The Megyn Kelly Show - Bombshell Russiagate Docs Explained, and the Truth About Putin and Hillary, with Matt Taibbi and Ruthless | Ep. 1115

Episode Date: July 24, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Matt Taibbi, founder of Racket News, to discuss Tulsi Gabbard’s new Russiagate bombshell documents, the buried 2020 House Intel report alleging Obama directed a narrative shift around Russian interference, former CIA director John Brennan’s role in shaping the “Trump collusion” storyline,why it appears now Brennan wasn't telling the truth in his 2017 testimony before Congress about the Steele Dossier, new information about why he included faulty information, the shocking info we learned that Putin had about Hillary Clinton’s health, why he may have chosen not to release it during the election, the spin from the left, and more. Then Josh Holmes, Comfortably Smug, Michael Duncan, and John Ashbrook, the hosts of the Ruthless Podcast, join to discuss how the documents suggest Putin may have actually favored Hillary Clinton winning in 2016, how the media monetized the Trump-Russia story despite a lack of evidence, how the media and political elites bought the Russiagate hoax because they couldn't believe Trump really won in 2016, the false narratives that the left continues to believe in 2025, her viral X post after Doug Emhoff’s ex-wife Kerstin’s took a shot at her over J. Lo, the truth about Doug's history with her and other women, and more. Taibbi: https://www.racket.news/Ruthless: https://ruthlesspodcast.com/ Incogni: Visit https://incogni.com/MEGYN for 60% off our annual planPaleo Valley: Visit https://paleovalley.com and use code MEGYN at checkout to get 15% off your first orderJust Thrive: Visit https://justthrivehealth.com/discount/Megyn and use code MEGYN to save 20% sitewideFirecracker Farm: Visit https://firecracker.FARM & enter code MK at checkout for a special discount! Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show, live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show. The guys from Rootless will be here in a minute, but we have got to begin with the latest stunning revelations about intelligence manipulation from President Obama and his top national security officials aimed at discrediting the incoming president-elect Trump and undermining his entire presidency. It's a scandal. It's disgusting.

Is it criminal? I don't know, but I'm very certain on point one. Yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released the declassified 2020 house intelligence report. Okay, now just follow with me. We already talked about how in 2017, the intelligence community issued this assessment. It was just before Obama left office.

Well, then in 2020, Trump's now president and the House Intelligence Committee issued its own report looking back at that 2017 Intel Community Assessment or ICA. They'd been working on it since they came into power at the beginning of the Trump presidency. And by the time they actually issued it, Adam Schiff was running the committee, which is why the 2020 House report gets buried. And we're only now seeing it today. All right.

But that 2017 intelligence community assessment is the one that we've been discussing this week with Matt Taibbi and others. That's the one that concluded Vladimir Putin not only interfered in the election of 2016, but that he, quote, aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances. That's the important one to keep your eye on. This newly released report from the House in 2020 that we're just now getting to see

includes some bombshells about the Russians' intel on Hillary Clinton's health, which we've never seen before. If they wanted to help Hillary so badly and hurt Trump, sorry, reverse that, if they wanted to help Trump so badly and hurt Hillary, why didn't the Russians release that? Plus the lengths that CIA Director John Brennan, who really is emerging as the villain here, went to include the now discredited Steele dossier in the annex to that January 17 report because it included the real dirt he desperately wanted.

It was really his main hook to say that Putin wanted Trump. And now we've seen a look at the other three alleged hooks and as Matt Taibbi is gonna tell us, they're even lamer than we suspected. It's worse than we feared. But when we learned in this 2020 House document, we were just now seeing, that Brennan who was running CIA under Obama,

was confronted by a CIA officer about the flaws in the dossier. The guy was like, dude, we can't rely on this. Can't use this to say there was aspiration to help Trump. We shouldn't be sticking it in the annex to our report, in our report, or relying on it in any way. This needs to come out. It's fatally flawed.

Brennan allegedly said, quote, yes, but doesn't it ring true? Holy cow. Joining me now to react to all of this and more is Matt Taibbi. He's founder of Racket News on Substack and cohost of America This Week podcast. He's been owning this beat, I mean, for years now. We talk a lot about personal freedom on this show. Well, part of that is owning your own privacy. And let me tell you, if you've ever Googled your name and found your home address, your phone number,

or even your income floating around, it's not a coincidence. That data is bought and sold by data brokers without your consent. This is why I wanna tell you about Incogni. It's a service that fights back on your behalf. Incogni contacts those shady sites and gets your personal data removed automatically. No forms, no emails. They handle the back and forth with these

brokers and just update you through their simple dashboard. It can be a huge relief. If you care about your privacy and you want fewer spam calls, junk emails, and less risk of identity theft, consider this step. And right now you can get 60% off an annual plan at incognito.com slash Megan. Use code Megan at checkout to get that six zero, 60% off your order. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I, like incognito, but without the rest of the word.

I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com slash Megan. Code Megan when you check out, take back control of your data with incognito, but without the rest of the word. INCOGNI.com slash Megan. Code Megan when you check out, take back control of your data with incogni. Matt, welcome back. So we lit up the internet with our segment the other day. And here's part two. Here's part two. Just to be clear, earlier this week,

I actually wrote this down. I rarely write down what I'm going to say, but I just didn't wanna forget it because there's so many moving parts. We learned that that intelligence community assessment of January 17 was set to downplay Russian interference in the 16 election. And then after a meeting with Obama and the top intelligence community officials, or at Obama's direction at least, the intelligence community did a complete 180 and played up Russian interference instead of playing it down.

And we learned from what was released by Tulsi last Friday that that was all at Obama's direction. He made clear he wanted that 180 and they had the flimsiest of evidence to do it. In particular, this piece about they aspired, the Russians did aspire to help Trump win. So you and I talked about that earlier this week and what they did. What we've seen in the release that came yesterday is this House Intelligence report from 2020, buried up until now, that shows just how flimsy the evidence supporting that aspirational point was. Yes, Steele dossier, we knew that one sucked, but we didn't know about this Brennan quote, has the ring of truth. And the other alleged supporting evidence was even

flimsier, arguably, than the Steele dossier. Do I have it right? Yes, that's pretty much it. You've got it, Megan. Yeah. Okay. So to go through, like when you saw what was released yesterday, this House Intel report, first of all, why was this buried when Annie McCarthy, who's again dumping on the story, he points out, hey, that House Intel report was largely put together by Cash Patel, who was a committee staffer at the time. And like, it was a Republican controlled house

for a couple of those years. And even when it became a Republican controlled house for a couple of those years. And even when it became a Democrat controlled house, there were Republicans who knew about this. So why did this report stay hidden up until 2025? Yeah, that's a really interesting question, Megan. And it's got a fascinating answer that should give everybody a lot of pause. So as you correctly note, this investigation, the bulk of it was done by a team

that was assembled by then chairman Devin Nunes of the Telecom, Devin Nunes in 2017 and a little bit of 2018 if I'm not mistaken. So there were two teams. One of the teams put together what was later called the NUNAS memo. If you remember, that was the one outlining the abuse of the FISA system. Everybody dumped on that. And then there was an inspector general report

that came out a year later that completely vindicated it and proved that it was true. Well, the other half of this team, there was a small unit that worked out of a little room in the CIA headquarters, a little room at Langley, and their work product was locked in that secure vault the entire time. And it has not been allowed out since then through all the different political situations you mentioned. It was, it was still there even up until about three weeks ago. You might've noticed the House Intelligence chair now, Rick Crawford, he

complained publicly to Donald Trump and said that there was a whitewash going on. My understanding is that Trump interceded and resolved some kind of conflict that had been going on with the CIA. And now, as a result, the document was finally returned to the Hill. So anybody who was thinking that it was just sitting there in Congress awaiting release, no, it wasn't. It was locked up and classified the entire time. Wow. Okay, so now we've gotten a look at it.

And this is in part what we've learned, that they concluded in this House document that the Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, of January 17 was subject, quoting here, to unusual directives from President Obama and senior political appointees, particularly CIA Director Brennan. Unlike still quoting routine intelligence community analysis, this ICA was a high-profile product ordered by the president, directed by senior IC agency heads and created by just five CIA analysts using one principal drafter. Production of this document was subject to unusual directives from the president and

senior political appointees, and particularly Brennan. The draft was not properly coordinated within the CIA or the intelligence community, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions. And then it goes on to say, hold on, the judgment therein that Putin had a clear preference for Trump and, quote, aspire to help Trump's chances at victory did not adhere to the intelligence community's standards and was based on potentially biased and implausible information that Brennan ordered published. Your headline in your document is it's worse than we thought. And I think that's based in part on,

now we see the full panoply of information that Brennan used to get to that conclusion. Because it matters. Everybody who's defending what Obama did says, we knew the Russians interfered. Stop trying to tell us the Russians didn't interfere. That's all we ever said. That's not true. They did say more than that.

They said the Russians interfered because they wanted to get Trump elected and that Trump colluded with them. Collusion fell apart, but they still hung on to, but Putin interfered to help Trump. So in other words, the election was unfair and it was unfair in Trump's benefit because that's who they meant to help. That has now fallen apart.

And now we're seeing how that other lie got shoved out there. By the way, that lie was the basis for the collusion narrative too. Now we're seeing how that other lie got shoved out there. By the way, that lie was the basis for the collusion narrative too. Now we're seeing how that other lie got pushed out there by Brennan at Obama's direction, and we're seeing what Brennan used to push the lie. One was Steele dossier, which this points out

as it fell apart, and the guy went to him, CIA analyst, to say, it's fallen apart. We can't use this. He said, yes, but doesn't it ring true? Which is an outrage. That in and of itself is a scandal, but there are three other legs to this stool, which are equally, if not more pathetic, Matt.

Let's talk about those. And you're right. The response to this whole thing from everybody has been well. Yes, we knew the Steele dossier was included in this report. And yes, that was bad, kind of a black eye. But as the Washington Post put it the other day, there had to have been better updated intelligence that they got in the meantime that pointed to Putin interfering specifically to help Donald Trump.

Even I thought, you never know, there might be something in there of some worth that would have pointed in that direction. No. It turns out that there are three pieces of intelligence that they were relying on for those two key phrases, one, which is that Putin aspired to help Trump. The other is that Putin had developed a clear preference for Trump and ordered his intelligence services to help him whenever possible. So the first item that they used to support that data was a quote, scant, unclear and unbearable and unverifiable fragment of one sentence that was really ambiguous. And in fact, the report was written by five CIA

authors. And the quote was five people read it five ways. They left it out. Initially, it was so it was also unverifiable. So the authors left it out. Brennan ordered them to stick it back in. And this is a recurring theme. All of this stuff, all of the other three pieces were initially rejected by the CIA as intelligence. They were literally picked out of the garbage

to be put back into this thing. The second item was an email with quote, no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient and no classification. And the third item was an assertion basically that Russia preferred Republicans because they didn't care so much about human rights and some other comments. And they said that this was backed up by liaison reporting, diplomatic reporting, press reporting, as well as signals intelligence.

But when you write these reports, they have little patients that you can look at to see where that comes from. And when they looked at the citations, none of them made sense. Like one of them was from before the election, didn't even mention Trump. Another one was after the election. 2014. Yeah, it't even mention Trump. Another one was after the election.

2014. Yeah, didn't mention Trump. And another one was a quoting like a Russian pundit saying that Putin and Trump should work together like businessmen. This is the stuff that they used to conclude that they had gotten into the very head of Vladimir Putin and assessed his preference for the election. It's absurd. I mean, the low standards are amazing. It's amazing that they had so little intelligence at all, even to manipulate.

Which of course proves, just to batter the point, that this was inserted in there for political reasons, as an attempt to undermine Donald Trump's presidency and what we know from the Tulsi Gabbard dump on Friday that you and I discussed earlier this week is it was done at President Obama's direction. So they included bad information. He rejected the concerns of CIA, Brennan did, CIA officers. It goes on to say that Brennan overruled professionals on the determination that Putin aspired to help Trump, who said, there's no direct evidence of this.

There's none. Two officers argued to Brennan, quote, we don't have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected. And therefore the judgment that Putin was counting on Trump's victory should be removed from this ICA or the ICA should be changed. Nonetheless, it wasn't. Then the ICA excluded evidence from a Putin confidant

that said the Russian president actually didn't care who won. So they included bad information in the report based on that flimsy, unsubstantiated, outdated BS, they overruled CIA analysts who were telling them, this should come out. We don't have support for this. And then they rejected, I'm sorry, and then they ignored contradictory evidence that would have pushed them the other way, including this.

A Putin confidant, let's see, came to them and told a sensitive contact that one, Putin told him he did not care who won the election. Two, Putin had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates. And three, Putin had asserted that in either case, quote, Russia was strategically placed to outmaneuver either one. I mean, all of the shows, they had one mission, Matt, and one mission only. And that aspirational point that he was determined to help Trump and get Trump elected was a political hit job that they then leaked to the media

immediately. As you pointed out the other day that before the homework assignment was even completed, in other words, Obama said, go back and change your report. They had leaked to the media what the conclusion of it would be. They had one goal and one goal only, which was to undermine Trump. Yeah. And, you know, your, your quoting of that expert is, um, and that one source is really an important moment, right? Because when I read this report that jumped out at me, uh, out of all these things that

they had, these fragments of emails and little bits of conversations from this and that here, they have the gold standard of intelligence, an actual human source who's a confidant of Putin. And he says, Putin doesn't care who wins. We don't think it's going to get better either way. No matter what happens, we're in a good position. That's exactly the kind of thing that you need to include in this sort of thing. You're required to include.

But they did not. And so the analysts were told that it's exactly like the WMD story. There's a quote from an FBI person who says, our instructions were that anything that we had was to be used. We were to push this. They talked about the steel material, and they said including it was the right thing to do, but we were not able to verify it. This is, again, it's the same thing as the WMD business when they were told to

find the sites or find the WMD sites, uh, even when they didn't exist. And here they did exactly the same thing. They found stuff that wasn't there and they covered up the relevant good intelligence they had that contradicted their points. How about the crazy Brennan quote in response to the Steele dossier? Yes, but doesn't it ring true? That is so damning.

It's incredibly damning, and it's even more damning when you look at his testimony about the Steele dossier, where he says things like, oh, I didn't know anything about it. I didn't know where it came from. And I can assure you that it wasn't in the 2000, it played no role in the 2017

intelligence community assessment. You say he just looked right in the camera and said that. Wait, we have that. We have that. Let me play that, Matt. And then you pick it up on the back end. So here's Brennan telling Congress the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier.

This is from May of 2017 as now the Republican controlled House Intel Committee is looking into this obviously bogus January 17 ICA report. And again, we are just now getting our hands on that House Intel Committee report, which was buried in a safe at Langley until President Trump just intervened. So they were doing an investigation, a real investigation into how this BS wound up in this ICA. And they called Brennan, Obama's CIA director, to testify. And keep in mind now, Brennan knows, but we don't,

that he has been warned by multiple CIA agents under him that this is bullshit, we should not include this aspirational point in this report, and we definitely should not include the Steele dossier. And his response was, but it has the ring of truth. That feels like it has the ring of truth, doesn't it? And here's what he testified, knowing all that to Congress under oath, Sat. 17.

Do you know if the bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as any as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings? I have no awareness. Did the CIA rely on it? No. Why not? Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the Corpus of Intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done. It was not. Go ahead, Matt. If you look closely at that video, you can see his lip trembles sort of

uncontrollably at the end of that statement. Look, that's what lying looks like. It's not a matter of dispute that the Steele dossier was in this report. It was in the so-called classified annex that was declassified in 2020. So he's saying this in 2017. It wasn't known for sure until three years later, but everybody kind of guessed that it was in there. So he said that and he gave interviews, multiple interviews to the news media, and I believe he testified on other occasions that it was not part of the ICA. So look, they deflected constantly about this thing. And they always suggested that they had more, that they weren't showing.

And when you see under the hood, and you get this quote, and we have to remember this is an unnamed source. There's no way to confirm this. But the analysts who did this report are basically promising that they would be able to produce this witness if asked to. But apparently somebody heard Brennan say, yeah, but doesn't have the ring of truth. And that is exactly, you know, the kind of behavior that got us in trouble being in Iraq and multiple other episodes. So it's, it's crazy stuff. It's not just Brennan either. Comey, of course, is one of the main villains here. And he too, I mean, the FBI knew just as well as the CIA

that the Steele dossier was a made up document by someone hired to do dirty work for Hillary Clinton. And yet this was making the rounds on X the other day. Here's James Comey. This is April of 2018. All right, we just saw, this is what lying looks like, John Brennan in 2017, May of 17. He knew it was bullshit.

His analysts had come to him saying, don't put that in there, for the love of God, ring of truth, and it wound up in the annex. Comey knew too. Here's Comey in April of 18 on ABC News still pushing the allegations that were in the Steele dossier as though they're legit. Watch. If there's even a 1% chance my wife thinks that's true, that's terrible.

And I remember thinking, how could your wife think there's a 1% chance you were with prostitutes peeing at each other in Moscow? I'm a flawed human being but There's literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true So what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think is only a 99 chance? You didn't do that. And I said to him sir When he started talking about it, I may order you to investigate that I said sir. That's up to you but you'd want to be careful about that because it might create a narrative that we're investigating you personally and

Second, it's very difficult to prove something didn't happen. Did you believe his denial? I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the Current president United States with with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible. Oh, he's such a scoundrel, Matt. Yeah. And I, we have to remember that the material that eventually came out in the Justice Department inspector general general's report about the Steele dossier in 2019 showed that the FBI already knew as early as early 2017 that there were serious problems with that report, that the most crucial elements of it, like the P-tape, like the allegations of sexual blackmail, that they were made in quote, just with friends over beers.

And that these were just conversation, that it was internet rumor. All this stuff had already been gathered by post factum by FBI investigators early in 2017. So they knew that this story wasn't true. They had very solid evidence that the entire thing was a problem. They had already fired Steel as a source for lying to them about talking to the media. So for them to go out in a limb about this story that they knew had no backing, um, it is incredible, frankly. Okay. But now what's happening is everyone from the Pod Save America guys,

who they looked at our segment the other day, which the great Molly Hemingway retweeted, one of them said, I'm very disappointed in you, to me. I expected better, which shows you and I are right over the right target. We're doing things exactly right. They're all in this. They're Obama guys, They're Obama loyalists.

So they're out there. There's Annie McCarthy and there are others who are defending the position that this is all made up by Gabbard by pointing to the Senate Intel report that that came out in 2020, 2020. It was a Senate Intel report chaired by Marco Rubio that everybody keeps pointing out. And the left keeps citing this because they say it came to the same conclusions as the intelligence community assessment. It backed up that bogus intelligence community assessment.

I've read Molly Hemingway on this. She has serious questions about that Senate Intel investigation and believes, and would like to know further, but believes it was likely just a rubber stamp. Did the Senate really have its own independent Intel sources beyond what the CIA had, beyond what the FBI had that it was using for this, or did they really just use the same pathetic sources that Brennan used? We don't know, but you have reported we have serious reason to doubt the integrity and vigor behind that Senate Intel report. Tell us why.

Well, for one thing, a lot of that report hangs on this assessment that Konstantin Kalymnik, an aide to Paul Manafort, a Russian-Ukrainian aide- And Trump's campaign manager for a time. Right, an aide to Trump's campaign manager. They just flat out call him a Russian intelligence officer. Now, the previous investigations had not gone so far. Mueller said he had links to Russian intelligence. They left out the fact that he was a long-serving employee of the International Republican Institute, that he was also a source, a regular source in writing

for the US embassy in Kiev, that he had extensive correspondence with people there. But most shockingly of all, they didn't even contact Kalimnik or attempt to interview him. His phone was public. Right, the Senate. Which was strange because the US government had a relationship with him a long standing relationship with him.

Why not call the guy? Again, his phone number was published in a previous investigation. Aaron Mahtay was the first person to give him a call in the media. I think I was the second and no one else did. And it's a it's a thing that has gone on consistently with these investigations, where they'll identify somebody like Julian Assange, who is eminently approachable at the time, and did not attempt to reach out. But more than that, they never presented any evidence for their assessment that he was a Russian intelligence officer. And we'd like to see that. It's not impossible. Of course, there are lots of people who do work

as aides and translators overseas who have contacts with the various bureaus. But we need to see that. They just say, we assess and that's it. And it's behind closed doors. And we see how much that's worth with this intelligence community assessment, right? Yeah. How did they assess it? Because you point out over at Racket News in speaking to him, let's see, the question was how many times was he questioned by American authorities?

And his answer was not a single person from the US government has ever reached out to me. Not one. No one from the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, or the Senate Intel Committee ever contacted him. Not once, nobody. This guy is integral to the Senate Intel Committee report that Obama's defenders are now using to say, because they are all using this report by the Senate saying they found the same thing as that January 17 ICA.

And therefore this is all a nothing burger. And your point is you can put no stock in that Senate Intel Committee report. I think it's sort of proof that the original ICA is bunk because they had to do a completely new investigation and not use any of the intel from the 2017 intelligence community assessment to come to the same conclusion. What does that tell you? Like if a prosecution brings an entirely new case in a criminal court and says, yeah, we're not going to use any of the evidence from that first prosecution that we brought.

Wouldn't you have a few thoughts about those prosecutors and what they were up to? Yeah. That's what happened in this case. It wasn't just one investigation, there were many of them. The whole thing, I don't think it holds water. I think that 2020 assessment is deeply flawed.

It also hangs you know, hangs significantly on Lisa Monaco, who is one of the figures who's in the middle of this original December 8th or December 9th decision. Like her name's on that piece of paper. She's a nightmare. This woman is an obvious partisan hack. We saw that throughout the This woman is an obvious partisan hack. We saw that throughout the last two democratic administrations, her work at DOJ. She was one of the ones accused of covering up the entire Hunter Biden scandal, running cover for him,

trying to pull back those IRS agents who were onto his tracks. This person is not somebody we should be putting any faith in. Also, in this latest House report, they talk about how, they also in the, this is the House in 2020 pointing out that the ICA of 2017 ignored evidence that Putin seemed to be protecting Hillary Clinton in a couple of ways. It did not mention, for example,

that Putin chose not to leak info he appeared to have on Hillary Clinton's health, including that she suffered from psycho-emotional problems and was on daily tranquilizers. We don't know whether that's true. We know that Putin appeared to have that intel in his pocket and chose not to share it. And the relevant point here, Matt,

is that the ICA didn't mention, they knew that he had that in his pocket and it didn't mention that he did not release it. This is the man so determined to help Trump win and he's got evidence that she's on daily tranquilizers and has psycho-emotional problems, but he doesn't release it? He doesn't release it even after being briefed

by the GRU Army Intelligence that Trump was likely not going to win the election absent a quote, remarkable intervention of derogatory information against Hillary Clinton. And they had that kind of derogatory information or at least thought they had it. And here's the really interesting thing, I think, Megan, which is that this material that he had

was a large trove of hacked correspondence centered around, it appears, the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton, a number of members of Congress, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and it's the same stuff that came out in a declassified report earlier this week with regard to the mid-year exam email investigation. So there's this weird tie between the two investigations. But the point is they had a lot of stuff they could have leaked about Hillary and they chose not to do it largely because it appears they expected Hillary to win and were holding in

reserve the best stuff for the presidents. Mm-hmm. Right, exactly. All of which was known by these intel officials drafting this report, but concealed where, meanwhile, you know, all this other flimsy documentation or material on whether there was an aspiration to help Trump made it in over the objections of the core intel analysts. All right. So Matt, where does this go from here? Because Tulsi mentions treason. Trump mentions treason. Treason is very narrowly defined under the law. It's basically aiding or abetting an enemy of the United States or trying to overthrow the US government.

I mean, I see the argument, but that's a stretch. And also, there's a question about whether other lesser crimes are even viable now given the statute of limitations issues and given the US Supreme Court ruling on immunity for a president for official acts taken while in office. So where does this go from here? Because it's been referred to the DOJ by Tulsi Gabbard. It has, and Emily Jeschinski yesterday in a press conference asked Tulsi about criminal charges

and where they might be headed. I thought it was very interesting that Tulsi went out of her way in response to some of those questions to point out that, you know, we've determined that Barack Obama directed the manufacturer of this intelligence. So that sounds to me like there's some kind of conspiracy or a Rico style case that they're thinking of, but I don't know what that would be. Honestly, I've had no luck at all figuring out what the, you know, clearly it's going to be a conspiracy case, but conspiracy to do what? I'm not sure. And when I posited the idea of perjury cases, because some of them seem pretty obvious, even

though the statute of limitations has expired. The response has been pretty tepid. So I don't know. I don't know what kind of case they think they're building, but they seem pretty confident that they're ready to turn it over to or that there's enough to already turn over to a prosecutor. Yeah. Generally, the statute of limitations on perjury will be like a year. I think it is, it's very low. We're definitely past it.

And Rico, trying to think, it's either five years or 10 at the outset, which would be, we'd be past that too. We'd be past five. I'm pretty sure it is five. We're looking it up now, but in any event, oh, it looks like it's four. Okay, my team's telling me it's four.

So we're definitely past the RICO statute of limitations. So I'm not, my own initial reaction to this without having done the legal research yet is it's not gonna be a legal case. It's gonna be, it's a public scandal. But the problem for the Trump administration is the same media who participated willingly and knowingly in some cases in the scandal

are the ones now being asked to report on their own malfeasance. Yeah, I don't know. I've been assured that it's not a hearts and minds thing that they're trying to do now, that they're true, that they're actually trying to build cases. So I just don't know what kind of case. I'm sure they've done more legal research on it than I have, which is zero. Yeah. And I haven't really either yet. So it's been, it's been enough to try to keep pace with what has come out. But clearly they're, they have something in mind. There are already referrals that have been made they have something in mind. There are already referrals that have been made for criminal cases to be opened.

So, clearly they've conceived of what they think might be a charge and have directed investigators to go gathering evidence for that or assembling that for a prosecutor. So, we'll see, we'll see what pans out. Yeah, I mean, listen, those prosecutors who went after Trump were extremely clever and creative

in coming up with something. And we'll see whether the Trump administration is equally creative on what is an actual scandal, unlike what they did to him. Matt, thanks for everything. Everybody's got to check out Racket News. Well worth your time and so informational. All the best. Thanks so much, Ma for everything. Everybody's gotta check out Racket News. Well worth your time and so informational. All the best.

Thanks so much, Rene. Coming up, the fellas from Ruthless join me for the rest of the show. They kind of like oppose Pod Save America in a way. They're kind of like the right wing Pod Save. They're gonna have thoughts on all of this. Let's be honest. No one has time to simmer bones for 24 hours,

but our bodies could use the benefits of real bone broth, especially as we get older. That is where Paleo Valley's 100% grass-fed bone broth protein powder comes in. It's made from American cattle raised with regenerative farming practices sourced only from bones and water. No chemicals, no fillers, no mystery ingredients, just clean, traceable nutrition that you can actually trust. Collagen levels can drop fast after age 30. This protein

can help replenish what's missing, supporting joint comfort, gut health, muscle recovery, and even smoother, more hydrated skin. It's perfect for busy people. Use it in coffee, smoothies, or hot water. Chocolate, vanilla, salted caramel. All those flavors turn in your morning drink and they turn it into a collagen-rich treat. Or you could just try savory original in soups and in stews or unflavored when you want a clean boost. Get 20% off your first order now at paleovalicom slash Megan with code Megan. Check it out. Here to react to the latest Russi-Gate revelations

and much more, including Colbert, Epstein, there's a lot, are the fellas from the Ruthless program, Josh Holmes, Michael Duncan, John Ashbrook, and Comfortably Smug. Guys, welcome back, Great to see you. Oh, great to see you. You're looking bright and cheery today. Thank you.

Thank you. I've got my red on and it's the summer and we're having like really nice days now without humidity, so I'm happy. Yes. Yes. Can you believe this story? It gets crazier and crazier now.

The House Report exposing the flimsy evidence, and I use that term loosely, underlying the 2017 ICA was shoved in a vault over at CIA. It took Trump intervening to get it out. And now we see why the Democrats appear to have been actively concealing it for years. They did not want this thing to see the light of day because they've been lying to us for a long, long time. That's how it looks. Yeah.

I mean, look, this is a story that is especially frustrating to the fellows here because I think we've landed on this conclusion years ago. All of the evidence pointed and all the facts that we knew pointed to a very concerted effort by then CIA Director Brennan in concert with the Clinton campaign and a bunch of other operatives within DOJ, FBI, and in the White House that basically were trying to manipulate a narrative here that would help Clinton towards the end of what they thought was going to be a victorious 2016 election. I think the only question that we've always had here is whether or not they thought they

were going to get their hands caught in the cookie jar. That's why they kept perpetuating the narrative and tried to cover their tracks or whether this was just solely an effort to delegitimize the Trump administration in their early days and that they just kept it going on and on. But there was never really any evidence. And we found it in the Mueller report. There was never really any evidence

that there was this basis of Russian support for Donald Trump in which they were trying to sway the election. I mean, Duncan talks about this all the time, but it boiled down to a hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads in a campaign that was running a hundred thousand dollars a minute. Right. I mean, like between Clinton and Trump, they were spending like hundreds of millions of dollars on Facebook and the idea that Donald Trump would have to outsource his Facebook strategy spending a hundred,000 to the Kremlin

is just a patently absurd thing, right? And it was all sort of absurd. And the basis of all this being the dossier in the first place and Brendan hiding that fact or Comey going to Trump Tower and saying, President-elect Donald Trump, congratulations. Hey, by the way, did you pee on some Russian prostitutes? You know?

Meg and I peed on each other, Duncan. Please get it straight. I want to make sure I get that fake fact straight, Megan. That's right. You know? But to never tell Donald Trump the provenance of this dossier during that interrogation of what it was and basically just using it as the premise for then leaking to the media and starting the Russiagate probe.

I mean, it was cooked up between our intelligence agencies, the Obama, White House, and the Hillary Clinton campaign. They said Russian collusion for years. And in fact, the collusion was between our own government and the Clinton campaign. Okay, but here's what, so Andy McCarthy at National Review is a skeptic on this whole story as he heard me raise with Matt.

And he keeps saying, we knew about collusion. The collusion was with Hillary and the Fusion GPS who created the phony Steele dossier and then managed to get it used by the intel agencies to start an investigation against Trump suggesting he colluded with Russia to steal the election. He's right that that piece of it has long been known. What's happening now is an entirely different piece,

which is equally pernicious. All along, we have just accepted that Russia did interfere in the election to help Trump. Like that's been kind of an accepted thing. And what skeptics have been saying all along is that, they interfered like barely in the way they had interfered in many elections prior to 16, and not just in the United States, by the way,

and that there's zero proof that they actually wanted to help Trump. And they got dumped on people like Ty E. B. Molly Hemingway, Maria Bartiromo got crapped all over for years for saying those two things because when collusion fell apart, the left held onto those little darlings. Well, he did interfere and he did it to help Trump. So it wasn't a fair election. They've been clinging to them, just like, you know,

your kids cling to their little stuffies and their cribs. And now those are falling apart in spectacular fashion. Those were just as dishonest distortions as the collusion narrative. The Russian interference was barely there. It was like what Putin does to everyone's elections. So chaos, anybody he doesn't like. Let's get like some fake news articles going.

Let's amplify the Black Lives Matter stuff. Well, that was 2020, but you know what I'm saying. Like do stuff that divides Americans. Let's amplify all that. We enjoy that. And that's it. And on top of that, the big kahuna that was left, which was he did it because he wanted to help Donald Trump, was the biggest lie of them all. He didn't want to help Trump. He had actually very little belief

that Trump was going to win. He had a bunch of stuff he could have released on Hillary Clinton that would have made her look terrible and was in the news cycle There were tons of speculations going on about her health he could have dropped that shit and Blown up her campaign, but he didn't and now we're finding all this that there wasn't one piece of the Russia narrative that a was true or B piece of the Russia narrative that A was true or B wasn't understood to be false when it was getting peddled to us by John Brennan and Jim Comey and Clapper and Obama. That's the other big piece that's come out that Obama himself was the one who stopped the intelligence community chain from about to report in a document

that Trump's team would have seen too, that the Russian interference really wasn't a thing. It was really kind of not much to, right after he demanded that meeting, it's all these untrue things. Yeah. Well, I mean, this is a gargantuan scandal. And I understand.

I mean, if you go to like New York Times or Washington Post, you're not gonna find a single story anywhere on the website about it, right? I mean, they just want this to go away in large part because they were key to the entire strategy to make this thing work. They really were. And I don't think I talked about this on our show today,

but something that I remember from the time, because you guys, every other guy on this set, Megan, they were like, this is not true, this is not true. And I believed them, but I was working with a lot of reporters at the time. And up until that time, up until that point, it was like 10 years working reporters and political stuff,

trying to sell Republican talking points and all that sort of thing. And we, it's a left-wing media, but we were making some inroads. Trump wins. And then all of a sudden, every single person who I was talking to about the campaign, all of a sudden overnight became a Russia reporter.

And that sort of thing does not happen just because they're like, oh, well, we're trying to drive a wedge with the new president. That sort of sustained coordinated effort can only happen if someone is influential as Barack Obama and the people around him cared so much about driving it that they spent time doing it. So so so I agree with you, Ashbrook. I think that's the inside game. I think

the outside game for the media was that this whole narrative served as a warm comfort, a coping mechanism for the entire democratic base and all of these voters who were like, how is it that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton? And so Russiagate became that on the outside. So the media monetized this fake story. That's the thing. You know, and so I think it was, it perpetuated itself both on the inside from the Intel agency and the Obama administration. And then on the outside, all of these reporters were writing all this salacious Russiagate stuff.

They're getting clicks. And beyond getting clicks, you saw the rise of reporters who have zero journalistic capabilities. Natasha Bertrand. Right. Who've created not only careers, book deals, they've gotten rich off of this. They collected awards, accolades, made careers. They jumped from paper to paper, getting pay raise after pay raise

off of this whole delusion, off of this whole lie, which is why, like Holmes said, you don't see this reporting today in the Washington Post or in the New York Times because all the money they made, are they willing to admit? You know what? I guess these millions were all just bullshit But you you do not get that sort of uniform commitment to a single storyline across every single major

Broadcast network and major daily newspaper without people at the top telling them we are we are pursuing this Yeah, hundred percent And there's little evidence. I mean, as Michael said. And they wrote those articles before the renewed, revised Russia, Russia, Russia did it all, Intel report hit. So as soon as Obama said, we wanna change this narrative, the intelligence community did it, but before they put pen to paper

or made a single phone call, they got on the phone with the reporters to make sure they knew where the story was going, that it was a bombshell Russia had interfered. And I don't think it's just reporters. I think it goes to editors. I think it goes to publishers. I think that there was a lot more involvement with the media than we know,

because the whole storyline is absolutely preposterous to begin with. I mean, you talked about how the Russians meddle in all kinds of elections and I mean, okay, that's what they do. But we're talking about the American election that is run by 60-year-olds who have been in the business for 40 years and they're trying their best to win and get a good message out. The idea that some Russian 20-year who barely speaks English is gonna be able to like jump in and all of a sudden change the face of American elections is preposterous.

Yeah. They just wanted enough to hurt him. Stand by, quick break, back with the fellas. They're here for the whole program, don't go away. Remember when you were a kid with an iron stomach, pizza, ice cream, PB&J, nothing seemed to faze you. These days, however, you might feel like your stomach can be a bit of a bear trap, one wrong bite,

and you're done. Here's the thing, years ago, our ancestors ate lots of bitter plants daily that made their digestion work. Yes, bitter plants, but our modern diet has completely eliminated these essential compounds. You've heard me talk about Just Thrive Probiotic before, I take it every morning,

and now they have their newest product, Digestive Bitters. These tasteless capsules contain 12 bitter herbs they say help wake up your digestive system for results you can feel. No more bloat burps or belly aches after meals, just comfortable digestion like when you were younger. Just Thrive Digestive Bitters can help your cravings and keep you satisfied longer. Just try the Just Thrive Probiotic and Digestive Bitters today risk free. And you will save 20% if you use code MEGAN

when you check out at JustThriveHealth.com. See the difference for yourself or just get a full product refund if it doesn't work out for you, no questions asked. That's JustThriveHealth.com code MEGAN because your health is your greatest asset. She has all the documents, she has everything that you need. And she found out that Barack Hussein Obama

led a group of people and they cheated in the elections and they cheated without question. It's not even a quote. Would you say there's even a little question there, Tulsi? She says no. And you found things that nobody thought we'd ever find. And very happy and very honored to have you with us. She's right now by far, Speaker, she's hotter than you right now, Speaker.

She's the hottest person in the room right now, Speaker. So Tulsi, great job. And I know you have a lot more coming. She told me you've seen nothing yet. So I heard those rumors about you, but now I know they're true. So we're very proud of you, Tulsi. They cheated so badly.

President Trump on this story on Tuesday. Welcome back to the Megyn Kelly Show. Back with me now are friends from the ruthless program. Guys, Trump keeps using the word treason and we are trying to figure out what possible way there could be to charge any of these officials. I don't think treason is gonna work just based on, you know, like I said earlier, my instincts,

because it doesn't, you know, that's a tough one. However, perjury at the federal level has a five year statute of limitations, which can potentially be told, meaning it won't start running until the crime is discovered, like the lie is discovered, if the person who's about to get charged was responsible for actively concealing the truth, like maybe putting the truth in a safe at Langley where it would never be unearthed for the next five years. I mean, that's the kind of clever behavior

we might be seeing from this DOJ, which got very, very clever under Merrick Garland and Joe Biden and the left love that. So let's see if they use their same creativity now to find ways to extend the statute of limitations for lying under oath for people like John Brennan and Jim Comey. That would be really interesting. And I don't think Barack Obama is going to get pulled into this very easily given the

fact that thanks to Trump, it's clear he has immunity for his official acts while president. But that doesn't mean he can't be called as a witness. I don't know that he's totally in the clear because anything he did after he left office, and they said they're looking at conduct all the way through 2024, could be brought up. I have no idea, but I have absolutely no sympathy for him. And the left is gonna have a really difficult time

trying to say, you can't do this to a former president or his top aides. I think that's to me the central issue in all of this, all of this insanity, all of these horrific things is this is a tragedy. This was a group of individuals, powerful individuals who decided that they were willing for their own egos and resentments to divide this entire country because half of this country has... They still believe it.

They still believe it. They still believe it. They were basically given brain damage and now believe that President Trump is a Russian asset. They were told that there's Russians hiding in every corner. They could take over this country at any moment. Every election we have, you can't believe the results if it doesn't go the way that you want. And you know what?

President Trump is trying to kill every single American in this country. COVID came over here because he's a Putin stooge. There are people in this country that damaged and it was done by a group of powerful individuals. And then the media was another cog in their machines. They had a profit motive in getting that done. They wanted to be buddies with the Obama folks always. They ran with the message that he gave them. They all made millions off of it. And they're wondering, why have Americans lost faith in institutions? Well, the institutions divided this entire country. They're the problem. I mean, what this is about fundamentally

is breaking the systemic failure that these partisans led, in large part by John Brennan, who I large, I think he is probably the most politically partisan director of the CIA in its history. And by the way, that's a pretty high bar. That's a high bar, sadly. You look at history. But what they did and what they were able to do

is not only just conceal the truth, not only perpetuate a narrative, but then become a part of the media business. Not just as a source, as a single source to some of these disreputable reporters out there, but then literally become part of the media apparatus. They all signed deals, right? And they would all go on all these cable shows,

some of which I was on, I sat in the green room and watched these guys, and they would say, well, you know, we have this top secret clearance, so I can't really tell you all of the things that I've seen, but I can tell you it's very concerning. Of course, the inference to the viewer and the listener at that point is like, well, I don't know, this guy was in charge of the things that I've seen, but I can tell you it's very concerning. Of course, the inference to the viewer and the listener at that point is like, well, I don't know,

this guy was in charge of the CIA, he probably has access to information that I don't know, so I should probably believe it because at that point in time, we still believe in our institutions because up to that point, they had sort of served the country well in many regards. But this whole circle that wrapped into the media is really I think one of the biggest

Benefits of having this conversation now because that needs to be broken at its core Duncan I know that you for example had Interactions with some of these reporters who didn't know shit from shy. Yeah. Yeah, Megan. This is incredible I have a great story for you because it went way beyond 2016 and then the Mueller investigation even after all of that was proven Yeah, yeah, yeah. Megan, this is incredible. I have a great story for you because it went way beyond 2016 and then the Mueller investigation, even after all of that was proven false. It continued into 2020.

I remember I got a call from a fact checker at the New Yorker in 2020, leading up to the 2020 election where the contention of this article that was under review was basically that one of our clients, you know, a high profile Republican senator, their website actually was communicating data back to a Russian server. And perhaps there might be voter file data that, you know, Putin and the Russians were using to collude with this Republican, which of course was a fundamentally insane thing. And so I sort of like probed the fact checker, like,

where are you getting this information? Like, is this public? Is there some sort of confidential source? And I was like, if you want me to actually respond to this, like, which is totally baseless, you're gonna have to give me a little bit of something. You know what the something was, Megan? It was a Twitter thread by Louise Mensch.

That was the basis for the whole article they were about to write. And I just kind of said, I mean, after laughing hysterically, I was kind of like, if you guys go to print on this, just like as a professional courtesy, I don't know if you went through the rest of her Twitter page, but you're gonna publicly embarrass yourself.

And they eventually spiked the story. But like, I mean, just having a fact checker who would do that, there are many publications who wouldn't, who would be, it would be too good to print, right? Because they just wanted the clicks. They didn't care if it was actually true. Here's the other piece of it. You gotta keep in mind, you guys know this,

the audience knows this too, but it's worthwhile to revisit. Keep in mind the time that we were dealing with here, end of 16, the very, very beginning of January 17, when the nation was in shock that Trump won. In shock, especially the left. They were having open struggle sessions. They were crying openly, like they were calling off school so children could,

you know, go see their trauma counselors about what had happened. And they did not believe he could do it. None of them believed he could do it for a second prior to the Nets announcing he had done it. And they still probably didn't believe he had done it. At the time Obama was like, we're turning around this ICA. You're not submitting something saying Russia didn't help him do this.

We are submitting something that shows how this really happened, which is Russia and he worked together and it was stolen. And I had the team pull this. This is, I think this is from NWOKNESS on X that put together good montage. We stole part of it from him. And this, this is the mentality that was driving the decisions I maintain behind the scenes at the White House still in, you know, late December or early December through early January 16 to 17 when Obama did his 180 flipping the Intel analysis. Watch.

He's not going to be president. He is not. Donald Trump is not going to be president of the United States. Take it to the bank. I guarantee you. All right. All right. I think if he becomes the president here, make it great because the state's already gone. I think that man will be president of the United States right about the time that spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs and red capes. I'm not like Tom. Pleasure. Take it from me.

How about that? Cheers, Tom. And then of course there's Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke. No.

No. Part of your mind or brain, can you imagine Donald Trump standing up one day and delivering a State of the Union address? Well, I can imagine it in a Saturday night skit. I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president. And use an Obama, of course, mocked him openly saying, you know, he may be this, he may be that one thing he never will be is president of the United States. That's how they all felt.

So for them, it was so easy. It was stolen by the Russians, that dirty Trump worked with them, the dirty tricks of Vladimir Putin, who's another boogeyman to them. And that to me is so clear when you read these documents like the Brennan, it has the ring of truth, the Steele dossier, it has the ring. What kind of CIA director talks like that? These people are, like I said, they're so egotistical. They're so full of themselves.

For so long, they've looked down on the rest of America. So blatantly, so openly, like you saw all the jokes that are making like Trump supporters. Why they're just a bunch of dumb rednecks. Of course those people will never win. We're surrounded by Ivy league geniuses and we're going to give Obama and Netflix deal. These people really thought they were like the cream of the crop and to be defeated and humiliated and shown that this belief system that they've held So dearly is all just a house of cards and built on lies. It upset them so much

They're not willing to accept defeat They say okay. Well, let's just cook up a lie because we can't look bad. We're egotistical monsters Yeah, it's it's also a perfect vignette in how the left wing is willing to compromise major institutions within this country, the things that sort of make us work. I mean, when I started in politics, both intelligence and law enforcement, it was kind of like a church and state with politics, right? You had them as there were political appointees and whatnot, but you always operated with it offshore because of things like this, right?

And there was a bipartisan agreement at one point in time, 25 years ago, where everybody sort of believed you just can't venture into that territory. You can't allow intelligence agencies to operate like a third world country, protecting a dictator to manipulate intelligence against political opponents and things like that. If there's ever any evidence of that, boy, that's an impeachable offense. You know, and that was basically an accepted rule

right up until the point where John Brennan leads the CIA. And at that point, all of a sudden, now you can see from all the things that have unearthed, it was the opposite. They work hand in hand. I mean, there's handwritten notes And all of a sudden, now you can see from all the things that have unearthed, it was the opposite. They work hand in hand. I mean, there's handwritten notes at Senate Intel Committee that they keep talking about to try to, which they're talking about something entirely different, but they're trying to

use that as a way to insulate the criticism. One of the things that came out on that was handwritten notes from John Brennan after a briefing with the Clinton campaign where he understood that they were going to weaponize the intelligence that he was conjuring up, that he originally got from them, that he was briefing congressional leaders on it, and the Clinton campaign was going to actually weaponize it and put it into play in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign. If your intelligence agency is acting as a tool for a political campaign. That is the worst possible thing you can do in this country from a government standpoint,

from a trust and institution standpoint. It is the way that you absolutely drag an electorate into a point where they don't trust their country. And that's sadly where we find this. Were you with McConnell in 16? So I was outside by then. I left in 2014, but I was close enough to all of this. Yeah, I can give you a good vignette on that.

In 16, we know this from John Brennan's memoir. So this is not in dispute. John Brennan recounted this story himself. He briefed in September of 16, then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on his claim that Russia sought to quote, enhance the electoral prospects of Donald Trump. And we now know from what's getting released here,

Brennan had been told, that's bullshit, that's bullshit. But it has the feel, it has the whiff of being true. Okay, this is based on the Steele dossier. And he said that to McConnell. And according to Brennan, McConnell responded dryly, quote, one might say that the CIA and the Obama administration are making such claims in order to prevent Donald Trump from getting elected president.

He knew, he knew, I mean, McConnell's been around a long time and Brennan went to him to try to soft sell it. And McConnell was like, would you stop with this bullshit? And it didn't stop. It went on and on and on. It got worse. Go ahead. It got worse.

So we were in charge of electing Senate Republicans at this point. And so all of this information is relevant to us because it's splashed all over the newspapers when McConnell refuses to sign a letter that Brennan wants him to pen that implicates Donald Trump in Russia. Refuse to do it. So all of a sudden, the entirety of the national media is focused on Mitch McConnell protecting Russians, working for Russians

Working for Trump. They started calling him Moscow Mitch. Yeah, that's scumbag on MSNBC Joe Scarborough who like led every show with Moscow Mitch type stuff and I didn't I was out of government I didn't have a security clearance so he couldn't tell me what the conversations were It didn't stop John Brennan by the way, from writing exactly what happened in that secure intelligence briefing, by the way. I don't know if you're looking around at charges, maybe that's somewhere to start. But anyway, all of this, we can't formulate the truth because I can't get it from a principle, but you're getting incoming from the outside on all of this. And they then take that and try to weaponize it not only against Donald Trump, but against

every single Republican who looked at what we're now all looking at and said, none of this adds up. We went through three long years where this was A1A on the talking point list of all the liberal pundits, single campaign every single Democrat This is the John Brennan effect This is why he is the key to all of this because he buried the Intel made up a narrative and then Weaponized it through the media in a way that could help their campaign chances Which is really what the only thing that they were focused on at this point

delegitimizing the Trump administration and making sure the Republicans had a somewhat of a liability for speaking the truth. And then he monetized it. He went and got himself a contributor contract and a book deal. Yeah. Okay. I wanted to play one other because we're on Brennan and we pulled another soundbite from him.

This one's from Meet the Press, February 3rd, 2018. Okay, so by this point, he knows everything. Everything that we have discussed on this program and earlier ones this week, he knows it all. It's all, you know, they're still pushing Russia Gate and all that nonsense, but in any event, here he is on Meet the Press, February 3rd, 2018, 17B is the sock.

When did you first learn of the so-called steel dossier and what Christopher steel was doing. Well it was a not a very well kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out and it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various us news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it and I had me about my familiarity with it. And I had heard just snippets about it.

I did not know what was in there. I did not see it until later in that year. I think it was in December. But I was unaware of the providence of it as well as what was in it. And it did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessment that was done that was presented to then President Obama and then President-elect Trump. That's not true. That last part is not true.

It was attached to the ICA in the appendix. Information from it was in there and relied upon. That's what all these documents we're seeing now, thanks to Tulsi, are showing us that it was item one, like the crucial item that got them to the point where they could say interference and with the goal of helping Trump. And the three other items that just came out in what was unearthed late yesterday are even more pathetic, if possible, than the dossier. It's like unverified snippets from a conversation that all the intelligence agents on it said, we absolutely cannot rely on this. This is not reliable.

Don't put this in the report. And Brennan just kept rubber stamping it all there. If it's suggested there was a motive to help Trump, it made it in. It was relied upon. And there he is knowing all of that, being like, oh, of course, would never rely on this Steele dossier. Fucking liar.

Yep. Yeah. It's the Genesis. It's the Genesis for all of it, right? I mean, that's the thing that I find so amazing about that comment is that he's pretending as though, well, I was vaguely aware of it because the press was aware of it. I'm the director of the CIA and I don't know, but like all of our press somehow got a handle

on it. I've got a question. What a whale of an intelligence agent. I have a question back to you, Megan, you know, because you were a lawyer and you probably know more about this than any of us. But like in sort of going through all of Brennan's decision making in that process, including all of this unverified reporting in the dossier and stuff, the career intelligence agents were like, please do not include this.

We do not want our names attached to it. We don't believe this is credible. And he did it anyway. At what point do you pass beyond the immunity that you have in your official capacity as John Brennan to being willfully malicious? That's a good question. I don't know. This is all new territory, right?

Because we only recently have the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity within his official acts. I don't know. And then you have to look at statutory limitations, right? This all happened a long time ago, unless they can prove it's an ongoing issue because like right now they're looking at John Brennan's statement, you know,

cause we found out that the CIA had referred Brennan and Comey to the DOJ prior to Tulsi's document dump. The CIA first came out and was like, those two, but they didn't really tell us why Comey exactly. I mean, shake your peck with Comey, there's so much. Right. But with Brennan, with Brennan, they zeroed in on under oath testimony

that he gave about the dossier, again, downplaying its role in the assessment and his knowledge of it. So I don't know, Duncan, it'll be interesting. I mean, again, they have very clever lawyers over there and I'm sure someone's thinking of something right now. But my first look at this tells me it's not a criminal case. It's a political one. It's an accountability story. Like these guys, and trust me, I'm wide open to the possible legal theories against these people.

I would frankly love to see them suffer. And I have said since Trump was running, this must be done. If there's a colorable claim, you don't make it up, but if there is a colorable claim, their people must be put through what Trump was put through. They must or they will not learn. They will do it to the right again. So I'm totally in favor of making them suffer if there's an actual good faith basis to do so. But just my initial instinct is this is probably just the truth coming out and the

the remedy is to rub their noses in it publicly and shame them and understand how much wrong was done to President Trump and frankly is still being done to President Trump by these lunatics who want us to think they're the virtuous ones. Yep. Yeah. I mean, it may be subject to like some kind of legislation or something. I mean, something needs to change

where the system in and of itself. I think so legislation, that kind of stuff is, it's way too slow. It does, it does not. Well, I'm not talking about the accountability on this. I'm just saying anytime, for example, if you have a director of the CIA that is interfacing with a campaign at any point

during the final weeks of the campaign and they're having gives and takes like we know that they're about a campaign plan, something needs to change. Something needs to insulate a process of intelligence. Or homes. Let me give you one more from from the documents. We was in our AM update podcast this morning.

There's another piece of evidence in there in what just got released from that House report from 2020 that was in the vault that Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama's attorney general who oversees FBI was allegedly informing the Clinton campaign of what the FBI was doing and where its investigation into her stood and keeping tabs on the FBI agent who was running it and on Comey. I mean, we don't know that's true, but that's one of the allegations, keep going.

If that's not prosecutable, we need to make a law to make it prosecutable because that is wildly inappropriate. It has to change. It goes beyond just the loss of trust in our institutions. I mean, thank God we were not attacked in a significant way during that period of time. I mean, aren't they supposed to be doing their day jobs to keep us safe instead of playing

grab ass with reporters and like pretend like moonlighting is campaign operatives? I mean, what was the one thing that we learned ahead of 9-11 that all of these all of these entities were out for their own benefit and they weren't talking to each other and therefore it led to a cataclysmic result in New York. And in the months and the years and the weeks after 9-11, all of the Intel communities came together and they were sharing information and they took it very seriously that we need to protect this country.

Somehow when Obama became president, they all became campaign operatives and took their eye off the ball. I just have to say like, from a national security perspective, I think this is a very, very important issue. And the thing is- And by the way, John Brennan is still to this day

an MSNBC contributor. Yeah, that's the thing. That's the thing is, the only way behavior changes is when there are consequences. That's the only teacher that people understand and learn lessons from. There have to be dire consequences. There have to be charges brought up against these people

I don't care whether we think they'll see the inside of a jail cell or not I want the Justice Department to use everything in its power I mean when the government sues you it's a problem because they've got more money and resources they bankrupt people Let's bankrupt all these people. He sold his soul for an MSNBC Contributorship I want him bankrupted at the very least. I pray to God he sees a jail cell. He'd still have a security clearance if it wasn't for Trump, by the way. We need those other agents who warned him to be subpoenaed. Those are the agents we want to hear from.

There needs to be some sort of congressional proceeding where we hear directly from them. Because apparently there are now multiple, I mean, I've heard the word dozens in some of these reports who are ready to at least behind the scenes stand up and say, I tried to tell them not to do this and they didn't listen to me. I mean, it was a John Brennan special from all accounts and a Jim Comey special. That's why there's no accident that that's why the CIA referred those two. Yes, they found some recent grounds apparently to do it. But I mean, I'm sure it's related to their ongoing deceit campaign against the government. I mean, in fairness, I guess, yes, the press too,

though the press's job is not to just be stenographers for the intel community, and they did at WAPO, and they did at New York Times, and they did at Politico, and they did at CNN, and the American public, most importantly of all, just completely misled. And then they'll put, like Obama's like, oh, we did more, we did no more than conclude what everyone knows.

We said Russia interfered. How does everyone know that, President Obama? How does everyone know? Because you and your people spread the lie. You put it in these Intel reports, you leaked it to every media outlet in the country, you beat the drum for years, and people don't have enough time to run down

these massive lies, especially when you take the proof that they're lies and shove them in vaults in Langley. My imaginary viewer, Madge in Iowa, she doesn't have access to that, nor does she have the fucking time or inclination to go try to figure this shit out. It's ridiculous.

Right, right. Now there needs to be accountability. And it needs that, look, it's gonna take hard work by shows like yours, shows like ours, and independent media and everything else, because as evidence of what we're talking about, all the people who created the problem are still in on it. And you're not gonna find this on CNN.

You're not gonna find this. If you find it on CNN, it'll be Barack Obama's triumphant slap back. Yeah, yeah. Of the lunatic Tulsi. Yeah, yeah, yeah, through a spokesperson, right? And it's just, it's nonsense, it's garbage. Can I ask you about, because I asked Haib about this, but you, you know, you're of the

Senate. Um, what do you make? Because this is emerging as a principal defense. The pod save guys, McCarthy and others pointing to the fact that the Senate Intel committee did its own investigation into the Russian interference. And they say under Marco Rubio as chair concluded that that intelligence community assessment was right, that there was interference meant to help Trump. And both, you know, Molly has serious, Molly Hemingway, I pointed out to Matt, has serious

doubts about how they got there. Did they rely on the same Intel? Did they just do the rubber stamping? Or you're saying they did their other, they did their own Intel. Matt Taibbi suggested saying they did their own and tell Matt Taibbi suggested that they did their own. But Matt's point was it was very flimsy at best because the main guy they were basing a lot of it on was never even contacted by anybody on that committee.

So what do you say to the left's chief tool in trying to bat down the Tulsi story by saying, look at the Senate, the Senate, the Senate, the Senate? Yeah, I think it's two different issues, right? They were trying to figure out whether there was significant action by Russia that affected the outcome of the 2016 campaign in many ways. Their conclusion on that, by the way, was it did not. It did not.

What they're pointing to, what the left is pointing to is the conclusion that Russia in fact did have some involvement. Again, I think you mentioned it at the top of the show and I know Duncan just talked about it. Can you argue whether or not $150,000 or $200,000 worth of Facebook ads affected an election? No, you certainly can't. Can you argue that $150,000 or $200,000 worth of Facebook ads trying to sow discord was

interference? I mean, technically you could just because that did happen. Sure, that's their bread and butter. Yeah. I mean, and they do that, like you said, in every election and probably every country across the- No, I'm pretty sure that's how I lost the fifth grade presidency. I had a very solid platform. Right, right. Which by the way, the Obama administration was doing in Israel to try

to oust Netanyahu at the time with far greater resources than 150 to 200,000. Yeah. How about Ukraine? I mean, you name it, you name it, right? I mean, so the idea that this is somehow a novel concept that Russia was just trying to do this with the United States is insane. But I think that their conclusion,

what they were attempting to conclude in that Senate report is totally irrelevant from the conversation that we're having now. If they were tasked at actually finding out how all of this became part of the public lexicon, they probably would have found out what we're talking about now, that this thing is buried, that this somehow was conjured up by Brennan and Co. to try to figure out how to perpetuate a narrative to delegitimize the Trump administration. That wasn't the remit at the time.

And so I just find it hilarious that they're trying to use that as somehow an insulation to the intelligence that we now know for the first time is the American public, but was there since 2016. The only way we're really gonna get this nailed down, I mean, with more documents that are in the public and the newspapers have to cover is if there is a criminal charge because everyone's ignoring it.

I mean, I listen to the New York Times is the daily, you know, often they haven't touched it. I know I do it because I like to keep an eye on both sides. You know, I don't want anybody corrupting my mind. But they haven't touched it. They haven't touched it. That's the New York Times' Daily News podcast has not touched it. And the only way of making these newspapers

who were complicit start covering it, I do think are actual charges, not just investigations, not referrals, actual charges. By the way, we need to hire more lawyers at the DOJ ASAP. They are understaffed. All right, standby. We're gonna take a quick break and then we'll come back with some other news

and there's plenty of it. Standby as the ruthless guys stay with me. Okay, do you wanna know about something positive and upbeat? I have been telling you about Firecracker Farm Hot Salt. It's been a showstopper gift and must have item for anyone that enjoys spicing up their food. What is hot salt, you may be asking.

Well, it is a sea salt infused with a blend of hot pepper that's made by a wonderful little family company. It comes in sleek stainless steel push grinders that feel great in hand and are really satisfying to use. Their motto, everything is better with hot salt. And based on the reviews, customers are in full agreement. So give it a try now. Go to firecracker.farm right now and use code MK at checkout for a special discount. Yes, that's firecracker.farm, code MK, and get some hot salt before it's all gone. You'll thank me. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly show on Sirius XM.

It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are, no car required. I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. What happened last week when they took a shot at my hero and they tried to kill the next

president of the United States. Enough was enough. And I said let Trump-a-mania run wild brother. Let Trump-a-mania run wild, brother! Let Trump-a-mania rule again! Let Trump-a-mania make America great again! Wow. What a moment that was. And I mean, unbelievable gone too soon. Hulk Hogan died today at age 71 per TMZ. Um, and WWE confirming it now, uh say, according to TMZ, that medics were dispatched to his home in Clearwater, Florida, early Thursday morning,

operators stating that it was regarding a cardiac arrest. A slew of police cars and EMTs were packed outside of his home, he was carried on a stretcher and into an ambulance just a few weeks ago. His wife denied rumors that he was in a coma, stating his heart was strong as he recovered from surgeries. TMZ saying there had been rumblings that Hogan was dying,

but then they were told that he was just dealing with the symptoms following a neck procedure he underwent in May. But that guy transformed professional wrestling. I mean, even for people like me who don't know much about it, that's the name you know. He was a larger than life figure. His enthusiasm, his, I had his love of country,

how fun he was, was obvious to anybody who spent two minutes with this guy. He used to go on Fox a lot. What do you make of it? Because now we've had three losses, guys, of well-known people in the past few days. Malcolm Jamal Warner, Ozzy Osbourne, and now Hulk. Yeah, I mean, look, tough week for children of the 80s.

No question. Yeah. On the Hulkster in particular, it is hard to fully encapsulate and explain what a cultural icon that guy was. I think people are just sort of becoming aware of him or were unaware of the 80s and 90s. You think of the political context during that big speech, but this guy transformed not only wrestling, everything.

He was wrap your flag and around it, sort of symbolic of the rise of the Reagan era and into the 90s and the whole wrestling culture. And I mean, this guy was America, always was. And we were down on the floor during the convention watching him deliver that speech that you just played. It was electric seeing it in person because you remember as a kid seeing him during the Reagan era is perfect comparison because he was like a symbol of American greatness and Americans feeling great and coming back from the Malays and that America's number one and he was

always so patriotic and then for it to come full circle and see him there at the convention yet again taking a stand for America, making America great again. It was electric. And the audience just started chanting USA. It was an incredible moment. He'd always been a huge patriot and an inspiration to Americans

of how great a country we have. And it's also important to remember one of his many patriotic things is he destroyed Gawker, a fake news left wing organization, taught him a lesson that you can't get away with printing lies. And the more consequences, you know, the fake news gets the better. Yeah, I think it was one of those surreal. Because it was this, you know, celebrity, salacious news tabloid website that was just

absolutely vicious. And they printed a story about, they were airing sex tapes of memory serves of him with a woman he was having an affair with. She was the wife of his friend, Bubba somebody. Bubba the love sponge. As Steve reminds me. Bubba, of course, how did I forget?

And he was one of the first celebrities to sort of stand up and say, you can't do this to me. And we later found out, I believe it was bankrolled by Peter Thiel, right? Who was like in favor of taking a stand on this. And he brought down Gawker. I mean, it was not a victory for free speech, but free speech even in America has some limitations.

You cannot just go as a news person and openly actively invade somebody's private life with defamatory material to that degree and not expect to pay a penalty. And that was made clear by the courts. Keep going, we are gonna say something, Duncan. Yeah, it was just sort of a surreal moment there at the convention because, you know, back to Holmes' point,

he really was a cultural icon, even just beyond wrestling. He was like, you know, he was such a commodity too. I remember growing up really was a cultural icon, even just beyond wrestling. He was like, he was such a commodity too. I remember growing up and having a Wrestle Buddy, which was basically like this pillow that is sort of formed to his body. And I remember being a little kid and we had one of those and one of the Macho Man, Randy Savage ones, and you could put them in a headlock. And so sitting there at the convention in 2020 being the Wrestle Buddy guy that I grew up on is now on this stage talking about how we have to elect Donald Trump was just sort of a surreal moment.

It speaks to how he endured as that cultural icon for decades, which is an incredible thing to do in entertainment. I think he was more than just a cultural icon too, and a big personality. The guy obviously had a very big heart. You've seen all the videos, you've heard all the stories. It's one of my favorite videos is when this dad

is walking in, like two or three years ago, he's walking into an autograph signing session, he's got his six-year-old kid with him, and a six-year-old kid comes in, and he's like getting ready to beat up Hulkamania, and Hulk Hogan gets up, and he's like, he-year-old kid with him, and his six-year-old kid comes in, and he's getting ready to beat up Hulkamania, and Hulk Hogan gets up, and he's like, he's gonna fight him back again. And it's just like, you put yourself

in the shoes of that dad. You grew up every Saturday morning rooting on Hulk Hogan, fighting against the Iron Sheik, and Macho Man, and everybody. And you watch your kid get up there, and just do the muscles, hulking mania reacts. Like this is a guy who had a very, very big heart and cared about people.

I mean, it seems like it's always the ones with the big hearts that go by cardiac arrest for some reason. It just seems like this bitter irony that those big hearts wind up failing them. He was a giant of a man. Terry Balea was his real name and he's really gonna be missed.

It's sad to see your icons die. It's sad to see you have no personal connection with them. Like Ozzy Osbourne too, I didn't know Ozzy at all. I'm not one of those people who had met him, but I knew Sharon, I know Sharon. She's a delight, I love her. She's been on the show, she's just so sweet, she's so fun. Those two had a real love affair, I mean I mean legit and despite all of his successes and riches

He said to his dying day the best thing he ever did in his life was marry Sharon Osborne I'm just in the past couple of days watching the tributes to them to him come out It's been so entertaining because I didn't know that much about Ozzy I wasn't like a black Sabbath fan But I liked him as a personality and he just always seemed so funny. One of the clips they surfaced was of him on his reality show with her.

They kind of invented reality TV where she was like, oh, the truck driver, he's been issued a citation. Oh yeah, yeah, he says, how come? Well, it turns out he was getting a blow job while he was driving the truck. Yeah, sounds about right. Yeah, yeah turns out he was getting a blowjob while he was driving the truck. Yeah, sounds about right. Yeah, yeah. And he was entirely naked.

Okay, well that'll do it. That'll do it. As the Osborn's not shocked at all or horrified that his employee was caught in this condition. Just a Tuesday at the Osborn's. Yes, right? Like these rock stars, like our true rock stars, ours, the UK's, whatever, they've had these huge lives, right? You kind of forget like how mega those lives can go to where,

can you imagine like Duncan coming home and finding out like one of the ruthless producers was pulled over? We try to live the exact same way, Megan. That's, you know, we've got a big tent. Can I bring up something? I didn't know. I didn't see it was mentioned as one of the possible topics, but I'd be remiss if I didn't bring this up. You completely destroyed Doug Amhoff's ex on Twitter.

Did you guys see this? Oh, I did see this. I haven't. I mean, I'm honestly an expert in Twitter history. I think that's the most brutal body bagging. Oh, thank you. Yes. Do you believe this person? The nerve of Doug M.

Hoff's ex-wife to try to shit stir with me. Step away, madam. Mistake. She's a mistake. She away, madam. Huge mistake. Huge mistake. She doesn't listen to the show. I'm like, no. Exactly, simple Google search would have told her it's not a good idea. I'm going to hurt you and it's gonna be painful.

She jumped in from the train and was like, I got this. Those who didn't see it, hold on a second, I'll find it. Let's see. She, okay, her on a second, I'll find it. Oh my God. Let's see. She, okay, her name is Kirsten Emhoff, K-E-R-S-T-I-N, which is already where she's a problem. Nobody should spell their name Kirsten. And she was mad about my J-Lo commentary the other day where I said she's too old at 55 to be making her living

solely on being this sex kitten who people want to F. where I said she's too old at 55 to be making her living solely on being this sex kitten who people want to F. I'm sorry, I just think it's sad. It's like even the greatest sex kitten of all time, Anne Margaret, understood by her mid-50s to approach life with a bit more class. She was still sexy as hell, but she knew people were gonna wanna hear her talk and hear her speak more than they were gonna just want her

shake, see her shake her boobs at them. JLo hasn't gotten the message and is still out there literally half naked shoving her vag into the faces of her dancers on stage. It's too much. That was my commentary. Kirsten didn't like it. So she tweeted out without cc-ing me, without adding me.

I bet tons of people look at JLo and wanna have sex with her. Megan, spelled wrong. If you actually think post-menopausal women can't be sexual, you are missing out. You can close up your 55-year-old shop while the rest of us are open for business.

Oh, but this is one of the most unattractive people on Twitter. The thought of Kirsten Emhoff being open for business is jarring and upsetting in and of itself. My response for the record was he's already done. You were too chicken shit to actually CC me on your post, Kirsten. But let's just say I'm sexy enough to keep my husband from sleeping with the nanny.

Unlike J.Lo, however, I don't feel the need to fake hump a bunch of strangers to prove I've still got it. I believe that's pretty much the end of Kirsten Emhoff, as it should be. I think you took care of that. Holy smokes. Well, look, reasonable people can disagree

about whether J.Lo doing on stage is something we'd like to see or not, but I think we can all conclude that you probably shouldn't come at Meghan with something like that. He expected it the wrong way. Yeah, and the video you had, it's like very clear, like, okay, this is a bit out of pocket.

You make a great point. Why would she jump in on this? That guy needs a snorkel. I have no idea. And by the way, I've been told by reliable sources, Kirsten Emhoff plays for the other team. I don't even think she, if she's open for business, nothing's going in.

Oh my God. Ow. I have it on good authority. But look, this is a woman who was married to a man who turned out to be a woman abuser, a real shit of a person and reportedly cheated on her while they were married with the nanny, which is an extra bonus.

I mean, look, I realized some marriages break up, but there's a real question about why she's out there. Was she out there during the campaign defending him? And by the way, Kirsten, now that you've rattled my cage, I'm looking into exactly why you did that and what favors Doug Emhoff and his wife Kamala Harris may have done for you in your legal life, because she's been involved in some legal battles.

That possibly led to your adoration. So keep coming for me, madam. I'm here, I'm looking forward to it. Falls into the sleeping dogs, let them lie. Tell your parents. Oh my gosh, that's incredible. I mean, to be honest with you. Who gets married to like a woman abuser

and a serial cheater from what we hear and Someone who allegedly impregnated the nanny, but certainly seems to have at least been sleeping with her What's to run out there talking to others about their how about how sexy they are to their husbands my god woman Yeah, stop slow your roll. Makes no sense makes no sense. I will say like I have to take your word under sexual orientation I don't know anything about that. But if you marry Doug Aimhoff, I get it. I get it. Like it's pretty tough to stay on the same squad

if that's your only frame of reference. Right? He could turn you. He could turn you. It's true. Maybe we should be feeling sorry for her. Though she's standing by, you know, she stood by him at that campaign.

She looked at him with the doe-eyed look at the convention. And now I'm really interested why she did that. Now I suddenly do care, cursed it, why you did that. And I'm gonna try to find out. Okay, so thank you for bringing that up, Smug, because that was a fun thing that we didn't officially have on the agenda, but why not?

Why shouldn't we? Okay. Lastly, Epstein. The deputy attorney general is meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell today, which ought to be potentially interesting for him, query whether we can really believe a thing she says, because she's going to want to cop a deal

to get out of prison early, but it's happening. The House has also, I think, either issued a subpoena or settled on a plan to try to depose her in front of Congress, may still have some similar problems as the Wall Street Journal offers its second attack on Trump and Epstein saying Trump was told in May by his Justice Department, I think, Pam Bondi, that he is allegedly in the Epstein files, which is supposed to be a big headline.

But didn't Elon Musk tell us all that prior to then? We've known that thanks to Elon. And this all, the Wall Street Journal, publishing that thing about his alleged letter to Epstein and now publishing that he was allegedly told he's in the files, along with hundreds of others, by the way, has led to this moment on The View today. Watch.

And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this. I'm allowed to say that, right? Too late now. So it doesn't really matter. Yeah. Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is turning. The tide is turning and things are changing. I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down. Yeah.

Fox News, who created the monster, will take him down. Okay. So Fox News is going to take him down because Rupert owns Fox and Rupert owns the Journal. And now she's determined, I guess, that Rupert's going to end Trump. This will be the thing that does it because Rupert's journal will continue reporting that the Epstein scandal, as the left is now trying to make it, is all about DJT. Your thoughts? It's just so dumb. I mean, this thing is veered so far off the tracks. You almost have to have So far off the tracks, you almost have to have like a full SSRI prescription just to begin discussing where the left is taking the...

My patience for anyone like Joy Behar to even weigh in on this or any Democrats in Congress to weigh in on this is infinitely small. They had 12 long years to try to examine anything they wanted to examine with the Epstein files. By the way, these brought what, 80 charges, 80 different indictments against Donald Trump in the process while they're sitting on all this information. Somehow this like lost the graphs.

And so now their new found interest is simply political. And I think this is the problem that we find ourselves. Like there are answers that need to be done. I think the Trump administration seems more than committed to trying to figure out exactly because now we need transparency on everything. What happened here? But like the fact that this is political,

it's truly, I hate it. I just hate it. Yep. It just goes to show you the left, they never cared about it and they still don't care about it. If they still cared about it, they wouldn't be trying to make it political and all about Trump.

Go ahead, Michael. Well, I was gonna say, it's just like Russia hacked the election. Like Epstein-Files has become for the liberals, this catch-all thing where they feel like they can get Trump. I mean, we know from like, we know from the Galen Maxwell trial and the depositions and stuff that Trump, you know, had some interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.

But when I think of Epstein files, I think of like, here are the people who diddle kids, right? Like not like hearsay from some court document, you know? No one, right. No one sane believes there's anything damning about Trump and the Epstein files. Or the Biden administration would have released it. Fellas, wonderful to see you. Thanks for being here. Got to run back tomorrow with new revelations about Brian Kohlberger from the just released police docs.

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