The Megyn Kelly Show - DOJ Targets Religious Americans, and NYC Paying BLM Protesters, with Sen. Josh Hawley, Karol Markowicz, and Bethany Mandel | Ep. 504

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by U.S. Senator Josh Hawley to talk about Attorney General Merrick Garland targeting religious Americans, Hawley's fiery exchange with Garland yesterday, the lasting effect of allowing for the protests at the Supreme Court justices' homes, shutting down speech, FBI potentially targeting parents at school board meetings, the Justice Department's clear double standards, the new National Archivist even being outed as a liberal partisan, and more. Then journalists Karol Markowicz and Bethany Mandel join to discuss New York City paying BLM protesters, New York City on the decline, the sexualized content targeting our young kids, an update on the Canadian teacher wearing the enormous fake breasts, latest on trans sports, putting the feelings of biological men over biological women, and more. Finally, lawyer Peter Tragos joins to discuss the the closing messages from the prosecution and defense in the Alex Murdaugh trial.Sen. Hawley - https://www.hawley.senate.govMarkowicz/Mandel - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1956007083/Tragos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxAHSAOfe4wZozc2jYK9NAw Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. The U.S. Senate voting unanimously last night. How often do you hear that? To declassify information on the origins of covid-19 praise jesus is it so hard uh they've been trying to get this through josh hawley uh u.s senator has been trying to get this through for a while now it finally happened unanimously uh they did it once before believe it or not the u.s senate and the democrat controlled house at the time wouldn't do anything about it. Well, now it's a Republican controlled House. So will they? Will Joe Biden approve this? Isn't it about time? That plus Attorney General Merrick Garland takes the hot seat,

answering questions on a number of topics, including about what Republicans view as the weaponization of the Justice Department under his control. My first guest is the man I just mentioned. He's at the center of both of those stories. Joining me now, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, U.S. Senator from the great state of Missouri. Great to see you, sir. Thanks for coming on. Thank you for having me, Megan. Let's start in reverse order because what happened with Merrick Garland yesterday before the U.S. Senate was really extraordinary on a number of topics. You, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, as I saw leading the way on really trying to hold him to account. So for the viewers

who didn't get to watch it, what was the main goal in having him there? And what was the main thing you were interested in? Well, the main thing I'm interested in was how about the fact that we have people being executed on the streets of our cities, Megan, gang style, and that includes in my home state of Missouri in St. Louis. There's video that I bet many of your audience have seen from earlier this week where you have a homeless man who has a gun put to his head, to the back of his head, and he is executed on live camera. People passers-by on the street film it, and here's a criminal, broad daylight. It's like noon, broad daylight. The criminal puts a gun to his head, shoots him. That's what's happening on the street, film it. And here's a criminal, broad daylight. You know, it's like noon, broad daylight. The criminal puts a gun to his head, shoots him. That's what's happening on the streets of St. Louis and Kansas City.

We had more cops assaulted this week. What is the Justice Department doing about the crime wave all across our country, in our schools, in our neighborhoods? The answer is nothing. What are their priorities instead? Their priorities appear to be going after pro-life demonstrators, sending SWAT teams to their homes, and oh yeah, sending informants, recruiting informants in our churches, Catholic parishes and other churches across the country. I asked Garland about all of this. The bottom line is this is a Justice Department that views criminals as

people to be coddled, that views churchgoers as people to be spied upon. You talk about having your priorities backwards. They've got them totally upside down. The little later in the show, we're going to get to the fact that New York City has just decided to pay out with taxpayer funding millions of dollars to BLM protesters who tore apart our city a couple of years ago. Now we're going to pay them. We're going to be, they went out there trying to instigate trouble. Trouble came their way. And now we, the law abiding citizens are going to have to pay out to them. I mean, that's absolute lunacy. And you've got at the same time, our mayor, Scott Adams, finally going up to Albany and, and saying, sorry, Eric Adams and saying, um, you, you, we need to fund the police. We need to take crime seriously. And when we don't, you know who suffers? Poor people. Poor people suffer. And just saying the

poor commit crimes and we shouldn't prosecute crimes hurts the poor. A, it's a lie. The poor don't commit crimes. And B, it hurts the poor. That is in the wake of Lori Lightfoot getting fired. Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago. So it's all connected, Senator, on the crime issue, right? We reward the BLM protesters. Finally, the New York City mayor, who's a former cop, is saying, we've been doing this wrong. I'm sure he's seen what happened to Lori Lightfoot. And so the question is, will the Democrats listen?

Because the Republicans have been turned on to this for a while. Will the Democrats listen? I don't know that they will. I will say that Merrick Garland tried to insist yesterday, Megan, that he's doing everything he can to combat crime. This is simply not true, though. And to your point about the BLM protesters, look at what the Justice Department has done. The Justice Department has gone into court and has filed motions asking for lenient sentences or no sentences for rioters who torched buildings, who assaulted cops. I mean, you talk about, again, misplaced priorities.

They're asking for those folks to get off easy or not to be charged at all, not to be sentenced at all. Meanwhile, they're out here knocking down the door, beating down the door of pro-life demonstrators. And I'm not making this up. And yesterday I asked Garland about the 25 to 30 SWAT agents, FBI SWAT agents, who were sent to the home of this gentleman. Let me interrupt you, Senator, so we can play it.

I'll show the audience the moment you're referring to and then you can pick it up on the back side. Are you telling me that in your opinion as Attorney General, it was objectively necessary

to use 20 or 30 SWAT-style agents with long guns and ballistic shields for these people? What I'm saying is that decisions about how to go about this were made on the ground by FBI agents. So you're saying you don't know? I'm saying what I just said. Which is that you're abdicating responsibility? I'm not abdicating responsibility. Then give me the answer. Philadelphia District Attorney declines to prosecute.

The private suit's dismissed. You use an unbelievable show of force with guns that I just note liberals usually decry. We're supposed to hate long guns and assault-style weapons. You're happy to deploy them against Catholics and innocent children. Happy to. And then you haul them into court and a jury acquits him in one hour. That was a pro-life protester that he threw the book at after the Philadelphia authorities decided he didn't do anything. Let's move on.

It was like some minor altercation outside of an abortion clinic. This guy was a pro-life protester and his son had been harassed by a 72-year-old guy. They got into a scuffle. And again, the Philadelphia authorities were like, this is a nothing. No one was hurt, move on. And then Merrick Garland said, oh no, 30 SWAT officers or some sort of officers at that guy's door.

And this is after Megan, the same protester, Mark Houck, after he said, listen, if you're going to arrest me, which is outrageous, but if you're going to arrest me, I'll turn myself in. He offered to turn himself in.

And what did the Justice Department do? They sent to his home in the early morning hours. He has seven children in the early morning hours when the kids are not yet at school. They're still all in the house. He sends 30 SWAT officers there with their guns pounding on the door demanding that came out. The mother has talked about this. His wife, Mrs. Howe, has said the children were, of course, terrified. And Megan, that's the point. It was meant to be terrifying. It was meant to be terrifying. It was meant to strike fear into the hearts of pro-life demonstrators, of conservatives, of Catholics, of Christians everywhere.

They're trying to send a message, which is don't cross the government. Don't cross the Biden administration. If you disagree with us, you keep your mouth shut. Contrast that to what they're doing with the BLM and Antifa protesters. It's just sickening, Megan, and it's got to stop. And that's why there needs to be accountability. It's so true. I mean, what kind of a world is it in which the BLM protesters are collecting millions as the one pro-life protester gets the book thrown at him with 30 federal officers, guns drawn, entering his home with, as he put it, my seven babies are right

here. And the wife too saying I'm right. They had guns drawn on me for a man who would have surrendered himself. It was found not guilty in the end anyway. So it's like you had the right guy in the hot seat. You were asking all the right questions and you mentioned the Catholic thing. Now I am a Catholic and this, I objected to this whole thing. And at first I was like, that can't be, come on, that's some, that's nonsense, right? It's not nonsense. It actually was brought to the attention of the public by a whistleblower who was inside the FBI, who saw this memo, I think out of Virginia, that actually called for the targeting of Catholic churches, in particular the ones where they say the Latin mass, as like the new radicalized mosque kind of place. Like this is where we need to go to find homegrown extremists

of the white supremacist type. So you got a chance to ask Merrick Garland about this yesterday. Here's a little bit. I have a couple of them. Here's soundbite three. How many informants do you have in Catholic churches across America? I don't know. And I don't believe we have any informants aimed at Catholic churches. We have a rule against investigations based on First Amendment activity. And Catholic churches are obviously First Amendment. But I don't know the specific answer. You don't know the specifics of anything, it seems. But apparently on your watch, this Justice Department is targeting Catholics, targeting people of faith specifically for their faith views. And Mr. Attorney General,

I'll just say to you, it's a disgrace. Well, Senator, he has a rule. I mean, are you not satisfied? He has a rule against doing that. That's right. Just take him at his word. Megan, here's the deal. Here are the facts. It's an FBI memo written on the 23rd of January of this year. We're not talking about years ago or in some land far, far away. We're talking about right here, 23rd of January. The FBI recommends recruiting informants in Catholic parishes that they, the FBI, designate as traditionalists. Now, whatever that means, I mean, they're making up the terms as they go along. So whatever they consider to be a traditional Catholic parish, they say it is a recruiting opportunity for observation, that means spying, and for informants. This is the most unbelievable document to be written in the United States of America.

And the fact that Merrick Garland brushed it off and says he doesn't really know the details. Did you notice, though, when I asked him, how many informants do you have? He said he didn't know. He didn't say they didn't have any. He just said he didn't know. I mean, this, again, the priorities here, if you're a churchgoer, you're a religious believer, then they think you're the problem. But if you're a rioter and you want to go burn down some buildings, assault cops, hey, go for it. That's social justice. Oh my gosh. I mean, it does make you look around. I don't go to a church, or at least I don't go to the mass where they say the traditional Latin mass, but it does make you kind of look around the church a little differently. Like, who could it be? People are probably looking at me,

wondering whether I could be the person too. It's just so sick. It's like, you don't, what, I mean, if you're, if you've got to scrounge the pews of Catholic churches to find extremists, then we're doing pretty well right now in this country. We're doing pretty well in fighting these radical ideologies. Yeah, that's exactly right. And again, to think of people of faith as the problem here with what we're facing, people of faith are the solution. You know, I would just venture to say that those who are going to, and I'm not Catholic myself, but I am a Christian, and those who are going to mass or those who are going to church and are doing so faithfully,

they're probably the answer to a lot of the problems we have. Certainly good neighbors, I mean, the folks who are the bedrock of our communities, and to treat them as if they are terrorists or potential terrorists need to be spied upon, tells you everything you need to know about this administration's priorities. It's no wonder that they want to erase our history. They want to say this is a systemically racist nation and all the rest. They want to turn everything upside down and go send SWAT teams to believers' homes. I mean, it is truly insane. But Megan, I really do believe that sunshine is a great disinfectant. This is why these hearings are important. You got to bring this out to the light because as you pointed out,

we only know about this memo because of a whistleblower. If it weren't for him or her, we would never know. You got to bring this out into the public so people can see what these folks are actually doing, so they can see what Merrick Garland is actually doing. And when you see it, it's indefensible. And just to correct myself, it was a former FBI agent turned whistleblower who published the document on UncoveredDC.com. That's how we first found out. So Merrick Garland told you that he did see this document that was leaked by the whistleblower, and he called it appalling and said the FBI is looking into how this happened, targeting Catholics as a potential threat.

Are you satisfied by that? No, of course not. That's classic bureaucratic brush off. Oh, how did this happen? I don't know. As I told him, I know exactly how it happened because the memo says. The memo says that they used a far left-wing group, a left-wing advocacy group that has targeted Christians of all kinds of backgrounds, Catholics, evangelicals,

and has said that they are hate groups, that they are terrorist groups. This far left-wing liberal group is who the person who wrote this, Southern Poverty Law Center, they're in the memo. They're cited in the memo as an authority. This is a leftist group. I mean, think about this for a second. The FBI, who's supposed to be keeping us safe, is out there busy writing memos, advocating for spying on churches based on what some lefty advocacy group is saying. I mean, this is where we are in Joe Biden's Justice Department and Joe Biden's FBI. It is insane. And we've got to make all the time. As I understand it, it wasn't just Southern Poverty Law Center, which I have to say, that is an agenda-driven group.

People used to be kind of people used to cite them as they'll tell you what's racist, what's bigoted, what's like whatever. No longer. This is a far left, unreliable group that has an agenda that's not truth and fairness. So but it wasn't just Southern Poverty Law Center. It was also Salon. They were relying on an article published by Salon. You can't get any further left than Salon and The Atlantic. And you know what this reminded me of, Senator, was the same justification for labeling parents domestic terrorists at the school board meetings. It was exactly this. Remember, their documentation was newspaper articles from sites exactly like this. Yes, yes, exactly. And we now know, of course,

about that infamous letter, Megan, that the White House essentially wrote it to begin with. Something else Merrick Garland has lied about, essentially, to Congress. He said that, oh, well, the school boards wrote to us, the School Board Association, they asked us to take action. Well, we now know that's not true. The White House wrote the letter, went to the School Board Association, said, will you sign off on it? They did foolishly later retracted it. And Merrick Garland used that as an excuse to activate the FBI counterterrorism division against parents going to school board meetings. So you're right. It's a pattern here.

If you're a parent who wants to speak up at your kid's school, you're a terrorist. If you want to go to mass, you're a terrorist. If you are pro-life, you're a terrorist. If you're a Christian, you're a terrorist. If you are pro-life, you're a terrorist. If you're a Christian, you're a terrorist. I mean, it is crazy stuff. And the common thread is, if you have your own viewpoint and disagree with this administration, they will use law enforcement against you. There is nothing more antithetical to the First Amendment than that.

And the protest thing is interesting. Obviously, that's a protected activity under our Bill of Rights to go out there and protest. It's as American as apple pie when done respectfully and within the bounds of the law. That's it. Right. You can't terrorize somebody. You can't throw rocks at their home. You can't get within certain feet of certain properties and so on. Time, place and manner can always be restricted. But you don't reward protesters like the BLM protesters who are looking for fights with cops by paying them out like we are in New York City. And you don't only target the people who are protesting outside of the abortion clinic and ignore those who are protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house or Amy Coney Barrett's house or any of the other Supreme Court justices who are trying to decide in good faith how to adjudicate the challenge to Roe versus Wade, which is what happened last year.

Your colleague, Senator Ted Cruz, pressed Merrick Garland on his refusal to go after the protesters outside of the justices' homes who were violating local law and federal law. Federal law would be Merrick's jurisdiction, and he didn't much seem to care. Here's how some of that went. Is it a federal crime to protest outside of a judge's home with the intent of influencing that judge as to a pending case? The answer to that is yes. But in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision, when rioters descended at the homes of six Supreme Court justices night after night after night, you did nothing. I did something no attorney general in the history of the department had ever done before.

For the first time in history, I ordered United States Marshals 24-7 to defend every residence of every justice. Have you brought a single case against any of these protesters threatening the judges? The job of the United States Marshals is to defend the lives of the justices. And that's their number one priority. Why are you unwilling to say no? The answer is no. You know it's no. I know it's no.

Everyone in this hearing room knows it's no. How do you decide which statutes you enforce and which ones you don't? But marshals on scene make that determination in light of the priority of the defense. The marshals do not make a determination over whether to prosecute you. The attorney general will make a determination and you spent 20 years as a judge and you're perfectly content with justices being afraid for their children's lives. And you did nothing to prosecute. Well done by Senator Cruz. What are your thoughts on that exchange? Well, again, this goes, I think, to show you that when it comes to left wing protesters,

if he likes the protest, if Merrick Garland agrees with it, if he likes the justices being harassed, then he's not going to lift a finger. You could say the same thing, Megan, about the firebombings at pregnancy care centers. How many of those has he prosecuted? He said yesterday that, well, it was kind of hard to prosecute people who firebombed those clinics because they did it at night. Literally, that was his answer. Well, they did it at night. That was unbelievable. That happened. He said that. That's incredible. Yes, yes. So on the other hand, to your point, if you are a right-winger perceived, well, then my gosh, even when you didn't commit a crime, as in the instance of this gentleman Mark Howe, we'll send the SWAT team after you. We'll haul you into court and we'll put you through all of that hell only to be acquitted in the end.

So this just shows you it is an assault on the First Amendment. It is a deliberate attempt by this administration, not in the last month, not in the last year, but since they have taken office to use the powers and instrumentalities of government to try and shut down speech they don't like, whether it's on social media, whether it's out in public, whether it is at a clinic or anywhere else. And Megan, you know, because you're a former First Amendment lawyer, it is dangerous and we've got to expose it. I don't know if I believe Merrick Garland either when he says the FBI's actions in Virginia with respect to the Catholic churches was inadvertent and that he's going to crack down. He found it appalling. Because if you look back at that parents and school boards thing, he was completely behind that.

And the only reason he backed off is because it became such a huge scandal. And America basically made him stand down. But he was perfectly willing to sick the FBI on parents in their private spaces for a political agenda back then. So why would we question whether he'd be willing to do it to families in their pews on Sunday to further his same political agenda when you hear him there? Clearly not a nonpartisan guy. Like it was such a dodge, Senator, you know, as well as I do, you practice law clerk for the Supreme Court. You were the AG of Missouri. It was such a dodge to keep mentioning, I dispatched the marshals. I dispatched the marshals. That's not what Senator Cruz was asking him. No, that's right.

The key question which Senator Cruz posed to him over and over is, how many prosecutions have you brought? Because just to be clear, Megan, federal law prohibits, it prohibits demonstrating in front of a justice's home. That is outlawed. And this gets to the point you were talking about earlier. Listen, I'm pro-First Amendment. I'm pro-demonstrator. And that doesn't mean that's whether I agree with you or not.

You want to demonstrate? That's fine. You want to pick at me? That's fine. You can do that. You can come to my office. If you want to pick at the justices, go right ahead. But we recognize in the law, whether it's justices or others, all kinds of restrictions where we say, well,

not where it's going to threaten their personal safety. I mean, you want to go do it in a public space, go for it. But in front of their homes at night, no federal law prohibits that these people are doing it. They're at the justices homes trying to terrorize them because they know it will terrorize them because they know what will make them fear for their safety. And by the way, let's not forget. A wacko showed up at justice Kavanaugh's home and tried to assassinate him. That actually happened. Why? Because Merrick Garland let the situation get totally out of control.

Zero prosecutions of the folks who've been doing this. It's unconscionable. And all he would have to do is prosecute one or two. It's not like you have to arrest them all. Just pick one or two. Make an example out of them. And you know what? The others will go home really quickly because they don't want to be in jail. They like being on camera. And speaking of being on camera, his, you know, I just rely on the marshal. Like I'll let, I do what the marshals tell me falls on deaf ears as well. He like, they can't prosecute anybody based on the videotapes. I mean, refresh me if I'm, if I'm like wrong, but wasn't there a really well-known group of people who went on the Capitol grounds on January 6th who are getting prosecuted by the dozen right now based on videotape? Indeed. And there's another striking contrast. It seems that when this Justice Department wants to prosecute people, even for misdemeanor offenses, they're more than capable of doing so. But again, when they like the protest, we all know it's

political. I mean, it's clearly political. The truth is Merrick Garland doesn't have the guts to stand up to the White House, and he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the far left. And so when these people who want to terrorize the justices over the Roe decision, the Dobbs decision about Roe v. Wade, when they go to their homes, he's not going to lift a finger because he doesn't have the guts to do it. And he probably agrees with them. He probably likes the justices getting harassed. So he just lets them do it. But Megan, that's not the rule of law. As you very well know, the rule of law is impartial. And that's why I say that my view has always been, as a constitutional lawyer, if you want to protest, I will defend your right to protest peacefully and within the bounds of the law.

And it doesn't depend on whether I agree with you. You want to protest about how the BLM, you are a member of that and you want to protest? Fine. But it's got to be peaceful within the bounds of the law. But that's not Merrick Garland's view. And how about, you know, even if he doesn't give a damn about Justice Alito or Justice Kavanaugh, what about Amy Coney Barrett's 10-year-old child with Down syndrome? You care about that kid sitting inside the home having

to look at these protesters out there with these terrible signs about her and her colleagues threatening them? There are real reasons why we have these very few, very few in America restrictions on where you can protest. And when we do restrict your rights, it's actually in this department, it historically tends to be for really good reasons. And I think the best argument I've heard, it was by John Pedorez over on commentary, for why we do this for the justices. Yes, of course, we don't want an obstruction of justice. We don't want them feeling intimidated out of actually casting the vote we saw in the draft opinion on Dobbs. But it's also, it's important that these guys be able to be like, you know, you're here, you're Senator Josh

Hawley, but it's important for you too, to have a moment as just Josh, like to go home to your wife and kids and like go to your neighborhood barbecue and not be this politician for a time to like, see how your neighbors are living and just be a normal person and relate to your constituents and the citizenry in that way. That's good for the country to have guys like you and Kavanaugh and Alito and all doing that without having to worry about these loons showing up with placards and threats and lining up outside of your house. And you do think about it differently as a parent. I mean, you're a mother, Megan. I'm a father. I mean, I've got three kids at home, little kids.

My youngest is now two. And, you know, I just, my heart goes out to these justices. We've had people come to our house, as famously been reported, harass my wife and my baby. And, you know, listen, I mean, as a parent, it's just like, if you want to come, if you disagree with me, that's fine. That goes to the territory.

You want to protest me, that is your right. If you want to yell at me, fine, that's your right. But you don't need to go to the justices' homes and yell at them and intimidate their kids and get up on their lawn. You don't need to do that to make your point. Go to the Supreme Court building. Pick it all you want. I mean, do it as long as you want, as much as you want. Yell as loud as you want to. That's fine. That's protected speech. But to try and have it both ways and do what the Justice Department's doing, which is you treat somebody who's doing it legitimately, like these pro-life demonstrators who were following the law, who are in their restricted space, who were not intimidating people. They get prosecuted, but folks who are blatantly violating the law, they get coddled. That's really, really wrong. I was really glad to see all of you guys drawing attention to this because what happened to the Supreme Court justices was deeply wrong. And the fact that he didn't do

anything about it means we're going to get more of it. You got a Supreme Court that basically faked, I believe, its investigation into who the leaker was. So the person got away with it. It was a fig leaf investigation that went nowhere, I believe intentionally. And then you have an attorney general who had absolutely no interest in going after the people who tried to torture the justices out of the opinion. So we're going to get a lot more of it, especially because we've got a 6-3 court in favor of the conservatives. Yeah, that's exactly right. And the leaker, I'm glad you brought up the leaker, Megan, because I just say that, you know, if you don't punish that, if you can, that was an intentional attempt to change the outcome of a case. And if that isn't in violation, by the way, of all the court's rules, of all the court's ethics standards, of our ethical duties as lawyers, maybe also illegal, but at the very least, it's against all of our duties as lawyers.

That person should be disbarred and nothing. I mean, no penalty whatsoever. And so you're exactly right. What's going to happen is that's going to happen again. There's going to be more of it. And these protesters, I believe they're still protesting at Amy Barrett's home. They're still protesting at Brett Kavanaugh's home at night. And that will go on and on and on. And for those who say, hey, the court ought to stay out of politics and just decide the law. Well, the way you make that a reality is you enforce the law. You do it in an even-handed manner. You don't weaponize the law the way Merrick Garland and Joe Biden have done. And if you're smart, you don't personalize, deeply personalize the attacks

on these justices because they're humans and it's only going to make them loathe you. I mean, they're not totally immune from hating the people who are doing this to their children or in Brett Kavanaugh's case, continuing to make movies about the many alleged unproven sexual assaults or rapes or gang rapes. I mean, go as extraordinary as you want because they have with him at the Sundance Film Festival night. It's like you should be tactical, right, about this person has a lifetime appointment. Why would I do everything in my power to hurt him or her personally where it hurts with their kids, with their, you know, their integrity when it

comes to their relationship with their spouse, et cetera? You know, I think that's a really interesting point, Megan. I think part of the answer that goes to is it gets to a feature of the modern left, which is they want to delegitimize and completely deplatform anybody they disagree with. So it really gets, it's almost a religious fervor to this. If you hold opinions they find objectionable, it's not enough to say, you're wrong, I disagree. They actually want to silence you and to shame you. And this is why they want people thrown off of social media. This is why the Biden administration, same folks, made a list of people that they wanted kicked off social media, including just normal, everyday people.

We don't like that. Please, here, Twitter, kick them off. Facebook, kick them off. They want you shamed. They want you ostracized. They want to control the debate. And they also want to use social sanctions. I mean, they want people to be shunned.

And that's really, it's extraordinary. We haven't really seen this in American history. It's an extraordinary moment when you have a president and you have an administration that says, we're going to try to get you kicked out of polite society if you dare to disagree with us. But it really, it shows you the authoritarian mindset right now for much of the left. It's another reason why the politicization of every office is really troubling because it's not just like, oh, it's Biden. He's a lefty. He put a lefty in this

office. Predictable. It's like, well, certain of the committed left. What they're committed to is the ruination of anybody who's not a committed leftist. And so like people like you need to need to fight not just for Republicans, but for people in the moderate middle who don't want to be targeted by some extremist with an agenda that doesn't match up to most Americans. This leads me to, believe it or not, audience, believe it or not, the National Archivist. So you have the National Archivist in front of you. And this person, she wants to be. She's not yet.

She wants to be. This person tried to hide her Twitter account from you, her personal Twitter account from you and the other lawmakers. And she had previously justified it by saying, there's nothing political on there, nothing at all. It's only about dogs and other sort of boring stuff. So you actually were able to find out what was on that Twitter account. And surprise, surprise, it wasn't just about her dog.

Here's you pressing this woman about that nondisclosure on Tuesday. On February 18th, 2022, you posted bemoaning the fact that mask requirements for children under the age of five, one of whom I happen to have, by the way, had been dropped. Is that a post about your dog or sports teams? My social media is in my personal capacity. Answer my question, please, because you've testified under oath that you only posted about your dog and sports teams and novels. And you also said you wouldn't give this committee any of your public posts. Is that a post about your dog or sports teams? Yes or no? My social media is in my personal capacity, Senator. Yes or no, Ms. Shogan. You are under oath. My social media is in my personal capacity, Senator. Yes or no, Ms. Shogan?

You are under oath. My social media is in my personal capacity, Senator. I have never seen a witness blatantly lie under oath like Dr. Shogan has just done to this committee, stonewalled this committee, and just repeatedly refused to answer my questions about her own posts that are in public. It's extraordinary. The person in that role now is effectively the person who got the whole ball rolling against President Trump at Mar-a-Lago and the raid would ultimately wound up being the raid. And so how do we feel about this woman taking over that post? Well, here's the thing, Megan, is that the National Archivist is somebody who ought to be, there is a reason we don't know anything about it, right? There's a reason most people are like,

what, who? That's because it's supposed to be a nonpolitical post. This is a person who like curates our national documents, the Declaration of Independence, you know, like that's what they're supposed to do. And so what we have is Joe Biden has nominated somebody who is a rabid partisan and she's out there on social media posting about how Republicans are evil. She wrote an entire article. I kid you not, an entire article about how Republicans are responsible for all of the anti-intellectualism, that's her word, in politics today. She talked about how Ronald Reagan is an idiot and how Christian conservatives are idiots. I mean, you can read her article. And then when we started to ask her about it, she tried to hide all of the documents and then she lied to us about it. And my view is, listen, these are your views. You said this. Defend them.

Explain to me why it is you want to be in a nonpartisan post, but yet you say Republicans are idiots. You say that kids ought to be masked under the age of five and anybody who disagrees ought to be shamed. This is stuff she's saying in public, and yet she lies to the committee, tried to hide it, and then when she got caught hiding it, she lied more. So, Megan, this is a classic example of this administration's determination to put rabid partisans in every piece of government, every corner, every nook and cranny of government,

and to try again and shame anybody who disagrees with them. And we've just got to expose it. You got to go for a vote. But quick last question. You managed to get it passed unanimously in the Senate, this bill to declassify the intelligence behind how the COVID virus started, right? The intel we have on whether this was a lab leak, et cetera, which the FBI says it was, and now Department of Energy too. Last time the Democrats in the House didn't fail to do anything with it. What's going to happen this time in the House now that the GOP is in control? I sure hope that the Republican House will pass this thing. This

is simple, Megan. It's basic. Let the American people decide. Let them see it. Let everybody read the intelligence that we have, that we have gathered, our government, over the last few years about COVID. Let's stop this shell game. Let's not forget, people were kicked off the social media. People were silenced in public places when they said just two years ago, maybe this was a lab leak. We were told we couldn't say that. We couldn't think it. But all along, our government has had information that it was a lab leak. So let the American people see it, publish it. That's what this bill would do. I have every confidence the House will soon pass it, and we'll send it to Joe Biden's desk,

and then we'll find out, does he actually believe in transparency? Does he actually trust the people? Or is he going to keep the lies and the shadows and the secrecy going? We'll find out. Right on. Senator, thank you. Great to see you. Thank you so much. That'll be really interesting to follow. Gosh, can you imagine Joe Biden faced with his bail passed unanimously? Every Democrat in the Senate backed it. How's he just going to veto that? How's he just going to say, no, I won't. Right. That'll be it's really raising some interesting questions. So we'll continue to follow that. I'd love to see that that declassified information myself. All right. We're going to be right back with Carol Markowitz and Bethany Mandel

on a whole host of stories, including that BLM protester one I just mentioned. The kids are not all right. Every day we are being bombarded with stories of children being exposed to highly inappropriate content at places we once thought were safe, like schools, libraries, community centers, you name it. Carol Markowitz is a columnist for the New York Post. Bethany Mandel is a contributing writer for Deseret News. And these two journalists have been unrelenting in the best sense in covering these stories and offering up ways to fight against the woke agenda that is targeting and truly harming our children in our country. Carol, Bethany, welcome back. Great to see you. Thank you so much for having us. All right. I have to start with this, Carol. I have to start with this.

About three months ago, because you fled New York, you went down to Florida and you sent out some tweet like, look, it's 72 degrees. It's amazing. And I was like, no, I'd rather be in New York. And then with a fire burning, right. And then leaves churning. And I was like, I really, I really mean this. And I shot off my big mouth without thinking about February and March. And now here we are snow. It's freezing outside.

It's gray every day. And I thought that bitch Carol is down there. I owe her an apology. So what I wanted to tell you about that, and I almost wrote to you, but I didn't want to like, you know, I didn't want to disturb the peace any further. But Florida actually gets fall. We had like three days of like 62 to 65 degree weather where we all like bundled up in sweatshirts

and drank hot chocolate. So you get to have that for just like a few days and then you get back to normal. And so, you know, the offer still stands. You want to come to Florida. We're very happy to have you. Well, I still maintain you can't beat New York in autumn in New York. There's a reason there are movies called named after it and songs called named after, but it's all downhill from there. I mean, let's face it. Autumn ends like midmber and you're stuck in winter till mid-May. That's where we are right now.

So now's the time for me to visit you and see if it's true with all the things you say about Florida. I'd like to see it in person. I'll do some on the ground reporting. And speaking of being happy, you left New York. You left New York. I left New York. Thank God, because one of the things that we would be doing right now is paying our taxpayer dollars would be paying the BLM protesters who tore apart our city after George Floyd. This is from the New York Post. I'll just show the audience cashing in on mayhem is the title.

That's exactly right. And there's a piece by the editorial board talking about how if you're if you're in favor of this, what you don't understand is that the protesters went out there looking for problematic interactions with the cops. They were not innocent victims, mindless or minding their own business, protesting lawfully within the bounds of the written code. No, they were they were shitsters, professional shitsters who went out there looking for trouble. Carol, they got it. And now we're paying them six million dollars. Yeah. Yeah. I was living in New York during those protests, what I call like the social justice at Prada protests of 2020. And it was really a terrifying time to be there. It was just mayhem. Like you said, they were destroying property, breaking windows,

and all the people around them were kind of like, yeah, this is what they have to do because this happened. And this is, you know, this kind of destruction is just sort of what we should be expecting. And the thing is that nobody talks about how hard those days were for cops. It was still, you know, at the height of COVID, where we didn't know what was going on with that. It wasn't such a clear cut, like this isn't that big a threat to us. And they had to be out there policing and fighting back against this with very minimal community support from New Yorkers. It was just an extremely tough time. You know, BLM signs were everywhere, defund police signs were everywhere,

obviously in all the like $4 million brownstones in my neighborhood all had the defund police signs. And it was just a really trying time for police, most of whom or many of whom have left New York and gone elsewhere since then. This is from the article. New York protesters were called to action this day, this is right after George Floyd, it was early June of 2020, by two activist groups who taunted the NYPD with a flyer of a burning cop van and incendiary phrases that encouraged demonstrators to break the 8 p.m. curfew that had been imposed in the city in the days prior because of what had been going on with these protests. It was no mystery.

They went out there, Bethany, wanting trouble. And what happened to them? Was it some awful, you know, all these terrible beat down by the cops? Here's the description. The city's agreed to shell out twenty one thousand five hundred dollars to each of the more than 300 protesters who were confined and some hit by batons or pepper sprayed by the NYPD officers in the Bronx during the George Floyd demonstrations. So by the way, it's like you were confined by officers for maybe 10 minutes in some cases, like some of these were short. And if you were unlawfully charged with a crime after being confined, you're going to get an additional $2,500. You know what that means? We're going

to get an additional set of protesters looking to stir things up with the cops, endangering the cops, endangering the communities the cops protect on the next incident. You name it doesn't have to be as big as George Floyd. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the message should be F around and find out. And instead, it's F around and get a payout. I mean, I would love to sign up for 21K to have a zip tie around my wrists for 20 minutes. And I think most people would sign up for 20K for 20 minutes. And so this really incentivizes absolute anarchy the next time and the next time and the next time. And, you know, price of inflation, maybe it'll be 30K next time.

There is absolutely no reason not to go for broke. And this is a really, really bad message that all of these professional protesters, you're absolutely right. Like if you've been to a New York protest, when I was in my teens, I was on the other side of it. And these are literally professional protesters. These are kids who live in those $4 million brownstones and then go out and protest against whatever the cause du jour is, whether it's George Floyd or Palestine or the Iraq war. It all sort of it all blends together. And I mean, if you harken back to the Occupy Wall Street days, I mean, it's all the same stuff. The post goes on. The police vehicles were burned. A couple of lawyers were caught with Molotov cocktails. Cops were spat upon, slurred as pigs. Here's your money. Here, you get 20 grand for lighting a cop

car on fire and calling the cop a pig. Welcome to New York, the big city of dreams. And the thing is, you're right. Yes, so many are professional protesters. They loved being in the news. They loved sowing chaos. Just as an aside, I'll tell you something funny. My mom, when I was on Fox, she's like not a big news person, but she would always watch my show. She's not like a big news consumer. She's recently been turned on to Tucker Carlson. She knows we're friends. She's recently been turned on to Tucker. She's like, I really think he's interesting. You know, he's I find his reports about FIFA really interesting. I'm like FIFA, like the soccer group. She's like, they're very troubling. Like the side. I mean, they are kind of troubling. But when was Tucker?

She was like, oh, they go to all the protests and they infiltrate and they cause a lot of damage. I'm like, do you mean Antifa? Anyway, FIFA, FIFA was probably at these protests, too, and they're probably getting $20,000 payouts, ladies. I just I'm just I've had it. I would just have to talk to Senator Hawley about nothing for the Supreme Court protesters who nearly got a justice killed. No problem. The pro-life guy, he gets 20 to 30 FBI agents.

The people who bomb the pro-life clinics who don't. Yes, they're anti-abortion, but what they're really doing is just helping moms who choose to have their babies. That's all they're doing. They get firebombed, no prosecutions. And Merrick Garland tells him, well, they did it at night. Those crimes are a lot harder to prosecute because it happened at night. Oh, my God. People wonder why we're so lawless in these major cities. And the people are now rising up. Lori Lightfoot is out and for very good reason, Bethany. Yep.

Yeah. No, I mean, that was so thrilling to see. And so much of it was also her COVID hypocrisy, which, you know, was on full display during the George Floyd protests in New York as well. People have completely had it with authority of any kind. I signed my daughter up for summer camp this summer. And on the application, it said, the last two years have been very trying for children.

How has your child fared? We've been seeing a lot of mental health issues. And I wrote in that section, she has developed a very healthy distrust of authority. And that's, I mean, that's the lesson of the last three years is, you know, let's send these folks packing and Lori Lightfoot's out. And I'd love to see, you know, the same thing happen in New York. I'm also born and raised in New York. And I left when Bill de Blasio came in because it was obvious it was going to go this way. I want to just add what she did to Chicago,

actually thought that the police behaved appropriately during those protests. He actually had defended the police actions during that time. So there's some level of irony that the most like far left mayor of New York didn't see a problem, but somehow they still got paid all these protesters. I mean, I guess a federal judge still has to sign off on it, but they're going to. I mean, they're going to. And the citizens of New York are going to be stuck dealing with it. You know, I feel like New York is going the way of San Francisco. And, you know, we're maybe a year or two behind what's happening there. This mayor, you know, he has not turned out to be the hopeful, you know, reform candidate we thought, you know, potentially he could be because he was a cop, reform candidate we thought, you know, potentially

he could be because he was a cop, former cop. He's been a big disappointment, even to my liberal friends, even my liberal friends in the city, because all my doctors, those are all liberals. And I talk to them all the time, you know, and they're not happy with him. They see the quality of life issues and it's happening in all of our major cities. You know, it's like, whatever, you know how it goes. They're not arresting the criminals. They're not prosecuting the criminals. They're not sentencing the criminals to any real sentences. They're letting them out, giving everybody to get out of jail free card, which is the BLM dream. How's that going in Florida? That's not happening in Florida, is it, Carol? So what I wanted to, you know, again, I don't want to push any buttons, but it's not because

you know, the weather is a nice like side advantage. What I really love here is the normalcy. You mentioned the two lawyers who firebombed the police cars in New York during those protests. I read earlier today that one of those lawyers only got a year. I mean, how do you get a year for firebombing a police car? It just it shows the level of insanity there. And so what I really love about Florida, it's not perfect. It's it's it shows the level of insanity there. And so what I really love about Florida, it's not perfect, it's gonna have issues. And it's not like I just don't worry about

anything here. But there's a level of normalcy that I have never in my entire life experience because my entire life has been spent in blue places. So I had a very low expectation for things being sane. And now I really get to luxuriate in normalcy like I never have before. That's amazing. Bethany, what are we doing? What are you guys doing? I lock my kids in the car when I like run into my house real quick because there's been carjackers all over my neighborhood the past week. Like that's, I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, where they also don't prosecute people. They let everybody go. If you're under 18, all your frontal cortex might not be developed enough for you not

to know that hijacking is bad. So they just let them out. But it's developed enough for you to chop off your penis and or your breasts. That's fine. That piece of your brain is just right up right where we wanted it to be. Yeah. All right. Stand by, because I do want to get to some of the insanity with kids in the schools.

And we talk about the trans stuff a lot. And there's actually a couple of interesting updates on the transport stuff. But the sexualization of the children is I mean, I don't want to put a value on it, but it's at least equally problematic. Could be more so what they're doing to these children and like the weird gay sex demonstrations in these books that are being made available to young teens. Like what's happening? Carol and Bethany are the perfect people to ask. And we'll do that next. Don't forget, you can find the show Megan Kelly live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. You can go to youtube.com slash Megan Kelly if you want to watch the videos or as my mom calls them, the shorties. And you can catch us via audio podcast,

anywhere you get your podcasts for free. On the subject of what's happening in schools, and this is why Bethany homeschools, right? This is why a lot of people choose not to put their children in public schools or even the private schools, which I mean, that's what I fled from in New York, the private schools. They're horrible. An 11 year old at a school in Maine, Maine, decided he needed to speak out about something he found in the library. All right. In his school's library, he's a sixth grader, just like I have an 11 year old who's a sixth grader, just like I have an 11-year-old who's a sixth grader. His name is Knox Zajac, and he went to his school board meeting to talk about a book that he found in his library. Now, the age advisor in this book is 14 years or older. He's 11, but of course, it's there accessible to the middle schoolers, and there he was in sixth grade. I am going to warn our listening audience that it's graphic what

you're about to hear. And you should be shocked and somewhat appalled to hear an 11 year old talking about this. But the biggest sin is that it was forced in front of his face by a school. That's what we're talking about here. Take a listen to Knox. I was in the library and this book was on a stand. I'd like to read you a page. My back over my hips as I ask if we should take off, take our clothes off. And he's saying yes before I finish my sentence. He's pulling off my t-shirt, laughing when I can't undo his shirt buttons. He's undoing my belt. I'm reaching into his bedside drawer for a condom. We're kissing again. We're rolling over.

Obviously, you can see where this is going. But this reminds me so much of the first time we had sex. We were both fucking terrified and the whole thing was kind of terrible because we didn't know what we were doing. But it was good too. So good. Now, this book was at my middle school and it was on a stand. When I rented it out to show my dad it. The librarian asked if I wanted more and if I wanted a graphic novel version. God bless this sweet boy for having the guts to bring this to everyone's attention. That is absolutely disgusting. It's deeply immoral.

It's wrong. And it's not just happening in his middle school, Carol. Yeah, it's so shocking to hear the words. And I hope that this shocks people out of their just, you know, compliance with this sort of thing. In Florida, Governor DeSantis has made it a sort of a priority to root this kind of material out of schools. And he's gotten so much pushback from the left saying like, oh, you're banning books, you're banning books. Well, no, you're not banning books. You're asking nicely for the pornography to not be available to your middle schooler.

And you know, I want to say also that I think a lot of people are saying, oh, this kid, his parents probably put him up to it. But I have one of these kids who would stand up and read something like this at a meeting. In fact, my middle son, today's a read aloud day at his school, and he brought in, and again, I had zero to do with this, but what I saw on Mulberry Street by Dr. Seuss, which of course has been canceled and rewritten and whatever. And he's like, No, I love this book, I'm bringing it in. So there is a segment of kids who have recognized how insane things have gotten and they're not standing for it anymore. And it's really happening organically and on their own. You know, Bethany, there's a story in the news today about how they're they're re-releasing Disney as Peter Pan. And they're

bringing in the sensitivity experts to sensitize it. And I like that. Apparently, we stepped on the toes of some Native Americans in the first version. Like their language wasn't perfect. There's a, there was a native American who had broken English. So that needs to be fixed. Right. Um, and also the lost boys now have girls in them because you can't have any single sex group. That doesn't include girl power. I'm sure you can have all girls. They wouldn't be infiltrating boys into the all girls groups, but you can't have lost boys. Now you have to have boys and girls, whatever, right? Who knows? Um, so there, this is the left, the woke left needs to make sure no one's sensibilities or sensitivities get offended by the native American in the old 1954 Peter Pan movie, having some broken English. That would be horrible for the kids to see, but you can have the little boy, the 11-year-old, reading about effing and gay sex between two boys. No problem. Who else

would like access to it? Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, it perfectly encapsulates the modern American woke left, that we all need to be protected from different stereotypes that were prevalent 70 years ago, but that we are all, even our eight-year-olds are fully ready to experience a graphic novel in which there is a graphic sex scene between two of the children characters. You know, that's how you can be enlightened. I had one of my kids, my oldest daughter, picked up a graphic novel at our local library. And over the course of talking to other moms about what was going on in their school libraries, they both brought up a book and it sounded familiar. And I realized, oh, wait a second, that's the book my daughter just took out of the

library. And thankfully, I hadn't brought the library bag in from my trunk yet, but I went out my driveway and I looked in my trunk and there it was. And it was a lesbian sex scene between two girls at a sleepover. And they think that, you know, it's okay to sexualize children if they make it LGBT in any way. And I'm sorry, it's not, it doesn't make me a bigot. I'm not interested in introducing to my children sexualized content, gay or straight. It's just not appropriate, but they think that it's a get out of jail free card to make it LGBT. That's so true. I never actually put my finger on that distinction. That's,

that's their escape patch. You're exactly right. If you make them same sex, you can get as graphic and pornographic as you want. No problem because you're whatever pro lgbt what um the dad of little nox zajak his dad got up there too and he's rip roaring mad in front of this main school board and told another story about his other kid who's in the high school and again this is graphic the languages are rated as you know that deeply offends me um and uh but you'll hear him tell it uh straight to this board as well take a listen so that's my son okay 11 years old and went to his library and found that by the entry door of our library this is the smut that he is finding. And then as far as genderqueer, I've got a son in the high school as well. And this is bullshit.

We know it. All right. We do not need to be having literature that's showing boys how to suck dick. All right. This is a very, very frustrated about it. Okay. And you may think that schools know the best for our children you know who know the best for our children the parents god love that man in his red and black

lumberjack shirt saying it straight you know just not mincing words we need we need millions more just like him i know you guys were calling attention to this just came out was it was it the manhattan institute was it city Journal that just published the data on like how? Yeah, Manhattan Institute. And that just published the data on the number of 18 to 20 year olds in America who can name like one of the key CRT concepts. Right. And it's like 93 percent, 93 percent have been exposed to critical race theory, which

is the sister to all this radical trans ideology stuff, radical gender stuff. Like this is the new woke left and it's working for them. They're getting to 93% of our kids. Yeah. And the other 7% are homeschooled. So you're welcome everyone holding up the rear here, so to speak. Yeah. They, they absolutely have infiltrated our schools and all of our institutions with this nonsense. And they're jamming it down our throats because it's not popular. It's not popular at all. 7% of people are not fighting back. And I think what this dad and his son have shown is you have to do it. You have to get up at those school board meetings. You have to show people what's going on in your library. You have to show them that this is really not being exaggerated. This is a really bad thing that is being aimed at children. It's really scary what you just said, Bethany, because think how busy you are, Carol is, I am, our listeners are. They don't have time to read every book that their kid brings home. Who the hell's got time for that? I can barely look at the syllabus, the outline for the class and whatever. The stuff I'm supposed to look at and sign off on, I can barely make time for that. Nevermind to read all of their books in advance and make sure this stuff isn't in there. And, you know, lest anybody think it was just like a well-meaning

librarian who's not actively working against parents like us. There's too many examples to conclude that there's too many teachers who are now on the receiving end of lawsuits for deciding the little girl should actually go by the boy name and not telling the parents. And then there was a case just out of New York, just out of New York. Oh, this is for the Daily Mail. Two days ago, New York teacher manipulated fifth grade student into changing gender without parents consent. And you know what? They decided to start calling this fifth grader Leo was a little girl and using he him pronouns in October, 2021, this is the teacher, but the little girl, the girl is nine, nine years old. The teacher, they name her Deborah Rosenquist at Terryville

road elementary school on Long Island. So the girl's a girl, but I guess maybe had some confusion. It's unclear how the discussion started. And unbeknownst to this little girl's parents, they start using he, him pronouns for a nine-year-old calling the little girl Leo. And it was only months later quoting now from the daily mail in January, 2022, when the girl was caught drawing a picture of a suicidal girl with the words, I want to kill myself that her parents were informed she was being called male pronouns in the school. This woman, Rosenquist, still in the classroom. Carol, I would not leave the outside of that school. I would be there every day protesting.

I would get every single person I know. That person needs to be fired. But the problem is, at least in New York City, the rule is you don't tell. That's right. The rule is absolutely absolutely absurd but what i want to say about this story in particular is it didn't happen in new york city it happened on long island it happened in jefferson station a conservative hamlet in a conservative county suffolk um you know on long island which has been really trending red over the last you know decade or so um and the idea that this is happening there is really what should alarm people. Because I think a lot of people believe like, oh, this is stuff that happens in San

Francisco or like New York City. But look, they targeted this kid at a suburban conservative school. And yeah, I think the parents need to be beyond outrage. I think they need to sue the school district. I think they need to take the next steps. Um, but what the larger message is, if you think your kids are protected because you've managed to raise them in a conservative community and send them to a school that you think is going to, you know, reflect your values, just know that this happened somewhere that they thought they were doing that too. Hmm gosh. It's often the law in these places. It was in New York. That was policy.

The teacher would be breaking policy if she told, but how young do we go? Second grader? Can switch identity? Gender identity? You don't tell the parents? The kindergartner? It can truly get to the point of abuse just like what lies ahead for these kids if they stay in the gender transition line I mean, like it can truly get to the point of abuse, just like that.

What what lies ahead for these kids if they stay in the gender transition line? Elaine also offers abuse, right? Like the system is abusing them. The American system in particular, by the way, is now our friends over in Europe. Same way they got more reasonable about about covid before we did that. Now they're getting more reasonable about cross-gender hormones and surgeries for kids who are minors. And we are still dug in over here. We didn't hear, we didn't see, we don't know anything about the new information. No, don't know anything about it.

When my middle son was three or four, he was positive he was Batman. And then he demanded to be called Batman. He also went through a Kylo Ren phase. But then we went to Mount Vernon and he became George Washington. So I just wonder how much of this like he should have pushed on his teachers. Like he knew we'd call him George Washington at home, but he never actually took it to school. So I would have loved to see if they would have Mr. Washington, it's time for lunch, you know, I it's crazy that they're taking the words of a nine year old and saying like, Oh, you you think you might be a girl or a boy and not not the gender you were born with? Okay, let's just run with that. It's a lot of power for a kid. I think that they don't seem to realize that there is going to be advantage taking. I always say this, but if I were a teenager right now, I know I would make my teachers call me or whatever. I would I would go with whatever the latest pronoun was or make my own up, because why not? I just have the power of my teacher and I enjoy that. Yeah. Yeah. Just to mess with them. There is a little glimmer of hope here, Bethany, out of Canada, of all places, Canada, which is not like Europe.

It does not precede us in its reforms of its weird progressive ideals. But it was forced to in this case. The infamous Canadian shop teacher, Kayla Lemieux, with the clearly fake enormous breasts, with the clearly fake prosthetic nipples, which are bigger than any normal nipples any woman has ever had, endangering said breasts right there with the saw inside the shop glass, and the fake wig.

I mean, this person is an absurdity. Has now been placed on paid leave. Thank God. It's about time. Because the New York Post, my God, thank God they did this reporting. They tracked down Kayla Lemieux. It was, it's an incredible piece. If you just Google it, Kayla Lemieux, New York Post, you'll find it. They tracked down Kayla. Kayla says, Kayla's not trans. Kayla says, I'm intersex. That's when you have both organs, you know,

that can happen. We used to call it hermaphrodite. Now it's intersex. Kayla says those boobs are real. They're not real, Kayla. Snap out of it, sister. I have always wondered if this was just a giant psychops operation. No, it's not a troll. A lot of people have asked that. We're past the point of her being able to do that big reveal.

At this point, I'm going to have a middle finger for Kayla if this is all a big troll. Because it should have been revealed a long time prior to this. But now he gets paid leave, so maybe this is brilliant. Oh, so I see. It's like a long game to get fired and you can sue or whatever. Yeah, the rubber ring. Okay, well, that could be. That could be.

But here's the story. So Kayla tells the Post, these boobs are real. Kayla claims that they are the product of something called gigantomastia, which, in case you're wondering, is a rare condition, very rare, very, that involves developing extremely large breasts due to excessive breast tissue growth.

Boy, Kayla's got a lot of issues, both sex organs and gigantomasia. I mean, what are the odds? And though Kayla admits to the New York Post, she's never been officially diagnosed. It's just like her back of the envelope thing probably came about right after she got her surgery inserting them.

That's my opinion. She went on to deny that the Post's pictures of a man who looks exactly like Kayla without the blonde wig and without those breasts, showing it to the audience here. You can look it on YouTube later. She went on to deny that that was her. She said, it's not me. But she also said she can't prove that either.

And the neighbor said, it's 100% Kayla. Kayla does that all the time. It's very rare that you see Kayla in the wig and the breast. So Kayla's got a mental disorder and Kayla's working it on our kids. And Kayla should be on paid leave. And so should the others who are, let's face it,

like some of these people, some people who genuinely have gender dysphoria, they have it from a very young age. They deal with it their whole life. They tend to like transition and they stay in the newly transitioned role.

And then there's all these other weird glommers, many of whom have severe mental issues who want access to our children all day. Yeah. And that's really what it comes down to is that there are a lot of mental health issues at play for the children that are doing this and for the adults that are doing this. And there's a reason why it was in the DSM. It's because it's meant it's a mental health crisis. And, you know, with the kid, with the nine year old who was presenting, I mean, there was so much other stuff going on before this decision that she became a he. And when they glam on to just the, just the transgender ideology and they don't treat the underlying mental health issues kids are done such a disservice and so is this adult and it's become just a sideshow and we're all expected to like it's like an emperor's new clothes moment we're all expected to pretend to

understand that oh yeah isolated thing with the gender like no, no, there's, there's a lot of other stuff at play here. So Rosenquist gets to abuse our kids, Carol, in the fifth grade. Rosenquist gets to tell the nine-year-olds that they actually are a Leo when they're a Leah, right? That's fine without telling the parents. And the main teachers can abuse that little boy by shoving literature about gay sex in front of him at a totally inappropriate age, then Kayla can go into the classroom and shove her obviously fake tits, excuse me, in the face of these young kids who are just trying to learn damn shop. It's traumatic enough without having those things in your face. And that's no problem either. And then it progresses, right? And this is where it goes. Now you got, um, a situation where the, the trans women, um, can take the women's medals. All right. They can take the actual bio biological women's medals and college scholarships. And like,

it's sort of, it's like a cycle of abuse in the name of promoting and being tolerant of LGBTQ, whatever. Yeah. The Kayla story, actually two things that really stick out to me is one, that person still had a job because there were still students in that class. What parent is letting their kids go into that class? Like what parent is like, yeah, my kid takes shop with Kayla. Um, I just don't get it. I don't understand how that class wasn't empty all along. And the other thing is, look, I love the New York Post. I'm really glad they got the story. But how did no Canadian paper do this over this whole length of time and go investigate her, you know, and say that this is how this person looks during the day? The fact is that they are so ideologically

locked in that no paper would risk doing that. They wouldn't risk challenging this person, this obviously insane person, if it's not a troll. They're obviously insane and they don't want to risk challenging their gender identity. That's crazy. But that is really what the problem is, this forced conformity all around us that does not allow pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Oh, my God. The emperor has clothes in Canada, but they're far too tight and they reveal way too much.

But speaking of Canada and transgender athletes, here's the latest. So this happened in the field of running. There's certain sports that get targeted by the trans community where the biological women just have to suck it up. That's what they're told. Swimming, running. We've seen it in weightlifting, um, volleyball, a couple of other, like there's a couple of favorite sports. You see, I I've said all along, you know, what needs to happen? Some trans woman, that means biological man. Who's sort of acting like a woman posing as a woman needs to enter USTA sports. They, they need to get into women's professional tennis. They need to crush people like Serena Williams or Coco Gauff or, you know, Naomi Osaka, which

they would easily do if they were actually not even pros. You don't even need to be a pro. You could be like the worst guy trying to get into the pros like at that level and beat any one of those women. That's the advantage men have over women tennis. That's what needs to happen. Then we'll see where their woke credentials really are. Okay.

So anyway, as an aside, So Canadian transgender runner named Tiffany Newell has just won, I wanna make sure, okay, has just won the 2023 Canadian Masters Indoor Championships in Toronto. Placed first in the 1500 meter in the event for women aged 50 to 54. And this is not Tiffany's first, said Victor. Look at this. Look at Tiffany's legs. Would you look at those quads? I mean, that looks like the quads of a

professional football player. Unbelievable, honestly. I mean, it's ridiculous. Their defense is, well, her testosterone levels match world athletics current transgender athletes policies of being below five whatever it is um her leader i can't have five mol uh continuously for a period of at least 12 months and so she whatever tiffany newell managed to do that and tiffany has repeatedly placed first in women's events, setting global records for women in her age category in response to calls that they just create an open racing category, you know, where Tiffany could race against trans people or whoever wants to enter. Tiffany refused because a man could enter. You know why Tiffany refused? You're not going to believe this quote. I don't feel comfortable racing against men. Hello. Don't say Tiff.

Tell us more. You can't make it up, Bethany. I this is I have you seen Hershey, the latest troll from Hershey, by the way. Hershey chocolate. It's Hershey. And latest troll from Hershey, by the way? Hershey chocolate? It's Hershey and it's a female, you know, it's a transgender male. It's a biological male for women's history or whatever, women's month. I mean, this is all it is, is they've decided that the feelings of biological men take precedence over every possible concern that women might have. Concerns about representation, concerns about safety, concerns about success. Everything takes precedence. I mean, this is true misogyny that men, the feelings of men

are of the utmost importance. And, you know, good luck luck to you tiffany in all of your races you won't need it yeah i mean that's it and if he did compete against other biological men you would see that he would be like 14th and that's i mean if you look at the the times of leah thomas the swimmer the transgender swimmer the times thatmer, the times that in all of the competitions that he's winning or close to winning, if you then transpose those times into men's swim meets, he doesn't rank. And that's all it comes down to.

He gets the fame, he gets the rankings, he gets all the proceeds and all the fame and all the accolades, not just of winning, but also of, you know, being this transgender hero. Why would he compete with men? Yeah. What's the daily wire has a deeply disturbing report on Leah Thomas's online. Oh, my God. Yes. Right. I mean, deeply. This is not if that's actually the person and they stand by their reporting. Leah Thomas is deeply troubled in ways that we had we didn't even know. I will say this, Carol, you know, the Vermont Christian school,

uh, there's a Vermont Christmas, uh, Christian school in white river junction that is fighting back in a way that I think sets a good example. They, uh, their high school basketball team was going into the state tournament. They were the 12th seed. They forfeited their game against the number fifth, number five seed long trail because they, the Christian school, did not believe that it was fair or safe to force their players to play against a team, against this basketball that had biological boys on it, that had biological saying that they were trans girls. And they did not think that was safe or appropriate or fair for their girls. So they pulled their team. This, despite Vermont law that allows trans

students to play, it's always the boys who want to play on the girls' team. It's never the girls who want to play on the boys' team, right? So that allows it under law. So good for this Christian school for just saying, you know what? Well, they didn't say that because they're Christian, but they're out. That's the way to handle it. Yes. Yes. No, absolutely. Nobody should be competing against biological males if they're a female, it is just, it's an obvious risk to the woman. And it's just, it's just wrong. It doesn't matter how much testosterone you have. Your body is built a certain way. If you're a man and it's built a certain way, if you're a woman and it doesn't, nobody cares what you consider yourself. It's irrelevant here. Your body forms the way it forms despite how you consider yourself.

And, you know, what I always like to say about this is the patriarchy always wins. Like right now, women's sports is like going to be eradicated because this is how it goes. Right. Patriarchy always wins. Yeah. And guess what? Tiffany Newell, Tiffany Newell, just to add, did not begin Tiffany's transition from from male to female. Right. until 2017. And Tiffany's 50

now. So Tiffany was in Tiffany's late 40s. That's why the legs look like the legs of a football player. Absolutely none of the genetic advantages other than the testosterone, which is not the be all end all, have been undone. Absolutely none. So Tiffany's going to go on breaking all the records in every sport. Uh, and there are other Tiffany's like in the basketball game that would actually pose a potential physical risk for the biological girls playing against her Bethany. Yeah, no, absolutely. This, when I was in middle school, um, we scrimmaged against the boys soccer team that were several years younger than us. And I got a soccer ball to the face and I went down. I was unconscious. I had a full concussion. I wasn't allowed to play soccer ever again. And my school made a policy that the girls' and boys'

teams, no matter if there was an age differential or not, were never allowed to scrimmage together again because that happened to me. And now kind of wondering, and anyone from my hometown, state New York, you know where you are, I'm curious what the policy is now, if it's changed to say, you know, whoever wants to play on the girls team, whoever wants to play on the boy team. I didn't grow up in a blue area, but I grew up in New York State, and they have to follow these laws. But I mean, I think a lot of a lot of the conversation rightfully is about fairness when it comes to women's sports. But there's this whole other aspect of just pure safety that, you know, in so many ways in the locker room, you know, the Leah Thomas stuff,

obviously, people should go look up the Daily Wire story because it is very shocking. There is a safety element in these locker rooms, but there's a safety element on the field as well that people just, you know, in the service of this transgender ideology and this sort of radical woke reimagining of what it means to be a woman, we are endangering women in so many different ways. And I'm not sure we're going to see the results of how we're endangering women until girls now sort of start to grow up and, you know, we'll see the results. To speak out because you've got, if Leah Thomas, if the Daily Wire's reporting on Leah Thomas is true, she's into, I think it's autogynephilia where Leah gets off on wearing

women's clothing, like it's a sexual stimulant to Leah. And so they've taken this person and popped him into a women's locker room and all the other women who feel odd, gee, I wonder what vibe Leah's giving off that makes them feel a little uncomfortable, have been told to go get therapy if they can't deal with it.

You must lose your metal and say thank you. And if Leah's given off a weird sexual vibe or like some sort of enjoyment in the locker room, which no straight non trans woman ever feels from another woman. If you're feeling that as a biological woman, shut up, shut up and get therapy. OK, so that's so this leads me to on the on the violence front, though. Remember this story from October 2022 with a volleyball player? They did not do what the christian school just did in vermont they let their volleyball team um from okay the the it was the there was the one team from hawassi dam high school in north carolina and it was playing the highlands high school in North Carolina. And there was a transgender athlete, transgender girl on the Highlands High School team who spiked the ball in the face of a girl from

Hawassie. And the girl from Hawassie Dam High School reportedly suffered head and neck injuries in what was clearly a brutal situation. If you can watch it, the girls on the, yeah. Okay. Watch, we highlighted it. Watch. She's going to spike it. Oh my God. The girl goes down. It goes right in her face and she suffered head and neck injuries. That's not like, oh, I heard an ankle, which would be bad enough. Yeah. Why should women hurt anything? Yeah. No, I mean the concussion that I got as a result of that soccer team, that's soccer game. I was told I can never play soccer again. That was it was, I was unconscious and they were, I woke up and they were deciding if they should call an ambulance or if it would be faster to bring me in, like literally the flatbed if somebody struck. It's dangerous. There's a reason why we've made girls sports.

It's not safe. And physically when it comes to this, but also sexuality, one of the things that we never talk about, and I think I've talked about it on your show also, is that we're telling girls to silence this internal alarm when they're in a locker room with a biological male. And we're teaching girls with

developing brains that got internal alarm that it's faulty and it makes them into a bigot. But I mean, I remember when I scrimmaged against the team and they all lined up and they're these like big guys, even though they were technically younger than us, I was scared. And I kind of felt like I was a wimp in that moment. And then when I woke up after being rendered unconscious, I was like, oh, maybe that was so wimpy. You should have listened to that. We were allowed to look at the men's big biceps and big quads and big shoulders and feel a sexual attraction and a desire to be desired by them and not have to worry about them taking our medals and competing against us in our sport. What? And beating us literally unconscious. Yeah. Right. Totally different story. Carol, I'll give you the last word. Yeah. I think that the, you know, the message always has to be,

you have to stand up against this kind of thing. You cannot roll over and let these people win. This is not a popular thing. Nobody thinks that biological men should be playing with women. I mean, a very small percentage think that. It's undoing decades of feminism and all the work that the people on the left said that they wanted to see happen. If you're a woman studies major

and you're not sure what a woman is, that's woke and we need to fight that. Carol Markowitz, Bethany Mandel, thank you for fighting the good fight. Always great to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. The audience should know they have a book out next week on this topic. It's called Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation. Oh, it's so true. You know, it's true. So they've done the research. They've done the investigation. And they got a lot of thoughts to get you up to speed on what's

happening. Coming up, we're going to bring you the latest developments in the Murdoch trial. The defense gave its closing argument this morning. That's just ended. And now the prosecution is doing its rebuttal. And guess what? A juror got bounced. That's next. Alec Murdoch's lawyers made their closing argument today to the jury who will soon have to decide Murdoch's fate. They should, they're probably going to get the case today and begin deliberations. Uh, prosecution now doing its rebuttal. The prosecution always gets the last bite at the apple, usually, because they have the burden of proof. And so that's fair. In his closing argument,

defense attorney Jim Griffin, who's been with Murdoch for years, questioned whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest possible standard, why we have in our criminal cases, we're talking about a man's freedom, that Murdodoch quote, butchered his wife, Maggie, and his 22 year old son, Paul, without leaving behind a trace of his own DNA evidence all within a matter of minutes. And in another shocking development, another juror has been nixed from the panel today, but for probably the most interesting reasons yet joining me now, Peter Tragos, a partner of a law firm in Florida. He's been covering the trial on his YouTube show called The Lawyer You Know. So Peter, the juror getting bounced is fascinating to me. Turns out we had Eric Blandon, who's representing a party in the case that sued Alec Murdoch successfully for stealing a settlement that he got for his

clients. Now we find out that he reported that one of the jurors was likely to be bounced, and sure enough, one was. What happened? So yeah, the juror was nixed because she was talking to multiple people about it, even though the judge instructs the jury every day when they show up and before every day when they leave, don't talk to anybody about the case because we have been doing this for now six weeks weeks and we don't want to waste our time and have to do it all over again because jurors are breaking the rules. So I think it's important. I think the judge did the right thing by letting her go. Shame on her. Shame on her. She definitely knew better and just thought the rules didn't apply to her. And I'm glad she got bounced. And it doesn't it's

not because she appears to have been defense oriented. She had no place on that jury if she was going to be that much of a rule breaker. I think there's a good chance she may go talk to somebody else after this, after she walks out of the courtroom, though. Oh, God. Oh, wait. Would there be a prohibition on that? The judge said, while we don't encourage you to talk to anybody about the case, it's not prohibited. All right. Forget everything I just said. We're going to book her. Well, we'll know soon enough from the actual jury. They had two alternates. They had to sub one in. So there's one more alternate remaining. They can afford to lose one more of the jurors. Things happen. We don't know how long the deliberations will go on. If they do, if they if they had to replace yet another juror and now they

have no alternates and for some reason they have a problem with somebody on the remaining and last 12, what happens? So if they go below the 12, the only way that they'd be allowed to deliberate and come to a verdict is if both sides agree to it and waive the requirement of 12 jurors. My guess is the defense would not do that. That could be a mistrial. And we'd have to do this thing all over again if the state wants to bring the trial and try to prove these charges yet again before a jury of 12. My goodness. All right. So we've pulled a couple of soundbites. We've been playing some of the prosecution's closing argument over the past couple of days. Now, here's the defense, John Griffith, Griffin, right? Griffin.

Jimmy G. Jim. Thank you, Jim. I want the second soundbite team, the one about there's zero evidence to prove he did it. Listen. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit the verdict has to be not guilty. There's no reason for him to do it. No reason whatsoever.

Now, you've heard a lot of testimony about these financial crimes, misdeeds, and he told you he did it. He told you he did it to support a very expensive drug habit, and none of that's an excuse, but he is an addict, and addiction is real, and addicts lie, addicts cheat, addicts steal to keep getting their drug. The evidence was permitted in this case for you hear, solely to consider did he murder his wife and son because he had this storm coming that he was going to be exposed?

Is that why he murdered? That's what they said. And that's why you're allowed to consider it. There was no impending financial doom on June 7th. June 7th was a day which, frankly, was no different than any other day in the frenetic lifestyle of Alec Murdoch. What'd you make of that, Peter? Yeah, I mean, I think Jim Griffin focused on the why and the how,

which was most of their case. They had a great relationship. Paul was the apple of his eye. Maggie and him were in love. And I think that the why, why would he do this to the people he loved the most, literally, the people that if you want to say he was stealing money, he would be stealing money to buy things for, as I think some of the evidence has shown. Maggie loved the beach house. He bought the guns for the boys. And I think that to say he committed murder in order to cover up financial crimes or just delay a storm that was coming is pretty hard to believe,

especially in the manner that they were murdered. And I think that's where a lot of the defense's focus was, as well as how he could possibly have done it and covered it up in just minutes. And then, of course, they picked sled apart and how horrible the investigation was throughout. But I think this was part of the why. Why did he do it? We heard a lot about financial crimes, but we didn't hear much about why they would actually commit the murders in the way that he's accused of doing in this case. Yeah, that's the problem. They did prove he was in a financial meltdown, I think. Oh, yeah. And panic. And, you know, Alec tried to rebut that somewhat. But I think they did a great job proving just how how hot it was getting for him on his financial crimes. But then saying, well, that's the motive to kill your wife and your son, who, by all accounts,

you did love. It's not like they had a terrible family relationship. That's a tough thing to sell to a jury, even though the the timeline, the GPS, the phone records, Alec Murdoch's lies about where he was on the night in question, including within three or four minutes of the murders taking place, all that I think would lead any reasonable juror to say, yeah, there's enough proof. But here's a little color. So the prosecutor, it's not the lead prosecutor,

but it's John Metters. He did the rebuttal after the defense sat down and said to the jurors a couple of things that I'm just going to highlight. Lead defense attorney Dick Harpootlian is a smokescreen machine. Then he says to your your comment about South Carolina law enforcement. I'm offended, he says, that the defense is claiming law enforcement didn't do their job while he, Alec Murdoch, is withholding and obstructing justice by not just telling us I was down at the kennels. Yes, I was there within four minutes of the murder, three or four minutes of the murders, something he kept to himself until he got caught until witness after witness said,

I hear his voice on that tape, his own son. If he goes down for this, his own son fingered him, his own son caught his own murderer by taking that video, which Alec didn't know. They didn't find out until I think it was October 22, uh, that the son even had the video on his phone because it was locked. They couldn't get into the phone. Alec told his whole story, not knowing it existed. And it wasn't until he found out it did that he was forced on the stand to change his testimony. Prosecutor again, rebuttal saying this case is about being real. Always be real. The case is about that. And the defendant is never real. We don't have to prove motive. I think it's been proven. His world was collapsing. But he says we don't have to prove motive. That's a little weak there, Peter. When the prosecutors go up there like we don't even need to prove motive. Well, it's true, but it doesn't really telegraph

that you feel strongly about your evidence. I heard way too much. Maybe he did it like this. Maybe he did it like that. I don't know. He was the only one there. Maybe it was when he was putting one gun down and picking another one up. This is possible. It could have been like this. I heard way too much of that for my liking in a prosecution's closing and rebuttal. And what you just said is exactly right. They know that it's a shaky motive. So they want to make sure that if a juror doesn't buy the motive, they can still convict because motive is not a part of the crime that they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt, even though I think Jim Griffin said that

it was. And that's a tough line to walk if you're the prosecutor, because you've taken so much time trying to prove motive. And now to backtrack a little bit and say, well, you know, we don't have to prove motive. And I think what do we spend all those days doing it for? Yeah, I mean, I think that's really important. And jurors usually want a motive, like all the research shows a jury wants a motive. And Creighton Waters in his prosecution uh closing framed it the whole thing the outline of the of the closing was motive means opportunity and so he spent hours on motive just in the closing so it's not even like he put it into evidence and then later decided to abandon it

he really wants the jury to believe there was a motive you can question whether he should have just said who could understand why a double murderer does what he does? Who could possibly get their arms around why a man would murder the wife and son he purportedly loved? We don't have to spend a lot of time on that. How can we know we're rational human beings? That's why we're not on trial for double murder. But what we do need to prove is that he did it. Here we go. Right. And then maybe that would have been a smarter move for him. Here is Prosecutor Meadors on the rebuttal, again, trying to clean up what the defense did and said in their closing moments ago. They're putting these law enforcement on trial, talking about blood evidence, talking

about other things that were presented to the Granger, which. That blood evidence was investigated and the state didn't offer it. That's what you do in your prosecution. Didn't try to offer it. Now they're trying to put us on trial for doing our job. Think about that. Blame everybody else. Look, they looked into this and it didn't turn out to be.

So now we're going to blame them. Blame everybody else. He's doing a good job of keeping the jury awake, which apparently yesterday, I don't know about the jurors, but there were reports that counsel at both the prosecution and the defense table were sleeping during the prosecution's original closing argument. But this is the different prosecutor doing the rebuttal and he's fiery. Oh, yeah, he's got he's got a lot more fire to him than than Jim Griffin or Creighton Waters, really. I mean, I think Harpoolian is the more fiery defense attorney at the table, but he seemed like it was a lot for a guy of his age maybe to get up there and do this long closing argument after six weeks of testimony. He wanted to split it up. Judge didn't let him. But I think Meadows or Meadows' problem is I would

look at it and say, as someone who's a lawyer in our country in this criminal justice system, I am nervous that if they can do this bad of an investigation and law enforcement can do this little gathering and testing of evidence and convict somebody of a double murder. I'm a little bit scared of that as a lawyer who our country is supposed to be protected by laws and our criminal defendants and accused are supposed to be protected by the presumption of innocence. And it is your job as the prosecutor and the investigators to gather the evidence and prove that he did it. So them being offended that somebody is picking apart a terrible investigation is bad lawyering to me. We don't we don't have much time, but can you just take off a couple of their worst failures so the audiences they know what you're talking about? They didn't take

fingerprints. They didn't test the footprints. They didn't test the clothes on either of the victims. They never searched the house in Alameda, which he said from the jump was his alibi and where he went and really the only place he could have hidden the murder weapons or the clothes that now we know he was wearing potentially at the time because it wasn't the clothes that they did test. They didn't even search the property at Moselle where he took apparently 280 steps. That's not that big of a radius to search. Where did he hide the clothes and the murder weapons? That's good. I think I appreciate the reminder,

you know, because we've had a lot of lawyers on who are more prosecution oriented and, you know, aligned against Alex Murdoch, Alec. And it's good to be reminded that this is not a slam dunk. This case could go either way. So now the rebuttal has ended. That means I think that we're going to get jury instructions and then the jury will be given the case. They'll be given the verdict form. They'll go behind closed doors. And just those 12, not the alternate, just those 12 will begin their deliberations in one of the most sacrosanct proceedings we have in American jurisprudence, determining the fate of this man and whether he will be put behind bars for the remainder of his life for murdering those purportedly dearest to him.

Wow. Peter, thank you. We'll have you back, and we are on Verdict Watch. Believe me, if we have it between now and tomorrow, we'll cover it for you. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.