The Megyn Kelly Show - How Media Sparked Pelosi Conspiracy Theories, and Tom Brady Retires, with Emily Jashinsky and Eliana Johnson | Ep. 484

Episode Date: February 1, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins with a monologue breaking down exactly how the media themselves helped spark the Paul Pelosi conspiracy theories, exposing what the press said in the days after the attack that was incorrect, how the police spun the media and the public, and more. Then Megyn is joined by Emily Jashinsky, host of The Federalist Radio Hour, and Eliana Johnson, co-host of Ink Stained Wretches, to talk about how the media's "right-wing misinformation" narrative in the Paul Pelosi story is mostly false, the media deciding whether to attack the police or not based on the narrative, the decline of the corporate press and media gatekeepers, media struggling to find a Tyre Nichols narrative, new drama with the Biden classified documents search, a judicial nominee who can't answer basic questions, the ongoing migrant crisis, Tom Brady retiring again and what that says about his relationship with Gisele, a ridiculous trans figure skater story, and more.More from Jashinsky: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/federalist-radio-hour/id983782306More from Johnson: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ink-stained-wretches/id1573974244 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. We begin today with the following question. How did the Paul Pelosi story spark so many conspiracy theories? Was it in fact the evil right- wing spinning lies out of whole cloth, as the left now claims? Actually, the police tapes and a review of the record make perfectly clear what happened here. The mainstream media misled us time and time again, and so did the police. The attack occurred in the wee hours of Friday morning, October 28th, just days before the midterm elections. Later that night, the San Francisco police chief spoke out. When the officers arrived

and knocked on the front door of the residence this morning, the door was opened by someone inside and the officers observed through the open door, Mr. Pelosi and the suspect, Mr. DePappe, inside the entryway of the home. Politico later reported the officers were, quote, led inside by an unknown person. An unknown person? What does that mean? Was someone else there? I thought this was an attack. Sounds more like a party.

Politico would later revise its report to say someone opened the door, not necessarily an unknown person. There's a difference. The new someone was a better choice of words. Unknown person suggests a third person not known to police. Good correction, Politico. Except days later, Politico blasted, quote, prominent conservatives for sharing disinformation about the attack, including Politico lamented that a third person opened the door. Hello, Politico, you helped start that theory. Bad Politico. Two days later, NBC took it a step further. There seems to be a hint that there was a third person in the house.

Well, that's correct, Chuck. So the police chief came out and did a press conference later on Friday when most people had already started to go to bed on the East Coast. And in that press conference, he stated that there was a third person inside the house that opened the door for police when they were called to that house. Except the police chief never did say that. He said the door was opened by someone inside. Someone is not the same as a third person. See how we've already taken some liberties in our reporting? So who was in the Pelosi home? Paul Pelosi, the attacker, and possibly a third person, according to our trustworthy media that's today so angry about misinformation. Meantime, TMZ got its hands on the dispatch audio, sending police to the Pelosi home

for a priority wellness check. Not an emergency, mind you. Isn't that weird? So we got to hear the message to the cops sending them to this home. We did not get to hear the 911 call that Paul Pelosi made. We would have to wait three months and file lawsuits to get that.

And now we know why. It made the dispatcher look absolutely ridiculous. But we heard the dispatch order getting the cops over there. TMZ got its hands on that. And things got even weirder. Now, keep in mind, as you listen to this, RV appears to refer to Paul Pelosi. We are assuming RV stands for resident victim. RV stated that there's a male in the home and that he's going to wait for his wife.

RV stated that he doesn't know who the male is, but he advised that his name is David and that he is a friend. RV sounded somewhat confused. So for those keeping score at home, the public has now been told erroneously that a third person was in the house and that they opened the door for police. They've also heard on the dispatch call that Paul Pelosi was claiming he didn't know the male, but that Paul Pelosi, according to that tape, advised that his name is David and that he is a friend. We would later learn it was David who claimed that, but that's what we heard in that

call, that Pelosi was advising he is a friend. The alleged intruder is a friend? But Paul Pelosi is saying he doesn't actually know him. Pelosi sounded confused. So are we all by this point. What? What's happening inside that house? Please, for the love of God, San Francisco police, just release the 911 call and the body cam video so we can better understand because you've managed to really confuse us. And that would probably clear this all up. Your humble correspondent made that plea more than once. Nope. Denied. By this point, the DA's criminal complaint was out, alleging that the intruder broke in through a back lower level door and that they, quote, recovered zip ties along with a backpack containing tape, rope, hammer and gloves. Officials also made public the defendant's name, David DePapp. Internet sleuths immediately began digging into DePapp's background. He was, as it turned out, a well-known nudist in San Francisco. Oh, great. A nudist friend with zip ties in Paul Pelosi's bedroom. Okay. As if on cue,

we get the spectacularly wrong reporting from a local Fox affiliate that DePapp was found in Pelosi's home wearing his underwear. That DePapp was in his underwear. Later retracted, but the damage had already been done. Epic fail, Fox. So here's where we are now in the story. Three people inside. The alleged intruder is a nudist in his underwear with zip ties in the bedroom with Paul Pelosi, who says he doesn't know him, but also describes him as a friend. Look, I never spread the theory about Pelosi and DePapp being alleged gay lovers or having some sort of a relationship like Elon Musk did, who later apologized. But you can see quite clearly how that speculation started. This is where yours truly weighed in on this case, saying something seemed off, that the police, at a minimum, arrived without, in my view, the appropriate sense of urgency. Wait a minute. You open the door and you've gotten a distress call and the two men are holding the hammer and one of them is married to the speaker of the house.

And you just stand there, say, what's up? Everything good? And then you let this other guy swing a hammer, an 82 year old to the point where he falls on the ground now and requires emergency surgery. Something's wrong. For this, the New York Times would label me a Republican wrong who fed a misinformation loop. What misinformation did I deliver? Did you hear any misinformation or even information delivered in that soundbite? I was asking questions. They explained my sin was, quote, I raised doubts that all facts were disclosed. I raised doubts that all facts were disclosed. I kid you not. Hello, New York Times. That's called reporting. That's what we call reporting. You ask questions,

try to get real facts when they aren't being released to you. But no questions were to be asked in the Paul Pelosi case because, well, because the media liked this story just as they were telling it. A perfectly lucid man, he called himself Jesus for a year, but OK, inspired by right wingers. He did cite QAnon in recent writings just after posting his BLM flag outside his house, attacked the husband of the House speaker days before the midterms. Take the L, Republicans. Take the L. Fast forward now to November 4th, and we get this NBC News report from Miguel Almaguer on the Today Show.

After a knock and announce, the front door was opened by Mr. Pelosi. The 82 year old did not immediately declare an emergency or tried to leave his home, but instead began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police. Why Pelosi didn't try to flee or tell responding officers he was in distress is unclear. So NBC News is now telling us Pelosi opened the door. Not a third person, as NBC's own Meet the Press had earlier reported. All of this made it look more like Pelosi may have known his attacker and may not have actually been in distress. The nudist attacker with zip ties in the bedroom who claimed to not know Pelosi claimed to not

know him, but who was allegedly his friend. OK, the internet already on fire with theories about why this case seems so bizarre ran wild with speculation that these two men had a relationship. No one disputed that Paul Pelosi got attacked. The question was, what was the nature of the relationship prior to that moment? The leftist media expressed zero interest

in the strange and often conflicting details of these reports, deeming any curiosity vile and inappropriate. As if on cue, later that same day, NBC quietly deleted the Miguel Amaguer report from its website with a cryptic note that it, quote, did not meet NBC News reporting standards. What? What does that mean? How? How exactly did it fall short? What exactly was wrong with it? Was it all wrong? What does that mean? How? How exactly did it fall short? What exactly was wrong

with it? Was it all wrong? Was it partly wrong? That was a joke of a retraction. That's not how retractions are done. And it only added to the public's suspicion. No further explanation was provided until unnamed people at NBC spoke with Paul Farhi of the Washington Post on November 5th. Easy to put stock into the musings of unknown people, right? They're going to set the record straight. What was incorrect? Unnamed people said Almaguer was incorrect that Pelosi gave police no indication he was in danger when he answered the door. In fact, they said San Francisco police have said Pelosi was struggling with the intruder when they first saw him. Fact check on unnamed people. No, Pelosi was not struggling with the intruder when they first saw him. The tapes make that clear.

Miguel Amigar was right on that point. Pelosi did not indicate his distress at the time he answered the door. How else was the NBC News report allegedly wrong? Well, people at the network told Farhi that they doubted the report that Pelosi walked several feet back toward his assailant and away from police. Fact check on unnamed people. I will give you this one. This, as it turns out, was not good reporting and NBC News was right to withdraw it. While Pelosi is seen on cam stumbling a bit moments before the attack, Almaguer's description was off. Watch. Hi. Drop the hammer. Um, no. Hey.

Hey, hey, hey. What is going on right now? I'm not getting an answer on call. Oh, shit. Four days later, the feds filed a criminal indictment. Here, they have their own answer to who opened the door, writing, quote, the two officers opened the door. You can't, what? What?

So it's not an unknown person, as Politico once reported. It's not a third person, as Meet the Press reported. And it's not Paul Pelosi, as NBC's Today Show later reported. Everyone clear? Got it? Not for nothing, but NBC Local reported that a source who viewed the video told them it was Paul Pelosi who opened the door and that he did it with his left hand, something the local prosecutors had alleged as well. The local prosecutors say it was Paul Pelosi, but in this filing, the feds disagree, say it was the two officers, but we should all totally understand this easily. Got it. No clarifications needed, conspiracy mongers. There's nothing to see here. Move on. Last Friday, authorities finally, under court order, released the 911 call and the body cam video of the attack.

How illuminating about the brutal attack and on my question of why the responding cops showed up in time to stop this attack, but seemed oddly cavalier and failed to stop it. The 911 operator did not seem to get it. Oh, what is it, gentlemen? Here, just waiting for my wife to come back. Okay, do you need police fire or medical for anything? I don't think so. I don't think so. Is the Capitol Police around? No, this is San Francisco. They usually protect my wife. They're usually here at the house protecting my wife.

No, this is San Francisco Police. I've got a problem, but he thinks everything's good. Okay. Call us back if you change your mind. No, no, no. This gentleman just came into the house. Do you know who the person is? No, I don't know who he is.

What is your name? My name is Paul Pelosi. Anyway, this gentleman says that he thinks everything ought to, you know, he's telling me to put the phone down. What's that? My name's David. The name is David. Okay, and who is David? I don't know.

What's that? I'm a friend of theirs. Yeah, he says he's a friend, but as I said, I've never... But you don't know who he is? No, ma'am. He must be a fellow off the phone. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, bye. No, ma'am. You must be able to get that off the phone. 0-2-26- and 0-8-2-2- Okay, bye.

That is why the cops had no urgency. That 911 operator conveyed none to them. By the way, listen to the police chief. Before we got to hear that 911 call that they were trying to hide from us, on this dispatcher's

heroic sixth sense. Dispatchers have to report what's being told to them. They learn how to read between the lines, but she knew something more was going on just in her heart and her intuition. And that caused for a higher priority than this type of call normally receives. When you're in this business long enough, you kind of get a sense for things. And her intuition was on point. Oh, my God. Yes, she was a regular Columbo with her powers of discernment. What a joke. I'm sorry, but what a joke. I appreciate what the cops do to protect us. But this woman was not playing coy. She almost hung up on Paul Pelosi repeatedly. She clearly had no clue who Nancy Pelosi was, that she was no emergency there. And the cops who were sent to that house had no sense of urgency or emergency, and it showed. Now that we've seen and heard the

tapes, the takeaway from the mainstream media is that the right-wing conspiracy machine is out of control. No reflection at all on how conspiracies took hold, the misreporting by corporate media, the conflicting reports from local officials and the feds, or the utter lack of curiosity among reporters who get paid to ask questions. Those who continue to spout nonsense about this being some kind of lover's tryst, just stop. Stop it. Move on. Poor Paul Pelosi. But those in the media whose bad reporting lit the match that helped fuel those dumpster fire takes do better. And now the EJs are back. Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of The Federalist Radio Hour. And Eliana Johnson is editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon and co-host of the podcast Ink Stained Wretches. All right,

EJs, so you were there with me the time I discussed this that got me labeled a misinformation artist by the New York Times because I demanded more information. That was my sin. But it's not about me. It's really about the holier-than-thou left wing right now going after all the people who, yes, did actually get into the conspiracy theory stuff, you know, gay lovers and all that, without any reflection on the egregious problems in the reporting and the journalistic approach to this case, really from the get go. And I'll include the police disinformation in that as well. Who wants to take it? That was an incredible walk through the

changes in the story, which I haven't seen anybody really do a thorough retrospective yet on how things changed as they changed and who was involved in those changes, who was involved in reporting that had to be retracted, who was involved in reporting that we can now, because we have the video, we have the dispatch say, who on earth was your source? Who was feeding you this information? That's one of the really big questions I have actually after listening to that, Megan, because people who say they've seen the video, people who say they've heard the audio, they're completely misrepresenting it. And journalists seem to have taken it hook, line, and sinker and run with it.

So rather than criticizing you for asking questions, they should be criticizing themselves for not asking questions because though the answer appears to not be anything close to what the conspiracy theorists were coming up with, it's a damning indictment on the San Francisco Police Department. And that's a serious story that everyone was glossing over while they were so busy, just freaking out and being hysterical about the conspiratorial right wing nut jobs. That's exactly right. And if you listen to that dispatch call, Eliana, you know, the one where they're sending the cops to the house, you can hear that the 911 operator did not adequately communicate to these cops,

the sense of emergency there. He said, again, they say it was RV, Paul Pelosi. They're using RV as Paul Pelosi. He said it was his friend. So he didn't. Paul Pelosi did not say that. The intruder said that. Paul Pelosi said, I don't know their ass from their elbow in reporting on the story. Now they want to dismiss it all as, oh, these were trivial mistakes they made. No, if there was a third person in the house, it completely changes the nature of this alleged attack. People start to think, as I said in my memo, is this a party? Was this some sort of like a fun thing in the middle of the night between a group of people? Or was this a one-on-one attack? There are a couple angles to this.

The first angle is that if we had had the footage and the calls from the get-go, there would have been no theorizing as to what happened. The second is that this is still a strange incident. Paul Pelosi really handled it with aplomb. It was petrifying. And the police handled it terribly. Listening to that 911 call, I'm sitting here thinking, I hope I never have to call 911 and rely on these people to help me because that incompetence was chilling to listen to. And, you know, Megan, we have another police incompetence and misconduct case happening in the country. And the media scrutiny and treatment of that

is completely different from the curiosity, interest and scrutiny of the police conduct or misconduct as the case may be in this case. The nerve of that police chief to come out and praise her sixth sense. She had no freaking clue what was going on in that call. Paul Pelosi had hit her over the head with a two by four for her to finally get the fact that he was in distress. She clearly had no idea that she was dealing with the speaker of the house. I bet you dollar to donuts. This woman did not know that Nancy Pelosi is the house speaker. You could tell there was no like the speaker of the house. He tried to tip her off with Capitol Police. She still didn't get it. No, you called San Francisco. Hello. He knows that you dumb ass. And I'm sorry, I have no. I know, I know. And she was not saying, listen, sir, I am picking up what

you're putting down. I will have people there as soon as possible. Her response was not indicative that she understood the sense of urgency here. And by the way, I still don't understand why he didn't run out of that door and into the arms of the cops. Like there are still aspects of this that strike me as strange and you don't understand. But then again, none of us know the way that we would react, you know, when petrified and in terror. So like, I don't, the, the media rush to their narrative of the right spreading disinformation. It is like their their binky and their safety blanket. Like that is where they feel safe and comfortable. And it's lazy and pathetic.

It is it is pathetic. So here's here's where they're going, Emily, like the outrage on the left that, you know, these crazy conspiracy theories got started again. I mean, I laid it out. You can see exactly how it started. Had the cops just released that 9-1-1 call and that body cam video earlier, which they do in many criminal cases. Why are we looking at the body cam videos in the Tyree Nichols case? Because they released it to us. They didn't want it out. And now we know why they didn't want it out. And now we know why they didn't want it out. That police chief was embarrassed. He knew he knew that 911 call would

not reflect well on that dispatcher and actually made him look like a liar, too, because he went out there and touted her quick instincts. So now it's all about the Republicans and how evil they are and how they'll spin anything to make themselves look good. I give you as an example, Joy Behar on The View yesterday. What are the Democrats supposed to do? Because there is no bottom to this Republican Party. The hole is not deep enough for them to go into to be disgraceful. But the Democrats have to take the high road because there are people like us and people in our audience who need a place to go. People like us. Yes. But that is kind of perfect because she's just being completely transparent about the fact that she's looking down on people who disagree with her, not just on the political level, but as human beings.

So there are people like us. But one of the, I think, the saddest things is that conspiracy theories, this case study proves it perfectly, flourish and blossom in the absence of good reporting and in the absence of government transparency. In the case of taking so long to release the information that we knew the police department had all this time, that's how you get conspiracy theories. And for the media to make its primary narrative in this case, not the secondary narrative, the primary narrative is about debunking right-wing conspiracy theories. I think Eliana made such an interesting comparison with the Tyree Nichols case. It shows that the media isn't completely partisan in its biases. It's

just whatever is convenient for them at any given moment. If this is convenient for them, if it's convenient for them to attack the police, they'll attack the police. If it's convenient for them to protect the police and attack conservatives, that's what they'll do, because it's just like they're fish swimming in a school and just going towards the shiny objects instead of doing their damn jobs and chasing the truth rather than a narrative. Why don't they ask more questions? The reason in this case was, as I stated, I believe they liked the existing narrative. They did not care to understand it any better. They had the facts they liked. The guy had QAnon postings on his most recent website. And forget the BLM stuff, the LGBTQ stuff, the nudist stuff, the San Francisco stuff. Forget all that. He was a QAnon-er. He was a Trumpster. That's what they want us to believe. And he was out to commit political violence against the House speaker and or her husband. That last

piece of it was true. I mean, he was there to commit violence against the Pelosi's, and he was very angry with Nancy Pelosi. So that piece is true. But to blame it on the Republicans was their main goal, because we're about to have a midterm election. At that point, the Democrats still thought that it was going to be a bloodbath and they wanted anything to switch the narrative to change their fortunes. Eliana, that's why they were so incurious. I agree, and I do think that the media tends to take whatever sets of set of facts and jam it into a preexisting narrative. In this case, it was the set of facts in the Pelosi case, which were complicated and confusing, jammed into a right wing disinformation conspiracy theory narrative, which is a favored

mainstream media narrative. And you can see it happening in the Tyree Nichols case, which I know we're going to get to, which is, you know, police violence. And we have a white supremacy problem in the police department. Even when the officers in the case are black, the facts are jammed into the easy and favored and pre-written narrative. There's a real failure to grapple with like uh complexity and i think you know we see that time and again and the other thing that i don't think we see from the mainstream media is that you know for people like us um there's a natural distrust of them because they have been wrong and they seem not to understand why there's like a natural skepticism of the storylines that come from

new york times the washington post political um they have what they have told us has been why there's like a natural skepticism of the storylines that come from New York Times, the Washington Post political. They have what they have told us has been incorrect. And there's been no reckoning with the failures and the mistakes and no accountability. And yet there's there's they're appalled and look down on and sneer at us for questioning the narratives that come from them. And it's going to keep happening. I'll give you this this little ditty from Alyssa Farah, who, as far as I can tell, has accomplished. Let me check my notes. Nothing on the view yesterday, lumping from the sound of it, me in with Elon Musk. Listen, the people who spread these conspiracy theories, whether it's Elon Musk, Megyn Kelly and others, they should be ashamed

of themselves. OK, I am not ashamed of myself, miss. I've never accomplished anything in my life, though my father appears to have been somebody. I am actually really proud of the fact that I actually ask questions and seek out facts. You should try it at ABC. You from your little third base spot on the view of failing show that does that deals every day in disinformation should take a seat when it comes to advising actual journalists as to how to report the news. As far as I can tell, she's never accomplished anything and she doesn't know how to do it. If she does, there's no evidence of it on that daily show from her or her colleagues. But this is how this is why shit like this is actually pernicious, right? Is like the New York Times, this show, try to shame reporters who actually did ask questions out of doing so.

How do you think we got those tapes? How do you think we ultimately got them? News organizations filed lawsuits demanding that they be released. The New York Times that shamed me for asking for more information joined in the case, but won't retract its smear of me, right? This is how they try to shame you out of staying on these paths of inquiry. And it's not about me. I don't really give a shit what the view says about me or the New York Times either. What I care about is the lesson that they're trying to teach anyone who actually does want to question narratives. Well, and I think that gets really dangerous when you consider the reason they're trying to shut other people down and discredit them and silence them, intimidate

them into silence. Really, nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist. Nobody wants to be called a bigot. Nobody wants to be called crazy. So the cost-benefit analysis on the part of speaking out and questioning them becomes really a serious calculus for people who have questions. And then they're the ones who end up getting the information, and they're the ones that end up gatekeeping the information. So when corporate media, when these major media outlets are the ones who get the information and can gatekeep it. That's what's really terrifying. It's amazing, actually, that we have an immediate ecosystem. It's one of the few bright spots over the last decade in American media and politics that

independent media is now starting to really flourish because you can have conversations like this one and you can look at this evidence, and you don't just have to take the New York Times' word for it, or just watch the clips that they show on the ABC nightly news, or The View. You can actually review this stuff, and you can hear people who are willing to ask tough questions do it. But it's terrifying that the corporate media outlets that want to gatekeep are still beating that drum. They are still steadily engaged in a campaign to be the only ones. They want the monopoly on telling you, on being that window for the public into public affairs. They want the monopoly. And if they got

a monopoly, if they really damage independent media, that's a scary place for the American people to be in because you're only going to be getting the narrative that they're able to just shoehorn these sets of facts into. And they're going to stop asking questions when it becomes uncomfortable for the people in power that are protected by them. And the people who do care about these judgments from the Times or from these losers on The View, the last soundbite I showed is actually also indicative of just the absolute laziness of people who are opining on television for a living like that woman. So did she bother to go look at what I actually said or what I was accused of saying by the New York Times before she decided to lump me in with Elon Musk?

Here's what the New York Times said I did. Raised doubts that all facts were disclosed. That's a quote. Raised doubts that all facts were disclosed. All facts were not disclosed. That's why there were lawsuits amongst all these journalists to get more facts. So she didn't do her homework. She's lazy, right? She just wants to be a star. She wants to see her name in lights. She wants to get her hair and makeup done. She wants to get her false eyelashes.

Trust me, I've worked with people like this, though the vast majority of reporters at Fox, who I worked with, were hardworking and cared about substance. This woman wants her name in lights. That's what she wants. She doesn't actually want to spew actual information and would happily cast aspersions on those of us who do. And it's a real problem, right, that this show is actually somewhat popular with some people and that you've got people like Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar out there with microphones influencing these minds who, I don't know, you tell me, Eliana, whether that show actually still has any influence at all or they just preach to the converted who have one ear on it while they work on, I don't know, lunches or needlepoint or something that's more important to their families.

I am not. I think I am not that worried about it. You know, we've seen, I think, an enormous decline in the influence, for sure, in the influence of cable news, but also in the influence of the mainstream media, of places like the New York Times and the Washington Post. And that's why outlets like Substack, where an individual person can plant a flag and start making a whole lot of money, and why you, Megan, can leave a place and start a podcast and put it on YouTube and be enormously successful there. Because I think that the customers are not coming where they used to go. You know, they can smell BS and they are looking to independent voices and independent people, whether they're individuals or new outlets.

I am not that worried because I generally think people are sensible and they don't want to be force fed the narratives that are coming from the mainstream outlets. Yeah, I think you're probably right, actually. Well, in any event, it's a fascinating case study, right, and how stories get spun and spun out of control. And then the indignation, you know, the false indignation by the left that had a hand in it after the fact. I mean, it's almost a recipe. The EJs. Precisely, that's that attitude that is driving away customers, viewers, readers. People resent that. Yeah, they actually want facts. And they could have been cleared up so much earlier in this case and stopped the nonsense. But that, too, was not in the interest of these leftists who wanted to change the midterms. Emily and Eliana, stay with us. We will be right back.

So today is the funeral for Tyree Nichols, the man, black man down in Memphis, Tennessee, who was killed at the hands of five police officers on January 7th. The tapes of that were released late Friday night. And while there were protests in many cities across the country, this did not spin out into a George Floyd-type rioting situation in city after city. And that's probably in large part because the five cops were Black, too. And so it was a really tough case to spin into a white supremacy situation,

which they claim every time when there's a white police officer involved. But that didn't stop many from trying. Right. We heard that from many corners that these cops had internalized white supremacy and they work for a white supremacist system of policing. And that's why they did this. And so on and on it goes.

So a couple of things to get to on this. I mean, number one, I would say the media coverage of this case has gone away awfully quickly. It just has like there is nothing close to what we saw after George Floyd, even though the beating was even more brutal. I mean, you could certainly make the case with even more brutal and pulling at the heartstrings. And by the way, this man had absolutely no problems with police, wasn't allegedly on drugs, wasn't resisting arrest, except one time he ran away after they peppered sprayed him or beating him. So, you know, very sympathetic victim. You'd think there'd be outrage that would be ongoing, but no, no, because it doesn't have the very sexy race angle that the left loves to play up and put on loop. That hasn't stopped people like Whoopi Goldberg from Back to the View making a typically inane comment about this case and our country.

Here she is the other day. When will the brutality finally lead to some police reform from the ground up? Because clearly, it doesn't matter if it's a white policeman or a black policeman. It is a problem in the police and the policing itself. You know, seems things don't seem to make sense to people unless it's somebody they can feel or they can recognize. But how many times do we have to do we need to see white people also get beaten before anybody will do anything? I'm not suggesting that. So don't write us and tell me what a, you know, what a racist I am. It's not that you're a racist. It's that you're dumb. That's that's your problem. You're uninformed, just like the rest of your colleagues on your set. Whites have a much higher chance of being

killed by cops than blacks do. Those are the facts. Much higher chance of being shot by police, much higher chance of dying at the hands of police. This study was done by Roland Fryer of Harvard University, a black man in very well-known research and confirmed multiple times thereafter. And to me, this brought to mind the case of Tony Timbaugh. You remember this guy who Coleman Hughes called attention to this right after George Floyd, white guy, white guy who was who was murdered by cops right around the same time as George Floyd, who got zero publicity. If you don't know that name, it's because the media doesn't cover the cases when it happens to a white victim, because that's not in their political interest. So the fact that she doesn't know that is a result of the fact that she actually doesn't either care to go find the facts

or she just consumes the wrong media because the media she's watching never shows those cases or highlights facts or Roland Fryer's study or any of this stuff. So she's got her head in, I'll say, the clouds and isn't getting the fact that it isn't just black men who are unfortunately being killed in certain very rare police encounters. It is far off in the case that it is a white person. Thoughts? Well, and that doesn't make her perspective on this particular case. It doesn't make any of the public outrage in this particular case wrong. It just means that it doesn't fit neatly into that narrative. And it's not normal to have a media that is clinging as obsessively to false narratives as ours is now. To your point, Megan, the facts that you

just laid out are so completely divorced from the universe that the media has created for us. And that's why when people say, you can't just keep scapegoating the media over and over and over again. Well, yeah, we can. Because I think the media is clearly the single greatest problem in American politics, because without the media giving accurate information, we can't even begin to have these conversations. Because to Whoopi Goldberg's point, actually, after George Floyd, there were police departments that did implement reforms. And I bet you more black life was lost because of some of those reforms, because they pushed police officers out of the jobs. They had understaffed police departments. The officers in the case of Tyree Nichols were hired after that department had

lowered their standards. There were a couple of them were hired in August of 2020. In August of 2020, you can imagine how hard it was to probably retain police officers at that point in time anywhere in the country. And so, in fact, those reforms deserve tons of scrutiny in and of themselves. But the media has created a false universe to the point where most Americans, if you look at polling of what Americans think police violence is versus what it actually is, are living in an alternate universe. And that's not fair because they trust the media. And the only thing the media tells them is completely wrong. She's so right, Eliana. If you look at what the media did after George Floyd or after any of these police involved killings that are that the left uses to get votes, to get its voter base fired up.

What happens is police draw back the Ferguson effect or the George Floyd effect. Now, Larry Elder was saying the police draw back and it affects mostly communities of color. More black and brown people get killed. And if you look at the stats after George Floyd, in the wake of all that, that year, there were 45 percent retirements in the police force went up 45 percent versus the year before. Just quitting resignations went up 20 percent and hiring went down 5%. So police departments across the country started really hemorrhaging their best officers who just didn't want to deal with this. They didn't want to be labeled all cops are bastards or called racists

by white women on the Upper West Side and their Lululemon. They were like, what am I? And then no one's going to back me up when I get into, you know, a scuffle on the street, even if it's not my fault. Their calculations were spot on. Wait, Megan, I actually saw that. Just to quickly, outside the White House in the summer of 2020,

I literally saw a white woman about 30 years old in Lululemon leggings screaming in the face of a black female cop that she was a racist. It was a white woman at 3 p.m. in the afternoon on a weekday in

Lululemon telling this working class black woman that she was a racist. Oh, my God. I remember some of those tapes. It happened multiple times. The the women from the Upper West Side where I was living for 17 years are the worst. Those activists, those liberal activists in their Lululemon, please, it's a joke. But the point I was going to land it on, Eliana, is, and then what happens? The quality of police officers go down, goes down, the quality that they can hire. In Memphis, they had to start offering $15,000 bonuses to get people to apply, to sign on.

They started accepting people who had been convicted of felonies as cops. So what do you think is going to happen? Right, police have been drawing back and you could see this. It was tracked very carefully in the data in Minneapolis. They've been retiring and they can't recruit. And it was astonishing to me. You mentioned there hasn't been as much coverage of this, which I think is true. But in the coverage that has happened, you know, I watched CNN's Don Lemon go down and interview the police chief in this case, who is also an African-American, an African-American female. And it was like the two of them were mourning this together.

You know, the member of the press who went down there from CNN wasn't holding the police chief in this case to account and asking how these people could have been hired. How were they there trained? There was not a lot of like holding feet to the fire of the people at the top of this organization. It was more like a collective mourning. And I do think that race probably had something to do with that. But there's a flip side to this or, you know, another side of this as well. It's not just Whoopi Goldberg was saying nothing's been done. There were tons of local reforms. There were police departments where resources were reallocated to mental health or to other things and away from actual policing. There have also been criminal justice and prosecutorial reforms in cities across the country through a wave of reform-minded

prosecutors in races where the left, primarily George Soros, has poured tons of money into this. And we've seen in cities like San Francisco, in cities like Philadelphia, in cities like Washington, D.C., where they just got where the city council here in this city just got rid of a mandatory minimum for first degree murder. Do you think that doesn't have an impact on the lives of cops? You know, so there's been sort of a pro crime atmosphere in all of these cities at the same time as there's been a drawback in policing. People feel it. Very good point. You've got Joy Reid, who never misses an opportunity to race, hustle and bash the country weighing in on this. Listen to the end of this soundbite in particular. Now, if you have a heart, what happened to the 29 year old father, skateboarder,

FedEx driver and amateur photographer should outrage you. It should shock and disgust you, as should the so-called brothers who chose to behave like a little blue gang rather than as Black men. But it damn sure shouldn't surprise you. What happened to Tyree Nichols was as American as apple pie. From the start, the European colonies in the Americas were designed to produce two kinds of people, subjects and citizens. And violence was at the center of it all. OK, so explain and maybe we can decipher that, Emily, are the black people the subjects? Because it was black people who killed Tyreid Nicol.

I don't understand the logic other than America sucks and we're evil and we have been from the start. Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. I think that's the extent. So I got it. She's yeah, nailed it. Yeah, she's doing I think what she's trying to say is that violence is baked into the American political system. But her analogy is is apt in a way because the way our colonies were founded and the way our country was founded is actually pushing back on this idea that people could be subjects of a monarchy and be controlled by the monarchy in the ways that the British empire was controlling the colonies that later

became the United States. And it was an incredible, reprehensible tragedy, the way that they treated slaves, Black people as subjects and as slaves. Although the system that was created to have the sort of constitutional republic, to try this experiment in Republican government in the way that the United States pioneered that nobody else has ever or had ever up to that point attempted on this scale is eventually what helped us way too long, way too late, create the system of legal racial equality. Again, that has really, I can't think of any other country throughout history that has done it at the scale that we do it right now. It's a miracle. And again, it took way too long and it happened way too late. But the system that was precisely pushing back on the history of treating individuals as subjects of a monarchy to be controlled and to have their

freedoms usurped is exactly what we have right now. We are the benefactors of pushing back on the old system. And no, it's not perfect. But that analogy is just a weird one. She's so bitter, Eliana. This woman, she went to Harvard. She's making millions of dollars. She has her own primetime show on MSNBC. Still, she hates the country. Who are the subjects in this story? I mean, it's presumably black people. I don't know who else she's talking about. Right. So is she a subject? Is is Oprah? Is Meghan Markle? Like, how do you become a subject? How what what are the criteria? Because I don't really understand the theory she's pushing questions are, are being asked about that. But this is like the deeply embedded narrative in at, you know, at MSNBC, at every at every media outlet that I mean, this is the 1619 project narrative. And, you know, the the irony that she talks about

is like, okay, maybe the year and European colonists and the irony that she talks about is like okay maybe the year and european colonists and this or that that came over this was this and but like this is what the this is what the american revolution was fought over uh no we're not subjects um and uh i don't get the sense that there's ever been much pushback on on joy read over this um and and only any accountability um over her bigoted blog posts uh you know they're still looking for who hacked uh you know who hacked her blog and and made those bigoted blog posts um yeah there's uh not a lot of questioning and accountability over at msnbc um yeah so they're still on the hunt for the hacker

you know they're they're still working on Miguel Amigar. They've moved on from Jerry. All right. So here's the other piece of this. Al Sharpton, of course, never misses an opportunity to go down and exploit one of these situations, accuse the country of being systemically racist, try to get donations to his group. And I heard something extraordinary on NPR's Up First this morning where the reporter who was from Memphis was explaining he had spoken with Al Sharpton, who's going to do the eulogy at Tyree's funeral today. And he and the reporter, having spoken to Al Sharpton, had insight into why Al Sharpton believes he's the perfect person to do this, even though he never knew Tyree Nichols at all. Listen to the report.

You really focused on the power of someone who's unfamiliar with an individual eulogizing that person and how that can really give the speaker power to really figure out what that person's death can mean for the future, not just for the family, but also for police reform at a state, local, and national level. And he focused on how there really needs to be some strong national reforms in order for police reform to stick. It's amazing. I'm the perfect person because I didn't know him, and I will make it not about him

at all, but about my agenda. You're hired, Emily. It's great to have him just put it out there. Like I couldn't give a shit about any individual. This is about me and my agenda. Yeah, but it also just exhibits the complete lack of self-awareness. I think he has no idea. He thinks that sounds great. He thinks it sounds so great that he's telling it to a reporter and the reporter thinks it sounds great. So the reporter is relaying it as though it's really to use the word that he used like 75 times in that 10 second clip. It's just it's really profound. That's how completely divorced from reality these people are. It's amazing. I was like, oh, wow. OK, they're putting it out there now. OK, great. Appreciate

it. All right. Emily and Eliana, stay with us. There's so much more to get to. Tom Brady's now officially retiring. We'll ask the ladies about that. Was the divorce worth it? So breaking news, guess who's getting their house searched by the FBI right now for classified documents? Oh, that would be Joe Biden. Yet again, the FBI now searching his Rehoboth Beach house, according to CBS News, which has been all over this story

and breaking all sorts of news on it. They're searching his vacation home for classified documents. Biden's legal team said this month it had searched the Rehoboth Beach home and found no mishandled papers. However, similar assurance had been given about his Wilmington, Delaware home before more records were found by the FBI on January 20th. You will not be surprised to learn, per the CBS reporter on this, in a tweet that a source familiar with the investigation tells

CBS News the search was planned with Biden's attorneys and consensual. No warrant was sought for the search. Everything is very cooperative and chummy and there will be apparently no raid. But this guy's not forking over the documents because the FBI continues to hit his properties up, even though they try their best to keep it quiet. Eliana, thoughts on this? Well, we don't know if he's forking them over or not. We don't quite know if the FBI is finding things at these locations. But it is clear to me that, you know, Biden wasn't particularly careful with what he took from the residents. And obviously, this is an endemic problem with people as Mike Pence turned up documents. Trump took a lot of documents. And I think the significance of this story is twofold. The first is that it's going to be incredibly difficult for the Justice Department to indict

Trump on this just from a political angle. Very, very hard when from a public perception standpoint, Biden did the same thing. And yes, you can distinguish between the cases and this, that and the other, but, but politically it makes it difficult. And the second thing is the way that the Biden team handled it, I think raises real questions about their political instincts in the way that they drip, drip, dripped out the information about this. And I think there has to be an enormous amount of frustration amongst some Biden allies and Democrats about the way this went. This is not, I think, how they wanted. You know, he had a better than expected midterm election, and this is not, I think, how they wanted the flip side of that to

be starting. No, indicting Trump at this point is starting to look like, you know, going after I didn't inhale Bill Clinton for doing drugs and letting Cheech and Chong walk. I mean, it's not going to happen. But it's amazing because there was a report late yesterday, Emily, that the feds, the FBI actually did go and search the Biden Penn Center, too, back in November and didn't disclose that to us. So during the we're being transparent, Karine Jean-Pierre, we're being very transparent. That was not disclosed. And so it's drip, drip, drip with the information about just how shady Team Biden has been and how frustrated the feds have been in trying to get to these classified documents wherever they are. Hunter Biden's back pocket, the Porsche, the Corvette, whatever it was. And now the beach home. Is there anywhere Joe Biden didn't take classified documents? The whole thing is they're obfuscating.

The team Biden is 100 percent obfuscating and the feds haven't been all that transparent either. Yeah. Two really important points. And one thing that Veep, the HBO show, captured really well about Washington and media is any time you would see the press secretary being intentionally sort of kept out of the loop, they would tell Mike, just get out of the room. You don't know. You don't know. And then they would just kind of scramble to figure out what they know and how to lie and what Mike should say, what the press secretary should say. That's what I have to imagine has been happening behind closed doors. They're trying to keep the press team out of the loop because the Biden team knows way more than they certainly want the press to know. And that puts the press secretary in the position that she's been over the last couple of months. So the last month, it's extremely difficult because it's looking worse and worse the more that we learn about what Biden knew about these documents, about what the FBI knew about these documents. I'm ready to search my own apartment for classified documents because apparently they're just everywhere. They're everywhere. My diary.

Yeah, right. The over-classification of documents, people have known about it. Obama actually signed a bill about it, but it hasn't really done much. And that's I think, again, Mike Pence, like Biden, said that he had looked and he hadn't taken any classified documents. And it's like nobody knows if they had classified documents because documents that have no business being classified are classified. And we had to go through this whole Trump saga about how people were just on there. They were clutching their pearls and they were fainting to their couches about how incredibly reckless and irresponsible it was for him to have these documents at Mar-a-Lago. But now it's just like, oh, you know, everybody does it. How can you help it? You know, everything's at the beach house. It's like not even at the main house, not even at the Penn Biden Center. It's like at the beach house. My God. I mean, you know, the guy was sitting on Amtrak looking at classified documents. I just I feel like there's there's zero doubt that Joe Biden did that, which leads me to our next story. So Joe Biden, he's not all there. I mean, we know this. He's really losing his faculties. And it's become a non story because the Democrats did better than expected in the midterms. So the press has just decided to forget or ignore the fact that he's got real cognitive challenges and wants to become

our second term U.S. president. He got up on stage yesterday in Baltimore and started telling this story. Speaking of Amtrak, you know, he used to ride it all the time going from D.C. home to Delaware. And he's told this story many times before, and he has been fact-checked on it many times before. It simply isn't true. It cannot be true. None of the facts add up. But he continues to lie about it. Here's the story with Joe on Amtrak. When I was vice president, I flew over a million miles on Air Force Two. And I was going home as a United States vice president. One of the conductors said to me, hey, Joe, big deal. A million, whatever, 200. He said, you've traveled over a million miles on Amtrak. How the hell do you know that? And they added it up.

Okay. First of all, the mumbling, it's like, this is not in still confidence, but okay. He says this happened when he was vice president. Now, he was vice president from 2008 to 2016. He's in the past revealed that the conductor who said this to him was Angelo

Negri, who retired in 1992, not 2008 to 2016, so wouldn't have been there. And by the way, he died in May of 2014. So he certainly ruled out after that point. Mr. Biden, for those counting at home, did not actually even reach one million miles on Air Force Two until September 2015, when this conductor was dead. So the conductor did not come and compare his one million miles on Amtrak to his one million miles on Air Force Two, because that milestone was reached after the man died. So he died. So he in this Monday's version of the story, he did not mention Mr. Negri. And he also did not say that it happened toward the

end of his term as vice president, which he has said in the past. Again, those are both statements he's included in earlier versions, which cannot be true. And is this the second time he's done it? Is it the third time he's done it? No, ladies, this is the eighth time he's told this false story. So it kind of relates to story number one about how seriously he treats classified information, how careful a man he is and how we can trust his word and they're being transparent. He can't even get the stories of his own life straight. And he tells them over and over like they're real when they're completely made up. This is our commander in chief. And why would we put any stock whatsoever in the reassurances given to us by him or his team when it comes to

what documents he has where? I mean, a couple of things going on here. The first is that even when Biden was at 100 percent, he was telling tall tales. And he's clearly the type of person who has told these stories enough times that he has come to believe these things actually happened to him. You know, he has been inventing the story of his own life from the get go. And the other thing is, he's losing his faculty. So I think these two things are like on a collision course that we are seeing, you know, something very interesting and alarming happening in real time with this president, which is like his penchant for making things up about himself that he has come to actually believe and like his actual degenerating mental state. Maybe we should just be doing it ourselves.

Like, what would you lie about if you could just make up your own path like i i would be oh there's a lot i would have gone to like amherst i would have been a road scholar uh i would have been first in my class you know like oh i don't know why why why are we all so tethered to facts it doesn't matter anymore what what is a fact you get the truth is truth is not real right real. I'm a conservative. I didn't love the idea of the host of Celebrity Apprentice negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But we had to hear the reflexive freakouts every time Trump negotiated with a foreign leader about how he just wasn't qualified. He had all of these character lapses. He just he didn't have the capacity to do this job.

Joe Biden, like it's actually gives me chills thinking about what he's telling foreign leaders in private meetings. And his lack of faculties that we see in public when he's telling silly stories about Amtrak or Air Force Two, whatever it is, they're they're like strange and all of that stuff. But imagine that being translated to substance. It's actually the media never wants to talk about that at all. Nobody wants to talk about it. That is completely a real substantive concern. that hasn't been written about the administration is probably the close and careful management of Biden by his closest aides in those sorts of settings, which has to be happening. But he has incredibly loyal people around him. And I do wonder if that story will be written

or told at some point. But certainly that has to be the most interesting through line story of the Biden administration is the management of his mental decline by loyal aides and the public perception of it. Well, thank God for those people, because if they didn't carefully manage that, this is what we would be seeing a lot. OK, this is what we'd be stuck with. I give you Kamala Harris teaching us about how rockets work. Bob and Doug returned to the Kennedy Space Center. They suited up. They waved to their families and they rode an elevator up nearly 20 stories. They strapped in to their seats and waited as the tanks beneath them filled with tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. And then they launched. Yeah, they did. Oh my God.

And just in case you were thinking, oh, she must be speaking to a group of kindergartners. No, she was speaking to astronauts, talking about SpaceX and giving the astronauts an award. She was explaining to astronauts. Can we just hear it one more time? I'm sorry. I need to hear it one more time, knowing now that she was speaking to actual astronauts. Bob and Doug returned to the Kennedy Space Center. They suited up.

They waved to their families. And they rode an elevator up nearly 20 stories. They strapped in to their seats and waited as the tanks beneath them filled with tens of thousands of gallons of fuel and then they launched yeah they did oh god it's awful it's awful so bad wait emily do you feel better i was trying to make you feel better. Did you worry about Joe Biden? That physically hurts the last part where she's like, they launched. Yeah, they did. Like she's trying to channel childlike wonderment.

She's like in a room full of astronauts. Truly. It's like the airplane into the kid's mouth. You did it. You did. Good. Good for you. You did it, Doug.

You did it. I'm humiliated. This is why Elizabeth Warren's coming after her. God bless Elizabeth Warren. I'm team Warren. I don't care. We used to call her chief lies a lot at Fox. I'm team chief lies a lot. It was only my team, but come on. She was fake. She said she was a fake Native American. She said she was a real one, but that was a fake claim. I'm really worried about our leadership. I'm not going to lie. I don't have faith in this particular team. I'm starting to wonder whether Gavin Newsom actually could do a better job. I forget. Forget I said that because he's so far left. It's just hard to even stomach. But yeah, there's there's serious problems down

in Washington. OK, so let's shift gears now because we have a problem at the federal judge level. There are a lot of vacancies. Each side tries to stop the other side's choices from getting in. And you tell me whether this judge actually should be stopped from getting in. All right. This happened last week when when the president nominates somebody to a judicial post, the Senate has to confirm if it's a federal judge. It could be a federal district court judge. That's the lowest level trial court or a federal appellate court judge. That's the next level up or Supreme Court judge. People are familiar with those confirmation hearings. uh judge charnel belking grin and uh she is from washington state superior court so she's from a state court in the state of washington and they joe biden wants her to be on the federal bench well um it didn't go particularly well when she was asked some very very basic questions about the Constitution. Here's a Republican Senator John Kennedy asking her a little bit about our U.S. Constitution, which is what a federal judge deals in all day,

every day. It's not 16. Tell me what Article 5 of the Constitution does. does? Article 5 is not coming to mind at the moment. Okay. How about Article 2? Neither is Article 2. Oh, my God. Okay. Do you know what purposivism is? In my 12 years as an assistant attorney general and my nine years serving as a judge, I was not faced with that precise question. We are the highest trial court in Washington State, so I'm frequently faced with issues that I'm not

familiar with. And I thoroughly review the law, our research and apply the law to the facts presented to me. Well, you're going to be faced with it as a, if you're confirmed, I can assure you of that. I, I'm sorry. I can even give her Article 5, which deals with the amendments process. But Article 2, you don't know what Article 2 does? Article 2 is about executive powers. There's a little cheat sheet for you the next time you go before your confirmation hearings. Article 2 is about executive powers. It's where the president gets it. I'm stunned that this person who wants to sit on the federal bench deciding important cases, A, didn't know that, and B, even if you didn't know that, why wouldn't you read the Constitution before your confirmation hearing? Just kind of phone it in, just in case somebody asked you about it?

This is horrifying. And I firmly believe this nomination should be pulled. What do you guys think? I mean, absolutely. And in defending herself, she said, you know, in all of my years of experience as what deputy attorney general assistant attorney general, that makes this so much worse. You're telling us that you were serving the public in an influential position without being able to name Article two.

And if it's a situation where she got stumped on the Article five question and then her brain just shut down, maybe, maybe that's understandable. It doesn't seem like that's what happened at all, because then you would just sort of talk your way. You'd catch yourself at some point and come up with the answer. It's actually more horrifying that she has all of that experience and couldn't name Article 2. She went through law school. Megan, you would know more about this than that I do. I imagine it's probably difficult to go through law school and not encounter Article 2 a lot. You have to take, come law, you have to take constitutional law. Your first year of law

school, it's one of the biggest and most important cases or subjects. It runs the entire year, and it's one of the bedrocks of the law. I'm sorry, but there is no excuse to not know what Article 2 is. This is an embarrassment. And she has made herself look like a case of affirmative action for women. I don't know if she's diverse, but she's a woman. And they're trying to get more women on the federal bench, this president in particular. And I can see, OK, great. Maybe we want more diversity. She's not it. Keep looking. There are other qualified women out there. This is an embarrassment. Mitch McConnell, he came out and said, OK, high schoolers across America learn about Article two each year. Then he says she flunked yet another question about legal philosophy. That was purposivism.

It's basically the opposite of originalism. It's people who want to interpret the law based on its original purpose. Like what are they trying to accomplish? Let's go with that. She flunked another question about the most controversial Supreme Court case this term. When asked to list the top 10 most impactful cases she'd ever litigated, she couldn't do it. She came up with, I guess, six. At no point has she ever even appeared in federal court by that standard. By all these standards. I'm way more qualified than this woman to take over this role. I've argued in front of many federal courts, district court and appeals. And then he asked whether Joe Biden has drastically lowered the standards for serving as a federal judge in his rush to stock the federal judiciary with nominees who are viewed as sympathetic to his political agenda. Quote, is this the caliber of legal expert

with which President Biden is filling the federal bench for lifetime appointments? It seems to be. It seems to be. And this is the same, he raises the point, ladies, that Trump appointee, Catherine Kimball Mizzell, who's the one who struck down the administration's mask mandate,

the left was all over her as too young, too unqualified. She at least clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court. She understood federal law very well, the Constitution very well. This lady, nothing. And yet they're all behind her. Joe Biden standing by her saying he stands by her proudly. His white deputy press secretary says they stand by her proudly so there will be no withdrawal. Yeah, I mean, that testimony was not defensible, did not and should not inspire confidence in anybody. But I do think, as Emily suggested, that it says a lot about the state of legal education in America. And I don't agree with Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, that high school, that high schoolers across America are learning what Article Two of the Constitution teaches. I don't think I learned that in high

school. And I certainly don't think that high school education has gotten better since I graduated high school many years ago. And I think that is how you get judicial nominees who appear before a federal court who don't know what Article two and Article five of the Constitution are. And yes, their standards should be higher. But I also think there's a much larger problem going on here. But Megan, if I'm ever elected president, you are going to be top of my list for a federal judicial nominee. And, you know, I think you can still have your your podcast on the side. I do a damn sight better. Obviously, you know, I think you can still have your your podcast on the side. I do a damn sight better. Obviously, you would crush this testimony.

And even like the stuff I didn't know, I'm smart enough to know what to study before appearing in front of the U.S. Senate. She obviously was coached in the response she did give where she said, you know, I've had experience dealing with questions where I don't know. She obviously was giving a coach response and she obviously had not committed to memory what every article of the Constitution does. But that's what school teaches us now, right? Like school teaches us how to deflect when we don't know. It won't teach us the substance, but if you don't know the answer, it teaches you how to BS your way into something that sounds quasi acceptable. What were you going to BS your way into something that sounds quasi acceptable. What were you gonna say, Eliana? We need both.

Yeah, I would love to do a little Q&A with her. I mean, the question's a useful skill, but like, I mean, come on. She should have like, she committed to memory the BS answer. She did not commit to memory, like the very basic, the very basics of the job,

which should have been done. As you said, I mean, I took con law as an undergrad and, you know, kind of basic. It's horrifying. I really would love to go. Let's let's do all the first year classes together. What is a tort? What is a basic print? What does the Fifth Amendment allow criminal defendants to do? We can go through it slowly. Take your time. What is civil procedure requires not disclosure, but discover like we could have a lot of fun. I wish they should bring me in as a pinch hitter just as a questioner. It could be super fun. In the meantime, we're putting judges like

this on the bench and the country's got real problems. One of them is immigration, as you know, and we are having massive problems in places like New York now as a result of this. And I'm torn because I'm right outside in New York. I live my life in New York. And I like the point that these southern governors are making, these border state governors are making by sending these illegal migrants up north so that people like Eric Adams, our mayor, has skin in this game. But we're getting overwhelmed and there's no federal plan. And so it really does make people like Eric Adams and liberals in these blue states start asking the question, what are we going to do?

We talked last week about how we've got people on the terror watch list coming across. You got pedophiles coming across. And here in New York, it was just a local story about how now they're kicking women out of the women's shelters because they're filling them with migrants who need a place to stay. They don't have a plan for them. So they're like, why don't we get rid of the abused women? They're on their own. Go back to your husbands. And we're going to fill these shelters full of migrants who are here illegally because they deserve the taxpayer money more than the abused women do. It's an outrage. And that's happening in a major, major city. And what's I think even sadder is what is happening to border towns that are small and rural and less wealthy and have fewer resources. If you go to border towns, you see how they've been affected

by this. So and the really, really obnoxious thing to hear from Eric Adams to say New York is full is because most of the people who are complaining are supporters of sanctuary city policies and sanctuary city policies is the one of the biggest things that people don't understand about the immigration crisis. I have been in Mexico talking to migrants. And what they tell you is they are coming because they've heard people are getting in. And what happens is when people come across, they get some form of humanitarian parole or their asylum claim is pending, their court date is in months, if not years, and then they're able to disappear into the shadows of sanctuary cities. And so it's a huge pull factor. The policies of Eric Adams, the policies of cities that are sanctuary cities,

Martha's Vineyard, whatever the heck it calls itself, the policies like that are ones that draw people into the United States because they know they can find all of these legal loopholes to the system that our bureaucracy has created in the absence of any congressional action to actually legislate a real immigration policy policy to subvert it, to create loopholes in it. And they know that they can exploit that and they can live a better life, even operating in the shadows of a sanctuary city. And that's why they're willing to sleep on the streets of Matamoros and pay cartels for protection just for the opportunity to live in the shadows in the United States, because it's better than their alternatives.

And so it's just maddening to hear from people like Eric Adams who are boosting cartels with their virtue signaling sanctuary city designations. They're the ones that are boosting cartels and inducing migrants to take these horrible journeys that cause so much suffering through their dumb policies. The entitlement that some of these people come over with is, I have to say, shocking to me. They're painted by the media as just like this loving, sweet group of people that wants a better life and they want to move to New York. They don't mention the people on the terror watch list and they don't mention the pedophiles. And they don't mention these groups that are like, I will come and you will

take care of me. And when you don't, to you, I'm going to throw a fit. Because the reporting out of Fox News yesterday was that there's showing a group of illegal immigrants protesting here in New York City outside of the Watson Hotel because they're mad. They're mad. They're being relocated from this free hotel, free to them, not to us, not to the taxpayers. They're mad that they're being relocated from the hotel taxpayer funded in Manhattan to a migrant crisis center in Brooklyn. This hotel is $300 a night in Hell's Kitchen, which is a very hip area now. And they're mad. They don't want to leave Hell's Kitchen. They don't want to go to Brooklyn. They want to stay on my dime and the dime of the New Yorkers and stay happily ensconced in their luxury hotel. This is ridiculous. Get out.

Go back home. You don't belong here to begin with. And you'll take what we give you and say thank you while you await your asylum hearing. Look, I do not blame them in the least, because if that were me, yes, I would want to stay in the nicer place and I would want to be at the Four Seasons, Megan, or the Ritz Carlton or wherever. This is on us. You know, this is on us to run a country, enforce our laws, have borders, etc., etc., etc. Like, I do not blame the migrants for taking advantage of a system and for reading the signals that our president and our lawmakers have sent for decades now, which is that we are not only not going to enforce the laws on the books, but we are not going to come up with and create new laws that would actually put in place a system that would stop these things from happening. And we've obviously seen, you know, Biden came into office, he was determined to reverse what he viewed as the Trump administration's inhumane immigration

policies, and sent a signal to people, come on in. And yes, we'll put you up, you know, not at the Four Seasons, but a few rungs down in Manhattan. And people got that message. And he's been responding to pressures on his left, from the left of the Democratic Party. And I don't think it's until he feels real heat from the folks on his right in the Democratic Party and from Republicans, whether it's in a presidential primary or elsewhere and consequences of the ballot box, which she did not feel in these midterm elections, that we're going to start seeing any changes. You know, it's, you know, of course, the State of the Union, you always get the preferred guests who are going to embody the consequences of the president's policies in a positive way or who, you know, spotlight where the president needs to change something committed by

the other party. And we're told that the family of Tyree Nichols is going to be there. You know who's not going to be there? This woman highlighted in this report by WNBC, who said she was a victim of domestic violence, who reportedly got an order of protection against her abuser, who works two jobs, has a college degree and a promising professional dancing career, but needed to go into a shelter, given those problems that I just outlined, and went to an alleged women's center. It says help women's center on the door, only to find out it's not a women's shelter anymore, because the city recently repurposed it to house migrant men, now flooding into the city shelters by the thousands. She tried to go to another shelter. She can't go home. She's an abused wife or woman. She tries to

go to another shelter in the Bronx where she was met with people in hospital gowns. That's not a good sign in the shelter. You're not supposed to see the people in hospital gowns. They're drunk people, no beds. So she finally had to give up and she slept in her car. Now, women like this are under enough stress given their lives. And the taxpayers, most of us would be happy to pay money to help women like this get to a safe place. And we have done that. And we don't want it repurposed for migrant men who have absolutely no right to be here. This is absolutely wrong. And we will not see this woman at Joe Biden's State of the Union or highlighted by pretty much any other media. Good for WNBC for doing it

because they're not interested in what the presence of these thousands of migrants here is doing to Americans who have their own troubles. Emily. No, that's a great point. And one thing, again, it's partially the media's fault. It's also the Democratic Party that is not getting understood right now is the scale of this crisis under Joe Biden. Like these numbers are not comparable to anything that we have seen before. What we're seeing in terms of crossings and gotaways is it's a staggering, staggering numbers because cartels have industrialized this and people I have migrants on video saying they heard Biden noise drastica like Donald Trump was. So that was part of what induced them to take these horrible, horrible journeys. And to your point about the resources, I think most Americans,

taxpayers would also be happy to work with people who have legitimate asylum claims, legitimate asylum claims, like the Cubans and some of the Venezuelans who are now being turned away, who are now being deported because we don't have a system right now where we can safely take people who are in danger, people from Russia, from Ukraine, who are legitimately in danger, who need asylum in the way that this country has provided asylum for years. But because the system is so backlogged and totally overrun right now, and there's so many loopholes being exploited, we can't have a system that processes people safely so that we know, for instance, whether people have criminal backgrounds, so that we can

care whether people have criminal backgrounds and immediately do things. We just don't have a system that's adjudicating any of that fairly. So it's a complete shame. And it is a total blot on the United States of America's record as a place of opportunity for people who need it, because those people are being shut out of the system right now and are having a much harder time because we're being inundated with basically economic migrants who will tell you that they're economic migrants. A lot of the Haitians haven't lived in Haiti since the years after the 2010 earthquake. They've lived in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Mexico. They've had perfectly fine lives there. But when the economy was a little iffy during COVID, they decided to come on up because what they told us, the American dream, they're

economic migrants, they're not fleeing political violence. And the system is such a mess right now because we have no law and order. Wasn't Kamala Harris supposed to get to the root causes of immigration and solve that crisis instead of sit there lecturing astronauts about what it's like to take off in a rocket? I mean, what is she? Truly, we're so bass-ackwards right now. It's very frustrating. All right, stand by. I do want to get to the Tom Brady news. I got a lot of thoughts on this and I would love to talk to you guys about your reaction. He's officially retiring. We have that plus a transgender ice skater who, I mean, crash and burn does not quite capture what happened on the ice. Why are we doing this again? Plenty more to get to as the EJs

stick around. Tom Brady is officially and for reals retiring. He announced it today online. Take a listen. Good morning, guys. I'll get to the point right away. I'm retiring for good. I know the process was a pretty big deal last time. So when I woke up this morning, I figured I'd just press press record let you guys know first so I won't be long-winded you only get one super emotional retirement essay and I used mine up last year so I really thank you guys so much to every single one of you for supporting me my my family, my friends, my teammates, my competitors. I could go on forever. There's too many. Thank you guys for allowing me to live my absolute dream. I wouldn't change

a thing. Love you all. You wouldn't, you wouldn't change the part at the end where you lost your wife of i don't know 10 plus years 12 years because you wouldn't retire a thing that you then decided to do 365 days later i mean honestly like tom brady seems like a rather sweet guy i don't think he's evil-hearted i actually you know i i he's amazing as a player, but the collapse of your marriage over one extra year of football seems like something one should regret. Thoughts on it, Eliana? I always wonder if we really know everything about what went on there. Um, and if that's, that's really why the split was, but certainly if that is why it was, um, seems silly not to have hung it up, um, a year ago. Um, on the other hand, um, I think, I think a year ago, like I made the same

joke because he's so, um, you know, it's hard not to admire him. Um, I liked the video and I was like, go Tom Brady. You can go like binge eat a hundred almonds now, um, and have 20 of your like spinach shakes. Um, but I, it's just always hard to like see into the personal, uh, to the personal lives of these people, which I'm sure are crazy. And he has a wildly successful wife as well. Um, who I'm sure has, um, you know, who has their own career and, uh, stuff is hard. I talked with Dr. Laura about this when they broke up, Emily, and I asked her, I mean, this is her business and she's been, you know, for a lifetime counseling families and helping people with relationships and had a very successful private practice before she became a radio star.

And she was saying kind of what Eliana just said, like, you never know what's really happening in people's private lives. And that especially when it comes to public figures who are this famous with these big jobs, they will mislead you. They will create a perfectly curated image that you are meant to accept and buy and want to emulate. But that is a mirage. And so I agree. And I've said before, I don't buy that this is what led to the end of their marriage, that he wanted to continue playing football. And she said, peace out. I've sacrificed enough of my career. But it is the only thing we've gotten from them directly on why the marriage collapsed. You know, she gave an interview talking about how it's my turn. I put my career on hold. She was the world's number one supermodel and that she really wanted him to retire. And she was sick of having to worry about him out there. And he wouldn't do it. You know, he retired reportedly because of her and then he wouldn't do it.

And this is Giselle living her best life post-divorce down in some beach community, showing us why she's the world's number one supermodel, or at least was. And so understanding all those dynamics, I have to say, like, to me, this is just a tragedy. If that really was the reason, you know, what we've said, like he lasted one more year for one year, he lost his spouse, his, but like, where's the self-sacrifice? Like, where's the, where is the mature decision to say, I will table my one year to sacrifice for you, my spouse, to sacrifice for the sake of my marriage and for the sake of my children to have their family remain together. And maybe this is a sign that he can get his family back together. Maybe this is a sign that

that's actually on the table. I don't know. But it's a really interesting point from both you and Dr. Lohr is that and from Eliana made this as well, that if it was about the extra year of football, it sounds like what it was more about was his treatment towards her. So if that extra year of football or if his retirement was about putting her first and then he went back and unretired, that's really about her. That's about his treatment of his wife as opposed to his treatment of his career. And these high-level athletes, Tom Brady is one of the best athletes that has ever competed in modern history. It's an obsession. And so obviously she's been dealing with that for years. She knows that about him. She's dealt with that intimately about him for years and years and

years. And so at a certain point, it's hard for her and for their children to watch him do that to himself. So I actually hope this is his retirement. I mean, I'm from Wisconsin. We went through this with Brett Favre year after year after year. He would kind of retire, then unretire, then kind of unretire, and then he would go to a different club. And it was just like the craziest thing in the world.

But it's, I think, a temptation for high-level athletes to earn more money, to get to that next Super Bowl, to break those records, et cetera, et cetera. So I hope this is his retirement and I hope it means that he's getting his family back together. I don't think they are. I mean, they're already divorced. And she's down there with the taekwondo instructor and all these pictures of one of those martial arts and all these pictures who looks quite dreamy himself living her best life. But I do have to wonder if this really was the reason, as the reports say, what would it be like to be Giselle today? Giselle Bündchen is waking up to do her next big photo shoot and sees. What? OK, so you could have saved the marriage a year ago when I begged you to do this and you refused and you decided for 300 plus days, it would be worth it to lose me, cause all this heartache to our children, blow up our beautiful life for what? For one season? I mean, just the insult. And even if that is what actually happened, what a middle finger. That isn't a good marriage. That

is somebody who's not actually connected and in love and, you know, intimately involved in the way you would expect and want your spouse to be. Yes, they agree. Yeah. And I have to wonder, I have to wonder, like a colleague said this to me and it did make me start wondering like whether there was a level of resentment in that actually she had the bigger career, you know, when the two met and she tabled that. And I have to think that, you know, when she was pushing him to retire, that there had to have been some resentment between the two of them about how to balance these things. She really did take that off the table. But she actually, I think, is the one who over the years has brought in more money, was the bigger celebrity, a global celebrity, had the bigger career and put that on the back burner.

Man alive. But like that's a real that's a real, real power couple. And and I have to say, like two incredibly genetically blessed people, both the beauty and the athleticism. And they both seem like nice people. I mean, that's the other thing. They don't seem like absolute jerks. So it's well, we'll see what happens. OK, maybe Tom Brady's next act. I've got it for him. If he's thinking like it's just going to be sports announcing Fox News gave him hundreds of millions of dollars, I think, to go do Fox Sports commentating. If he decides that he still wants to stay in the athletic game, I got it. I got the solution because you can be a biological male swimming or skating in the female ice

skating competitions. Now, it happened over in Finland and in this trans woman's defense. This was a lifelong dream to be a twirly ice skating sensation. And it happened. They made it happen for this trans woman, biological male living his life as a woman. And here is how that went for the listening audience. This is a biological man dressed in one of the women's little dresses. He's doing like the skate where you've got the one leg out behind you. It's very clearly a man and not a woman, but trying to look like a woman, not a great skater. It looks like me trying to did a turn that was actually kind of decent. Oh, stumble. Oh, he's down. He's down.

He's all the way down. It took about three seconds for him to go down. And now, you know, you got to get back up, get back up. It's a saying, get back up. No, no. Here come the other ladies with their flags. This is an international competition. This is, saying, get back up. No, no. Here come the other ladies with their flags. This is an international competition. I think this is Finland coming over there to help him back on his feet. He can't get up unless the actual woman comes over to help him out. It's a disaster. Why are we doing this again? Why is this important to do? So someone sent me this video a couple of days ago, and I expected to just be in uproarious laughter. And then when I watched it, not to sound too emotional or woo-woo here, but I'm

watching this man who clearly is sort of desperate to be a woman, to feel like a woman. This feels like a very high stakes moment for him. You sort of see it on the person's face. He really wants this, says it's a lifelong dream to be a princess and falls and it's a disaster. And it's just like, it's so sad to me that we live in a society that's enabling this, that is worsening people's suffering, that's encouraging them. And think of how many different cases that this is happening on smaller scales. Think of this happening with children, teenagers, people who are really suffering from dysphoria. That is a very real condition or other conditions. And this is what we encourage from them. This is what we want to see as a society that we tell them they should be doing is putting themselves in front of the world

for just abject embarrassment. To me, it was just like such a sad, sad video to watch. God, you're so right. That's exactly right. Because they say it's the Finnish Figure Skating Association looking to promote diversity, equality and inclusion at the European Figure Skating Competition, which is held in Finland every year. This is the competition for the best skaters in Europe. So that's what they were all doing there. And why can't we just make it about women? I'm sorry, but can't we just make it about actual women skating their best, these elite athletes doing their thing and not have these sad moments where we pick a farmer

who started skating eight years ago in their 50s or late 40s and put them out there to sort of steal the spotlight, become the story, embarrass themselves, embarrass the competition. Like who feels empowered by this, Eliana? Yeah, I mean, watching that is sad. That person really didn't obviously belong on that ice. Not a good skater.

And it's I agree with Emily, like we should not be encouraging this. Um, and I, it's hard for me to think that that event was actually a productive or positive experience in the end for that person. Not for nothing, but this person, I guess, went out there and dressed and skated as a geisha in 2020 at a different competition. They painted their face white, dressed in a kimono, and skated to traditional Japanese music. We actually have a little bit of that, too. My crack producing team has found all of this person's... Oh, gosh.

This is not very intersectional. God, if you're not watching this on YouTube audience, you must. Wait, we need to watch this for a minute. The skating's better there. Okay. The skating's a little better there. However, there is a question about cultural appropriation, gals, because not only is he sort of in woman face, as Carrie Bergeon says, she's not big on the men i guess he can get away with it you're allowed to do this if you're a trans woman like if you're trans they'll let you get away with anything i will say the skating looked a lot better as the geisha like that maybe that's his secret power that's why it's also not not clear to me why uh this couldn't have that person couldn't have performed in the men's

competition yes that's a good agreed there's no there's absolutely no point of it whatsoever and dressed you know dressed however he wanted in the men's competition and that would be the end of that i know honestly like this is a disaster and more of these things are going to be disasters because i'm sure he does want to be a princess but he cannot because he's a biological male and he's not royal and the solution to his problem is for him to get the help that he so desperately needs, not to put him on the ice and watch him fall in front of a world audience.

More people should take a lesson on all of that. All right, Emily Jashinsky, Eliana Johnson, a pleasure as always. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.