chris Cuomo come out of that basement and pretend that he hadn't been out? Right? We all knew he'd been out. I don't know about that. We've seen the reports. He was out fighting with his neighbors during

COVID, but then they let him do his dramatic, like Mary Ingalls, pa, I can see, I can see. Actually it was, I can't see. Anyway. Okay. Back to the Trump settlement with ABC news. We have now made sure we can read what I was about to read. Okay. So our producer spoke with Trump's attorney, Alejandro Brito. And here's what he said. Our question was, why did ABC decide to settle? The long and short of it is the nature of the claims that were brought and the fact that they were verifiable from a standpoint as factually untrue from George Stephanopoulos. Trump's legal team had separate video clips of George Stephanopoulos on ABC that showed Stephanopoulos knew that Trump had not been found liable for rape. This was not a situation where there was simply a misunderstanding. George Stephanopoulos

interviewed E. Jean Carroll after the trial on his show. And we had video of his questions to Carroll. And when he asked her how she felt after Stephanopoulos said Trump was not liable for rape, juxtapose that with his questioning of Mace. That's very interesting. It's a good point. We actually, we should go back and pull that. How about yesterday in the courtroom, the first, the first announcement was made and it was that he was not found liable for rape. What were we thinking at that moment? Was there something, this is us, in discovery that scared ABC into settling? Answer, the possibility of something coming out in discovery may have had led to the settlement.

Trump legal team had scheduled to take the deposition of ABC, an ABC rep, and George Stephanopoulos. The lawyer suspects ABC did not want it to happen. Quote, it wasn't something ABC learned that caused them to settle, but rather something Trump's team may learn, he said. End quote. Our question, had they already exchanged documents? To my point of normally you exchange texts and papers before you sit for the deposition. He said that there had been minimal document exchange and discovery. Trump team was waiting on ABC and Stephanopoulos to respond to discovery demands. He said at the time of the settlement, ABC had only quote produced one piece of paper

and quote, very interesting and not provided any other documentation. He believes fear of what Trump could learn about ABC and Stephanopoulos and document exchange may have played a role in the settlement. That's very interesting. So they had handed over one piece of paper. They had not turned over the texts or the instant messages or the oh shit exchanges when they got the lawsuit or any of that stuff. And they were about to have to. They panicked, understandably. And now we'll never know what was in those documents. But spare us the, oh, poor news organizations. How will they ever cover the news now, Eliana, right? It's like, I stand by everything I've written down with my team. Every word I've said on this show,

no one's perfect, but I could defend all of it in court. Something's something stinks at ABC News. Yeah, I think it goes back to our initial conversation that they decided that paying 15 million dollars was the less painful, was less painful than the protracted embarrassment and potential humiliation of what would come out in those documents, you know, than the PR cost to them. And as we saw, it's actually interesting to contrast that with Fox News, where basically they did go through discovery. They were going to go through trial. They ended up suffering the PR costs and paying the money. It's like, you know, they might as well just paid the money and avoided all the discovery

and the depositions, which seems to be what ABC News did here. Yeah. No trial in that one though. Um, okay. Let's shift gears for a moment because I want to spend a minute on, um, the WNBA and Caitlin Clark. You guys saw that speaking of bend the knee, she did not look like a Lilliputian when she did it. She's tall, a tall lady. And she decided to go woke. And when, um, time magazine made her athlete of the year, she accepted, she was fine going into the spotlight and saying, yeah, thank you. I love to be on your cover and my sexy outfit. Let's do this thing. Interview me and my sexy plunging dress. I do like the spotlight. It feels good to be in front of the camera. Okay, fine. I don't, I have no problem with that. However, I do when you get out there and you say, but I feel really bad about it. I'm very sad. I'm

here because I'm so white. I'm time magazine. So white. And I really wish you were paying attention to the black players. I re that's my true wish. If you could just stop looking at me under the Klieg lights and look over there at the black players, that's what I really want from you time magazine. And then she went on to talk about how it's my truth and her right privilege and all that. So, okay. So did the bending of the knee, I mean, I have a soundbite that I want to play for you and it involves the owner, I believe of the Mystics, which is yeah. Co-owner Sheila Johnson. She owns a different team, the Mystics, uh, within the WNBA. And I really think like,

I was very critical of Caitlin Clark for doing this. Maybe, maybe what she said really will win over the WNBA that's been bullying her mercilessly because she's white and earning. Maybe I was just too dense to see it. And Caitlin is very clever. And actually the league is really going to get behind her now and say, you know what? She is the best. She earned this honor. Let's watch. And this year, something clicked with the WNBA, and it's because of the draft of the players that came in. It's just not Kaitlyn Clark.

It's Reese. We have so much talent out there that has been unrecognized, and I don't think we can just pin it on one player why couldn't they have put the whole wmba on that cover and said the wmba is the league of the year because of all the talent that we have totally because when you just keep singling out one player, it creates hard feelings. And so now you're starting to hear stories of racism within the WNBA. And I don't want to hear that. This is a fool's errand, Emily. Why? Why did she do it? And what did it get her? Yeah, I mean, it's like a cry for help. The best case scenario is that this is just a cry for help for help for for Caitlin Clark, who's been getting the tar beat out of her by players who are taking

out their upset, their their anger over her white privilege physically onto Caitlin Clark. I mean, the clips, if you watch them back, are just horrendous and so insane. And that's the type of pressure that she's under. And maybe she thought that she had no choice. She had to say it. It doesn't take the agency away from her from actually saying it. She probably believes it because it's all she ever hears from everyone around her. But even if she didn't believe it, she realizes that it's probably physically dangerous for her not to say something like that. But of course, it wasn't good enough to say that this is all like that. That Caitlin Clark isn't about the surge of the surge of interest in the WNBA is not just about Caitlin Clark is stupid.

It is literally just about Caitlin Clark. And it's not because Caitlin Clark is white. It's because she had this meteoric, crazy story in the tournament. And it was just a narrative that was too good for people to not pay attention to. It was crazy. It was such an amazing story. And that is what it was. It was not her race. It was that. And of course, though, of course, we have to listen to CNN segments like that one with Sheila Johnson about how the reason it should have been the whole WNBA literally doing the cringe. Everyone gets a trophy routine is because it was hurting people's feelings. I mean, this woman is so out of touch with what the country is basically in the position right now of throwing all of that like bullshit out the window.

And she's going on CNN acting like she has the moral high ground saying it. Right. Hello. It's like 2020 has the moral high ground saying it. Right. Hello. It's like 2020 called and they want their commentary back. Eliana, Caitlin Clark is 22 and hasn't yet learned the lesson that bending the knee to the woke mob does not produce better results in one's life. It doesn't. Nothing good will come from it. You will alienate your fan base

that does not want to see you buy into their bullshit narratives about race or white privilege in the WNBA. And you will gain absolutely no grace or quarter from your critics who are not persuadable. Well, I think you're exactly right. It'd be one conversation if we were going to talk about, look, she made the decision to go along to get along, and this is the way to silence her critics. And okay, you know, one could understand that. But the reality is that accepting this award and then saying what she said is not going to silence any critics.

It's not going to help her go along to get along. And you see that from the reaction of the Mystics owner, which is why it's clear she's young and stupid and unsophisticated and doesn't realize this. But the thing that really struck me, Megan, is I grew up a fan of the NBA in the era of Michael Jordan. And since then, as I followed less closely, the major NBA stars have been, since Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, all African-American men. And is the stipulation that female basketball fans are somehow uniquely racist? You know, Caitlin Clark is really talented, but we haven't seen race be a barrier to major, major stardom in the male basketball league and riches. It's a good point. It's a good point. No, I mean, they're obviously saying that the only reason people want to watch Caitlyn is that she's white. They're excited because she's white. And I think

the record seems pretty clear. They're excited to watch Caitlyn because she's great. And that's what we've seen in the NBA, of course. Right. We're seen that exactly time and again in the NBA where the talent and hard work, there's actually a wonderful Netflix series on about these NBA players. It follows their families. LeBron James is one of them. But the amount when you watch and really appreciate the amount of hard work it takes to be an elite athlete the way these guys are, it's just astonishing. And and when you see that they're not talking about the racism of NBA fans. I'm sorry, but if she really just wants the spotlight to be on the deserving black players who surround her and on whose backs this league was built,

then you shouldn't have taken the honor. Then you should have said, make the WNBA the team of the year, the league of the year. What I don't need right now is an additional singled out honor. That's what she should have done. You can't have it both ways. She wants the attention. She wants to be in the spotlight. And then she wants to just throw a bone to the girls who were rejected. And so it doesn't come as any surprise to me that they don't want her discarded bones and that this did nothing to appease them and actually probably infuriated all of us. We'll see. Okay. Uh, more with Emily and Eliana right after this quick break. Don't go away. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly show

on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly show on Triumph, a 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. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free.

Offer details apply. So ladies, have you seen a drone yet? Not yet. Nope. Nothing. I haven't seen them in Northern Virginia. I got some friends in Connecticut who've seen something. Like people are checking their ring cameras, their footage,

and seeing mysterious items. They're all over New Jersey now. The sightings have been New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia. But John Kirby, Pentagon spokesperson, maintains there's nothing to see here. And if there is, we don't know what it is, but there's nothing to worry about. He goes on with Martha McCallum and this happens. As I said yesterday, Martha, as soon as we know, we're going to- No, I hear you. This is shocking. I got to tell you, this is shocking. We spend $824 billion on defense. We have the greatest intelligent capability in the world. So how can you stand there and say to the country right now, gosh, darn, we just don't know what these are. Because I'm not going to lie to you or to the American people. I'm not going to say we know

something when we don't. Do you know and you can't say? Can you tell me that? No, I'm telling you, Martha, I'm telling you, we don't know. Why not just take one down and figure out what's going on? Well, OK, the idea of taking something down again, you want to worry about public safety. First of all, we don't have enough conclusions to take that kind of a policy action. But let's just assume for a minute, Martha, that we did. I mean, you're not going to want to shoot something down where it can hit somebody's house or hurt somebody. Well, the Coast Guard says that there are 30 of them following one of their ships in the ocean. So would that work? I mean, again, we have to develop

the policy options based on what we know we're dealing with here. And we just don't know enough to make those to take those kinds of actions. Bullshit. Those are lies. You can tell those are lies one after the other. We're being misled. That I think we're pretty clear on. And, you know, first it was, you're not seeing what you're, what you think you're seeing that they're not out there. People are making it up. Then it was, oh, they're fixed wing aircraft. And then, you know, the Maryland governor came out and said, hello, we saw drones. And, you know, person after person, credible, credible, credible witness after came out and said, these are drones. Stop it. Just stop it right now. And now it's okay. They're there, but we don't know what they are, you know, but they said,

oh, there's nothing to worry about. And then the New Jersey lawmakers came out and said, no, you can't say that. We don't know what they are. How can you tell us? We don't know whether we have cause to worry. And then you saw him dancing there. And now here's a man named John Ferguson. He's CEO, he says, of a drone manufacturing company in Kansas. He went viral over the weekend. We have not independently confirmed John Ferguson, but this guy's everywhere right now with his theory. Hey, everyone. My name is John Ferguson. i'm the ceo of saxon aerospace uh here in wichita kansas but i'm a manufacturer of uh unmanned aircraft military grade unmanned aircraft as you can see one of my systems here um i don't particularly believe that these have a nefarious intent i could be wrong

but i want to give you the truth and what i believe. It's my own opinion, and I've not bounced this off of anybody. So, you know, if you think it's bullshit, whatever. These drones are not nefarious in intent. If they are, they are. But I doubt it. But if they are drones, the only reason why they would be flying and flying that low is because they're trying to smell something on the ground. My belief is they're flying low enough that they're just trying to sniff the ground

and try to find something. Okay, I did not know that a drone could sniff. That is news to me. Okay. I've heard a few different theories along this line. Like they're out there running a PSYOP, like seeing how the public would react if and when they really are needed to respond to, for example, a dirty bomb or the detection of one that they

actually are trying to detect whether something has been released. And that's why they don't want to tell us because it would cause a panic, which would be incredibly criminally negligent, to allow people to be whatever. These are all just theories that are being bandied about. We have absolutely no idea. That's the truth, Eliana. Right. We have no idea. And I would say that the Biden administration is bedeviled in terms of its credibility with the public by the fact that there was a Chinese spy balloon flying over the country that it did not tell the public about until Americans saw it hovering in the sky. And it was a public pressure campaign that forced the administration to disclose what

that was. And so when you hear them saying, we have no idea what this is, I think it sort of strains credulity. And Kirby's response wasn't like, hey, we don't know what this is. We're taking it very seriously and we're in the process of putting policy options in front of the president. We're gonna come to a decision in the coming days.

It just didn't, something didn't, you know, something didn't seem quite right. As judge Judy always says, it didn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true. It doesn't make sense, Emily, that we can't shoot down one of these reportedly hundreds of drones to see what the hell it is. Like she says, some of them are over the water. We absolutely could shoot one down. You're going to tell me the military wouldn't shoot down something that could possibly be a threat to national security or the lives of Americans. We don't know what the hell could be foreign released. Bullshit. No one believes that.

What I believe is the government knows full well what they are, and it has its reasons for not telling us. We just don't know what they are. And it has its reasons for not telling us. We just don't know what they are yet, but we should find out. Here's Trump on what should happen here. The government knows what is happening. There you go. Our military knows where they took off from. If it's a garage, they can go right into that garage.

They know where it came from and where it went. And for some reason, they don't want to comment. And I think they'd be better off saying what it is our military knows and our President knows. And for some reason, they want to keep people in suspense. I can't imagine it's the enemy, because it was the enemy that blasted out. Even if they were late, they blasted. Something strange is going

on for some reason. They don't want to tell the people and they should because. He sounds genuinely like he might not know, even though he's getting security briefings already, Emily. But what he does know from having been briefed in the past is what they know generally, not to do the whole who knows what they know and we know. But that's I mean, he is aware of the kinds of intelligence that people with the highest levels of classification and access to get. He understands drone technology as it's used by the military. So it's interesting, I think, what he just said. And it would be staggering if the government did not know what these were at this point. This has been so sustained and has involved so many different sightings, some of which do seem to be like BS. But either way, there have been so many serious sightings at this point over such a long period of time. If they don't know, it's

outrageous. It's a scandal. And I think it would be a much worse option for them to be going to the press and talking about how they don't know if they truly don't know that interview with Martha McCallum. I mean, I don't understand why that even happened. If they don't know, why are you talking? I mean, and if you do know, why are you talking if you're not going to tell us or you're not going to have a better explanation? I mean, seriously, this is so such a disaster for them. Two things can't be true. It cannot be true that they don't know what this is and that there's no threat to the public. They can't know those things. They can't. That is absurd. Anybody can see through it. So it's a disaster for them right

now. Here is New Jersey Republican state Senator John Bramnick. Listen. Why would the government allow the public to be so frustrated? That brings to me to the point that whatever these drones are doing, the government really doesn't want us to know that what that must mean is they're more concerned with us getting knowledge and being afraid of that information than having no knowledge and having all these questions. That's why I'm worried about it. It must be something going on that they can't tell us because they are so fearful of what the public's going to do when they hear what the drones are doing. Good point, Eliana. Now, a good point, and I should point out that if they don't know what these drones are doing and can't find out in about 30 minutes, that should frighten every American. So both of the I think both alternatives here that we have are that they know and they're not disclosing it or they don't know are, um, are disturbing. Well, can I just say, it's not necessarily that we would be afraid.

It's that we might also be angry. Maybe it's not something that we should be scared of, but maybe it is a use of resources that would really piss people off. I just feel like they must know they, they must know because it's been going on for so long. They must be complicit. There's, there's no way, like, how would it be going on for so long. They must be complicit. There's no way, like how would it be going on this long if they didn't know what it was and hadn't ascertained that they want it or that it's not going to hurt anybody? I just, that doesn't seem possible to me. The question is why won't they tell us? That's my question. Ladies, that's for another day. Great to see you both. Thank you. Thanks, Megan. Thanks, Megan.

We're back tomorrow with Mark Halpern and crew. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.