The Megyn Kelly Show - Fauci Finally Retires, and Idaho Murders Arrest, with Dave Rubin, Harmeet Dhillon, and Viva Frei | Ep. 462

Episode Date: January 2, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, to talk about Barbara Walters' professional legacy but personal failings, balancing professional and personal life, The View's deteriorating place in American media, Dr. Fauci's nonstop egotism, "Twitter Files" revelations about COVID suppression, Megyn's Christmas vacation festivities including a smelly story about her dog Strudwick, her "Family Talent Night" song, and more. Then Harmeet Dhillon and Viva Frei join to discuss the Idaho college murders arrest, how the police used "forensic DNA genealogy" to identify the suspect, what the motive might have been in the murders, the potential "insanity" defense, legal challenges by Kari Lake in Arizona, the red tape set up to stop election lawsuits, the January 6 committee and Trump, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and Happy New Year 2023. Let's go. I hope you all had a great holiday season with your family and your friends. And in a minute, I'm going to be joined by Dave Rubin. We're going to get to all the latest headlines. So much happened. It was a relatively slow news period, but the few things that hit, I definitely want to talk to you guys about and I have some strong thoughts on. Barbara Walters died, age 93. No question, a news legend. But what about her personal legacy? I read her book Audition years ago as her autobiography, and it really was life-changing for me, but probably not in the way that Barbara Walters

thought it might be. So we'll get to that. Later, our legal panel is going to take an in-depth look at the suspect just arrested for the murder of those four University of Idaho students. Oh my God, have you been following this? I'm very interested in this whole thing. And this guy, have you seen a picture of this guy? He looks like mildly attractive. He kind of looks like a regular American kid. But man, the story starting to come out about him paint a very different picture. And if this guy did what, of course, they seem to have very good evidence he did. He's he's a psychopath. I mean, he's he's a deeply disturbed psychopath who was living amongst us, functioning as a, quote, regular American. You know, it's like the story here about like every fourth person is a sociopath.

And like this guy's right next to you in your college class or in your bar. And he just murdered four people, according to the authorities. We're going to get into all of that. Plus an epic story about my Strudwick over the holiday vacation. Oh, my God, my trauma. As the kids would say, I'm triggered. Dave Rubin's here with me to discuss it all. He's the host of the Dave Rubin Report. He joins me now and let's just say Dave has no idea what he's in for. Dave, happy new year. Happy new year, Megan. What am I in for?

And I'm very curious to hear your Barbara Walters take because I actually devoted my show to her this morning. We framed the whole show around her life and her work and her desire, sometimes not fully accomplished desire, but her desire to have difficult conversations. And if you remember, boy, I'm really getting right into it. But if you remember when she started The View, which I think is now 25 years ago,

the whole point was to have this diverse set of viewpoints and talk about things honestly and decently and do kind of what I think you and I are now trying to do these days. And it ultimately didn't work out exactly the way she wanted. But, you know, it's the story of life, like you try to do something and maybe it's going to work, maybe not. So I'd love to hear what's going on with you and her and how she affected you. I definitely have strong thoughts on the whole thing. So we'll get to that one second. I had this idea for a show. Remember how the

view used to begin before it had been totally co-opted by all the far lefties. All right. But stand by. I'm Barbara Wawa. So Doug and I and the kids have been going out to Montana for about seven years now for every Christmas. We bought a little cabin. We first we rented and then we bought a little cabin out there. And it's amazing. It's you know know, you become one of those people who becomes annoying about Montana, right? Like I'd never been. Then I went one time. Then I started proselytizing about Montana all the time.

And I just love it. It's God's country for sure. So we go out there and there's like a bunch of people who ski in the Big Sky, Montana area. And they all it's basically a private flight, but it's you don't have to pay like the private fees like you would if you were really chartering a private private flight because there's, you know, 150 people on board or I don't know how many people. But anyway, the point is, you can get on this flight. It's good because you can fly with your dogs, but you don't have to pay

the absurd fees that you would to really fly private. So we found this service and we love it. We do it. So that allows us to and we love it and we do it. So that allows us to bring Strudwick and Thunder with us. Now, Strudwick has never been to Montana. Last year, he was a puppy and we had a dog sitter take care of him because it was too much. This year, we're like, he can do it. But you've heard the Strudwick stories, Dave. I anticipated that he would be a nightmare on the plane. So I went to his vet and I said, is there anything I can give him to calm him down? So she gave me this medicine that would make him sleepy. Wow.

There was a side effect that was not disclosed. And that was, it gave him the worst gas you have ever had the misfortune to smell in your life. And he was on board the airplane with us. So he, you know, they're SBDs when it comes from a dog. You don't know when the next one's coming. Just the horrible toxic smell infiltrates your nostrils. Before you know it, you're like, there's no place to go. You can't in the car. You can press down the window. You know, you can get a little momentary reprieve,

but in the airplane, you can't light a match. You can't do anything. And it was nonstop. It took four hours and 10 minutes. I counted every single one to get from Connecticut out there to New York out there. And it never let up. It was relentless. And the thing is, Dave, the thing is is like, there's only one time, maybe two times you can be like, it's my dog. My dog has this. I take it that, uh, I take it. You bought a round of drinks for everybody on the plane when you landed at the, uh, little Montana place. I, first of all, no. I was too traumatized. My trauma was too severe. And number two, I don't think it would have worked.

I really think at some point you just have to give up and let people think it was you. There's just no way. Did you say anything to anyone on the flight? You must have turned to somebody next to you or in front of you or something, right? We were like this for the visual, for the listening audience. I have my tissues up.

The entire flight was like this breathing the visual, for the listening audience. I have my tissues up. I mean, I live, the entire flight was like this with my breathing through my tissues, but they're flimsy. The tissues are so flimsy. They did nothing. I needed a lead blanket. I needed like a couch. I needed something like way more substantial, like the x-ray thing they put on you when you go to get an x-ray, the drape. The fiber wasn't strong enough to withstand the horrific odor I was subjected to. I was in his little gas prison and I couldn't move because I have a picture on the screen from the flight back where I was smart enough to take a picture to document my travails. But on the way out there, the truth is I was at the window seat and Strubb was at my feet and Doug was right next to me with thunder. And so I couldn't get out. I was like, and then my daughter was in front of me. She kept looking back like, Mama, I can't save you, honey.

I can't save you. Wait, Megan, the real question here is, so what did you do on the flight back? Did you drug him again or did you? So here's the story. So I the vet had told me, give him the pills before you fly just to make sure he can handle, you know, nothing goes wrong. And I forgot to do that. So if I had done that before we flew, perhaps I would have understood. They create a severe gas issue. But I didn't. So flash forward to the middle of the vacation.

I was like, OK, was it the was it the pills or wasn't it the bills? I'm like, I'm going to give him one because the vet said give him two. So I'm like, I'm going to give him one tonight in my house to see if it's the pills. Well, just so I chose the wrong night because we were having people over and we put the dogs in our bedroom so they wouldn't be bothering everybody, you know, jumping up and like eating all the hors d'oeuvres, all that stuff. Well, Doug goes to open up the door to put somebody's like coat in the bedroom. And she sees the two dogs who are very cute.

I mean, that can't take that away from Strut for all of his issues. He's very cute. And she goes over to let it all out. And she stops dead in her tracks. She's like the penetration of the hideous odor. And she was too polite to say anything. But then once again, you're like, it's our gassy dogs in our bed.

And then you feel inappropriate talking about farts all the time. You know, Megan, I have a question for you, which is, did you ever see the episode of Seinfeld? I think it's season nine where Kramer takes dog medication for a cough he has. I'm wondering, did you think maybe you should take the episode of Seinfeld? I think it's season nine where Kramer takes dog medication for a cough. He has. I'm wondering, did you think maybe you should take the pills, see how it affected your stomach? And that way the dog wouldn't have to go through this again. No, no. Let me tell you something. No human could produce those odors. Like if you were,

if you're a connoisseur of gas, you know that no humor, no human can like that. That was my best defense. Like a human being could not have made that smell. Then Dave, then Sherry on top of the whole Sunday. Strud goes to bed one night and he has horrific diarrhea. My husband's walking him outside. He's like, oh, Strud's got diarrhea. I'm like, oh God. So we put him in his crate, sleeps in a crate. We put it right outside of our room so we can hear him if he starts crying, needs to go

out in the middle of the night well i don't know if we didn't hear it or if it would if he didn't cry but it wasn't till like 5 a.m the next day he starts crying crying crying like okay i'll take him and this was like i was very proud of myself i've wrote about this in my american news minute if you subscribe you'll get the full story comes out on fridays anyway um megankelly.com. I was very proud of myself, Dave, because Doug had taken them out every morning, every morning of the entire vacation. He's such a trooper. He likes it.

He likes being with them. But he also, it's a little early. So I'm like, I got it tomorrow, honey. It's supposed to be really cold. And Strud's not feeling well. I got it. Mistake. 5 a.m.

I go out there. The entire crate is covered in dog shit. I mean, like liquid dog shit. Forgive me. But it was like such a disaster. I'm like, it was all over the floor. It was all over the pad. That stuff wasn't salvageable. So I'm like, oh, my God. OK, I'm going to get Strudwick outside. So which I do. We can't leave him out there like at home. I leave him in our lawn for a little while. It's Montana. There are moose, there are foxes. It's dark. It's scary. You're on the mountain. It's like, no. So he has to come back in. So I put him in the garage. I'm cleaning up the area where I keep his crate. And I mean, it is like just a tidal wave of dog crap. And then I look over him in the garage, the door's open. I can see him projectile vomiting. What was projectile at the rear end is now projectile at the front end. I'm like, oh, I'm like, oh, poor Stradwick. And also poor me. And also I am a hero for taking

this morning and letting Doug sleep. And also how am I ever going to clean this up? I must have used five rolls of paper towels. I'm like the environmental I ever going to clean this up? I must've used five rolls of paper towels. I'm like the environmentalists are going to track me down. They're going to know I did this. I had mops. I had hoses. I had 409. I, it was, it took me like three hours to get this thing under control. And, um, oh, finally I put strubbuck in the shower with me. The both of us smelled and, and we're just absolutely disgusting. All of this without waking Doug up, by the way, we managed all without waking Doug up and Doug gets up and he says, I tell him what happened. He goes, well, it sounds like you two had a lovely spa morning together. I just don't know, Dave. I don't know if Strabuck will ever return to Montana.

You know, I hate the phrase no good deed goes unpunished because people should try to do good deeds when they can. But that was what you got. You thought I'm going to let Doug rest. He's busting his butt. We're on vacation. I'm going to do the right thing. I'm going to get the dog, blah, blah, blah. And next thing you know, well, there you are. Yeah, that's exactly right. I was neck deep in shit. I will say this to leave it on a happy note. We had some fun moments. I do my best to plan like fun events when we go away. This is like a two week vacay and it's special. So we do something called wig night, which I highly recommend to everybody. You go on Amazon, you can get such fun wigs for $10. It is, there's me and my hideous, I don't know what's happening

in my head there, but it's fun. My husband came up on wig night and he was dressed in the full. That's my brother-in-law Ken with his pink wig on. And then my husband came up and sort of took wig night to the next level because we have all these costumes. We also do a costume night and was a Mr. Incredible. So we had all of our friends over. They donned wigs, too. There's Doug in his Mr. Incredible suit just hanging out. But then we also did for the first time, Dave, something I recommend to everybody, which is a talent night. It was the first annual Kelly Brunt talent night. And I'll show you pictures of my kids. So my daughter, Yardley, wrote a song that she was singing it to the Taylor Swift.

I can't remember the name of the song, but she's she wrote and she dressed up in a costume, of course, because we're Kelly Bruns. Then my son Yates did a comedy routine, Dave, a kid after your own heart. Wow. Yeah, he did a comedy routine and it was genuinely funny. He didn't tell he did 10 jokes, two of which were his, I think, and eight of which he admitted to stealing. But they were good. They're good. That sounds like the usual comedian. My son Thatcher did a rap, which was actually really great and wore this very cute outfit. He was super happy. And then I took the song Brown Eyed Girl and made different lyrics and attempted my pathetic, pathetic guitar playing. I think we have a sample of it. Take a listen and be forgiving. Whatever happened to traffic and subway rats going down to

leftist schools and that want you as Democrats. Okay. Stick with what you know, sister. We're all good at one thing, you know? It's so bad. Can I just tell you one bodily function-related thing that happened to me over the break since we're doing dog gas?

Please, make me feel better. So as you know, we have two newborns here, and one debate that we are constantly having is how much do you have to burp this child after you feed the child? You know, is one good burp enough? Are there two, three burps in there? How long do you have to hold and tap the back and all that? So I believe it was on the 26th. Yeah, it was right after Christmas. I gave Justin a whole bottle. He's drinking like seven ounces now. He's about five months old. He's just an absolute bundle of joy. This kid

cannot stop smiling. He's the happiest baby ever. So I feed him and he's looking at me and he's smiling and I'm like, he doesn't need to burp. There's no burping here. And then I did what will now be the stupidest thing of 2022. I lifted him above my head, like pick him up like this. And he spit up basically the entire bottle directly into my mouth. I mean, directly like, and you know, when it comes out, like, there's like almost like milk curds in there, like totally direct. I mean, I drank half of that. So look, we all got our own problems, you know? Well, you know, you thought you had it down just from Clyde, right? It's like you got a dog. You got exactly.

You understand what it's like to be surrounded by bodily functions. But then you have one baby and you're like, oh, next level. And then you have two babies. This is your life now, right? It's like crap, vomit, bodily functions, pee. Like there is no more dignity. It is the utter loss of one's dignity. Megan, there's a lot of pooping and peeing and crying, and now we have kids involved.

So how's it going, though? Like how overall? Of course, yes, that's an issue. But like overall, how overwhelming is it or not at all? No, it really it's been amazing. So Justin's about five months. He was born on August 5th and then two months to the day Luke arrived. And Justin is like, he really, you'll meet him hopefully soon enough when you're here in Florida. Like he is the smiliest, happiest kid on earth. It's like, I'm just looking at him like, man, he is onto a joke, like some sort of cosmic joke that he found out in the womb. He just knows something about the universe.

He's just so fun and happy and great. Luke, it's only in the last two weeks that he decided to join us here on planet Earth. He had like two months of like, I just really wanna still be in the womb and kind of like looking at everybody, kind of like, you know, they don't really look at you directly,

but just this kind of like crazy I think but just in the last two weeks he decided hey you guys aren't that bad I'm here it really has been really nice you know it's exhausting it really is exhausting obviously you know we've only we did go out on New Year's which was like I think maybe the third time that the two of us went out since August. And it's tiring. And a lot of my clothes are spit up and shirts pulled and this or that. But it's been really nice. And I guess there is a point to having kids, right? You know, my friend, God rest his soul, Frank Kimball, is a good friend of mine in Chicago who passed too soon. But he told me when we had, I think it

was Yates, it was Yates or Yards, one of our first two, he said for about 10 years, you're going to basically check yourself out of the social scene and your dearest friends will understand and forgive you. And those who don't get it can F right off. Um, because it's just, it's, it is a lot of work, but it's worth it. Right. And it's like when I'm sure you're feeling is when I'm not with them, I miss them. It's not that I don't want a social life and I have a social life, but like those first 10 years in particular, they require a lot of care and feeding. And if you want them to turn out well, you better be around to give it. Well, I'm telling you, I get the you miss them thing, but I am heading to Tallahassee tonight for Governor DeSantis's inauguration, and I'm looking forward to a quiet night in a hotel room.

Right, right. More so than you ever dreamed. No offense, kids. No offense. No, no. I always found when they were young, when I left, I'd be like a little teary. It was hard to leave. And then as soon as I sort of got on the bus or the plane or whatever, I was like,

ah, it's not so bad. Actually, I rebounded very quickly. You're drinking like little mini tequilas in from your pocketbook as you get in the car and you're like, I'll be OK. Don't judge. OK, that's the perfect segue into Barbara Walters. OK, so there is no question that this woman was a trailblazer in news and accomplished feats that would never really be matched and could never be matched because she was the first, you know, the first to do so many things with 2020 and 60 Minutes and on and on. And she she made it in a time when women weren't being taken seriously and when it was very hard to be considered as a serious news person. Right. So like and all of us who have come in her wake owe her a debt of gratitude on that front.

And it's one of the reasons why my admiration for her, I bought her autobiography, Audition, several years ago. Well, I actually read that book cover to cover. I read every word in it. And I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. What I saw was an incredible person professionally, and I would never take one moment of that away from her, but a woman who completely fell down on the job when it came to her mothering. And it was jarring to me, her admissions about her own mothering and also what her book said without her seeming to realize it about her lane there as a mom. She talked about how she adopted a little girl named Jackie after Barbara's sister.

And the daughter never saw her mother. And basically, Barbara Walters, according to her own book, was barely mothering this child. And then she writes about how the daughter, oh, so weird, started to have all these behavioral issues. And it was like, well, I sent her off to that boarding school. That didn't work. That was weird. And then that one, that didn't work. That was weird.

I was like, hello, I'm channeling my pal Dr. Laura right now. I mean, she needed one good phone call with Dr. Laura and she would have seen exactly what was going wrong with this kid. And I had my producer, Debbie, a Canadian Debbie, pulled this for me because there was one line I remember. This is from the book. She talks about Jackie, who she adopted in 1968. And Barbara writes, I telephoned whenever I could. And she's on the road all the time. Like she was with Fidel Castro. She wasn't with Jackie. I telephoned whenever I could. I told Jackie I missed her and I loved her dearly. And I asked the nanny to turn on the Today Show

before Jackie went off to nursery school so she could see her mommy in that strange land called China. Then I hung up the phone, felt even lonelier and went back to work. OK, she's saying here she felt lonely elsewhere. She admits she never felt lonely. She was alone, but not lonely. She loved her career. She thrived on it. It's the same as Mike Wallace, who was a shitty father to Chris Wallace. And Chris and Mike have talked about it and written about it. But a great journalist, you are, all on your own. You did it yourself. Nobody helped you. Nobody gave you a silver spoon. Nobody paved the way for you. You fought viewer by viewer for the success you now have. But now you have something even more important to somethings, right? So like you have to work to find the balance. She never found it.

She never found it. She never found it. And to me, it was a sad story about the sacrifice of what truly matters for, I think, the ultimate artifice of fame, money, accolades, and not even that much friendship and beloved colleague situations. Because I happen to know Barbara Walters wasn't that close with a lot of people, even on the job. You know, she was built to do one thing, great interviews, and she fucking nailed it. But this other lane is hugely important and it was neglected. Do you remember in the book, was there any sort of mea culpa at the end? Because usually when people write autobiographies, there's something in that closing, uh, closing chapter to the effect of, you know, I did a lot of these things. This is what you know of me, but here are the things that

I made mistakes on. Like, was there any acknowledgement? Well, I'll give you, I'll give you my, my impression in reading the book was she was clueless about just how, how much damage she was inflicting on the child. Um, like I said, like she, you know, I sat her in front of the TV whenever I could, what? That's not that's not mothering. That's not that. That's no substitute. You know, no one made you go adopt this child. You did.

Or in other cases, you had the child. And I'm not this is not a bash on working moms and dads. I am one. You are one. It's you can't never be present. You can't never be present. Same thing when people adopt a dog. Don't adopt a dog if you can never be with it or never want to be present. You can't never be present. Same thing when people adopt a dog. Don't adopt

a dog if you can never be with it or never want to be with like anyway. Well, I think it's super interesting, Megan, you know, because you, I think, are first off in terms of what you acknowledged at the beginning about how she blazed these trails that, you know, you are one of the people that gets to pick up from just just from a female perspective. And I don't like to you know, we don't like to do identity politics. So there's a certain irony there, but the truth is she did do it in a time when she was, right. So there's that, but you know,

you're an interesting case of this because from professionally, you know, being a fan of yours before I knew you personally and now knowing you personally, it's like the way you do your show, where even today where you started with a personal story, your love for your kids comes through, whether it's on your show or having dinner with you and your husband and your family, like it's obvious that you're trying to do those

things. Look, you literally moved from where you lived because of your kids and then what the schools were doing to your kids. And then in essence, that became something that you talked about from a political and cultural perspective. So that feels pretty integrated to me. It's something that, as you just said, I'm going to have to now figure out going forward because I have for the last 15 or 20 years, given everything I had to my career, it worked. It's good. It's settled. But now I have this other thing and I have to figure out how to do that. So I suspect you'll be getting some calls from me at about 3 a.m. when when I'm getting more spit up right in my mouth. And the balance is different for everybody. You know what I mean?

Maybe some people are more 60 percent family, 40 percent work or the or vice versa. And frankly, most of us have to work. You know, most American families don't have the option of being like, I'm just going to, you know, it's most of us have to work. At least one parent has to work. And usually in most households, too, though, you can find a way. And I think, you know, for me, I always laugh when people are like, that was the dumbest move you ever made. It's leaving Fox News. I'm like, you don't know anything about me. You have no idea that not no amount of millions was worth missing my children's entire childhood. No amount. No amount. And I'm delighted

that I left Fox News, not because I had problems with the people there. I actually love the people there. There was definitely a hangover from the whole Roger Ailes situation. But that's the reason I left is because I wanted to see my children. I want to raise my own children. And I still wanted to work. And I found anramp that seemed to make sense at the time that that was fraught too but we can get to that you know we've already gotten to that at NBC and anyway in the end I landed it and Barbara Walters here's you ask about regrets Debbie Canadian Debbie pulled this soundbite from her in 2014 when she was she was talking about her daughter Jackie and her feelings you know looking back on her career. Take a listen.

Do you have any regrets when it comes to Jackie? I look back and I think I wish I had been with her more. I was so busy with the career. It's the age old problem. And, you know, on your your deathbed are you going to say I wish I'd spent more time in the office no, you'll say I wish I'd spent more time with my family

and I do feel that way I wish I had spent more time with my Jackie I'm going to tell you something Dave I don't believe that soundbite I actually don't believe her I've read enough of what she's written that I think she prioritized her career because it was what she truly loved. It was what she truly loved more than anything. And I think Barbara Walters was smart enough to know what to

say in that interview, but she did not live a life that reflected any of that. You know, honestly, if you listen to some of the Mike Wallace interviews, like with Chris and so on late in his life, he kind of put it put it out there. You know, I was like, I think Chris would say to explain some of Chris's issues. But I just think, you know, women are under so much pressure to want to be mothers and to be good mothers. And Barbara clearly felt that. But what she really was at heart was a great journalist. And I would submit maybe that's the lane she should have stayed in because this dabbling over in the other lane produced a lot of heartache that I'm sure the child felt. And I

don't I don't know how Barbara felt about it. Well, it's interesting because the mea culpa that she just had there is sort of what I was asking you. Did she have that at the end of the book? But I guess and this is a little bit of what I think my friend Jordan Peterson or our friend Jordan Peterson would say, which is that the proof sort of would be in the pudding. So you might know something throughout your life, but if you don't act on it,

then what do you really believe? I think that's sort of what you're saying there. It's not that it was only at 85 years old that she suddenly realized that maybe she was doing too much in terms of work and not enough at home. She obviously knew it all along the way, which is why she wanted her kid to watch her in China on television,

because she knew that there was something missing there. But this is a challenge that, as she points out, it's like the age-old thing that we all have to deal with in our own way. And what level of our ego can we put aside? And when you've given so much to your career and you get such a reward for it as she did, can you put it aside for the child and all of that? So it's, it's really, it's really complex. And I, again, I say that as

somebody that I'm on the front end of that and we'll try to take these lessons to heart to the best of my ability. Yes. Well, she came out, she said, hold on a second. I'm trying to find it. But in any event, she made some comment about, as I pointed out, she never felt lonely. Oh, here it is. This is via the New York Post on sacrifices made for her career. I don't think I was very good at marriage, she said. It may be that my career was just too important. It may have been that I was just a difficult person to be married to. And I just seem to be better alone. I'm not lonely. I'm alone. I will tell you, the other impression I had from her book was, according to Barbara Walters, virtually every man on earth she ever met wanted to sleep with her. I mean,

that one, that one, Alan Greenspan, Fidel Castro. And maybe it was true, you know, because she was this sort of fierce, you know, strong journalist, female journalist at a time where there weren't very many of them. But I did think that was interesting. And I want to make a point on vanity and like the pictures around your house and Barbara Walters in one second. But before we get to that, let's spend a minute on the view and the legacy there. Right. Because that was a great idea for a show. It was a great idea and it was hers. And she wanted a diverse cast

to sit around and talk about the day's news events. And that's what they originally had, right? Star Jones, she was fascinating. Elizabeth Hasselbeck, you know, she came out of nowhere and she was really interesting to listen to. Joy Behar. And then it just deteriorated into this.

It's almost like the way people rip on Bravo's Real Housewives is just being like a sad representation of women. Right. Like catty and small. I love it. Don't get me wrong. I think there's a place for that. But they they're that in news that just these small, empty headed bobbleheads who say a bunch of nonsense, untrue nonsense for a living. Their smallest selves, their unresearched opinions in this scripted show. I've been on The View many times. They give you the questions in advance. Hello, that's not journalism. And that, I'm sure, was never what Barbara Walters wanted it to be. No, it's such a great point. And this is exactly why I did the show

the way I did this morning, because her intention with the show was really good. That if you remember, you sort of quoted it at the top, that intro of the show from 25 years ago, I put these women together from these different walks of life so that we could sit at a table and do all this stuff. That in some ways,

what I was trying to frame on my show this morning was that that really is what America is all about, that we all come from different walks of life. We are going to have wildly differences, wildly different opinions on politics and culture and everything else. But if we can't sit together and work some of this stuff out and then hopefully agree to disagree, if nothing else, then we're in a lot of trouble. And she did do it for a long time. You know, you may remember the clip. Do you remember this from, I think, 2012, when Bill O'Reilly was on the show

and they were talking about 9-11. And Bill O'Reilly made some comments about Muslims that actually I thought were pretty bad. He used, you know, he was sort of blaming all Muslims for what happened, which of course, you can only blame the people that did something, not a group in a group of people. But if you remember it went, it went viral, of course, it was one of the first things to go viral. Uh, Whoopi and Joy just got up and walked away in the middle of the interview on live television, which was such a horrific

example of how you were supposed to conduct a show that was about diverse viewpoints. But to Barbara's credit, the second they walk off the stage, she immediately says, without hesitation, she basically says, that is not how we should do things. That is not how my colleagues should behave. We have to be able to have these conversations. And to your point, unfortunately, and it really, I would say, escalated

once she left her day-to-day duties there, it devolved into everything that was the reverse of what she wanted to create. It devolved into sort of empty-headed talking point leftist craziness. But the way it was set up originally and the way it was originally with Meredith Vieira and some of the other people that you mentioned, it was diverse and good and decent. I think somewhere around the Rosie O'Donnell years with Elizabeth and when wokeness was just starting to bubble up, that's when it really went crazy.

And now it's a complete caricature of itself, right? It's like an SNL version of itself. But her intentions there were good. And I would hope that, you know, in terms of the legacy of her, that that would be what people focus on a little bit because she tried, you know, like the best you can do is try.

And maybe she made mistakes along the way. I don't know everything about staffing or everything else. She was, I mean, when it comes to talented interviewers, like honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who was better than Barbara Walters. And I know her longtime executive producer, Bill Getty, who I've worked with a bit in my own career, an incredibly talented guy. He once told me that she would in preparing her questions for whether it was a politician or one of those most fascinating things she would do, she'd ask everybody, what do you want to know

about Clint Eastwood? Like whoever it was, what would you want to ask him? And she'd write them all down on index cards and she'd have a like a huge stack of them. And then she'd go through and she'd find the ones that she thought sort of rose to the top. But she was you know, she wasn't too proud to ask the commoner, what do you think is interesting? Right. You didn't need to just have some executive producer tell her she wanted to know what everybody thought was interesting. And she put a lot of work into all those interviews to make them so interesting. And she got the best, the biggest and best gets. By the way, before I said 60 Minutes, I meant 2020, which is the show that she was on for a long time with our pal John Stossel. So, you know, all of that hard work was reflected in the work product. And I respect that, too. You know, there's so many people today

who want to be like big stars because they're pretty or, you know, some stupid other reason. They have huge asses. Barbara Walters worked. Hey, hey, enough about me. Come on. She did not work. All right. I'm going to I'm going to leave it on this as a tease, because when we come back, I want to talk about Anthony Fauci. And the thing about Barbara Walters is, you know, I would venture to

guess if you went to Barbara Walters, New York City apartment, you would find pictures of her with Fidel and with every president, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I was just thinking, not that I'm any better than anybody that I'm about to talk about. But if you come here, you'd be hard pressed to find a picture of me with any of these public figures. That's just not how I am. If you come here, you'll see pictures of my Nana and my mom and my kids and my dad. But you're not going to see pictures of my Nana and my mom and my kids and my dad, but you're not going to see pictures of me with all these politicians who I went and interviewed or the presidential debates because I don't give a shit about that stuff.

It's, it's my job. It's important to do, but that doesn't make me feel like, oh, a memory I want to hold onto. Right. Like it and whatever I, there are too many people in the business who are in it for ego. And I'm not that's not necessarily Barbara, but it's 100 percent become the man we know as Anthony Fauci. And he's about to retire. There's a detail that just came out about him. And that's where I'm going to pick it up after a very quick break. Don't go away. Dave Rubin stays with us. We'll be right back. So, Dave, Anthony Fauci, I said the end of this month because I'm confused. We're actually now in January.

He's officially retiring as of December 31st. So on his way out, he gives an interview, of course, the man freaking loves to see himself in the press. And that's my point to the New York Times, which goes to his home office, his home, and sits down with him in his home office and writes, the walls in Dr. Anthony S. Fauci's home office are adorned with portraits of, care to take a guess? I know. I know. I read it too. Him. It's Anthony Fauci.

Of course. Him. And it's not even him with Fidel Castro, like you'd probably see in Barber's house. It's just him. Portraits of him drawn and painted by some of his many fans. He seems a little uncomfortable with people knowing about the pictures. camera, the quote far right attacked him as an egomaniac. Well, I'm not far right, Dr. Fauci, and I definitely think you are an egomaniac and that you're pathetic for adorning your walls with pictures of yourself. And by the way, your side of the aisle said this about Trump about 10,000 times when they got a look at his office and all of his magazine covers of himself on its walls. I mean, Fauci literally said, when you criticize me, you are criticizing science. That is right out of Chancellor Palpatine in Star Wars. I am the Senate.

You know, it's funny. I have one. I was thinking when we went to commercial break, I was like, wait a minute, how many pictures of me do I have around my house? We have one picture of me in the entire house. It is in the bathroom of my studio and it's, you can barely see me. It's from a distance. I'm on stage at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville. That's the only picture we have of me here. But you know, one of the things we were talking about kids earlier. And one of the things that's been really good for me is, you know, you know, this Megan, like you're Megan Kelly, wherever you go, people know that Megan Kelly is there. Your day, you do the Megan Kelly show. It's often about Megan Kelly. People like you, they watch you, they want you to sign things, they want to take pictures with you. It's about

Megan all the time. It's about Dave all the time. One of the things that I have really found in these couple months with kids is I love the fact that some portion of my life, a pretty significant portion, is less about me. That's not to denigrate the work that I've done or doing a show that has my name in it or anything else or any of the things that you've done. But you know one of the trappings, and I think this is what Barbara was sort of talking about earlier,

one of the trappings of doing something for yourself is then it can almost become too much about you. And for somebody like Anthony Fauci to have just pictures of himself all over, that that's what you wanna walk into your office and look at, it sounds so crazy to me. Like, how about a picture of, if you like basketball, put Michael Jordan,

maybe your kids, or just a nice, beautiful painting. That would make sense. But you, you need to stare at yourself all the time. I'm pretty sure there's a nice, beautiful painting. That would make sense. But you, you need to stare at yourself all the time. I'm pretty sure there's a Greek story about this. Honestly, it's why like I feel blessed to have the mother I have. My mother would never let my ego get out of control like that ever. She would always keep it in check with some gratuitous insults, which I laugh about. But honestly, they're kind of important. Like, yeah, you do have to build your kid up, but then not too big. Like you have to keep your kid humble, too, and recognize that he's not God's

gift. Anthony Fauci thinks he's God's gift. And that led to a lot of serious problems that we're all still dealing with today, some of which are reflected in the Twitter file reporting that David Zweig has been doing now as a result of Elon's trick trick trickle of information out of Twitter. And that leads me to my next point, which actually relates to you as well. You know, we've been getting the Twitter files, the suppression of Trump, the shadow banning of certain conservatives, you know, depressing certain conservatives tweets that they wouldn't be well seen and so on. And now we get the Twitter file reveal on covid and, you know, the coordination that that Twitter was doing with the White House, which considered itself very angry about the

misinformation coming out there. Now we learn from David Zweig's reporting misinformation just meant you disagreed with the CDC and that bots programmed by some twit at Twitter who knows absolutely nothing and 100 percent does not have a medical degree would then suppress legitimate, thoughtful tweets from people like Harvard medical doctor Martin Kulldorff, one of the great Barrington Declaration doctors, who would say, if you've already had COVID, you actually don't need the vaccine, particularly not if you're a child. Suppressed misinformation. The bots at Twitter, again, programmed by some 20-year-old know-nothing, suppress a Harvard MD. That's what we're learning.

You could say it's no big deal. You could say it's old information because we suspected it or we saw some of it firsthand. But this is an outrageous story. And it was it was being done at the behest of the White House, which had its hands all in there, like the doctor who goes in with the gloves, all in there in Twitter's business and in our private slash public conversations. Can I tell you what I'm more concerned about related to this? Because I know as you're telling me this,

you're not surprised by this. And very few members of your audience are surprised by this because you've been talking about this sort of thing. Same thing on my show. My audience is not shocked by the Twitter files, nor am I shocked because we kind of knew, right? Like we all kind of knew. Let's think back to what?

It's about a year and a half ago, Jen Psaki doing her White House press secretary thing when she said, and I quote, we flag. That's what she said. We flag posts for these tech companies. Well, if you flag posts as the administration, now that we can get lost in the word flag, and they love a lot of this

because we get lost in the words. But if you are someone at the administration, or you're at the FBI or the CIA, and you call Facebook or Twitter, and you don't say to them, hey, you gotta take this down, but you say, hey, we see this stuff on your site, we want you to take a look at it.

It's the ultimate mafia move. What does the mafia guy do in any, I mean, go to Goodfellas, go to Sopranos, go to Casino, go to any, whatever you love, right? Go to Godfather. The guy doesn't walk in the first day and shoot everybody. There's a couple chats beforehand about how he's gonna run his business

or how he's gonna pay you back or whatever it might be. And that in essence is how the government is acting. So you take a phone call from someone at the government and then you start walking around Twitter going, guys, you know, we've been having these calls and now we've seen all the emails and then they just start doing it on your behest. So this is an absolute assault on the first amendment, which of course is about government silencing you. But if the government is using the levers of power, if it's using pressure because they don't want to be broken up or looked at in other ways or thought that they're going to be taken down, you know, the people at Twitter, well, then the government is stepping on your free speech. So what I'm really worried about, though, related to all of this, and I'd love your thoughts on this, Megan,

is what it seems to me we're at right now is a complete divergence in reality so you have a certain amount of people that see the twitter files they've been paying attention and they're they're awake as opposed to woke and they're seeing what reality is but i don't know that it's affecting anyone on the other side cnn new york times nbc they're all ignoring all of this stuff. And whether we like it or not, a certain set of Americans still pay attention to them. So who has the Twitter files actually woken up?

Maybe it's sort of given us more fuel, right? And our viewers more fuel, but is it getting to the other people? If Chuck Todd can do a meet the press every Sunday and never address any of it, then what is happening? It's not. Are we just are we just veering completely in different ways? Yes, it's not getting to them. However.

You know, the term gaslighting is overused, but it does work, you know, when you know something's true. But all these people keep looking at you saying it's not true. It's not true. You're crazy. You're crazy. The people on our side who knew this was happening but didn't have like proof positive in some of these cases have now. I mean, it's just been the gaslighting is over. The proof is right there. The new owner of Twitter has given it up. You know, thank God he's not one of them. And if you think it's just happening at Twitter, you're not paying attention. It's 100% happening at Google and Facebook and YouTube and all these places. So, you know,

people who are paying attention need to be on alert even more and not and not allow themselves to be gaslit by the other side with its great intentions and their moral authority because they lie and then they don't admit it when the proof comes out that it was as we said all along. You know, I'm not shocked by it, but I am newly incensed. I read I read this. OK, I'm newly incensed. Here's David Zweig putting out. It was an exchange Martin Kulldorff had that I just referenced where he's like, no, you don't need the vaccine if you already had covid and especially not if you're a child. And there's internal Twitter correspondence responding to this is from March of 2021, right after the day after 10 days after.

Hi team. This is internal Twitter correspondence about Kulldorff. Sending a heads up that we will take action on at Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policy, specifically by sharing false information regarding the efficacy of the covid-19 vaccines, which goes against CDC guidelines. Again, all he wrote, somebody said, do I need to take the vaccine? I'm not an anti-vaxxer. But what about younger age groups? And Kulldorff had said, no, thinking everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, high risk people and their caregivers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor children. That's

what they took action against. This is absolutely some moron who doesn't have an MD. By the way, Zweig reports that half these decisions were made in the Philippines where they were outsourcing this stuff to. I mean, OK, so some telemarketer type in the Philippines who's supposed to be moderating content gets to censor a Harvard MD like Martin Kulldorff, who specializes in this used you as an example before on the show. You yourself, you yourself got what a foul of the Twitter content. You you probably were dealing with some Philippine bot who censored you when you tweeted. Let me give it to the audience. July 2021. Ahead of your time, you tweeted they want a federal vaccine mandate for vaccines, which are clearly not working as promised just weeks ago. People are getting and transmitting COVID despite the Vax. Plus, now they're prepping us for booster shots. A sane society would take a pause. We do not live in a sane society. And they locked your account saying you violated their policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID.

You know what's interesting about that tweet? The last line in there where I said the thing about a sane society, I purposely put that in there because I knew I was saying something that was going to get me as close to suspended as possible, not because it wasn't true, but because I understood the nature of the game. So I wanted to say something like, hey, how about we all pause for a moment? It was my way of kind of winking to the Twitter people like, don't suspend me for this. I'm just saying, let's think about what's going on here. Now, what's interesting also is that that was July of 2021. Now, that's obviously over a year and a half ago at this point. So it's hard to remember the chronology of how all this nonsense happened. But it was literally, I think

it was about six weeks after Joe Biden had said, if you get the COVID vaccine, you will not get nor transmit COVID. Then we immediately found out that that wasn't true. And then they suddenly started talking about mandates and they suddenly started talking about boosters. So it was obvious to me that I was saying the truth. What's also interesting about this is I was told by Twitter when I when I finally got reinstated that it was an accident. But it was obviously not an accident. This is what they were up to. And this is why, Megan, we got to keep rolling, you know, doling out those red pills in 2023. Honestly, people need to pay attention and be careful. Be careful about where you the sources from which you consume news because you can get spun and respun

and told you're a terrible person just for asking legitimate questions. I will say, thank God Elon took over Twitter. It's not perfect, but it's much better and it's going to get even better than it is now. And we'll learn, and again, keep your eye on all the others because it's not just Twitter.

Dave Rubin, good luck with those beautiful babies and thanks for coming on. Happy New Year. Love you, Megan. Happy New Year. Love you, too, my friend. See you soon. All right. We're going to be back to cover this Idaho murder suspects arrest. We've got all the latest details. We've been diving deep into this. And don't forget, in the meantime, folks, you can find the Megan Kelly show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east, and the full video show and clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash megankelly. We're almost over, like we need a couple more thousand to go over the, what is it, 600,000 mark? Seven, seven,

700,000 mark. Help us get there. Go to youtube.com slash megankelly. And if you prefer an audio podcast, go ahead, follow and download on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts for free. There you're going to find our full archives with more than 450 shows. Now, we'll be right back. A major, major break in the stabbing deaths of four Idaho college students. Early Friday morning across the country, authorities arrested a 28-year-old man charging him with four counts of murder. The supporting affidavit has yet to be unsealed, but it will be. We know the suspect was a student at nearby Washington State University,

less than 10 miles away, pursuing a doctorate, of course, wait for it, in criminal justice. Joining me now, our first legal panel of 2023. Harmeet Dhillon is managing partner at the Dhillon Law Group and a candidate for RNC chair right now. And also David Freiheit. He's a lawyer and a YouTuber better known to his audience as Aviva Fry. Both of you, welcome back to the show and happy new year. Happy new year, Megan. Happy new year, everybody. Thank God they arrested somebody. And I think it sounds like they have their guy. Thank God this happened back on

November 12th into the wee hours of November 13th, where in Idaho, these four college students who had arrived back home after a night of, you know, partying, being out, being normal college students were stabbed to death in their home. One after the other. No one heard anything. There were others in the in the same house who were not harmed, who didn't hear anything. And for seven weeks now, we've been saying, where are the leads? Where is the arrest? Who could have possibly done this? You know, speculating the the local police have been taking a lot of criticism. The town is called Moscow, Moscow, Idaho. A lot of criticism.

It turns out now for some time, unspecified how long the FBI has been following this guy. His name is Brian Koberger, 28 years old. And here's what we know about him. He was a doctoral candidate in criminal justice at Washington State University. Again, it's very close to the murder scene right across the border there. He was OK. He had completed his first semester as a Ph.D. student. He had previously gone to school at DeSales University, a Catholic school in central Pennsylvania, where he's from. Parents live in the Poconos. Had attained a graduate degree, a master's degree in criminal justice in 2022. He was on the dean's list in spring of 2020. He had gotten a bachelor's degree from the same school. Earlier, he had been at community college, I think in the same region,

studying more of a technical career and then switched over to criminal justice and during his time as an undergrad they believe he posted this um survey online as a quote student investigator in criminal justice seeking participation in a research project to understand how emotions and psychological traits influence decision making when committing a crime the thing is very creepy they've now taken it down the university to sales. But, you know, it's what, frankly, any criminal justice student might want to know. You know, like, how did you commit your crime? How did you feel when you committed your crime? How did you gain access to the site?

It's just weird now looking at it, knowing what we know. So, Harmeet, I'll start with you on what you think about how they found this guy and what your spidey senses as a lawyer are telling you about whether they have the right person. Well, thank you, Megan, for asking me. So first of all, I'll say I'm a voracious consumer of both crime fiction and true crime information. And so, you know, I've been doing my own speculation about how they're going to find this person. And I think what we've seen in commentary online and on television is pretty much consistent with what the police are hinting. Now, there's some law in Idaho regarding what they can say about a suspect prior to his initial appearance. And so, you know, they're keeping their information kind of tight.

But what's what's come out is that they used genetic anthropology. That's one term for it, but basically using information gained from genetics that are in either a government database or a private database that will identify a relative of somebody whose genetic material is found at the scene of a crime. So this man has been described as wearing gloves in public in the weeks after the on Friday was the fact that there were defensive wounds on some of the victims, which would suggest in turn DNA. We've all learned about how they can get DNA from under the fingernails of a victim. And so that could be a way that they got some genetic material that then they were able to triangulate through a database of some relative of his and then pin

down the fact that he lives in the area. So they might've picked up, let's say 20 relatives or 10 relatives and then figure out who's in Idaho, who's in the neighborhood. And then they sort of zeroed in on him and then began to do further investigation, probably used a subpoena to identify his cell phone pings and cell phone records, and then went from there to at least pin him down to being somebody who was either stalking these victims or very close to the scene of the crime. Just as an anecdote, my husband went to college in rural Idaho, and not everywhere there has great coverage, but it is a college town. So I would assume in the immediate vicinity of where these murders occurred, there was good cell phone coverage. So that would have helped identify

him as at least a lot of circumstantial evidence. So that's very helpful. And that genetic DNA stuff, however you phrase it, genealogy, is fascinating. That's the CeCe Moore lane of crime fighting. This woman, I interviewed her while I was on NBC and that she was, if memory serves, forgive me, but I think she was a housewife who was just really interested in crime. And then one thing led to another, and she started to take deep dives on her own into figuring out sort of the genetic tree. If you could get one DNA sample, like Harmeet just pointed out, like you go to this crime scene, this guy was not in the DNA system, this Brian Koberger. But somebody related to him probably apparently was.

And whether it's 23andMe or Ancestry.com or this other this other Web site that she was using at the time I interviewed her, where the results from those things might be uploaded by somebody voluntarily. Right. Like not everybody's a criminal. A lot of people go on those sites and say, I genuinely want to connect with long lost relatives or other people. So they're happy to upload their DNA. So if your brother's in there, your cousin's in there, it doesn't matter that you're not in there because if they get a hit at a crime scene of your DNA, it's going to show a match to the one they do have in their system.

And then she does the genetic tree all around your brother. And then you pop up. And if you happen to be living 10 miles from the crime scene um there it's on it's game on and it also so happens viva that he drove the same kind of car that had been detected by the fbi early on in this case you know because they check every surveillance camera in the vicinity as driving away from the crime scene in the wee hours of the morning. And boom, they're off to the races. It's amazing.

My mother brought me up on the, you know, true crime stuff, serial killers. I don't know why she was into it, but she was into it. Every woman is. Well, it's a weird thing. I was just refreshing my memory on the dating game killer. The guy who turned out to be a serial killer who presented himself as one of the candidates and reading into it at the time. You know, they didn't have background checks. They didn't have all of this surveillance that they have today. So once upon a time, you could understand it was easier to get away with these types of crimes for a longer period of time.

But I'm operating on presumption of innocence. You know, this situation does, you know, make people sensitive to the fact that when there are high profile crimes that terrorize a neighborhood, sometimes, you know, people just want to find somebody, anybody to pacify the community, to make law enforcement look like they're working and doing their job. So bear in mind, historically, this is how people get framed and wrongly convicted just to pacify the panic of a neighborhood who needs to find some resolution to a horrific crime. But you look at this in today's day and age, there's no way to get away with these things if you're going to do them. There's either 24-7 cameras outside. There's 24-7 surveillance on your own phone. DNA, this idea that people have given their DNA willingly to these companies, and now you can find people who are not in there. It's fascinating. Can't, you know, I say can't wait. Eager to see what the actual evidence is above and beyond circumstantial hypothesizing

above and beyond just demonizing someone who fits sort of a dexter type stereotype of what you would anticipate the killer would look like above and beyond all that superficial stuff. Very curious to see what the concrete evidence is that led to this surveillance of the individual and and finally charges. Definitely, because as Harmeet pointed out, they're holding the cards close to the vest because this Idaho law, but we'll get we will get the facts. We'll get the facts and supporting affidavit. So, Harmeet, the thing is about the dna so let's say you have it may have been cc more or somebody like her who drew the tree around the dna they did find that didn't match they didn't know whose it was but they knew it was related to

somebody in their system and then she does the family tree and they try to figure out maybe it's this guy maybe it's not they follow him they get a subpoena for the cell phone records of this guy sure enough they reportedly may have been pinging at the crime scene on the night in question or right near um then they do the they're like he's got the hyundai electro that we've been whatever lantra that we've been looking for he happens to drive it he left the area and went home to the poconos right after the murders to be with mom and dad you know lots of stuff but you and I both know at that point, at that point, they get his DNA. They're surveilling him. They get a Coke can he threw out. They get a tissue. They get a piece of gum. You know, anybody who's listening to one week of Datelines knows what comes next. So they probably have an actual match now between the DNA found at that

crime scene and this guy. Right. I mean, you're not going to be able to arrest this guy without convincing a judge that there's probable cause. So it isn't just circumstantial evidence. And he seems like a creepy killer type. There has to have been some hard evidence in the duration of time. Look, I remember at the beginning of this case, the Moscow, Idaho police came into criticism from, you know, sort of other police departments or the FBI for, quote unquote, sloppy handling of the evidence. I don't know what they were talking about exactly, but I would assume that in examining the bodies immediately following the murders, they would have taken all the samples from the defensive areas that that they could find. And so they would have had that genetic material and began working on it. But it would take weeks to then subpoena information, check numerous databases. In addition to the commercial databases mentioned, of course, a relative of this gentleman could have been arrested for crime or had his genetic material taken in a rape case or something like that. So there would be, and there are some federal databases,

but then there's a lot of information that isn't uploaded to these databases. So, you know, that's one of the complaints why we had a killer, serial killer in California who wasn't caught for 30 years or something because of this. The police departments were slow in uploading the genetic material. So I think they probably spent the last several weeks doing their due diligence, surveillance, getting some, like you said, possibly corroborative evidence from his home. We don't know now whether they went into his home, but homes are rife with genetic material, hair, saliva, toothbrushes, and things like that. So with the confidence with which they're projecting they have him as their killer, it sounds like they have a scientific case that's pretty watertight.

That's right, because that's the next step would be matching the actual DNA of the killer with this guy, Brian Kohlberger. And I would mark money, dollars to donuts. They've done that. That's what led to the final arrest. And I mean, if that's a match, he's toast. They've got him. That's that's that stuff can't be faked. I mean, we're past the age where you can say, well, DNA, it's questionable. I mean, that's he's done if they've got that. Why he did it. What what was the motivation? What makes a killer like this? A guy 28 years old who, according to the reports, has never been in trouble before. Viva, this is everybody's worst nightmare. That's your neighbor. You know, the guy you go to college with, the guy you served at the restaurant who seems

perfectly nice. I've got to say, like, he looks kind of like a regular American guy. He's got some somewhat pleasant face. You know, my point is only just like he doesn't look like a deranged killer. Right. When you see this guy's profile and now they're interviewing friends of his and they're saying things like, oh, well, he changed. He changed a lot. Well, you know, he used to be normal. We hung out with him and then he changed. He got very aggressive. You always hear people say this because nobody wants to be like, yes, my best friend. I didn't detect a thing. They're always like, oh, yeah, he changed. Then we broke up with him. We weren't friends with him anymore. I don't know how much stock to put into that. But it is chilling that he was apparently a high functioning grownup in our society and then committed these crimes. But most, I say serial killers, for lack of a better word,

they don't, people think evil has to somehow look evil and rarely, you know, does it. You look up historical serial killers, by and large, look normal. And when you're basing it only on one snapshot of a mugshot or one, you know, candid photo taken from the past so they can show you who it is, you know, they don't all look like Charles Manson after he's been in jail and tattooed a swastika on his forehead. That being said, once people have a suspect, they go back and reassess everything with hindsight and say, oh, yeah, he made some odd comments here and there. He posted some odd things. I think by and large, everybody who's existed on social media could have something that could be taken to make them look bad in the present or explain bad behavior in the present. I think what's most suspicious about all of this is that he didn't

have much of a social media footprint. I got to say, it might be my own upbringing, my own culture, but I am far more suspicious of people who do not have a big social media footprint, or none at all, than I am of people who have one and have said, you know, a and not a on given days. So yeah, what fascinates people to this is how they look normal. They look, you know, a and not a on given days. So what fascinates people to this is how they look normal. They look, you know, like your neighbor. And we never know what our neighbors are up to behind closed doors. And that is part of the terror of living in a society of people. But they're going to go scrutinize this guy's social media, personal history, meet friends and family, and they'll find what they need to find in order to explain this away. But I just hope, you know, I take for granted law enforcement has an airtight

case. But it would look, you know, you would not want people retrospectively going back to explain how someone is guilty in real time, and this person ends up not being the right person. Yes, stay open minded. And his lawyer is so far denying, denying guilt, as you would expect on behalf of the client. Harmeet, just a couple of things when it comes to the evidence or the testimonials, I guess I should say. There's one former aunt, so I guess she was related to the family by marriage, and now that marriage dissolved, who says he was crazy when it came to veganism. He used to be obese in high school and was allegedly bullied. But honestly, I mention it because it's like, well, everybody was bullied. You don't turn into somebody who sneaks into an apartment in the middle of the night and kills four people, stabbing them to death.

OK, but anyway, it's a detail. Then he lost the weight and became, quote, aggressively vegan and apparently wouldn't even eat food, according to the New York Post, which interviewed her. That was cooked on a skillet that had meat cooked on it. Again, this does not make you a serial killer. It's just a detail. It's color, as we say. One guy gave an interview to the Daily Beast saying that they were buddies, but then this alleged killer pulled the guy's girlfriend aside and said, I have a bottle. Do you want to go out for the night? Like just the two of us. And the girl's like, you're weird. No, I'm dating your friend. Hello. And that ended the friendship and the woman didn't go with him.

There are some reports that won't be surprised. He was a failure with women. He was making inappropriate comments at bars. He was in some bars sort of notes as like problematic when it comes to the way he's approaching girls. That would not surprise me one bit, Harmeet. Yeah. I mean, obviously many of us are highly suspicious of aggressive vegans, but that doesn't make you a serial killer in and of itself. But look, all joking aside, the fact pattern of repeatedly aggressively approaching women in an abrupt, awkward way, there are numerous instances of that. So that suggests a lack of social skills. And you often do see that in profiles of serial killers is that they lack empathy. They lack the ability to kind of sense how other people are going to react to them. And so it fits the profile.

Another way that you see a lot of these mass shooters in high schools are what they call them incels, involuntary celibates. And so this guy fits those patterns. But even without that, you got the evidence and you have him at the scene of the crime. That's really more than enough to convict him. It was, I think this is NBC reporting, Viva, that he memorably harassed female staff at the Seven Siren Brewing Company near his hometown. The bar owner is telling NBC that employees labeled him in their system as a guy who, quote, makes creepy comments, end quote, and said he once called a staffer a bitch for spurning his advances. According to the staffer's notes, he would have two or three beers, quoting now, and then just get a little too comfortable, end quote. The behavior was so upsetting, the brewery owner approached his patron about it. Koberger denied the behavior, but never showed up at the bar again. Again, it reports that he would become

aggressive when he was referred to as overweight overweight back when I guess he actually was. And these are some of the details coming out about him. One other detail. I found this podcast called Four Killed for What, which is actually interesting. This guy's been following this from the start. And he interviewed a forensic psychologist, Kate Walinga. And Kate Walinga pointed out on the podcast that these murders were committed eight days before the suspect's birthday. And that to her, that would be potentially significant as a forensic psychologist, because it could be, anything from a present to oneself, to a deadline, like I'm about to turn 28 and it's time to do the thing that i've been preparing to

do but she she saw that as very significant she did not take as serious his reported statement to authorities asking was anyone else arrested she was like i dismiss that um And she, well, I guess, so those are the sort of the main points that the birthday was very telling to her. This is going to, to some extent, setting aside hard evidence, pinging on the phone, video surveillance, et cetera, DNA evidence. This is going to turn into one of those situations where people want to assess the poker playing of the poker player who wins the tournament. So they're going to read into certain things and read away certain things.

It's all I mean, it's interesting. I'm sure there are authorities who are more authorities or more credible authorities than others. But then you have people interpreting his facial expression in the mugshot, interpreting that question he asked, was anyone else arrested? As if to say, you know, that's indicative of something. We're going to have a lot of interpretation of people now dealing with the prime suspect, people reading things in and on both ends. Hard evidence is what's going to be most interesting in all of this. The pontificating,

it's going to be it's going to be fun for, you know, interpreting behavior, a la Dexter type analyzing, but the hard evidence I'm like, like i want to see what uh what they have like harmeet says and and how strong or how weak it is but the fact that they were tailing this guy for four or five days before making the arrest and the fbi was on him and perhaps he even knew that it's going to be interesting to see what's in the uh call it the affidavit for probable cause i think it'd be fascinating if i can add they may have already asked him for a DNA sample, so he may have been aware that he was a prime suspect. He would have been making some preparations to stage his arrest and otherwise, so who

knows? I predict they got the DNA off of his trash or off of his Coke can or something. That's how they do it. That's how they did it in Golden State too. They don't need your permission if it's something you've discarded publicly. Here's the thing. So, I mean, you use the word fun. It is sort of a hobby to investigate crime for a lot of people. But I really think there's a reason we do that.

We're looking for the thing that distinguishes the case from our own lifestyle, right? We're looking for the thing that tells us it won't happen to me or anyone else I love because we won't make that mistake or we'll recognize this trait in somebody and get away from him. And by the way, on this subject, layers, layers, layers between you and your children and potential bad guys, you know, locks on the doors, locks on the window, security system, get a dog. Like there were there were layers that could have been placed between these students. And trust me, I get it. I was a college student who didn't have any of those layers.

But now I would recommend much different for my kids and just remember that like the more layers the more difficult it is for an intruder a bad guy to get access to you or your children the better um but we look at this guy and we think what were the signs would i know it if i saw it and the fact that he comes from i don't know know, reportedly a normal family. I haven't seen that much about them. They say little is known about them. His father, Michael, his mother, Marianne, live in the home that he was believed to be staying in when he was arrested. I saw one report suggesting, I think the father may have gone out and driven back with him from Washington state to the Poconos, suggesting a somewhat, I don't know, potentially close relationship. Two older sisters, Anna and Melissa. Melissa, 31, is a therapist in New Jersey. My God, can you imagine being her client, like her patient,

going in there and speaking to this woman who you know is going through this trauma of her own? They wrote a poem, his sister Melissa and his mother Marianne, after Uvalde. And the poem reads as follows, bereft of their laughter, this is the mass school murder in Uvalde, bereft of their laughter, there's now not a sound as we lower our children into the ground, small hands and feet buried six feet deep into the earth of the world that failed them, the world that failed them. I mean, those words, they read very differently knowing now that their son, their brother may have intentionally gone in there and committed these four murders of,

no, they were not children, but they were at best young adults with their whole lives in front of them. Like what creates a person so normal? She becomes a therapist and she writes these empathetic poems about Uvalde. And in the very same family, the brother allegedly went and did this, Harmeet, you know? Yeah, I mean, it's shocking. So many of these stories are like that where it's a normal family. Some of them are, you know, what we call broken homes

and some of them are people who seem very normal. I think there is evil in this world and sociopaths and psychopaths are born into this world. And like you said, we all have to protect ourselves. I mean, I live in San Francisco, you get a couple of death threats and suddenly you act differently. But in Moscow, Idaho, college students haven't had that experience of life. And I don't know that any one of them could have possibly expected this. It was a really shocking crime. It wasn't an urban area, but this does remind all of us that evil is everywhere. Oh my God. We don't really want that reminder, but we need it. I don't know. I think that

one thing I really hope is that if he did this, he will answer the same questions he posted in his little survey, Viva, so we could so we could learn like what makes somebody who's high functioning, getting his PhD, turn into a serial killer who who attacks for innocence in the dead of night and manages to pull off this crime somehow. I mean, it's not like a suffocation. He stabbed them to death one after the other in the same house with other people. And, you know, as far as we can tell, alerted nobody, didn't draw the attention of anybody. Didn't, you know, nobody was calling 911.

Nobody caught him, right? Until the authorities got involved. Like what, what makes you snap? What makes you tick? What, how long have you wanted to do it? These are all the things we want to know. Well, and, and, you know, might be a case of manic, bipolar, mental illness, whatever.

Not that it changes anything at some point in time. Whether or not there's evil in the world or brains that have developed in inhumane manners doesn't really change much as far as the punishment goes. But when you talk about layers, Megan, I mean, this is going to be people don't like the debate. This is going to be the ultimate reminder that the ultimate layer is that Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, not to turn it into a gun debate whatsoever. It highlights the fact that police security, not always there, and not that, you know, you can have the debate on the extent to which the Second Amendment ought to be exercised. But the old expression that it's the ultimate equalizer for young women who are physically oftentimes less strong than young men, this is the ultimate

reminder. At some point, self-defense becomes self-preservation and it becomes a fundamental right that people have to factor into their daily life. Yes. And honestly, get a dog. That is the first thing the security guards told me when I had a serious security threat in my life. Yes. And honestly, like get a dog. That is the first thing the security guards told me when I had a serious security threat in my life. It's a simple thing, and especially helps if you love dogs. But I mean, that's the best alarm system you have. And it's a massive deterrent. They've done studies with criminals like the one house has a scary sounding dog barking and the other house doesn't. Guess which one they're going to target. They don't want to deal with it either.

So don't be an easy victim, you know. And by the way, this is not for nothing, but they also say that God forbid you ever get attacked or somebody's trying to grab you. Don't be an easy victim. Don't comply. They've got the gun on you. Just get in the car quietly. No fight then and there.

Scream. Be a difficult victim. They don't like difficult victims. Be as difficult as possible. Harmeet, Viva's mention of the mental state raises the next obvious question because they have, his lawyer has asked for a mental evaluation, right? Right. And you know where they're going with that. Well, it would be actually malpractice not to do that, in my opinion. And who knows whether that's something that the client had

already set up or suggested. But if I were the lawyer, I would protect myself against a malpractice claim. And also, frankly, even if I were the prosecutor in a case like this, I might recommend it to avoid later claims that the suspect's constitutional rights are not being honored to the T. And so I don't think there's going to be any resistance to that. But I do not know Idaho law to a fine degree, but different states have different laws with respect to what is a depraved indifference and how the mental state plays into that. And so this is a mass murder. And almost certainly that's what would be called special circumstances under the

laws of most states that allow for a death penalty. But all of that, anytime you have a potential death penalty case, you're going to have to make sure that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted on both sides to protect the lawyers as well as to protect the ultimate verdict in the case. I don't know, Viva. I don't see much of a, you know, not guilty by reason of insanity defense available based on the facts we've seen so far. No one's coming out

saying he was a lunatic. They're like, yeah, he was aggressive. He was kind of a bully. He was a weird vegan. He made some inappropriate comments to women. He was getting his PhD. He was living, you know, as far as I can tell, what I've read in the reports, an upstanding, quote unquote, life. He was, I don't see how they're going to get away with not guilty by reason of insanity here. But I feel like if they've got that DNA inside the apartment of his, that's the only thing available to them. I don't know the impact of not insanity. And Harmeet, you'll correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that that only changes the punishment. You don't walk free after this. So it's only death penalty. But bottom line, I mean, look, I think by definition, when you kill, to kill someone,

you have to be mentally unwell. You have to have mental issues to kill someone for pleasure, for convenience, you know, not in the utmost of self-defense. But then it just goes to the question of liability. It's not going to change anything in this. If he did this and it's him, it's whatever the most extreme sanction is. I don't know what the penalty, if the death penalty is available to this, but that's it. It's just going to be a question of making the evidence though beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you can't prove that he, as the defense lawyer, if you assert he did not know the difference between right and wrong, like John Hinckley Jr., which just did a special on him, he shot Reagan. That's what you have to prove. He did not know the difference between right and wrong. It's not going to be he wore gloves, reportedly, as you point out, Harmeet, for weeks after the fact. The murder weapon, the knife, has never been found. So he took pains to discard of the murder weapon. This is not the behavior of somebody who had no idea what he had done was morally or legally wrong. That's right. There appears to obviously be premeditation and a person who's certainly largely in touch with his

faculties, not that he was like schizophrenic or had a dissociative mental disorder. But we're going to find out a lot more. We're just speculating at this point. But it seems like a cold-blooded killer from the facts that we see so far. Looks like he's going to be extradited from the Poconos, where he was arrested, back to Idaho.

Looks like he's not going to challenge that. And as soon as that happens, we'll start to get more and more facts. Stand by, Harmeet and Viva, because there's a lot to discuss. Harmeet's running for RNC chair. That's interesting. We'll ask her about that and about some of the Trump latest legal challenges, some of which Harmeet has had a role in. So we'll get to all of that when we pick it up right after this quick, quick break. Don't go away. Harmeet, let me ask you a political question before we get back to our legal cases. You're running for RNC chair.

Ronna McDaniel used to be Ronna Romney McDaniel is now the chair and she wants the job back. Mike Lindell also wants the job of the MyPillow fame. Washington Times editorial on December 29th reads as follows. There are 168 voters, two committee members, and then the state chairman from each state and six territories to win requires an outright majority of 85 votes. At the moment, the incumbent chairperson, Ronna McDaniel, appears to have secured more than 100 votes, which would mean she's got this in the bag. Is that not correct? Well, actually, after I saw that editorial, I called up the reporter. I think it's I think that's John Gizzi's piece, if I'm not mistaken. But in any event, whoever it was, I think I corrected them. Actually, a number of people who are on Ronna's list have endorsed me publicly. Some of them can't vote in the election. They're termed out chairs, and Ronna knows this, so I don't think it's really appropriate to continue to list those names in her column. So I actually think that this is a very competitive race. I'm picking up steam.

A number of members of Congress, including from the freshman class, have endorsed me in the past week. And I've had numerous conversations with major donors of the party who are demanding change as well. And so we have a little bit under four weeks to go. And we haven't had a leadership challenge at the RNC for 12 years, which is about a little longer than the time since Mitch McConnell has been challenged effectively in the United States Senate. And I think that we can all see the results of that ossification and lack of challenge and

change is that everybody's very comfortable with the status quo, which means Republicans aren't winning elections. And I'm a volunteer in politics. I have been since I was a teenager. And I'm not comfortable being a volunteer devoting dozens of hours a week sometimes to this cause of electing Republicans and Republicans not winning. You don't get an A for effort in politics. And the claims that we knocked more doors, we turned out more voters, we barely won back the House. That doesn't work. We have a country to save. And so that's why I'm in this. And I very much hope I'm going to be able to pull it off on January 27. from the legal sphere to focus on this. But I think new blood in politics is always welcome. And, you know, the RNC, the Republicans definitely have their work cut out for them

going into this next election cycle. So anyway, thank you for talking about it and we'll continue to follow it. One more question for you and then we'll bring in Viva again. But Carrie Lake is one of the clients you represented in her claims that the, well, we know the Arizona election was not handled well,

but she's claiming fraud. And that was just dismissed Saturday, December 24th, Christmas Eve after a two day trial. Maricopa County Superior Judge Peter Thompson ruled against her in her lawsuit challenging the election. He had already dismissed eight of the 10 counts listed in her lawsuit before trial. He allowed two to proceed, including that election officials purposely caused those ballot printer malfunctions and didn't follow the ballot chain of custody properly. In any event, he wanted her to prove the election fraud. He found that she did not do it by clearing convincing evidence of widespread misconduct. She says she's going to appeal. But you and I both know once it goes up, all you can appeal on is questions of law, not questions of fact like he found. And she's going

to argue he found the wrong way on the facts, which doesn't get you anywhere in a court of appeal. So do you think it's done effectively? Well, let me say this. I was on the ground in the war room with all the Republican candidates in the Scottsdale area. It was Kerry Lake, Blake Masters, Abe Hamaday. They were all part of this joint effort, the RNC lawyers as well, who are my good friends were there. And overall, what I can say is the irregularities were gross and shocking, and they were, you know, somewhat similar to the scale of irregularities in the 2020 Maricopa County election. And so the question is raised, why wasn't a lawsuit filed after that election in 2020? Like in Arizona and throughout the country and other states with irregularities, why wasn't

it cleaned up? That's one of the leadership issues that I think is lacking at the RNC. And secondly, what I've found in this process, and my firm is not playing a leading role in either of these cases, Amadeus or the other, but behind the scenes, we helped with gathering evidence and interviewing. I think we probably had six lawyers working around the clock to get declarations of evidence from hundreds of witnesses, over 100 witnesses in this case. And you can have the best facts, but Arizona law is basically stacked against a challenge. Like, for example, you file the challenge, several days are wasted on a motion to dismiss, which is frivolous, in my opinion, by the state or by the so-called winning candidate.

And then you're left with as much as a few hours, in the case of Abe Hamadeh, six hours to count ballots. You cannot conduct a statewide challenge of a statutory recount in six hours or a few hours. It's ludicrous. And so I hope that the Arizona legislature changes these laws to, number one, never allow a secretary of state to preside over her own election where she's part of the election. And secondly, you must have the ability for the confidence of the voters. I'm not even talking about the candidates who I represent, but for voters to have confidence and then turn out to elections, they must be able to feel like there's a meaningful challenge. And what's interesting is that if you voted before Election Day, a campaign could meaningfully challenge an undervote, i.e., why bizarre. So I do think that a appeal on the legal matter of inconsistencies in the law may very well be avail state for Republicans to win back the White House. So if I were the chair, I would be carpet bombing the place with lawsuits to make sure that this never happens again. This is a good point. Now that we see more and more, you know, election lawsuits, people are kicking the tires a lot harder than they ever did in the wake of the Trump thing. What's the downside in having election laws and procedures for challenges revisited and just make sure that it's set up such that any evidence that's available can be found and can be offered?

You have a legitimate time to explore within reason. We understand we can't go on forever. It can't be like a normal litigation three years later. You know, necessarily, it's never going to be perfect given the what's at issue. Right. Who's going to take the office when the post is? Yeah, I mean, there are these fake requirements. Like you can only have one team of three lawyers in a county. I mean, Maricopa County has more than 50% of the population of Arizona. That's absurd. And so what Democrats have done very effectively going back to when

they started big money raising and really reformed their election system in 2004 with George Soros' leadership, is they do litigation through a whole host of pseudo nonprofits and real nonprofits that are really just set up to do election litigation and then some real nonprofits, NAACP and ACLU, they very heavily do that. So they've been doing it and we have not answered them until the last couple of years. And in the last couple of years, we're woefully underfunded compared to them. So this needs to be job number one is not just defending lawsuits that Democrats use to downgrade our election integrity, but filing lawsuits, just like I described, to make sure that if there is a disputed election, which happens quite a bit in America, that the voters at the end of the day feel confidence that the correct result was had. If I'm a Republican voter in Arizona, I'm looking

at this evidence. The evidence is real. The massive failures on Election Day were visible to everybody in Maricopa County. And I'm saying, why should I bother to vote? Because there's no justice. There's no real hearing about this. You're definitely right about the fact that Kerry Lake's opponent was running the election system as Secretary of state, which is just that absolutely should that should change. I mean, they talk about undermining faith in the election, just the appearance of impropriety. And she was banking on nothing going wrong, even accidentally. And even if what happened in Maricopa County with the ballots not being printed in dark enough ink was it was a genuine incident of negligence as opposed to intentionality, as Carrie Lake implies and suggests.

Too bad on Katie Hobbs because she's the one who was responsible for it, you know, but ultimately it won't be too bad for Katie Hobbs. It'll be too bad for Carrie Lake, who Katie's due to be sworn in on Thursday. Go ahead, Viva. Yeah, Megan, I was going to say, you know, on appeal, they don't they don't retry questions of fact, but only questions of law. You know, I do my weekly live streams with Robert Barnes and the idea that he's floating around or that has he has suggested, and I greatly respect his opinion, is that as a matter of law, the Judge Thompson set up a sort of a three part conjunctive that Kerry Lake had to prove that there was intentional interference, that the that the intentional

interference was intentional to affect the outcome and that it did, in fact, that the intentional interference was intentional to affect the outcome, and that it did in fact affect the outcome. What Robert and I discussed on our weekly streams is that perhaps there's an error in law where once certain improprieties have been evidenced, as they were in this particular case, printing up the ballots on the wrong size, not being read the day of, Bill Gates from Maricopa County came out on election day with a video saying, we have problems. The ballots are not being read. You could put them in box number three, or you can go find somewhere else to vote, suggesting that there were long lineups. Once you have evidence of improprieties, that in law, it was an error in law to require that they be proven to be intentional,

intentional for the specific purposes of impacting the election and that they did, in fact, impact the election. So you'll see on the appeal, I'm not optimistic any more than I was optimistic about the challenge itself. But the evidence that was adduced for the world to see when you have the recorder himself saying or I forget which which witness it was for Maricopa County saying, there were two-hour lineups. It was a mess. It was chaos. And people are just supposed to say, okay, fine, but it wasn't intentional chaos. So we just, we're incompetent, but we're not intentionally incompetent. And coming from two political players, Richer and Bill Gates, who, in fact, from my understanding, funded anti-MAGA candidate PACs.

I mean, this reeks on its face. The only question is, as a matter of fact, are people going to find this objectionable to demand answers? Or as a matter of law, is a court of appeal going to say, all right, you didn't prove it was intentional for the purposes of intentionally impacting the vote, but there were problems that affected real-time voting the day of when 70% of the votes were Republican. One can only cross their fingers and hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Yeah. I mean, if I can add one more fact to this,

it is that one of the things in Abe Hamadeh's election contest that was just ruled on last week where we had mere less than a day of time for lawyers to examine a subset of the ballots was, well, an undervote, i.e., you're claiming that your vote for your candidate wasn't recorded. An undervote could have been caught in real time by the voter because you would have fed your ballot into the machine, and the machine would spit it out saying there's an undervote. Well, guess what? If in Maricopa County, your ballot could not be read by the machine, which was a significant percentage of the ballots, as as Viva just described, you did not have that opportunity. And yet the judge rejected the challenge on the basis that the voter could have identified the problem on site.

So anybody whose ballot was not read that day was denied the due process of law to be able to be notified of the undervote and then correct it on the ballot. God, it's so sticky. This is back to your point of like, we need a better process. If we're actually going to take these close, you know, looks and we're going to need to do this more and more because the country is more tribal and more divided than it's been in a long time. And elections are coming in close. They're coming in very close. So correct me if I'm wrong, Hermie, but Katie Hobbs is only said to have won that election by 17,000 votes.

It's tight. So in California, we have members of Congress who got seated with,000 votes. It's tight. So the California we have members of Congress who got seated with 1000 votes in my Garcia as United States member of Congress with 300 votes. Every vote counts. This is the future. This is like or not. This is the future. And we need a process that everybody can live with. All right, let's switch gears because we've got January 6 and Trump. The House panel investigating the riot, the January six trial announced it would withdraw the subpoena it had issued of Trump that you can thank Harmeet Dhillon for that, I believe. Right. Am I right, Harmeet? You guys, it was your firm.

Well, here's what happened. I mean, you know, we filed a lawsuit on separation of powers grounds. The president retained my law firm. My partners on the East Coast handled that case. We filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Florida to challenge the propriety of the subpoena on numerous grounds. You know, you guys are lawyers, you know, the grounds would include your questions are vague and ambiguous and overbroad, but also your questions and your subpoena do not go towards a proper legislative purpose, which is the only purpose for which a congressional subpoena may not go towards a proper legislative purpose, which is the only purpose for which a congressional subpoena may be issued. So, hey, you know, there's no legislation pending.

What are you going to do with this information? Not a proper purpose. But most importantly, a president, a former president has never sat under subpoena in the United States Congress. And there's a reason for that. President Truman was subpoenaed by the House Un-American Affairs Committee after he was a president, and he wrote a very short letter saying, go pound sand, and in legal terms saying, I'm sorry, but under the separation of powers, no more may a former president than a current president be called to answer for his actions as president before a co-equal branch of the government, namely the United States Congress, because to do so would then affect every president's actions in office, would always be subject to being second guessed by some future Congress.

So this argument is one that we made. And I want to make a clear point. The Congress, the House accepted service of the lawsuit. They could have immediately joined issue and gone into court, moved to dismiss, sought a ruling from the judge over it. They did not. What does this prove? They were not serious about ever enforcing that subpoena. They issued it on late October, meaning after the bulk of the material of the work of the committee had been done.

This was agitprop. This was simply a activity in furtherance of propaganda and not in furtherance of answering any questions by the United States Congress. Power for the course for this committee, which now is saying, oh, in light of the imminent end of our investigation, we're no longer going to pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena. That's why we withdraw it, not because it was totally improper to begin with. And in the meantime, in their second act, as they close out their term, because obviously the Republicans are now coming into control, they said, we have a couple of recommendations, Viva. We recommend Trump be barred from ever holding

office again. Okay, we had a whole impeachment trial where that was on the table. He wasn't twice. So I was like, sorry, but you don't have that power. And secondly, they voted unanimously to recommend that Trump be charged with obstruction, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiring to make false statements to the federal government and wait for it, inciting an insurrection. These are symbolic. I mean, this is this is meaningless. But this is one once again, their final political act before losing their committee. Megan, so everyone bear in mind, I'm a Canadian lawyer from Quebec. This is this has been a learning curve to me. Megan, I watched both impeachments. That's really where I started honing the niche of my YouTube Rumble channel. It's partisan politics on steroids. And you got, oh, geez, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the bipartisan elements of this committee.

If you follow Adam Kinzinger's Twitter accounts, and I recommend everyone do it for the sheer entertainment value of it, you have the bipartisan Republican member of the committee talking about the Fifth Amendment, saying, I respect the Fifth Amendment, but if you invoke it, it certainly says something about you. You got Adam Kinzinger, the bipartisan element of this committee, tweeting absolute disinformation about Ray Epps and his involvement in the events of January 5 to January 6. And this is the committee that, according to Liz Cheney's own admission, seeks nothing more than making sure that Donald Trump can never get anywhere near the Oval Office again,

because they are now democracy. They now vote for the people. They now decide who the people get to vote for. And that's the bipartisan element of this alleged bipartisan committee, which has been a sham of a committee from the very beginning. It's been very eye-opening to watch. It's partisan politics at its worst. But what do we think, Harmeet? Do we think whatever the committee recommends, it's pointless, whatever. But we do care what the DOJ does. And many believe that they will bring charges, irrespective of or perhaps in deference to whatever the Jan 6th committee was. Well, look, I mean, the D.C. prosecutor is going to do what the Democrats want. He's appointed by the president or they are appointed by the president. And so what's what's so grossly

obvious is the situational ethics here and and how it is absolutely partisan politics that's being had here. But if I took off my Republican National Committee slash conservative lawyer hat and simply looked at this objectively, do the actions that the former president are accused of fit these crimes? I think absolutely not. And only through a partisan lens would this be a real prosecution. And we all know on this podcast here, the number of actual crimes that occur in this country, and they're taken in front of a prosecutor and prosecutors declines to prosecute because there's no way they can get a conviction on these facts. You know, something bad happened, but can you connect the facts to the crime? No. So this is just a gross abuse of process, in my opinion, whether you like president Trump or not,

we should not be relitigating elections like this forever. What business did the United States Congress do over the last two years? Nothing other than this. And this wasn't business that advanced the goals of the American people. And to indict a former president on this evidence will really will tear at the fabric of the country. I really hope they reconsider if that's where they're going in the DOJ. I don't care what Janus 6th committee says. Harmeet, what a pleasure. Viva you too. Thanks so much for coming on.

Happy New Year. Thank you. Thank you. Happy New Year, Megan. All right. Tomorrow on the show, the EJs are with us for the full show. Emily Jashinsky and Eliana Johnson.

Great pairing. Plus later this week, we'll take a deep dive into health and wellness for the new year. You always want to hear a little bit about that going into the new year, right? Like, what should we be thinking about?

So I got you covered. In the meantime, if you want to hear the full Strudwick story, you can go to megankelly.com and you just hit subscribe. On the American News Minute,

it's free. It only comes once a week and it's a super fun email from me to you on Fridays. Download our show anywhere you get your podcasts for free. Go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly, and we'll talk tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.