The Megyn Kelly Show - DOJ Employee Throws Sandwich at Fed Officer, and New Info About Clinton Investigation, with Stu Burguiere and John Solomon

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by John Solomon, founder of "Just The News,"  to discuss new documents exposing how top DOJ and FBI officials shut down probes into Hillary and Bill Clinton and Hunter Biden, what we're learning about how one top official said to "shut it down," how the same agencies later turned their focus on Trump, reports of multiple grand juries investigating alleged conspiracy involving the Clintons, Bidens, and figures in the Obama administration, the key dates in the timeline involving possible corruption, and more. Then Stu Burguiere, host of BlazeTV's Stu Does America, joins to discuss the shocking story of a DOJ employee who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer, the felony charges now filed, the resistance against Trump's administration from inside, Hunter Biden’s refusal to apologize to Melania Trump over his Epstein claim and dropping a f-bomb instead, the possible billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, Trump’s push to de-woke the Smithsonian museum, the backlash over attempting to end the racial focus, why the left is losing control of the historical and cultural conversation, Jussie Smollett’s latest comeback attempt through a new Netflix documentary, his renewed claim that the hate crime hoax was real, why the media is still giving him a platform, and more. Solomon- https://justthenews.com/Burguiere- https://www.youtube.com/StuDoesAmerica Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Just Thrive: Visit https://justthrivehealth.com/discount/Megyn and use code MEGYN to save 20% sitewideBirch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldCHEF iQ: Visit https://CHEFIQ.com and use code MK for 15% off sitewide. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. Hunter Biden is in a face-off with the first lady of the United States, Melania Trump. She is demanding that he apologized for saying that it was Jeffrey Epstein, who introduced. her to Donald Trump and suggesting she's going to sue him if he doesn't back down on that claim that he made in that very public YouTube interview with the show that calls itself Channel 5, I think, or Channel 4, whatever channel. And Hunter Biden's refusing. So we could see very soon a lawsuit by Melania Trump against Hunter Biden. We'll show you exactly what he said and then what he said in response to her legal

threat. Also, there was a big arrest in D.C. amid President Trump's crime crackdown involving a subway sandwich. And according to A.G. Pam Bondi, the man who threw that sandwich at a cop worked at her Department of Justice. She says he's now been fired. We'll show you the tape and Judge Janine's comments because she's the prosecutor who's going to have to handle this in response. And we'll get to what's going to happen to this guy who apparently worked at the Department of Justice. This is unbelievable. I mean, this is Pam Bondi saying this is what we're up against trying to clean up, you know, departments like this.

Stubergear will be here in a moment to break it all down. But we are starting today with another stunning revelation about Barack Obama's Justice Department and FBI. Can I just tell you something? I want you to listen to the story today. Okay, we're going to go through this with John Solomon. I want you to go through this story, listening and remembering all the reporting we've done here on this show that you guys were with us for on the IRS and how their investigation into

Hunter Biden was slow-ruled to the point that most of the statutes of limitation expired. Remember, we found that out from those two whistleblowers. It was, I think, two years ago. I was down here at the Jersey Shore, and we were talking to those two whistleblowers who gave us their first interview and told us all about how the DOJ, had slow-rolled their investigation to the point where they all expired the statutes of limitation against Hunter Biden for his tax evasion and his sketchy scheme overseas, taking all this money from, you know, Burisma and Ukraine and elsewhere. Well, guess what? What Solomon is revealing

today is the same story, different players. He's reporting now that the FBI director, Cash Patel, has just uncovered a memo that appears to show top DOJ and FBI officials obstructing an investigation into allegations of corruption against Bill and Hillary Clinton's family foundation, known as the Clinton Foundation, that back in 15 and 16, the FBI was actually interested in the Peter Schweitzer book, Clinton Cash, and actually said, you know what, there's something there and we better start looking into it and have no less than three different field agents agencies part of the FBI looking into it but they got shut down by Andrew McCabe deputy director of the FBI under Obama and Sally Yates deputy AG under Loretta Lynch

Obama's top people at DOJ and FBI said no no it's Hillary Clinton we're not doing that we're not doing that same way they said no no it's Hillary Clinton we're not doing that when it comes to investigating or seeing through the investigation on her home brew server and the email scandal remember we've been talking about the documents that showed Loretta lynch allegedly saying she would make sure it didn't go too far so Hillary Clinton twice protected according to these documents for her utter corruption her criminal corruption that's how it looks in this these papers. Meanwhile, Donald Trump gets indicted twice, twice, by Joe Biden's DOJ, special counselor, counsel Jack Smith, for allegedly having classified documents at Mara Lago that he as president

had the right to have. And for the January 6th nonsense on the Capitol. Okay, he gets him indicted twice. They rushed to throw the legal system at Donald Trump. And with Hillary Clinton time and time again, just like with Hunter Biden, those in power work together to protect their favorite Democrats. It's disgusting. And now we're really getting the details of a general foundational story we did know. But as with so many of these reveals lately, we're getting names We're getting specific titles, and we're finding out exactly who was standing in the way of the wheels of justice turning against a dem. Former President Obama's Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is even quoted in the Solomon release now as saying, shut it down. Sally Yates is the name we've heard many times over the years.

She's a party loyalist. She's been painted by the left as some sort of a heroine for standing up against Donald Trump. She's a partisan hack, and I'm embarrassed. She shares my son's name. Here to explain it now, John Solomon, the founder of Just the News. I've been talking a lot about Riverbed Ranch lately because I love their steaks. Those Riverbend Ranch steaks are something else. River Bend Ranch has taken Black Angus beef to a whole new level.

Did you recently hear RFKJ, head of the Maha movement, saying really all he eats is red meat and fermented products? Hello, Riverbed Ranch has got you covered. For the last 35 years, Riverbend 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 buy from Riverbend Ranch, you're not only supporting the 64 cowboys and cowgirls and their families who work on the 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 is 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 riverbendranch.com. Use the promo code, Megan, for 20 bucks off your first order. And let me know what you think. Riverbendranch.com promo code, Megan. John, welcome back. Yeah, good to be with you, Megan.

You laid it out perfectly. That's the dual system of justice. lived under for the last 10 years? It's shocking. So take us through the latest reveal. So people, I think, will become more familiar over the next few weeks as we continue to dig through what we now know and what we're about to learn, that March of 2016 is a moment of great peril for the Democratic Party.

Donald Trump's essentially secured the nomination. They have a populist that looks like the Brexit movement in America, and they're mortified. Hillary Clinton is still trying to crank down her email scandal, and the Justice Department now knows two things have happened simultaneously. One, that three separate FBI offices, New York, Little Rock, and Washington Field Office, so two powerhouses and then Little Rock have all predicated investigations looking at pay-to-play allegations against Hillary Clinton. Some of that predication was based on Peter Schweitzer's great book, Clinton Cash, some

of that predication was based on a couple of stories I wrote back in 2015 for the Washington Times. And so they have a confidential human source in one of those cases. They have multiple documents. They have some video and audio footage. And they believe they have a true predicated investigation looking at criminal pay to play. Basically, you pay the foundation, you get something from Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

It's a mortal threat, way more mortal than the complicated email scandal, which you can always blame on negligence. And at the same time, that's happening. It's very important to remember, and I'm going to show people these emails soon. These are emails that the Justice Department's had for a long time. Hunter Biden's emails and his records of his business partners have been subpoenaed. And Hunter Biden and his lawyers are panicked. They're going to discover that Hunter Biden was welching on his taxes.

He was not paying taxes on Burisma, the money he had gotten in Ukraine. And so I want to set that stage because March of 16 is a moment of calamity. March through May, there are multiple democratic scandals that potentially put Donald Trump in a much better position to win the nomination because the Democratic Party is going to look like the party of corruption. And it's in that moment that Sally Yates steps into the void and says, shut it down. And think about this. Donald Trump's on the campaign trial chanting, lock her up.

turns out the FBI has some evidence that might lock her up if they can get through the official prosecution. And the answer back from Barack Obama's Justice Department is shut it down. They form a protection racket around Hillary Clinton. And as we know from the IRS whistleblowers, eventually a protection racket around Hunter Biden. And then they pivot and they start to legitimize a false investigation against Donald Trump. That is the spring and summer of 2016, and there are just some remarkable dates that we all need to remember because they are going to be seminal to the conspiracy. The first is January 6, 2016, four years, or excuse me, January 6, 2017, four years before the January 6th that Democrats like to talk about. It's on that day

that the Intelligence Committee assessments released, and it's the day before when Sally Yates is in a meeting with the president and the vice president, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, concocting how they can keep pursuing former national security advisor Mike Flynn when the FBI has just cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. It is at January 5th and 6th that create the distrust that ultimately boils over on January 6th, 2021. And then on July 5th, 2016, the day that James Comey walks out and waves a magic wand without the legal authority to do so, in Claire's Hillary Clinton, In the email scandal, that same day, Christopher Steele walks into the FBI with information that ultimately becomes the Steele dossier. Those two dates are not just symbolic.

They are meaningful dates in the conspiracy. And in between those two dates, the FBI is pressing to open up a very serious criminal investigation, and that's when the Obama Justice Department decides we're going to shut it down. So this would have been James Comey at the top of that FBI, whose three field offices were looking into Hillary Clinton. So, I mean, he presumably knew about it. And I guess at this point was okay with it, because according to this report, he was not the one to shut it down. It was his boss, Sally Yates, is effectively over him as the deputy attorney general. Yeah, let's keep in mind how these two departments work. The dirty work always falls down. down to the deputy, right? You never have the Attorney General put her hands on it. You never have the FBI director, with rare exception. Comey actually violated that role. But that's what

deputies exist for in these departments, to carry out the will of the boss and to have their fingerprints on the decision. So it's not an accident that it's Sally Yates and the deputy director at the time Andrew McCabe that are doing this. There's no chance, zero chance, that the Attorney General and FBI director don't know of something this high. These are are called politically sensitive investigations. The director always gets, as does the Attorney General, they get advised when there's a politically sensitive figure who's now under criminal investigation.

Now, we got to go get that evidence still. That's part of the paper trail. But the deputies are simply carrying out the duties, but there's very little chance that the principals don't already know. Okay, so we're not ready to give James Comey any credit whatsoever for the three field offices digging into Hillary Clinton,

and more than likely he was in on the plan to kill it. We don't have the evidence of it yet. We're just supposing at this point. But we do have the evidence that Sally Yates killed it. And the report seems to suggest, because this is a memo, this is a memo, John, that was written by a DOJ lawyer. And this lawyer seems to be whistleblowing

on exactly how this went down, saying like the FBI was looking into this and Sally Yates at DOJ were this whistleblower or this lawyer works, shut it down. Yeah, I'm not sure he's whistleblowing. This might actually have been an exercise of CYA, right, covering a little bit of a tale here because the lawyer is a DOJ lawyer who's been detailed to the FBI. So that happens a lot.

Agency people get moved between agencies. So he comes from the Justice Department. He's working for the FBI, and he writes this memo down so that everybody has their story straight about why the FBI took a dive on Hillary Clinton. And the goal here is to show, hey, the agents in the field were doing their job, but political pressure on top was coming in. But he says in writing the memo, this is where I was trying to take it, but he says in writing the memo that they've been told to shut it down by Sally Yates, but he seems to say without

explanation, like she didn't say, here's why. Yeah, I think when we get to the bottom of this, the goal here was to say the FBI was a victim here. The mean old Justice Department kept us from doing this. And so when you read it, you see what needed to be chronicled, which is, you know, normally when an FBI agent has a criminal predicated investigation, you go to your local U.S. Attorney, you get a grand jury started, you get subpoenas or search warrants, and you start finding out whether a crime should be prosecuted. What happens after the order from Sally Yates shut it down is the FBI goes and tries to get that normal cooperation. It happens every day, 30, 40 times a week, between FBI agents and their affiliated U.S. Attorney's Office, and they find a a common refrain, we can't help you. You have to go alone on this. Well, you can't go alone.

An FBI agent can't get a grand jury subpoena. Every U.S. Attorney's Office is following the direction of Sally AIDS and saying, we just can't help you. Sorry, we don't want to go there. Not going to happen. And then on top of that, their own boss, Andy McCabe, the number two official, is saying, no overt action unless I approve it. And that was very troubling to the FBI agents on the front lines.

why. Everybody knew by that time that Andy McCabe's wife had run for a Democrat, as a Democrat, for Virginia State Senate seat and had solicited financial help from Terry McCallough, the Virginia governor and the longtime protege of the Clintons, the former chief fundraiser of the Clintons. He's the guy that presided over the 1990s Asia fundraising scandal that left such a dark mark over the Clinton presidency. So they know this guy's conflicted. He's his wife. is beholden to the Democrats and to somebody that Hillary Clinton relies on to raise money. And more so, at the time Andy McCabe did that, it turns out the FBI had an open investigation against Terry McCullough.

So this is, the agents now are very suspicious. Why is Andy McCabe allowed to ride hurt on this when he has a conflict of interest? And why is the Justice Department not helping us when we, every time we go for a grand jury, we know we get our help. They knew the fix was in it. At some point, this lawyer is asked to put together a chronology so that there is a record of exactly who said what, when. And that's what this document represents. The interesting chronology shows that in March of 2016, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas informed the FBI's Little Rock investigators.

Again, as you point out, there are FBI investigations in Washington, D.C., in New York and in Little Rock, which is where the Clintons, of course, live for many years. Right. So it shows that in March of 16, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas informed the FBI's Little Rock investigators that then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered the federal prosecutors to shut it down, to quote, shut it down. This is new per your reporting in the Cash Patel release. So that's March of 2016 Little Rock FBI is being told to shut it down. Then we get to August of 2016. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York purportedly said that they would not support the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, according to this timeline. No explanation was given. That's August of 2016. In June of 2016, so in between the bad news to the Little Rock investigators that came in March, and the bad news unleashed by SDNY and EDNY in August of 2016. So in June of 16, was the Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, meeting on the tarmac. We covered that on Fox News.

It was such a big deal. Everyone knew something happened on board that airplane, where they just happened to meet. That was the story they wanted us to believe that the planes just happened to land at the same place, at the same time in Phoenix. And they claimed they did not discuss anything. and they didn't discuss any DOJ investigation, nothing. But they never had problems again after that, according to this timeline, John, with the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Yeah, you got it right. And listen, this is something I've been saying for a long time. And if you remember four years ago, five years ago, I was on Fox in helping people understand the Uranium One investigation. The uranium one investigation was one of the allegations that this set of corruption probes were predicated on, that a transaction was allowed to go American and North American-owned uranium was allowed to go to Rosatom and Vladimir Putin's uranium agency

around the time that large transfers of money went to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's State Department is one of the approval points in that thing. That's one of the predications that they were looking at at the time. And that detail was in the FBI's hands, but it wasn't in the public's hands yet. And there's a confidential human source that is assisting that part of the investigation. You'll see in the timeline, there's a mention of a CHS, confidential human source. So that's going on, and it's heating up. And I've always argued that I don't believe the TARMAC meeting could have been about the email investigation

because Hillary Clinton's lawyers knew by mid-June that the FBI was shutting down the email case, and it was going to be a recommendation of no prosecution. And they weren't worried about it anymore. I know that for certain as a reporter who was talking to Hillary Clinton's legal team. They knew in mid to late June that they were out of peril. We didn't know yet. We didn't know it to July 5th. But they knew.

They also knew that Little Rock was bubbling up on a corruption investigation. And I think the more likely thing that we all ought to be focusing on is did that come up in the meeting? Was there any mention of the foundation? And Chum was some of the concern about the emails on Hillary Clinton servers, not the classified information, but what might have been chronicled about what the secretary was dealing with that had relationships to donors at the Clinton Foundation?

I think that that is a very significant question that the FBI was trying to get to the bottom of and didn't. And I'm gonna remind you of one thing we learned from Tulsi. A few weeks ago, we learned that there are five thumb drives of evidence in the Hillary Clinton email investigation that were never looked at. That is the explosive annex that got released

with the help of Chuck Grassley, with the help of the president, at my request, I made the request to the president. No one has ever exploited what is on those five thumb drives. And we ought to now all be pressing to get that information. I've already filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Five thumb drives, maybe there's some evidence on those thumb drives that would relate

either to classified documents or to the, Clinton Foundation case. And I think that is a place now that if the Justice Department revives all of this information, that's a strong place that they're likely to start. I just can't get over the contrast. They raided Melania Trump's underwear drawer. They searched Baron Trump's personals down at Mar-a-Lago. They uncovered every stone in an effort to get Trump, this FBI, Biden's FBI, and DOJ, and actually did bring criminal charges against him the Democrats did in four different jurisdictions. But with this, at every turn, John, they worked to dismiss evidence to when they found it, simply looked the other way, when they

might have been getting close to indicting, been told no by the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General herself, not interested. It won't go, quote, too far. I mean, the double standard when it comes to a Clinton and a Biden on the one hand versus a man named Donald Trump on the other is shocking. And the dismissal of any evidence that downplayed their narrative on Putin's trying to help Trump, right? Like, they had so much telling them that is bullshit. He actually didn't care who won the election.

They worked so hard to dismiss the evidence that helped Trump and to play up the obvious false evidence like Christopher Steele dossier that would impugn Trump. But meanwhile, you've got three different FBI agents all drunk. toward the same conclusion, which is the sitting secretary of state is corrupt. She is doing pay to play. You can only get access to her as the secretary of state if you donate to her corrupt Clinton Foundation. And it gets shut down. It's the opposite. It's literally a 180 from what they did to Donald Trump. Yeah, listen, the way you opened your show, there's no better description of what the conspiracy is. It's a conspiracy to protect potential of Democrats from

potential criminal prosecution, and then to violate the civil liberties and privacy and reputations of innocent Republicans to create an alternate story to protect political interest, meaning what's going to happen in the election. That's what it is. It's not more complicated. I know people say, oh, a conspiracy case is going to be complicated. No, it's really not. We protected Democrats, and the cycle is Hillary has two problems.

Email, now corruption, we can prove that was active at the time. Biden's got corruption and taxes. And by the way, the first evidence of that comes in in March through May of 2016. And then 2019, it's Senator Biden a lot more. And so we impeached the president and we have the government actually creating stories that I think we will prove were false. And then in 21, they find Joe Biden's classified documents at UPenn office in Washington and his garage.

And they got to make Donald Trump look like he's the classified guy first before they can let the cat out of the bag that Joe Biden has the same. It's a wash, rinse, and repeat cycle. And in the course of that, two potential crimes are occurring. Obstruction of legitimate investigations. Those are overt acts of a conspiracy. And then the violation of innocent people's civil liberties to create a political ruse. That is where I believe the grand conspiracy case is headed.

I now believe that there are multiple grand juries that have begun work around this country in multiple jurisdictions outside of Washington where evidence is now being gathered. You do? You can report that or you have reason to believe that? Nope. I have confirmed witnesses who've had contact with the grand jury. So there are grand jurors in multiple locations. Some of those are in Virginia. I believe one is going to begin based on early discussions in Pennsylvania. There may be one in New York. And so the activity has begun. And the question now is, and those are probably not going to be the indicting locations. I think the more likely thing is you use multiple grand juries just to make it easy to

gather lots of information quickly. That's the way strike forces work, and then you keep working from there. But there are multiple locations where pieces of this are being looked at, and maybe the grand jurors don't even know it's a grand conspiracy, just looking at some of the overt acts in one of these chapters of this sad story. But that is going on, and I think it's going to be a process, right? It's going to be a six-month process. Why Pennsylvania?

I don't know the reason yet. I wish I knew. I don't know the reason. I mean, there's lots of it could be related to the 2020 election. Yeah, that's where my mind went. Yeah. Yeah. So we don't know yet.

I just know that certain witnesses have been contacted about acceptance of grand jury subpoenas and they're in different locations. So the process is beginning. But it's a long process. And we won't know a lot about if the Justice Department does the right thing, unlike the Obama and Biden Justice Department's that leaked anything, the grand jury process will be unbelievably secret and will be masks from it because that's the way the process is supposed to work.

In the meantime, we have an opportunity through the Freedom of Information Act and through our purchase as reporters to go out and try to get the story for the American people so they can understand why this is going on. The Democrats who didn't care about going after our president when it was the Republican are going to start crying, this is payback, this is retribution. We need Americans to understand it's not payback in retribution. There are legitimate legal questions here. I mean, all that comes to mind in response to that is, you know, as Socrates or Aristotle might have put it, suck it. I couldn't care less. Like, too bad. What they have done truly this, they must be punished. They must have skin in the game, real skin in the game, or they really will, A, just have gotten away with it. And B, do it again. A, couple of questions here. What, I agree with you that if there's a grand conspiracy case brought, it's not going to be in Pennsylvania. It's probably going to be down. in Florida, which, you know, we've had a lot of people kind of kick around and raise over and over in this context. The rate on Mar-a-Lago is part of this, which would give him jurisdiction down there, the odds of getting a better judge and a better jury much higher for Team Trump. But what are you

hearing when it comes to the possible, possible names who might potentially be looking at an indictment here? Yeah, the only thing I know for sure is that there are multiple referrals. The first referrals came from the House Intelligence Committee in 19 and 20. They've been secret all this time, but I have confirmed as many as a dozen people were referred at that moment in 19 and 20 in the aftermath of the Ukraine impeachment show and the Russia collusion unraveling. Then there are the ones from John Ratcliffe and they're the ones from Tulsi Gabbitt. We kind of know some of those names. John Brennan and Comey. People like that.

Yeah, those are there. And I wouldn't be surprised based on yesterday's release of. of some information, which was incremental, but important, you've got James Clapper. So it wouldn't be surprising if those names are there. They have said on television, they expect to be encountering the criminal justice system in some way, and they're lowering up.

So I think those are reasonable things. I think this starts much lower than the big names. And when you're rolling up the mob, you start with the capos and the street lieutenants. You don't go ride to the Godfather, right? You don't go to John Gotti right away. So they're gonna roll up people in the deep state and in these nonprofits and in some of these other places,

and then get them to testify upward until they get to the top. So the big guns are probably not going to face much consequent short term other than maybe a subpoena for the records. And I think that's, you know, if this is a traditional conspiracy case, like you presume the mob and the cartels, that's how they normally work. And I think the Justice Department is going back to the way it used to do things, and that should be comforting to us. Yeah. All right. I have another, it's related, but it's just so the audience can follow us along.

It's off. It's off the discussion of today's news. You mentioned the House intelligence report, this one that was done in 2020, that wound up in a safe at Langley. Now, I'm trying to understand, John, why it is that we didn't get to see this until just now, until it got declassified. And what I'm finding, because, you know, you got to go back and remember who was in charge. So Trump won in 16, and the Republicans won the House. So the Republicans had control of the House from 16, well, I mean, he took office in 17, but they, they get sworn in a little earlier. So the Republicans take office, fall of 16, through fall of 18, and then they lost control

of the House to the Democrats. So in that two-year period, while Trump was president, Devin Nunes was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he launched an investigation into how the Russia gate nonsense got generated. And he was a real hero. I mean, he's truly like an unsunding hero. I mean, he's kind of some Republicans know, but he really did get to the bottom of a lot of the nonsense. But he didn't release the report, that the House Intel report, that really, the one that we've been discussing that has all these new juicy nuggets in it, he didn't release it.

That investigation seems to have continued even once the Democrats took power in the House and Adam Schiff, then a congressman, took over as chairman of the committee. It continued going, and it wasn't completed until the fall of 2020 when the Democrats were still in control of the committee. So I don't understand why when it was finally done, it didn't get released. I can see why Adam Schiff didn't necessarily want to release it because it wasn't good for his side and the Russiagate stuff. But why wouldn't a Republican have leaked it? What I'm reading online is that it's the Republicans. who sent it to the CIA, and then the CIA didn't want to declassify it, and they put it in this safe at Langley? So why would the Republicans not have made sure this thing got leaked and made

public in 2020? Why did it go underground for five years with all these revelations in it? Because Republicans filed a law. This had highly classified information about sources and methods. Some of it is still redacted, even in the version that we got in the last couple of weeks. So they weren't willing to do an Adam shift, which is we'll just leave classified. information. They followed the law. I think they believe that their Republican president and his administration would get it out there. But the CIA under Gina Haspoe often wasn't very friendly to the Republican House Intelligence Oversight Committee. That's Trump's CIA director. Keep going. Yep. Recommended by Mike Pompeo. And I think when history looks back over time,

it is that intelligence apparatus under Gina Haspel that allowed some of the Ukraine things to go on that we now know to be bogus. It's that intelligence apparatus. that slowed down Devin Nunes until he was in the minority. And then once you're in the minority, the only way you can force it out is by a vote of the committee, you're going to lose that vote because you don't have enough members. So the system, that steel curtain, I used to cover football and, you know, I was a sports writer early in my career, and everybody remembers the great Pittsburgh Steelers defense. No one could get through that line.

They were called the Steel Curtain. Donald Trump faced a steel curtain. It was at the Justice Department. It was at the FBI. It was at the CIA. It was at the ODNI. And the secrets that could have exonerated him or informed the American people got trapped in that steel curtain until just a few short weeks ago. It is remarkable that they were able to keep things a secret for nine, six, seven, six years.

And by the way, we're not done seeing some crazy secrets exposed. There's going to be more troubling things ahead than anything we've talked about this week. Oh, my gosh. All right. Well, just clear your schedule every day at noon until this stops. one one not unrelated question to that to that question the senate intel committee and its report this is the democrats favorite thing to point to they say there is no scandal here whatsoever and you need look no further than at marco rubio's senate intelligence committee which they claim

verified all the things in that january intelligence community assessment it's not true they did not support that, like the key conclusions on collusion, et cetera, or Putin wanting to help Trump. But it did generally support what the ICA had found. And one thing all along we've been asking is why. And I've heard different answers from different, very smart people. What's your answer to that, John? So I saw this split as I was reporting. You know, I was breaking a lot of the early Russia collusion reversal stories, even before Devin's story, 18 report came out and I continued to be on Fox for a long time and that kind of every night we'd unravel it on one of the great shows. I met an unusual schism inside the Republican Party and that

schism on one side would be someone like Paul Ryan who wanted to believe that the FBI would never mislead Congress. And so for the longest time, Paul Ryan's like, John, I think you lost your marbles, dude. I think you're over the line here. Trust me, I'm getting the stuff you don't see and I'm like, Sarah, I'm getting the stuff you aren't seeing. And we, at some point, Right in the late summer, you could go check this, late summer of 2018, he gave me a statement saying, I was wrong. There is a problem here. We were misled and I'm pissed, and that was the first pivot moment.

The same sort of mindset, which is, you know, they're Republicans who want to believe that the institutions we used to trust and they could still trust. And so they were believing the briefings they get from an Andy McCabe, a Pete struck, and a bill pre-stap inside the FBI. Obviously those briefings were not nearly as complete as we would later learn. On the other side where the Devin Nunes is, which is, listen, I'm just a common sense guy. None of this makes sense.

I know what the FBI tells me in these classified briefings, and it doesn't make sense, and I'm just too curious not to find out the truth. And that schism played out. The largest group of institutionalists, the people who still wanted to believe the institutions would never mislead Congress were on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Marco Rubio wants to believe in institutions. I think he did. And certainly Bill Burr did.

And, you know, the Senator Burr was a huge critic of president. President Trump from North Carolina, and so he's the chairman for most of the time that report is Marco gets to release it because Burr leaves, but Marco's at the end of that process. And I think at the end of the day, all of those members look back and say, all right, I know what I wrote then, and I wrote it with what I was being told, but the truth of the matter is we weren't told a lot of things. I'd love to see what Marco Rubio would say about that report today. I think he has been one of the true truth tellers in the early Trump administration.

He's made big things happen. And if he believed in the institutions back then, look at what he's done to the State Department since he got in. He eviscerated a institution that had been completely corrupting the American public's expectations. And the State Department of USID are a little bit. That tells you something. Marco Rubio finally figured out the institutions were the problem, not the solution. And last question. Michael Schmidt, New York Times reporter, married to Nicole Wallace of MSNBC.

He was on her show yesterday. They did not disclose that they're married. I'm sorry, that is a serious problem. I mean, I've had my husband, Doug, on this show to promote his books. You know, his latest book was a big bestseller, it was nonfiction. Even in that context, I disclosed to the audience, this is my husband. The audience must know if you have a bias toward the person you're bringing on. They must know that it's absolutely irresponsible to have him on to discuss Russiagate,

a scandal in which he is caught up and have him opine on the scandal as an, objective reporter who's got arm's length from the whole controversy. This is extremely corrupt, but that's not what I might have wanted to ask you. She did ask him some questions about the Senate Intel Committee report. And actually, it was the day before on his podcast, the daily. Podcasts, that's right. Yes, his newspapers podcast, that he tried to dismiss that House Intel Committee report, John, by saying, it's done by a bunch of partisan hacks. It was all these Republican partisan hacks. And like, they're the out. liar, they differed from the Senate Intel Committee report, kind of like dismissing it,

like, what do you expect a bunch of MAGA faithful to write in assessing whether Trump was colluding with the Russians? Your thoughts on that? You know, I had a fascinating episode in the summer of 17. My office at that time, I was working at the Hill, and I was right near the New York Times Washington Bureau office. And I was going out to lunch. I was taking a couple interns who had done a good job, we were just going to get a sandwich and shop for a little bit. And I was walking down the street, and one of the New York Times reporters who I knew for a long time and respected, confronted me on the street and started screaming and yelling him. He literally was trying to get into fisticuffs with me, screaming that I was ruining

his reputation and that he did, you, I didn't understand who his sources were, and I was wrong about Russia collusion, and I was ruining his very, and he literally was almost to the point of punching me. And I told him, I seriously suggest you should just walk away now. Walk away, calm yourself down, don't make a fool of yourself in the middle of the street. And you're probably not going to hit me in the middle of the street because it's like 9,000 cameras. And he ran off still screaming at me. That passion I saw that day tells me something about the New York Times team that has done that reporting. And that is they're so emotionally invested in the stories that they wrote that they won Pulitzer's on that they can't separate themselves from the job of what the facts are.

You just can't fall in love with the story. That's one of the biggest dangers. It's the ultimate blinders that journalists get when they make a mistake. You have to always be a skeptic, even when it's a trusted source. And I think history will look back at the Washington Post and the New York Times, much like Jeff Guth has already done in the Columbia Journalism Review and said, good reporters, well-intentioned reporters, fell in love with the story and couldn't separate fact from fiction, couldn't see the motives of their sources.

We now know the motives of their sources. Why? Because that's what Daniel Richmond admitted to. What did he tell the FBI? I was trying to take care of James Comey's image and fix it, and I was trying to set future narratives. He was basically using the New York Times to accomplish the work he was being paid to do.

He had a motive. I think history will look back at these teams and say, no matter what the Pudster Committee says, because I don't think anyone cares about the Plesser Committee anymore, their award system doesn't mean anything to anyone. People say, John, you should get a Pudson. No, I don't want it. Don't give it to me.

I'll turn it back. I don't want it. But I think investigators, these investigative reporters fell in love with their sources in the storyline and couldn't see the facts from the fiction. And that is a problem that has existed in journalism for 10 or 15 years. Earlier generations of reporters have done great work at these institutions. They did do plitzer caliber work in the meeting we mean it by, but they got blinders. And I think when you see these defenses now, I mean, if you're still defending Russia

collusion now. You're beyond delusional and the American public has moved beyond you if you're trying to make some defense of it. The great journalists sometimes get it wrong. It's not a perfect profession. When you get it wrong, say so and move on. The other piece of it is, and I watched this happened to you, and I knew you back on the Fox News days and knew you to be a man of integrity and you're reporting to be very solid, but they tried and still try to paint you as a right-wing lunatic, some sort of a nut job, far-right, unreliable guy, because they have to, because either their right or your right, both cannot be true. And so they engage in the politics of personal destruction. You know, it has to be some fringy right-wing lunatic, right? And you've

told us the other day about your, you know, long background at the AP and the Washington Times and other respectable, well, previously at least respectable outlets. And it didn't matter because your narrative had to be squashed, and so did you. Yeah, I definitely encountered that. And, you know, to me it turned out to be a blessing because I left a fractured industry that was misleading the public, and I tried to go do something that maybe would help fix it. And I hope before I hang up my spurs one day, people say, hey, people like Megan and John and all the others who went out on their own and started to think they helped fix the problem.

They got the American people informed again. You said something that, and I think you nailed it. The dynamic is either you're right or I'm right. And that's the personal nature of it that these reporters have looked at. And I've always asked, are the facts right? That's all I care about. I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I just want to get the facts right.

And I know that's what you do. I look at how you prep for your show. I've seen it the last couple days. You are a quintessential reporter. You care about the facts. You want to know what's new, what's old, and the way you've interviewed me. That's just about being about the facts. Too many of these reporters have gotten invested in their personality.

When I grew up in the AP, you didn't get a byline, right? You were just by the Associated Press. So your personality didn't matter. Your work is what mattered, and that was a great culture to grow up in. I think reporters have to stop worrying about their personalities and their social media followings and their stardom and who's going to assign them to their next book. Prices. And get back to, yeah, prizes, yeah, exactly, prizes particularly.

And just get back to the facts. Am I right? Just the facts, ma'am, like they used to say I'm dragging it. Let's get back to facts. Facts matter. I'm so appreciative. I listen to your podcast a lot, and you just focus on the facts.

And I think journalism is best when it does that. And it's not about me and you, names, and stardom. It's about what the story told the American public and was it right. We've got to get back to it. That's the ultimate panacea. I'm not sure we can, but I'm sure it's how I'm going to try before I retired.

Yeah, amen to that. No, my team will tell you, I'm constantly saying, because obviously I'm a Trump supporter, and they know that. But I'm constantly saying when we do our editorial for this show, AM update, we are not in the business of running cover for Donald Trump. If the facts are bad for Trump, that's going into our report. That's coming into my research. We are not in the business

of running cover for him or any Republican or anyone whatsoever. We're in the fact business. And then I'll offer my own particular take on the news, which I think the audience understands the difference between. But I would never sacrifice my credibility for him or any other politician. And when you go down that line, there's no coming back from it, John, as you know. Well, listen, I'm so grateful for you're reporting your honesty and your commitment to truly intellectually stimulating interesting reporting no matter where it falls. God bless you. Now, back at you. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Well, I think we're going to see you soon. Based on how things are going, John Solomon, get used to him. He's going to see him a lot here on the MK show. All right,

we're back next with Stu Bergier, who is here for the remainder of the show. That cookie calling your name at 3 p.m. The midnight fridge raids the extra slice of pizza you swore you wouldn't eat. If you feel like your cravings control you, it is not just willpower. It could be your gut crying for help. That's why I want to tell you about Just Thrive probiotic and their digestive bitters. See, modern diets often lack essential bitters compounds that manage appetite hormones like GLP1, the same hormone in those expensive weight management shots. Just Thrives digestive bitters give you the power of 12 clinically proven herbs that help your body break down food efficiently while naturally supporting GLP1 production.

Controlled cravings, less bloat, steady energy, and comfortable digestion. Try Just Thrive Digestive Bitters and Just Thrive Probiotic too today at Justthrivehealth.com. And use CodeMagan for 20% off your first order. That's Justthrivehealth.com, code Megan. Your body will thank you. Amid President Trump's D.C. crime crackdown, an incident involving a subway sandwich is making news and has led to the arrest of a DOJ employee who's now been fired. Joining me now, Stu Berggear, he's host of Blaze TV's Stu Does America.

Stu, welcome back. Great to have you. Thank you, Megan. It's great to be here. I appreciate it. First of all, can you believe this crap with Solomon, what he's reporting, and like the day-to-day? I mean, the cover up, we knew, of course, that the Obama administration and the Biden administration ran cover for Hillary Clinton and had no interest in Clinton. Foundation corruption, which has been, yeah, the whole books have been written about it. But now we're getting really the details. Like three FBI field offices had investigations into it.

It was shut down by the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates under Loretta Lynch. I mean, the Andrew McCabe, too, like the number of people who are running cover for this woman we knew was corrupt. It's stomach turning. It really is. And I, you know, thank God we have people like John Solomon to. sort through it. I mean, I think it's tough for people. And Cash Patel and Tulsi to release it. To release it, you know. Yeah. And that's a huge piece of this as you covered toward the end of the

interview there that, you know, having people who, uh, and I think a lot of times we talk about, you know, people like me who just, you know, run my mouth on my opinions every single day. I try to do the best to bring out the truth, of course. But like I'm not a reporter like John is. I think at times conservatives have sort of abandoned that world thinking, well, you know, all these big institutional, you know, places like the New York Times. in the Washington Post and the L.A. Times, they don't even hire conservatives. They find out that you are even going to entertain the conservative perspective. You're going to lose your job. You're not going to get any of your Pulitzer's. You're not going to get any of those awards.

And so we sort of, for a while, it felt like almost abandoned that space. And I think John and several others, Peter Schweizer, I think, does a lot of this. I know you do it as well. People who actually care about journalism, people who care about the facts going into that space and saying, no, we're just going to be, we're just going to just be like dogs, attack dogs, going after this information and trying to find the truth and presenting in a way, as John does. He's not, he's not a hype machine. You know, I don't know what John's, his social media following is probably pretty good considering all the hard work he does, but he's not, you know, he's not trying to be explosive. He's not trying to set off fireworks. He's not doing engagement farming. Exactly. He's trying to give you,

I mean, just the news is his website. He's trying to give you the actual news. And it's incredibly valuable to have people like that on our side because, you know, I think, you know, for the most part, the people who have those jobs at these big institutions are on the left. Occasionally we'll see little blips of good reporting from those places, but to have somebody who's looking at this on something like this, not on Russia Gate, this is not something they would touch. And it really did cause serious damage. I mean, all this that was done to President Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, the fake collusion stuff really damaged his first. first term and undermined our entire foreign policy with and toward Russia.

Trump commented on that yesterday when he was at the Kennedy Center, which he is now calling the Trump Kennedy Center. Here he is on what Russiagate did to his first term, that one. I had to go through the Russia-Russia hoax, and it was actually, it was a strain on the relationship. I actually told them, I said, you know, they got this phony investigation going on. Russia, Russia, Russia, totally phony, created by Adam Schiff,

Shifty Schiff and Hillary Clinton and the whole group of them. And it made it very dangerous for our country because I was unable to really deal with Russia the way we should have been there. I'm looking at Pam because I hope something's going to be done about it. These people put our country at great danger.

It was all made up. It was a hoax. The Mueller report came out. They all hated me. They had 18 Trump haters. And they said, I did nothing wrong. They couldn't believe, They couldn't find anything after years of investigation.

It was all a hoax. It was a hoax created by the Democrats, but in particular, Schiff and Crooked Hillary, the whole group. And now we've learned all the stuff that's come out over the last two months is incredible through intelligence. And hopefully something's going to happen with it. These are people that put our country in danger, in real danger. Good point, right?

It's true. Danger. Yeah, I really did it. I mean, threw off our entire country's foreign policies. He outlined, I mean, and Adam Schiff is legitimately one of the worst people that we are aware of in public life. He is just, he's, you know, a cretan of a sort that is, you know, you don't normally, I don't know, I don't know anybody like him in my life. I mean, I know a lot of people, some people I like, some people I don't. I don't know anyone who acts like him, who would do the types of things that he does. Yeah, it's, it's borderline psychotic. And, you know, I look at the stuff, I don't know. I'm not as optimistic maybe as John is that we get to the end of this with arrests. I hope we do. I hope this stuff does get to the end. I know that it is a long process.

I'm actually very optimistic that people are going to be arrested now. Convicted? I don't know. Convicted, I guess, yeah. Yeah. But I do see that there is a, there's a bit of a charm when you go after somebody like this. You know, they went after Trump all these times. I was thinking about this the other day.

One of the ways they went after him after all these investigations was to go after him in the document scandal. That document scandal, that document scandal, led to Biden also being asked questions by Robert Hur, which wound up revealing to America. He was an elderly man with a poor memory as if we didn't know it ourselves, but many needed a little bit more on that front, which leads to, you know, him dropping out of the race and the 2024 election going the way it does. I don't know. Maybe there's a way that this all comes together and justice is finally done. I hope it's done through the legal system. But either way, they've certainly paid a price politically. And I think,

reputational. And they also say the process is the punishment, which was something we lamented when it was being done to Trump because there was nothing to punish him for. There is something to punish them for. And so if the process is as much punishment as we can get, I'll take it. Stu stays with us more after this break. So what do we think the effect of the sparring between President Donald Trump and the Fed is going to be? Can the Fed take the right action at the right time? Do we trust in that? Or are we going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown as they slow row. roll any of their moves as they worry about his tariffs. And what exactly does all of this mean for your savings? You might want to consider diversifying right about now with gold through Birch Gold Group. For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, global uncertainty, and high inflation. And Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold. If you have an IRA or old 401k, you can convert that into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold, or just buy some gold to keep it in you're safe. First, get educated. Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on

gold. Just text MK to the number 9-8-9-8-9-8. Again, text MK to 9-8-9-8, and you'll start the process of just getting the 401 on what it means to own gold. Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold, so if the Fed cannot stay ahead of the curve for the country, at least you can stay ahead of the curve or yourself. Do you have cooking and grilling anxiety? You know that moment of truth. When everyone sits down at the table and you brace yourself while they cut into their meal, will there be raw chicken drama? Did I just ruin $100 worth of steaks? I've been there. These are all so familiar. How bad does salmonella get? Yes, same. Well, that all changes with Chef IQ sense. This is a wireless cooking thermometer that turns you into a master chef. It works for all types of

cooking, grilling, pan searing, roasting for everything. You just insert the sensor into your steak chicken fish, whatever, you open Chef IQ, the app, and then you choose how you want to cook, rare, medium, well done, whatever your preference. Everyone can get what they want. Then you sit back and relax and it sends you real-time updates. It tells you when to flip, take it off, even how long to let it rest after it comes out of the oven. It's like having a culinary coach in your pocket, like a little mini Gordon Ramsey. No more guessing, no more lid lifting, no more dinner disasters. Chef IQ sense is precision cooking for everyone. You're going to wonder how you cooked without it. And right now, you can get 15% off sitewide with code mk at

chefiq.com. That's chefiq.com promo code mk. 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, podcasts, 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. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show. Today's show is brought to you by Grand Canyon University. GCU believes the American Dream starts. with purpose and can help you fulfill your sacred calling. Find your purpose. Visit gCU.edu. Back with me now, Stu Bergear, host of Stu Does America. In a little bit, Stu, we are going to be talking about Jussie Smollett, who is back in the news, more details for you and some sound

from him. He is trying to relitigate whether he perpetuated a hate crime hoax against himself. That case involved him claiming that he went to subway in the middle of the night and was attacked while holding his subway sandwich by two white guys wearing MAGA hats who called him racial epithets and then put a noose around his neck. That didn't happen. But there was an attack with a subway sandwich last night in D.C. And it was a white guy, we're now told, who worked at the Department of Justice until, this morning when he was fired by Pam Bondi, per Pam Bondi. She's told us that piece of it. But we saw this tape go viral on X with this guy behaving like a complete ass in the face of the federal law enforcement officers who are standing there, minding their own business,

just keeping an eye on things to make sure things are safe. For the listening audience, we're going to play it. You see the man jumping up, like just jumping like he's on a pogo stick in front of these cops. And then out of nowhere, he takes his subway sandwich and whip it at one of the officers. The man is wearing a pink polo shirt and tight little gray shorts. He whips it at the officer and then takes off. And now the officers chase him. And they did get him. And then we heard from Janine Piro, who is, look at the slow mo now. We've slow moed that he really whips it at him. It hits him in like the collarbone on the left side. And immediately they give chase. So then we hear from Janine Piro, who's,

Honestly, there's a new sheriff in town down there. Do not F with Judge Janine. Here's Janine weighing in on this. And the president's message to the criminals was, if you spit, we hit. Well, we didn't quite do that the other night when an individual went up to one of the federal law enforcement officers and started jumping up and down, screaming at him, berating him, yelling at him. And then he took a subway sandwich about this big. and took it and threw it at the officer. He thought it was funny.

Well, he doesn't think it's funny today because we charge it with a felony, assault on a police officer, and we're going to back the police to the hilt. So there, stick your subway sandwich somewhere else. By the way, not for nothing, but here's sound from the subway sandwich attack incident. You can hear the man calling the cops a fascist.

He's calling them fascist. Listen. They're what? You see these fascists right here. Fascists? Fuck you. Fuck you. Fatschists.

You're fucking way. You miss it? I feel it. The fucker. I love the guy videotaping. Oh! Oh! All right. I'm just going to go. I'm just going to go ahead and say it. The guy whipping the subway sandwich appears to me like he is on something. I like he's too animated. He's got too much energy. He's doing the whole knee bends, Stu. I mean, when you do the knee bend when you are genuinely mad. Like, you're just, you're bending the knees. Like you're fascist. You're fascist. You're fascist.

The knee band, you mean business. And now, unfortunately, for him, so does Judge Janine. Yeah. I have to say, look, it's, of course what he did is awfully, awful and wrong. I mean, the whole video is hilarious to watch, though. I have to admit, it's just an amazing video. No one was hurt. And this, you know, luckily, this guy in his career is hurt and his reputation is hurt as well.

and he may be going to prison for a while. And that's all really, really positive. Because when you act that way, that's exactly what should happen to you. That's a terrible way to act. And a ridiculous, ridiculous thing. The way he ran away, too, was very, he was really pacing himself as if he was going to run for like four or five miles there. I don't understand the approach. I don't understand the approach of these people, though.

These are law enforcement officials, and, you know, they're doing their job. Whether you like the job or not, they're doing it, they're doing it to the best of their ability. and they're trying to protect you in a city that is a horror show, frankly, and it has been for a really long time. They tried this whole thing of saying, oh, well, it's down by, crime is down by 35%. There's all sorts of problems with those numbers. I'm sure you covered all that. But like, down to what? You know, I think what Trump has tried to say here is that what you're trying to tell me is acceptable is not acceptable.

This is an emergency situation. It's just been a long brewing one. And despite the fact that it might be slightly better than 2023, the peak of the last 30 years, does not make me feel any better about it. And having someone like Gene Piro in charge is going to make a big difference. You know, when she was talking about in this role. Yeah, yeah. When she was talking about in this role, the media kept saying like the same thing they did, you know, with Pete Hegseth and Dan Bongino and so many others. Oh, well, Fox News personality gets this job.

How could they give this job to Fox News personality? Jeannie Piro is not just a Fox News personality. She became a Fox News personality because of her background in law enforcement. My uncle was a homicide detective who in Westchester County worked under a Jeannie Piero. Long before I had any idea who she was, he would praise her like nobody's business because of how what a great job she did, how tough she was on the job, how she didn't put up with nonsense. She cared about protecting the people of her community. And that is a, is something that I feel like we have lost in Washington, D.C. You know, I think we all realize that if you put enough police officers in these areas,

you know, something like 14% of the murders happens in a 10-block radius in Washington, D.C. You put a bunch of officers in that area. You're going to be able to stop a lot of that crime. What our government has been saying for a very long time about D.C. is we don't care enough. We don't care enough to do anything about it. And Donald Trump is stepping in and doing something. Piro's doing something. And whether that's just, you know, whether it's taking care of something really serious like, like, you know, a murder or an attempted murder with a subway sandwich with a,

you know, with a tuna delight, there has to be a line there. And I suppose a footlong is where that line's being drawn. She, um, Sheneen Piero is one of the first people I interviewed as an anchor. I was substitute anchor at Fox News. They hired me in 2004 and I didn't get to substitute anchor, I think, for another couple years. And I went up to New York and she was running for New York State Attorney General. And she came on and I interviewed her. She's just a badass. I mean, like, back then we talked about all the stuff she had done as Westchester County DA. It's just ridiculous that they want to diminish her. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a Fox News host. Obviously, that's what I believe. But it's, it's, she's so much more than that. I mean, truly, like,

I was a Fox News host anchor for many, many years, 14 plus years. And you know what? I had a career as a lawyer for almost 10 years prior to that. So many of us bring different things from our backgrounds into our hosting or anchoring abilities, Hegg Seth, Bongino, Piro, and yours truly among them. Here's what Pam Bondi wrote. If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. I just learned that this defendant worked at the DOJ. No longer. Not only is he fired, he's been charged with a felony. This is an example of the deep state we have been up against. for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ. You will not work in this administration

while disrespecting our government and law enforcement. I think she's really on to something there. This is an example of the deep state we've been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ. I know this is happening at FBI, at the Pentagon, and elsewhere in the government. They really are working against some of the leaders.

I think it's happening at FDA. Like the Trump administration is real, and he's assigned really, and nominated and had confirmed, really important department heads. But that doesn't mean that they can, with a magic wand, change these organizations, which in large part, and by the way, DNI, which in large part not only don't support them, but actively oppose them and are working against them. How do you think that guy was handling any directive whatsoever, is you? by Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche, that DOJ employee. Yeah, and we absolutely with certainty know that a lot of people inside of these organizations are working against Donald Trump, at least in the first term, mainly because they bragged about it to author after author after author in their tell-all books afterwards.

They wanted credit for it. They wanted to be greeted as heroes and liberators from Donald Trump. And, you know, this high thing really, it's a bizarre incident. And you're watching a guy throw a sandwich at another human being and then try to run away at medium pace. It's a fascinating thing. But what it really highlights when you think about it is how deep this issue is. It's not like they didn't come into office thinking about getting rid of people like this guy, right?

The Trump administration ran on saying what we're going to do is drain the swamp. That was the first term. And I think he's a lot more serious about it here in the second term. He really wanted to make sure they got rid of those people. He put people in charge who were. you know, attack dogs to make sure that they can go after the people who were doing this type of thing. And now we've gone through a whole period of Doge. We've gone through a whole period of widespread firing.

Yeah. They got rid of a lot of these people. And yet a guy who is so psychotic that he will bend his knees as he's screaming as hard as he can into the face of an officer and then, you know, throw a sandwich at his chest. That guy was still employed as of yesterday. Like he was still there. Have you ever thrown a sandwich in anger, Stu Bregere, ever? I never, only into my mouth, Megan. And that usually is more hunger than anything else.

Or like it's just depression or anxiety. You know, sometimes when my kids are playing tennis, like in a match, I stress eat. You know, I've got to have like a bag of potato chips. I don't know. I've stressed eaten with a sandwich before. I don't think I've ever stress felonized anyone. No, no. First of all, don't attack people with sandwiches.

Secondly, they're sandwiches. They're delicious. You don't want to get rid of them. You shouldn't waste them. Don't. I mean, that poor sandwich is now sitting on the ground. Luckily, it's D.C., about 400 rats ate it about 10 seconds after that video ended. So at least someone was spent.

Maybe is it just me. I love the color commentary. I kind of love the guy who's like, motherfucker. Yeah. It is amazing. I kind of want him to, I don't know, is there an opening at the NFL to just kind of call games on the sidelines. I kind of want to get his commentary on everything. I want him to walk us through. Exactly. Play by play. Like,

how did you know something was going down? What was your reaction inside when you saw the subway get thrown? Anyway, it was all great. It's a great story. This just in on the guy, his name, let's see, I can't see his name, but his last name is Dun, D-U-N-N. Sean Dunn. He is. He is done. He was an into, yeah, he is done. He was an International Affairs Specialist with the Office of International Affairs within the DOJ's Criminal Division, according to a Justice Department official, the office handles international extraditions, prisoner swaps, and other overseas operations. Well, he should be happy then

because President Trump has been doing a really great job getting not necessarily our prisoners back, but people being held hostage back. And if he's into prisoner swaps, he should be applauding him. Why is he so angry? I don't know. We'll surely find. find out why he thinks they're all fascists. Okay, let's move on. Hunter Biden may be soon in a litigation with Melania Trump. How's that for a headline? Hunter Biden gave this interview to this Channel 5 YouTuber, and in it, he claimed as follows on August 5th, Sot 8. Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are like so wide and deep. They knew each other well. They spent an enormous time together. According to his biographer, is that Jeffrey Epstein

introduced Melania. That's how Melania and the first lady and the president met. Really? Epstein made the intro. Yeah, according to Michael Wolfe. And so I only can go by what people are saying, and I don't know. Okay. So he was, he cites Epstein's biographer, who is Michael Wolfe for his information. And sure enough, Michael Wolfe, the month before, it was July, went on the the Daily Beast podcast and said the following sat nine you know she was very involved in the epstein in this epstein relationship i mean there is this model thing um but you know in epstein talks talks about you know and she's introduced by a model agent both of whom trump and epstein are involved with um she's introduced to to um uh to trump that way epstein knows her well

the first time Epstein says the first time Donald Trump and Melania have sex is on his airplane. So Melania Trump, through her lawyer, wrote Hunter Biden a nastygram, a legal nastygram that says, I'm going to sue you for a billion dollars unless you apologize for that. And it's retracted and removed. And that the error is acknowledged in as public a way. as the offense was committed to begin with, saying your source for your false statements was serial fabulous Michael Wolfe, whose lies were published by The Daily Beast in an article titled Melania Trump, very involved in an Epstein scandal. The Daily Beast, unfortunately for

Hunter Biden, issued an apology to Melania Trump and retracted the false and defamatory statements immediately thereafter, because clearly Melani's people had contacted them too. And so they did pull it said they were sorry and issued a retraction because they'd heard from milani directly it's not true and this is made up like a lot of things are by michael wolf um so now hunter biden's twisting in the wind because he's repeated the defamatory statement in a very public way on this youtube show and um the ball's in his court well he has responded went back to the same place and this interview was posted today? It was posted today. And here's what he said in SOT 7. Fuck that. That's not going to happen. I think they're trying to use other things to distract.

And I also think they're bullies. And they think that a billion dollars is going to scare me. Look at him. He's got all the confidence of a man who's been repeatedly protected by law enforcement his entire life. He's like, fuck that. No one can ever get me. I'm under Biden. I get pardoned. I get DOJs. running interference for me when the IRS has got me by the balls. I'm good. She can F off. So should she actually go ahead and file her lawsuit? I know I'm not asking you as a, you're not a lawyer. But do you think it would be smart for her to get involved in what will essentially be a political battle as well as a legal one? Yes. Yes. I will go to your punishment is the process argument from before process of the punishment. I do think that it is worth it. I mean, look, you know, nobody wants

their name in a headline with Jeffrey Epstein. It's not a good thing. So, I mean, it says a legitimately serious thing when you're taking somebody's, you're making an argument that I don't even think Michael Wolf actually made, by the way. I mean, Wolf did say, again, Wolf has his own battles with the truth as it has been well covered. But like, even his claim was that they first had sex on the plane. It wasn't even that they were introduced by Epstein. He even said in the podcast, he just said that, you know, they were all in a kind of an area where they were, you know, they were all running in those circles with models. And he was introduced to Melania through modeling agency. So it's not even clear that Hunter Biden's claim was accurate even to what Michael

Wolf said. Beyond that, it was broadcast on the Daily Beast. The fact that they retracted and apologized for something is maybe the biggest part of the story. Those people have absolutely no standards at all. I don't know that they've ever cared about a journalistic standard than their entire life. They must be scared of that lawsuit. I'll tell you that. No kidding. It's a fascinating thing to watch and to watch Hunter Biden come out.

You're right. He's an entitled person. He believes he's going to be, I mean, look, he was actually pardoned by the president of the United States. He has some reason to believe he's going to survive every single thing that comes his way. Can't be pardoned for future crimes. Exactly. Not pardon for future crimes and not pardon for civil lawsuits. There's all sorts of ways that this could wind up burning him.

And I think what's central to the Hunter Biden thing, look, Hunter Biden's gone through some tough years, okay? We all kind of are aware of this. The past 10 to 15 years have not been exactly a fun time to be Hunter Biden. Though he's had many, many parties in that time, they're not always resulting in fun. The one thing he has been praised for over the past 10 years has been this interview with this guy from Channel 5, Andrew Callahan. him. And he was praised by the left, the people that he wants to be praised by. He's, he could be the new Joe Rogan, Megan. Look at how he's just such a plain talker. He'll say anything.

I really do think this type, that reaction has incentivized him to go even farther. And you think about the way that, you know, the internet works, clicks work, and money works, and donations work, and attention works. All those incentives point one direction. Keep saying it. Go farther. You know, it's the Jasmine crocket theory. The dumber and louder you are, the more attention that you get. And I think Hunter's falling into this. And when Donald Trump's on the other side of that and, you know, his wife, who he's going to defend, and a billion dollar lawsuit, I think this is a terrible mistake from a guy who's made many of them. And it's knowable how they met. I mean, Malani Trump wrote a memoir in her self-titled book back in 2024, and she wrote as follows, that she met Trump at a September

1998 fashion week party at the Kit Kat Club in New York City. Quote, I saw my friend wave at someone behind me. When I turned around, I noticed a man and an attractive blonde woman approaching us. Hi, I'm Donald Trump, the man said, when he reached my table. From the moment our conversation began, I was captivated by his charm and easygoing nature, she wrote, noting that their back and forth was a, quote, refreshing departure from the usual superficial small talk and made her feel like, quote, the center of his world. I found myself drawn to his magnate. energetic energy, and then he called me a 10. No, I made up that last line. That didn't happen. I would have totally believed that, I will say. I would have believed it. But that's the story. It's

not Epstein introduced them. It's not Epstein, whatever. So we'll see balls in her court now, and it's very, very hard for a public figure to recover for defamation, which is not a crime. It's a civil tour that you would sue for. But we'll see because public figures, if they sue for defamation have to be subjected to a deposition themselves. She will be cross-examined by Hunter Biden's lawyers. But she may be prepared to do all of that because just to make a point that you can't lie about her with impunity. And you certainly can't bring Jeffrey Epstein anywhere close to somebody like that and not expect them to rattle your cage a bit. So we shall see. I'm interested to see how it goes. Now, Hunter Biden in his first interview with this guy on Channel 5,

He sold the use of crack so ardently and in such a heartfelt way that it actually helped me understand how he got his dead brother's widow hooked on crack. This man is a true believer in crack. He loves it like a person loves their children. He's a huge believer in crack, almost as big a believer as Donald Trump is in grass. Not that kind of grass, actual green grass like you might. might find on a golf course. And here is why I say that. We're going to be redoing the parks, redoing the grass. You know, grass is a lifetime like people have a lifetime. And the lifetime of this grass has long been gone. When you look at

the parks where the grass is all tired, exhausted, we're going to redo the grass with the finest grasses. I know a lot about grass because I own a lot of golf courses. And if you don't have good grass. You're not in business very long. It's not amazing. Talk about attention to detail, Stu Berger. He's worried about the grass in the nation's capital, in the parks, because it doesn't look good. And our national capital doesn't look good. And it's all part of his re-butification project, getting rid of the homeless, doing something about the sanitation issues, cleaning up the crime, and right down to the blades of grass looking past their time and Donald Trump is sitting

president of the United States doing something about it. I applaud it all. Yeah, you know, I mean, it's funny because people will mock him on this. They go after him for all sorts of these types of efforts. This ties directly into what he's doing in D.C., right? This is not just because, you know, there were some violent attacks. He looks at D.C. as an embarrassment. You know, he's the leader of the free world here. He's got world leaders coming in from all over the place and they're coming to this to this town and none of them are allowed to walk around in in the middle of the night. I mean, honestly, past dusk, it gets a little risky in a lot of areas. This is part of his, you know, beautification, I think, is part of it. But like, it is, and that's the

way he talks about it. Of course, he's talking about, you know, things being beautiful, the most beautiful things you've ever seen. But it also ties into what he's doing with this ball. The best grass. We've got the best grass. It goes into what he's doing with the ballroom inside the White House as well. this is something he is looking at this not from his own perspective yes Donald Trump loves gold things yes Donald Trump I'm sure loves you know nice green grass at his golf resorts but he's thinking about this is when he's got foreign dignitaries coming in and he needs to be able to present something from the United States that is a position of power it is a position of negotiation he knows those things matter not to him but to the people he's talking about

talking to. He knows those things matter. When, when foreign, you know, presidents come in and foreign leaders come in and they see DC as, you know, the cesspool in certain areas that it is, it's not only embarrassing, but it's also something that makes us look weak. And Donald Trump, I think, correctly identifies the fact that you have to be able to present American power in these arrangements. You have to, you know, having gold, you know, palaces is, yes, it's, you know, for a foreign, you know, king or something is something that certainly coddles their life very nicely. But it's more than that. It sends a signal of power. And it is something that you need. It's not, you know, I, as an American, I love the charm that we are led by citizens.

I love the charm of us being, you know, having a president has limited limits in his power. I mean, I remember Trump talking about this earlier in his first term, when people would be like, well, why don't you just do that. And our Constitution says he can't, right? We have those limitations. And as American, I really, really respect them and love that we have always had those traditions. But when you're talking to a foreign leader, you have to be able to communicate in their language. He did that with Kim Jong-un. He's done that all over the world. That's an important thing that he takes seriously. And part of that is making D.C. seem like a place that anyone on earth would want to visit outside of the mall during the day. That's so true. I think back to when I was at Jones Day,

a big law firm practicing law. And I was in their Chicago office for a time in their D.C. office. And you'd walk into that office, both of them, both of the, and I was in the New York office, too. I was all over with for them. But you walk into their offices and like, it's like marble and glass and like the, the big thing, like on the floor showing where all their offices are across the world, you know, London and Riyadh and wherever. And it's just a whole, and there's war halls hanging on the, the office walls. in the lobby. And it's all part of a presentation to welcome clients like this is the level of service you're going to get here. Nothing will be phoned in. It will be first class beginning to end.

And Trump's trying to do that to the nation's capital as the seat of power as where all these other foreign officials come and meet with him. He wants it. I mean, he wants it to be like a Trump golf course. He wants it to be like Mar-a-Lago where it's extravagant and luxurious and at a minimum absolutely beautiful and pristine and clean. So I applaud it. I think it makes perfect sense. He's still taking a lot of flack for it. My only question is, and my husband and I were talking about this this morning, who's next? Let's do New York next. We certainly aren't going to get it cleaned up under Mom Donnie. Let's do Chicago, which used to be so clean and now is disgusting. Let's do Oakland. Let's do Baltimore. Let's do any, but you know, you're not allowed to do it

to any other city that has a black mayor because the left has said, oh, these are all towns run by black mayors, and that's racist, to try to stop them from getting killed. Towns that have a heavy black population or a black mayor, they should suffer the crime. That's what's not racist. Let them get killed. Let them get robbed. If you say anything about their mayor, allowing them to be killed and robbed, it's racist. So the Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, who's an absolute incompetent fool, weighs in on Tuesday on whether Trump's cleanup squad is coming soon to him. And here's what he said. What do you say to Donald Trump, how did you feel when Donald Trump called you an accountant?

He just addressed this. Thanks. Please answer that question. Okay, fine, since you are begging, I do believe that Donald Trump is intimidated. I know, I think, no interruptions. So let me just answer that. I do appreciate you begging. So I would just say it like this, that the president has always been intimidated by the intellectual prowess of black men. And so, of course, he would speak in those petite and puerile terms because he's small. Got it. He is intimidated by the intellectual prowess of black men. That's why he wants to stop crime in cities like D.C. and Chicago. And why he called Brandon Johnson, incompetence do.

I mean, it's just so absolutely ridiculous. And we know it's ridiculous. It's been, like, if you go back to pre-apprentice, right, you go back to the days when Donald Trump was just a really famous real estate developer in New York, go back to those days and see what his comments were about New York City back then. He was worried about these things way back then. and has been consistently worried about crime in cities his entire public life. This is not a person who came in like Mom Donnie, who nobody had heard of six months ago.

This is someone who has been one of the most famous people in the United States for half a century. We have really aware of what the guy has said on record. And he has been focused on crime in the city for a really long time. And the fact that it's treated as racism to try to implement some sort of order in a majority. African-American city is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard in my life. I mean, one of the things we all have to admit about what's happened over the past week or so here with the D.C. situation is that Donald Trump seems to be the first person in a long time who's really cared about any of these people in the city. Like, we've had a lot

of people who have, there have been a lot of mayors, a lot of, I mean, a lot of, I mean, I don't know, maybe Marion Barry was the person who initially introduced Hunter Biden to crack. I'm not sure, people who really, really enjoyed substances. He cared about crime, committing it often in hotel rooms. But like, you know, that stat that I was talking about before really hit me this week as it was going through all this D.C. stuff. A 10-block area is responsible for 14% of the murders in that city. It's impossible to understand how this has not been addressed before, right?

What happens is the cops just stop going there? That's what happened in Chicago. The cops do not go in the south side of Chicago. They let the gang members kill each other. And if you're not a gang member, you're exposed, right? You have no posse to have your back. And kids get killed, drive-by shootings on their porches, in their homes, at the community center, those who help them get shot. It's like most cops in these terrible, terrible areas have washed their hands of it.

And Trump is actually looking at it saying, no, I'm actually going to send somebody in there. And by the way, what we're hearing from black business owners in D.C. and elsewhere is right on. Do this. Here's one black business owner who reacted to this narrative from the media. Crime is down. Crime is down. D.C. is down. D.C. is, you know, some sort of Eden. Sophor. And the city keeps saying crime is down. But do you feel safe? No, I don't think the crime is down. Crime is off. In D.C.? I don't told that lie. total lie so you have an indian person and a black person saying total lie everybody knows it this is what so what one of the really fascinating things about this back and forth is the media and the left have a certain um i believe they think it's a constitutional duty to just say the opposite of whatever donald trump is saying so they are reactionary in that way

um in in this particular situation what don't trump is saying is that crime is bad in dc so they're forced to come up with some justification to say, no, it's not. Actually, this is Disneyland. And that is, Donald Trump is really good at this. He's really good at putting people in positions that they should not be defending. Yes. There's no, any person with eyes or nostrils, for that example, because a lot of the city smells, too, anybody who goes into Washington, D.C., knows that with the exception of very public areas where a bunch of

of our representatives live, and the mall and certain monuments. It is a really tough city. A lot of bad things happen. Everybody with eyes knows it, and he's put them in a position to say, you know, the exact opposite of what everyone sees and knows. And they are just dumb enough to do it, right? They're just dumb enough to come out there and say, actually, everything's great here, and he's the one that's lying.

So now here's the related controversy. We announced this when he did. it back in, it was at the end of March, I think, where Trump issued an executive order saying we are going to take a hard look at the Smithsonian, which is several different museums and several different buildings and the museums in Washington, D.C., and we are going to cleanse them of their obsession with hatred for America. That doesn't mean we're getting rid of anything that speaks to some of the stains on our history, like the museums that were, the pieces of the museums that talk about slavery or the civil rights movement and the conditions that led to it,

that doesn't mean that at all. It's, if you go into these museums, there is a general infection by DEI. And I can speak to this personally because I went with my family in April of 2023 and came back on the air and talked about it as soon as it happened. Like, what's going on? This was right around the time where they added the trigger warning. If you want to, wanted to look at the national archive documents like our declaration and our Constitution, you had to get a trigger warning because, you know, they're obviously in the Constitution. We didn't treat blacks as full citizens when we first were born, and that was rectified later. Anyway, so during that madness that the country was suffering, it infected our museums.

And Trump issued this executive order, and they're now getting around to actually doing it, to going into the museums, taking a look at these exhibits, and try and clean them up. And there's going to be interviews by Trump administration officials with all the curators of these museums. And they don't like it still. They don't like that he took over the Kennedy Center and tried to de-wokify it, the awards that are now being given there. You cannot get if you're woke. Trump said that personally. And at the Smithsonian and the other museums, we are not going to let you de-I our history and re-examine every bit of it through your woke lens. It's just not going to happen. So there was an extraordinary

Exchange on CNN last night, or Abby Phillip, who never misses a chance to bash the country's race relations and is part of the problem in creating bad ones, had she jumped all over Jillian Michaels, who it's been fun to watch it. I love Gilliam. She's coming out of her, like, liberal bubble. And her journey is not yet complete, but she's kind of, she's, over the past few years, she's really started to get it. Like, wait a minute, I think I've been really misled by my side. And she's getting red-pilled, like, by the day. She's awesome. I love her. So she's on CNN on that panel, and she tries to defend what Trump's doing at the Smithsonian, and she's noticed, too, what I was just saying. And here's how that went. We're now literally reviewing parts of American history and parts of American culture to make sure it comports with dear leader and with another. Can we address some of those things that are in there? Because have you looked at some of the things that are being reviewed? Yeah, slavery was a bad thing that was to talk about. Okay. He's not. He's not. He's not. No. Okay. He's not. And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does. Do you realize it only less than 2% of

white Americans own slaves? But it was a system of white supremacy. Do you realize that slavery is thousands of the years old? Do you know who was the first race to try the end? What are you saying is incorrect by saying that it was white people oppressing black people? Every single thing is like, oh no, no, no, this is always. because white people bad and that's just not the truth there's one called change your game has been an installation there is gender testing fair in sports does that and then it goes on to talk about how it's complex to do gender testing in sports it's not complex it's basic science it's it's been completely captured first of all i i don't think we don't first of all we don't

have time to litigate all of this. Of course we don't, because then you're going to lose the argument. And everything is racialized, just like you're trying to do to me now. Good for her. Thoughts on it? Yes. That was awesome. Yeah, that's, I mean, it's, it's a complicated picture when it comes to, um, trying to

just blame slavery on one race. It's just not true. I mean, like slavery has existed since the beginning of man and it's a really terrible thing. We all recognize it's a real stain on our history. It is something that we should cover. That's a really, really important thing that people understand about our country, largely because, number one, we were one of the very first to rip ourselves out of that whole situation. Thankfully, you know, we help to lead the world to end slavery.

Yeah, right. And that's something to be proud of. And, you know, when you do something that is a stain on your history, correcting that stain is something that's really. really important and also part of your history. Also part of your history is, for example, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. There's a copy of it right across the parking lot from where I'm sitting at the Mercury One Museum, where they go deep into trying to end slavery before this nation even started. It was something that was a high priority of Thomas Jefferson, of people who, at the very beginning of our nation, look to try to end it.

There was some opposition. They wound up going in a situation to keep the original colonies together, you know, and eventually with a real, by the way, line to end it as soon as possible, which they eventually did. You know, I think it is, you don't look at slavery and say, oh, well, we should justify it. It wasn't that bad. It was horrible. It's one of the worst things that people do to other people, and they continue to do it to other people all over the world right now. It's still occurring. So this museum has become exactly. what she was describing there. It becomes this bizarre, sort of woke, left-wing self-punishment where you go in there and just think about how bad you are, when in reality we are the greatest

nation that's ever been. There's no apology for that. The same thing that happens with capitalism, where we sit here and we say, oh, well, there's this problem with capitalism and there's this problem. Of course there are problems with everything. We can sit here and look at the problems of capitalism and try to make it better, but we should also acknowledge it's ripped billions of people out of poverty around the world. It's one of the greatest things that humans have ever accomplished. It's happened with in our lifetime and nobody notices because we're complaining about, you know, what statue is in some park in Alabama. None of this, it doesn't make any sense the way that we handle these things. And I think what we should do is look at them

with perspective. Recognize that we've made mistakes, try to use those as examples of things to avoid forever, and learn the lesson of those things. And Megan, one of the central lessons of slavery is we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin. And for the last, you know, certainly since the George Floyd situation in prominence, the left has tried to recreate a situation in which that's the way we run our society. Everybody looks at each other and says, what skin color are you, okay, now we can judge what you can do, what colleges you can get into, what jobs you can get. That was the sort of thing we were supposed to be running away from.

They're trying to push us back. And I do think, at least since, I don't know, 20, 23 or so, we've made great progress moving the opposite direction. But there is still a lot of work to do as that clip shows. No, it's amazing. Like, we went down, as I said, and we went to a bunch of the museums. And what you get over and over again is like, okay, you know, they lean in. They want to spend all the time on slavery and Jim Crow.

Like, it's, there's an emphasis on the worst pieces of our past. It's like they get off on it. And then conversely, you see, like, a huge celebration everywhere you go of, like, women who did this. You know, like, women, women who flew. Women, it's like, that's, okay. We get it. There were some women who did some great things, and that's awesome. I have nothing against women.

But let's be honest, that's not the dominant story when we're talking about our country's history and flight. You know, there are a couple who stood out. We get it. Amelia Earhart and some others. But, like, that's not the story, but you wouldn't know that. You know, like, you go down and, like, you've always got to be told what black person did something, what woman did something, what gay person did something. It's like, can we just know what, can we have the bigger picture, please? Can we have, like, the story and maybe like a corner is devoted to what some minority participated in or how they contributed and try not to make the whole story about that because you feel the need to elevate or to center the conversation around some oppressed group.

That's what the Smithsonian has done. And I really hope that Trump and his team take a hard look at it and do what they say they're going to do because it's unnecessary. And it's pandering and it feels cheap and false. All right. Let's keep going. We'll let's keep going. I want to talk about Justy Smolett because I said I would and it's such a good story. So he is resurfacing stew, not content to have suffered utter humiliation on a national scale.

And I told the audience this a week ago when we did along Kelly's Court on what's about to happen. Netflix is coming out with a new, quote, documentary, which is more like a mockumentary. It's not a documentary. This sounds like utter bullshit what they're about to do, trying to rehabilitate Jussie Smollett. They say they're just going to reframe the story in a way that you can decide what's real. Okay, we've decided. We know. He was prosecuted criminally.

What he claims is that there's a videotape. We've never seen before, Stu. that's going to show that he was telling the truth all along and that he actually discussed said videotape on the eve of his trial with his lawyers. But his lawyer said, oh, you know, we've kind of already settled on our defense. We're not going to use that videotape.

Okay. So they let him be tried and convicted, even though they had a silver bullet of a videotape showing he was telling the truth. So now he's out there again and he's making these claims publicly. Hold on. Let me just pull what he is saying. So you can have the very, very latest. This is the headline in Variety. He slams Chicago PD. Rom Emanuel, who was the mayor of Chicago at the time, as villains while denying that he committed a hate crime hoax and mounting a comeback. My story, he says, has never changed.

Smelet names his quote, villains as, the two people who assaulted me. Do you mean the two men you? paid to assault you, the Osandario brothers, Jussie, the Chicago Police Department, and if I may be so brave, the mayor, he says. He goes on to say, stand by, flipping the page here. Okay, this is from the Netflix documentary. He, when asked why this potentially exculpatory evidence did not surface earlier, quote, to be honest with you, I don't really know. I'm not an investigative reporter or a detective. I can't sit and tell you exactly beat by beat what happened. I can only tell you what did not happen. And what did not happen is the story that's been out there for almost seven years. That somehow I would have even a reason to do something as egregious as this. Now, here is what actually happened, per the two brothers who have gone on record with law enforcement and with the rest of the world as having been paid.

$3,500 by Jesse Smollett to attack him in this hoax. They're on record. Here they are in a Fox Nation documentary, which is a true documentary, and literally one of the greatest things to ever hit the screen. Here it is. We made sure we got there at 2 a.m. sharp. On a dot. We had no phones because he did not want us to bring any phones. He said, so we don't lose them.

I don't know if that's really the reason. We waited here for about, what? Four minutes. It was about four minutes. But it felt like forever. Because it was cold as balls. As we crossed the street, we said, Hey, to get his attention.

Hey, Nick. Hey, he turned around, looked at us, and that's when we started yelling the famous slurs he wanted us to yell. Hey, aren't you that empire in this? It's maga country. And then he said, what did you say to me? And then that's when I was when

I threw the first punch at him. I held the blow, because I didn't want to hurt him, of course. So I made it look real, but I held it. Then we started tussling, moving around, and then I threw him to the ground. He wanted it to look like he fought back. That was very important for him, because he said, hey, don't just beat my ass, make it look like I'm fighting back and whatnot. So we did that.

Long conversations. And while after I threw him to the ground, he had no. bruise. I wanted it to look more real. So then I threw him to the ground. After I threw him to the ground, I used my knuckle and gave him a nuggie. That's where I came around with the bleak, the infamous bleach in the hot sauce bottle, poured it on his shirt. Then I finally put the rope around his face. I did not put it around his neck. I just placed it on his face. And that's when we- So, Stubergear, why is Netflix allowing this nonsense? I don't know. First of all, how have I never seen that special before. I have to go back and watch this. It's incredible. Yeah, I mean,

look, it wasn't just these guys were, too, right? Like, there was a lot of evidence in this case that showed this is what happened. Yeah, like, why is he, why would he be writing a check to his own attackers? It's very, very strange. And why would he be out having a Subway sandwich in the middle of the very cold night at two in the morning? Who knows? I suppose Subway, you know, they've got an attack on an officer. They've got the Justive-Sumlet thing coming back. I suppose Subway is saying, at least they're not talking about Jared anymore. We at least have that going for us. Let's not forget they're the most infamous crime associated with anybody touching Subway.

We don't want to go there. Stubergear, I can't wait for the documentary to come out because I'm sure we're going to have a lot to say, as we have with you today. Thank you, my friend, for being here. Thank you so much, Megan. All right, we're back tomorrow with a deep dive on the truth on Russia Gate. We are taking on the New York Times directly. See you then.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS. No Agenda. and no fear.