The Megyn Kelly Show - Bombshell New Hunter Biden Charges, and Harry and Meghan's "Racist Royals" Drama, with Matt Welch, Liz Wolfe, and Maureen Callahan | Ep. 682

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Reason Magazine's Matt Welch, co-host of The Fifth Column, and Liz Wolfe, co-host Just Asking Questions, to discuss the bombshell new Hunter Biden charges and what this could mean for Joe Biden, the ways Biden's lies are protected by the left, more signs of Biden's cognitive decline, whether Joe Biden will try to weasel out of debates with Trump in 2024, the university presidents now pushing for free speech after campus anti-Semitism, embarrassing hypocrisy when compared to the past 10 years of free speech silencing on campus, the CAIR director’s disturbing comments claiming he was “happy” with the events that occurred on October 7, how it exposes the organization’s anti-Semitism, the White House belatedly distancing themselves from CAIR, and more. Then Maureen Callahan, Daily Mail columnist, joins to discuss the new details about pro-Harry and Meghan author Omid Scobie revealing the "racist Royals" in one version of his book, Megyn Markle's continuous lies about the Royal family and now silence now after this controversy, Prince Harry's relationship with his family, T.J. Holmes and Amy Robach's new podcast focusing on their supposed relationship origin story, their cringe stories about love and career, the reports of Holmes acting as a predator on-set with other producers, their two exes who are now in a relationship, disturbing allegations against Diddy, and more.Welch: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fifth-column/id1097696129Wolfe: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/just-asking-questions/id1719355507Callahan: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/columnist-1519521/Maureen-Callahan-For-DailyMail-Com.html 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, a bombshell development for the Bidens. Less than five months after Hunter Biden's sweetheart plea deal fell apart because of that smart judge who saw that they were trying to give him the deal of a lifetime. The first son has been indicted on nine tax charges, three of them felonies. In the lengthy indictment, Hunter is accused of a years long scheme to avoid paying taxes, instead choosing to spend his millions on things like drugs, escorts, girlfriends, exotic cars and so on. In short, to quote the indictment,

everything but his taxes. Now, keep in mind, these charges cover from 2016 to 2019. They have to exclude years 14 and 15 because David Weiss, the prosecutor behind the charges, allowed the statute of limitations to run. Those are the two years in which Hunter was taking all the money from Burisma and had all of his foreign contacts while his dad was in office. And many believe that those were intentionally allowed to lapse because nobody wanted Joe Biden brought into any of this. And guess what? He isn't and won't be. He isn't and won't be. And that is clearly by design.

Hunter Biden's in some trouble. There's no question. But just bear in mind, there's a reason 14 and 15 have nothing to do with this lawsuit. These guys, it's disgusting. He was forced to get tough. He was forced to get tough after he was embarrassed by that judge. When David Weiss, this prosecutor, tried to give Hunter Biden a complete pass on all of this and let him walk with just a misdemeanor. Thank God for that judge who said, what are you doing?

What's in this document that you didn't actually even call to my attention? She just happened to find the attempt to give her the slipperoo as she read deep into the documents. Now publicly humiliated because he was running cover for the president's son. He's had to bring the charges, first the gun charge and now the tax charges. But again, not the ones for the most important years that would have brought in potential charges against Hunter on being a foreign agent who is unregistered, any bribery charges, anything involving the big guy, Joe. These charges brought today, completely vindicate, by the way, the two whistleblowers that we interviewed on this show last summer, Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley. They were destroyed by the left, absolutely destroyed as liars, self-serving, trying to cover their own backsides because they'd been removed from this investigation for allegedly leaking to the press, which they totally deny.

You know, they were smeared as like anti-Biden dishonest guys. B.S. Their allegations, other than the one piece of it, which is this statute of limitations was allowed to expire and David Weiss told us he wasn't the ultimate decision maker, have been completely vindicated. That's what they said in a statement to CBS News. They call the indictment a complete vindication. Meanwhile, Hunter's attorney, Abby Lowell, argues that if Hunter Biden's last name were anything other than Biden, these charges would not have been brought. Poor Hunter, single tear. But if Hunter's name was anything other than Biden, he likely would not have made the millions of dollars he did. And, you know, these two whistleblowers said the opposite was true in any event. Like a lot lesser known people have gotten prosecuted and served a lot longer time than anything Hunter's looking at.

This latest indictment carries a maximum sentence of 17 years, Andy McCarthy says. Hunter is facing another 25 in a separate gun case. That won't happen. Of course, his dad could potentially pardon him. Wouldn't that be interesting? Wouldn't that be interesting? Would he do it on his way out from a one-term only? Could it be his swan song out of the Oval Office? Well, the Biden White House and its predicament is pretty interesting. Andy McCarthy, again, of National Review, he predicts at a minimum this would be extremely embarrassing for the Biden administration

if this case ever goes to trial. Yes, he's 100 percent right. And what of 2024? How does this play in? The New York Times now explicitly asking, should Biden really run again? Joining me now, Reason Magazine's Matt Welsh and Liz Wolfe. Matt is also co-host of The Fifth Column, as you know, and comes on with his other buddies occasionally. And Liz is co-host of Just Asking Questions. Matt and Liz, welcome back to the show. It is getting pretty interesting. I don't want anybody to fall for, oh, you know, David Weiss. He's tough. These are tough charges. He was forced, forced after he'd been humiliated and then tried to attack those whistleblowers. But good that what was left of the charges against Hunter have now been filed.

And yeah, this could be very embarrassing and tough for this White House to deal with, Matt. And I presume also that in the process of both the indictment and whatever prosecution, to the extent that they actually go through with it and it isn't a re-plea bargained away, that we will see some information about how he got the money to begin with. Because if you're going to be spending $683,000 on payouts, various women in a four-year span. First of all, that's aspirational. Second of all, why do you need the extra $189,000 for adult entertainment?

I figure like you got to choose a lane one of these ways, but that money had to come from somewhere. And you're absolutely right. And everybody's right when they point out that Hunter Biden wouldn't be out there necessarily earning that money through his talents alone. It's all because of his last name. And so there will be hopefully some discovery of that. That's where I think there's

two parts where there's an American like public interest in this. You know, I could I'm not generally moved by people by tax avoidance cases being a crazy libertarian, you know, on some level Hunter Biden, porn, drugs, tax avoidance, you know, libertarian hero. What's not to like? But the interest is the interest for all of us is one is the double standards that you point out. But to precisely that, to what extent has he in the process of absolutely cashing in on his family name and his father's connections, including his father's vice president? To what extent did that relate to Joe Biden and American policy? I presumed at the when this first came up before the last election that it didn't immediately

make sense that this would affect Joe Biden like like it would change the way that he conducted himself in foreign policy. But I think we've seen a lot already through the reporting that there's more there that's interesting to look at. I want that looked at. And if this trial doesn't get there, I hope that various congressional investigations committees get there, because that is where our real interest lies, in addition to making sure that you can't just get away with doing all kinds of crazy nonsense just because you're the president's son. What are the odds he becomes the Libertarian Party's candidate for president? Well, he's a libertarian hero nowadays, right?

Please, one of you run if that starts percolating. So here's the thing. I mean, watching the Hunter Biden trial, if that's where this goes, as opposed to a plea, will be interesting. I mean, certainly we would cover it if any president's son got indicted on multiple felonies like this. But you won't be hearing anything in that trial about Joe Biden. I mean, you will not be hearing anything about it because David Weiss and this DOJ have made sure of it. And so the only lane in which you're going to hear anything about Joe Biden is the Congressional House investigation and potential impeachment if it advances to an actual impeachment against him. And that can be dismissed as political. And, you know, likely I mean, they certainly don't have the

votes necessarily even for an actual impeachment, never mind for a conviction, which would have to happen in the Senate. So they've protected Joe Biden. That's really the bottom line, Liz. Well, the other issue is the past that the mainstream media is giving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and their coverage of this. I mean, even just really allowing I was reading so many haven't seen more mainstream media pushback on that. To me, that shows the value in more and more independent journalists really beginning to cast a little bit more attention on this type of thing. I mean, this is a huge, glaring double standard. And also, what a sad thing.

You know, this says something really awful about the state of American politics that, you know, Trump is obviously embroiled in all of these different legal battles. And then now Joe Biden's son is too. Like, can we not just get like a normal candidate for president who's available, who's not just constantly breaking the frickin law? It's so true. Like, where are the decent people? You know, I actually think you looked up at that stage the other night, like Ron DeSantis. Maybe he didn't resonate entirely with people and his campaign, but that's a decent man. That's a decent man. He's got a wife. He's got kids. You know, there haven't been any, any real allegations against him whatsoever that he's not a decent

person. Like where, why can't we have that? No one's perfect, but it's so frustrating. Like, these are grifters in the White House right now. This is a grifting family trying to get rich off of us. And it's a lie, Matt, that if you or I did not pay $1.4 million in federal taxes over four years, the IRS would not come for us. We would get pursued, audited and charged 100 percent. Oh, man, I'm just picturing the Megyn Kelly trial here for unpaid taxes and the lurid headlines. I mean, that media double standard. I mean, think about it going up, going back to the Hunter Biden laptops story. How many journalists cheered on, like literally cheered on the suppression

of that story last time around? There's like the media, the newspapers of my youth, which had a great time with Billy Carter back in the day, would be unrecognizable now. Hunter Biden, just as a character, just as comic relief, as a human walking embarrassment. That's my favorite artist you're talking about. It's a real great NFT artist. Like, if you're not even interested. Or Roger Clinton. Roger Clinton.

Yeah. I mean, we used to have a good time poking fun at presidential families. But actually, to your question about, you know, why can't we get decent people? We're part of the blame of this. I mean, why do why did we get George Santos, who, again, is a great comic relief, at least, and is doing some really wonderful work over there on on Cameo these days. But the reason that we got George Santos is because Democrats absolutely bungled the basic governance of New York City. All the suburban congressional districts went Republican

and they didn't even know who they were voting for. They just didn't want to vote for a Democrat, which I totally get. But when we're in a two party system and you just need to express your revulsion of the other guy, you don't care. You just don't about what is wrong with the guy that you have. Joe Biden was a terrible presidential candidate in 1987. So bad that, you know, he had to bow out. And it was embarrassing how much he plagiarized his own life story from British politicians. By the time he came around as the only person who could sort of smite Donald Trump, people just said, you know what? Who cares if he sits and at every single time that he's grieving with a family, he makes

up stuff about his own family tragedies and where he was when this thing happened and his son being killed in war, his son being killed in war, his his his uncle giving him a purple heart and he didn't want to accept it. None of this is true. He does this all the time. I mean, if you go to PolitiFact slash Joe Biden, even though journalists don't make a big deal out of it, he says banana stuff all the time. And journalists generally don't care about it too much because he is a vehicle for smiting down Donald Trump. So it's our our polarization and hatred of the other side that allows us to look the other way, not just when people themselves are bad, but when there's lifetime of corruption. If you're in public

service and government elected official positions for 50 years, Joe Biden has been. So as old as Liz's parents, he's been in public service. Yes, your family is going to be getting rich off your name. That's normal. That happens with all kinds of politicians. And it shouldn't be something that we just sort of accept as a status quo. It's disgusting, actually. We also have this huge issue with amnesia, right? Like you brought up the plagiarism scandal. OK, I bet a lot of people my age, that's not even on their radar, right? But that's something that, in my view, should be pretty disqualifying from public office. I mean, I'm in favor of mercy and redemption, generally speaking, when applied to, you know,

private individuals. Nobody should be canceled for something they did 10 years ago or what have you. But I'm sorry, we're talking about somebody seeking the highest office in all the land. I'm a little bit concerned about what that says about their character if they're plagiarizing something. And then we just sort of collectively forget about it and allow them to continue to have this massively successful political career. I think we should hold elected officials to a higher standard. And and our public officials, frankly. But it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat. Nothing matters. Just this past two weeks, they had the Kennedy Center honors the other night where Joe Biden couldn't say Dionne Warwick. He kept calling her Diane and he didn't know who

Barry Gibb was. He kept calling him Billy. You know who else was honored at the Kennedy Center? You know who else? Billy Crystal. Just FYI, do you know who once opened up the Academy Awards in full blackface? Oh, yeah. Billy Crystal. Billy Crystal. And do you know who's going to be hosting the Academy Awards this year? Jimmy Kimmel. Do you know who's worn blackface repeatedly and spoken in an inner city sort of urban accent saying she needs to darn those socks. Jimmy Kimmel as Oprah, as a fat suited, black faced, darning socks, Oprah. Now, if you are of the left, that's fine. If you are of the right and happen to just say, hey, people used to wear blackface and nobody freaked out about it,

you get fired. Right. I could speak to that firsthand. I never wore blackface. Never. But I'm just saying it's what opened the Academy Awards in blackface, wore blackface repeatedly and now hosting the Academy Awards. It's the same thing for Joe Biden. You can plagiarize and get forced out of a presidential race and then become what is plagiarism? It's dishonesty. It's unethical. He became president. And what did he do? More dishonest and unethical things. If you look at the charges against his son, particularly relating to Burisma, the Chinese, et cetera. I think that Jimmy Kimmel should run for office in Virginia. You know, they've really indicated that they're totally fine with their politicians doing that. So maybe he has a shot

there. I'm just stuck on Billy Gibb, which you broke that news to me, Megan. And and there's just no way that a human being can mistake Barry Gibb, a titan of songwriting and a lion of a man for Billy Gibb, unless he was thinking about billy carter uh there is no who's billy gibb there is not there's not like a no no he just like he just screwed it up and like i was saying the other day that billy barry gibb the bee Gees that's his era that's 1970 hello he was still i don't know He's probably like about 70 then. He should remember him. Yeah, the the your double standard thing also applies to what we're seeing now. And with the college presidents and free speech and anti-Semitism debates there, too.

Right. There's an asymmetry always when you have these, you know, who can walk on eggshells and who doesn't have to, like sort of how you are on the oppressor oppressed political sliding scale of who is allowed to get away with transgressions. And these debates just show that illustrate that constantly. And it's a reason why so many people are apoplectic watching college presidents try to sort of wiggle out of, you know, whether you say something that is genocidal, but it's towards Jews who are seen as an oppressor class these days, then it's maybe OK. This stuff is sounds bananas to everybody else. That double standard is absolutely glaring to everybody else.

The solution from it, which I think that Vivek Ramaswamy, I know you and him had some productive disagreements and just an interesting exchange post debate over this. I think the solution of it is in his direction of let's not try to expand the things that we're going to cancel people over or expand the punishments for speech, but let's also immediately, if you are a college

president or if you're someone who's really policing, you know, blackface comedic sketches from 15 years ago, the first thing you need to do is retroactively apply your new standard of free speech to all of the times that you crack down on people, usually in a political direction in the past. And until those people start doing that, I am not going to believe their free speech laments even for a microsecond. Well, the other thing that I would bring up that actually connects weirdly enough to the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story is American voters aren't stupid. They don't appreciate these double standards. Maybe, you know, especially when you censor and crack down on articles that bring this type of thing to light, maybe it takes some time to catch on.

But ultimately, more trust is squandered in the long run when you show this hypocrisy in this way. And so it's like they're so interested. So much of the left is interested in these short term gains and they fail to anticipate in the long run, people aren't going to take kindly to this type of double standard and they're going to notice. I just want to spend one moment on the Biden family ethics, because there was something out, you know, how last year they got in trouble for hanging all the little stockings by the fireplace and they didn't acknowledge Navy Biden, you know, their seventh grandchild, Hunter's child. Well, guess what they did? And then one Friday of a holiday weekend late in the day, they submitted a paper statement acknowledging her. This year, reportedly no stockings at all by the White House fireplace.

Just let's just skip it. That's how you fix it. No grandchildren. Right. Like, forget it. There's no one's going to be acknowledged because we don't want to acknowledge little Navy. They're such nice people. And here's a little fact. Here's a little recap. You don't have to go to PolitiFact for some of Biden's top lies. We've got him right here. He was he claimed he was arrested during a civil rights march. Not true. He spent part of a summer working as a tractor trailer driver. No, he was arrested while trying to meet Nelson Mandela. No, sir. His son, Bo, was killed in Iraq. Untrue. He graduated top of his class in college. In fact, he graduated near the bottom. He admitted once that he does overstate his academic record, or that he did in the 1980s, but explained it away by saying, I exaggerate when I'm angry. So he's angry a lot. That's his problem. Now, before we leave the topic of Joe Biden, I must simply must first show you what he's saying about whether he had anything to do with his son's nefarious dealings with the Chinese and all these other businesses that we know Joe Biden was calling in to those meetings, talking to Hunter, be put on speaker. Everyone will hear Hunter's close with the big guy.

It wasn't like, hey, give Hunter money. But it was very obvious what was going on. He was asked about it. And here's what he said in Sat 1. President Biden on Ukraine and also China. There's polling by the Associated Press that shows that almost 70 percent of Americans, including 40 percent of Democrats, believe that you acted either illegally or unethically in regards to your family's business interests. Can you explain to Americans in this impeachment inquiry why you interacted with so many of your son and brothers' foreign business associates? I'm not going to comment on that.

I did not. And it's just a bunch of lies i did not there's lies wow someone needs to work with him on what no comment is uh and just and i've said it uh here before like just the the gap between his performance ability live on camera in 2023 from even 2019 is just it's shocking to the eyeballs. Not shocking for those of us who have aging parents or grandparents. But but yeah, it's it's so visible. And he's going to do this. He's just going to say lies right wing.

And then he's going to take great umbrage because he's a family man. And he's going to see how far he can get away with that. But it can look at that and see the way that he's covering up for his absolutely piece of garbage son and and say that there's something smells funny and you can't just keep dismissing it out of hand with with a wave of your hand and pretend it's all a right wing plot, especially now that there's, you know, a pretty serious indictment that didn't even cover all of the potential areas of criminal activity. So he's got a problem. Democrats have a problem and their approach towards it and the media's kind of approach towards helping them has been to say, what about Trump? And that's not an effective way to clean your own house. I have plenty of problems with Mr. Donald Trump, as I do with every president and most every politician.

But Democrats are not going to win the 2024 election by pretending Joe Biden isn't old and doesn't have serious credibility problems with voters. But well, to that point, two things. Hunter Biden, first of all, has already said he's 100 percent sure that he's going to be cleared on all wrongdoing charges. But second of all, to your point of, you know, watching this president and seeing him diminish, I you've got to see this clip. He was speaking at the Tribal Nations Summit and thought it might be cool to imitate the voice of a little girl whom he claims spoke to him recently. Listen.

Oh, no. I restored protections for my predecessor, gutted by my predecessor, at three national monuments, Grand Staircase and Bears Ears. By the way, you know how that happened? I was in a plane. A little girl came up to me she said mr president can you take care of business and i i thought she said can i take care of her ears i said what honey she said this is it's really important and guess what she was dead right and We did take care of it. I, um, help. I just, I wouldn't. First of all, there are so many things wrong with this.

I don't even know where to start. One of them being that you should not take like executive policymaking direction from children that you randomly meet, right? Like Matt has an eight year old. She's lovely. She should not dictate anything about how anybody, you know, conducts, like creates policy for the country, right? Like that's just patently obvious.

I confess that completely skipped over my head. I was so focused on the little imitation. It's a very valid point. Well, the imitation itself is just absolutely bananas. I wish this, you know, were compelling to the many people who seem to continue to greet him as this candidate that is worth supporting. And it's just it's so stunning to me. I mean, I don't mean to crapple over the gerontocracy with Matt in the room, you know, my elder over here. But I do think we have a serious problem in American politics, where if we're looking at our lead contenders for president and they're, I don't know, 80,

81 years old, to me, that's a really big problem. They're not mentally fit to serve. And for whatever reason, a lot of the mainstream media doesn't feel comfortable pointing this out. I was reading a New York Times article today that literally sort of like embedded the insinuation at the very beginning that maybe Biden is getting a little senile, but then very quickly shifted the focus to Trump's mental fitness. And it's just like, don't you see that people see right through this crap? Well, and, you know, no one's getting any younger. You know, we've got another, what, year plus of this presidency. We've got another four years coming for both of these men who look like they're going to be the standard bearer for their parties. No one's getting younger. Everyone knows how it goes. Even just in my own life four

years ago, I felt like I was sharper than I am today. And I'm relatively young. The White House and Biden's campaign knows this is a problem. That's very clear. They've tried to protect him now with the short stairs and the sneakers and making sure there are no sandbags and no cords anywhere, which is, I mean, smart whenever you're dealing with an elderly person. But in any event, this was interesting. reporting that Quentin Fulks, who's the principal deputy campaign manager for Biden-Harris, was asked if Mr. Biden is committed to participating in the presidential debates, the three general election debates, because the Presidential Debate Commission released the schedule, as they always do, for when those are likely to take place or when they're supposed to

take place. September 16th, October 1st, October 9th, the places are set, Texas State University, Virginia State University, and the University of Utah. So the debate commission is already out there. They've set it up. They expect it to happen. This is going into an election year. It's supposed to happen.

So they were asked, will he participate? And the answer was, at the end of the day, we're focused on building a campaign. We'll have those conversations. Now, why would it be anything other than, of course? So a reporter pointed out, well, that sounds like a no. And then his response was, no, I said the campaign is going to take a look at the schedule. We're going to have this conversation. But as of right now,

our focus is on building a campaign and infrastructure while Republicans remain in a divisive primary, yada, yada. That is not a yes. And there's a reason it's not a yes, Matt. Yeah, there's two avenues that things that they're looking at. One is it's obvious if Donald Trump is the nominee, which is the most likely scenario Biden has is out, which is that, oh, I'm not going to share stage with this horrible insurrectionist, likely criminal who should be behind bars. That's giving dignity to something. It's going to be an attempt to deplatform a presidential party nominee. And you're going to see a lot of that, both from Biden and from a lot of journalists. It's going to be a pretty interesting scenario. But that's a cover also for the fact that he's just too old to debate

and it's going to be bad. I mean, imagine him trying to go up against Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. That would be pretty that would be pretty brutal. And, you know, Ron DeSantis is pretty stiff. He's not the world's most gifted sort of physical debater, but on paper and on policy transcripts are his friend in debates. He had a pretty good transcript debate this week with you. But but he still run laps around Joe Biden. Of course he would. And so I think we're at the end of the commission on presidential debates cycle in many ways. It's a it's a garbage organization itself. It's the it's a major party attempt to elbow out any possibility of minor parties. They will, if RFK Jr., who I'm no particular fan of, is polling at 20%, which is unlikely,

but he has been so far in three-way polls on occasion, they will find a way to make sure he's not on that debate stage if there was even a debate stage. They are set up to exclude third party and independent candidates, which is the total opposite of what a debate commission should be done. So I think it's bad to not have debates among the major parties.

On the other hand, I think I look forward to that commission on presidential debates to be blown up. It is a it is a crap organization. Well, the DeSantis Newsom debate could have served as a sort of interesting format for how we could engage going forward. That was kind of interesting because Newsom hasn't declared as running for president. I mean, that might be a little bit better if Biden had a challenger from within his own party. But ultimately, I think it was a little bit of a flop because at least I was expecting this litigation of COVID policy of California versus Florida and a little bit of a reckoning with the actual facts and what actually Florida and a little bit of a reckoning with the actual facts and what actually happened with a few years of distance from that.

That really isn't what happened. And unfortunately, they spent very little time on that. Newsom had a lot of kind of BS talking points about California's record and making it seem like the lockdowns were a lot less damaging to residents of California than they actually were. So I thought that that was kind than they actually were. So I thought that that was kind of an interesting format. And I'm kind of excited about the different creative ways that the two sides are finding to engage with each other. But I do think the format still needs some more workshopping because that ultimately didn't really give me what I wanted as a viewer, which was a reckoning of, you know, a really, really tragic deprivation of civil liberties that people are still reeling from. I want to just go off for one second and think

about a presidential debate with Joe Biden on the one hand and any one of the four undercard candidates on the Republican side. I realize they are not likely to rest this thing away from Trump. But think of Joe Biden versus, let's say, Chris Christie. Let's say Vivek. My God. I mean, I know those two guys are not going to get the nomination. I'm just saying, imagine it. Imagine it. And Nikki Haley's very nimble. And DeSantis is getting better. But any one of the four of them would clean his clock. And what would his excuse be for not debating them? You know, it's just one of the things for Republicans to consider. Imagine how what the word ratio be.

Give Vivek and Joe Biden equal time. Vivek will say what? A hundred times more words than Joe Biden will. Joe Biden will be trying to like pronounce, you know, mimic a four-year-old for 25 minutes. And Vivek will have like read an entire phone book. I think that actually Vivek would be the best possible scenario for Biden

because he could do what Nikki Haley kind of tried to do this week and didn't really manage. But just to sort of like like, you know, shut up, kid, you're bothering me. I think he could play that. Chris Christie, I think, did that more effectively. But Chris Christie would kill him. I realize Republicans don't like him. Refer you back to my initial question to Chris Christie. Yes. However, he would kill Joe Biden rhetorically in a debate. There would be it would be an absolute bloodbath. I would buy a ticket to it tomorrow. And Chris Christie, you know, what's interesting about him is, as I pointed out, Trump's approval rating is at 81 percent.

Christie's is at 25 percent. It's almost, you know, exactly the inverse. Right. It's almost it's like you were forced to choose a side, Trump or Christie, and the Republicans chose Trump. And almost in exact equal proportions, they sided against Christie. I don't know if Chris Christie has a future in the GOP or coming back to leadership in some way, maybe in a post-Trump world, or if they somehow make up, that could happen. Because I do think Christie is a good man who could still be a good lawmaker. Just he's got to get like you can't. And this is Trump's Republican Party. And you're just not going to go anywhere by being his chief antagonist. All right. Quick break. Quick break. Want to get to the campus anti-Semitism. And we've

got to get to the Council Against Islamic Relations or of American Islamic Relations. Matt's been covering this group care for a long time. So have I. And we're going to get to what just happened with them. We saw those three university presidents give testimony this week on college, before Congress. They were the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and UPenn. And they were just a hot mess. They were completely cold. They were pretty nasty. There was no empathy at all for what's happening to the Jewish students on their campuses. And they went full legal, you know, free speech. Can't outlaw it. Can't do anything about it

unless it's pervasive and amounts to conduct that would equal harassment. Now, you're talking about strict First Amendment law. That happens to be correct. However, college campuses have engaged that are not public and do not have the state hand on top of them, have had way more restrictive free speech policies for some time now. And these three in particular, I mean, like Harvard, we've been covering. They're the worst in the nation when it comes to protecting free speech. Worst in the nation officially as monitored by fire, which actually keeps count. And there's been tons of blowback. I've been actually kind of encouraged at how much blowback they've gotten.

Here's just a sampling of what they testified to. And then we'll get you get to the cleanup now that's happening. SOT7. Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no? If targeted at individuals, not making public statements. Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus. But you've heard chants for intifada. I've heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

Specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a context-dependent decision. So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct, correct? Again, it depends on the context. It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across

the board. Hmm. Elise Stefanik is so strong and she's been praised in a lot of corners, even her detractors now praising her. But here's Claudine Gay. Claudine, you're getting fired. There's no question in my mind. You've handled this whole thing abominably from the beginning. Sorry, this is just your latest error. She comes out and tries to have yet another go at it. I mean, I'm not you take a guess. It's basically, you know, it's terrible to call it for genocide with all of our Jewish students on campus. Sorry, I missed that first time around. Then you've got Liz McGill of UPenn. She put out a video message, as Alan Dershowitz was saying, anything that begins with I want to be clear, nine times out of 10 is not clear. But here's what she said.

I was asked if a call for the genocide of Jewish people on our campus would violate our policies. In that moment, I was focused on our university's longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have have been the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate it's evil plain and simple in my view it would be harassment or intimidation you're an idiot you're an idiot she had're an idiot. She had to get

browbeaten for days to get to that conclusion, Matt. I know you're as pro-free speech as I am, but look at the way they conduct their campus approach to free speech for the past 10 years versus what they're now saying. The idea that, you know, I answered the question because, you know, we're tethered fully in constitutional protection and that speech can't be punished. Speech is punished on your campuses all the time. That's the problem. Every day it's punished. I mean, people, there are professors who've been on the butt end of Title IX investigations for expressing different ideas about how sexual assault rules can be

prosecuted on campus. That's crazy. And those investigations, too, you can't even face your accuser. So you have these kangaroo courts that are established to absolutely prosecute free speech or punish people for their speech. FIRE, who you referenced before, used to be the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. And now they've thankfully broadened out to expression because they're taking the old ACLU position since the ACLU has long since abdicated its role in protecting free speech. But they still maintain this emphasis. And what they will tell you is that there has been an absolutely crazy binge, a wave of speech crackdowns on college campuses over the last 10 years since 2014.

I was just remembering this morning, it was 2014 when my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara, there was a gender studies professor who went up to a 16-year-old kid in the free speech zone. And the 16-year-old kid was a anti-abortion protester and she had pictures of aborted fetuses. Right. That's what happens when you talk about abortion politics. And you see these kinds of displays all the time. It's part of the discourse about it. And this professor went up, snatched her, stole her property and then went into an elevator.

Was the kids going, hey, that's mine, and then ripped it up and then pushed the kid. Right. Is that a university? And it was defended by the chancellor and by 2000 students who signed a petition and saying that it was these outside agitators coming to our campus to try to divide us. That is the mainstream of where speech is at on college campuses. So no, she is BSing in the face of losing $100 million donors and looking bad. And I think part of this too, is that the skills that you need to- Did that just happen? The $100 million thing did just happen. One of the donors just pulled $100 million. Keep going. Yeah. That thing that happened today or yesterday, the skills that are required to rise to the top of the food chain in academia, they're political skills. You have to figure out how to run this incredible, crazy, impossible to understand gauntlet of like making sure you don't step on this mine over here that have to do with sort of identity politics.

So you do this and you learn all kinds of jargon that is completely indecipherable by design to normal people. And by the time you get to the top, you've mastered this thing. And it gives you the opposite of political skills when trying to talk to the rest of humanity. And that's what we saw this week. And it was glorious, actually, to watch how badly that their language, their styles, their their way of trying to police and crack down on speech looks when read to normal Americans. And I appreciate that comeuppance. Well said. Well said, Liz. The the absurdity of their position is, you know, if you took any other group and you said, OK, so there's a bunch of like KKK students somehow made their way into Harvard or UPenn or MIT and gathered in the

mass throngs outside of the dorms and walked across campus chanting, we need to kill all blacks. Blacks have got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho. All the blacks have got to go. I'm sure their testimony in front of Congress would have been exactly the same. Oh, exactly the same. You know, like we're committed to the free speech and hates Beyonce. It takes a lot. You got to add in conduct in order for us to have a problem. Oh, bull. It's profound hypocrisy. And frankly, I'll just level with you guys. I'm angry that it's taken a decade for some of these big donors to realize what we all knew was happening. I'm sorry. I went to college from 2014 to 2016. It was abundantly clear to me as an 18 and 19 and 20 year old what was happening then.

You know, I started publishing in my campus newspaper and the amount of just astonishing ire, this sort of like interest in censoring people and this total disinterest in creating a legitimately classically liberal speech permissive environment. I mean, it was profound. You saw this in the wake of the Ferguson, Missouri, like the sort of earlier wave of police brutality related protests. I mean, why is it that it's taken these donors 10 years to pay attention to this thing that's happening? And in the meantime, what has happened is DEI administrators have been paid astonishing sums of money to do God knows what. I mean, basically codify a system of ensuring that kids in their orientation classes, and I shouldn't say kids, I should say adults, because these are 18 year olds and those are adults and under U.S. law. But, you know, putting them into all these orientation workshops where they're taught

about the importance of sensitivity and policing microaggressions. And, you know, when a controversial campus speaker like Barry Weiss, who was shouted down literally this week at the University of Texas at Austin, you know, when one of those speakers is present, there is this expectation from adults on these campuses that they have access to a little safe space room with pillows and the ability to blow bubbles. And maybe, I don't know, a trained therapist on site to process their feelings. It was always totally unacceptable. It was totally unacceptable in 2013 and 2014. And it's totally unacceptable now. It is so profoundly angering that it took student groups using Hamas paragliders as poster art to actually drive home this point to people

who should have been the adults in the room. Here is that incident that happened to Barry Weiss that you just referenced a couple of days ago. Look at this. University of Texas. This is a Jewish woman. She's an American Jewish woman in America trying to give her perspective. And she's got some problems with the massacre of the Jews. And this is what they do to her. But thankfully, they did have security on hand and they got those people got the boot. They got booted right out of there. They would have loved to have silenced her. Yeah, it's infuriating. And it's not just happening on these college campuses. You know that these radicals are everywhere. There was an incident. I'm sure you guys saw this where a Jewish woman was kicked out of a cafe called Farley's East, was reporting here in the New York Post. Well, just some background because there's various employees of the cafe at Farley's East denied her. And they said to her, free Palestine. She had apparently already seen inside the restroom that there was anti-Jew

graffiti and she wanted to go in there. Maybe she also had to use the bathroom. I don't know, but she definitely wanted to get a shot of the graffiti. And these snotty three employees gave her the hard no. They were actually telling this Jewish woman in a public place she could not use the restroom. Here's what happened. We've given you all your food. I want to go into the restroom. Also, currently, this is a private property. I want to go into the restroom. I know Israel loves taking private property and saying it's their own but we gotta head you're not going to leave the restaurant i need you to leave i want you to go into the restroom i need you to leave i was practicing here and i have a right to go into the restaurant

yeah but i need to go into the restroom i'm asking you to leave no you need to get me going to the restroom i don't i'm into the restroom you I'm into the restroom? You can use our other restroom. No, I want to use this one. All you get is a video of it saying that Zionism is anti-fascism. Why are you afraid? If you agree with it, why are you afraid that we take a picture of it? Oh, actually, yeah, right. If you agree with it, why are you afraid? I'm not afraid of it.

My problem is because you're... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. History didn't start in 1948, lady. Free Palestine. Free Palestine. It's always. Thank you. It's always.

Yeah. Great. We love it. Thank you very much. Oh, my God. I'd like to smack that guy's face. Yeah. This is the way they treat their customers at Farley's.

Looks like a lovely place. Yeah, let's not sleep on what that little punchable bearded nothing burger of a male specimen did. He engaged in collective guilt. He made that woman guilty of Israel's policy. What is what is, you know, fill in the blank ism, right? What is of its group based collective guilt and negative associations with someone? If you were part of this team, if you're part of like, you know, the pale skinned Texans over here, then therefore every pale skin, the Texan is guilty of some kind of genocide against

Mexican-Americans or whatever. It's nonsense. It is what we are supposed to be fighting against when we fight against actual racism, actual anti-Semitism. It is this mindset of collective demonization of a group based on immutable characteristics. That's what we should have been trying to get rid of in American society. That's what a lot of these people claim to be trying to get rid of. And they're not. They're actually embracing the tactics of it. It's gross. And if you start looking around all around you and seeing examples of it, particularly after the October 7th massacre, it's kind of shocking. And people need to be filmed doing this. They need to see themselves in the mirror doing this. I think I bet you both.

I bet you both a hundred dollars that these are the same people who want us to forgive their student loan debt. And like, I'm not trying to make a bunch of assumptions based off of, you know, their dress, their appearance, their demeanor, what have you. But I'm sorry, you want me to pay up to shoulder like what? How can you realistically think that you are in any way currying favor with other people? I mean, this is just an abominable way to treat other human beings. And if they're fighting for the side of human rights and decency and the cause of free Palestine and thinking about

all of the, you know, Gazan refugees who are displaced, which is a very fair thing to be concerned about, even if you think Hamas is heinous. If that is their side and they're on the side of decency and dignity and human rights, I don't know, maybe start treating people with some semblance, like some little tiny bit of respect in your day to day interactions with them. My God. I know history didn't begin in 1948, lady, lady. Oh, my God. What is this? It's so I really kind of want to go to Farley's East and have a conversation with these morons.

For now, Farley's East says this was an error and it has taken corrective measures with our staff. They apologized. But so far far no one's been fired from what we can tell. Farley's, that's a mistake. We're going to stay on it. And Liz and Matt, come right back. Don't go away. All right, guys. So CAIR, C-A-I-R, is back in the news. And I know you're very familiar. This is the Council on American Islamic Relations. They call themselves an American Muslim civil rights organization. No, they're not for civil rights. They're for censorship, silencing anyone who is critical of radical Islam or anything having to do with somebody who happens to be Muslim who does something wrong. You're not allowed to say it, according to CARE, because, I don't know, because they're CARE,

and they will threaten to sue you. They've threatened to sue me so many times. Guess what? They've never done it, and they're not going to do it now. And if you want to, bring it. Bring it. I welcome it. I will stick my lawyer, Brian Friedman, on you, and we'll have some fun. It'll be great. In any event, CARE and its executive director, Nihad Awad, have stepped in it. And how? At a November conference, they maintain that they are not anti-Semitic. They've maintained that all along, even though their founders had praised Hamas. This guy I'm about to talk about once praised Hamas, but he says, it was before it was officially formed. Exactly. No, but they're not anti-Semitic.

He was at a November conference hosted by the American Muslims for Palestine. And this is what this executive director, Nihad Awad, had to say about the 10-7 attacks. And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk free into their land. And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves. And yes, Israel as an occupying power does not have that right to self-defense. Gaza became the liberation source, the inspiration for people.

The Gazans were the victorious. Lovely. So now, because this guy and care are tight with the White House, in particular, care was part of the Biden administration's U.S. national strategy to counter anti-Semitism strategy. This group, whose executive director was really happy on 10-7, they're breaking up. The White House has now scrubbed its website to remove the care reference because they've come a couple of times and cooperated with the White House, that is, a couple of times. It was in May, they cooperated with the White House on an anti-Semitism thing. And now they're breaking up because he said this. So the guy says it was all taken out of context. It was taken out of context by an anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian hate website to distort his meaning. He said he was referring to the Palestinians who crossed into Gaza, from Gaza into Israel after the border was breached

that day, but did not themselves engage in violence. You see, it wasn't. That's what he was talking about when he said that Israel has no right to self-defense and that Gaza became the liberation source, the inspiration, and that he was happy to see people breaking the siege and so on. What do you make of it, Matt? This is a lovely group. None of that makes sense. And it's worth actually unpacking all of the ways that he builds towards this horrific conclusion. So he says there's a siege. There wasn't a siege. A siege is when you surround. There is now because you went in and raped everybody and killed 1,200 people.

You're going to get your ass sieged in that scenario. But what was existing on October 6th wasn't a siege. You don't allow 19,000 residents of Gaza to come in and work across the border into your country if it's a siege. That's not what sieges look like. The territories that they came in, another thing that's wrong, it's not formally occupied Palestinian territory. That's not what that is. Some of those kibbutzes predate the founding of Israel. So Jews have been living there a long time. You know, the history didn't begin in 1948, lady. Right. In 1930, that kibbutz there where you just massacred all the people and

and like threw grenades into the safe room where the kids were. And Liz has seen those videos. I'm not ever going to allow myself to be exposed to it. That is not a siege that was not occupied territory. So you're getting all these things wrong to build to this conclusion that Israel somehow doesn't have a right to self-defense. They would be the only nation state or sovereign country in the world that doesn't have a right to self-defense. That's kind of an odd formulation, too. And these types of dumb things that people say over and over again, Gaza occupied. No, it's been disoccupied since 2005. But people say these things constantly without them being challenged. And what October 7th did was it exposed those things in like the ferment that has been going

on, all of the unchallenged things that have been said mostly on college campuses, but elsewhere and by activist groups, they need to be challenged because they're wrong. And when you get the basic building blocks of your argument wrong, you're going to get to this monstrous conclusion Why would he be saying that if he was not justifying what happened, what Hamas did to the Israelis? He's saying that Gaza, that Hamas was self-defending when it committed that terrorist attack. That's very, very obvious. And it falls in line with care as an organization and the positions it's taken for a very long time. I mean, at this point, it's propaganda. And the fact that it had a relationship with the U.S. government means it's kind of state-sponsored propaganda, at least a little bit.

The thing that I think is so stunning about that statement, and then also if you remember that Cornell professor a few weeks ago who had said that he was exhilarated upon seeing the footage. And it was interesting because he was giving the speech in front of a bunch of students and he almost expected like this, this crowd to receive his exhilaration, his excitement with some amount of joy and agreement. And in fact, he got a little bit of a tepid response, which is a good thing. But it's astonishing that he felt in any way comfortable saying that he was excited and exhilarated to see this. I mean, as Matt referenced, I went to the Israeli embassy and I saw the 45 minutes of footage compiled from GoPros and from traffic cameras by the IDF of the slaughter, the massacre on October 7th. And the thing that I think is stunning to everybody who has seen that footage is the fact that these Hamas fighters, these militants, these terrorists reacted with such glee. I mean, we all know the story of the Hamas terrorists who called his family back in Gaza and was exclaiming, Mom, Dad, I just

killed 10 Jews. I killed 10 Jews with my bare hands. And there's just this it leaves you feeling completely nauseated the entire time. This idea of I mean, this is just this is subhuman behavior. This is profoundly horrifying. And then to see that same type of glee recycled and trotted out by people affiliated with these organizations that we take seriously in the U.S., whether it be Cornell or CARE, to me, that's a huge problem. I do look forward to the day

where we no longer take some of these very fancy sounding organizations seriously. And universities. Yeah. I mean, I think this could be the moment that breaks a lot of this. A lot of us have been saying this for a pretty long time now. I was actually even thinking about this because I was reading some articles recently that reference the American Academy of Pediatrics. I'm sorry, the organization that took a toddler masking like that's a joke. And that was exciting. And that once they're fine with cutting off body parts on kids who have a moment of gender confusion, no problem there. They are a joke and no parents should be listening to them. Honestly,

they've, they've sacrificed their credibility, but wait, Liz, I, I knew you were young. I didn't realize you were quite that young when you were at, by what you said earlier in high school, in high school, I was having arguments with care on Fox News and Matt was helping me. I remember because I remember I love reason I've met. I've liked Matt for a long time and read his stuff. They they've always been like this. They've always been. And the thing about care is they're chief cancelers. They if you say anything that they deem anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic, they will work to get your movie canceled, your career canceled. Guess what, care?

You're canceled. You are canceled. Your executive director said he was happy about 10-7. It's done for you. The White House has broken up for you. And now all of mainstream cable and broadcast must break up with you because they put them on TV all the time like they're just some reasonable group of Muslims trying to stand up for the safety and civil rights. It's a lie.

They've been radicals for a very long time. My team went back and pulled a couple of clips from over the years of when I've done battle on this this group. One, I think, is when they tried to ban Ayaan Hirsi Ali's movie, I think it was called Honor Diaries, about honor killings done in the Islamist world, and they tried to have it pulled, and Brandeis University did pull it. Ayaan was a Muslim and has a lot of reasons to complain about this, but no, Kiara says she had to be silenced. And then the second clip you're going to see, they're butted together, was when they tried to have Juan Williams fired from NPR after he admitted that this is nine years after 9-11. The second clip is from 2010. You were in middle school, Liz. I think high school at that point.

Okay. Okay. But Juan is saying when he gets on an airplane and he sees men in Muslim dress, he gets a little nervous. This is nine years after 9-11. But then he was quick to say, and I feel bad about that. I know it's not all Muslim men. He was just trying to start a conversation.

They pushed him. They did get him fired from NPR. Just a little walk down memory lane. Here it is. You don't want dialogue, sir. You called for punitive action against him. We didn't. You could have made any sort of statement condemning the remarks, offering a different

point of view, asking Juan Williams to come and discuss it, host a forum. How can we get past this? Instead, you wanted him gone, sir. And he is. After and threatened Reader's Digest, the American Medical Association, U.S. News and World Report, Atlantic Monthly, Dallas Morning News, Fox News. We did a segment on Honor Diaries just the other week. You demanded a retraction, which you're not getting.

Every time you hear something you don't like, you try to shut down the message. Whereas here in America, we like speech, good and bad. That's called the Constitution. It's called the First Amendment. Do you think the First Amendment allows more speech? Even speech you don't like. You were there, Matt. You remember all that. I just love to chip down haircut memory lane. Personally, Megan, there was a fantastic note. It's worth remembering that the tip of the censorious spear, does that make sense? Is that going to work out as a metaphor has been notions associated with Islam before

we got into the spasm of university cancellations and kind of the woke thing that's seen over the last 10 years. Some of that comes with Ferguson. It comes with George Floyd, the Me Too movement. All that's been supercharged. But what predates all of that is particularly what we did after 9-11 having to do with oversensitivity towards care-like concerns like, oh, you can't depict the Prophet Muhammad ever, even in the context of showing the cover story from Charlie Hebdo or the cover image from Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly after their own editors and cartoonists had been murdered in cold blood

for their satirical cartoons of perhaps the Prophet Muhammad. You can't even show that in a news story. You can't even show it in the New York Times. They did an article after the Charlie Hebdo massacre about a statue of the Prophet Muhammad that stood atop a New York City courthouse within walking distance of where we're taping this with you, Megan, stood up there without anybody worrying about it for 50 years and was eventually taken down and sent to a warehouse. And as part of this sort of historical and interesting look at how this bit of imagery was used, they didn't show a file photo of it. We are scared of historical news photos of existing

statuary. By the way, the Prophet Muhammad is depicted inside of the Supreme Court. But, you know, you recall South Park had to censor itself. The only time those guys have ever been censored was over depicting what was probably Mohammed in a cartoon bear suit. Salman Rushdie got attacked again recently. We've already kind of like absorbed that memory hold that this is where self-censorship in the West has happened. And it's happened because of organizations like CARE, but even more because the cowardice of the people who are supposed to be in the free speech business. We didn't spread the risk. This is why Charlie Hebdo was targeted because they were more brave than the rest of us. time, and as you did and you did very well and unsurprisingly, Megan, is insist at every moment on that ability to speak freely about things instead of being fired as a college art professor for showing historically accurate or historically interesting art depicting

the Prophet Muhammad, as happened up in Minnesota not that long ago. So this is where the fight needs to be. The people who are trying to advocate on censorship to protect minorities, that never works. What they're trying to do is enforce blasphemy laws on the rest of us. We in the enlightened West, post-enlightenment liberal West, should always reject that.

And we haven't been as much as we should be. Well, we even had the situation, what, a few weeks ago where Washington Post pulled that cartoon that was it? Yeah, Michael Ramirez. It was, you know, satirizing Hamas fighters. And there were a bunch of people who were basically saying, oh, that was too mean to terrorists. And it's like and, you know, it relied on stereotypes. And it's like, yeah, yeah, we are going to stereotype some Hamas terrorists in here, right? Like, I'm sorry, they just committed a horrific massacre of 1200 people. Yeah, I think we should. I think we should mock them in the pages of The Washington Post. I think that's like legitimately a good use of satirical art. And it's confusing to me. Have we lost our

ability to, you know, not only publish that type of thing, but also as readers, like it's OK for you to see a cartoon that offends your sensibilities and for you to just get over it or stew on it, mull it for a while. And maybe you end up agreeing with it. Maybe you don't. But I'm so confused by the cowardice that has just run rampant. And I wonder with that decision, which was ostensibly made by the Washington Post newsroom higher ups, not idiot millennials and Gen Zers. Again, where are the adults in the room who are saying, nope, we're going to be bold and we are not going to be cowards and we're not going to bend the knee to the mob.

We are going to publish this thing because we know it to be interesting, provocative, true, and worth reflecting on as a reader. It's amazing. This same group, so that you cannot say, as Juan Williams did nine years after 9-11, I still get a little nervous when I see a man in full Muslim garb on an airplane, but I feel bad about it. I think we should talk about why I'm feeling that way. You cannot say that, but you can say you were happy on the day 1,200 Israelis were brutally murdered, including babies in their cribs.

That's fine. Then you're pissed off. You got canceled. Some of us have seen the truth about this organization for a long, long time. And now I credit the White House for finally, though belatedly, distancing itself from this group. And I hope the media does the same. I cannot let you go without quickly talking about this college student who I must put on camera. I have no choice but to call attention to her. She's very upset. She's at NYU and her name is Hafiza Khaliq. She's one of the poster teardowners, which we also call vandalism. And that is actually why she got suspended from NYU. Stop anti-Semitism, put her picture and her video of her tearing down the hostage posters, which she called propaganda. She said it was propaganda used by the mainstream

media to whitewash the conflict. Some of us think it's calling attention to the plight of young children and the elderly shoved in Gaza tunnels, but she sees it a different way and decided our side doesn't get to promote the plight of these innocent victims. So that's not allowed. And to its credit, NYU suspended her. Well, on cue, on cue, you can predict what she did. She goes on camera with something called Breakthrough News, supposed to be independent, fact-based reporting and commentary regarding social justice. And she finds a victim. She's very sorry, not for the hostages, but for herself. Watch this.

So after I was filmed tearing down these posters outside of Tisch Hall, a student at NYU circulated the video on social media and she was calling for us to be docs. Shortly after, celebrities, public figures, and Zionist platforms with millions of followers were sharing our information publicly. The student also created a petition which received over 10,000 signatures to call for the expulsion of everyone in the video. I faced relentless backlash from right-wing media and news outlets for weeks, most calling for me to be jailed, expelled, deported, assaulted, and to be sent to Razzou. So because I was suspended, I would have to move off campus after the semester, essentially kicking me out of

the dorms, leaving me unhoused, and also denying me access to any higher education until fall 2024. Too effing bad. Too bad. She doesn't want to deal with the consequences. Her scholarship was a problem, actually, because it provided in dorm housing. And she's saying she lost that by by getting suspended. And now she wants the university to pay for her to be off campus. And they said, you know what, Hafiza, it's a no. So boom, everyone's so mean. They didn't let me vandalize their property. This is straight out of central casting. Liz, what are we going to do?

Why are you the only reasonable Gen Z-er? She is an idiot, frankly, but that doesn't mean we should pull her visa. You know, to the contrary, I think that means that she needs to spend even more time legitimately seeped in free speech, maximalist, classically liberal values and begin to hopefully,

for the love of God, see the light. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen on a lot of college campuses. She's not going to get it at NYU. Yeah, she might not get that at NYU. But I do think that there is possibly, possibly hope

for these total dunces, these total idiots with malice in their hearts, tearing down posters of child hostages where we, you know, in many cases don't know if they're dead or alive. My God, can you imagine? But I do think that that's reason to attempt to create more of this free speech permissive environment on college campuses and hope that somebody reaches her and that she engages with these ideas in some sort of robust manner. Unfortunately, she seems to be leaning into playing the victim card. The show that I co-host on YouTube with my colleague Zach Weissmuller called Just Asking Questions.

A few weeks ago, we had Russ Roberts on who lives in Israel. He's the president of Shalem College. He's a wonderful economist. And I mean, he has family who is now, I believe, serving in the IDF. He was in Israel on October 7th. The thing that he said he wants to convey to American audiences is when you see these horrible vandals trying to tear down these posters, physically get in between them. Do the thing that I think we all saw that video circulating of those construction workers in Queens who basically were like, I want to swear the ground with you. You know, like that, I think it was, it must've been Jackson Heights or somewhere. And that is the right type of response.

This confrontation, this countering their attempt at pulling down these posters with a confrontation of why are you doing that? Do you have no heart? Stop doing that. That means these posters mean something. And we're put up by people who were hurting in the same way that there was this use of posters following 9-11, you know, in many cases, not expecting that the victims would be recovered alive. But the sense of when you're going about your daily business,

don't you dare forget about this horrible, horrible thing we just endured. And I'm happy to have her exposed to the ideas. But in the meantime, I'm thrilled to see her punished. It's called vandalism. You're not the victim. You're the perpetrator. These are called consequences. You've probably clearly never been exposed to them before.

But welcome to the real world, Hafiza. Enjoy your suspension in off-campus housing or wherever you wind up. Okay, great to see you both. Matt, Liz, thanks for being on. Enjoy your suspension in off-campus housing or wherever you wind up. Okay. Great to see you both. Matt, Liz, thanks for being on. Thank you. We're going to have a lot of fun with Maureen Callahan.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, 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 sirius xm 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 mk show to subscribe and get three months free that's siriusxm.com slash m to subscribe and get three months free. That's Sirius XM dot com slash M.K. show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Now we bring in one of my favorite writers, Maureen Callahan. There's so much to get to the latest on the royals and the ongoing Omid Scobie controversy. He's Megan's stenographer posing as a journalist. Guess what?

It appears he revealed the identity of the supposed racist Royals that Megan was whining to Oprah about. But now he's claiming, oh, was it me? It wasn't me. We're going to get to the bottom of this. And guess what? Everybody's least favorite couple, Amy Robach and TJ Holmes are back. They've launched an absurd podcast and waiting to hear about the latest twist. And they're what appears to have been a very raunchy affair they had behind the backs of their spouses, though now they're denying that. Maureen, great to see you again. Lovely to have you here. So let's start with

Omid Scobie, this disgusting little person who has launched a book and gone on a book tour. And you tell me, but it appears that in no version of this book, other than the Dutch version over in Amsterdam, in Holland, does he out the identity of the alleged royal racist who Meghan told Oprah the royals were very concerned about the skin color of the baby. She was mocked for this assertion. But in the Dutch version,

he names them. And I'm just going to tell you, Piers Morgan is reporting, he did it, that it was allegedly King Charles and Kate Middleton. And we have no confirmation of this, but this is a new story. That's what he's saying. Omid Scobie's Dutch version said about who were the alleged people raising concerns. And now he's denying it and he's trying, as I understand it, to blame the translators over in Holland. Am I up to speed?

You are up to speed. You tell no lies, Megan. Before we get into Omid, I just want to be among many people, I'm sure, to congratulate you on Wednesday's debate and just how incredible it was to see that, yes, these candidates can be controlled and contained and corralled. It just seemed to take apparently three women led by you to do it. It's incredible to watch. So the OMID stuff is so fascinating. Now, of course, in line sort of with the Harry and Meghan, it's never their fault. It's never their fault. It's always somebody else's. Although he would have us believe he wrote this book independently with no help from Camp Montecito. And I will tell you, having slogged through that book, book. The only two people who come across as worthy and good and only well-intended are the

Beeligard, Harry, and Meghan. Everybody else is a monster. And the way in which he writes about Camilla in particular is vile. And it really sounds like it could have only come from one specific source. You know, he's got multiple passages in which Camilla's underwear is strewn everywhere after liaisons with then Prince Charles. I mean, it's utter gutter trash. So then to sort of say, OK, well, I wrote this book. It's all mine, independent. But except for, oh, this horrible thing that got out. I'm sorry to say it's a mistranslation. You cannot mistranslate something that isn't there to begin with. And the reason it's not in the UK version or the US version, but particularly the UK version, is their libel laws are so strict. And there is a line in the book where he specifically says to the reader, I am not naming the alleged royal racists Meghan were first peddling their tales of racist woe to Oprah Winfrey. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I know where you're going. I know where you're going.

I'm going to play the sot and then you take it out of the back end. Here's the original claim. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time. So we have in tandem the conversation of he won't be given security it's not going to be given a title and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born what and who who is having that conversation with you what so um there is a conversation hold up hold up there's several conversations about it. There's a conversation with you? With Harry.

About how dark your baby is going to be? Potentially, and what that would mean or look like. Ooh. And you're not going to tell me who had the conversation? I think that would be very damaging to them. Okay. So now it's, now we know who it allegedly was,

or at least we think we know and it's everyone's doing the who, what, what anyway, continue your thought. Well, I mean, again, just to rewatching that is so rich because we saw Harry back in January when he was peddling his memoir say to, I believe it was Tom Bradby, well, Meghan never said they were racist.

Did we say they were racist? But to watch her, I mean, she looks like she's testifying at the Hague. She looks like she's testifying at the Hague. She looks like she's testifying to war crimes. Like this is the gravest, most important discussion. So let's parse this, shall we? Right, Megan? It's not with her, but it's with Harry. It was one person, but now it's two. When Harry joins the conversation, he contradicts Megan's versions of events. It wasn't while she was pregnant. It was while they were dating. And, you know, my favorite observer of this entire sort of controversy was Chris Rock, who in his standup from last year, just went to town and, and,

and was like, this is not racist stuff. This is in-law stuff. Even black people want to know what's the baby going to look like. That's it. That's it. I kind of, I love though, that it's out of the bag now, really, because I do think that was the last weapon in their arsenal. This thing that they were holding over the royals, they have nothing else. She got a whole award from Gloria Steinem for this and from one of the Kennedys for speaking truth to power, holding the racist royal family to account. Remember, I believe that's what she was in New York for when she had her fake near-death experience with the paparazzi not chasing her, right?

Like that was, she was getting that award. Enter through the Hertz rental car office, if you will. I suffered through that event, that excuse for an award ceremony. Um, and it, but it was fantastic because I spoke to so many people who were there, like these sort of dyed in the wool, ardent feminists, glorious Steinem admirers, not a single person said they were there to see Megan. Not a single person cared what she had to say by the end of the night. People couldn't wait to get out of there. And, you know, the, the, the story about that quote unquote high-speed

car chase in Midtown Manhattan, which is anyone who knows or has been to Manhattan is logistically physically impossible. Uh, I do believe was sort of cooked up because there was such little reaction to this meaningless award that she was given. And, and she's what she had to say meant even less than that. You know what it was to me? It was, it was like, I'm going to make a weird analogy, but it works for me. It was like Alec Murdoch, you know, when he, he had done a bench done a bunch of bad stuff. He had been stealing from his company. He'd been embezzling from clients to the tune of millions. He may or may not have had something to do with somebody's death even before his wife and his son. All these things.

And then they say the real reason he wound up killing his wife and his son was because he wanted sympathy. He wanted to change the narrative around himself, not accusing her of killing anybody. I'm just saying the car chase lie was because she wanted us to feel sorry for her to take the heat off of all the terrible things they'd done. No, no, no. I'm not a bad person. See, people are out to kill me. You see, it's evidenced by this terrible car chase. It was a lie meant to generate sympathy. And to those of us who have lived in New York, it was such an obvious lie. And now they're lying again. This is her chief spokesperson. This guy, Omid Scobie, from what we can tell, Maureen, is close with this pair, has been, like I said, their

stenographer. And so the only reason he would know those names is from her, from them. Exactly. I mean, as he writes in this book, those names were disclosed in private correspondence, in letter writing, and anybody who would memorialize anything, be it digital or physical and give it to Meghan Markle, you know, beware. So those names were contained only in those letters, right? Between Meghan Markle and then Prince Charles. And so who would have access to those documents? You know, it's not like that leak came from Buckingham palace. We know that. So that leaves only one. I mean, you don't have to be, you don't have to be a detective to figure this out. It's and their lies become ever less sophisticated and believable. Um, but I do think that they are pathologically congenitally incapable of taking any sort of blame,

of expressing any sort of remorse. I mean, you want to get ahead of this. How about you deny that it's Charles, that it's Kate Middleton? Right, come out and say that. Yeah. Say you're sorry that this is happening, that these people don't deserve this. If Harry was telling the truth and he and Meghan don't believe the royals are racist. And in fact, Harry vehemently defended Lady Susan Hussey, who that month around January,

I don't know if you remember, but there was this event at fucking palace and she was accused of saying horribly racist things and touching a black woman's hair. And Harry said in this broadcast, Megan and I love her. So which is it? So let's have it. Let's have it. Exactly. So that's the thing. If they if it wasn't Charles and Kate, if she did not tell Omid Scobie that those were the two, then where is she? Everybody. It's not like this is some rando reporter who has no connection to Meghan and Harry. This is their guy. And now he's basically admitting without admitting it did come from his manuscript, obviously, because the Dutch translator has no freaking clue who Meghan Markle's accusing of racism? Why was she just going to make up names? I guess it was Charles and Kate. And now in the latest news, he's saying he admitted that the translators in the Netherlands

were sent, quote, an early manuscript that was never updated with the final version poured over by lawyers. And then he excused it by saying, oh, his his book was written at, quote, lightning speed. So very clearly he put the names in there. He gave the names or his publisher did to this Dutch publisher and they printed it. That's how this obviously went down. But the Sussexes who have had so much to say about everything, Maureen, nothing. Bumpkiss. They're totally silent. They're totally silent. They're totally silent. I think Harry's petrified that the purse strings are going to get cut any day now, you know, or that they're going to lose their titles.

Eventually, they will take this just that one step too far. I mean, it tells you everything that Omid Scobie is their preferred stenographer. He shares the same complete lack of ethics, of morals, of professionalism. If you make a mistake like that in your book, that is on you. You fall on your sword. You beg for forgiveness. You want to make sure you never get another book deal. Blame your publisher. Blame the poor translator who had to publicly say, I did not insert those names. You know, he's put it in there. He pulled it according to his own. He pulled it because of the lawyers. But very clearly, the Omid Scobie's original draft had the names in there. He was perfectly prepared to disclose these names. It was only for legal reasons that he ultimately, apparently reluctantly pulled them.

So very clearly, he wanted to out them as racist. So where is Megan, who is obviously the one, Megan and Harry, where are they to defend their family on whom everything they have, their notoriety, their money, their titles depends. Agreed. And here's the, here's the, the, just the icing on top. Omit Scobie's book has sold less than 6,000 copies. Oh my God. This was revealed this whole kerfuffle with, I didn't name them. Oh, whoops. The, the Dutch have it, you know, whatever he was just, the book fell out of the Amazon top 100. He stopped getting booked. You know, I think he thought this would be great clickbait something. I don't, I don't know,

but there, I, you know, I think we're seeing the waning days of relevance. And again, one of the great tells in this book is what's not in it. What's not in it is any new information. Anything that comes after this exile, after these betrayals on a massive public scale, be it through Netflix or be it through the memoir or be it through Megan's, you know, word salad, whatever, there's nothing new. They are being starved out by the Royal family. They have nothing new to sell. So I don't know where they go from here. So I want to tell the audience, Maureen posted a piece on Daily Mail, November 29th, the vicious Royal assassination that shames even Harry and Megan's odious cheerleader. So you should Google that, Google that and read this full piece. But on the Camilla thing, I just don't want to brush past that because it really is disgusting. My God,

they really go after. And we know Harry hates her. I mean, he's made that very clear in his book and elsewhere, referring to her as raunchy,andy a chain-smoking adulteress who made diana's life hell and you point out of this piece their motto their motto harry and megan's motto tell them what it is tell the audience what it is be kind Just be kind. I mean, the Camilla stuff is just, it's, it's remarkable. Even, you know, you would think out of self-preservation, you know, reportedly the one thing King Charles begged Harry not to do in spare was to go after Camilla. So it seems like, yes, he pulled his punches in spare and then he gave all of his just his id his rage his loathing his resentment to scoby for this book which has of course backfired the other tell that this is

coming straight from harry's mouth is that diana is deified in this book there are no references to her alleged reported multiple affairs while married to charles no references to any of the instability any of the chaos that she wreaked upon the royal family um diana is a is a sainted angel in these pages and Camilla is what he calls a born mistress descended from a royal play thing. I mean, it is truly vile. Wow. She's the queen of England right now. The other thing is the other tell is the depiction of Kate, which is so wrong. She was so good to Harry all those years when he wasn't married. She seemed very supportive of him. And of course we know it's very obvious. Megan hates her with the passion of a thousand sons. She wants Kate's everything. And he cannot find a kind word for Kate Middleton in his loser book. It's so, it's just so vicious. It's so middle school. You know, Kate Middleton is beloved by the British public. I think we all can see what is animating this rage. So she, Meghan Markle,

married the also-ran. Once she was fast-tracked into the royal fold, she very quickly realized she too would be considered an also-ram. She was never going to rise to the level of a Kate, let alone supersede her. And I just think that this is the kind of thing, again, think about self-preservation. Don't think one or two chess moves ahead. Think 10.

Your brother is going to be the king of England someday. Okay? Kate Middleton is going to be the queen. Are these the people you want to ostracize, to offend, to irradiate with your venom and your resentment? I mean, the answer seems to be yes. And not to mention his father, who's the current king of England and the reason, ultimately, they still have their royal titles. You know, King Charles could take those away just out of the goodness of his heart.

He hasn't so far. So you'd think there'd be some measure, and not to mention the titles of their children, which they absolutely love. They're promoting the little princess and the little prince. They live for that crap, especially her, I'm sure. And yet they want to dump all over them at every turn.

The best part, So in this article, and people really just need to Google it to find all the goodness that Maureen provides. They point out Kate is they call her lazy. He calls her lazy and cold. She was a commoner who needed elocution lessons to level up to William. Her weight comes under scrutiny. They bring up her old, unflattering nicknames. And then there's the depiction of Megan. I've got to quote you, quoting Scobie. Maureen finds the best nuggets. Okay, here's one of them.

With Megan's outgoing nature and leadership potential, qualities for which Kate is not known. And then goes on about Megan. With her acting experience and upbeat demeanor, Megan was supremely comfortable in her public facing role, even when she initially knew very little about it. So what you're telling me, Maureen, is Oma does not say that Megan needed the elocution lessons that that cold bitch Kate did. No, no, no, no, no. And again, you know, which is it? Because as we read in spare, Megan was dying to become Kate Middleton's BFF. Megan didn't understand why Kate didn't want to hug her at their first meeting. Megan didn't understand why, you know, appearing in jeans and being barefoot for the first dinner they're hosting for these two. I mean, you know, her thinking was kind of like,

I'm just going to win her over with my breezy California nature. You know, one of my favorite vignettes was Megan at an event, at a formal gala, insisting that Kate share her lip gloss with her. This kind of forced intimacy that, of course, you know, Kate graciously gave her the lip gloss. But I mean, any sane woman would be thinking, who is this person? Why is she up all my face?

Don't share lip gloss. No, who wants to do that? You don't know what you're getting. So either she wants to be Kate's BFF or she, from the beginning, thought that she was better than Kate and should be fast-tracked. And again, the strain of misogyny that runs through this book. I mean, it really tells you so much about Harry and Meghan and the way that they think. The way that they reference Kate's weight multiple times. Why is that even in there? Why is that even in there? They make fun of her, you know, and Meghan did this with Oprah, too.

She brought up the weighty Katie nickname, which is so me. Now this is a woman who, by the way, seems to have a Talmudic research at her fingers of the royal family, but we are also to believe that when she met Harry, she didn't know who he was, and she didn't really know who Princess Diana was either, and she

didn't know much about the royal family, even though we have a photo of her at 12 years old beaming outside Buckingham Palace. She is amazing. It is a lie. I have reported before, I have a source who has a connection to the ex-husband, to Megan's ex-husband,

who saw a vision board that Megan had with the royal family all over it. Yes. So she, yes, she's a liar. This has been her goal. If he wants his book is end game. You want, you know what her endgame was to land the bear. And so she got him. And now she's going to have to deal with the consequences of giving the middle finger to the bear's family and their dislike of her and now him. OK, one more thing on Meghan and Harry. Now, apparently he's over there in the UK and he had to give testimony in one of these

cases that he's involved in. There's so much litigation with these two. I can't keep up. But he is now claiming that he's super, super sad, Maureen, that he was forced to step back from his royal duties and leave the UK, that he wanted so very much to stay. He loves the UK, the racist UK, according to him, because he not only took a shot at the royal family, but their documentary or whatever you call that thing that was on Netflix was all

about how racist Great Britain is. But the UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil. This is about a change in his security arrangements when he visits the UK that would result in his taxpayer funded armed protection being removed. And that's why. So you see these paupers, they can't afford a security guard of their own, Maureen. And that's why they were forced out. Yeah, that's the headline, Megan. Forced out. We were forced. You know, again, everything is somebody else's fault. These two are just victims of the winds of change, of circumstance and and of course, racism, let's never forget. You know, they wanted a half in, half out arrangement. They wanted to monetize their royal titles. They wanted to pick and choose which ribbons they cut, which senior citizen

centers they visited. They were told, no, the queen said, you're either in or you're out. And so they flounced their way out the door with, you know, millions and millions and millions of dollars gifted by Prince Charles. They live in a mansion. You can never say it enough with at least 14 bathrooms. And they have the temerity and the gall to tell the British taxpayers that they should also pay for their security when they are no longer working royals. You know, and this reminds me too of what, Scobie's got this great detail in his

book about how Harry and Meghan were also forced to make these extremely lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify and the like, 20 million here, 100 million there, because they suddenly had no revenue because they apparently fled Buckingham Palace in the night with just the clothes on their backs. So again, they're not taking any response. Now, had either of these projects been the blockbuster critical and commercial successes that they surely in their delusional minds thought they would be, it would, it would have been an active decision to leave and to become the kind of business people and forces in pop culture that would put say a Taylor Swift to shame. So, I mean, again, it's just, it's's it's both some of the most irritating stuff you can hear on a daily basis and also like the most comical, you know, and gives you such a sense of the outing for it.

They reportedly got a hundred million dollars from Netflix for their absurd production deal with them, their tell-all flick, and then her loser woke projects, which have already failed. And another 50 million from Spotify for her absurd podcast, which is all pro-woman. You know, she's going to be the voice of women unless your name is Camilla or Kate, in which case she will stick her stiletto in your eye.

And on top of that, they're flying private everywhere, Maureen, right? Like they're lecturing us in the environment, flying private. They can't afford a guard. They can't afford security for when they go to visit UK a couple of days a year, or even if they were going to stay in the UK

to have one guy full time, which is all they need. No one's trying to kill Meghan and Harry. They're worried about paparazzi who only find them interesting because they're attacking the royal family all the time. If they would stop that, it would stop. In any event, they can afford this easily. Why do they want the working class Joes in Great Britain to pay for it? It's obscene. It's just completely obscene. But I think that their sort of natural resting state is just grievance. You know, they're always fighting something or someone. They're always I think they really in a very sort of sick way, like they should

really seek help. I think they really enjoy feeling victimized, feeling persecuted. I think it gives them a reason to get up in the morning. I don't know what else they do all day. You know, the Spotify thing in particular is so incredible. You know, the I'm sure you remember Bill Simmons, who's a big exec there, calling them fucking grifters and saying, you know, one day he's going to get really drunk and tell people what Harry's ideas for podcasts were. I mean, you can only imagine. And her podcast was so self-serving and stuffy and unlistenable. And, you know, she should feel lucky she got 12 episodes as it was. Frankly, nobody cares to hear what she has to say because she has nothing to offer us. Yeah. We're sick of her grievance and

entitlement routine. Okay. Let's move on. Cause there's other juicy stuff to get to this, the TJ Holmes. I'm sorry. The TJ Holmes, Amy Robach thing is unbelievable. It's unbelievable. I'm so glad you picked this to talk about. I didn't know if you would. Give us the update on what they're doing. So they've launched a podcast, which I think I had read that they spent the better part of 2024 taking meetings and shopping themselves around. And no one wanted them.

I can, I can attest. I myself have spoken to media executives, many of whom I know from my many years in this business who laughed with me about these two attempting to get, you know, to, to generate interest. Like, okay. Yeah. No, no thanks. But no, but keep going. I know. I mean, it's amazing. I, you know, these are two, I think mediocrities who really lucked into the jobs of a lifetime, you know, highly paid glamor job. You have a degree of fame. That's not overwhelming, but surely enjoyable. Um, and then you screw it all up. Uh. And so they've, they've launched this podcast, which by the way, in the first episode, they offer listeners no reason for its existence. They offer no premise of podcast going forward. They are so in love with their origin story as a couple. I mean, their, their origin story that's completely, again, sanitized.

You know, they're eliding, you know, uncomfortable truths such as, you know, cheating on their spouses. You know, and then sort of also wanting us to believe that there's such broadcast talents that were unfairly kicked out of legacy media because as tj says in this cringe inducing podcast we are the people who lost our jobs because we love each other you know uh would have us believe that they also are so naive as to think that they wouldn't need to disclose their involvement to abc executives while they're also griping in the same podcast that they wouldn't need to disclose their involvement to ABC executives while they're

also griping in the same podcast that they were about to go to those same executives and disclose. But God, you know, not for just the gossip rags, like getting ahead of the story. And they just didn't know what to do with themselves. uh they completely also um and i wish they had pulled this clip but you can go online and watch them on the air the day after abc news put them on the air the day after this scandal broke and they're smugly laughing and sharing jokes with each other about what a great week it's been and they just wish it could keep going on and on forever just showing like complete disdain for the viewing audience who you know this is like the third or fourth hour of good morning america these are stay-at-home moms largely watching this show i don't think that

they take the idea of adultery that cavalierly or find it like that much of a, so they're also just showing just complete contempt for the people in middle America who were watching them and, you know, in effect signing their paychecks. So this is the whole podcast and, uh, it's insufferable. It's boring. There's one great moment where they sort of amp up this, uh, this crisis that TJ faces in the wake of this. Oh, wait, I've got this. I've got this where they talk about his, well, you'll hear it. Listen to what they say happened to him when he found out it was the daily mail that broke this story. And by the way, they're now claiming that they were not adulterers, that they were in divorce proceedings when they were having their affair.

Their spouses disagree with that. I mean, this was in the initial. That's just a cover. That's obviously just a cover now. So, by the way, if it were true that the Daily Mail got it wrong, 100 percent they would sue. They would 100 percent sue and say, you absolutely disparaged us with false information and you cost us our job. Guess what? That never happened for a reason. So now they're talking about in line with Meghan and Harry, frankly, we're victims. We're the real victims. They're talking about TJ's trauma when

the story broke. Take a listen, Stop 36. Well, you had to do a welfare check i guess is the best way to play it was three four that's a very very understated way of putting it at 3 45 p.m that afternoon you sent me a text basically saying i'm sorry you were the love of my life i'm so sorry this has happened and you just kept saying you were sorry, but you were using past tense in the entire text. And I texted back and I said, you're scaring me. I remember going down the hall, opening the door and I saw you and you were just splayed out on your bed. And I ran to you as a TJ and you didn't move. And I remember it was the most awful thing having to touch your body to see if you were warm. The day was essentially me getting off work

at 11 a.m. and I immediately started pounding vodka and I didn't stop for the several hours. And then I took who knows how many weed edibles and that's how I ended up in the state I was in. Maureen. Wow. Amy is one lucky woman. I'll tell you that. I mean, that's worth blowing up your life for, right? I got a grown man whose method of coping with a disaster entirely of his own making is to pound vodka at 11 a.m. and then take untold weed edibles. I mean, I love it. It's embarrassing. And at base, what is it? It's like, okay, according to you, the only thing you're losing is your job. According to you, your marriage is already

over and all parties are already notified. So there's no personal embarrassment there. There's only a professional consequence. And she thought he killed himself over the loss of the third or fourth hour of GMA. What does that say about her belief in him and who he is? My God. And who thinks they could die from a couple of weed edibles? Exactly. You can't overdose from weed, Number one, number two, narcissists never, ever kill themselves. It's a truth. And thirdly, this is, I think a great talking point for a podcast about this lovely origin story. How about the reports that came out while ABC was executing this internal review that TJ Holmes was a predator on that set.

Right. She was not his first. She was not his first, but how about the reports of him with younger women who felt that he was in a position of power over them? How about, I love, this is the kind of stuff I wish the morning show really, really did. You know, the other producer that he was involved with for three years while he was married, he was having this affair with her for three years. And this female producer was also using Amy Roback as like her, her shoulder to cry on. And Amy was counseling both her and TJ through this affair. I mean, let's talk about that.

I would listen to that all day long. Yeah, me too. But theirs, they want us to believe theirs is a love story and they're happier and healthier than ever. No one is going to listen to this. Enjoy your two minutes back. The only thing that is interesting is your weird and apparently false takes on your affair, which we all see right through. But there is a twist to the story, Maureen.

There is an unexpected twist here. Tell us what it is. Oh, thanks. The unexpected twist is that their exes are now dating and very happy with each other. And to that twist is that Amy and TJ are furious because this disclosure has stolen the tiny bit of thunder their podcast drop got. I love it. I have something to tell Amy and TJ. I've said it before, but it's true. You lose them how you get them. You lose them how you get them.

Yeah. So we'll look forward to that update later. Enjoy your happier and healthier than ever podcast for now. All right. So we've got to get, I know we've got to go soon, but let's get a little bit to Sean Combs' P. Diddy, because these are dark, dark allegations against this guy. And I know there's been a lot of me too. There's a flurry of me too things. And people at this point are like, ah, whatever. But you know, every once in a while one comes along, we were like,

Oh God. And this is one of those. So what's happened if a fourth woman has come forward? A fourth woman has come forward with graphic details about essentially gang rape and sex trafficking. To read her account is, I mean, I've been following this since it broke last month. And I think it's abundantly clear that sean combs is a very dangerous man um this latest accuser says she was in the 11th grade when she was approached she was brought uh she was brought across state lines she was brought to sean combs's recording studio um he seems to have an MO that involves drugging and raping women, drugging, getting them drunk, spiking their drinks. Uh, this, she was, she was in the 11th grade when this happened and the accusation. So she's the fourth, these date back to the early 1990s, which means this is before he was even really famous and powerful. So I would assume that there are many, many, many other women out there

who have yet to come forward. And I think what's equally damning is it's not just the silence from the hip hop community. It's that people within the community are saying, yeah, that's Sean Combs. Kid Cudi told me a number Times, he blew up my car in my driveway because I was interested in his woman. Dream Hampton. 50 Cent is doing something, like a documentary on him that apparently he's going to get into all this. Yeah. 50 Cent is doing it. Dream Hampton, who was behind the surviving R. Kelly documentary that played a huge part in turning the court of public opinion and getting R. Kelly behind bars, you know, she has said Puffy is done. He's done.

I will be shocked if we do not see a criminal investigation opened up into Sean Combs. Shocked. Wow. Wow. Wow. This, this latest woman has got, I mean, very disturbing allegations that he, which he denies just to emphasize again, he denies all of this. One day after she filed her lawsuit, he settled it. He first came out and said, she's, you know, a grifter and it's not true. And the next day he made it go away with an undisclosed number. Um, she alleges that he subjected her to violent physical assaults She alleges that he subjected her

to violent physical assaults and rape, that he beat the shit out of her in a car, stepped on her face, like kicked her in the face. She was bloody. She was severely hurt. That he coerced her into having sex with male prostitutes while he watched, directed, and got off on it. Encounters he called freak-offs

as he plied her full of drugs and alcohol beatings. The savage assault I just mentioned where he allegedly stomped on her face was January of 09. His security guard tried to stop him, she alleges, but couldn't. She was bleeding profusely after being kicked in the face. She began to throw up from the violent assault. These are allegations. Again, he's denied them. But as Maureen points out, if you look at all the allegations now, because there are multiple, there is a pattern. There is a familiar pattern that these women are alleging involving allegedly drugging them, getting them past the point where anybody could consent or willingly participate in anything. And then not only taking advantage of

them or hurting them or raping them, but, you know, bringing others into it and filming it. And then in some instances, actually, you know, physically assaulting them as well. So it's, it's bad. I will read his denial. He said, enough is enough. For the last couple of weeks, I've sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy. Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear. I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and the truth. So just to be clear, Maureen, right now there is not a criminal investigation. There was only, there's some civil suits against him. Yeah. Um, there, I think, you know, the, so the Cassie thing, which was the initial one, he, he reached that financial

settlement with her was loaded with details that were so specific. And, and, and one of the, the most shocking was, um, he insisted she get implants, breast implants, and went with her to the doctor. And she was completely silent while he told the doctor exactly what he wanted her to get, the size, the shape, all of it. The day after the surgery, he brings her back to the surgeon and says, I don't like these. Take them out. And the surgeon, this top Beverly Hills plastic surgeon says to him, we can't do that. We just opened her up. You cannot, you cannot reoperate on somebody a day later. And whatever Sean Combs did or said in that room, this guy wound up

reoperating on Cassie within a week. I mean, this is a bad, bad, bad guy. And I don't think he has many friends. The people who are speaking out now, there was just an open letter in Rolling Stone by a woman who had worked with Cassie who's backing up her claims. There's another report by an associate of Sean Combs who says that what he would do was spike drinks, like he would spike bottles and feed them to women at these parties. And then as they were sort of slumping and passing out with their mouths open, the description was like, it was like little birds and he would just put pills in their mouths. I mean, this is, this is the, this is the bare minimum that we know of. I think what we're going to learn is going to be quite shocking and hopefully he will get what I believe is coming to him.

Wow. That's dark. All right, Maureen, you're the best. Thank you so much for all the great reporting for the columns. It's always great to talk to you and have a great weekend. Thanks to you, Megan. And the same, have a great weekend. All right. And thanks to all of you for joining us today and all week. It's been a busy week, as you know. And then the fun continues on Monday when Tucker Carlson returns to the show and has a big announcement. You're not going to want to miss that. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.