The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's New Cannibal Lie, Trump Jurors Bounced, and NPR's Decline, with Charles C.W. Cooke and Jim Geraghty | Ep. 770

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Charles C.W. Cooke and Jim Geraghty of National Review to discuss the latest details of the Donald Trump NYC trial, jurors refusing to be fair and impartial about the trial, the judge scolding the media for revealing too much about the jurors, two jurors already getting dismissed, the reaction Trump got in Harlem vs. Biden at a PA gas station, Biden's lie that his uncle may have been eaten by cannibals, Biden’s longtime issues with the truth, his confusing comments about Israel, whether government funding of NPR should continue, new NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s warped perception of empathy, her past criticism of Wikipedia’s lack of diversity, whether Maher and people like her really believe what they say or are just performing, Columbia University's president struggling to answer questions before Congress, whether anti-Israel protests are actually anti-Jewish, protesters claiming to have been attacked with an Israeli chemical weapon actually just smelling fart spray, the sense of entitlement from a tenured undocumented Cornell professor protesting against Ann Coulter, kids at a middle school in Utah coming to school dressed as “furries,” and more.Geraghty- https://www.nationalreview.com/author/jim-geraghty/Cooke- https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke 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. The trial of former President Donald Trump has resumed in New York City, and one of the seven jurors already selected has since been dismissed this morning. Now, another one may be about to go as well. This particular juror said on second thought, she can't be fair and impartial. It was the oncology nurse we talked about yesterday. And she's also worried about being identified as someone in the jury, leading the judge to scold the media for revealing too much to the public. You work for us, sir. Sorry, but this is our trial. It's not your trial. You may be the court overseer. You may be

the judge, but you work for me, basically. So I don't want to hear it. This is open to the public and they're not reporting the jurors names. And now he's upset because one of the jurors said, I can be identified. She's lucky she has any cloak of anonymity around her at all. That's not normally how we do juries. This is ridiculous. Anyway, she's gone. And now we're down to just six. And it looks like we're about to lose another one. And I'll tell you who it is as the jury selection continues. A lot to get to here on NR Day National Review on The Megyn Kelly Show. Joining me today, Charles C.W. Cook, host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast, and Jim Garrity, co-host of the Three Martini Lunch podcast. Welcome back, guys. Great to have you. Great to be with you. Okay. Do you believe this,

just to kick it off, the judge admonishing the media about reporting too many details about these jurors. They're not reporting names. They're reporting things like general age, what level of college education, what newspapers or news feeds they follow, and employers. That's what they're reporting. And family status. Are they married? Do they have kids? This is all fair game. And now the judge is telling the media they're not allowed to report employers anymore. And you know what? This is like this is all a level of anonymity that your average juror doesn't get anyway. These are public proceedings. This judge, I think, has gone too far. And he's basically trying to shame the media, saying, come on, guys. He's like, come on. You know, you really need to be use your discretion about what you're reporting. You're

releasing too much information. This is a free and open court proceeding that the media is allowed to report what they want on. And the judge did not limit place of employment. So now he's regretting that. That's number one. And then I'll get to the second juror and why he may be going. But let me start with you, Jim, because we haven't seen you in a long time. Hello. Welcome. Good to see you. What do you make of it? Good to see you, Megan. Well, all of these things are being discussed out loud in court, correct? Like when the jurors are being questioned. So this is all part of the official transcript, which is all, you know, everything in a court transcript is public, open to the public. Occasionally,

you'll find a judge who will, you know, bar something from public, you know, discourse because of, you know, national security purposes or, you know, if there was some sort of reason where if you were mentioning someone, Salman Rushdie's home address would be the sort of thing I could understand a judge saying, no, you should not be putting that out into the public domain. But all of this, if you're talking about it in court, it's very odd to see a judge say, oh, we can talk about this here in a room full of reporters. And I imagine, I imagine space is limited, but, you know, the public, you know, public can sit in on trials almost all the time.

But it can't be reported in a newspaper the next day. It can't be mentioned on television the next day or radio or a podcast or something like that. That is a very fine distinction to make and a very bizarre distinction to make. And I suppose if he'd said, you know what, you know, if you say to someone works for IBM, well, that really doesn't narrow it down very much. Exactly. This nurse worked at Memorial Sloan Kettering. You know how many nurses are at Memorial Sloan Kettering? It's like, OK, you know, I'm sure some people had suspicions, but it doesn't mean

it's this particular gal. Now, if it's Bobby Joe's suspender shop and they only have three employees, well, then maybe it's a different story. Maybe that is a little narrow it down. But my guess is most jurors in this in Manhattan probably work for employers

that have a decent amount and just knowing their marital status, whether they have kids, you know, general age and employer isn't going to be enough to identify them. And I don't quite get what this judge is worried about. So now, Charles, we may be losing yet another juror. And the jury hasn't even officially been composed,

seated, or sworn in yet. We need 12. Going to bed last night, we had seven. Now it appears we may have five. Technically, we have six still. But let me tell you about juror number four. On this show, we discussed him yesterday. He is, we weren't sure based on the reporting whether he was a Puerto Rican man or whether he was a different ethnicity and a different juror altogether. But it is, in fact, a Puerto Rican grandfather

who said, and we talked about this on the show yesterday, he found Trump mysterious and fascinating, which are themselves mysterious and fascinating terms. What does he mean? And now he may get dismissed because it appears he may have lied in his jury questionnaire about past arrests. That would be a problem. Apparently, the prosecution is raising this in court and the Trump defense team is sort of sitting nearby, kind of laughing about it. I mean, that's a thing. He was supposed to be there this morning, juror number four, for questioning, but has not yet shown up. Also a problem. But the thing that's interesting about all of these jurors is they're only in there because they raised their hand and said they could be fair. Right? Because what, again, today there was another tranche of, I think, 96 jurors or so, or maybe, I can't remember the number, but once again, they had to raise their hand if they could, if they could not be fair or if they could be fair, whatever half of them left because they openly admitted they couldn't be fair to Trump. And the other half lied and said that they could.

And those, that those will be Trump's ultimate jurors. It's a joke, but it is going to be a challenge you know i think that there is a special place in hell for people who can't be fair and criminal trials you said this juror who is on the way out was an oncology nurse she helps people who are in the worst moments of their lives and she can't be fair. This is the backbone of our republic. It's as important as voting, as free speech. If you can't do that, you're a bad citizen. I really find this appalling. I have long wanted to be on a jury, Megan.

I'm a weird person in that I don't want to get out of it. I want to get in. And I've always thought that they'd never let me because they would say, what do you do? And I would say, I write for National Review. And they would say, do you have strong views about this, that, and the other? And I would say, well, of course I do. And then they would say goodbye.

But I really think it's a skill, it's a civic habit that we ought to have in abundance. And if you look back to the early Republic, with the trial of the British soldiers in Boston, where John Adams famously represented them, that's a beautiful moment. I struggled to watch that in the HBO series without tearing up, because it was so against the interests of many of the people who were involved in that trial. And so it is here. I don't care if these people love Donald Trump or hate Donald Trump. That's not the question in front of them. And so to see this happening is depressing.

There is a very big difference between someone being dismissed because he's lied to the court. That's bad because he doesn't show up at the court. That's bad because he had an arrest record or what you will that he didn't disclose. That's bad. And someone deciding, no, I am so incapable of controlling my emotions and my mind that I cannot give this person a fair trial. That is a problem in and of itself in our system that we ought to want to rectify. It's really true. And now you have, yesterday we talked about the absurd media coverage so far of jury selection and how with nothing else much to write about, these several reporters have taken to what sound like R-rated recitations of Trump's body movements while he sits there and watches the questioning. I mean, truly bizarre stuff. And today we get this from Maggie Haberman of The Times. She's

positing that Trump is getting special treatment. We've heard this now more and more from the left and reporters on the left. He's getting special treatment here because Trump having been gagged and, and thanks to a ruling that stops him from talking about the witnesses like Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels who are out there on a daily basis, criticizing him. Um, he is, uh, subject to a motion now by the prosecution that he violated the gag order by saying some things about Michael Cohen, that he's an ex-con, a convicted felon, and that he's a liar. And now the prosecution wants him gagged again, fined $3,000. And potentially,

they asked the judge to remind Mr. Trump that he would be thrown in jail if he did this again for up to 30 days. All right. The former president. So she reports as follows. The judge will not rule on whether Trump violated the gag order until after a specific hearing about it on Tuesday of next week. Until then, Trump can presumably talk and post as usual. Maggie Haberman, the press is barred from covering aspects of the trial related to the jury for understandable security reasons. At the same time, the judge is taking another five days to hold a hearing, meaning he won't hold one for another five days, on whether Trump has violated the gag order that was placed on him with repeated social media posts about a key witness and jurors. This is one of several ways

in which, despite Trump's complaints that he's being treated unfairly. The judge is bending over backward to be fair to him in this trial. I've got my doubts about that, about that suggestion. And I don't think the Trump is bending over backwards in any way, shape or form. Jim, yesterday we saw him admonish Trump and accuse him of jury tampering or intimidation because he heard Trump grumbling to his lawyer and the judge openly admitted he had no idea what Trump was even saying. I guess when Trump grumbles to his lawyer, he needs to sound more positive and cheery. He needs to be happy, optimistic, grumbling. You will have to look far and wide before you will, you know, more like Tim Allen doing the grunts from Home Improvement or something.

So you'll have to look far and wide before you'll find a correspondent who has a more symbiotic relationship with Donald Trump than Maggie Haberman. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that Maggie Haberman's career in the last decade or so has been built upon this access to Trump. The fact that Trump will periodically call her up and just vent, even though she has written many critical things, but always they end up, you know, for some reason, he ends up talking to her again. And that's, you know, those who have been on the Trump beat, well, the story now is the Trump trial. I myself do not find this fascinating. I myself do not find this, you know, endless edge of your seat drama, a worthy successor to, I can now say the late OJ Simpson. I, you know, just fast forward to the, I don't care about every particular twist and turn. I think Alvin Bragg has a particularly weak

case, but who knows? It's Manhattan. Maybe it's not hard to find 12 jurors who will say, ah, Trump's probably an SOB. I'll vote against him anyway. As Charlie alluded to, that's exactly what you're not supposed to do. And you're supposed to say, well, I voted against Trump twice. And I think Trump is a terrible president, a terrible guy. But I do not believe the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these crimes were committed. And therefore, I will vote not guilty. Like that's the way juries are supposed to work. I don't know if jury is supposed to work. Thinking of the OJ trial, I'm reminded of that old, you know, Dennis Miller joke that if you ever go on trial, your fate is in the hands of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty. And of course, they won't take Charlie Cook because he knows too much about

everything to be put on that jury. And they'll be thrown by his British accent. They're going to know he's too smart for them. My suspicion is that this will actually not be a huge impact on the 2024 election. I think everybody knows, already knows what they think of Trump. Those who love him, love him. Those who hate him, hate him. If Trump is acquitted, I don't think too many Trump critics will say, ah, well, you know, I guess he's not such a bad guy. And if Trump is guilty, I doubt you'll see that many, really, if any, I just have a hard time believing there are people who are totally on board with Trump, but not if he falsified business records and payments to his mistress back in 2000. That changes everything.

I've heard you say that on the editors. And I also think the trial is unlikely to have a big impact on 2024. It's unlikely. But I can't get past the polls that say I'm wrong, you know, that say, no, there's almost half of independents and almost one third of Republicans who say if he's a convicted felon, it does change my view of him. And I realize if you get granular on it, well, convicted for what? Falsifying business records about a hush money payment. It sounds less powerful than obstructing justice or violating the Espionage Act.

But what if they mean it? You know, that's what I can't get past. What if those voters actually mean it? No, just convicted felon is enough for me to say it's an embarrassment to the United States and I'm not voting for it. I know you and I both think they don't really mean it here, but they might. Yeah, I think that there's a certain person who does not like admitting that they would still vote for a convicted felon and or kind of this sense of like, well, somebody is convicted of a felony. You should not vote for them. Right. This idea of like they don't think of themselves the same way as a good person, that they are somehow giving their blessing to this person, to this nominee, the presidential nominee and what they may have done in the past. I just have a hard time believing in, you know, by the time people go to the polls in November, or let's face it, in October, considering how much early voting there is in so many states,

that people will be thinking, you know, the economy is lousy. I can't afford anything. I can't afford a house. I can't afford a new car. The border is a mess. The world is on fire. Nobody's afraid of Biden. He's stumbling around like Mr. Magoo. But then again, Alvin Bragg got him. That's a good theory, Jim. Actually, that ferreted out. I like it better that it's sort of the way we saw people say they wouldn't vote for Trump in 16. They're just saying what they think the pollster wants to hear or what will make them look good.

Like, oh, no, not a convicted felon. And there's a reason a lot of people are in the independent lane as opposed to full-on Republicans like me. We don't want the brand association with either side, you know? And so they'd probably be less likely to say, yeah, it's no big deal about, you know, being a convicted felon. This is an interesting point. Update for you from the courtroom. Juror number four has been dismissed. It's goodbye, senior. It's over. He's digging off and we'll see what comes out about his. He will forever remain a mystery. He will always remain mysterious. Maybe he is now the new most interesting man in the world. We never got to know him the way we wanted to. Haverman is reporting that Trump looked annoyed that that juror was dismissed. And you know what? We talked about it yesterday about probably why he's doing rather well with Hispanic men.

If you're just looking at the demographics, that's not a bad Trump juror, at least on paper. Young, white, college age female who is one of the jurors. Bad. That's not what you want. But Hispanic older man right on. But he's gone here just to give you an idea that the New York Times is Jonah Bromwich apparently did not watch our coverage yesterday in which we mocked him, among others, for their fawning, weird body language descriptions of Donald Trump. I mean, truly, it sounds like something you would see late night on Cinemax. Here's the latest dispatch from the New York Times. You can't make this stuff up, you guys. Okay, listen. We just got one of our best looks at Trump in the courtroom thus far, as he had to wait before leaving the room. He stood stock still,

pursed his lips, stared up at the ceiling. Then when he was permitted to leave, he rubbed his hand with one finger and directed a tight smile at one of the reporters seated in the back row. What is this drivel? Charles, he stole your lead for your next piece on NR. I would hope that if I wrote anything approximating that I would be summarily fired. It's amazing to me. Anyway, we're we're stuck with these updates until we actually get down to the nitty gritty. And in the meantime, they've got campaigning to do. Right. Trump can't do it except on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays because he's stuck in this courtroom. Biden was in Pennsylvania three times this week, but it's not going all that well. All right. So Biden went

to a gas station in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. We've got a bit of the video from C-SPAN. Take a look at the hero's welcome he got. The listening audience, there might be like five people. All right. There's like a few others. I'd say we've got maybe a dozen inside. We only have the video, not the audio. No one looks enthused. Everyone's just standing around. Contrast that with Trump, who visited Harlem on Tuesday. He went to the bodega where the guy, the worker, was attacked and fought back and stabbed his attacker. And Alvin Bragg, who's prosecuting Trump, tried to charge that guy with second degree murder. And only when New York revolted against him because the bodega owner had been attacked himself, it was self-defense. Did he drop the charges? So Trump wisely went to that bodega on Tuesday and take a look at this.

This is in Harlem. That's amazing. Charles, I know you can't go by crowd size in predicting who's going to get elected. Otherwise, Trump would have won 2020 as well. But that's Harlem, New York. And Trump is like a hero. Yeah, I think, as you say, you can't go by crowd size. But what it does tell us is something interesting about the two candidates, in that Biden is, if he is going to win, going to win because he's the safe option. He's the default choice. He's the fallback. He's the guy that people who don't like Trump, for reasons good and bad, think that they have to vote for instead. He's not somebody that anyone in America seems to be enthused about. He's not Bill Clinton. He's not Ronald Reagan. He is there. Whereas Trump inspires responses,

inspires reactions, both good and bad, and for good and bad reasons. But he is somebody who does not yield yawns or the question who. Everyone knows who he is, and they know what he's about. And you're going to see a lot of that in the election. But I do think you were right in your introduction to the question to note that this dynamic also obtained in 2020. In fact, Joe Biden hid away for most of that election, and he still won. And I think this question is going to be, this election is going to be about about which candidate can maintain their hold on suburban middle-class voters. Biden has a problem with them because of inflation and crime and his treatment of Israel.

And Trump has a problem with them because he's uncouth, because of what he did at the end of the last election, which was a disgrace, because he's ill-disciplined. And, you know, I think that's going to be where the elections won or lost, not in crowd size. The problem for Joe Biden is not only that, you know, it's kind of an interesting bumper sticker. I'm here. I'm here. Vote for Joe Biden. He's there. Hadn't heard anybody phrase it quite so succinctly. He is the recommendation for him.

The problem for, yeah, what were you going to say, Joe? My fellow Americans have a proud tradition of existence. Exactly. That's Joe Biden's story. Since the early 1940s. Me and Corn Pop. Did you guys happen to see the video on X yesterday of that woman in Brazil who tried to get some bank loan or payment that was owed to

her uncle who is dead by wheeling the dead body in there? There's disturbing video, too disturbing to show. She's got the dead uncle in the bank with her. And you could see this is a dead man. And she's trying to pretend that he's alive and she's talking to him to try to get him to sign these, however it would financially benefit her. I mean, you know, I was just going to say it looked a little familiar. You know, it kind of looked a little like Jill Biden. We're not quite there. We're still with I'm here. But not making a lot of sense, Jim, not making a lot of sense, because I got to tell you, he once again came out with a nonsense story about Uncle Bossy. He can't go two seconds without telling another familial lie,

something about his background, his son, what have you. The latest one is about Uncle Bossy, to whom he was paying tribute as a World War II vet who died during World War II. And take a listen to what President Biden claimed about his long lost uncle. When they called him Uncle Bossy, he was shot down. He was an Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force. He flew single-engine planes, reconnaissance flights over New Guinea. He had volunteered because someone couldn't make it. He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of cannibals in New Guinea at the time.

They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there, and they checked and found some parts of the plane and the time. They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there and they checked and found some parts of the plane and the life. Okay, so virtually none of that was true. There is a dead uncle. He died in World War II, was not in a single engine. He was in a double engine plane, was not shot down. Officials say that they don't know what happened to the plane, but both engines failed. We know this because three died in the ocean, including his uncle, and one survived and went on to tell us what happened. There were no cannibals. Fact check, Jim. Megan, Megan, the cannibals swam out to the bottom of the ocean to where the plane was. And then they ate my uncle. By the way, when you were playing that video of Biden in the restaurant earlier and you noticed how nonchalant everyone was, that the president of the United States just walked in there. I noticed that quite a few folks like were seated and remained seated when the president came in, which is, I believe, a violation of protocol. Even if there isn't a band there playing Hail to the Chief, like Megan, if Joe Biden shuffled his feet into your studio right now and said, Megan, I got to tell you about my uncle and how the cannibals ate him and how terrible

that was. It was right around, it was a little before I fought corn pop. Like you'd rise to your feet out of respect for the office, not necessarily an appreciation of them. Like you just would do it like, because that's what you do for the president with the elect guy. You don't like the guy. So one is kind of like, you know, some, some part of it to be as an American is a little disappointed to see people not rising when the president enters a room, whether or not they like him. And then the second thing is that this story we've gotten used to the president talking about his conversations with Helmut Kohl,

who died many years, Francois Mitterrand, who died lots of years. He mixed up Haifa and Rafa. Like, OK, we're all kind of used to this. But as a result of this, Biden really has no communications oomph anymore. He only does events between like, you know, after 10 a.m. and before 4 p.m., doesn't do a lot of night events other than the State of the Union once a year. Usually one public event a day, doesn't, you know, goes back to Delaware.

Even if Israel's about to be attacked, he goes back to Delaware every weekend. And he just doesn't, you know, he reads off the teleprompter. His staff is terrified of him going off the teleprompter. And we've all gotten used to it. And we know that if he tells the story, you know, I was raised in a Puerto Rican,

Jewish, African-American neighborhood, and that's how I was raised. And we just, we know this if he tells a story, you know, I was raised in a Puerto Rican, Jewish, African-American neighborhood. And that's how I was raised. And we just we know this is all nonsense. We've heard these stories from our grandparents and our parents. And we love our parents and our grandparents. But we put and we put up with those stories because we love our elderly relatives. We don't love Joe Biden. He's just a guy who showed up here.

Yeah. Or as you know, as the new inspiring slogan Charlie just came up with. He's here. That's that's all you can say. He's present. For now. Present. Present.

Present for now. That's it. You're wheeled into a bank somewhere as we speak. I might have to show the video. It's disturbing. This is not the first lie about an uncle. I know it's bad, but you kind of can't take your eyes off of it. Uncle Frank, he lied about Uncle Frank. Remember he said, uncle Frank received a purple heart.

Um, he said this back in October, my uncle won the purple heart in the battle of the bulge. And you guys fact checked it and said, no, there was, there was no, absolutely no evidence that Frank Biden received a purple heart either while dead or posthumously. His name does not appear on the two major databases of honorees, Traces of War or the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor. So no Purple Heart for Uncle Frank and no cannibals for Uncle Finnegan, but he continues to spew all of this stuff. Now you mentioned the Haifa thing. This is actually kind of interesting and worthy of a soundbite. We're going to play it. This is really clear. The Israelis are thinking about moving into Rafah and there's been a lot of news about whether they

should, whether they, this is an appropriate pause. You know, a lot of people really want Israel to take care of it, to finish Hamas off by going into Rafah. And this is what Biden said, Satu. And I made it clear to Israelis, don't move on Haifa. It's just not. I mean, anyway, I just. Look what we did recently when Israel was attacked. Okay. I mean, how many times does this have to happen, Charles, right? Before somebody over on the Democratic side says, we're dead. He can't make it to, as you point out, October or November. He can't make it. We're going to have one of these

that's calamitous between now and then. Or is it just he's polling within one point of Trump now in the national polls? Things are tightening in the swing states. Shut up. Let's go Brazilian dead uncle. That's the plan. Yeah, that's the plan. That's the plan. He is not up to being president. And one of the really irritating things about the polarized politics that we live with at the moment, and about the fact that this is another election fought between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, is that whatever you say about either person, someone will immediately pop up and say, but what about the other one? Well, all right, but let's stipulate that. Let's say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is disqualified from being president.

Let's say that Donald Trump is a pathological liar, then we can evaluate Biden. So Biden, as we established in the last segment, and anyone who has looked at the last 40 years of Biden's public career can attest, is a habitual liar. The man lies about everything. He makes up stories. He contradicts himself. He bends and twists other people's grief grief so that he can spin stories of his own suffering that mostly are not true. Biden's relationship with the truth is disgraceful. And saying, but what about Trump doesn't change that. The same is true with his abilities as a president or lack thereof. Again, forget Trump. I'm not saying this is the view that everyone should take. But just for the sake of this conversation, let's say everything that everyone says about Trump is true. Now let's talk about Biden and that clip. There is no one,

there is no one in this country who would look at that man, absentee desire for him to beat someone else and say he should be president. He is quite clearly in and of itself, per se, unfit to be president. He's too old. He doesn't know what's going on. He projects no confidence or ability or knowledge i don't mean this in a conspiratorial sense quite clearly his staff are running the show this is embarrassing it's a huge problem and all you need to do if you want confirmation of this

is ask people in other countries who tend to be left of center relative to the United States, whether or not they think Joe Biden is up to being president. And they will laugh. Immediately they will laugh and say, no, he looks like a skull. This is a problem. And I think because we've got into this horrendous dichotomy, once again, Trump v. Biden, hurrah, then we've almost lost our ability to evaluate and interrogate these questions in and of themselves without reference to the other person. But once you do it, you want to have a very stiff drink very soon. Very true. You're running to the corner bar. All right, you guys, I'm going to do it. I'm sorry. The team pulled it and I'm going to show it. It's been a lot of buildup to the listening audience.

Go to youtube.com slash Megan Kelly if you'd like to see. Here's the editorial. This is per Colin Rugg who posted it on X. Oh God, there she is. She's in Brazil. They say this is her uncle. It's his corpse. They say he died two hours before this.

She has him in the bank. She was pushing his lifeless body. Oh, God, through the mall. She claims he died sitting in the wheelchair at the bank. But the police say it's a lie. And she's now facing charges, including attempted theft by fraud and vilification of a corpse. I'm sorry, but there's some sort of metaphor to be gleaned from this with respect to our own presidential. It's not quite that bad. I'm just saying the Democrats are prepared to go that far. You can tell. Every day, with a lapse of memory and the lies that come and the wandering and the muttering and the thinking dead people are alive legitimately and that live people are dead, that they're just going to pursue the Brazil, the Brazilian bank plan. It's just he's going in the wheelchair and they're just going to keep telling us not

to believe our lying eyes. I'm not going to make you comment on that video. Stand by. I am going to take a break. Oh, did you want to say something? Yes, go ahead. Can you imagine what must have happened for a group of legislators to sit down and write a law about vilification of a corpse?

What was it that inspired that one being added to the Brazilian code? You're afraid to ask. It's bad. It's just very bad. All right, stand by. One break. Right back. We have these guys for the

show, which I'm thrilled about. News from inside the courtroom. They're arguing over the temperature in the room. Some of the jurors are cold and they would like it to be made a little bit warmer. I guarantee it's the women. Ladies, I'm with you. This is the biggest benefit of being my own boss here in my own studio. I can have it at 76. I know most men find this an abomination. Charles is shaking his head vigorously. No, I will tell you if they win that fight, Trump's going to be unhappy because he likes it like the Arctic.

Having interviewed him in September, I had to post pictures of me holding hand warmers. It was like 55 degrees in his golf club in New Jersey, and I was dying. But anyway, here's another piece. The now dismissed juror, the OK, the older Puerto Rican man married with adult children who says his hobby is his family, blah, blah, blah. He's been dismissed. He found Trump fascinating and mysterious, and he may have not disclosed arrests, although that's unconfirmed as of now. The prosecution alleged it. Now he's been bounced. And in a brief interview outside the courtroom, the juror was the juror declined to give his name. Can you blame him? And said he did not

want to answer questions. But he nodded when asked if he thought he could be unbiased and shook his head when asked if he felt at all intimidated in the courtroom, asked if he thought he should have been dismissed. He walked hurriedly by his umbrella, pulled low and gave a one word answer. Nope. After the jury was dismissed, this is from the Washington Post. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche asked whether the temperature in their courtroom could be turned up just one degree. That's interesting. Well, that wasn't for Trump. It must have been for his co-counsel, who I think is a woman.

Rashawn said no. If we turn it up one, it's going to go up about 30 degrees. Okay, so that's the latest from inside the courtroom. Goodbye to the older gentleman from Harlem. Okay, moving on. I don't know where to start because there's like so much other goodness to get to. Let's spend a minute on the NPR CEO, which has led to, there's a civil war going on inside of NR right now on who this crazy lunatic Catherine

Maher really is. Thanks to Chris Ruffo, we have a lifetime worth of absurd, woke tweets, woker than woke. She gives Kendi a run for his money. She's from Connecticut, like my kids are going to have to say they are, although they were raised in New York for 10 years. She is, you know, her mother's a state senator. She's guilty about it all. She can't really stand the fact that she's a white woman from She's guilty about it all. She can't really stand the fact that she's a white woman from Connecticut. And here's just a little bit of the latest that's been surfaced about her. This is from, let's see, May of 2021, a virtual conference with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. And listen to her in 2021.

I started by talking about the idea of free and open as some of our founding principles. I have come to the opinion and the perspective that free and open was a way of looking at the world that was inherently limited relative to what we were trying to achieve. Free and open has the best of intentionality, but in the end, what free and open often ended up doing,

particularly in the case of Wikipedia, was open often ended up doing, particularly in the case of Wikipedia, was really recapitulating many of the same power structures and dynamics that exist offline prior to the advent of the internet and others. The ways in which we ascribe notability often really comes from sort of this white male westernized construct around who matters in societies and who is elevated and whose voices. And so some of these ideas of sort of this radical openness really did not end up with the intention, really did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be. Oh my God. All right. Before I get Charles to weigh in on this, because I know he's been fighting with her friend, Jeff. Jim, just the way she speaks, right? It's like, it's just the same way all of these academics we see testify on Capitol Hill speak. It's the way these so-called academics like

Kendi, I mentioned speak, Robin DiAngelo, they take 20 words to say something that required one. And they do it in every phrase of every sentence. You have to work so hard just to understand what they're saying. You know, I kind of listen to that and think, if listening to Vice President Kamala Harris has become too complicated and sophisticated for you, then you're ready for Ms. Mark. This is the nice natural step beyond that. It's buzzword, you know, woke phrasing, buzzword, woke phrasing. And there's a rhythm to it. You begin to, oh, and this is, you know.

The other thing, I know Charlie and Jeff have been going at it, Hammer and Tom. But I read about this today and I think what's somewhat like, it's depressing but almost refreshing. We've seen these kinds of journalistic scandal stories before. Dan Rather, Jason Blair, maybe a little more recently, the freak out over the Tom Cotton op-ed at the New York Times. And very often you'll see the institution after the revelations come, oh, we really didn't do this the way we should. We've let everybody down. We did not live up to our principles of reporting the news honestly and objectively. And we pledge to do better. We've seen this a million times and nothing ever changes.

They never actually get any better, but there's a little, with this one, NPR, pretty much from everything that Berliner said in the op-ed at the Free Press is kind of like, you know, we don't think any of that's legitimate. We think we're doing a perfect job. There's nothing that we could be doing better. And we love ourselves just the way we are.

And there's something refreshing about that. They're not playing along with this idea of, oh, no, we're bad. We must have done something better. They are proud. They're biased. NPR is the way it wants to be. And I doubt it will ever significantly change. It is like a we're here, we're queer, get used to it kind of moment for them.

Like, suck it. The problem for us is we pay their salaries. So we're not really willing to recoil in surrender to them. Charles, explain the debate that you're having with Jeff Blahar. Is it Blahar? Is that how you pronounce his last name at National Review? About just what exactly we're seeing in this woman, what she actually is or isn't. So Jeff thinks that she's performing, that she's worked out the best way

to navigate the spaces in which she lives. And that way is to echo all of this guff. And I think she's, what's the word, a freak. I think that she means it. If you look through her tweets, and Chris Ruffo has been highlighting some of the best ones, you find no difference at all between the missives she puts out when she's trying to argue something in the political world. And the message that she puts

out when she's just scrolling through the channels at home on TV. This is who she is. I think she is a cloistered zealot. I think at some point, I don't know when, Maybe she was brought up like this. Maybe she picked it up at university. But I think at some point she has absorbed, swallowed whole, this preposterous progressive ideology with its frameworks and hierarchies and intentionalities. And she's unable to live in the world without processing quite literally everything she sees through its terms. And there's one tweet where she is angered by the racial and sexual makeup

of an airport lounge that she's in and then by the people sitting in the first class section, which she goes to great pains to say she only saw because she had to walk through it, which may have been true in that particular instance, but she's hardly downtrodden. That to me is the behavior of an ideological fanatic, of somebody who lacks empathy. And she uses this word empathy all the time on her Twitter feed. And I'm sure she thinks of herself as empathetic because she thinks she has all the right opinions. But actually, empathy doesn't mean that at all. What empathy means is that you are aware of what

other people think and feel and believe, and that you think that it has value, or at least you're prepared to spend some time understanding those people the best way to become empathetic and the best way to understand yourself in my opinion is to have friends who roast you who make fun of you who laugh at you constantly who make it clear to you affectionately sure um what you are in the world how you come across what your flaws are what you're good at that is the the best way to understand what it is that you project in the world and just reading through and i accept i don't know this person but just reading through she seems to both completely lack empathy about the country she lives in and people who think differently than she does

and also seems to have absolutely no sense of humor and no one in her life who can say to her, you know, Catherine, what you've just said is crazy. You sound like a lunatic and you maybe need to dial it down a bit. You said something on NR about how she's one of the least self-aware people you've ever encountered. And I mean, I need to raise, especially because we mentioned you originally hail from Great Britain, Meghan Markle. Hello. I'm sorry, but she is number one. This woman may be a close two, but there's nobody who's more unaware of how they come across than that one, except perhaps her husband, who's now now we're stuck with, Charlie, like you. You're a trendsetter. You came over here and you decided to stay, which was a win. But then he followed you. And now we're

stuck with him because he's officially declared America as his residence. And to that we say no. I would slightly challenge the causality you're implying there, that he in some way came over because I was here. How did we get stuck with that pair? I don't think it's my fault, Megan. There's no chain migration between me and the royal family, thankfully. I'll let you slide. One more from this lunatic, Catherine Mair, and NPR funding, SOT18. Take a listen. The most written knowledge today has been written by white, colonial,

European, North American men. And so one of the things that we're really focused on is how do we think about correcting the record? And so one of the first things we do is we measure the gaps. Who is missing on Wikipedia? Women are missing. People of color are missing. People from the global South are missing. Indigenous communities are

missing. The history of black Americans is missing. It's also about going directly to these communities and saying, what do we need to change about ourselves? You know, what about the experience of editing Wikipedia? What about the culture of Wikipedia? What about the policies of Wikipedia need to change. Oh, my God, Jim. Like, it's a problem just because history and so many white guys. Yeah. Well, if Wikipedia really does lack contributions from women and coverage and discussion of women, minorities, apparently, as she just said there, all of African-American history is missing from Wikipedia. I would blame the person who's been running Wikipedia for the last few years, which I believe is Marr herself. Yeah, this is all kind of almost rote. I guess I come down as an agnostic between the Charlie-Jeff division here. I don't even sure it really matters much.

At some point, it may be a matter of if, as Jeff suggests, she was echoing what she felt was most needed to rise in the corporate ladder and in the woke workplace to be the appropriate choice, even for being a white woman from Connecticut. You stare into the abyss long enough, it starts to stare back. If she's playing a role, she may have lost herself in the role. I think this is who she is. But yeah, I think this is exactly the person NPR wants running it. The NPR is the way they are. They haven't gone out of business. They get taxpayer money to cover things when things don't come in. They don't get enough sponsorships. Okay. But on that front, we have another minute. Should NPR funding be pulled? Because no one's discussing that. I think like Ted Cruz said, nobody in Congress is really doing anything about it.

Well, most folks on the right have been saying for decades it should not be funded by the US government. So yeah, absolutely it should be pulled. Megan, can I take 20 seconds? Yeah, go ahead. Can I take 20 seconds to argue with Jim? In addition to Jeff, I'll just line them all up, fight them. The reason that I think it does matter

is that the response has to be different depending on who these people are. If people are responding to incentives in elite institutions to behave like that, then your challenge is to change the incentives. But if people are genuinely brainwashed, ideological fanatics who are like that intrinsically and aren't acting, then you actually have a different problem. And as somebody who wants to stop people behaving

like this and talking like this and annoying everyone in America with their output, I think it's quite important for us to determine what it is that's causing it. All right. Well, I'm going to move the ad and we have 40 more seconds before we hit the hard break for SiriusXM. How do you address problem number two, Charlie? Well, the first thing that you do is the institutions over which you have any control, you fire the people who want to divide us up into groups by race and sexual orientation and so on and say, no, we stand for equality. Now, obviously, that's in most cases, none of my business because most institutions are private, although as customer, I might have a view. But NPR is publicly funded. So you either take away their funding completely, which I favor and have done for years long before

this, or you say we do not talk like that to Americans who disagree with us. All right. Well, that's where we're going to pick it up on the opposite side. Don't go away, Charlie and Jim. Stay with us. All right, guys. So if the plan is, as Charles posited, that we need to find these people like the Catherine Mayers of the world who are running Wikipedia and running NPR and, you know, ideally remove them from these leadership positions where they can poison and toxify the industries that affect our information consumption and affect our young people as they go through college. We're not doing very well. And that brings me to Columbia, where you may have seen there are a couple of things going on. Columbia University in New York. There was a hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday, and they were cross-examining the

president of Columbia University, much as they did with the president, Claudine Gay of Harvard, and the MIT president, and so on, a few months ago, leading to Claudine Gay ultimately getting pushed out after her plagiarism scandal was then unearthed. And Dr. Nemat Minouche Shafiq, the president, was not about to fall into the same trap. Or so she thought. She tried to sound reasonable. She did her level best to sound like a normie, but it started to fall apart quickly on cross-examination. So here's the answer she gave to Ilhan Omar, by the way, whose daughter has just been suspended from Barnard, which is right next to Columbia,

for what she's doing on the Columbia campus. So Ilhan Omar, yeah, you could make the argument maybe shouldn't have been the one questioning since she's got a daughter directly involved in what's happening on Columbia University's campus. So Ilhan Omar decides to question Shafiq about the nature of the protests on Columbia's campus. And here was Shafiq's first claim. Take a listen. One of my colleagues asked you, have you seen anti-Muslim protests on campus?

I have seen, we have had pro-Israeli demonstrations on campus no no no but but just a protest that was against muslims no have you seen one against arabs no i have not have you seen one against palestinians no i have not have you seen against one against jewish people have you seen a protest saying we are against Jewish people? No, I have. I have. OK, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems like. Correct. Correct. There has been. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So there she is under oath saying she has not seen a protest that's anti-Jewish

on Columbia's campus. Au contraire, because Elise Stefanik arrived with the receipts. Listen to this. And Dr. Shafiq, you realize that at some of these events, the slurs and the chants have been F the Jews, death to Jews, F Israel, no safe place, death to the Zionist state, Jews out. You don't think those are anti-Jewish? Completely anti-Jewish. Completely unacceptable. So you changed your testimony on that issue as well? So there have been anti-Jewish protests. I didn't get to finish my sentence. So what I was going to say was there were protests that were called that were... That's not what you were asked. You were asked, were there any anti-Jewish protests?

And you said no. So the protest was not labeled as an anti-Jewish protest. I'm not asking what it was labeled. It was labeled as an anti-Israeli government policy. The question wasn't what it was labeled. But anti-Semitic incidents happened or anti-Semitic things were said. So it is an anti-Jewish protest.

You agree with that? You change your testimony? Congresswoman. Anti-Jewish things were said at protests. Yes. Thank you for changing your testimony. Wow. Look at her bob and weave, Charles. She's caught red-handed,

and I firmly believe if Elise Stefanik had not brought the receipts, she would not have amended her testimony to clarify the, oh, maybe the death to Jews thing was a little anti-Jewish. It's just, it's so alien to me that anyone would try to cover that up right i mean if you watch people who are being cross-examined in a courtroom in a criminal trial, when the price that they will pay if they don't convince the world or the jury of their narrative is conviction and punishment, you can comprehend why they might lie, dissemble, try to wriggle out of the conversation.

But in that circumstance, it's really insidious. I mean, why would you do that? She didn't seem particularly surprised by Elise Stefanik's receipts, as she put it. She seemed to know that that had happened. So why mischaracterize it in the first place? I mean, Ileana Omar actually did not do anyone a favor by essentially badgering a witness that seemed friendly and giving her an excuse to say, well, I didn't get to finish my sentence and I was being asked narrow questions and so forth. But this is the thing that I find

the most alarming about this. It's the root question here. It's the same root question that I had after I saw the testimony from the presidents of Harvard and Penn and MIT. Why? You're in front of Congress. You should understand that the behavior and the rhetoric that we're discussing is abhorrent. Why not just concede what we can all see, what Elise Stefanik had notes confirming, and then debate what it is that should be done about it. It's reasonable to disagree as to what the environment should be like on a college campus. Where does free speech start and end? How much do you want colleges, especially private colleges, to be superintending protests and so on and so forth. But they just can't get past the first hurdle. And I think this comes back to what we were

discussing in the previous segment, which is ideological fanaticism. I think at some point, universities, and especially those who have risen up in the universities, have come to believe, or at least to promise fealty to, a bizarre ideology that sorts everyone into oppressor or oppressed, puts them in a hierarchy, and will not brook any evidence to the contrary, sees any discussion to the contrary as a threat. I think that's what we're seeing here, and it underscores why it is so important for us to get rid of that and go back to the pursuit of truth and equality as it was conceived by the great thinkers, not people who came up with their frameworks 10 minutes ago.

She reminded me, oh, we don't have cats. We're dog people. But my friend had a cat and I was with her one day when she was taking the cat to go to the vet. And you try to get that cat into the little carrier, you know, a house cat. And I mean, it is like they get super cat strength. They're more like tigers. You know, the claws are in like, no, I'm not going there. And that's what she reminded me of. No, it wasn't anti-Jewish Death to Jews. It could be ambiguous. Only when pressed did she have to say the death to the Jew thing was it was a little it was a little anti-Jew. OK, you got me there. But the the protest itself, I'm sure, Jim, was absolutely lovely. I'm sure it was rainbows and unicorns and everyone was saying, yeah, I am Israel. I mean, it's like, who does she think she's kidding?

Megan, the rainbows and uniforms were at the LGBT rally just down the street, actually. You're mixing the two up there. That was a very frustrating exchange to watch because I got the feeling that the university president, sensing the trap, she could see the trigger and the claws that were about to come up, wanted to indicate that she as a university president did not approve of some of the chants and stuff like that. And Ilhar Omar's questioning was very much, you know, yes or no, I'm not going to let you finish. And clearly, Congresswoman Omar wants us to believe that the major problem we've seen on college campuses over the last six months or so has been an explosion of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim nasty rhetoric and violence and threats and all that stuff. Excuse me, I just I couldn't swallow that even describing that. And this idea that, you know, ah, you know, maybe there's some anti-Jewish stuff here and there, but really, you got to look out

for that anti-Muslim bias on Ivy League college campuses league college campuses no no that's exactly it's very much the opposite now uh and she also kept saying you know were there any protests that were you know touted as anti-jewish well very rarely did the anti-semites come out and say hey we're holding a big anti-semitic rally but no i don't know the jews yeah so here's i've had what they always do is they say this isn't an anti-Jewish rally. We're tearing down the menorah on campus because we're anti-Zionist. Wink, wink. You know, and I understand. I suppose I believe that theoretically you could have someone who is vehemently opposed to the actions of the government of Israel, but that doesn't have any, you know, lurking anti-Semitism under the surface in their soul. I just have yet to meet that person. Every single person you ask- You'd be, if you were those people rallying and there were a bunch of people hijacking your rally

to say the Jews should die, you might be like, you're not part of us. Well, if you're rallying outside the Israeli consulate to the UN up in New York, or if you're rallying outside the Israeli embassy in to the U.N. up in New York or if you're rallying outside the Israeli embassy in D.C., OK, at least you're directing your criticism at an institution of the Israeli government. Notice how many of these protests are outside synagogues, outside JCCs, outside campus Hillels. Those aren't representatives of the Israeli government. But you know what they have there?

American Jews. So at that point, you're kind of like, look, I couldn't find any Israelis, but these are Jews. They'll do. They're just as good. And yeah, they're yeah, they're Jew adjacent. They're they're Israeli adjacent actual Jews. It went on just not for nothing. But there was a one professor who after 10-7, Joseph Massad, he's the chair of the School of Arts and Sciences Academic Review Committee, and he's tenured, who after 10-7, he called the terror attack awesome on Israel, astonishing, astounding, incredible. He couldn't get enough of all the dead babies and children tortured. And when Shafiq was asked about him, she answered, he's been spoken to.

He's, we, I mean, he received quite the tongue. We gave him a stern talking to out back behind the woodshed, you know. It's in his permanent file now, Jim. There you go. Then she tried to claim he'd been removed. What is it? Fat, dumb and stupid.

There's no way to go through life, son. They claimed he'd been removed as chair of the committee, but then Stefanik cross-examined Shafiq and got her to admit he's actually still listed as chair. He has not been removed. And actually, his term as chair was already set to end after this semester. So they just waited it out. Right.

He's got another month to go. They gave him no punishment other than he's been spoken to. It's fine. You can call a disgusting terror attack that took the lives of 1,200 innocents, including babies, as just, you know, you can call it wonderful and inspirational and all the other adjectives I listed. Awesome. No problem.

That's the same person who's not really seeing anti-Jewish protests exactly on campus. Now, that leads me to the next piece of this, which is the Columbia students are out there, the pro, you know, students for justice in Palestine students are out there. They've been protesting. They're annoying. They're bothering everybody on campus. This is the thing where they got support from Ilhan Omar's daughter who came over from Barnard and people are getting suspended for their bad behavior. Now they would like to point to themselves as the victim because this past January, there was an incident on the campus of Columbia as follows. This is via the Columbia Spectator,

the newspaper. You're going to love this one, Charles. This one's for you. The protesters at that particular event, the pro-Palestinian folks, were allegedly sprayed with a hazardous chemical while attending this pro-Palestinian Divest Now rally. Eighteen students reported a putrid smell during or after the protest. Ten reported physical symptoms like burning eyes, headaches, and nausea. Three sought medical attention and eight reported damage to their personal belongings. Two students expressed concerns about their safety and three students identified the substance as a chemical that was developed by the Israeli firm OdorTech and employed by the Israeli military against demonstrators in the West Bank, like literally

a chemical weapon developed by the Israelis. And instead, it turns out, according to the Free Beacon, which has done some good reporting on this, it was what the kids and other college campuses might refer to as fart spray. It was actual, forgive me for the F word, but that's what it's called. You spray it in like a college dorm to gross out your fraternity brothers. And I'm only familiar with this because my husband, Doug, loves the Instagram videos of this thing being deployed and has familiarized me with these videos and thus this product. And I decided to share one with you, which is now being described as a chemical weapon by the poor pro-Palestinian protesters. Watch this. It's two guys. I think one guy's about I know it. It's two guys waiting to go to the hospital. One guy's about to spray it.

Come here in a minute. Just sprayed it. I don't see anything over that way. I feel a guy on my stomach, God. My stomach, dude. Oh, God. The magic. Did you just kick yourself? Oh, no. Where did it go?

I got to get out of here. Where did it go? My stomach. Get out of my way. Oh, my God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God.

Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God.

Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God.

Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, God. oh motherfucker maybe maybe they have a point Charles it looked pretty unpleasant I don't think it was developed by the IDF however yeah well you initially said that these protesters had been spayed, and I thought, wow, we really have got

something going for us. We've reached that level of... There's an idea. That does look pretty unpleasant. It's absolutely incredible. It does show you, doesn't it, that everything always comes back when dealing with anti-Israel

or anti-Jewish protest is to conspiracy theories. There's always some secret thing the Jews have, whether it's a space laser or a chemical weapon or they control the banks. It's just the immediate instinct, even when it's, you know, fart spray. Yeah, that's exactly right.

And the students are still angry that they weren't visited by administrators. No one was checking to see how they were. The Colombian president, the Columbia president who we just saw, President Shafiq, she also repeated the claim at a meeting of the university Senate. Demonstrators were sprayed with a toxic chemical and the free beacon goes on to say it now appears that the toxic chemical was a harmless fart spray purchased on Amazon for $26 and 11 cents. And now there's a lawsuit filed against Columbia by a student who'd been suspended over the incident saying it was a gag gift for adults and kids that he got off the internet. He sprayed it in the air,

not at any particular individual. He says it was a harmless expression of speech. And the product, just in case those of you want to play this at home, is called Liquid Ass. I think it really is more of an aerosol than liquid. But by the way, apparently, if a student confessed to it fine, I was perfectly prepared to believe that in fact some protester had simply farted and really did not want to admit it

you know, the rules of he who smelt it dealt it were no longer in effect and basically it was a matter of, no no it wasn't me guys it was the Jews it was clearly the israelis clearly they have some sort of biological chemical weapon it had nothing to do with the burrito and chili i had for lunch and that's that's what this outcome came to wow

you can't get this kind of banter over on the editors okay there's just I have to talk to Rich about upping his game. OK, but speaking of snot nosed brats on college campuses, let's meander over to Cornell. And also speaking of professors who celebrated the 10-7 attacks. Remember that guy who was on camera like I'm invigorated. I'm excited. Anyway, that's Cornell's been like ground zero for the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish rhetoric. Well, Ann Coulter, in a separate story, this isn't about Israel, this is about immigration, decided to go to Cornell and give a speech. She went to Cornell,

undergrad. I think either Cornell Law or undergrad. In any event, I think she went to Michigan undergrad, whatever it was. She went and she got invited back. And not long ago, she was shouted down in the middle of her remarks to where she couldn't even spit them out. Um, she got chased off campus and she, she got like 20 minutes out of an hour delivered before she had to leave in an unsafe situation. So the head of the university said, why don't you come back and we're going to have a second go at it. So she did, she went back. And when the announcement was made that she was going to come back, we're going to have a second go at it. So she did. She went back. And when the announcement was made that she was going to come back, there was outrage on the campus at the mere fact that she might show up. And Tuesday night, she did it. And the name, the title of the event

was Immigration, the Conspiracy to End America. Well, this time they had the students apparently in hand. It was the faculty that behaved terribly, in particular, an assistant professor of interpersonal communication. Oh, the irony. Take a look at Professor Monica Cornejo and her reaction to Anne's presence. Don't touch me. Don't touch me. Why am I under arrest? Do not touch me. Get off of me. What's under what? Under what? For this order to be planted. Don't, don't, don't. Do not touch me. I will get off. Do not touch me. Do not touch me. Get your hands off me. Okay, that's just a sampling. This woman had been sitting there giving Anne the finger

repeatedly. After about the sixth outburst, that's when the cops came and took her away. She had accused everyone in the room of being a racist because they were there to listen to Ann. And then when the cops came to arrest her to get her out of there, she decided to try to set the limitations on whether they could lay hands on her, played the faculty card. And by the way, just a little background on her. She got her doctorate at UC Santa Barbara two years ago. Now, of course, she's a professor at Cornell and she herself is a quote, undocumented immigrant, first undocumented tenure track faculty at Cornell. So to me, what stood out in this is the sense of entitlement. She's not even in this country legally. She got a job at an Ivy League university. She's put on the tenure track. Ann Colder has a different point of view. She thinks she can show up, give her the finger,

call everyone there a racist. In this country, she's made her own. And then when the cops try to impose some law and order, guys, she decides to set the terms. Don't touch me. If that's not for you to decide, madam, you're under arrest. Get up and get out and we will touch you and we'll put the handcuffs on you. I'm seeing this more and more when the leftists get arrested, Jim. They have a meltdown about how it's done, has to be done on their terms. I'm sorry, Megan. I was just sending an email to INS giving them a hot tip. I think I may have found someone who's in the country illegally and that they really, in fact, this person's probably hold office hours. This is not going to be somebody who's

going to be difficult to track down and detain. You put your finger on this. And by the way, I kind of have this, you know, it's hard to shake the feeling that someone who believes that U.S. immigration laws do not apply to her because she's special, because she's better than everyone else. She doesn't have to. That other rules would not apply that, you know, well, you can't expect her to be quiet while someone else is speaking. You can't expect her to not be disruptive because she's special. The rules, the laws, none of that applies to her because she's one of the chosen ones. By the way, I think there's something strange, like one of the arguments for the pro-free speech side is that repugnant speech

generally repulses. If you genuinely believe that when Ann Coulter shows up and says, immigration is a conspiracy to end America or something like that, which by the way, I think I vehemently disagree. And I don't want to speak for Charlie. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably pretty darn pro-legal immigrant being a legal immigrant himself. I think if you really believe somebody's viewpoint is odious and spectacularly wrong and inconsistent with the Constitution, inconsistent with our laws, inconsistent with our traditions in this country, then they will self-nullify. That they will self – actually, in a way, by keeping them from being able to present their case, you're doing them a favor. Ironically, I'm thinking back to the two debates we had in 2020, where Trump decided to bulldoze over Biden, and with Chris Wallace moderating, and everybody said it went very badly because there was so much cross talk back and forth. Biden got to speak more in the second, uninterrupted in the second debate,

and that's what he said he was going to get rid of oil and gas. And it was totally like, in other words, if you let Biden talk, he's going to get himself in trouble. If you really think that Ann Coulter is that repugnant a person, you don't want to interrupt her. You want to give her the stage. You want to give her the opportunity to marginalize herself with what she's going to say. And I think it betrays an absolute lack of faith in their own arguments. I think it betrays an absolute, you know, that, oh, no, my students who I'm teaching on a regular basis, they are mind-numb drones who, if they're allowed to listen to Ann Coulter, will suddenly turn into these terrible xenophobes who hate all immigrants and all that kind of stuff. So I think in a way, this is both constitutionally wrong, but also I think just kind of what makes for an effective argument that attempting that the heckler's veto is actually

a sign of weakness. It is a sign of doubt in the strength of your own arguments because you're afraid what will happen if other people get to hear this side that you oppose so vehemently. Charlie, I can't help but remember this incident we covered in the show sometime within the last year where there was this young, obviously woke woman who got pulled over for drunk driving by cops. I can't remember where, but we have the video. And the whole exchange was this extremely polite officer trying to do his duty and figure out whether she was drunk and behind the wheel of an automobile. She had allegedly made a U-turn and was driving against the traffic in the wrong way and trying to deal with this woman's obsessive list of her many conditions and the way she insisted on him referring to her and behaving toward her.

We actually pulled it just because this now tenure track, illegal immigrant professor at Cornell reminded me a lot of her. Look at this. I'll play it in part. Like really bad social anxiety and stuff. I get you. This person. Right back here, please.

Miss Perry. I'm non-binary, so. Okay. What do you go by? Kai. How can I refer to you tonight? Kai? Okay. Hey, I'm non-binary, so. Okay. What do you go by? Kai. How can I refer to you tonight? Kai? Okay.

Hey, I'm smelling alcohol. I know. How much have you consumed tonight? Like, probably three drinks. I need to run you through some tests right now. Stand facing me, please. But I just want you to know that I also have very bad social anxiety. You and me both.

Okay. Okay? Any recent head trauma, traumatic brain injuries, anything i need to know about uh mental yes focus on my finger please i am you're just like trying to intimidate me i don't know how i'm trying to do that this is the test as you know as an indigenous person and there's a bunch going around i'm sorry but it's just for me to be on my toes can you remember that i told you that i'm non-binary yeah i'll try my hardest i'll refer to you as kai right yes perfect i need to know if you have any injuries or anything that would

prevent you from doing a standard walk or turn tonight? Mental health. Any physical injuries? Mental, yeah. Can you not call me man please? I'm trying my hardest. Okay, well. Okay. It means a lot to me. I'm trying my hardest. I don't feel like a man, so. Okay. It's kind of triggering. Right foot in front of your left. Nope, go back. I'm sorry, but the whole man thing just like i apologize let's see if we can move forward from it yeah tell you that i suffer from really bad anxiety especially with generational trauma and ptsd around white people and cops like it's just...

I don't! Don't resist. I'm sorry. It's the same person in a different body, Charles. Yeah, so a couple things. First, Jim was half-joking

by saying he was going to tell the INS. But shouldn't they go deport her? I've never understood this. It was the same with Jose Antonio Vargas when he was running around the country saying. He came on my show. I'm an illegal immigrant. All right.

We know where you are because you're speaking at Thursday night at the Y in Manhattan. Go back to the country you're allowed to be in. I mean, we either have a system or we don't. But that aside, you know, what astonishes me about that video and the story you told is that the people who behave like this, they want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they set themselves up as implacable opponents of a system that they say they want to destroy, a system that is illegitimate, a system whose rules should not be held to apply to them. But at the same time, they invoke those rules and demand that they be upheld to a T. So you have the farcical spectacle, not so much in that video,

but in other instances, where people say the United States is a racist, imperialist, colonialist nation whose constitution is illegitimate. It's founded on stolen land, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Also invoking the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment and so on and so forth. The police are the offshoots of slave patrols. They're full of white supremacists, cisgendered, patriarchal men who are trying to keep people of other backgrounds down. But also, they've read the police rules, and they've determined that the officer is not following them. You just cannot have it both ways. You can't be Perry Mason in one circumstance, but a communist revolutionary in another.

It's amazing to me. That was Russ Nelson's video that we showed of the woman, the professor, the full video of the professor. Don't touch me. Do not touch me. I'm a faculty member. You know, she's got this sense of entitlement that that's like the theme that we're seeing through all these people, Jim, you know, and this to Charles's point, I think Catherine Marr has it too. Um, it's, it's paired with a knee jerk instinct to condemn men, whites, colonialists, meaning our founding father,

fathers, anyone, right? Their sanctimonious better-than attitude. I'm just sick of it. And when you come up in the face of law enforcement, who the hell would be like, don't touch me? It's a cop. You're being placed under arrest. Shut the you-know-what up and comply. So, Megan, I think you're probably an exceptional driver, but I'm going to guess at some point in your life you've probably been pulled over. Yes, it's scary. It's scary for everyone. Okay, and Charlie, I know you liked a hot rod in your golf cart down in Florida. I'm sure at some point you've been pulled over. I have indeed. Okay. Has anyone ever had a more polite or decent or kind cop than that one with that professor in that video? Oh my God,

did this guy bend over backwards to be the most kind? This was like Officer Care Bear. This was the most, you know, like, please, the next time. And by the way, I have one speeding ticket in my entire life. You know, it was not a particularly pleasant experience. No, look, she says she has social anxiety. Hey, you know what? When you've had three drinks and you get pulled over, everyone has social anxiety. You know who doesn't have social anxiety in that situation? Someone who had four drinks.

At that point, you're just so relaxed, you don't care. But it was just like, you know, I have social anxiety. Yeah, yeah, you should because you've been drunk driving. Right. Just I wrote him down. Non-binary, indigenous, social anxiety, mental health issues. Don't call me, ma'am. Triggering reasonably or very bad, really bad anxiety, generational trauma, PTSD around whites. That was the nicest cop. Yeah. You know, I grew up reading Richard Scarry. Sergeant Murphy wasn't that nice when it came to pulling people over. The Paw Patrol is a little rougher on people than that cop was with that drunk driver.

So, you know, just mind-boggling demonstration. And we're talking about, like, refuting the stereotypes, refuting the narrative of, you know, because, you know, again, as you mentioned, anybody who gets pulled over by cops, generally, most cops are professional. But even in that circumstance, like, oh, how much trouble am I going to be in? Was I go, how much was I going over the limit? You know, black, white, whatever you are, like, you always want to, you know, not always have your hands very clear. You don't want to suddenly reach for anything or anything like that. Like it can be, it's a stressful experience in the very best of circumstances.

And this cop is just about as, you know, nice as, Dr. Seuss couldn't write a cop nicer than that, you know? And it just is this- Officer Care Bear. Yeah. If I may make the obvious point as well, that is such an offensive inversion of who is the victim in that scenario, and who is the

perpetrator. Luckily, that cop pulled her over, but she was driving a car drunk. She's the bad guy. The person who thankfully was not the victim was the man or woman or non binary spirit animal somewhere down the road that she could have hit and potentially killed or maimed it is such a disgusting display when the person who is doing something wrong one of the worst things you can do actually is drive a car while intoxicated that's right turns it around so that she's she she, I could hear her now. So please stop calling me that.

So that Kai, yeah, so that Kai is, is the victim. She's, she's not the victim. No, this, this is like the woman on, in the backyard of Berkeley law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky who hijacked his event, brought out Mr. Microphone, started lecturing everybody in Arabic. And then when they threw her out, played the victim. I mean, they always do. And now is wanting him fired. This is like, it's, it's a playbook. You can follow it. Now, speaking of non-binary spirit animals, we have a story. We were told it wasn't

true, but it's true. I mean, that furries are coming to a school near you. Well, guess what? They're apparently all over the school in Utah to the point where the human students took to protest outside of the school. And we'll show you that. And we have an interview with an adult furry who's got thoughts on all of this. It's, I don't make the news cycle. I just report on it. Charles and Jim stay with us. We'll be right back. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back, 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 MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. So you might think that campus lunacy only happens in places like Columbia, but no, we go to more of red state, Utah and take a look at this. Now, this is one of those things I have been telling my audience about this for a long time. And I told them about a woman I know who she had, she has a friend who hired a young woman out of a good college. She was totally normal in the interview process. She gets into the firm. She shows up for the first day of work

dressed like a tiger. She says she identifies as a tiger. And this is a person who has to interact with clients. Now he's convinced this is a whole, just a thing to like get him to fire her so she can sue him, right? Some sort of a payout, who knows, but what are you supposed to do in these circumstances? It's not exactly a gender thing, but these so-called furries are trying to glom on to the transgender thing, which is protected under the law now, thanks to the Supreme Court. You can thank Gorsuch presiding with the liberals on that. And that brings me to this school district where there are kids who claim that they are furries in this class. It's the Mount Nebo middle school, though, for the record, the school superintendent or spokesperson is pushing back on

the claim, but I'll let the viewers decide. You can listen to the children protesting their presence outside. What happened was the children in Payson, Utah, I said that we're having a walkout over the students who are in this school wearing animal costumes and allegedly identifying as furries. They claim that these so-called furries are growling and biting them at school, growling at and biting them in school. And the children, again, this is middle school, have had enough. This is a clip that we have here. Hold on a second. I'll get you who it's from. I think it's Life is Driving posted this. Adam Bartholomew on X. Take a listen to these kids. We the people, not the animals! The furries were attacking you guys in class, is that right?

Yes! They bite kids! They bite people! They will bite ankles! The principal doesn't make them get in trouble. All the principal says is just be kind, be nice, be nice. How else do they attack you guys? They either bite us, they scratch us, they bark at us.

They pounce on us! They pounce on us! And then they come! They come! They come! They come! They come! They come! They come! They come! They come! Just be kind, be nice, be nice. How else do they attack you guys? They either bite us, they scratch us, they- They pounce on people.

They pounce on us. And then they run on all fours and pounce on people. Go near them within like a 10 feet circle, otherwise the teachers will come and get them out of us. Okay, how old are the kids that are dressed like furries? They're like 11, 12. They're 13 and they shouldn't be allowed to. They bring dog bulls to the house.

The principal hasn't put a stop to this. Because her daughter is a furry. And she supports it. If we get bit or something, they get mad at us. We get suspended. Not even if they were to do anything, we get suspended. Oh my God. All right. You heard the allegations.

They run on all fours. They pounce on us. They bite us. They eat their lunches out of bowls. I'm going to be honest. I saw this at first because I've heard more and more reports of this. It happens at colleges and it happens at younger schools now. And I thought, is this one big punk?

Is this the one big punk by these kids? Because it's so outlandish. But no, it's being reported on by all the local news stations. And the school district spokesperson has issued a statement. Uh, they're trying to downplay what's happening, but they're not denying that there's an issue. They're saying, um, okay. No students they claim are coming to school dressed in full body animal costumes. That's that's the distinction. Some come wearing headbands that may have ears on them. And they claim they don't describe themselves as furries.

OK, that's not an effective denial. I believe the children. You guys have kids. You can tell those 11, 12 and 13 year old, like that's legit. They've got examples at the ready. They would like to walk us through them. They're holding up signs that read compelled speech is not free speech. They're supported by their parents who are also very angry. And the most telling part was, why do you think they do this? And the kids said they want attention. So this is absolutely outlandish that these kids are being forced to deal with this. Who would like to take a shot at the furry problem?

Charlie. Well, you know, Megan, I'll be in the on deck circle. I'm ready to go when you are. You listen to the editors and you probably know that I have a fairly simple test for a lot of political questions. And that is, could you explain it to somebody at a bar without them either moving away or searching on Amazon for a straitjacket? And I just think this is a great example of it. I mean, if you just said to someone at a bar, do you think that people should be able to go to school dressed up as animals and then scurry around and bite children? I don't think many of them would say, yeah. Yeah, actually.

I did. I mean, they would say, what, what, what are you talking about? That is the most insane thing I've ever heard. But when I watched that, I, it almost felt like British satire, like something like brass eye. I, I, my brain is struggling to believe that's right. Me too. It was reported by the blaze by the daily caller. I mentioned the guy who posted that video and I said to my team, go figure out whether this is a real story. And it is. I mean, as I say, it's, it was on the local news and the school itself issued a statement

on it. This is absolutely unbelievable, but, but then not because I've been hearing these stories about, we have a friend who's at NYU who has been witnessing this firsthand. As I mentioned, I have another friend who's seeing this, actually a friend who saw this come into her store where the daughter wanted a dog collar and a leash. Okay. I mean, we could keep going. And amazingly, I think it's a local ABC affiliate, Jim, you're going to be glad you went second. Track down an actual furry to comment on whether this is appropriate. I give you the wisdom of Strudel. Thank you. This is Strudel,

a member of the furry fandom. Though they've been a furry for over a decade, they have their own opinions. It's crazy that it's escalated to this point where these kids are being so distracting to their peers that their peers want to stage a walkout. So to have, you know, the next generation kind of muddy our name and not represent it very well, it is kind of disappointing. Strudel believes there should be some limits. Continue doing things you like, continue dressing up um continue making art but maybe let's keep it outside of school hours

strudel makes a lot of sense strudel's gesturing with his her big paws to make the voice strudel's on our side now strudel is going to be called an Uncle Rudolph for representing a sellout to the furry American community for not standing on principle. Look, going back, by the way, to your anecdote of the woman who aced the job interview and then showed up dressed up like a tiger. Who did that young woman think she was? Former Oregon Democratic Congressman David Wu. interview and then showed up dressed up like a tiger uh who did that young woman think she was former oregon democratic congressman david woo that's going deep into the way back machine there but forgot member of congress oh you did you ever saw the pictures he drank like so he lost his marbles that that'd be the scientific technical term for the mental deterioration that turned there and apparently he like would like to dress up and just walk around at that and just like i

think went to an airport one day, dressed up like an airport. His entire staff knew that he was, at David Wook, this is probably, I want to say the 2010s somewhere. And he, everybody, his entire staff knew that he was cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but all kept him on ballot

and made sure that he got reelected. Because we couldn't have a Republican in that district. Good heavens. No, that, you know, much better that we have the guy who is crazier than Murdoch on the A-team. Let's have him in the House. And then he resigned. So this is the maybe patient zero in the furry outbreak there. Can you believe how easy it was for ABC4 to just go find some? What was that? Was that a fox? Was it a dog? I don't know. Probably the, the, no, I probably was a national organization of furry Americans, NOFA. And, um, they probably are listed there probably online, you know, 1-800 dial a furry. There's probably

some way if you need a furry, my guess is Craigslist, probably some other social media app. You could probably find exactly the furry you want. I don't know if they referred to Strudel by they, you know, to Charles's point with the pronouns. Like they were very careful to be respectful of Strudel. I guess Strudel doesn't go by he or she. It's a they. When you began this, you began this as campus madness. And my first thought was, okay, this is kids, this is college students dressing up in their full furry outfits. And when it comes to crazy behavior on college campuses, yes, sometimes in politics,

but this sounded a bit more like some hot girl was into it. And tons of other guys are like, yeah, I'm into that too. Absolutely. Yeah, I love being a furry. Quick, find my own Halloween costume, whatever it takes. Not at 11 and 12. Not at 11 and 12. No, that's not what's happening.

The details of what they're doing to the other children are pretty specific. One word as to all the children say that the principal's daughter is a furry, and that's why the principal allows this. Just a quick Google search didn't show any children for this particular principal, but that doesn't mean Google's up to date or she didn't adopt one or have a stepdad. I have no idea what the situation is. The anecdote, like what turns this into not a funny story is the fact that there are reports of kids biting other kids.

And they say they spray, the furries spray Febreze on them sometime in their eyes. Why? That's why they need the fart spray we were talking about earlier. This whole podcast comes full circle. It's just not very authentic, is it?

Yeah. We dealt with biting in the household in daycare pre-preschool where i have two teenagers thank you for your prayers uh older one was the bitey uh my my older teenager was the one who'd uh much more my younger one was the biter but at three strikes and you're out for preschool, for daycare, right? At a middle school, well, you know Jesse and you know Johnny. They've always been biters. And so this is only their sixth or seventh biting of us. Why are you like, how is that not automatically, you're out of there?

How, you know, anyway. Yeah, this does feel like some sort of onion or Babylon. There's also a no mask rule there, which the students say that they allow these students, of course, to violate. They don't get in trouble is what they claim. Well, I guess that's one. How old were your kids, Jim,

when you managed to stop them spraying Febreze at each other? Oh, I can't get them to do that now. What is that? Wait, of all the things teenagers could be doing, spraying Febreze is really not the worst of it. I could live with some of that. What is that? I mean, how did that?

I think you're right. What is it? It's not like they looked at the animal kingdom and said to be authentic furries, we have to spray Febreze at each other. That's a good point. I don't understand it either. I mean, the worst thing we've had in our house

has been the whoopee cushion, which of course is every 11-year-old, well, he's a 10 now, every 10-year-old boy's dream. I mean, the worst thing we've had in our house has been the whoopee cushion, which, of course, is every 11-year-old. Well, he's 10 now. Every 10-year-old boy's dream. I mean, he can't get enough of them. It's like they break very easily. But if you combine that with the fart spray, you're in the sweet spot. Gentlemen, I'll leave it on that lovely note.

Charlie and Jim, only here on The Megyn Kelly Show can you have these discussions. It's been a pleasure. Always a joy, Megyn. Thank you for having us. This is exactly the conversation I thought I would have when I woke up this morning. We needed it. See you soon. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Thank you.