The Megyn Kelly Show - COVID Truth Suppression and Prince Andrew's Perilous Future, with Sen. Marco Rubio, Dan Wootton, and Anne Bremner | Ep. 241

Episode Date: January 14, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Dan Wootton of GB News and the Daily Mail, and Anne Bremner, attorney and legal analyst, on the truth about Fauci and Collins trying to suppress the COVID lab leak theory, what may happen next in the search for COVID's origins, what's really behind the Democrats' "voting rights" push, the toxic political culture in D.C. in 2022, the corporate cowardice related to China, Biden's failing poll numbers, what the 2024 presidential election match-up might be, Prince Andrew's perilous future, what may happen next legally in the Prince Andrew case, the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict and potential for it to be overturned, the future of the royal family, and more.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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm Megyn Kelly. We begin today with new questions about whether we can trust the public health officials overseeing America's response to this pandemic. On Monday, we dove into CDC Director Rochelle Walensky's attempts to cover for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who embarrassed herself last week from the bench, grossly overstating the number of hospitalized children with COVID. Yesterday, we reported about Walensky continuing to tout a discredited study on masking in schools. Today, we have proof that Anthony Fauci and

Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health have been willfully misleading the public on COVID's origins in an effort, it turns out, to protect China and themselves. Documents emerged this week that public health officials did not want us to see. They dodged FOIA requests and other attempts to get them, but House Republicans finally got their hands on emails between Drs. Fauci, Collins, and some of the world's top virologists discussing early on in the pandemic whether COVID-19 came from a lab. It turns out the very officials who dismissed that as a fringe conspiracy theory in the press were being told exactly the opposite by the world's top experts as early as February 2020. They have known from the start. The emails and notes, which only the lawmakers have seen,

though they have transcribed them for the public, show that on February 1, 2020, Drs. Fauci and Collins had a teleconference about COVID's origins with 11 of the world's top virologists. Emails were exchanged the very next day that make clear several of those advising Fauci and Collins believe this virus came from a lab, not some bat or other animal from a wet market or a cave. They had studied the virus's genetic makeup, you see, and found the insertion of a genetic sequence that makes a virus more transmissible, a furin cleavage site. Physicist Robert Muller was on our show in June explaining why the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is indeed a smoking gun that proves lab origins. There is a particular part on what's called the spike. You know, if you saw a picture of the virus, it's a sphere with these spikes coming out. These

spikes are what attach to the victim cell. Now, this spike in coronavirus has a particular feature that makes it extremely capable of attaching to a victim cell and injecting its virus particles very quickly. To get in and to get in so quickly and so effectively is to be really infectious. It has this little code in it. And the little code is something that has never been seen in this whole class of coronaviruses that include both SARS, which is famous, and MERS, the Mideast Respiratory Syndrome. Neither of those had this in it. So this is really, really something unexpected, unique, and it's inconceivable that this could have happened by accident.

It was efficient. It was highly contagious to humans from the start. And that was a tell. The former director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, backed the lab leak theory publicly last summer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, What virus comes out of a bat cave and infects humans by the millions? It's not biologically possible. One of those scientists on that call with Fauci and Collins, a Brit, Sir Jeremy Farrar, sent a follow-up email to Collins and Fauci the next day, expressing support for the lab leak theory. He relayed the thoughts of two more experts, Robert Gary of Tulane University

and Michael Farzen of the Scripps Research Institute. Robert Gary, he said, can't think of a plausible natural scenario. And Farzen was, quote, bothered by the fear in sight and having a hard time explaining that outside the lab. Farzan, he said, favored lab leak over natural origin 70 to 30 or 60 to 40. We know from a book Sir Farrar wrote last year that two of the other experts advising Fauci and Collins were strongly in the lab leap camp as well. Christian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute put the lab leak theory at 60 to 70 percent likely. Eddie Holmes of Sydney, 80 percent. In Farrar's emails, he said Holmes was at 60 percent. But either way, the guy clearly favored the lab leak origin.

So did Fauci and Collins create a commission to study this further, to get to the bottom of it? Did they call a press conference telling us all the lab leak theory deserved our full and serious consideration? After all, people were dying and would continue to die, 5.5 million and counting now. Didn't they want to know how this deadly virus got started so we could prevent it from happening again? Actually, they went another way. Two days after those scientists went to Collins and Fauci and told them this thing likely came from a lab, five of them authored a paper on how the virus began, including at least three who had openly favored the lab leak theory.

And in that paper, they did a complete 180, concluding that this virus was clearly, quote, that's a quote, clearly not from a lab and clearly not manipulated by man. Sir Farrar, well, he went on to write a different article, again, just days later, denouncing anyone who believed the lab leak theory as a bigot. Guess that includes himself and all his buds. Oh, and these same scientists took pains to assure us in their writings that soon the natural animal source would be found. Two years, 209 species, and 80,000 animal examinations later, it hasn't happened. So why the about face? Were these guys strong-armed by Collins and Fauci,

both of whom were involved in the draft article from its inception? Keep in mind, Fauci and Collins control the grant money from which many of these scientists make their living. You cross them, you're done. Your grants, your research, possibly even your career, gone. You do as they say, things get better for you. Six months after they reversed course, Christian Anderson and Robert Gary reportedly received an $8.9 million grant from Fauci and Collins. It's funny how well that worked out. Fauci wanted the lab leak theory gone. He later called it a shiny object, reassuring colleagues it would go away. He also clearly backed the waffling scientist's article, which had been sent to him for editing, though it's unclear how, if at all, he changed it,

taking to the White House podium and even mentioning the article there. Collins, for his part, is on record in these emails making very clear his orders. This article was important to, quote, settle this matter. Wait, why? He wanted to, quote, put down this very destructive conspiracy about a lab leak, lest the experts do, quote, great potential harm to science and international harmony. International harmony? He means China. Shut up about the lab leak in Wuhan, China.

Dr. Ron Foshear, whose group in the Netherlands researches how to make animal viruses more dangerous, put it even more clearly in an email at the time. Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular. And there it is, China. China had been America's biggest and most important collaborator in scientific research. Our collaboration with the Chinese over the past 20 years has grown exponentially, despite their human rights abuses and our occasional objections. We have been working together there and here on research just like what was happening in that lab.

It is not at all clear we can blame them and only them. And not just any research, but controversial gain-of-function research that takes, say, a coronavirus and makes it more dangerous or contagious, possibly even to humans, allowing scientists ostensibly to get ahead of it. But what if? What if it gets ahead of them? Fauci was behind much of the U.S. funding in China. He admitted approving grants for EcoHealth Alliance,

a group that researched coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab. Fauci would only admit so much, however, swearing that this research, well, it didn't qualify as that risky gain-of-function stuff. Dozens of scientists called BS on that, but the point is now moot because documents emerged proving Fauci was wrong, that EcoHealth Alliance was doing gain-of-function research in Wuhan, a fact that ultimately the NIH itself was forced to admit, though it denied

Fauci actually knew or that the research had any link to what we now know as COVID-19. Fauci maintains he was shocked, shocked to learn the truth that the research he had approved was in fact gain of function. After all, he had been denying this allegation under oath for months. Well, his denials are clearly questionable, especially when one considers that EcoHealth Alliance was not exactly stealthy about the work it wanted to pursue. In 2018, it actually hit up the Defense Department for another grant that was rather on the nose. Its goal? To partner with the Wuhan lab, deliberately inserting novel furin cleavage sites into bat coronaviruses, making them more transmissible to humans. The grant was turned down as clearly too dangerous, but as prominent science journalist

Matt Ridley reports, quote, it is an open secret in science that you sometimes put things into grant proposals you have already started doing. And the Chinese Academy of Sciences was funding most of the work in the Wuhan Institute of Virology anyway. EcoHealth's CEO, Peter Daszak, was one of the first to beg officials to reject the lab leak theory, and tellingly, he warned that the public release of the virus's genetic sequencing would bring, quote, very unwelcome attention. Best case scenario is Fauci and Collins had every reason to suspect what Daszak and Wuhan were doing but looked the other way or were reckless in their oversight of a dangerous lab funded by you,

the American taxpayer. Worst case is they knowingly funded it, then tried to cover it up when things went south and COVID-19 emerged of all places, smack dab in the middle of Wuhan, China. Fauci and Collins were told immediately by their expert pals, this thing looks manmade, or at least like it grew from passing from animal to animal in a lab, perhaps one that uses humanized mice like the Wuhan lab. But these two men prized international harmony over a full-throated investigation. The narrative was changed and discussion was shut down actively and forcefully using charges of bigotry and conspiracy mongering. And the world's top scientists and the slobbering media let them get away with it.

Nor is this over. Not only does COVID-19 continue to morph and circulate and cause havoc across the world, the Washington Post's Josh Rogin reports that the Biden administration wants to spend millions more right now to resume risky virus research in other countries. This, as Anthony Fauci is calling on Congress to give him a few billion dollars a year to develop vaccines for pandemics that do not yet exist. And when asked this week to come clean about these exchanges with the world's top virologists about the origins of COVID-19, he dodged. Did you communicate with the five scientists who wrote the opinion piece in Nature where they were describing, oh, there's no way this could have come from the lab.

That was not me. What I did- Did you talk with any of those scientists privately? You keep distorting the truth. It is stunning how you do that. Did you talk to any of the scientists privately? Yes. Who wrote the opinion? You did. What were they telling you privately? Well, let me explain. You know, you're going back to that original discussion when I brought together a group of people to look at every possibility with an open mind.

So not only are you distorting it, you are completely turning it around. As most of the scientists that came to you privately, did they come to you privately and say, no way this came from the lab? Or was their initial impression, Dr. Gary and others that were involved, was their initial impression actually that it looked very suspicious for a virus that came from a lab? Senator, we are here at a committee to look at a virus now that has killed almost 900,000 people. And the purpose of the committee was to try and get things out, how we can help to get the American public. And you keep coming back to personal attacks on me that have absolutely no relevance to reality. Joining me now, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Senator, great to have you here. So that's the question.

Can we trust Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and our public health officials? Well, I think like anybody in public office, that they need to maintain that trust and they need to earn it. You saw the answers right there in that segment leading in. It makes me very queasy to see a public official like Dr. Fauci, who is being relied upon by the president and by many people as sort of the leading authority on what our country should do about it, he's asked a very specific question. And that is, when these people came to you early on, did they tell you this looks like it might have come out of a lab accident or whatever? He says, well, that's a personal attack and just refused to answer the question or address it formally. If the answer to those questions were there was suspicion early on, we looked at it and

everybody ruled it out, then he should have said that. But instead, he wouldn't answer that specific question. So your questions about trust, I don't know how you see an answer like that, where someone diverts into the realm of a political spin, and leave that feeling more trustful about what he's saying on this, or frankly, all these other things. And I say this with no great pleasure, because I don't think it's good for our country to have a leading health official like Dr. Fauci have such low credibility in the eyes of so many Americans at this point. How can he go on in this post? How given it's been drip by drip, but this is this is significant.

He actively misled us. Collins, too, actively misled us. They knew this is not in dispute. These virologists are on record. We've got the emails now. The House Republicans do. They were advised this thing likely came from a lab. And yet Collins and Fauci were out there calling it a conspiracy theory, saying it's just a shiny object that will go away and trying to manipulate the narrative to the point where social media was shutting down any discussion of that possibility. So how does he stay in this post now? Well, Dr. Collins is no longer in the post. He's retired. And I imagine Dr. Fauci will retire fairly soon as well. How he remains in the post is pretty straightforward. And that is he has established himself in the eyes of this administration, Democratic Congress and much of the mainstream media as someone who cannot be questioned, as sort of a czar over COVID, and that any sort of scrutiny

and any sort of hard questions of him is denial of COVID, denial of this, that, or the other, I mean, anti-science. So I think he's positioned and insulated himself in a way that a lot of these people end up doing. And this is very common to people in this, you know, look, science is very complicated, and they know that. And so therefore, they believe that people in their position should not be questioned, because they don't have the time to explain it to people. And if it's an answer they don't like, they simply tell you, listen, you don't need to know because you wouldn't understand. And that's how they get away with it. And it's, I don't, as I said, he survives because

he's being protected. One of the frustrations watching the hearing the other day with Rand Paul and others was, of course, they only have what, eight minutes, it's a short amount of time, they can't get much done. And it's not like having somebody for an hour or two where you can methodically ask the questions and get real answers. And when they try to dodge, you know, let them dodge a little, but then follow up. How can we get Fauci in that position where he really has to answer real questions and the clock doesn't keep expiring to where no questioning is effective? Well, look, the committees can structure their own rules. So let's say if Republicans were in

charge in the House or in the Senate, there's nothing in the law or in the Constitution that says it has to be eight minutes or 10 minutes or 12 minutes. And you're absolutely right. I mean, one of the typical strategies that's used up here by veterans of Capitol Hill testimony is they just delay for time. You ask them a simple question, they go on a two-minute rant. They know you only have five or seven minutes minutes and they never get to answering your question. And then if you try to interrupt them and get to the point, you know,

the chairman may interject and say, well, let him answer the question. So these are tactics that are used. And I imagine these are tactics. I'm sure he went into this hearing knowing this was coming and had a game plan for it. And if he could just hold on for five or six minutes, he would survive that round of questioning. And but I think the way to get around it is to have committees that basically say, like they used to do, I mean, it wasn't 20 years ago, you'd go see the hearings or read the transcripts of the organized crime hearings. It was actually the council, even Watergate, it was the council on the committee, in many cases, that was asking sort of deposition style questions of the witnesses and allowed you to get answers. What we're doing now

is basically theatrical productions, and people trying to figure out, can I get a soundbite out of a five minute questioning round? Right. It's so frustrating. You know, as a recovering lawyer, it drives me nuts because you want to see the follow up. You want to see let him talk. Great. Let's let him talk. I'd love to hear the full answer on whether he consulted with those scientists and what exactly he said, because now we've got the documents to impeach him if he tries to wiggle. But why is the White House cooperating with this? I mean, cover up. Well, I don't know how you want to refer to it. And why is the Intel community community apparently helping to the Intel community did ostensibly investigate where this originated, COVID-19, and basically said, oh, some of us think a lab, some of us don't.

It's inconclusive. And quietly, but notably, moved on, as has the White House. Given the stakes, you know, what I said in my opening, 5.5 million dead worldwide, only 900,000 Americans, where is the appetite to push further? Yeah, well, I think there's a significant amount of appetite moving forward, especially those Republican majorities. I'm sure they'll be accused of being a witch hunt by many in the press, but that's irrelevant. What's most important is getting to the truth. The administration is deeply tied and now in

Fauci's success, they view it as their success. Now they're too far down that road to turn back and abandon them now. It would hurt them. It would raise questions about why they didn't ask these things themselves sooner. And on the question of the intelligence community, actually what the intelligence community's assessment was is that a lab leak is just as likely as it having naturally occurred that it could have been either one. The intelligence community operates on certainty. And so the notion that somehow you're going to have two scientists in China talking to each other, emailing each other, saying, hey, yeah, that thing we designed in the lab really went wrong. That kind of smoke and gun is actually pretty rare in intelligence. What intelligence is valuable for is analysis. And that is, you don't have to have every piece of evidence to sort of piece it all together and draw conclusions based on what you know about the world, about the people you're analyzing, about the circumstances you're analyzing.

And it's been my consistent view that the likeliest thing that happened here was that they were conducting risky experiments in an unsafe lab. Something went wrong. They're in a totalitarian regime where bad news being reported is not rewarded the way bad news about Chernobyl was not rewarded in the old Soviet Union. And so no one reported it up. This thing got worse. And the Chinese government itself, although they obviously were funding and involved in this, the highest leaders may not have known early on where this came from, and they'll never tell us and they'll never admit to that error. But I think that's the likeliest scenario here. And whether we'll ever have a smoking gun is a different question. That's that's a harder thing to find. Yeah. I mean, near as I can tell from listening to the testimony and so on.

Very few people are alleging this was an intentional release by the Chinese. You know, it's it's possible. It appears that in that lab there was a bioweapons section or at least a section that was overseen by the Chinese military. But we have no proof that that's where this virus came from. We do have a lot of circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 was someplace in that lab and somehow got out. There were scientists in the lab who were getting sick in the fall of 2019, before it sort of went worldwide, and other circumstantial evidence that it was sort of it was released. The accident happened in the fall of 19. But I wonder whether, you know, given given that that's what we suspect we should be putting into place right now, whether you want to blame Fauci or Wuhan or not, a worldwide moratorium

on any further research like this gain of function research till we get to the bottom of it. Right. Like maybe we don't want to do that because we have no till we get to the bottom of it, right? Like, maybe we don't want to do that, because we have no desire to get to the bottom of it. But why on earth would we be with the Biden administration be talking about 125 million more toward research like this? Well, I don't know why they're talking about it, you can go back pre COVID almost a decade to a lot of debate in scientific communities about why gain of function was very dangerous. And you know, why all of of this is relevant is that in China and in different parts of the world, there's all kinds of research going on, not just gain of function research, but research about how you can genetically alter human beings so that they can operate on less sleep or are smarter or

are able to go. Well, that we're in favor of. Yeah. Well, you know, but smarter in the sense of what they determined to be smarter in terms of like a battlefield acuity and things of that nature. So what, you know, I'm getting now outside of my lane here in terms of what I fully understand. I can tell you this. Anytime you start messing with things like people's DNA and trying to alter the way the brain works in human beings, you know, that can lead to the creation of Frankenstein monsters. Not literally, but sort of unanticipated consequences gain of function is something like that i mean gain of function is basically there's this virus out there among animals it's not infectious in humans but it could evolve to become infections in humans so let's try to predict how it would evolve let's

make it evolve that way so then we can come up for a cure and a treatment for it what happens though is if someone gets infected after they've done that, now all of a sudden you have introduced a virus into the human population that mankind has never seen. Our bodies have no defenses for, and people start to die. And you know, this, I'm not saying COVID is not bad. COVID has been very bad, especially early on when we didn't know a lot about it and we didn't know how to treat it. But I think most epidemiologists who talk to will tell you there are other viruses out there among the animal population that if they ever became zoonotic, if they ever transferred over into humans, would be far more devastating. This is not even close to the worst possible virus that could one day potentially cross over. And if

they're messing around with that, and we have an accident with those sorts of things, we're talking about a very different situation here. So this is very relevant. We shouldn't be funding it. But more importantly, I think there should be global crackdown and condemnation on it because it has a global impact. This will not be contained to whatever country is doing it. Well, that's the problem, too, is that we weren't supposed to be funding it even when we were.

And there was a moratorium put in place because we recognize this is pretty dangerous. Why are we digging up bats out of caves that have dangerous diseases and manipulating them to make them more transmissible and dangerous to humans just in case the virus ever gets out? So that we'll be ready. It's like, well, what could possibly go wrong? Well, something like this. This Wuhan lab with its humanized mice, what they believe is that it was put in a mouse and mice and then it sort of kept improving. It was gaining function, getting better and stronger and more transmissible. And it was at that point that somehow it got out. Wuhan lab workers got sick. And before you knew it, we had a bipartisan commission. We got a bipartisan commission on January 6th to figure out why people stormed the Capitol and committed some crimes. Okay, where's our bipartisan commission figuring out how 5.5 million people died, including almost a million Americans? There's no appetite for it at this administration's top levels. And so it will be interesting to see

if you guys take over in the Senate, in the House as of November, what we get. All right. Senator Rubio is staying with us. There's a lot more to go over. President Biden now at a 33 percent approval rating, 33 percent. And what is he focused on? Voting rights and trying to federalize national elections, something he has absolutely no chance of getting through. What is going on? That's next. So, Senator, you know, with inflation now at record high in 40 years, right, and the supply chain crisis is not over, not by a long shot. Have you tried to buy a dishwasher lately? My goodness. Good luck. Literally, shot. Have you tried to buy a dishwasher lately?

My goodness. Good luck. Literally, we were told we had to wait a year. A year. I mean, like, okay. He's decided to focus on voting rights. Build Back Better fell apart. He couldn't get it through.

And now his switch is to voting rights, which helps the American people right now in their, you know, kitchen sort of table issues. How? I don't know. But I want to give you a flavor and get you to react to how he's describing the stakes, why he says he's so focused on this right now. Here's a compilation of a speech at the throat of American democracy. terrain. We want the people to rule. Jim Crow 2.0 is about two insidious things, voter suppression and election subversion. At consequential moments in history, they present a choice. Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor?

Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? Well, there you have it, Senator. I guess he would say you're on the side of Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor because this is about his voting rights proposal, which essentially seeks to federalize elections, but he would say it seeks to make them more fair and protect voter rights. Your thoughts on his comments? Yeah, and there's a lot to unpack here. The first thing I would say is that even some Democrats were sort of embarrassed by, you see that in some of their statements, a little bit embarrassed by how far the speech went, almost overcompensating, you know, I guess, for the failures and things of that nature. So that kind of hyperbole actually backfires because people look at it and shake their

heads. I would tell you that most of the people I've talked to on real earth, you know, not Washington bubble, didn't even know that speech happened, didn't even know that this was happening. It doesn't make it unimportant because they're trying to change the election law and have a federal takeover. But I think your point is the number one issue, like if you went and asked people in this country, what are the top 10 things on your mind, this wouldn't even be on the top 50, because it's easier than ever to vote in America. It just simply is. And the numbers bear that out.

So there's two things at play here. I think the first is a desire for power. They certainly view this as the perfect issue in which to break the filibuster. If there is no Senate filibuster, they not only can pass this voting bill, they can pack the Supreme Court, they can make D.C. a state. There's all kinds of things that they could do if there were no filibuster. And so, number one, it's about that. And I think number two, frankly, is about politics. I think Chuck Schumer is afraid to get primaried in New York. AOC has not ruled out running for Senate against him. I think a lot of Democrats, particularly Chuck Schumer in a state like New York, see that over the last few years, you've had longtime incumbents taken out by people from the far left and they're concerned about it.

Maybe he thinks he's still going to win, but doesn't want to go through that process. There's a tremendous amount of pressure coming from the base of the party, particularly radical elements of the base. And this month just happens to be the turn of those who are out there saying that there's some sort of, as he called it, Jim Crow 2.0, which is absurd. And most Americans will tell you it's absurd. Can I ask you about politics? Because to me, the politics of this whole voting rights thing has not made any sense. I am just a journalist, so I don't totally get it. But it was clear that he did not have the votes to get rid of the filibuster, either for a limited purpose, like he

says, you know, just to get the voting rights law through or on a wider basis. And it was pretty clear he might not even have the votes for the voting rights legislation itself. And yet he's running around saying we're doing it, giving speeches. Chuck Schumer saying I'm bringing it to a vote. It's happening. And then, of course, Kyrsten Sinema, you know, this week is like, yeah, it's not happening. I'm not not supporting a Democrat. Right. So they don't have the votes. They knew they didn't have the votes. So why were they making such a thing? It's like they did the same thing with Build Back Better. Like we're going to do it. We've got it. And like Manchin was never on board. Why do they keep embarrassing themselves? This is an easy thing to avoid. Yeah, there's a pattern in politics. So what happens is you

win an election, you have a 5050 Senate, a very narrow majority in the house, but your base, the most radical elements to people who give you $50 a month online, who knock on doors, who make the phone calls that who, who, who, if they're not energized, you have no chance of winning elections. Those people think we have a mandate. And they say, okay, you won. It doesn't matter if you won by one vote, one point, or you won by 20, you won. And now we expect you to do all the things you promised. And so they go out there and they try to do these things and they're not going to pass, but they're angry at them. And they're saying, well, at least try, you have to at least try. It happens in politics. It happens to both sides. In some cases, you know, you're not going to win something, but if you don't at

least show you're fighting, then your base gets really angry at you. Then they get turned off. They won't show up. They won't give money, and you get destroyed because you can't win an election these days if your base is not energized. So that's what this is about. It's not just about Chuck Schumer. Personally, think about how selfish this is. This may, he thinks, may help fend off a primary challenge, but he has all these Democrats running in states that are somewhat vulnerable, and they're being put on the spot on this thing. And they're going to have to go out there now and take positions on it, and dividing his own conference over that. But it's all a base play, because they have to be able to go to the base and say, we tried, we fought, but these two guys over here and the racist Republicans wouldn't let us move forward.

And that's what this is. It's as simple as that. They say, and I want to get to the accusations of racism because they're coming in by the minute against Kyrsten Sinema now and others. But they say, look, we have to have this new voting rights law because of January 6th, because the Republicans are trying to change laws across the nation to make it easier for the vote to be thrown out. And January 6th proved that, you know, we need more federal control of how these things get certified and go down. There was a moment where you tried to address

that rationale. We cut the soundbite because we found it kind of interesting. This is soundbite five. I'm going to play it and then get you to add to it. I think almost everyone would tell you that what happened on January 6th here was a terrible thing. It should never have happened and it should never happen again.

But I don't care how many candlelight vigils and musical performances you have from the cast of Hamilton. You're not going to convince at least more most normal and sane people that our government last year was almost overthrown by a guy wearing a Viking hat and Speedos. Okay. Well, they've issued their first arrest for a guy charged with, quote, sedition now. Does that change your opinion? No, I look at my opinion is that what happened on January 6th was a terrible thing. Crimes were committed on that day. And the people that are responsible for that should be charged, should be put on trial and convicted, should serve sentences for it. And I continue to believe that. I believe that from the moment it started. I don't care who you

are. I don't care what your banner is. I don't care whose side you're on, who you voted for, whether you agree with me on issues or not. You can't do what happened on that day. You can't do it in the Capitol, and you can't do it in the 700 different riots that took place in the summer of 2020 across this country. You cannot do it. And those are crimes that need to be prosecuted and people need to be put on trial and hopefully convicted for it. That is separate from the argument that somehow this was an orchestrated effort to overthrow the government of the United States of America. That just is not true. We were nowhere close to that. That was not going to happen. And so I think what happens is when you exaggerate these things, you lose credibility. When you lose credibility, then we lose the ability to analyze these things for what they truly are.

And in many cases, you sort of empower the worst elements. You know, you go around calling if everyone is a racist, if that becomes just a throwaway line. Numb to it. And then you really can't call out the people that are racist or that are doing things that are race-based as a result of it. And it's the same thing with this. What happened that day, you don't have to be, and most people, normal people, are able to say what happened on that day was wrong and it shouldn't have happened. But it also is an equivalent of Pearl Harbor, where the US was pulled into a world war that ended up killing 3% of the global population. These are stupid things for people to say, particularly a vice president of the United States, as an example. Yeah, the and that's how she opened her remarks the other day. I mean, comparing it to 9-11, too. It's like so disrespectful, I think. The the Democrats,

though, continue and the press helps trying to call uh the senators the lawmakers anyone who's not in favor of the voting rights bill or eliminating the filibuster which is very controversial or that build back better plan which of course is just a list a laundry list of democratic wish items wish list items uh bigots uh this is a sample we have from msnbc they're going after joechin and some others because, of course, Manchin stopped Build Back Better. He's also reportedly not in favor of eliminating the filibuster, something Joe Biden opposed for almost his entire career until he became the president. And Kyrsten Sinema is taking her fair shot of these accusations as well. This

is Soundbite 9. But if Chris Coons, John Tester, Mark Kelly, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin want to be on the side of of George Wallace, want to be on the side of Strom Thurmond and many others who stood in the way of civil rights, even Strom Thurmond came around on voting rights. But if they want to go down in history as standing on the side of segregationists and those individuals who oppose people who look like me having free and fair access to the ballot, then we will remember them as such. All right, so a clip from CNN. And here to add to that, Senator, New York Democrat Representative Jamal Bowman today sharing his views of Kyrsten Sinema on Twitter, retweeting a picture of her and the

late John Lewis, former congressman. In the original image, Senator Sinema had tweeted, my hero, after Lewis died. Bowman tweets out the following, hero, a person who is admired or idealized for coverage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities. Traitor, a person who betrays a friend, country, principal, etc. He went on to say, John Lewis is a hero. You, Sinema, are a traitor to his legacy, your constituents and our democracy. What do you make of it? I make of it two things. Number one, if you want to get noticed in American politics today, you say things like that.

Right. And the more outrageous, the more notice you're going to get. And there are some people are going to applaud it, at least treat it as a serious statement. I think the other is that it's poisonous and toxic and nasty. And I don't even have the words to describe how ridiculous that assumption is, but it goes back to the point I made earlier. And that is this now, things like traitor, things like racists, things like bigot have become throwaway lines. Look, there are bigots and there are racists in this Look, there are bigots and there are racists in this country. There are bigots and there are racists on the entire planet earth. It was one of the sins that bedevils mankind. And we should reserve our anger for the ones that are really

that and are motivated by that. But when you start calling everybody that and every issue becomes on the basis of that, then suddenly that issue, you can no longer raise it. In essence, you almost give cover to the people that are actually racists and bigots. And again, look, I think that this sort of language that we just described, it plays really well among a certain core constituency that watches CNN or MSNBC or lives on Twitter and gives money to their campaigns. But to the overwhelming majority of Americans, particularly the ones that are paying attention, because most people aren't, they would look at that and say, this is a bridge too far. I think sometimes we forget that the common sense of real people is still there, even if the people running the country sometimes

seem to be out of their minds. I want to get to quite a few other things with you, including Biden's 33 percent approval rating and what happened at the Supreme Court. We now have a decision on the vaccine mandates. But first, can I ask you quickly, speaking of bigotry, as we all know, the Chinese are engaged in an ethnic genocide against the Muslim minorities within China. And you've been taking the lead in trying to push for some accountability on this as we're on the precipice of the Beijing Olympics. One of the things that jumped out at me as I saw I'm preparing for this interview, you are asking for Olympic partners to acknowledge this genocide. You do that back in December, penning a letter to these Olympic sponsors, you know, calling them out for what you say is ignoring an ongoing genocide. I looked at the list.

I cannot believe companies like Coke, Coca-Cola is so busy over here lecturing us on how terrible we all are. And yet they are a sponsor of these Olympics. Yeah, it's unfortunate. Nike, others that are out there, and I'm not sure if Nike is a sponsor, but I'm sure they'll be very involved in advertising around it because of the athletes that are performing. And what happens with these companies is they are very quick to call for the boycott of a state, put up billboards and run commercials about how terrible the United States of America is or how terrible some decision that was made by elected representatives

of the American people are. But they won't say a word about China. And it's not just about the Olympics. It is in general. This is just true all the way across the board. And that kind of hypocrisy needs to be called out. I doubt you'll see any of these companies step forward because if they do, the Chinese will shut them down.

And that would cost them billions of dollars and maybe get the CEO fired as a result of it. So I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get a response from them, but, but I think it's important to continue to call out this hypocrisy. Yeah. I mean, well,

of course the truth about Coke is it lectures us here and not because it really cares or has any heart in the matters that it's lecturing us on. It thinks it's good for business. It's always looking to line its, its line its pockets. That's how companies work. And you get a different result in China where it will not help their bottom line to call out the Chinese Communist Party or the government there. All right. There's plenty more to get to more with Marco Rubio in just one minute. And we take on quite a few items, including do you think Hillary Clinton could run against Trump in 2024? Could that be the matchup again? Marco Rubio has run for president and he

may have an opinion. Remember, folks, you can catch The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video show and clips by subscribing to our youtube channel youtube.com slash megan kelly if you prefer an audio podcast just download the show for free at apple spotify pandora stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts and there you will find over 230 archives shows including uh the one i mentioned with richard muller we had him on in June. We had him on again in October. And he's the physicist who really shows you why the genetic sequencing of COVID-19 proves it came from a lab. We'll be right back. so senator the uh supreme court has ruled that the biden vaccine mandate for any business in america that has 100 employees or more that's some 83 million people uh is not is not okay

that they have struck it down uh as beyond the power of osha of president biden they upheld the vaccine mandate for workers, health care workers. But this is something different. So what do you make of it? Because people are mad at Justice Kavanaugh in particular for siding with Chief Justice Roberts. Conservatives are used to Roberts now betraying them and crossing over to help the libs. But Roberts and Kavanaugh crossed over to save the vaccine mandate for the health care workers, people going through Medicare or Medicaid. But the decision came out as predicted 6-3 on the bigger vaccine mandate that applies would have applied to some 83 million Americans through their employers. Right. So and I think, you know, this obviously from your legal background, but it's always important to remind people the Supreme Court's job is not to tell us if some policies are a good idea or a bad idea.

Their job is to tell us whether it's in to remind people the Supreme Court's job is not to tell us if some policies are a good idea or a bad idea. Their job is to tell us whether it's constitutional or not. Does the federal government have the power to do this? I think clearly, and most people thought, it did not have the power. And I think the Biden administration knew they did not have the power to do the broad vaccine mandate using OSHA. That OSHA was not created to go into businesses and tell them they had to put this in place. I have not read the opinions and I have not read any of the writings with regards to the either of the decisions, but particularly the one about the healthcare workers. So I'd like to dig into that before pining on what Kavanaugh and Roberts' rationale was. But on the first point, I don't think the Biden administration ever thought they would win a legal challenge to it. I think in their view is let's do it. And if the Supreme Court upholds it, fine. And if they don't, then they don't. You know, we can just say

a lot of people are going to die because the Supreme Court made a bad decision. But I think it's really important to remind people, particularly those who believe, as I do, that the job of the court is not to make policy, but to interpret and apply the Constitution, that that's what their job is. And I think that's what they were trying to do here. And, and, and I think reached the right decision, at least on the OSHA piece. Yep. It was clearly not going to be upheld as constitutional. We were on the record saying that so are many people who had taken a hard look at this. And yet he did it. He did the same thing with the eviction moratorium over the summer. He knew it wasn't going to be upheld. It was very clear that it was going to be struck down, but he did it anyway. These extra legal moves by somebody who's not a kin.

And yet there's no accountability, same as there's no accountability for Fauci or Collins for the lies that they've been telling us. Same as there's been no accountability for a single general at all involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal. You know, we had Lieutenant Colonel Scheller, now former Marine on the show. He's the only guy who lost his job because he spoke out about the leadership. It's just it's so frustrating to the American people to see no accountability time after time after time. And again, as I say, extra legal behavior by the president of the United States. But I actually disagree slightly. I think there is accountability and it's being reflected today in the public polling. And I think in November in the elections, that's where the accountability is going to be. Yeah, you're right. I mean,

no one's being hauled off to jail, no one's being prosecuted, no one's being fired or losing their job. But there's no doubt that Joe Biden and his party are paying a tremendous price at the polls, in the public polling you see now, but ultimately, I believe in November, because of any of these things that they've done. And if you look at the debacle in Afghanistan, that almost perfectly coincides with the beginning of this dramatic and precipitous decline in his approval ratings. So their accountability here is ultimately in the hands of American voters. And I think you're going to see that play out in November. Well, if the election were today, it would not look good for President Biden.

He has got a 33 percent approval rating right now according to quinnipiac polling that's the lowest of any poll tracked uh by real clear politics which from which i got the reporting uh among democrats he had 87 support in november now it's down to 75 the racial breakdowns whites approve 32 57, 57 percent disapprove. Blacks, 57 approve, 27 percent disapprove. Hispanics, 28 percent approve. That's it. 51 percent disapprove. By the way, among independents, only 25 percent approve. The drop with Hispanics, a group that the Democratic Party has courted in its words, at least, so ardently has got to come as a particularly painful piece of data to them. Your thoughts on it? Yeah, look, if you're a mother or a father, if you're a small business owner, if you're just a worker trying to get ahead, if you're a parent working really hard so your kids will have a chance at a better life like my parents did, your number one identity is father, mother, worker, small business owner. It's not Hispanic. When my dad woke up every morning before going to work, he didn't look in the mirror and say,

good morning, Hispanic American. He woke up in the morning and he acknowledged today, I'm going to go out and I'm going to work really hard to provide for my family. So one day my kids will have a chance to do the things I never had the chance to do. That is the primary identity, not just of Hispanic Americans, but of millions of Americans, irrespective of what race or where they came from, what their ethnicity might be. I think that's been forgotten in all of this, that somehow, you know, inflation is going to, inflation is hurting a Hispanic small business owner, the same as it's hurting, or more in many cases, than it might be hurting a non-Hispanic small business owner.

And I think that we've forgotten that in American politics. There are people that talk about politics, involved in politics, who think people's primary identity in this country is their race or their ethnicity. And it is not. The primary identity of most people in this country is that they're a spouse, they're a husband, they're a wife, they're a father, they're a mother, they're a business owner, they're an employee somewhere, they're a student. That's their primary identity so what you're saying is when you wake up in the morning you don't look at yourself and say there's one good looking latinx yeah no no no i'm not especially these days that's for sure that term is so ridiculous there was a poll that showed like 2% of people of Hispanic descent like that term, Latinx or Latinx, whatever. It goes either way. I don't even know how to pronounce it. I never heard anybody use it. Don't get used to it.

I thought it was a band or something, so I didn't know. Don't get used to it because the Democrats, too, will abandon it soon when they see the polling. We've got to talk presidential politics for a minute. I've covered you now, as you've been running for president. The race, of course, it's a couple years away, but you know, we get started before 2024 on something like this. And Doug Schoen, my old pal from Fox News, Democrat analyst and operative, had a piece saying, Hillary Clinton's going to come again. She's going to have a comeback. All signs he knows her well suggest the once unfathomable scenario is now plausible. A political comeback for Hillary, who will run, get this, as a change candidate. And by the way, as you know, Trump is suggesting

he's going to run too. So we could actually have a Trump-Hillary matchup. What do you think the odds of that are? Let me tell you something. I think a few years ago, people stood on shows like this and would make predictions with some level of certainty about what the future would hold. I think what the last eight to 10 years have showed us is, I don't know what tomorrow is going to look like, but I'm confident it won't look anything like it does today.

And I think that's certainly been true beginning since 2015. We're just in a very unusual, fluid, and dynamic time where anything's possible. And if you told me that in 2024, the two candidates for president would be Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, a rematch of 2016, a lot of people may think that's far-fetched right now, but I think it's about as plausible as any of the other things that people are talking about. If I told you two and a half years ago, we're going to all be shut down because there's some virus that's going to come out of China and do this, this and this. People would say, well, that's a great plot for a movie, but that's not really going to happen. Well, it did.

It did happen. And so, like I said, look, I mean, there's just so much that happens these days, you just can't predict. As somebody who's actually run against Trump, what do you think is good for the Republican Party? That Trump runs or no? Listen, Donald Trump, okay, brought people into the Republican Party, many of whom had never voted Republican before. I mean, one of the most fascinating voters in America are the people that voted for Barack Obama twice, and then Donald Trump twice. And, and we certainly want those people to remain within the Republican fold. There's been a tremendous realignment in American politics, I think, to the net benefit of the Republican Party. And Donald Trump's been a big part of it. I have no idea what Donald Trump is going to do.

I can tell you just this, because knowing politics a little bit, if he's the most popular Republican in the country, whether people like it or not, he's most Republican. He's the most popular and influential Republican in the country. If he runs for president, he's going to be the Republican nominee. And I think he has at least a 50-50 chance to win the presidency as a result of that, if not higher, you don't have to agree with everything Trump said. America's economy and America was better and America on the world stage was safer when he was president than it is now under Joe Biden. For me, that's unquestionable. And in the end, that to me is the most important thing we do in government. Give people a chance to succeed economically and keep our country safe. And on both counts, we were better off under Donald Trump than we are now. So great to have you, Senator Rubio.

Really love talking to you. Buckle up. It's going to be an interesting couple of years. All the best to you and your family too. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, Prince Andrew's fall from grace and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein

and Ghislaine Maxwell, by the way, is her verdict about to get thrown out. A royal fall from grace, and how? For Britain's Prince Andrew, as the civil sex assault case against him is allowed to move forward. And his mother, the Queen, strips him of his military titles and royal patronages, effectively sending her son into exile. Dan Wooten is amazing. He's host of GB News' Dan Wooten Tonight and a Daily Mail columnist. Dan, great to have you here. How are you? I'm good, Megan.

So good to see you. So good to see you, too. I love coming on your show, and it's fun to have you back on ours. So, Dan, first of all, can I start with this? This all is happening because the court here in the sexual assault lawsuit against him brought by Virginia Roberts, who was who claims and the evidence is there that she was trafficked repeatedly. He denies it. So she filed a civil lawsuit against him. And all that's happened is the judge has said it can move forward. I'm not going to throw it out on the papers, which happens in 98% of all cases. Motions to dismiss are usually not granted because all the presumptions go to the plaintiff to be given a chance to prove his or her case. So why is there such a national freak out in Great Britain, in the palace,

over the fact that all that's changed for Prince Andrew from two days ago to today is the judge, as expected, allowed the case to move forward? The problem is, Megan, this has been dragging on now for years, and it's dragging down the reputation of the monarchy. I mean, you'll remember Prince Andrew had an opportunity to try and prove that he had a case that would make Virginia due phrase claims. And I know we've spoken many times before that there are doubts around the credibility of Virginia,

but he had an opportunity in a one-hour interview with the BBC to set things straight, and he failed. He was not credible. He also said in that interview that he would cooperate with the US authorities, specifically the FBI. He would get on a plane and go to the US because he had nothing to hide about that very close friendship with his BFF, you know, the pedo Jeffrey Epstein and his gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell, who remember, Megan, he had taken to the Queen's residence. I mean, they were incredibly close. So he had an opportunity over the past two years to do that. He failed. And by this point, the people who he was working on behalf of, for example, the Grenadier guards on

the military side and his royal patronages, they didn't want a bar of him. So this was a very difficult decision for the Queen. She is said to be devastated about it. Believe it or not, Meghan, Prince Andrew is her favourite son. They remain incredibly close. They live just down the road from each other on the grounds of Windsor Castle. They still go horse riding. They still go to church together. But really, Prince Charles and Prince William have stepped in over the past 48 hours. And remember, the pressure has been building for a long time on the queen. And they said enough is enough. So it's not it's not fair to just look at it as, hey, a case is filed. It's going to play out. Let's wait. It's that he has. First of all, he he did, we know, engage in some questionable behavior, even if you give

him the benefit of the doubt on her allegations. He definitely hung out with a guy who had copped a plea on a underage sex charge, knowing that he had just done that. I mean, he went and stayed with Jeffrey Epstein after Jeffrey Epstein took that plea bargain in the criminal case. So that's yeah, you can see how there'd be consequences. But what you're saying is he's actively taken steps since then that have embarrassed the royal family, his promises about cooperation, his weird defenses that he offered in that BBC interview that didn't pan out. So he kind of worsened his own situation. Absolutely. And remember, Megan, we are in a changing monarchy. And for people outside of the UK, it's maybe slightly difficult to understand

because of course the queen has always said she will never abdicate. And unless she is forced to because of severely ill health, we really do believe she will stay on the throne. And people think I'm crazy, Megan, but I say all the time, we need the queen to be on that throne for decades to come.

She's a healthy woman. And my God, we pray that she will be because there's a lot of issues around a King Charles and a Queen Camilla. But part of the plan that King Charles is currently putting into action is to streamline the monarchy, to slim it down,

to modernize it. So to have Prince Andrew and his chancer wife, Fergie, who has shamed the royal family time and again over the past two decades as senior royals was just unconscionable. And it was unconscionable for Prince Charles and Prince William. And I think what this decision shows is that they are calling the shots now. The Queen at 95 years old without her husband, Prince Philip, who obviously was an enforcer behind the scenes within the royal family for his entire life. And by the way, despised Fergie, Sarah Ferguson would not allow her to be at royal events. All of a sudden, he's out of the picture.

And so it's Prince Charles and Prince William, who are no fans of their brother, Prince Andrew, and their uncle, Prince Andrew, because they believe he's brought shame on the monarchy. Well, I mean, it's certainly it's hard to argue when you see that picture of him with Virginia Roberts when she was allegedly around 17. That's what she claims. And she claims that she she serviced him sexually three times and in three different locations in London and New York and down at Jeffrey's private island in the Virgin Islands, all of which, again, he denies. And normally we would just see, you know, discovery play out in the civil case. And then when discovery is done, the defendant would move for summary judgment saying, don't let this go to a jury. Give me a judgment on the papers, your honor, because all

the evidence that she's amassed in this case, even if we take it as true in the light most favorable to her, doesn't make a case. But he can't really do that. I mean, maybe that he could legally, but he's fighting a PR war war too. And it seems like the British public has about had it and is not going to give him any more leeway on that PR war. No, because he had an opportunity. And just remember what discovery would mean for Prince Andrew. It would mean, for example, his daughters, Princess, Princess's Beatrice and Eugenie potentially having to give evidence and say under oath whether their dad was telling the truth when they claimed that he was having dinner with them at a Pizza Express restaurant rather than at Tramp nightclub,

where he was claimed to have been with Epstein and Epstein's victim. So it's just really not tenable. Obviously, the issue at the moment is, is this a financial play by Virginia Dufresne? Obviously, she says it's not. Prince Andrew and his team certainly think it is, Megan, because he's currently selling his £10 pound ski chalet to prepare to pay. Wait a minute. Did you say Tramp nightclub? T-R-A-M-P? Why did you not take me there when I came and visited you in London?

Doug and I would have gone with you to Tramp. Because there's loads of sleazeballs there, Megan, just like Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein looking for a very young woman. The thought of Prince Andrew sitting in a nightclub called Tramp is in and of itself kind of shocking. But OK, so, yes, let's talk about the money. If he has to pay her and I mean, I feel like he will pay her, he will settle this, even though she's saying it's not about money. I want to hold him accountable. But listen, let's face it. She's not an independently rich woman. If he makes the check big enough, she's going to take it and go away. And David Boyce, her lawyer, certainly is going to take it and go away. I got a lot of things to say about him. Anyway, how does he pay for that? And is the Queen actually funding right now Prince Andrew's defense? She has been, yeah. And I mean, that's the disgrace in all of this. So in the statement released by Buckingham Palace yesterday, they insisted that Prince Andrew would be fighting

this case as a private citizen. But that doesn't mean he isn't running to mummy dearest and asking her to dip into her very deep pockets because of course yes the queen is partly funded by the state but she also has a very large personal fortune and the 10 million pound ski chalet most people think is only going to cover some of his legal costs so we're in this crazy world where prince andrew may have to ask the Queen to pay the settlement that goes to Virginia Dufresne. And for a 95-year-old woman who is in her twilight years, who has lived, let's be completely honest, a life without scandal, a life completely dedicated to her country, where she has put her country before herself time and again at great personal sacrifice.

I think the position that he's putting the queen in and the embarrassment that he is causing the queen, let alone the heartache of her having to watch her favorite son go through this, I just feel like it is a low blow. What if he's innocent? What if he didn't do it? What if she just named him because she saw a deep pocket and all this stuff is happening to him unfairly? Yes, he's a rube in front of the camera. He's not smooth. He said a bunch of dumb things. But I've tried enough cases and been involved in enough to know people aren't always perfect when you get them in front of the cameras. And sometimes they say dumb stuff, even though they're totally innocent. Well, especially someone as entitled and delusional as Prince Andrew. I mean, Megan, you know, I've been reporting this case now for well over a

decade. And I think probably the most fascinating day was the day after that BBC interview, when I spoke to one of my sources very close to Prince Andrew and he'd actually gone to church with the Queen at Windsor Castle. And at that point, remember, you've got everyone in Britain saying Prince Andrew's finished. This was the most ridiculous interview we've ever heard in our life. What does he mean? He can't sweat. He's lost all credibility. Prince Andrew actually told the Queen that morning, Mummy, I did great. This is over. So this is a man who lives in a different world, Meghan. He is very privileged.

He's never had anyone telling him what to do or how to act. And that's one of the problems with royalty, obviously. So look, I think there's a chance Prince Andrew is innocent. Of course I do. He has not been proven guilty of anything when it comes to the conduct of his behavior with Virginia Dufresne. But the key point, Megan, is the one that you raised earlier in the interview. Why did he go and spend the weekend staying with Jeffrey Epstein after he had already gone to jail for child sex trafficking. And remember, if it wasn't my old newspaper, The News of the World, and my current newspaper, The Daily Mail, that has been on this story for years and years and years,

that visit would have remained secret. Remember, it was a paparazzi picture that actually captured Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew on that walk through Central Park. Now, if that photographer hadn't been there, perhaps the story would never have come to public light and Andrew and Epstein would have got away with the entire thing. And then, of course, it was the Mail on Sunday newspaper, which is part of the Daily Mail group, that first ran that picture, that very consequential image of Virginia Dufresne and Prince Andrew with sex trafficker, convicted sex trafficker, now Ghislaine Maxwell in the background. So I don't know about you, Megan, but I would say whether or not Prince Andrew had sexual relations with Virginia Dufresne, there are still serious questions for him to answer based on everything we know about his incredibly close relationship

with Epstein and Maxwell. And just to take our audience back, Dan, to that BBC interview, because most of our audience probably didn't see that. I wonder why he gave it, because it was universally panned as awful and a death knell to his public reputation. I wonder why he gave it. And then you referenced the sweating comment. We actually have that cut. So I'm going to play a soundbiteite then you can explain to the audience what on earth he was doing here okay let's listen she was very specific about that night she described dancing with you and you profusely sweating and that she went on to have bath possibly there's a slight problem with with with with the sweating um because uh i i have a peculiar medical condition which is that i don't sweat um or i didn't sweat at the time and that was oh actually yes i didn't sweat at the time because i um had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at.

And I simply, it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it's only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I'm starting to be able to do that again. So I'm afraid to say that there's a medical condition that says that it didn't do it. Oh, Dan. Thoughts? Come on. Come on. He didn't sweat then. He does sweat now. There's absolutely no proof of this medical condition. He doesn't have doctor's notes backing it up. Come on. He wasn't a credible witness. It was a car crash and it did effectively finish him off. And then you mentioned the British tabloid press. They promptly came out with a bunch of photos

since the Falklands War, which was 1981, I think, showing him sweaty. You knew they were going to do it. He should know the British press better than anyone. Well, I know. And you know, the British press gets a bad rap, Megan. But one of the things that I would say, because, you know, all the time we get this criticism, why do you care so much about Harry and Megan? Why do you give them such a hard time? And you let Prince Andrew off the hook. As I say, without British newspapers, not only would Prince Andrew have got away with all of this, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell would have got away with all of this too. So it is the campaigning journalism of the British media that actually saw Epstein get to court. Because you know what? And I think it's completely

despicable, actually. The establishment wanted this to go away. The political establishment wanted this to go away. The royal establishment wanted this to go away. The business establishment wanted this to go away because it was very convenient for them, for Prince Andrew to be this very odd liaison between the royal family, between big business, between politicians. And look, he was always incredibly dodgy in some of his practices. And so too was his wife, Sarah Ferguson. So they are no loss to the royal family. Right. They're willing to walk away. It's not like this happened to Prince William, who, I don't know, there are reports in that same press about him possibly stepping outside of his marriage. Dan, I don't know whether that's true or not, but that's one thing.

The British people will tolerate such a thing, but they will not tolerate this kind of thing. And they aren't in the same field morally. Oh, no, absolutely not. I mean, as it stands right now, Megan, the best hope for the future of the royal family are Prince William and his wife, Kate, who turned 40 over the weekend and remains a beloved figure in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. Of course, there's a lot of pressure on that couple, Meghan, because you've seen Harry and Meghan go, you've seen Prince Andrew now go, Prince Philip has, of course, died. So they actually take a lot of the burden of the future of the monarchy and the current work of the monarchy on their shoulders as well. What remains fascinating is that if you actually ask the British public, they would prefer that Prince, that King Charles

never happens and that the throne would immediately pass to his son, Prince William, because they haven't forgiven him for his conduct towards Princess Diana. And they certainly haven't forgiven his wife, Camilla. And it's something you don't actually hear the British media talk about too much because there's a feeling that we need to get behind Prince Charles. He's our guy. He's going to be king. But if you look at the polling and you dig into it, the British public haven't forgotten what went on in the 1990s. Well, what if there's more reporting about Prince William allegedly cheating on Kate? I mean, would they hold that against him or was the Diana situation

unique because she spoke out about it? She showed us in the interview with Martin Bashir how hurt she was and what a wreck she was over that whole situation. Yeah, I think you're right. The way that Charles treated Diana was unconscionable. And of course, it was brought to the attention of a lot of youngsters for the first time in the Netflix series, The Crown. Because it's hard for us to believe, isn't it, that Princess Diana was only 19 years old and a virgin, Meghan, when she met Prince Charles. And she was thrown into this crazy world and treated terribly by the royal institution. And Prince Charles didn't protect her.

Now, look, there's obviously no proof of Prince William ever having relationships outside of his marriage with Kate. I'm obviously aware of the rumors. It's not something that I can really talk about apart from to say, this is something that the royal family would push back very, very strongly on. And that's why you haven't seen reporting on it within Britain. Right, exactly. And you have to be so careful over there about what you say. Don't get me into court again, Meghan. I'm not going to get you in trouble. So the comments you just made about Princess Diana, and I've heard people say that who have watched The Crown, and The Crown is amazing. They try to draw a parallel between Diana and Meghan Markle. They try to say, oh, you see,

joining the royal family is really rough. It's not all about living in a castle and being married to a prince. It's incredibly oppressive. You lose yourself. It can be almost abusive. And that's really what was happening to Meghan Markle, plus a hefty dose of racism. So we should all be much more empathetic toward her. Your thoughts on that argument in her defense? I think that is a load of baloney. Meghan was in her late 30s. She was already a star. What you've got to remember, Meghan, is I remember Meghan Markle when she was an aspiring actress. She used to travel to London to actually seek out gossip columnists. One of my

friends actually who was working for a newspaper called the Sunday People and look, it's a good newspaper, Megan, but it's not one of the big newspapers. It's not one of the credible newspapers in the UK. And she took my friend for a night out because she was so desperate to get into the British gossip columns. And she was so desperate to meet a British celebrity. And it wasn't just Piers Morgan who she was messaging. It was a guy called Max George, who was a boy band member who used to be in The Wanted. It was a guy called Matt Cardell, who won The X Factor, Simon Cowell's big talent show over here. And the reason I mention those names is because she hit the jackpot when she was introduced to Prince Harry. This was someone who was actively looking to find a famous British celebrity. A good friend of mine,

Lizzie Cundy, was friends with Meghan Markle until she ghosted her once she met Prince Harry. And Lizzie tells me that Meghan said to her on multiple occasions, look, I really want to find a British man. She was actually asking my friend Lizzie about a guy called Ashley Cole. You've probably never heard of her, Meghan, but he was at the time one of the biggest footballers in Britain and married to a pop star called Cheryl Cole. And he was widely regarded as a love rat, someone who would cheat all the time. And it was actually Lizzie who said to Meghan Markle, look, you want to stay away from this guy. He's bad news. But my point is that Meghan Markle had a very different agenda to a 19-year-old Princess Diana,

who genuinely fell in love with the future king and was a virgin and had absolutely no idea about the media or the royal family or what she was getting herself in for. The latest report on Meghan and Harry here in the States, now they're our problem, thanks Dan, is that they've become dissatisfied with their Montecito estate, valued at something like $17 million. It's not really all it was cracked up to be so i guess they're thinking about taking their 50 million from spotify and and uh netflix and so on and moving to a larger estate someplace where they can have the proper grounds and the proper security and

meanwhile you know they give an interview every other week dan while maintaining what they really want is their privacy and please step back unless you're that one guy who they give all of their leaks to because he'll print whatever they tell him to. So your thoughts on what they're doing now and whether they really want what they say they want. Yeah, that guy's a little oddball, isn't he? Omid Scobie, he's called. Very weird. Omid, Omid. He says that he's a journalist, right? He's not a journalist. He's a PR.

He's a stenographer. All he does is take whatever Meghan and Harry says and he publishes it, whether it's true or not. And by the way, Meghan, shame on Harper's Bazaar, the famous U.S. magazine that publishes everything that this guy writes without ever checking if it's true or not. And by the way, all of that relationship was exposed in court recently. And the Mail on Sunday may have lost the legal case against Meghan because they published this private letter that she had written to Thomas Markle. But my God, Meghan and Harry lost the PR war because it showed that they had lied about the fact that they were cooperating with this book by Omid Scobie called Finding Freedom. And look, this is a couple that are prepared to lie. And I think we need to remember that. I also think the fact that they're unhappy is not surprising to me.

Don't you think, Megan, one of the issues with these people who are so in touch with their feelings and always want to talk about their emotions constantly, actually, it can make them very unhappy. And I think both Megan and Harry are people, it can make them very unhappy. And I think both Meghan and Harry are people who are always going to be unhappy. They always want to play the victim. And I find it very hard to believe that anyone is going to feel sorry for them anymore when they're living in this £80 million Montecito mansion and they're raking in millions and millions of pounds from Spotify and Netflix. And you know what's particularly despicable, Meghan? Guess how much money they raised for their Archie Well charity in its first year?

$50,000. So they're raising over £50 million for themselves. And yet they say that they're all about charity and they raise $50,000. If that doesn't tell you everything we need to know about this couple and what they're in it for, and I've said it right from the start, they are in it for the big bucks. They're in it for the greenback. They're in it for the moolah. That's what they care about. They don't give a damn about charity causes because if they did, they would have remained part of the royal family.

Yeah. I mean, you found out everything you needed to know about her when we were in the middle of a global pandemic with millions of people dead, hundreds of thousands in our country and yours. And she goes on TV with Oprah to try to make us care about what title her baby's going to get. No one gives a damn about your kid's title. They're trying to live. They're trying to make it through frontline working in hospitals and grocery stores. And no one cares about your stupid, petty complaints that you're sticking the knife in the royal family without naming names so that they can't

actually defend themselves. I will say, though, that that that victory that she had with the mail on Sunday, as you point out, that talk about winning, winning the battle, but losing the war. That's great. I'm sure the mail on Sunday will have absolutely no hostility toward her in the future. And they will definitely not look for opportunities to print stories about her that maybe don't reflect her in the best light, albeit they're true. Right. So it's like you have to be so careful on these things. Is that like one day of glory and euphoria that you won? They'll win in the end. They always do, Dan. Well, I think the British public have made up their mind, to be honest now, and Meghan and Harry, and I think it's going to be very difficult for them to change their mind. Obviously, they have support, don't they,

from both coasts of America, Meghan? You know, they're adored by the New York Times set. They're adored by the Hollywood set in California. But I think middle America can see exactly what they're all about. 100% could not agree more. They should have gone with the stiff upper lip approach that he brought to the marriage instead of her wokefied American, boo hoo, poor me. He jumped on board that. Now he's lecturing us. Prince Harry, Prince Harry, who grew up in a palace, is lecturing us about white privilege. Okay, Dan, it's always a pleasure. Love to see you.

Everybody's got to check out GB News, which I love. I go on every week with Dan and I enjoy it. He gives such a great interview and does great conversations with all sorts of folks. GB News is awesome. And so are you. Megan, I love your show. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you, sir. OK, up next, we're going to be joined by an attorney who's going to weigh in on the legal ramifications, not just for Prince Andrew, but Ghislaine Maxwell. Now it's looking more and more like her conviction could be going bye bye. Don't go away. We've been talking about the fall of britain's prince andrew uh we want to discuss that case

with a lawyer but there's also another case closely related involving galene maxwell jeffrey epstein's lover partner and co-conspirator she was recently convicted of five charges linked to the sex trafficking of minors her attorneys are now demanding a new trial after it emerged that there was a juror on the jury who had revealed that he was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, but he waited until after the trial, apparently, to reveal that. And that is a legal impropriety. Ann Bremmer is a trial attorney and legal analyst. We used to talk all the time while I was on Fox and good to see you again. It's great to see you. It's an honor and a pleasure. And we did. It was wonderful to be on with you then and now. Well, you're the real deal,

especially in this area. You've done more than your fair share of cases involving sex abuse, child sex abuse and so on. So let's start with Andrew, Prince Andrew, and then we'll move on to Ghislaine. And I have lots of questions for you on this. So Prince Andrew filed a motion to dismiss Virginia Roberts Dufresne's claim against him. She wants money. He's not going to get charged criminally, as far as we can tell. And he was basing it off of a settlement agreement she had signed with Jeffrey Epstein in 2009 that seemed to try to benefit third party beneficiary defendants like Jeffrey Epstein. You can't sue him anymore. You can't sue him anymore. And here's a whole

collection of other unnamed people who you also agree not to sue. It was pretty wide, you know, wide net. And Prince Andrew was like, I'm in there. I'm in there. She waved her right to sue me. So was the judge right in saying, no, no, sir. Yeah. What the judge said is you remember Megan, as he said, that dog won't hunt. Just like that argument from Prince Andrew's lawyers. He's like that dog won't hunt. I mean, he was, he just was slapping it down in the oral argument, of course, and then did later in a, in a written ruling because in 2009, I mean, it's usually can be pretty, you know, broad language in a release. It was pretty vague.

And what the judge said was there was nothing specific in that 2009 settlement agreement that applied to Prince Andrew. So I think really that motion should never have been brought. And, of course, the denial of it has been catastrophic to Prince Andrew in the UK. So I was just interviewing Dan Wooten, a journalist in the UK, and you know him. And he, you know, I was asking him this question, but let me ask you as the lawyer.

To me, something about this feels unfair. And I understand he very well, Prince Andrew may have done this, but if he didn't, he's losing everything before he's even had a trial. So it's like, what precedent does this set that you could sue any royal

with, you know, claims like this and basically ruin their lives? He's no longer going to get his royal highness stripped of his military titles, his honors, based on allegations that have not yet been proven. Well, it's cancel culture these days, as we all know. I mean, you can look in the comments section of the Daily Mail and it'll say innocent until proven guilty. But you know, the reality is this had to happen. And it was a culmination of things, as Dan talked about. I mean, the fact that he had that, what they call the car crash interview. I mean, he wasn't DOA then, but when his lawyers brought this motion, and I'm sure they were very eagerly anticipating the ruling, you know, in, in with the queen and the royal family. And it was a devastating blow, basically saying,

that's about your last clear chance, right. To try and get this case dismissed. And your attempt was unsuccessful, but yeah, I mean, we have, we have a presumption of innocence, but the fact is with the PR and the royal family and the queen's interest in preserving the monarchy above all else. That's what she had to do. Yeah. So his car is basically heading off the cliff right now, Prince Andrews, metaphorically. And this motion to dismiss was the last exit ramp, last exit ramp before the cliff. I know. I know. It's like, oh my God. And when they filed that motion, I thought, you know, yeah, he's just going right off the cliff. And I love the car crash interview when they said, he was asked, what did you think all those young girls, those young who were those women, those young women in Epstein's palatial Manhattan home? He said he thought they were servants. That always got me. The sweating thing was a big thing. But the servants, you know, but this, oh my gosh. We'd like to take a walk around Buckingham Palace

and see what the staff looks like there. I'm going to guess. I know what I was thinking. Right. Have a few more years on them than the Epstein gals. If, so the question is, what is, you know, he's going to settle, I think, right? I mean, I really think there's,

he could go through discovery and file a motion for summary judgment, try to avoid a jury trial like that. But if he sits for a deposition, Anne and they're going to get as personal and graphic about him, his body as possible. Right. I mean, there's no way he can avoid that. Right. His manhood. I mean, that's what they're going to ask for descriptions. Everything else. I mean, it reminds me of the michael jackson case remember when they went through all of that you know with him on distinctive markings or whatever they claimed in that case which actually true but yeah i mean horrific and

it's going to be public even bill gates who's brilliant did not do well in a deposition i mean it was widely believed that when he was deposed and all of that microsoft litigation he rocked back and forth in his chair his you know his answers were basically you know he was deposed and all of that Microsoft litigation, he rocked back and forth in his chair. His, you know, his answers were basically, you know, he was vilified about how he behaved and what he said. If he can't do it, do you think Prince Andrew can do it and come off well? And it's going to be very, it's going to be salacious because, you know, he's around a lot of these women. It's not just, you know, Virginia Roberts. And I actually sat with Jack Scarola, who's got a lot of the victim cases in Florida at a dinner recently. And I just said, what about Prince

Andrew? And he's like, oh, you know, I mean, there's a lot more out there we don't know about. We've got certain things that are still sealed. And we didn't hear about prominent people in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given that narrow focus, at least of that trial, or somewhat narrow focus, I should say. So a disaster with a capital D, car crash with a capital C, it'll be worse than the car crash interview. He cannot let that deposition go forward, innocent or not. He's got to get out of that. That will be, I mean, because as you say, at this point, they're thinking not so much about Prince Andrew and his reputation, but that of the royal family. And, you know, which is, I don't want to say controversial, but maybe not as popular with the British public as it used to be. There are questions already debated about whether they need

it anymore. And so the queen has done her level best over her 95 years to, you know, keep it upstanding and provide a great example. Her family, not as much. So yeah yeah they've got to get rid of it right and you know i i majored in medieval history at stanford medieval english history so when i think of the monarchy i mean it's a long some dark chapters traditional family right and so i'm thinking i get that i actually i get that you know the preservation of the monarchy for the country and as she's about to face her her that they call it the platinum j Jubilee, 70 years on the throne. This is supposed to be a great year for her. And so far, not so much, thanks to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's weird accusations and now Prince Andrew. So you got to sort of fish or

cut bait. And I think they've decided they're going to cut bait and Andrew's on his own. Now, the other case is Ghislaine Maxwell. And I'm fascinated by what's going on there. I was totally fine with the verdict. I thought it could have gone either way, frankly, because, you know, 30, 40 years later testimony, a jury could reject that saying it's too late. I don't trust your memory. They chose to go another way.

I think it was totally supported. But now it comes out that not just one, but two jurors may have innocently omitted, lied about information on their juror questionnaires regarding whether they'd ever been the victim of sexual assault or abuse in their past. Clearly a relevant thing for the attorneys and judge to know before they seated the jury, because this was a case involving sexual abuse of minors allegations. So what do you think is going to happen now that the prosecution is asking for the judge to investigate these? At least one of the jurors and the defense wants a full mistrial. Well, Megan, you've got the brilliant legal mind but i believe they're getting that she's going to get a new trial i you just can't have a do i'll get good i do too i do agree i want to check with you first yeah i do yeah i yeah i think she's getting a new trial and and there's you know of course the dishonesty in

voir dire on the jury selection form i mean it was under penalty of perjury have you been a victim his family member etc he says no you know so then the question is would there have been in phases for a challenge for cause if you've been honest you know then you've got that issue but i think the bigger issue is when a jury lies in voir dire about an issue that's germane to the case and then they like an expert basically like i'm child abuse victim i'm kind of an expert because i lived it they inject that extrinsic evidence into the jury room during deliberation i think he presumed prejudice by combination of that non-disclosure and why dear and the injection of the quote-unquote extrinsic evidence into the jury room can't be cross-examined he sits as as an expert, along with another juror, apparently, it was a victim, to say, I believe those victims because

I felt the same way. I didn't remember certain things, or I didn't say certain things. I mean, I think that combination gets her a new trial. And there were some interesting quotes in some of the cases. I loved one of them said, a juror like this is not a juror. They're like an interloper into the case, right? Because they're not a fair and impartial juror. They've come into this thing, you know, interloping basically, and affecting the verdict adversely. And I think warning a new trial by virtue of their misbehavior. I agree with everything you just said wholeheartedly. And this is why prosecutors are like, don't talk. They don't want the jurors to talk after the case is over when they've secured a conviction because things can go south. So the way they went south in the Ghislaine Maxwell case is a guy, a juror who only

goes by his first and his middle name, at least for purposes of this, named Scotty David spoke with a couple of press outlets, including the Daily Mail. And it was on camera. And we actually have a soundbite queued up. Let's listen to him and what got him in trouble. No, they don't ask your sexual abuse history. They didn't ask it in the questionnaire.

I thought in the questionnaire there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a victim were a friend or without a victim. Pretty sure it was number 48. I don't remember. Somebody sent me the questionnaire today and there was a question. Interesting. I mean, I guess, when did you fill in that questionnaire? I definitely, on the first day of jury selection, I would have definitely marked yes.

But I honestly don't remember that question. You're not in the sand right now. No, no. I mean, I know my face is red because I can feel the blood. But I honestly that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there, but I did answer. I definitely remember a family or relative or something but uh being sexually abused i was honest on all my questions were you because you don't seem you don't project honest in your interview here's the questionnaire

and this is the exact question uh this is per abc news reporting on what question 48, the reporter was right, asked, quote, have you or a friend or a family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? It goes on to say this includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member. And you say yes for yourself or yes for your friend or family member or no then it says 48a if yes without listing names please explain 48b if your answer to 48 was yes do you believe this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case yes or no 48c if yes to 48b please explain and on it goes and

what what the reports seem to suggest right now is that he did not say yes to this. And it looks like the other juror didn't either. And the reason people are deducing that is, yes, that interview with Scotty David, but also because the judge in doing the voir dire of the jurors followed up with all those in the jury pool who had said, yes, I have been the victim. And no such questioning happened for him or the other juror. It's a problem. Yeah, it's a huge problem. And of course, you bring out the jurors individually, they answered it. Yes, it's sensitive, and you don't want them in front of the whole veneer being asked. And this particular juror said he was in and out of the courtroom, you know, and really wasn't asked much of anything. So, you know, there's a case from 1984, it's called McDonough, and it says you have a right to a fair trial, but not a perfect trial.

And that was based upon a juror's mistaken, but wrongful response, you know, to a question. And they're saying, you're asking for something too close to perfection when you're asking jurors, you know, to basically give, you know, if they're mistaken and they didn't answer something correctly to grant a new trial. That is not this case. I mean, this is somebody, you know, and this is the other thing, like you said, when I try cases, I still hand everybody in my business card, the jurors, I stay in touch with them. And when I was a prosecutor, you know, I always like made sure I was like, you know, you can get ahold of me if you need to, i.e. if somebody tries to get misconduct, I want to know, right? I want to know if, you know, there's something that's going to happen to my verdict if I win a case and look at this is

terrible. Well, so does it matter in your view if he's trying to feign ignorance? You know, I didn't see that question. I thought I was talking about family members i was confused and of course he's going to go that way but does that matter legally you know intentional omission or misstatement versus inadvertent and also you tell me why is the court now appointing him his own lawyer right and you're right i mean it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not the fact is that he lied and he was dishonest and they he deprived the defense of a challenge for cause or even a peremptory i mean you can argue but you know the fact is there's cases out there prosecuting jurors for misconduct you know for things like going out and look you know that i mean looking up evidence

or getting on the internet or you know anything else everything else and he signed this under penalty perjury so aside from jury misconduct you know he basically is facing issues with with affirming under penalty perjury that he hadn't been a victim and as you recounted there were a number of places number of places where he didn't respond affirmatively that's why as a lawyer and um you tell me whether this this is yeah sorry go ahead finish your point no i was just gonna say and the lawyers asked for the questionnaire you know that so it's like huh does he not i mean he needs the lawyer needs to see that questionnaire um you tell me whether this case is more like the first case i'm going to tell you about or the second case I'm going to tell you about.

Okay. Um, this is actually Reuters reporting this. There was a, there was a case in New York state 2016 where a judge declined to overturn the manslaughter conviction of a New York city police officer, despite a juror's failure to disclose during jury selection that his estranged father had been convicted of manslaughter. OK, that's what that's what this police officer was on trial for. The judge said the defense had not shown that the jurors actions violated the defendant's right to a fair trial.

That's one. Then there's another one. Here's another one. Manhattan. OK, again, New York 2012. A federal judge ordered a new trial for defendants convicted of running a tax shelter scheme after it was revealed that a juror lied during the pretrial screening. The juror said she only had a bachelor's degree and was a stay at home wife, quote unquote,

when in fact she had graduated from law school. She later admitted to lying to make herself more, quote, marketable as a juror. Right. The judge called the juror a pathological liar in his ruling, said if the juror had answered honestly, he would not have let her serve. A lawyer who represent one of the defendants told Reuters the juror, quote, literally lied in response to every question. So you got sort of and you tell me which one of those cases is closer to ours one of my worst nightmares is being asked a legal quiz by megan kelly well there's no right answer i'm just curious

this guy might be a pathological liar i don't know he seems a little off i think i'm i'm gonna pick number two and now actually that case was the quote i talked about where the court said she wasn't really a juror she was like an interloper getting into that case to, you know, become famous or whatever else. But what do you think? Why else would you like number one or two? Well, why? I do think advertence versus inadvertence matters because if this truly was just an innocent mistake and he read it wrong, I think, you know, you could make a good argument. We don't want to throw out the entire trial, all this taxpayer funded justice and so on. But if this guy wanted on that jury, and he sounds like he wanted on that jury, and he looked like he'd been caught when he was asked about his omission, that's different. And now we know from his own admission to the press,

he worked the other jurors in the deliberation room saying, you can't question the memory of the victims because I'm a victim and I forgot details. And let me explain to you how it works. And there's that other juror helping him out. I just think we're talking about a woman's life here. The stakes are very, very high. This isn't about dollars and cents in a civil court. This is about the rest of this woman's life. She deserves a new trial. She does. And actually, the first case is more like the McDonough case from 1984. The Supreme Court case, it said, to invalidate a verdict based upon a juror's mistaken but honest answer in voir dire is asking for perfection that we don't have in the legal system. You know, you have a right to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. But this juror clearly is like the juror in the second instance.

And I can tell you, I've had two cases like this. One of them where it went against me and one of them where it went my way. And there's nothing more disheartening to be in a case that you blood, sweat and tears into. And then to have a juror come out in my case they didn't disclose the voir dire and they talked about the jury you know it's a serial rapist and i was a prosecutor had to be retried yeah these poor women right who the jury has essentially said are in fact victims they're gonna have to go through this all over again if you know the judge finds accordingly quick question before I let you go.

Ghislaine Maxwell is now giving up on an objection she had to keeping the names of these John Doe's private. Can you explain this to me? So Virginia Giuffre, she wants to unseal documents that name names in her, I guess it's been settled, her civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. These are all people that Virginia has accused. What's because it looks like this is now going to get unsealed. We're going to get names, but who names? Yeah, I was looking at this last night in terms of kind of like an ad hoc application of the requirements with respect to motions to seal and unsealing documents in federal court. That's kind of been alleged in this case. But if she's withdrawn the

request, then why wouldn't it be? And why wouldn't the John Doe information be unsealed now? Right. And is it just people she's accused? Is it that she just wants America, the world to know who she has accused? Yeah, I mean, I also think, though, it's just, it's all out war. And it's not just on Andrew. And I assume Andrew is one of them, which buttresses her case. And David Boyce, as you well know,

is kind of a scorched earth kind of guy. So that would be my view in terms of what I could see from that. But Ghislaine Maxwell has withdrawn her objection. So I'm assuming she had an objection in the underlying litigation. Does that also tell us that she's going to start talking about other people? I kind of think that too. That is a $64,000 question.

I know. And so good to catch up with you and to see you come back again soon. I'd love to. It's such a pleasure and an honor. Thanks, Megan. All right. Up next, we're saying thanks but no thanks to the new push to make everyone wear N95 masks. Don't go away. It's time for another edition of Thanks But No Thanks, our feature here on the show where we say thanks but no thanks to some absurd new talking point or cultural push in the news. Today, we're talking about my favorite topic, masks. Ah, yes, I got vaxxed both doses and then I got boosted.

And now I'm done. Done with masks for sure. You want to wear a mask? Great. Go for it. Wear three. I am keeping them off of my face. For a minute, I thought that's where we were all headed. After our, quote, experts started

finally admitting this year that cloth masks do absolutely nothing to stop the spread of COVID, the next logical step should have been saying goodbye to the whole concept entirely. Of course, logic is in short supply these days. No, instead, we're going a different way. Cloth masks do nothing. Well, how about masks that do just a tiny bit more? Really tight, uncomfortable ones that are ever so slightly more effective than cloth masks. Yes, that's a solution. N95s for everyone. Leading the charge, Senator Bernie Sanders. Look at this guy in a CNN interview this week modeling his N95 for the camera. Look, here's a simple fact. This is a mask.

This is a mask. But these are very different masks in terms of their effectiveness. This is an N95 mask. This is just a mask that most people use. The truth of the matter is, is a mask is not a mask. An N95 mask is far, far more effective in protecting the individual and also stopping the spread of the virus to other individuals. A mask is not a mask. You got it?

Seriously, how tight does that thing look on his cheeks? Is he going to be OK? See how red he was? Sanders is sponsoring the Masks for All Act in the Senate, which will send a package of three N95 masks to everyone in the country. Save your postage, Senator. I'll pass. But this is the push all across the country. President Biden has started talking about the need to wear better masks. The CDC is considering changing its mask guidance to recommend N95 and KN95 masks for all. And it's even coming to our schools. The New York Times national education reporter Dana Goldstein tweeted last week,

Our pre-K wants kids in KN95 masks. My four-year-old has a tiny face and everywhere I am checking is sold out. Help? Let's all help dana dana you don't have to comply with this nonsense your four-year-old with the tiny face is going to be just fine without a mask that's made to protect against hazardous substances have we all lost our ever-loving minds dana bernie and the rest of the mask zealots wear all the N95s you want until you're literally blue or red in the face. But you try to force those things on me and my kids? Thanks, but no thanks. That's it for us this week. Thanks for joining us. We're going to be back on Tuesday, taking the day on Monday. Hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend.

In the meantime, check out our show on podcast on YouTube. And don't miss next week's programming because the one and only Goldie Hawn will be here. Have a great one. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.