The Megyn Kelly Show - Cultural Decay Leading to Left Celebrating Violence, and Defining "Hate Speech," with The Fifth Column | Ep. 1150

Episode Date: September 16, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch, hosts of "The Fifth Column," to discuss the cultural decay exposed after Charlie Kirk's assassination through prominent leftist reaction, the ghoulish celebrations of political violence, a couple instances of graceful responses, the rush by some on both sides to their priors in the wake of the murder, how some on the left can keep their careers after cheering violence, the hypocrisy in our culture, Netanyahu’s comments on Kirk’s legacy, Candace Owens’ remarks about the letter and Kirk's views on Israel, Megyn and Charlie's conversation about Israel last month, AG Pam Bondi claiming “hate speech" should be criminalized, the actual parameters of free speech, her comments about punishing companies for their speech choices, and more. More from The Fifth Column: https://www.wethefifth.com/ BeeKeeper's Naturals: Go to https://beekeepersnaturals.com/MEGYN or enter code MEGYN for 20% off your orderRiverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Pique: Get 20% off your order plus a FREE frother & glass beaker with this exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/MEGYNByrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today.  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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. We have breaking news this morning as we are learning more about the Charlie Kirk assassination. Plus, there is a big debate breaking out over what to be done about hate speech in America. Nothing. The answer is nothing. It's fine. It's part of being American. Too bad. You don't like it? Speak the opposite. That's the answer. You're American. That's how we do it here. There's nothing wrong with hate speech. Sorry, not legally. There's nothing for a prosecutor to do, an attorney general to do. The only thing you do is to speak louder with your POV. That's it. There, I solved it. But we're going to start with what FBI director, Cash Patel, just told Senator Josh Hawley about an online chat group in, involving alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson. Watch. Unfortunately, it has been leaked that there was a discord chat.

And for those unfamiliar with it, it's a gaming chat room online that the suspect participated in. So what we're doing, we've already done is sort of legal process, not just on discord, so that the information we gathered is sustained and held in a evidentiary posture that we could use in prosecution, should it be decided to do so, and we're also going to be investigating anyone and everyone involved in that Discord chat. Okay, very good. I see the public reports that the Discord thread had as many as 20 additional users. It sounds like you're trying to run down all of that, see if that's accurate, who else

may have been on that thread, what they may have known. Is that fair to say? It's a lot more than that. We're running them all down. It's a lot more than 20? Yes, sir. And you're running all of that to grab. Every single one.

Yeah, fantastic. A lot more than 20. That makes sense. If you listen to AM Update today, we laid out the list of just alleged X accounts and online social media posts before Charlie's assassination promising something devastating was going to happen to him on September 10th. And then spikes of the football thereafter. It's disturbing. It's very telling. It's going to be very hard for somebody to actually meaningfully argue that these people had no foreign. knowledge. By the way, on AM Update, we attributed most of that reporting to the Washington Free Beacon, which did do a good report. But the person who broke all of this was someone online who goes by aesthetics. It's at ANC underscore aesthetics. And this was the person who actually broke all that news, and it should have been properly attributed. Tyler Robinson is due to make his first court appearance later this afternoon, where we are expecting to learn exactly

which charges he faces. He's supposed to be in court. at 3 p.m. Utah time. I think that's right, 3 p.m. Utah time, which would be 5 p.m. here. And two hours before that, they're expected to release more details, excuse me, on the charges, which would be 1 p.m. Utah time at 3 p.m. Eastern. Joining me now to react to all of this are pals from the fifth column podcast. Camille Foster, editor-at-large for Tangle News. Michael Moynihan, host of the Moynihan Report on 2A and Matt Welsh, editor-at-large for Reason. You can find all of their work and subscribe.

subscribe at we the 5th.com, and you'll find them on the road with me for Megan Kelly Live, our tour starting next month. Go get tickets at Megan Kelly.com now. Here's one way to clean up your medicine cabinet this season and replace toxin-filled conventional products with more natural ones. Propilus immune support throat spray and propolis plus vitamin C liposomal can be must-haves in the medicine cabinet as seasonal germs start to hit. Did you know germs can enter through your nasal passages? just as easily as through your mouth. Propilus nasal spray is a great non-toxic swap for other over-the-counter drug-filled meds. It's non-habit forming natural and has anti-microbial benefits.

Beekeepers' naturals makes clean, non-toxic products that actually work. They never use harmful ingredients like red dye number three or other synthetic dyes or artificial flavors. Their products are third-party tested for all pesticides, and they're dedicated to sustainable beekeeping and to helping save bees. Beekeepers naturals is offering you an exclusive offer. I can't. I'm trying to keep things straight. Okay. We're talking about propolis and not propolis. I'm trying to keep the pronunciation straight and I'm back to beekeepers naturals. It's naturals in the name, but the things in their ad are not natural and very hard to say. They're offering you an exclusive offer right now. Go to beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or just enter the code Megan to get 20% off your order.

That's beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter the code Megan when you check out. Bekeepers Naturals products are also available at Target Whole Foods, Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens. Guys, welcome back. I actually haven't even gotten to speak to you about the tour, about Charlie, about anything. Do you plan on going still on the tour? Did you guys have any hesitation? Was that a discussion? Not a second. Not a second. Zero.

Yeah, we'll absolutely be there. Yeah, you can just put us around you in chairs. It'll be fine. We have Defend Megan T-shirts on. You guys are awesome. I'm so glad to hear that. Thank you so much. We haven't had anybody try to cancel on us so far.

Like, it's amazing all of our guests. And as I was reading your names, you know, it's like, I thought of Charlie because it's like, he came on the show almost as frequently as you guys did. and our relationship goes back further, but he was here almost as often as you guys are. And I, you know, it's like I feel the way about his loss, the way I'd feel if God forbid something to happen to one of you. It's like, we don't hang out a lot.

We don't go for dinners a lot, but we know each other. We've spent hours and hours. I can't think of a lot of friends I have spent this much time with. You know, if you look at the number of times you've come on, let's just pick the last six months, you know? Like, we spent election together, the election night, all of it, these relationships you form with the people who you interview and spend time with in this space, they're real. They're actually really meaningful. And I'm still so just upset about Charlie

and just reading all the leftist freakouts about him. I love National Review. You know, they have a little TDS over there, but it's fine. I love them. And Jeff Blahar wrote a great piece. He predicted this. Okay, listen to this. He wrote this earlier before, before. the Charlie assassination. It was after poor Irina was murdered on the train. And he wrote this. I fear we're on the verge of a great societal breakdown. One right out of the late 60s and early 70s. And we are not prepared for it. Something wicked this way comes. The atrocity in Minneapolis is but one articulated edge in a far larger fractal pattern of violence and madness creeping across our landscape. Once the progress was imperceptibly slow, but technology has proven to be the accelerant. The threat is pre-political, generational, and perhaps even civilizational. The worst

are full of passionate intensity. Things are falling apart, crumbling at both the margins and the center of our societal self-conception. What comes next? I suppose we'll find out. My God. So he writes this, and then he writes the following, which I want to kick it off with you guys on. I want to express my burning contempt for the social media charade that I and every other conservative just had to endure. The experience of watching Charlie murdered and then watching vast numbers of propagandists and people who know better tell us that Kirk was actually shot from a far right, Groyper or a Nick Fuentes fan, or a MAGA true believer, anyone but a person associated with a left-coded cause, which Occam's razor already suggested was the likely reality. As each new detail trickled out and the killer's transgender associations became

clearer and clearer, the hysterical spin and assertions of blunt unreality mounted. Cynical prose began inserting outright lies into the mix as partisans, as partisans took up their work and used it in desperate, craven attempts, to either spin facts in ridiculous ways. His parents are Republicans, or simply pretend the facts. Facts weren't facts at all. All of it was done with the intent of trying to will into existence through the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, an alternate narrative whose intended moral calculus amounted to in so many words. Charlie Kirk was killed by his own team,

and this is actually your fault. So no, I'm not about to move on just yet. Totally agree with and endorse every word of that. The gaslighting that we have been subjected to are, over the past five or six days is infuriating. And it's like even more so. It's like unsettling. It's actually kind of deeply unsettling. Your thoughts. Before we even get started, Megan,

I just want to say on behalf of the boys, since they're going to elbow me in the throat before all of that, we watched you as you were struggling with this on air. And just kudos for you for elbowing your way through it. I know how I only begin to imagine how rough that is. And then also for you doing what Ben Shapiro did, Ben, who's not a big F-bomb dropper, but his response to this, like yours, is the correct one. I am going to go in public and speak. And we are very, very happy to go with you, not because we always agree with you, but precisely because we always don't.

Kind of the point, which is something that Charlie Kirk exuded in his bones. So that's the throw clear. Thank you for all of that. It's terrifying to watch how many people have talked themselves into an entire narrative. Heather Cox Richardson, I think the most popular substacker. Yeah. Out there incredibly successful, an academic of some sort. Just sort of out there stating as kind of fact now that I guess they're saying he's a left groper.

It's a new category. She's unaware of. And there's a whole category. Groyper is just for the audience. And all, Groyper is a term that is generally used to describe. these Nick Fuentes fans, Nick Fuentes, who is sort of described as one of the OG modern day online white supremacists. And I don't, it's got some whole lineage with these like frogs, Pepe de Frog, whatever, in any event, it's, it's a, it's a white supremacist who follows

Nick Fuentes, a griper. Yes. So there are people who are going to talk themselves up into that, and there's even some preliminary survey data that that is going to be a epistemic bubble that's not getting popped. There's going to be people like, yeah, he was definitely, definitely on the right. The same wisdom applies to absolutely every tragedy, uh, violent, active violence, especially if it's politicized. It's okay to way to beat. It's okay not to state with a thousand percent certainty X. Um, but please don't state with a thousand percent certainty. The opposite, uh, of X. And it is revealing to see who is doing. that right now. Don't have to do that. We can demand better of ourselves and of the people that we

and the institutions that we consume with in media. Yeah, I just second what Matt said and also to say kudos to our friend and friend of all three of ours, Jeff Blair from National Review for a great piece that I hadn't read. So thanks for reading that. I mean, there's been, I don't even know how to begin this because I've, you know, my brain hasn't stopped whirring. and whirling since it happened. And, you know, in seeing you, Megan, do that in real time and pivot very quickly. It's not a podcast, people. This is a podcast.

We release things. It's just an hour here and there. I mean, reacting to the news in that way was, I think, pretty helpful to a lot of people. It certainly was for me. But one of the things that's really interesting about this that nobody really has pointed out is that this is actually a new thing. Why is this different than all of the other examples people talk? about, you know, Minneapolis keeps coming up

in this political point scoring. It's never okay to do, you know, acts of violence towards politicians. That should be obvious. But it is kind of interesting that this is the only one I can think of, of an act of violence against a pundit. That doesn't happen very much. It's very, very unique. I can think of one

that we were doing an episode of the fifth column with our listeners talking to them on Zoom, and I thought of Alan Berg, who's probably totally forgotten about by people, who was a talk radio host in Colorado, I think, who was killed by neo-Nazis. He was Jewish, and that was enough, and he had attacked these Nazis, and they killed him. But that was the only one I could really think of. And I think that was actually specific, too, about him attacking a specific person, specific people responding, whereas this was, you know, somebody who had ideas. And at the end of

this conversation, at the end of all of these conversations, when you have these, well, what was on the casings, the bullet casings. What did they mean? What did he say? What did he say to his friends? All of this stuff, which is trying to divine the politics of this psychotic shooter, it seemed pretty obvious to me because he killed Charlie Kirk what his politics were. Back to the Occam's Razor. That's the Occam's Razor. He killed Charlie Kirk. He did not, he did not take a shot at, you know, some sort of left-wing pundit or left-wing politics. And at the end of the day, every conversation should start and begin with one sentence. He was killed for what he believed.

He was killed for what he said, full, stop. Why are you saying, and I keep on having these conversations, you know, Camille, Matt, and I have this conversation. We immediately reacted to it the day that it happened is that I'm increasingly getting uncomfortable with the throat clearing. that this sort of you have to do this throat clearing if you're not a conservative and say, well, I didn't agree with everything that he said. Well, hold on a second. Why does one say that?

I get the instinct because you just want to be, you know, I'm not this guy. But what is built into saying something like that is that, you know, I didn't agree with these horrible things that he said, but, you know, you shouldn't kill him. I mean, that kind of sentence, which presumes that there are certain, I guess,

certain language that you can use where it's justified. I don't know what motivates people to say that, but I don't care. It should be, you know, look, Ezra Klein, liberal columnist of the New York Times, who I think, particularly Matt and I, have had a fun time making fun of for many, many years, Matt profiled him for the Columbia Journalism Review. It was a bit of a tough profile, but we've made fun of him for a long time for a variety of reasons. But he came out and wrote a piece and said, you know, this is what we should be doing.

This is how we argue. I think the sickness of the political culture, which is demonstrated in the assassination of a pundit, is also there's a second wave of seeing the sickness of this culture as the reaction to it, of course. But it was the reaction for mainstream people getting mad at Ezra Klein for having that measure of grace and saying, you know what, the guy tried to engage people. He might not like what he said and you might not like what he thought. But, you know, this archaeology, the offense archaeology, what did Charlie Kirk say? What did he say, you know, 10 years ago, which, by the way, one more thing in this, I'm sorry to drone on about this, but it's all very upsetting to me, is that when you go in these archaeological expeditions to try to find bad things that Charlie Kirk said in the past, I mean, we do, I mean, you wouldn't take long for people to find stuff that I've said. We do is for a living or on the air all the time. But it doesn't allow for growth, because Charlie Kirk has been doing since he was 17 or 18 years old. I have wild.

different views than I had when I was 17 or 18 years old. And I think he probably did too, not wildly so, but you're going back and trying to punish a man in death who is assassinated in trying to find these aberrant thoughts that he had when he was 18 or 19. Guess what, guys? That's when you're allowed to have those aberrant thoughts. You should always be allowed to have them. But that's when you have things.

You're working things out in your head. And now you've been gunned down in front of your family, kids left fatherless. and these vultures are out there trying to find the things that you said that were wrong. And by the way, and then misquoting you in terms of, it's a disgrace. It's a disgrace. I totally agree with every word you just said. I want to give a shout out, too, because, you know, in our business, we're always giving each other jazz and people who are on the opposite side so much more so.

But I always have been of the belief that, with the exception of maybe 2% of the people who come under my own withering criticism, I could go have a beer with 98% of them. I really could without, I could check the politics to the side and I could have a beer with them and we could talk about things that we do agree on, you know, whatever it is. Sports is tough for me, but I could make a showing of it if it were important to the other person. Whatever. There's a lot of stuff beyond politics.

And even within politics, there are a lot of safe zones. I mean, there are people we can all agree are terrible. Eric Swalwell. Nobody likes him. It's easy. We go there. No, we don't want any harm to come to him. No, no.

It would be easy to just find someone we can all agree on. And I wanted to just give a shout out. I hope he'll forgive me because he didn't say it was off the record and he didn't ask me not to say anything. But Tommy Veter of the Pod Save America guys sent me one of the nicest notes I've received. And it was all about how sad he was over Charlie and how, you know, he's been reflecting on his own life and his own dialogue on his show and just how meaningful. what Charlie built was to him from afar. And he did not say any of the throat throat clearing at all. Like, I didn't agree with him. Not a word of that. Just I respected what he built, a man with a family, and Tommy has one too. And now he's officially my favorite

Pod Save America guy. But it is important to call out. Like, not all leftists are insane and have lost their minds, you know, but far too many have. And far too many civilians in powerful positions like those who are flying our planes and operating in our hospitals have shown the mania, you know, the mania of enjoying his death and really wanting to celebrate in it. Your thoughts on it all, Camille? Well, I think one of what you just said there reminds me of something, like one of the major defects of the kind of social justice epoch of the past five or six years is the, you know, is the the magnification of any imagined defect in the people that you most disagree with.

So America just becomes utterly white supremacist, clearly irredeemable. Everything about it must be foregrounded by acknowledging in the strongest possible terms the worst, its worst imaginable failures and in many cases just totally imagined failures. And unfortunately, much of the country has permitted itself to be kind of led around by the nose by the worst malefactors in our politics, people who have fringe ideas, who say fringe things. At times, some of those fringe things, because they've been allowed to be let around by the nose by these people, have just kind of risen, like, to the very top. And suddenly, it becomes impolitic to criticize people for, say, burning down buildings or punching Nazis

in the face or whatever you prefer. I mean, you can find so many examples of this. And And this just became part of our politics. And I think many people who in other context would have shuddered at the thought of endorsing those sentiments perhaps became a little bit more familiar with it. But there's this quote, which I believe is Nietzsche. And here we are like 10 minutes in and I'm going to try to go deep philosophical here. It's not that profound. We need it. When you're fighting monsters, like the thing you have to be careful of is that you don't become the monster. And I think one of the concerns that I've had very recently, and not just recently, that's true of kind of my critique of the left, is that in analyzing the fringe characters, and there are too many people in this country who endorse really disgusting views who are celebrating the death of someone they disagree with or believe it's even appropriate to utilize violence in contexts like this, that we aren't insisting. that these people are representative of the broader opinion on the left. It is the case that well over 80 percent of Democrats disagree with this stuff, based on this UGov poll that I know a number of people have been citing recently. And that 80 percent is, I wish it were higher. And based on the polling, it is higher amongst Republicans. You know, we need that. We need that 80 percent to call out

the 20 percent. We do need that. We do need that, without a doubt. And I think there just needs to be a broad recognition across the political spectrum that this is an issue, full stop. And I do think that the left has historically, and I believe I've said it on this program, and I've said in another context as well, had a very difficult time acknowledging the fact that they have extremists who endorse really dangerous things on their side as well. They've spent so many years. I'm sure you guys remember all of these studies that were being trotted out in maybe 10 years ago where they're like, oh, now we know why conservatives trend fascists.

It's because of some weird defect that we could see in all of these studies. The data proves that these people are just congenitally fascist. That was despicable. It was wrong. And it was also a mistake to try to correct, overcorrect in the other direction. And I just, I want us to be locked into the fact that as bad as things have felt. And I've felt pretty awful. Even listening to you all talk at the beginning of this, I kept thinking to myself,

I'm not sure I'm ready to do this again yet. I've been able to hold it together in most of these appearances, but I'm definitely not quite myself. This feels profoundly different. It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. I can't stop thinking about Charlie and his kids. And I keep having this impulse to reach out to even people who I've had kind of public disagreements with to try to mend bridges. And if that's what comes out of this, then that's good. And I think the only way we get to that coming out of this is to acknowledge clearly most of us are totally sane. Most of us hate seeing what's happening to this country.

And even while we disagree vehemently on so many issues, like we always have and we found a way to work together productively. And that has to be what comes out of this, not a kind of campaign of reprisals or recriminations. Yes, find everyone who is advocating for and actively plotting violence and do something about that. Call it out in the first case. latter case, find them and prosecute them. But let's also focus on like trying to build bridges

and find partnership with the raw universe of people who hate political violence, who hate the acrimony that has become so common in our politics. We can and should do better. That's an important tale on there because it's like that we are not going to build bridges to any of these loons who are out there celebrating Charlie's murder at all. They're not reachable. We have no desire to be around them. They're dangerous people. There's no dialogue there. There's only defeating. But there is a section of the left that hates what happened to Charlie and that doesn't do the throat clearing.

And that is still rational. It's just we haven't, they have not been the dominant voice over the past week at all, which has been really rattling, I think, to many of us on team sanity. It's like I certainly expected the universal condemnation without any qualifiers to be a lot wider and to be the dominant message. I expected that. And I've been just disgusted with the mainstream message. It feels like the mainstream message from most corners, which starts with, we may never know the motives. Honestly, that is so infuriating. Go fuck yourself. We clearly know the motives. He wrote them

on the bullets. How much closer are we going to get? You know, you've got the Utah governor saying explicitly that he'd been, he'd gone radically left. We've got the family saying he'd gone radically left. We have the family saying he hated Charlie Kirk. We have the FBI saying that he said he hated Charlie, that Charlie was coming to town and that he planned to kill him. We've got the fact that he put weird furry writings on the bullet casing that actually shot Charlie. He shot Charlie when he was discussing trans shootings. He waited until that moment of the debate. He was dating and living with a trans male to female person who was also a furry. The transgender community some of whom we're following that boyfriend

were predicting the murder and then celebrate. I mean, like, look, you don't have to be Colombo to put two and two together here. And so it's just the denial of reality is very unsettling. It's like you can go with the vast majority of trans people don't murder. You can go with the vast majority of radicalized online, 22-year-old men

who spend all their time gaming don't murder. You know, you could take it any one of those places and we can have that debate. But you cannot go with these motives are irrelevant and their lies. And really, he's just a Republican, Mormon, gun-loving, you know, well, Christian is what they're saying. I just, that is too destabilizing. You know, there's truth. There's reality. And I will say this, too. I've been very, very conscious since the moment of Charlie's death, not to just revert to my own priors. which is what I think most people are doing right now. Yes, as soon as I saw him shot, especially when we heard the question that he was answering, the first thing I thought was

it's a trans activist of some sort. It's somebody acting in some way on behalf of the trans community. And to be honest with you, I still think that's true. I believe, based on this evidence, that's pretty clear. But I've seen everybody I know go to their priors. You know, like, you know, there are, like I've seen, whatever, I've heard Tucker and I've heard Candace and we'll talk a little bit about what Candice is saying today go to, like, is there any sort of state, possibly Israeli involvement? Tucker didn't say that explicitly, but, you know, you can see he might be kicking it around. And she's saying it a little bit closer to explicitly. You see people who are just more conspiratorial and they're thinking, and that's fine.

Honestly, we've talked about this many times. They've gone to like the massive conspiracy, you know, like our own government did it. Our own government somehow wanted to get Charlie, and that's online in certain corners, and that his own security shot him, and the video slowed down to show you how his own security guard was in on it, shooting him from the other side. Somehow the magic bullet made it through and around and to the left,

even though the guy was on the right, all this stuff. So I think most of what we're seeing right now in the news is people going to their own priors. The left is like the right are fascists. They're the evil ones, and so they're the ones who pick up guns shoot people and our people are peaceful, which is a lie. And, you know, somebody like me who's been very active in the, what's happening in the trans community is deeply wrong, kind of goes there first

saying, I suspect them, and so on. So we all have to check our own biases and stay fact-based, fact-based, no matter where the facts lead us, which is very possible if you're aware of your own priors and you take the facts as they come in. But the left I submit to you, is not willing to do that. It is not willing to do that. It is not going to accept, even if this guy comes out at this arraignment today or his first appearance today and says, I did it for the trannies or I did it for Israel or whatever. You pick it, you know, any number that's going around now. The left will not accept that. They will only go with the preexisting narrative. I don't know why. They're divorced from reality. They can't accept what their side is doing. You tell me.

There's so much to unpack here. I mean, there's, you know, the frustration that I had when everything, you know, Occam's Razor, as we've mentioned a couple times, was so clear that Charlie Kirk, of all people, was gunned down in the middle of one of his debate sessions with students at a university, pretty obvious what's going on here. I mean, there's a narrow band of people that could be groipers or something. but yet because there's one person out of all of them you have Heather Cox Richardson the biggest substacker and apparently a professor

of some repute which she should lose any of that repute for the stuff that I've been reading by her and you know the bullet casing stuff well that wasn't true we've got to take that story back somebody told the guardian that he'd gone very far left and then the guardian said well we don't know if that's true

we're actually going to append something everyone's being very nervous about this about his politics and then you think back to Jared Loeffner, the psychotic loser who shot Gabby Giffords. And we saw Paul Krugman the next day, you know, trying to tie this to Republicans, people trying to tie it to Sarah Palin. And then you saw his, what he wrote about this before he did it. And it was a bunch of babble about numerology and how grammar was an evil conspiracy. Grammar. Not liberals, not, you know, grammar. And so they were very happy to jump to those conclusions then, and now it's everybody urging calm and

reflection. One thing I want to say about sticking to the facts, I mean, we absolutely have to do that, and I see so many people like you, Megan, who are not doing that, and are getting out in front of themselves to try to make some sort of political point. There's a problem, though, about the way that people actually deal with facts and deal with things that are undeniably true. So you have people saying, well, what about? The what aboutism comes, and when we're trying to figure out who is more violent. The left to the right, which is a mug's game. It's a stupid idea. It's a stupid game because there is something in this that is important, but no one is paying attention to it. They're trying to figure out on a scorecard. I've seen many of these scorecards.

The actual case here is not that there is a scorecard. It's how your side, it's how the people in your retinue, how they deal with it and how they internalize violence. What I mean by this is right close to where I am right now, I just saw a news story pop up, that a judge dismissed two charges in the Luigi Mangione case. One of them, I think, was the terrorism charges. The second story I saw related to that was a chorus of cheers from people out in front of the courtroom, odd people who are holding signs and standing for Luigi. I just imagine if there was, I don't love playing this game, but I just imagine if there was some sort of right-wing lunatic killer and there was 50 people out in front of the courtroom in New York City,

cheering that person, having lesser people. What would you never hear at the end of it? And if I can do one very quick thing, and I'm just thinking about this this morning, because I was coming in to the city on the subway, and I'd mentioned this the other day, the institutional acceptance of violence on the left. And I'm sorry, I'm tired of being ecumenical about this.

There is no people in universities who, committed right-wing terrorism who now have university jobs or are treated with respect and I went down the list that's right nor does the right ever stop a speaker from coming to a college campus and if they did we would all

denounce it I hope I mean I know that you would Megan I know all three of us would do it but I was just thinking of the people because I'm obsessed with this stuff and I have mental health issues Megan and so I know all these people these mad terrorists from the 1960s who I've written endlessly about and I was trying to think that people who have been

charged with crimes, terrorism, crimes, been in front of a court because of this, who have advocated violence and in a lot of cases participated in violence, and in some cases been convicted of murder. Kathy Boudine. Kathy Boudine, who was at NYU and Columbia. She was convicted of murder. Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers at University of Illinois, Bernie Jordan, Northwestern.

I was writing them down. Eleanor Stein, a member of the Weather Underground, Sunni Albany, Susan Rosenberg, John Jay College and Hamilton College, Judith Clark at CUNY. Kathy Boudin, Jamal Joseph, at Columbia University, Erica Huggins at California State, Howard Mockdinger, University of North Carolina. The list goes on. All of those people were involved in terrorism. This is not a controversial position I'm taking.

You know, so people have been either convicted or were part of this sort of organizing committee of the Weather Underground. Not only did we allow them back into society. Look, you served your time or you were found innocent. I don't want to put people in a corner forever. Most of these people didn't go back to their views and say these were wrong. They got university teaching jobs,

university teaching jobs. And I ask every listener of the show if you think that it's a small proportion of people that are celebrating or justifying Charlie Kirk's murder, I suspect it probably is small, but it's way too big. Those are the same, you can have exactly those two sentiments at the same time. And just think of anyone that you know on social media who has said something,

a friend of a friend who sent you a screenshot of one of their friends. I have had so much of this. And none of these people are in the world that we live and the world of politics. And it's astonishing to me, much like the Luigi Mangione thing, how many people are saying, well, it's bad. But that is a bad place to be. And I want everyone to walk away from politics for a second because you start thinking, Well, what did Charlie Kirk think about trans rights and affirmative action?

You know, you should be, you should be my daughter, who's 14-year-olds old, and just the most fantastic person on earth. She found out about this and texted me. And you know what her text was? He had two kids. That's what she said. And that's the right thing. She couldn't imagine, like, their father was taken away. She has no politics in her.

She's 14. She doesn't think about politics. So she thinks about the natural thing that we should. should think about is someone being gunned down and, you know, there's so many horrors of it. But taking away a father from their kids who, you know, don't have a father growing up, I mean, it's so horrifying to me. And I thought when my daughter sent me that text message, I was like, yeah, we need to get back to that. We need to get back to being the sort of mind, 10-year-old, and get out of the politics

and just think of the consequences of this disgusting person's disgusting actions. I just wanted to say two factual things on what you said. Yes, there was that controversy about the bullet casing where people say, oh, well, that fell apart. No, it did not fall apart. The first bullet, the bullet casing on the bullet that hit Charlie read Notices Bulges O-W-O, which is a furry meme. It's a meme from furry culture, which is very closely linked to the trans community. And who does it turn out? His boyfriend is a furry slash trans person.

and the shooter himself is linked to a furry website. He registered on this furry website. So it's very linked. I mean, don't believe me. Go ahead and look at it online. That furry culture and that trans culture are two sides of the same coin. So it did not fall apart. In fact, if anything, it only came into full flower once we learned about the boyfriend.

Not for nothing, but there are unconfirmed reports now that there was a second boyfriend who was also much like the first one. we'll see whether that's true or not. But clearly this man, the shooter and his boyfriend were extremely tied to the trans community. And according to what I read from Aesthetica and the Washington Free Beacon, also to some sort of group online that was predicting this murder. So the FBI is looking into all that. And then secondly, you mentioned the friend interview to the Guardian,

which then the Guardian stood down on the friend of the shooter was allegedly saying he went very left in recent years, and this is a left-wing publication, so the left didn't know what to do with that. You can see why National Review would write that, but why would the Guardian say that if it weren't true? So it was a problematic report for these lefties. And then the Guardian stood down on the report saying, oh, we're not sure. And then all the left used that, too, to say, oh, see, he wasn't a lefty, totally ignoring that the Utah governor has repeatedly said, and the FBI has now repeatedly said on the record, on camera, not anonymously, not leaked, that he had been infected by far-left ideology, by left-wing ideology.

That is what they both said. They won't acknowledge it. Instead, we get, here's CBS Evening News is John Dickinson just the other night on Monday, last night. Five days after Charlie Kirk's murder, the shooter's motive remains elusive. No writings left behind, vague secondhand testimony. That uncertainty and the risk. of drawing sweeping conclusions suggests the murder may share similarities with recent violence not driven by an obvious political ideology. The FBI recently recognized a new category

nihilistic violent extremism. What is he talking about? That's a very selective, very selective skepticism. Again, I'm in favor of like, let's hold off, wait for the evidence to come in and try hard not to root for what category this shooter belongs to. I think that we all should do more of that. So maybe the first half of a sentence could be read like that. But then the second half of a sentence is it suggests this explanation over here. And where was the TikTok of evidence, Matt? Okay, if you're going to say we don't know what the motive is, you must offer the evidence

we do have. There were no writings. Yes, they're fucking were. There were writings. There were writings on the bullet pacings, you absolute asshole. Like, there were writings, and they couldn't have been more tied intimately to the actual murder. This is insanity to say that. And by the way, there doesn't have to be writings anyway.

But if there are, and then you look at the man's lifestyle and they back up everything that was written on the bullets. It seems like it might be worth leading with, John, rather than, gee, it might be, it's just a mystery. And by the way, then we saw Jessica Tarlov try to do that shit on Foxxie. news is the five as she both sides is, both sides the violence issue. And it was a great response from Greg Gutfeld that is very satisfying to watch. I encourage people to watch the whole thing online because he spoke for all of us in his, his firing back at her and her shutting that shit down. Here it is. Why is only this happening on the left and not the right? That's all we need to know. There's absolutely no cognitive. What about Melissa Hartman that we just talked? You want to

to talk about Melissa Horstman, did you know her name before it happened? None of us did. None of us were spending every single day talking about Mrs. Hortman. I never heard of her until after she died. Don't play that bullshit with me. You know what I'm saying is there was no demonization amplification about that woman before she died. It was a specific crime against her by somebody who knew her. The both sides argument not only doesn't fly.

don't care we don't care about your both sides argument that shit is dead all that i was saying is is could we have all of the information before you just say they did this because that is a broad brush to paint with this and this kid let's have a conversation no charlie had a conversation you got shot i they built this thing up we're dealing with it we're going to act we don't care what the what aboutism is anymore that shit's dead I couldn't agree more. I just feel like, what do you? She's acting like it's a total mystery.

She's, she's pulling the John Dickerson thing, Dickinson, where it's like, gee, just such a mystery. Oh, and by the way, both sides do political violence. They keep raising this House Speaker in Minnesota, and it is infuriating. First of all, Gutfeld is exactly right. She wasn't killed because there were universal attacks by the right on her, stirring up the national animus against her. Nobody knew her name. She wasn't some star in Minnesota either where it was like, oh, every negative article about this House Speaker, that's not at all what was happening there. And secondly, the guy who killed her, the psycho, remember who broke into her home and was wearing the mask, was a psycho. The guy was a psycho. He had clearly lost his mind. You can attribute it to political violence. Like, yes, he targeted somebody who was in politics, but he was a nutcase. So far, I've seen no evidence.

that this particular 22-year-old was a nutcase in the truest sense of that word, nor the guy who shot Trump and got shot himself in Butler, Pennsylvania, for that matter. Now, they may have been 20-something-year-old men who had a break, but the evidence on that is out. But to raise the speaker in Minneapolis, like, or Minnesota, like she is in any way comparable to Charlie Kirk is a lie. The left is lying. It is their side that does political violence. And because you might be able to find one random right wing example. Okay, Paul Pelosi was attacked. That wasn't a Republican attacking Paul Pelosi. Are you kidding me? They got everything around him. He was with the pride flag and the BLM. And he was a nut too. But don't tell me he was some Republican doing

Republican violence against her husband because they're Democrats. The things they pluck are inapposite, as we would say in our legal briefs. They don't fit. They're off point. And while they do that shit, they don't acknowledge we had two. arguably three presidential assassination attempts on our guy as he was inching toward the polls before November of 2024. And his most prominent supporter, there's not a more prominent Trump surrogate than Charlie Kirk was just gunned down in the prime of his life. Deal with that. Imagine the situation if someone shot Barack Obama, Joe Biden in the ear, and then not long after shot one of his biggest supporters or one of their biggest supporters in the neck and

killed them, I think that we would be having a conversation about the epidemic of political violence. Right now, what we're having is, well, what about this? And, you know, it doesn't, look, we're a nation of 330, 340 million people. You can have a time in which 10 people who are nominally on the right, you know, or the left, you know, go out and do terrible things, kill people, shoot people, burn things down, whatever it might be. That's not the interesting thing. I'm sorry, it's just not as far as trends go. The thing that bothers me is my daughter also said to me, she's like,

it's going to be Luigi Mangione all over again. This is the 14-year-old. Very smart girl. This is the one that's my fan, isn't it? Yeah, I like this. She sends me clips. And I was like, could you please block, Megan? You're getting radicalized.

This is a little too much. She'd go to school in New York City. She's in good hands. I got her. She's in very good hands. But the thing about this is that, again, it doesn't really matter to me if we're keeping this scorecard. It matters on how people react to it.

If there is, for instance, a punter people who say, you know what, Mangione, yeah, maybe you shouldn't kill people. But do you know what the health care companies do? It's like this kind of reaction is. Remember when you guys were on right after that happened and we refused to have that conversation right now? We were just like, you could have a conversation about health care and insurance and all that. It's totally inappropriate to have it right now as the CEO of United Healthcare was killed by some nutcase over it, right?

Like, by Louise Mangione. Like, no, we're not doing that. We refuse. And nobody else will do that. That's all they want to talk about. His murder. That part is true. Sure.

His murder was defended by somebody who was previously employed by both the New York Times and the Washington Post in a big position. Taylor Lorenz. Correct. I mean, defending a murder and saying, well, you know, and then talking about this on CNN to the CNN correspondence chuckles. If you think that I'm joking about this, chuckling going, oh, we played the clip. Isn't that hilarious that someone was gone down

and his kids are left fatherless again? If you treat violence that way, if you're Brown University and you buy the papers of Mumia Abu Jamal, the prisoner, I guess he's not on death row anymore, but he's in a prison for life, for shooting a father down in Philadelphia in the early 1980s, killing a cop. But he was warm and fuzzy and had dreadlocks and was on NPR period.

They used to put him on NPR. They used to put him on the NPR. From this assassin, this murderer, but he had the right politics. If people on the right, I would, more sympathy with Jessica Tarloff and people who were doing the what about is him, if there are people on the right who committed crimes in the name of conservative politics, and the rest of us said,

You know what, you know, there's, by the way, I don't see a lot of people going around talking about how Augusto Pinochet in Chile was the great here. There are some people, they're called Groyper's. I mean, there are people that actually do have these Pinochet t-shirts because he killed people in this anti-communist crusade. I mean, I can find, if I walk down the street with a Castro t-shirt on in this city or this is my neighborhood, nobody would bat an eye, another murderer of Latin American dissidents. You might get a compliment, actually.

You would absolutely get a comment. I'm very, very exhausted by this idea that if you commit crimes in your motivation is the appropriate one, we excuse the crime. No, no, no. It's nonsense. I mean, I disagree with virtually all of that. But I will say, like, that clip of Jessica and Greg. You agree or disagree with all of them? You disagree with Pointe.

I agree with all the Moynihan's Point. Oh, okay. I was about to fire you from the podcast on air. The live firing. That was a shock. That was a shock to me. I was going to say I was watching Jessica and Greg's exchange is actually kind of hard because we know both of them.

I like Greg and Jessica a lot. And it's actually clear in the clip that they're both, like, pretty emotional, like, both of them. Well, she doesn't get to be. Well, I haven't seen the whole clip. And, I mean, I think it's certainly fair for her to, like, to have complicated feelings about, about all of this circumstance. I'm confident knowing the kind of person Jessica is

that she is sympathetic to Charlie and his family and I have to suspect that she is like condemned violence because that's the kind of person she is. What I suspect, though, is that if the two of them were having a longer conversation in a different context away from cameras and microphones at a moment when we're dealing with so much raw emotion, my suspicion is that they would agree

on much of the most important things. But I suspect Greg could even make a force, argument that these two things really are categorically different and that there really is an issue where you have had for so long a steady, steady drumbeat of narrativeizing about the kind of apocalyptic danger, about the genocidal risk of a particular political faction in this country. That has been happening for years. The phrase transgenocide is one that I encountered heard yesterday watching clips of something. And it bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever. And it's hard to imagine that it's also not something because it is part of our politics now

that isn't helping to animate some of the consternation and insanity that contributes to crazy acts of violence like this. Ultimately, the individual who has done the thing is responsible. We've had seven mass shootings just in the past couple of years by trans-identified shooters. Seven. Just as Charlie said, in a couple of the last. words he ever spoke, how many of these mass shootings have been perpetrated by trans shooters, too many. That's what he said. That's the truth. Seven is a lot given their percentage of the population. There's something wrong that we need to take very seriously. And not talking about it, not being honest about the connection to that culture and individuals who are celebrating it

and may have been in on it to begin with, we'll find out, is deeply wrong. That is hashtag part of the problem and setting us up for more violence, I wanted to add to the woman who's killed in Minnesota, the Speaker of the House there, she was killed by this nutcase who wrote Tim Wals had instructed him to kill other demonic politicians. So if there was any connection by that guy who had done work with Tim Wals, by the way, it wasn't to Republicans. Okay, we have a lot more to get to. This Pam Bondi statement on hate speech is nuts. And we're going to talk about the Candace, what's happening between Candace and Israel and the turning point group next. I've been talking a lot about River Bend Ranch lately because their stakes are amazing.

River Bend Ranch has taken Black Angus beef to a whole new level. For the last 35 years, Riverben Ranch has been creating a very elite Angus herd by using ultrasound to select genetically superior cattle with a focus on flavor and tenderness. When you purchase from River Bend Ranch, you are not only supporting the 64 cowboys and cowgirls and their families who work on that ranch, but you're also supporting over 260 other U.S. ranches and the hundreds of American families who work on them. It is born in the USA, raised in the USA, and processed in the USA. It's aged to perfection for 21 days and shipped directly from the ranch to your home. This is not your average black angus beef. So order from riverbend ranch.com. Use the promo code Megan, and that'll get you

20 bucks off your first order. And let me know what you think. Riverbendranch.com promo code, Megan. Back with me now, Camille Foster, Michael Moynihan and Matt Welsh of the fifth column. I want to tell our audience that today, over on Charlie's show, you know, his wife, Erica, said his show will go on. And yesterday we had a substitute host, I don't know how I, you know, a host of the vice president, J.D. Vance, hosted it from the White House. Today, it's the crew from the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Michael Knowles, all together in Charlie's studio out in Arizona. So good for them. Okay, and that leads me to out. I'm going to lay out what happens, what's going on here with Candice,

Bibi Netanyahu, and Bill Ackman. Because it kind of leads up to something that happened between Charlie and me. on this show about a month ago, August 6th. Okay, and the audience experienced this with me. So I'm just going to set up what's happening so everybody understands. Bibi Netanyahu went on Fox News on September 11th, the day after Charlie was shot, and commented on the loss of the man he said was his friend. And here's that in Sat 1 in part. He was an extraordinary friend.

He, you know, he said, he wrote me a letter on May 2nd this year. He said, one of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances to defend Judeo-Christian civilization. A few weeks before the tragedy yesterday, I called him and I spoke to him and I said, please come to Israel. invited him to Israel. And sadly, that visit will not take place. But he was a defender of our common Judeo-Christian civilization. He was unbelievably excited to walk at the footsteps of Jesus here. He valued our bond, the bond between America and Israel. Okay. So Candace, who's been critical of Israel in this conflict, did not appreciate that we had a foreign leader reading part of Charlie's letter trying to characterize his stance on Israel without giving its full measure because it

had changed a bit in recent months. And she is not wrong about that. She responded on her show and Candace was very good friends with Charlie. I mean, she called herself a Mason of Turning Point. And she is. She is. She helped build that group when she was coming up and Charlie was coming up and they were both very young. They were out there at many events together. before anybody knew the name Turning Point or Charlie Kirk, for that matter. And I was actually very moved by the video montage she showed of pictures of her and Charlie together and singing together and dancing, having a great time. You know, they're young in this business and figuring things out.

So I believe Candace is sincere in her upset around Charlie's everything. I mean, obviously around Charlie's death, but around people trying to talk for him and sort of summarize his position on something as controversial as Israel. So here is what she said, again, in part, you should go watch her show to hear the full measure. But here is what she said in response to Netanyahu on her show just the other day. Stop two. No, there definitely is a little bit more to the story. First and foremost, that letter he is holding up.

He is severely misrepresenting. Those sentences are real, but I am calling upon Bebe Netanyahu, the dear friend to Charlie Kerr. to publish the letter's entire contents. Like, don't start with just two sentences. Publish the entire thing. You're holding it. I'm saying you're severely misrepresenting the contents that in May, Charlie was concerned about Israel

and their influence on American politics and how they were pushing things that he felt were in conflict with his beliefs, free speech. here in America. Beebe's holding it up, like Charlie just in May, said, hey, you know what, I just want to write a love letter to Israel. That's how it was presented. Would you guys agree?

That's not how it happened. So she's basically suggesting he's leaving out an important piece of Charlie's evolution on Israel. She went on to talk about, and this is the first I had heard this news, a meeting that Charlie had at the home of Bill Ackman in the Hamptons on October 5th, sorry, August, August 5th, with a bunch of influencers, as it was described by Bill Ackman later, some of whom he said were pro-Israel and some of whom he said maybe not so much. And there was a meeting at Bill Ackman's Hampton's home.

Charlie was there, so were some other so-called influencers. And Candace suggests that at that meeting, Bill Ackman pressured Charlie, who, had, he was very supportive of Israel. Do not get me wrong. I mean, I know. I spoke with Charlie directly about this, but he was starting to have the same doubts, questions about whether this could continue without Israel losing all of its support in the world as I was. And he and I had a long talk about our frustration at being dubbed anti-Zionist or anti-Israel or anti-Semites even just for those very mild criticisms. I mean, my guy, it was, it was fucked up. up, okay? It really was, and he was frustrated by that, and so was I. Now, Candice had a different

characterization of that meeting than the one you're going to hear from Bill Ackman. And hers dovetails with this reporter, Max Blumenthal, who also reported on the meeting. Here is what she said, again, in part in SOT 4, where she said they had this meeting, and she suggested that meeting with BB occurred while Charlie was at that meeting of Bill Ackman's House in the Hamptons. A couple of weeks ago before Charlie lost his life, Charlie was in the Hamptons and he had more than one event, but he had essentially what was staged, an intervention was staged by Bill Ackman. Because Charlie's thoughts, Charlie's rational thoughts about Israel were a no-no. this is this is not the route that you should be going on and charlie was surrounded by his friends it's quote unquote friends uh bill acman was very upset and threats were made it was at this time

that b b b net and yahoo was called and charlie was invited to israel this was an under duress situation i would say and i know that charlie was offered a ton of money in this month moment, a ton of money. Beebe would fund it, you know. Spend tons of money. And turning point, I guess if it needed to go to a higher level, would, would have gone to an even higher level than it already was at. And I know for a fact that Charlie denied that funding, that Charlie denied, and what Beebe did they include there, he declined to go to Israel. Okay, here's more. This Max Blumenthal, reporting. He reports, he writes for his own outlet called Gray Zone. He used to work for the Daily Beast. The Nation Media Matters, which explains why in his reporting he referred to me as an anti-Zionist. Wrong, Max. I'm totally a Zionist. I completely believe in Israel's right to exist. And I've defended their right to defend themselves after the disgusting, horrendous terrorist attack on them in 2023. So get it straight. But in any event, he too reported that the Ackman outing was an

intervention he used during which sources say he and others hammered Charlie, that Charlie came away fretting about Israeli blackmail. He says he's spoken to five people with intimate knowledge of Kirk's meeting and that he alleged that Ackman personally confronted Kirk about his views on Israel. An unknown British woman joined in the argument. It began screaming at Charlie. When his host presented him with a detailed list of every offense he supposedly committed against Israel, Charlie was horrified, said one person. him. Acman also allegedly demanded that Kirk rescind his invitation for Tucker Carlson to speak at his upcoming America Fest 2025 in December. Acman, he came under fire too because he had tweeted out recently.

I feel incredibly privileged to have spent a day and shared a meal with Charlie Kirk in this summer. He was a giant of a man. And once again, Candace and others suggesting that's not the whole story because if he really was threatening Charlie, that's a weird tweet, you know, an incomplete tweet. Now, Bill Ackman responds, as only Bill Ackman again. We'd be here for another three hours if I read you his whole response, as you guys know. The Ackman tweets are just legendary for their 49 paragraphs minimum. But this one deserved a bit of a response because he's being accused of something pretty vile. And he described these accounts as totally false.

I think I can easily put this to bed. He promised I have receipts, as they say. He did not abide when asked to provide the so-called receipts. reports Max Blumenthal. But Ackman did go on X and said, I've been slandered by Candace Owens. She'll be responding, I'm sure,

shortly of staging an intervention with Charlie in which threats were made. He says, it's not true. At no time have I ever threatened Charlie, turning point or anyone associated with him. I've never blackmailed anyone, let alone Charlie. I've never offered Charlie or turning point any money in an attempt to influence them.

I connected with Charlie when he had DM'd me, in late May of this year and expressed interest in meeting me. On the Zoom, he explained to me that conservatives in particular young ones were getting tired of defending Israel, and this is very concerning to him. He suggested, Bill Ackman says, Charlie, that recruiting a group of junior Charlie Kirks, who could host open mic sessions on college campuses would be an effective way to encourage debate and a host of issues, an approach he believed to be worthy of consideration, and better enable students to get to the truth. I was interested in learning more. We scheduled a series of conference calls between Turning Point, staff members and members of my team, and then we assembled

this diverse group of influencers for a day and a half session. We chose the afternoon of August 4th to the afternoon of August 5th for the convening. Charlie, members of my team worked put together. I offered to host the sessions so that I could attend some. Charlie sent out the invitations about 35 or so influencers accepted. Charlie and Turning Point put together the agenda. some were critical of Israel, some were supportive. At the end, I sat with Charlie and members of my team. We discussed the events of the evening. Charlie believed he had identified a number of potential turning point ambassadors

who could launch open mic events on campus and would then follow up with them. We agreed to keep in touch thereafter. We corresponded by text over the next few weeks. This was not an intervention to blackmail Charlie into adopting certain views on Israel. It was nothing of the sort. Candace did respond in part on X last night, saying, I know feigning victimhood is kind of an Israel. Israeli brand thing, but I was clear that Charlie felt blackmailed by the offer to fund TPUSA,

which he refused, meaning from Netanyahu, I think she means here. No one said Bill Ackman blackmailed Charlie, try to resist the urge to rewrite history. And she goes on saying people in attendance did characterize it as an intervention. Here is where I'm going with it. Oh, and by the way, I should mention this is important. Andrew Colvitt, who is Charlie's right-hand manned at Turning Point. We know him well. wrote the following. I've been asked about this weekend event with Bill Ackman more than a few times now,

so I asked our staff who were traveling with Charlie to find out what's true. His team was with him 100% of the time when he was not in his hotel room. Here's what they told me. Bill never yelled at Charlie, never pressed him on BB, never gave him a list of Charlie's offenses against Israel. There was concern raised about having Tucker at the Student Action Summit. We don't believe this came from Bill. And Charlie's reply was, honestly, people telling me not to have Tucker makes me want to have Tucker, and I am going to lock him in for Amfest, too. Charlie personally told me, says Andrew, he had a very cordial relationship with Bill, and the event was productive. Those are the facts. Well, here is the reason I am weighing in. I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened.

But the day Charlie was done with that summit at Ackman's house, he came on my show. It was his last appearance on the Megan Kelly show on August 6th. And I asked him about his evolving views on Israel and about the criticism we both had come under for honestly like the most milk toast criticisms of Israel it's it was just crazy I don't think Charlie actually even really did criticize Israel I think he just hosted his turning point event in July in which he had tons of pro-Israel people tons but also Dave Smith was there who's a critic and Tucker was there who's become a bit of a critic a critic and he got so much shit for this And Charlie was really frustrated by this and annoyed because no young person, no person under 30 in America supports Israel.

They just don't. Look at the polls. It doesn't matter whether you're conservative or not. Like virtually none of them. And that was Charlie's constituency. And Charlie was hearing from those people that they were not into this. And they really weren't into our support for the war in Iran and bombing Iran and all that. And he was trying to find a way of bringing that to President Trump and bringing that to his donors and to everybody else to say, you know, you might be losing some support here. I said the same, and both of us got treated like we are Medi Hassan, and we were annoyed. We were both annoyed by that. So we had the conversation.

I did not tell Charlie we were going to discuss it. Usually when guests are coming in the show, we'll give him a heads up, like, in case they want to study up on something, whatever. These are probably generally the eight to ten topics we're going to hit. And we did not give him heads up on this because I didn't even tell my team on it. I just decided to do it. And here is a chunk of how that went. And something's happening, though, with this whole debate that is really bothering me, and I wonder if you're feeling it too. My contention here is that some in the pro-Israel camp are so knee-jerk about calling you anti-Semitic or getting deeply offended if you say anything that doesn't align with their narrative that it undermines their own cause.

and I have to tell you, I find it very irritating. I'm so glad you brought this up, and I would second that, Megan, I think I have a bulletproof resume showing my defense of Israel, both on campus, on social media, to great, you know, let's just say mockery and scorn at times, right? Because I believe it, right? I believe in the scriptural land rights given to Israel. I believe in fulfillment of prophecy. And again, I'm not a theologian, but I'm a Christian. My life was changed in Israel. The spiritual energy is so amazing there. I want them to win. I've said that repeatedly. And however, Megan, you're hitting on something very potent and important. Now, let me first say, I don't want to judge an entire

group because there's been many people in the prayer Israel world that have been very sweet, very kind, very nuanced, very Charlie. You know, you're with us. You don't have to agree all the time. However, and I will say this, the behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly are pushing people like you and me away. Not like we're going to be pro Hamas. Not like we're going to, but we're like, honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive. I have text messages, Megan, calling me an anti-Semite.

I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat. I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it. It's very irritating. It's almost as if you're coming after you after a turning point for among other things, than you had Dave Smith there. Dave Smith is allowed to criticize Israel? You had both sides.

The Israeli side was overrepresented. No, you're not allowed to. It's even worse than that. Again, I just want to repeat for the fifth time, I love Israel. I want Israel to win. But my moral character is now being put into question, Megan. Not my decisions.

Not like, hey, are you doing this? Is it smart or is it dumb? But no, I am a bad person if I do this. And it's a, I could go. I mean, you saw it, Megan. It was trending on Twitter, thousands of tweets and text messages. And if I were to be charitable and generous, I will say, the people that are attacking me are in a hyper paranoid state

because they're at war. And war tends to make things black and white. And you're a hammer looking for a nail. So I'm trying to be charitable, Megan. Literally, I'm trying to cut as much slack as I can, right? Like, okay, what would it be like if all of a sudden I'm starting to see a pattern of behavior similar to what my grandparents saw in 1930s Germany online,

how would I behave? So that's like my charitable kind of over-compensation spirit. At the same time, I'm like, but it's not defensible to be dumb, right? Yeah, and it's offensive. It's offensive to those of us who have been out there defending them in many instances against critics on our own side, and now you have a couple of comments like,

well, what about this? Well, has it gone on too long? Like, is it time to wrap it up? And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset or it might have been nobody. But we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like there's some rule you can't go there when it comes to Israel.

Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first. Period. End of story. We are citizens of this nation. Personality types like you, myself and Tucker, the more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question, which is not isolated, right? Megan, it would be one thing if it was one text or two texts. It is dozens of texts.

Yes. Then we start to say, hold the boat here. I thought that was very, very well said by Charlie, as usual. And so I want to verify that he was feeling frustrated. And he was feeling pressured and he was feeling like his character was being assassinated by people publicly and privately. who are, I guess, consider themselves more pro-Israel than Charlie. And he refused to back off of his criticisms and said there the truth, which is, in his case

and in mind, the more you tell us we can't talk about something the way we want to talk about it, the more we're likely to do it. And to me, this whole thing is very, it's very frustrating because he was pretty clear, both with me and, by the way, in a focus group he did with a bunch of young people, on Israel, and young conservatives, I think, who were feeling the same frustrations. And I've got, it's a long-winded way of saying, can I tell you what? Like, I understand Candace's point. It is, it is, it's not okay for him to come out, just read part of the letter and let that be that.

There was an evolving feeling by Charlie on Israel. That is a lot more complicated than Charlie graciously wrote in that level, in that letter. And look, I guess everybody wants to spin it in a way that makes them sound closer to Charlie and make Charlie sound closer to their cause because Charlie's so influential right now and so important to us. But, I mean, I also object to the extent he was used to advance a political narrative in that Fox News interview. I see why she's upset.

Your thoughts, guys. Yeah, I might disagree with you on this one a little bit. That's okay. And a couple of things, strike me, is that, you know, the turning point people who gave a very different account of that meeting. And, you know, when it comes to Israel and when it comes to Jews, you know, these meetings, people come over for dinner or we come over and have a little bowl session about an issue. And you want to talk about it. I've been involved in these things when it comes to a million different issues. It becomes conspiratorial when Israel's involved and, you know, people who are, have Israel's back.

It can, you know. And I think that Candace Owens is a very, very dodgy witness in this, considering she doesn't have a ton of credibility amongst almost any. But wait, let me just say, let me say this in Candace's defense. First of all, she's brilliant. Candice is brilliant. I realize she's controversial, but she is very smart. She's too smart to F around and say that she's got, like, the letter. She seems to have either the letter or recordings that she doesn't have.

She just tweeted out, more is going to come out. The truth is inevitable. They're lying, but rest assured, these people were deranged enough to put their anger and demands in writing. Now, I don't, that doesn't mean it's Bill Ackman. I don't know whether Bill Ackman, I mean, I have no reason to doubt Andrew Colvitt. That's for damn sure. who says Charlie seemed to have a cordial time and wasn't threatened at the Bill Ackman summit.

But anyway, keep going. Yeah, I interrupted you. No, I mean, just what we do as journalists, though, is we give people's opinions certain weights depending on how credible they are on other things. And, you know, the last thing I saw her talking about was whether or not Brigitte McCrone was a member of the Stanford Prison Experiment

in talking about Frankists and Stalin being Jewish and this singular obsession these days with Israel. You know, we talked earlier about how, you know, when it came to Mamdani, not Mamdani, Jesus Christ, sorry. But let me just ask you something. Let me ask you something, Moynihan. Okay, and I understand, like, we did a legal debate on the Macron thing. It's an eight-part series that you can watch on Candace's feed.

That's what, that's where the references to Brigitte come from. But you don't have to trust her. If Candace is not your cup of tea, that's fine. You know, I'm not everybody's cup of tea. She's not everybody's a cup of tea. But I just played you a four-minute exchange of Charlie saying... Oh, no, no. So, no, I was getting to that.

And I actually want to address that because I think that's totally normal. And as you point out with polling, I just did a show the other day with Alan Dershowitz. And I don't think there's anyone on Earth who is a bigger and more uncompromising defender of Israel than Alan Dershowitz. Totally right. I brought this up to him. And I said, look, you know, Israel's losing people on this. And his response was not to say, no, that's not true. He said, you know, look, there's polling in which Israel is the least

popular country on earth. Like, you know, in the number one was, I think, Germany in Japan, and he made some joke about them being the axis in Israel on the other end of that. That's completely normal to have this conversation. But Charlie Kirk says something that is very different than what Candace Owen feels about this stuff. He says during that conversation with you, that he is a stalwart Zionist. He doesn't like people questioning his commitment to that idea, or going so far as to calling him an anti-Semite or something, I don't know who these people are. But that is, look, that is not surprising from conservatives

who have been, you know, denouncing people rightfully for ending debate by calling people racist for years. So that's just in kind. But, you know, I wonder why, you know, before Charlie Kirk had been buried, the number of people that were talking about Israel. That's the thing that concerns me about why this is coming up. Why is it about the pet issue that she's been talking

about, I think, obsessively for every time I tune in to, like, in these totally crazy ways, I mean, the guy, Ian Carroll, who is the host. Well, I don't know if this is true, Candace. Well, I think it is, by the way. No, no, no, but I was just going to say, but some people, obviously were wondering whether Israel had a hand in this. I mean, that's clearly why it's come up. And there's zero evidence of that. Yahoo is responding. I mean, I mean, I don't think that in any other circumstance, if this had not kind of taken over like a prairie fire on the internet. And, you know, this guy, Ian Carroll has been on Joe Rogan's show. He was a guest host of Candace's show this summer, you know, was on Twitter saying the Israelis did this. And even,

you know, you have someone like Dave Smith, who has a lot of problems with me. And we disagree on almost everything. But even he responded, he's like, dude, what are you talking about? Where is this? Yeah, he said that was crazy talk. It's crazy. And like, even Alex Jones was like, guys, all of this conversation about this. Why are we having a conversation about Charlie Kirk's commitment to Israel? immediately after he was assassinated because there's so many goals out there who were trying to suggest that maybe because he was wavering on this. And as Charlie said to you, I didn't know the guy. I met him, I think, one time. He doesn't see that he was wavering on it. He said he didn't understand. Under that theory, here's what I don't get, under that theory. Like, Candace is very

influential. She's got a very popular show. Tucker, same. And obviously, neither one is feeling very supportive of Israel in this war. That's for sure in Tucker's case and for sure in Candace's case. And whether it goes beyond that, that's up to other people to decide. I don't listen to their shows every day. That, like, those two would have been the obvious targets. You know, I don't, I'm not trying to get them endangered. God knows. I'm just saying, like, I don't understand it. And Tucker did suggest to me that he has been under threat. He didn't say from Israel, but he's definitely been under threat. I don't know. I just don't get, like, there'd be no incentive. I,

I get the logic. Like Charlie's starting to, we're starting to lose Charlie, so like we've got to take him out. If you're really thinking Israel is like at that level of, you know, but to me it just seems like you have him running around out there, running around out there being much more of a proselytizer for Israel than a critic. It doesn't make sense. And also, this is just somebody who is engaged in so much conspiracy theory recently from 9-11 to, you know, flat-earthers and dinosaurs and Brigitte McCron.

And it's just, I can't follow it when I mean, honestly, like, I think Brigitte McCrone is the very, very weird wife of Emmanuel Macron who started hooking up with him when he was like 14. That's weird enough. We can finish it. That we know. That kind of stuff is like, geez. That actually is so crazy. Like, you know, I told the audience when we talked about Candace's series on that. I did not watch it for the full eight hours. But I did watch a lot about the her relationship with, with Emmanuel and how it got started, which I did know, but I had forgotten about. She was his teacher. She was, I think, 39, and he was 14 or 15 at the most. And, like, he got, his parents ejected him from the school because they knew there was something inappropriate between them and that she always claimed, oh, never until he was older, but it seemed to be a lot of smoke there. And it was very creepy. The whole thing is very creepy.

And anyway. So we'll give them credit for that. Yeah. I will say, though, my own takeaway from this is Israel needs to wrap up this war. And I know they have hostages. who are still in the hands of Hamas. But Ben Shapiro and I talked about this at length when he was on.

He said they made a mistake from the beginning and saying they're not going to stop until every hostage is out. And that may not be possible and it can't go on forever. And honestly, it's because I do support Israel that I really would like to see them end this even without the perfect resolution,

which would be getting all the hostages back. They're just losing too much support. America's starting to turn on them. And that cannot happen. That just cannot happen. They've exacted really appropriate justice in response to what happened to them on 10-7. Hamas is entirely to blame for what happened to Israel in 10-7. And like the fact that we're even having to have this discussion as Americans and people on the right tells me, like, this is a crisis for Israel. PR crisis is what I mean. And they need to wrap it up. If I can give me one final point on this is, you know, I had Eli Lake, my dear friend and the dear friend of the three of us on the show.

And Eli is about his, you know, sort of full-throat of a Zionist as you can get. And I asked him about the operation into Gaza. And he said, I think it's a terrible idea. And Eli is a very, very strong supporter of Israel. But you also will notice that all of these debates are taking part, people are taking part of them in Israel. They're very controversial in Israel, too. So when Charlie Kirk says, I don't know if I like the way this war is going, he's not only not alone in that.

He wouldn't be alone in Israel. He's not alone amongst people on the right who support Israel in America. The wisdom of what Israel is doing is being questioned, and it's good that people question it. Those debates are healthy and they're necessary. But you do get called an anti-Zionist or an anti-Semite. Truly, when you do try to debate. Trust me. I have two years of-

Totally unbroken universal support for Israel. That was it. I said two things. And this shitstorm that rained down on me was unbelievable, which is fucked up. And that's what Charlie was saying, too. Yeah. I mean, I think the concern is the difference between those things of questioning. And I've no doubt that you've, I mean, if you say it, that it's true that people have come down on you.

But there's no doubt that the difference between someone questioning the wisdom of how Netanyahu's been conducting the war and what the end game of that war is or even the strikes on Iran and America's involvement in them in where the Trump administration is vis-a-vis Israel is totally normal. And the conversations that Candace Owens has about this stuff, I don't believe to be normal. I believe them to be completely insane. And they're really, really deep in blood libel, in really gross old conspiracy theories. Can I ask you a question on that morning? Let me just say, let me an honest question for you. An honest question for you on that. Because I see the clips that they share of Candice. online. And every once in a while, I'll go and just kind of check the clip to see if it's like

real. And more than once in her case, and the same thing with Tucker, by the way, and many times in his case, when I go back to the original source, I'm like, this was taken out of context. Now, I'm a busy person, and I don't, I don't have time to listen to every podcast. You know, like, whatever. If it's not a segment we're going to do on the show, I'm probably not going to go back and watch it the whole thing. But I have seen Candace taken out of context many, many times. And you can, you know, times that by 100 on Tucker. So do you listen to her show? Like, do you actually know that the little clips you've seen online are not taken out of context? I think it's an unbelievably important and fair question because I've seen you taking kind of out of

context. I've seen myself taken out of context. I've seen Charlie Kirk taken out of contest in the last 24 hours, you know, and say, you know, Karen Atia getting fired and literally people saying, well, he just, she just quoted him and the quote was an invention. Half of it is real, the other half isn't, and that other half changes it entirely. But I will say on some of this stuff, because I am pretty knowledgeable about some of these

conspiracy theories and what people are talking, she's talking about World War II and stuff. So I have watched entire episodes of these things with my jaw on the floor and my eyes rather wide, these ideas of Frankists, and I just, I'm surprised by a lot of it, but I assure you that this, stuff isn't taken out of context. And I think what happens with people when they get into

conspiracy theories is it's never just one. They take the whole parcel of them. So 9-11, you know, if it's 9-11, if it's Israel, I had to Brigitte Macron was a bit of a surprise that that was thrown in there. But there is a bit of a conspiratorial way of thinking. And you see that for sure on that show every day. And I don't listen to it every day. Absolutely not. But I do, if I see something that is of interest and I'm kind of writing something about this bigger stuff now, I've been, I've been watching it to get a sense of what it. Well, she's not here to defend herself, but I will say, like, I have checked more than once because I see this crazy quote, and I know her a little, and she's a fighter, she's feisty.

I have never known her to be some nut job. She's very, very fucking smart. And the few times I've actually checked and gone deep, they've been lies about her. I'm just going to say it, they've been lies. So at this point, look, I'm interested, like, I'm a media person, so I look at these clips and I think, oh, could that possibly be real? But for whatever it's worth, I've checked personally on some of them

and they've been lies about her. And once you decide you hate somebody online, you can spend your whole life trying to ruin them and people who are like-minded with you will jump on board. That's no knock on Israel or anybody else. I just, you know, take it with a grain of salt and people have to make up their own minds.

All right, stand by because we have to get to Pam Bondi. We spent too much time on that one, frankly. But I wanted to set the record straight on Charlie and my own exchange. Let's be honest. Afternoons can be rough. Energy fades, cravings kick in, and focus goes out the window. Another coffee? That's the quick fix, but it can lead to jitters or a crash later. Peaks sun goddess matcha is another option. Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this matcha is not just a drink. It can be a better daily habit. It gives steady energy and helps you focus without the ups and downs.

This is not any matcha. It's organic cerecate. ammonial grade and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil far, far away from pollution. It is shaded longer for more nutrients and blended by tea masters. That's how serious they are about quality. The taste is smooth, creamy, and rich, not bitter, like lower quality matcha. It packs powerful antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady. Right now, you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free rechargeable frother and glass beaker. It's backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee. Go to peaklife.com slash Megan. That's P-I-Q-U-E.E. life.com slash Megan to try it for yourself. Again, that's P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com

slash Megan. Let's be honest. America can still be a dangerous place, and you cannot afford to wait for help. Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force could have legal consequences. According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force, and that's exactly why many are turning to Burna. Burna is proud of the American, hand-assembled, in in Indiana. These less lethal self-defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies. Over 600,000 Berna pistols have been sold most to private citizens who refuse to be victims. Burna launchers fire rock-hard kinetic rounds

and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles, capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away. No background checks, no waiting periods, and Burna can ship straight to your door. Take responsibility, protect your future. Visit bernah.com right now or your local sportsman's warehouse. That's berna.com or your local sportsman's warehouse. Visit now and be prepared to defend. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph. A Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr. Laura. I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly. Megan Kelly. You can stream the Megan Kelly show on Series XM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the Serious XM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more.

Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK Show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Our friends from the fifth column are with me. Two news items I wanted to get to. Number one, there is a man named George Zinn, who falsely told police that he shot Charlie Kirk moments.

after the attack. He's now been charged, according to TMZ, with possessing child pornography. So there's that. And then separately, I believe he's the one who it broke about this morning, who came out and said he was happy. Yeah, right? It was him, Deb, that he was happy, that he helped the gunman escape by distracting police on the spot. remember he's the one who was in cuffs and originally we thought maybe this was the man and if TMZ's reporting is right he is a disgusting pervert if not correct i'm sure he'll let us know um we are continuing to await the charging documents against the man accused of shooting charlie that should come in in a matter of hours less than i think an hour we're going to have a presser on it

and then we'll have a full breakdown of that for you tomorrow and then secondly in unrelated news I do want to bring this to you because it's just kind of fun. Fannie Willis is officially toast on her criminal case against Donald Trump, which, by the way, has not been thrown out. I mean, amazingly, people think that one's been thrown. It was not thrown out. She was thrown off the case because of her inability to keep it in the pants. And then she appealed to an appellate court saying I was unfairly removed. And they said, eh, we don't think so.

and then she appealed to the Georgia High Court, and they said, we don't want anything to do with this. They said what most of us said, we looked at Fannie Willis, which was, we don't want anything to do with it. And they rejected the appeal. So she's officially removed. And right now that case is dead because it has no prosecutor attached to it. And Phil Holloway's been explaining to us for a couple of years now. None is likely to be. So by all intents and purposes, that case is dead.

It's another win for Trump. Like Kamala Harris, we'll miss, Fannie. now that she's officially gone, I look forward to her career as an MSNBC contributor because she could be kind of interesting to follow. That's now, Megan. MS now, you're right. I'm sorry, my bad.

And speaking of prosecutors who say or do dumb things and get themselves in trouble, we've got to discuss Pam Bondi. All the guys are shaking their heads no right now for the listening audience because none of us can believe this actually happened, but it did happen, and therefore we must discuss it.

Pam Bondi said one of the dumbest things you can say as an attorney general. Do we have it here? I'm looking on my salt list. Yeah, here it is. She just said several very dumb things. Yeah. Several. Several. Because she went on Fox News and she went on this podcast with someone named Katie Miller. And it's unbelievable. There was absolutely no pushback. But here is what, here's what Pam said in side 18. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.

Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action? We will absolutely target you, go after you

if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle. Okay, so that is Stephen Miller's wife, my team reminds me. and while her husband fully understands the law. I mean, honestly, while her husband fully understands the law and has been behind the most critical policies of the Trump administration that have been very successful, she clearly doesn't

and she doesn't understand the conservative movement or she would not have asked that question. What kind of a question is that? It was completely teed up in a way that sounds like a lefty. Are you going to crack down on hate speech? What the fuck? That is not a question that a conservative would ask. I don't understand what's happening there. And then for Pam Bondi to not say, whoa, whoa.

sister, we on the right do not crack down on hate speech. We don't believe in that nonsense. There's this pesky document called the Constitution that doesn't allow it, but we don't even agree with it in principle was kind of extraordinary. And I actually tweeted out this morning. There's no way Pam Bondi does not know that hate speech is protected under our Constitution. She must have meant, like, because given what Stephen Miller said to J.D. Vance when he was subbing on Charlie's show yesterday, Stephen Miller was talking about how we've got to crack down on these groups around people like the assassin who encourage it or know about it or who, like, are part of it, but don't actually pull the trigger. My supposition on Twitter was X. Maybe she's

talking about conspirators, you know, people who are part of the conspiracy, but don't actually do the act, but you would need to take at least one overt act, which would potentially make your speech part of a crime. I gave her too much credit. That's not what she was talking about. Because she came out with an ex post this morning, Pam Bondi, and tried to say this, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. Now, that is another dodge because all she needed to write was threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. Okay. Now we're closer to an actual statement of the law. Even closer. But even that. But even that. It takes a lot. It takes a lot for a threat to

elevate itself into a threat that you can't actually utter in the United States of America. But prefacing that line with hate speech that crosses the line into threats is another fucked up thing to say. It's a cover for her erroneous statement earlier, right? It's her not being willing to admit she totally said the wrong thing as a moral principle, as an American principle, and as a legal principle. And this is like a long-winded way to try to like make herself sound like she was more right than she was which was not right at all. I'll give you guys

the floor and then we'll talk about what she said on Hannity. Who would like to take it? Well, we should hear from Matt Welsh, who hasn't spoken in an hour. Yeah. When Matt Welch and Matt Wall on something, then Matt Walsh was correct in saying

also, what the fuck? Well, that's not a direct quote. He said she should be fired today. She should, which is pretty strong. She should be. fired. She's the attorney general of the United States. Hate speech is not a legal category. Your job is the top law enforcement person in the country. And you've just been asked a question about putting people in cuffs to show them a lesson. No, that is not how we do it here. It's a sign that we're getting

ahead of ourselves. Okay, I did it wrong. I should play the Pam Bondi sod on Hannity because you just referenced it. And this sot is the reason Matt Walsh says she should be fired. Here it is. And employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things. And they shouldn't be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie's pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that. I have Harmeet Dillon right now in our civil rights unit, looking at that immediately that Office Depot had done that. We're looking at that. Keep going, Matt. So Office Depot fired the person or like suspended them. They took their appropriate action for

Office Depot. That's not a civil rights issue. The federal government is supposed to be enforcing civil rights. That's not it. You don't have a legal obligation as a company to print that flyer. I think she's a flyer. What are you doing? What are we even doing here? There's all these things adjudicated at the Supreme Court over and over again. And these are nine nothing issues. And they will be nine nothing issues as our friend Charlie Cook rightly pointed out in a very good column of the National Review today. Yeah, it was great. It's garbage, and I'm, heartened because Republicans and conservatives in the Trump era have spent a lot of time backtracking against or just sort of like repudiating their previously held positions on a lot

of things, especially in economics, but not only, a lot of different ways they have done this. It's been heartening to watch you to watch basically everybody, Matt Walsh, say, what are you talking about Pam Bondi? Hate speech isn't a thing. This isn't embarrassing. You go. They are right and she should. Go ahead, Camille. Well, Jonathan Carl, though, asked the president about this a little earlier this morning. So not everybody is what you're going to tell me. The president's answer was not perfect. We do. Here it is. Here it is. The question wasn't perfect. What do you think, Pam Bondi's saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech. We probably go after people like you because you treat me so

barely is hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they'll come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they'll have to go after you. Look, we want everything to be fair. It hasn't been fair. And the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country. That is the first genuine laugh I've had in a week. I think in fairness, Jonathan Carl's question was not very good. Like, to the extent the president's allies and people beyond that, that orbit, who say, like, hate speech, this is a problematic concept. It's not that we say that hate speech is free speech.

We say hate speech is the nonsense concept in the United States. There are no prohibitions against hate speech in this country. It is in a thing. To the extent it was, it would be a totally subjective category. And this is why it's a problem. It's separate from incitement. We can talk about that differently. And I think the president's preamble, in which he referred to, like, various media coverage as hate speech categorically.

I think it's safe to say he was joking. But I wish that the answer – because I think the system more serious answer came afterwards. We want to be fair. But it is – he's not wrong. I'm going to try to take that. Everybody all over the airwaves calling him a Nazi and a fascist, that is hate speech. And it's lawful. To the extent, it could be anything.

It could certainly be the case that we could categorize that. But it is totally lawful, as you put it. And I think that that's the point. But what the president isn't a lawyer is the most important point. And we know that. He's many things that he's a lawyer. Can we watch the beginning of that again? I don't want to see the whole.

I need to see the beginning. This is why. Let's rewrite that. What do you make Pam Bondi saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech. You probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.

That's just vintage Trump. I love that. I would laugh more if he wasn't. doing the New York Times again this morning. Okay, but listen, he can do no other. You know, when asked a question like that by ABC News, he can do no other. Who could blame him for saying that? I think that was actually quite very funny.

Go ahead, one hand. I would say one thing about this is that we have this creeping concept of what, of speech. Like, you know, is hateful speech, it becomes hate speech. Why does it become hate speech? Because it's a category in other countries. And it's why certain people that I have. know in other countries envy the United States. It is the most American thing is to have a First Amendment and to zealously protect it even for the worst shittiest ideas. That's why we have it.

It's not for my ideas or your ideas. It's for those who have the really shitty ideas. So I don't love that that we're using the phrase at all because where it comes from is I think that it's also very problematic. And for a really, for a reason that really depresses me, I don't even, can't even quite put my finger on it. We never have a conversation about the absurdity of hate crimes laws, because it's usually, you know, adding a little extra flavor of five, 10 years because of the thoughts that were going through somebody's head when they were committing a crime that was already on the books as a crime. Once we accepted that idea, it's a pretty easy navigation to say, well, there is hate speech. And, you know, she, as a Republican attorney

general, I'm not, no, she should know better. Yeah. He should know. It's like this, she should resign. Jack Phillips is the cake baker. who said, I'm not going to bake that gay wedding cake because it doesn't align with my values. I'll bake you a cake, but not, I'm not going to put, like, the grooms on the front of it, you know, and I'll, and you can have any other pastry from my shop, but I can't be forced to endorse something that I don't endorse. And the Supreme Court said he's right. And they just reiterated that in 303 creative two sessions ago. So she absolutely should know all of this. I'm concerned that they're talking this way, and I will be the first to criticize the Trump

administration if it tries to actually crack down on, quote, hate speech. Now, having said all that, I have zero sympathy for the people who are getting fired because of their inhumanity in response to Charlie's assassination. Fire them all. I'm thrilled to see them getting their asses fired. You celebrate any political assassination. you're fireable, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean it's a crime.

It doesn't mean the federal government should get involved. And if those losers in the Office Depot, who were fired by Office Depot, who didn't want to print flyers with Charlie's photo on them, should be publicly shamed and they should be fired. I think that's fine. But they shouldn't be prosecuted. Like, we have to know where our lines are. Anyway, that's, I guess I stole the last word.

Anyone want to weigh in? Anyone? I don't like the false positives. There are people who are being punished and sanctioned professionally and in these online mobbing. If you're just saying negative things that are pretty, like, lame. Yeah. Yeah. If you're just saying negative things about Charlie, that doesn't show very good character.

And the man isn't even buried yet. Your wife is saying negative things about him and you're losing your job because of it, which I do. Yeah, that's a problem. Yeah. That's not right. But if you are celebrating his death, I'm all for the firings. All for them. If you were for my company and you are so stupid.

put your dead ideas online for everyone to see you get fired for being that dumb not for your speech just for you being an idiot keep bad shitty ideas to yourself and you know say them over a glass of wine don't say for everyone i'm so glad we could end on that note of harmony love you guys thank you so much and i'll see you soon in person and by the way if you guys want to get tickets to the tour go to megan kelly dot com Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda, and no fear.