The Megyn Kelly Show - Lisa Cook Investigation Grows, RFK vs. Senators, and Bari Weiss CBS News Rumblings, with Glenn Greenwald

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Glenn Greenwald, host of Rumble's "System Update," to discuss breaking news about the investigation into Lisa Cook’s alleged mortgage fraud, the involvement of grand juries in at least two of the cases, how the corporate media continues to spin a false narrative, E. Jean Carroll continuing to speak out about Trump while he considers appealing to the Supreme Court, how the cases have become central to her identity, alleged Epstein victims coming forward, one journalist being removed from the press conference for asking legitimate questions, reports of Bari Weiss potentially selling The Free Press for hundreds of millions of dollars, what it means for her to join legacy media network CBS News, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. facing off with senators on both sides of the aisle, skepticism of Big Pharma and "The Science," one MSNBC columnist's piece trashing marriage, her own unhappiness and the truth about a good marriage, and more.More from Greenwald: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwaldSimpliSafe: Visit https://simplisafe.com/MEGYN to claim 50% off & your first month free!SelectQuote: Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS, and save more than fifty percent at https://selectquote.com/megynIncogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Get 60% off an annual plan at https://incogni.com/MEGYN code MEGYN at checkout.Pique: Get 20% off your order plus a FREE frother & glass beaker with this exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/MEGYN Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Tons of breaking news happening right now, especially in the legal battles related to President Trump. Source is telling the Megan Kelly show, there is now a grand jury proceeding underway in Atlanta, Georgia, looking into whether, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook committed criminal fraud by listing more than one property as a primary residence when she applied for mortgages or mischaracterizing her mortgages in general and that this probe may go even beyond those specific instances. We'll find out. But what this means is that the referral by Bill Pulte, the director of the federal housing finance agency to the DOJ of the Ms. Cook problems,

has satisfied DOJ prosecutors that the Cook alleged mortgage fraud is serious enough to warrant possible criminal charges against her. They're presenting it to a grand jury in Atlanta right now. Ms. Cook's got bigger problems than the loss of her job. She should really focus her efforts right now to staying out of jail and not to holding on to her Cush 14-year position for which she was unqualified to begin with. We'll get into the details that we've just learned here. Plus, we've got RFKJ on Capitol Hill sparring with Democratic senators and some on the right, too. But, man, some of these Democratic senators, good Lord, Michael Bennett of Colorado, he's an angry, angry, man, good gracious, he's pissed. Every time you hear from him, he's really angry.

He's got, like, he should, like, he's from Colorado. Go ahead, look at the beautiful mountains. Smell the gorgeous, fresh air if you can get away from all the weed that's all over Colorado. but like do something to lower your temperature, sir, every time I see you, you're spitting mad. You're okay. Take a chill pill. Joining me now, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and host of Rumble's system update, Glenn Greenwald. You might think home security was just an alarm that goes off after a break-in, you know, scaring the intruder off and getting a neighbor's attention if you're lucky.

But that is a reactive approach. By the time an intruder is in your home, it's too late. Your feeling of safety is shattered, and your safety is shattered. That's why real security should stop a crime before it even starts. So, this is why SimpliSafe was born. Their system is designed to be proactive, not reactive. I don't know how somebody didn't think of this before. They use smart AI-powered cameras to identify threats lurking outside your home

and immediately alert SimpliSafe's professional monitoring agents. These agents intervene in real time before the break-in even begins. Join the more than 4 million Americans who trust SimplySafe with their home security every day. And with a 60-day money-back guarantee in no long-term contracts, SimplySafe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day. Visit Simplysafe.com slash Megan to claim 50% off a new system. That's Simply Safe. It's spelled S-I-M-P-L-Safe.com. slash Megan. There's no safe like simply safe.

Glenn, welcome back. How you doing? I'm doing good. I took my chill pills right before I came on. I'm going to be very relaxed, very zen, very tranquil in contrast to Michael Bennett, so I'm ready to go. Yeah, we shouldn't be hard for him to get a joint just to take the edge off a little before, you know, he goes in his job. That's what he, right? Like, my God, just, it's a lot, sir. I'm going to get to him in one second, but I do want to start with Lisa Cook. This is very interesting because just because this federal housing guy, Bill Pulte, refers it, you know, as it makes a referral to the DOJ, does not mean the DOJ is actually going to run with it or actually pursue an indictment with a grand jury. But our information is that's exactly what's happening. She allegedly committed fraud.

She denies it in three different jurisdictions. One was Ann Arbor, Michigan. One was Atlanta, Georgia. And the third was Cambridge, Massachusetts. For whatever reason, we're told that this grand jury has been open in it. although we're told that the FBI is on the case in at least two out of those three instances. So the FBI is investigating her. We are told that the possible charges that they're looking at include mortgage fraud,

wire fraud, and it could go beyond that, Glenn. She is now trying to make the case through her lawyer, Abby Lowell, that she is not fireable for these alleged offenses because now she's claiming she disclosed these shenanigans to senators and Biden administration officials in 2022 when she went through the confirmation process. So my first thought to that was, and I love to know what you think as a lawyer yourself, you can't disclose away crimes and then later say you can't fire me for the crimes. Like if it's a crime, it's a crime. And just because Biden may have given you a pass on it, you're not going to turn around later

and say, the new administration has no right to fire me because they actually do care about crimes. Like, that's not going to fly if it rises to the level of criminality, in my view. But secondly, I also have real questions about whether she really did disclose what they're now saying she disclosed. It's the old Princess Bride. I do not think you know what that term means. Because you look at the alleged disclosures that Abby Lowell is citing. and he is saying in his motion, okay, I'm pulling it up, that, I want to get it exactly, she can't be fired over allegations of mortgage fraud because she already fessed up to

discrepancies. This is New York Post reporting. In her home loan paperwork, while she was being vetted by the Biden administration ahead of her confirmation in 2022, Abby Lowell confirmed that Cook stated on a background check form submitted as part of her vetting, one. that the Michigan House, the one in Ann Arbor, was her primary residence, and her Georgia condo was her second home. Two, on another document, she listed both abodes, as well as her Massachusetts condo, as her present residence, while specifying the Michigan home was her current permanent

residence, and the Cabrins condo was both a second home and a rental property. That's what, that's the evidence that she allegedly disclosed this to the Biden administration when vetted. Glenn, that's just listing your residences. That from this in defense of team Biden, no one would have any idea that she allegedly committed mortgage fraud by claiming as primary residences, places that were not, or as secondary homes, places that were actually rental properties, and so on. So this, even what they're arguing in court to defend her that she allegedly disclosed it is apparently a bunch of horseshit.

That's a legal term only people like you and I understand. Your thoughts. Yeah, a whole course on that in my third year of how to understand legal horseshit. You know, not only is it not a disclosure, it's actually not even relevant to the claims. What constitutes mortgage fraud of the type that she's accused of having committed is that you go into the bank and you make claims about what your primary residence is because you get better rates on your mortgage and you tell the bank something is your primary residence that in fact isn't, or in her case, as she's alleged to have done, you go in and you claim different residences as both being your

primary residence, which by a definition under the law is impossible. The fact that she listed addresses and claimed that she lived in some and not others during her appointment process and her vetting process isn't even remotely related to the question of whether the Biden administration knew or had reason to know that she lied to the banks, if in fact that's pretty, that that's what she's done. So I don't even understand how this is even remotely a defense, even if you were to assume that somehow if you confess your lies to an administration that puts you in a job and the next administration discovers those crimes, they can't fire you because it's like you've got some kind of pardon. Like I tell you, I once robbed a bank and you make me, you know, like a head of an agency. And the next administration is like, hey, he robbed a bank.

I don't think he should belong. Oh, well, I confess that. That's not a pardon. It's fine with Megan. Yeah, she said it was good. She said I could still serve. But that's not what even these documents that her own highly qualified and very well-remarded lawyer, Abby Lowell, has been around D.C. forever. He can't even mount the case that on its face is persuasive, even about that dubious legal theory that if she confessed it, somehow she's immune from further consequences.

Here's the other thing. if she's really going to go with, this was all disclosed and handled as an effort to keep her job. Again, as I said, she's got much bigger problems now than keeping her job. She'd like to keep her freedom. But I mean, if she's going to look at potentially multiple counts of wire fraud, mortgage fraud, and something else, she really could be headed to jail. By the way, now we just broke the news. So people are here. We broke that news on the Megan Kelly show about the grand jury.

Now the Wall Street Journal also reporting what we are reporting. and saying that the DOJ is issuing subpoenas in connection with this inquiry in both Georgia, as we reported, the grand jury is proceeding in Atlanta, and also in Michigan. And as I mentioned to you at the top of the show, we are understanding of the FBI is investigating her in at least a couple of these three jurisdictions. So that would make sense. Michigan and Georgia were where where the two main homes were. Then she added the one in Cambridge. The Wall Street Journal writes,

the initial scrutiny has centered on Cook's properties in Ann Arbor and Atlanta with investigators using grand juries as part of the probe. Cook's lawyer, Abby Lowell, did not respond to a request for comment by the Wall Street Journal. So it's all coming together. They have similar reporting to my own. And here's the question I have for you. If she really did have this vetted, as her lawyers are now claiming, with respect to just like should she be fired and can she be fired on that from. where's the Senate cross-examination on it? Which senator was told that she fudged her mortgage documents in a way that would streamline her applications with lower mortgage rates and probably lower down payments and blessed it? I'm looking forward to seeing that cross-examination from the Lisa Cook confirmation hearing

where they said, oh, you committed fraud? Okay, no problem. We're never going to find it because this is all a lie. It was not disclosed. of disclosed she had residences in all these places. But these mortgage shenanigans were not disclosed because you can bet dollars to donuts in a very confrontational and acrimonious confirmation hearing. She only got confirmed 50-50. Kamala Harris had to pass it with the tying vote, the deciding vote. It would have come up. She would have been hammered by the Republicans,

Glenn. The idea that this was known in Washington and they put her on the Fed, the Fed board anyway, is so insulting to our intelligence that it's hard to believe that's even being tried for so many reasons, including the fact that, oh, yeah, like, just nobody mentioned it. There was this massive attempt

to derail her nomination by the Republicans and they just didn't even bother to use this. Nobody mentioned it. Nobody thought of it. But apparently it was so well known because she confessed it. It's such a joke. And the other thing I have to say,

you know, Megan, is the reason why this also should be treated so skeptically even by people who might, you know, support her being on the Fed, is when it was first announced that Trump planned to fire her, it was instantly decreed that the only motive he had was his attempt to subvert the independence of the Fed and to replace her with somebody more sympathetic to his economic objectives. It was just asserted, like assumed that none of the allegations against her had any merit at all. These were just being invented and fabricated by Trump, the Trump White House,

in order to justify removing somebody who he wanted to remove for political reasons. notion of, oh, yeah, you know what, actually she did do this, but for various legal reasons, he still doesn't have the authority to remove her. It was only after the media started looking more and seeing that there was actually a lot here, independent of just what Republicans might want with the Fed. Did they then start having to shift their defense to invent reasons retroactively why she can't be fired? But that was never the claim at the start. Yes. And you can see, like how pathetic the attempted defense is in the way this is being covered. The Abby Lowell motion to try to get all of this against her, like in support of he wants

the firing to be overruled, overturned. He argues as follows, during her Senate confirmation process, Governor Cook submitted questionnaires and provided reports that would have revealed the same purported facial contradictions the government now claims are cause to fire her. As if in reading, she had a Michigan home as her primary residence and her Georgia condo was her second home. And then reading both abodes as well as her Massachusetts condo are her present residence when specifying the Michigan home was her current permanent residence. And the Cambridge condo was both a second home in a rental property. As if reading that, these senators should have said, aha, mortgage fraud.

Why are fraud? As opposed to this is where she lives. She's doing financial disclosures so we understand conflicts of interest and so on and so forth. Like this is so farcical. There's not even an allegation by Abby Lowell that something in here revealed her alleged fraud. And honestly, Glenn, now you still have the media trying to run cover for this woman. I'm going to give you a couple of examples down the same line. But this was Morning Joe just last week where the National Affairs analyst, John Heiliman took it to this place in what the stakes are as Lisa Cook tries to defend herself. I think she's defending more than just the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. She's also making highlighting a point here that is pervasively being abused throughout the Trump 2.0 era, which is the total disregard for due process, whether that relates to people like Kilmar-Bray-Gar-Rasia, people who are being picked up on the street, and shipped off to foreign prisons without any due process, or whether it's in this case where Donald Trump is essentially asserting

that this woman is guilty of something before she has been charged, tried, or convicted. Okay. Somehow now she's standing up for Kilmer Obraco Garcia in not accepting her termination, Glenn. Okay. Look, I'm a very, very vibrant advocate of due process. I mean, I did have some problems with the Trump's deportation policies on due process crimes. I think you and I once debated those. Yeah, yeah, we sparred on that.

There's a kind of a big difference between putting somebody in prison without due process or putting them on a plane, sending them to an El Salvador dungeon without a prison, and telling someone that because of the cloud of impropriety that's justifiably hanging over their head, they cannot serve on the most important body that sets monetary policy for the United States. I mean, this is, I think, this is what I think is the key, Megan, is if at the beginning the argument was, oh, Trump is just fabricating this, he's going after a black woman who doesn't defer to his monetary policy. It's a way to, you know, vet to undermine the independence of the Fed. This is all fabricated. Then you could pretend you're kind of standing for a principle. But now that they're resorting to this other defense, which is like, yeah, maybe she did some wrong, but everybody already knew anyway. Why are you bringing up now? Now it's about defending the, somehow the right of somebody, like she has a vested property interest, if you want to talk about your process,

in being a governor of the board of the Federal Reserve, even though there's significant evidence that she committed mortgage fraud and she might even be ensnared now in what you're saying is too likely to be a grand jury investigation. These are utterly different things. Are the Democrats really going to go to war over the right of somebody who's ensnared in criminal allegations that have a lot of evidence to support them? the right not to stay out of prison which I support you don't go to prison until there's a trial

or be deported or whatever but to serve on this extremely important body that you know this is what I find so bizarre is the eagerness of these people to cling to power like apparently being on this board is so important to her that she's willing it seems like to risk her liberty like if she were to just go away probably a lot of this case would go away too there'd be a lot less at stake but look at how much they cling to these positions even though there's clearly evidence that they've at least engaged in improprieties, if not outright crimes. And that's what they're defending. She never defends. She never denied it. She has not denied it. All she's done is come out there and say, well, in one instance, it might have been a clerical error through

Abby Lowell. That's the best she's gotten to, which is, in effect, an admission that it did happen, that there is an incongruence on these documents about how many places were her primary residents. By the way, that's not going to save her. And if it were simply a clerical error, it would not have been made over and over and over and always in a way that favored Lisa Cook's bottom line. The other day, when Ben Shapiro was here, we did a long discussion about, had a long discussion about her many dishonest statements on her academic resume and so. This woman, in my opinion, has a clear pattern of dishonesty. I want to give you one more. This is from the Times' Daily podcast called The Daily

on what her story is really all about, because they too did a deep dive on Lisa Cook late last week. Stop 15. Her most important research, and as you said, was around what happens when you don't feel

safe and secure in your position when your government doesn't protect you. And I wonder what Professor Cook would say about the implications of that. There is an irony here. that in some ways, the person who has the most insight into this moment in the U.S. economy,

at least at the Fed, is Dr. Lisa Cook. Not only when it comes to maybe the fear that government employees are feeling, but the fear that people living in the U.S. in some cases are feeling right now, that people in immigrant communities, that people who feel threatened in different ways, right, may be feeling right now. Okay. So it's ironic that she, Lisa Cook, understands the plight of the illegal immigrants living in fear right now as she herself gets targeted in the same way that these unlawful residents are getting targeted. The absurdity of this, Glenn, based on that lynching paper she did, about how, thanks to the culture of lynchings around 1900, black applications for patents went down. And then it. it turned out that the whole study turned out to be bullshit, thanks to the reporting by a couple of intrepid reporters who showed that the database for the patents, actually, that she was

relying on, was not used at all. She didn't even, like, it was out, it stopped being used in 1900 entirely. And she based her research paper on that, which undermined all of her research. And the New York Times is still holding her up as like the preeminent expert on what happens in a disadvantaged minority community when the society all hates them. So she understands it because she's black and she wrote this paper and then she understands what the minority immigrants are going through. Just ask NBC and ask the New York Times. I'm having trouble following it, but I think it all has something to do with being a minority is good and old whitey is bad. On the list of people, I know there's like a big competition in the United States

to claim marginalized victimhood status because that gives a lot of currency, like not just social currency, but also a lot of like political and financial currency. On the list of people who might qualify as marginalized vulnerable individuals, probably last on my list would be people who are members of the Board of the Federal Reserve. Like the idea that she understands like what Emmett Till felt or like people who were lynched by the KKK in the South felt because she might actually have to give up her extremely powerful position because she committed mortgage fraud. This is it really it's almost like going back being catapulted back to 2020 to the extreme most extreme accesses of woke ideology and discourse where because somebody is black automatically anything

done against them is intrinsically suspect and inherently racist and I also just want to quickly add big into that like there's this now that there's this bizarre uh pattern in our discourse where even though the democrats spent eight years dreaming and trying to imprison Donald Trump for everything from the Russia gate hoax to like payments to Stormy Daniels and everything in between. Suddenly now, any attempt by the Trump Justice Department to prosecute anybody is immediately depicted as political persecution. They even defended John Bolton, even though it turns out that his case was considered very grave by the Biden Justice Department. And they don't care what the evidence against her is. What they know is that she's black, that Trump doesn't like her,

and therefore any attempt to remove her is basically akin to lynching, which lo and behold, she studied and wrote about so she ironically is now in the position that she used to teach about. That is insane. The left is so fun. I'm sorry, but they're so fun. Where would we be without these lunatics? All right. Speaking of lunatics, E. Jean Carroll is at it again. Here's what's happening. So she won a $5 million defamation case and sexual assault case against Trump. And then she won this other defamation case against him, in which him saying, I didn't do this, she's a lunatic, was presumed by the judge to be defamation because there'd already been a jury finding that that kind of statement is defamatory in the other case that she brought against Trump.

So the only question he really gave to the jury was, how much does this new denial entitled E. Jean Carroll to? And they said, $83 million, because he's such a bad defamer, he needs to be taught a lesson on how he never can say he didn't do this ever again. The whole thing is so absurd as though when you're a man accused, you have an illegal obligation not to say I didn't do it because that's defamatory toward the plaintiff. And that once a civil jury, not even a criminal jury, a civil jury has said, we think you did do it. You can never deny it again. Or it's defamatory. It's like become law that you did do it. It's just the whole thing is. so nuts. So Trump appealed, the one verdict is going to undo the other. If he undoes the $5 million

finding of sexual assault and defamation, the $83 million is going to go away, too, because that one is based on the finding of the jury and the smaller award. Okay, so he's appealing now. He appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They said, no dice. We're not persuaded. And now he has, until September 11th to file appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, he's just sought leave for a two-week, sorry, two-month extension on that because he's a busy man. So we'll see. whether the court gives him leave for a little bit longer to file an appeal. But it does appear Trump's getting ready to take this up to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the issues, you know, Glenn, they're not that dissimilar in some ways from what Harvey Weinstein raised through our pal Arthur Idala.

And he did successfully get Arthur Idala's New York conviction overturned and got him a new trial. Didn't go that great, although he did better. He did better for Harvey at the second trial. because the New York State Court of Appeals, our highest court, did say you can't introduce all these other women in there. You can't, like, this is about the women who took the stand and said Harvey did X to me. This is not about a panoply of other women who aren't making those claims. And allowing that stuff in really was prejudicial to Harvey. And this is one of the arguments Trump is making that, but it's in federal court. It's not in New York State court. He's saying, among other things, this verdict was messed up. My trial was messed up because

you let other women come in and take a stand against me, thus poisoning my jury in an unfairly prejudicial way against me. Your thoughts on it. I saw yesterday where you commented on the ejection of the journalist Michael Tracy from that Epstein press conference. And Michael Tracy is a, you know, yeah, totally. And, you know, Michael Tracy is a common guest on our show. He guest host our show. He's a friend of mine. I haven't agreed with everything he said on, he's done in Epstein. But I'm really glad there's somebody there who's willing to kind of say, look, nobody's going to defend pedophilia, nobody's going to defend Jeffrey Epstein, like no one wants to defend Harvey Weinstein.

But at the end of the day, if claims are being made that are so far beyond the evidence because of mob justice or kind of hysteria, it's crucial that that be reined in or at least it be questioned. And for the crime of questioning, the fact that one of the Key Epstein, you know, quote-unquote survivors actually lied continuously and ended up having to retract it, including against Alan Dershow is he was forcibly removed by the people who are running the press conference, even though they invited journalists to come and ask questions. She totally did.

The premise of his question was completely sound, and it was a totally fair question. There's zero chance he should have been ejected. And actually, they should have answered it. And they still should answer it. And there's a lot of other interesting questions that he actually has been raising about some of these people who are being called survivors. Now, I only bring that up, even though you didn't ask me about it. No, we should round back to that.

I actually have some sounds cut on that segment too. Let's definitely do that. Let's absolutely do that. But I bring it up just because I think what courts are starting to realize, including courts that are not very sympathetic to Trump, I mean, he just had this big legal victory in the intermediate court, the appellate court in New York State, obviously not pro-Trump, where they said this, you know, verdict and this punishment that in the Letitia James case that she brought against the Trump organization against Trump was wildly excessive.

And, you know, I think the same thing with the Eugene Carroll case. Like that definitely, you know, Megan, when I practiced law, I think it's true of you, too. I practiced civil litigation. I didn't accept in a few occasions litigate criminal cases. And I never once had seen a party to a lawsuit lose and then come out and say, I lost because I was actually I did what I was accused of. They always say, I lost, but it was unjust. I lost because, but it was unfair.

I lost even though I didn't do it. So essentially what you're really doing if you're, you know, being sued in a civil litigation and you lose and you continue to insist you shouldn't have lost because you didn't actually do what you're accused of is you're basically calling the plaintiff a liar. But I've never seen anybody be sued for defamation for contesting the outcome of a civil suit, let alone be have imposed on them tens of millions of dollars in punishment and punitive awards because simply because they deny it. And they say, no, I was falsely accused. a lot of things got invented for Donald Trump in terms of how the law works, that case in Manhattan that by Alvin Bragg never in a zillion years would have even been brought,

let alone as a felony had it been on anyone other than Donald Trump. What we're starting to see is a recognition, like once that hysteria passed, once that kind of moral panic about Trump passed, that so much of what was done under the guise of the law was in fact a complete bastardization of the law, which is so ironic that these same people who did it are the ones constantly accusing the Trump Justice Department of doing that, even when there's

evidence that there's actually criminality like for John Bolton or Lisa Cook. Totally. All right. Now, I want to continue this discussion, but we have to take a break. You might know the feeling of FOMO, fear of missing out, but here is one thing you do not want to miss, protecting your future with life insurance. For about the price of one streaming service, you can get the coverage you need with select quote.

Even if this is your first time thinking about life insurance, they make it simple. For over 40 years, select quote has helped more than 2 million Americans secure more than $700 billion in coverage. Okay, let me tell you why I'm laughing. Because this is a life insurance ad that began with talking about your fear of FOMO. So it's like, yeah, you are going to mow. Kind of the rest of eternity, you're going to be. mowing. There's really nothing any life insurance company can do about it. But select quote has nonetheless helped millions of people who want to at least plan for the people who remain

to be well looked after. Now, that makes sense. That makes sense to me. This is a broker. They're going to work for you for free. They're going to compare policies from trusted top-rated companies to match your health, lifestyle, and budget. Some providers even offer same-day coverage. That's good with no medical exam. Even better. And if you've got a pre-existing condition, no problem. SelectQuote partners with companies that cover people with high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you, for less, and save more than 50% at selectquote.com slash Megan, selectcote.com slash Megan, so you do not have FOMO.

So E.J. and Carol, she's won this, you know, basically $90 million against Donald Trump. And she's been very obnoxious about it ever since. Here's Exhibit 1 when she went on Rachel Maddow after the big award, SOT 18. Yes, tell me. I had such, such great ideas for all the good I'm going to do with this money. First thing, Rachel, you and I are going to go shopping. Rachel, what do you want? Penhouse? It's yours, Rachel.

Penthouse and France? You want France? You want to go fishing in France? Although if me fishing in France could do something for women's rights, I would take the hit. I would obviously take one for the team. Oh, my gosh, so ridiculous. Okay, Rachel Maddo is all about women's rights until it comes to the trans issue, in which case she's completely on the other side.

so you can take a seat. So E. Jean Carroll, not only was out there celebrating all this money, like, do you have friends, I'll buy you friends. But she now is going to be launching this documentary that she says, it's called Ask E. Jean. It's going to, it did premiere at the Telluride Film Festival. And Variety did an interview with her on it in which she says she's really hoping her documentary will finish off Donald Trump. It's obviously personal between the two of them. And here is E. Jean Carroll just yesterday? It's Wednesday. Is it just West? Well, okay, on a back to the New York Times, they have something called the Modern Love podcast. She sat with them and listened to what she blamed Donald Trump for. She's gone nuts. SOT 16. Just as a matter, of course, the last sentence was, and I never had sex again.

It's the final line of your New York Magazine piece. And that, and I just, because it was so much a part of it. of my life, but to put it down was amazing for me. And Lori immediately calls me on that, what? You never, what? Yeah. Why? Then she started saying, why, why? So I came up with reasons, you know.

Well, I'm old and well, you know, and oh, well, you know. So only one of them was the real reason. And what was that? Donald Trump. Okay. So obviously I'm being facetious saying she's gone nuts. What I actually believe, Glenn, is she's obsessed. Like, I think she's obsessed because she never even mentioned Trump. She didn't come forward during the Me Too movement, you know, when it was in full flower. And then finally she did belatedly. And then they changed the law in part to help her bring this case. But like for 30 years, she said nothing. Then when she had a book to promote, and Trump was running for president, then suddenly she's like, oh, this happened to me.

And now she wants us to believe that for 30 years she didn't have sex because of this alleged incident that she couldn't even remember when it happened, even what year it happened in. I mean, these, to me,

are obvious lies that are being, like, reworked in her head, like our whole life narrative now revolves around him because she's made him into such a boogeyman and also he's parallel her paralleled her into fame you know she's relevant and she's 81 and she's loving it your thoughts and rich i mean here's the thing like just going back

to that rachel metal clip that you played at the start i totally get that people who go through bad things and trauma is like sometimes use humor as a lay of coping with it i don't begrudge anybody that i'm not saying like something bad happens to you it means you walk around for the rest of your life like totally miserable and humorless and grim or whatever. But if you are actually so traumatized by what Donald Trump did to you that you can you sue him and you convince a jury that you deserve millions of dollars and damages, you do not go on television immediately after and start giggling as though you've won the lottery unless that's really actually how you see it. I mean, there was no seriousness at all to what she was saying. It was a

a celebration. It was like, ha, ha, Rachel, we got one over on him. Let's use his money to go on a trip to France where I'll buy you a penthouse, even though Rachel Maddell already has multiple penthouses and goes on all the trips she wants to France. You know, it was like this kind of giddy celebration. It was like the kind of way that someone speaks if they kind of impose some sort of trick or deceit and got away with it. Now they're just giggling with all the cash that they're throwing on themselves in their, in their apartment. It was very much had that vibe. And if you're saying, like, hey, what I'm doing here is I'm standing up for other women who had been silenced, even though they two were sexually assaulted and abused to the point where they

repressed it or couldn't talk about it for years. This is not the kind of demeanor that you would engage in. That demeanor is for somebody who was on a political mission to center themselves and promote themselves and make themselves rich and famous and got away with all of it and then was on a very political program celebrating it. That's the first thing. The second thing is, I mean, I don't want to, like, judge too definitively with these sort of thing, but she's telling like her voice was slurred.

Like, she wasn't very coherent it in that video. Yeah. But you played almost like it sounded a little bit like she would have been drinking. Again, I'm speculating, but that's what it sounded like to me. And yes, like, even if you believe everything that she claims happened to her, it was, like, a very quick, uh, incident. Like, I'm not trying to minimize it, but I'm saying, like, even if everything that, that happened is what she claims happened, I do not believe.

that that means that you never have sex again for the rest of your life. Unless you have vested this with some kind of like wildly inflated importance, I just, I don't believe that. I just don't believe it. And as you said, her identity has become this. And it became a gravy train,

not just for her, but for all. A lot of people got very rich, you know, posturing as some as Trump's victims or as, you know, Trump's enemies. I mean, this is a gravy train for a huge number of people. and she was one of the people like kind of driving the train and benefiting most from it. Yeah, I completely agree with you. I mean, like, I don't know why E. Jean Carroll chose not to have sex

or didn't have the opportunity to have sex for 30 years, but there is zero chance it was because of Donald Trump. I mean, she's a very bizarre person. She was doing this column that had, you know, a lot of, like, gender issues in it and sex questions in it. Like, she was kind of very focused on sex. Maybe she just got turned off from it. I have no idea. but she did this video with L, where she showed off her house and, like, her pets. It was very strange. I would submit to the jury of the Megan Kelly show. This more explains why E.G. Carol hasn't been getting some than Donald Trump does.

Here it is, SOT 19. I like to stay up late. I like to sleep late. And I like to live like 90 in between. I get up around noon and I stagger outside out the store. And I throw open my arms and I thank God I don't have children. I worry at night when I'm in bed because, you know, a line for me can change their life. Now, whether it changes for the better or for the worse, I don't know.

I could not answer the questions coming into the Ask E Gene column if I was in New York City. You can't think in New York if you're dating 16 people, which I would be doing if I were in New York. I call it to Miles House because some very distinguished mice live here. Conneman lives in the kitchen. Taberski lives in the bedroom. On the door are the list of my dogs. Markey. Fortuna di Las Spunky.

Heidi. Tits. Bloody and Hepburn. What's the best piece of advice I've ever given. What a horrible question to ask an advice column. Oh my God! Eat. Drink.

and be married. That's it. She has a dog named tits and a cat named vagina. I don't know. Maybe some guys would like that with all the cats and the mice and the weird wig and the like the self-isolation out in the middle of nowhere with her bizarre trailer labeled the mouse house. I'm going to say for most hetero guys, it would be a no. You know, you and I both have to speculate. on this front, Glenn, but that's going to take a stab. Yeah, I was about to say I do not profess to be the authority on what straight men find attractive in women. But having known a lot of straight men, I even have like a lot of straight friends or straight men,

this is not my image of what attracts a lot of people. She's like out totally crazy, but like not even in a charming way. And even like the background score they're playing kind of mocks her as she's doing it. Like this is just like a batty woman. and you know I think like people who are off key or kind of odd or idiosyncratic can be attractive but that's what I mean like she just seems like crazy in a way that is very off-putting the way she looks the way she presents herself who could even listen to that voice let alone what's coming out of her mouth so I do believe now that she hasn't had sex in 30 years but I

even doubt more now than I did like 10 minutes ago that the reason was was because of whatever happened with Donald Trump and that blooming dolls I don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do. I tend to think they're not going to want to take it. I don't think they want to get involved in this one. They know that's going to be a big blow to the president, but this is one in his individual capacity. It's not, has nothing to do with him being president.

He's actually being represented on it by his personal lawyers. I just think that they're not going to have to take this. So why would they want to? Right. But you never know. If they do take it, it's very good news for Trump. And I do think they've got the grounds if they're bold enough to overturn it. And then she won't be.

buying Rachel Maddow any penhouses. Just because whenever we do this story, I must show this deposition clip. It's really the greatest deposition clip of all time. Speaking of the people who got rich off of E. Jean Carroll, her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, she cross-examined Trump at deposition about the famous Access Hollywood tape. You can grab women by the P-word. And when you're a celebrity, you're a star, they let you get away with it. And here is Trump in 17 at that depot.

I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet, just kiss, I don't even wait, and when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the pussy, you can do anything. That's what you said, correct? Well, historically, that's true with stars. It's true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy? Well, that's what, if you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true, not always, but largely true, unfortunately or fortunately. Or fortunately. I mean, this is Trump's superpower. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, it's just the way it's been over the last million years.

It's a documented fact, Glenn. I mean, I think this is like, yeah, like Trump has, you know, like a scholar of history. And one of the things that he has specialized in is the prerogative of stars and what they can do with women without asking. And so he has concluded based on his long declaration. case of scholarship. No, but I think, like, you know, this is Trump's superpower is that he will say things that not only most people think, but does have an obvious ring of truth to it. I mean, everybody, you know, Henry Kissinger once put it far less crudely, but, you know, he said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, like that's, you know, because Henry Kissinger

was not exactly known for his great looks or his eloquent behavior, but he had women lined up around the, you know, corner always for him because of his status and power. And this is just part of how human biology and human instinct works. I'm not saying that that makes it right. I don't think Trump there was saying that that's what makes it right, but he is observing what clearly is, even though you're not supposed to say it, you're supposed to pretend otherwise, an actual fact of how society functions between the sexes and, in fact, always has. And there are tons of examples that prove that. It's just so Trumpy in the way he says it in such a casual way, not caring in the slightest that you're not supposed to and almost relishing the fact.

that he knows you're not supposed to, but is doing it anyway. And there's always, like, a certain element of truth to it. And to actually add, or fortunately, that's just the way it's always been, or fortunately, it's actually not so bad for the people like me who are the stars. I'm not making a judgment on it. I'm not making a judgment on it. In fact, I've kind of benefited from it. So.

Yeah, it is what it is. I'm sorry, but ever since I saw that, I just died. I laughed so hard. And because we're on it and why not? Here's the second favorite clip from that same deposition. When you said in that video that Ms. Leeds would not be your first choice, you were referring to her physical looks, correct? Just the overall.

I look at her. I see her. I hear what she says. Whatever. You wouldn't be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I hope you're not insulted. I would not, under any circumstances, have any interest in you. I'm honest when I say it.

She, I would not have any interest in. Glenn. It's so classic Trump. And yet he knows he's being insulting. But he's totally being honest. By the way, I think Roberta Kaplan is a lesbian who has no interest in Trump either. But it's just so classic Trump. And as you put it, it kind of is one of the things that made America fall in love with him.

Totally. I mean, look at the people we were. presented with for so long, you know, they don't even seem human. Like I always go back to Kamala Harris as kind of the ultimate example of somebody who is just like, I'm sure Kamala Harris has something inside of her that's alive. I should take that back. I'm not sure, but I presume it. But like when she presents herself in public, it's, it's totally dead. Like there's this, like, the words don't connect anything. You know, you can like see the script of the consultants that she's reading from and memorized and then that come out of her mouth. And there's

no vibrancy to it. And that's true of most politicians. And the ones who have political talent, like Bill Clinton, whatever you think of him, and Barack Obama and Donald Trump, what makes them have that talent is their ability to kind of stir things in people like to make them feel something, to speak in a way that makes people think they're being authentic, even though case of Bill Clinton, he was a complete charlatan, he had that ability. Trump's superpower is that is who Trump is. That thing that Trump said there is what everybody I know who knows Trump well will tell you is how he speaks it in private. It's not even crude or malicious. It's just like very kind of, yeah, that's how it is. That's what I think.

He's totally. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, I do like in a lot of cases, you know, it's not really a persuasive defense to sexual assault or rape to say, oh, I don't even find her pretty because a lot of times rape is not about sexual attraction, but about power and other kinds of war. But in the case of Trump, you know, he has been notorious for, you know, womanizing with a very specific kind of woman. And it's like he's almost insulted that he's being accused of trying to have sexual interactions with the woman he considers unworthy from his perspective. I think it resonates given who Trump is. Exactly. That deposition clip, the second one was about Jessica Leeds, who claimed that he groped her on an airport.

I've interviewed her. and also she was allowed to testify at the trial against him by E. Jean Carroll. So we'll see. You know, New York State, they passed this law that gave a one-year window to alleged sexual assault victims to bring up claims from 30 years ago, which was just a terrible idea. There's a reason we had statute of limitations on these claims. It's very hard for a man to defend himself 30 years after the fact. Look what Brett Kavanaugh had to go through with Christine Blancel.

Ozzie Ford. Thankfully, he was a future Supreme Court justice in the making, so he had all his little date books, even from when he was a teenager or a 20-year-old. But my point is that the whole system was so unfair. And to make Trump pay this $90 million judgment against this very bizarre, extremely kooky, and I would submit, untrustworthy lady, seems nuts, especially given that it was a New York jury that hated Trump. I was talking earlier about how so much of the law was just not only twisted, but in many cases, reinvented and fabricated with no real purpose other than to impose punishments on or even lead to the imprisonment of Donald Trump. And this is, there's so many examples. And this clearly was one of them, which is why I just find it so

infuriating when Democrats stand up and say, the worst greatest threat that Trump poses to our democracy is that he weaponizes the law against his political enemies when that's all that was done for eight years nonstop. Yes. Okay. So on the subject of nuttiness, around Donald Trump, I have time to squeeze this in before the break. Joy Reid and MSNBC or Katie Fang had a discussion on Katie Fang's podcast, and this is what came out of it. Look at this. Sat 32.

He's got these magical doctors who claimed that he was shot in the ear, but his ear, I guess, grew back. He had a duplow bandage on one minute, no bandage the next. We can't get a medical record from this alleged assassination. He was supposed to shot. We have nothing. We've got nothing. where are the investigative records one day he slapped his maxi pad on his ear the next day the ear is totally fine it's fine and we and i remember being in mainstream media where we both used to work saying isn't it odd that we've never asked for his medical records and i got in trouble for that right so so you're not allowed to even say isn't that weird we have more records i know more about the attempted ford assassination henry president ford then i do about donald trump and the Daryl Ford thing happened when I was a child.

We're getting nothing. And the mainstream media isn't demanding his medical records. They're not demanding anything. They're terrified of this man. And now that the people are speculating that he might have died, we only get that online. But mainstream media, I'm like, everything's fine. He seems fine to me.

Okay. Joe Biden's FBI said Trump was struck by a bullet. Joe Biden's FBI said Trump was struck by a bullet in the ear. guess that's not enough for them. Also, his doctor came out and said he was shot in the ear, and this is what I did to patch up the wound. I don't, what other record do they want to see? What his blood pressure was when he was in the hospital for it?

Like, they refuse to accept reality, Glenn. They can't accept reality because the moment was so heroic for one Donald Trump. I just realize now how much I miss joy, like in a warped way, because it's, she's really, I mean, a lot of people on MSNBC deliver inane garbage, but she really goes the extra mile in a way that you're just kind of like, even though you know her, she's shocked. But like, you know, at the end of the day, yes, we should know. But like, let's indulge her, her conspiracy theory for a second. There was an assassin. There were bullets flying around. There were people in the audience who were murdered. And even if like whatever the theory is that like a piece of the teleprompter broke

and was acted as a blade and like cut his ear, the fact is that bullets were, were flying around. He did end up bleeding profusely from the ear and stood up fearlessly in an amazing moment and pretty much demanded that the Secret Service let him say let him say let's fight. So what would it even really change? Like I get JFK conspiracy theories. Like it matters who shot JFK. But of course the bullet went through Trump's ear. But even if it didn't like, why would people lie about that? What would it prove? What would it? And also she's blaming the media for not running headlines that Trump was dead. She's like online independent media. We're courageous. as we do it, but the media pretended he was still alive.

And the nerve to be like, why isn't, why isn't the media investigating this, this health issue, this alleged health issue? You know, this is something we should look into around Donald Trump. Okay. Preacher, heal thyself. Back in a second with more Glenn. If you've Googled yourself, you know how many results contain your personal info. It's not by chance. Your information is available. Your name, address, phone number, financial info, income, legal and health history. It's bad, but it's out there. It can be sold and shared publicly without your consent. There are some real risks here, including financial scams, identity theft, unfair targeting by insurance companies, and general safety risks. But I want to tell you about

incogny. This helps take control of your online privacy. You sign up, you allow them to act on your behalf, and they demand that data brokers delete your personal info. Now, they've introduced something huge customer data removals. With their unlimited plan, Incogni's privacy team, gets your info taken down from any specific site. Right now, you can get 60% off an annual plan by heading to incogni.com slash Megan and using code Megan at checkout. It's risk free with their 30-day money back guarantee. Take your personal data back with Incogni. Get 60% off an annual plan at incogni.com slash Megan. Code Megan at check out. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show. Glenn Greenwald, host of System Update on Rumble,

is back with me now. Glenn, we mentioned it, so we might as well do it here. There was this hearing yesterday held by Thomas Massey and Rokana, a Republican, yes, but known these days chiefly as the Trump antagonist amongst the GOP. And then Rokane is a Democrat. with alleged Epstein victims out on the steps of the Capitol, sabre-rattling about how they were going to start naming names, and, you know, they were going to provide their own Epstein list. Later, we saw Massey say, okay, the ladies are going to get sued if they actually say these names, but we can't get sued if we say them pursuant to the speech and debate clause on the floor of the U.S. Congress.

So that's how we're going to handle it. We're going to, like, repeat their information. here, woman after woman stood up and, you know, gave disturbing testimonials about Jeffrey Epstein, stuff we've basically heard before. And then there was this strange moment that I do think speaks to a broader problem in the whole Epstein case that came to light thanks to Michael Tracy, independent journalist who you mentioned, who stood up and asked about the best known Epstein accuser, Virginia Jew Frey, made a name was Roberts, and got shut down. Here is that moment from yesterday in

Stop 23. Yeah, so you represented Virginia Roberts. She eventually had to repent the allegations that she made against Alan Dershowitz. She alleged that. I don't answer it. All right, next question. Next question. Thank you. Who's that? Why is it though? She should be. Yeah, no, we're not answering your question. anybody else to your question about the the allegations there's a simple answer release the files let the american public decide instead of harassing instead of if i gave you your say look look you're hired by dershowitz you know even you know you've been heard you've been heard

You've been heard. And even Alan Dershowitz, even Alan Dershowitz has to release the files. Release the files. That is the answer. And that's what we're here for. Okay. So what does that moment mean to you? Because then they threw out Michael Tracy from the presser. He got forcibly ejected from the event for that question, for being too much of a pest on some of the credibility problems, in particular of Star Witness number one, who has since passed. Right. And just to be clear, this was not, he wasn't there trespassing. He was invited by Rokana to come and ask questions and to participate. It was intended to be a press conference, which means you open it up to journalists, not that this is journalists who are going to blindly recite whatever you want them to say, but even journalists who are going to do their job and

pose questions to you that might undercut the things you want the public to believe or at least demand answers to them. And, you know, look, I've known Michael a long time. He's, he's cantankerous and can be, you know, sort of very persistent, one might say obnoxious, but let's face it, that is a behavioral trait that a lot of good journalists possess because sometimes it requires that, you know, like you have to be kind of aggressive. But in this case, he was behaving himself perfectly well. That question was respectfully asked. It was a premise that was completely truthful. And before it was even done, those women started saying, we're not answering that. Ignore him, ignore him. So, and as you say, it wasn't just that they were

used to answer the question, it was that he was then physically and forcibly removed, expelled from a press conference for the crime of asking an uncomfortable question, which I do think calls into question the credibility of what a lot of these people were saying because yes, is this a search for the truth or isn't it? Go ahead. Exactly. And I think the problem with the Epstein case has become that, at least from my perspective, is that there are important and interesting questions. Like, how did somebody so extremely wealthy? How did he become that wealthy?

But also, how did someone so completely connected to the world elite continued to be that even after he was forced to plead guilty to crimes, felony crimes for soliciting minors for prostitution, usually a crime that would result in your instant expulsion from decent society and a far-lengthier jail term than he had. He got a very sweetheart deal. what kind of ties did he have to foreign governments or domestic governments? These questions are legitimate and have never been answered. On the other side, though, this case has been wildly sensationalized,

including by a lot of people who are at the top level of the Trump administration, who out of power over the last four years spent a lot of money, a lot of time making a lot of money pounding the table, accusing the Biden administration of concealing these documents to cover up very powerful predators. And so you sort of have these two extremes competing with one another where the truth lies in between. And I think the Epstein case has kind of become this proxy or stand in for the very valid distrust that people have harbored for a long time about what globalists and what global elites really are doing, what, you know, the kind of lives

they lead, the complete detachment that they have from the common citizen. But you still want it to be grounded in the truth. You still do want journalists, even when it's difficult. You know, how many times Michael Tracy gets accused of, you know, raising skepticism. because he's a pedophile and wanting to protect pedophiles, which is absurd, you want people kind of always, you know, pushing back a little bit and saying, wait a minute, before the mob gets too carried away, let's look at what the real evidence is. And for the crime of doing that, he was kicked out of a press conference, the supposed point of which was to disclose the truth.

I'm sorry, but it was very wrong. Like, anyone who is a legit, quote, survivor or victim would be able to answer those hard questions. would have no problem answering those hard questions. And the fact that Virginia Joufrey has died does not mean we cannot question her story. She herself admitted in her settlement with Allen when she dropped her claims against him that she may have misremembered what actually happened in that case because he essentially forced that admission from her by providing all sorts of actual evidence like, you know, plane tickets and so on that proved he was nowhere near Epstein or his island, etc. on the dates she said he allegedly had sex with her. And so, in my opinion, she got away

with far too much. She actually should have been forced to pay some sort of a penalty for what she did to Allen. And I don't know who else she lied about. I believe she was an Epstein victim. I actually do believe that. But beyond that, I can't say. I know that Virginia Jufre lied. She definitely lied a fair amount. So totally fair question. This is like, it's just spun to this very Salem-y kind of place and everyone should have a big asterisk on on everything they hear in this case. Like at this point, it feels like one large manipulation will do our best here to make sure that doesn't happen thanks to us or our cameras. Okay, moving on on the media front, I've got to ask you about this report. If there's one person who you disagree with vehemently, on Israel. I think it's fair to say it's Barry Weiss. And you're a friend of mine, and she's a friend of mine, but I think this is an interesting thing that's just happened. She's been reportedly, Dylan Byers of Puck News is a scoop, this is his scoop, reportedly been offered between $100 and $200 million for the free press. This is how Puck is reporting it. David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison,

and they just bought Paramount and CBS, David, the son, who's only like 41. He made an offer for the free press. It's expected to be well above the site's most recent $100 million valuation, but well below the $200 million figure that was recently floated in the Financial Times. That was an absurd ask, right, still in buyers. The free press does $15 million in annual subscription revenue, and Barry's politically charged content makes it hard to scale the advertising business. plus there's no tech stack. It's all on substack. Either way, it will land Weiss a king's ransom

just a little over five years after her dramatic departure from the New York Times. The deal's not done yet, of course, but as a source with knowledge of the negotiations told me this afternoon, it's on the one-yard line. As part of the deal, he reports, I'm told that David Ellison plans to give Barry Weiss a role at CBS News that would, among other things, task his fellow millennial with guiding the editorial direction of the division, the news division. Barry's avowedly pro-Israel and anti-woke worldview, you disagree with her on that first one, but agree with her on the second one. You're not a woke person. Not to mention her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition would inevitably inspire blowback from various corners of the newsroom and could dramatically change the editorial posture and reputation of one of the most storied and certainly self-important institutions in American journalism. For David, that's likely part of the point.

Your thoughts on all of this, Glenn? There's a lot going on here. I mean, I definitely do have extremely vehement discriminating with Barry on Israel to put that mildly. But I also have had interactions with Barry personally. And I say what everyone who I've ever known has known her says. She's a very, like, charming, nice person. Like, it's very hard to dislike Barry personally. So for me, at least, it's not about that.

Extremely bright. And I actually wrote one of the very first articles when she was hired from the New York Times by the Wall Street Journal because all the liberals were enraged that Brett Stevens was being put on the op-ed page. And I was like, Brett Stevens, he's just like a normal stand run-of-the-mill conservative neocons. But Barry is an extremely shrewd person. She understands how the discourse works. And I guarantee you she'll be the more consequential hire there, which I do think Barry is extremely shrewd. And she has built a free press into something successful.

The issue for me is, you know, and I'm also a huge, you know, proponent of like new media and clearing out the old, the corporate media generation. I mean, that's what my career has been based on, is I grew out of new media and blogs and all of that. So I'm always happy to see that. I think the issue here, though, is that you cannot ignore the politics here. So the previous owner of Paramount and CBS was Sherry Redstone, the widow of Sumner Redstone. And Sherry Redstone said after October 7th, her only interest became defending Israel. She didn't care about journalism anymore. She lost interest in Paramount and CBS. That's why she decided to sell it.

She's selling it to Larry Ellison's son, which basically is what he is. I mean, that's his primary accomplishment. Larry Ellison is the founder of Oracle, extremely successful, one of the 10 richest people on the planet. So he has billions of dollars to play with his son does. And he's buying Paramount and CBS News. And the issue far and away that has been at the top of the agenda for the Ellison's, Larry Ellison and David Ellison, when it comes to politics or philanthropy, is Israel.

and there has been controversy since October 7th about some of the story 60 Minutes ran supposedly too sympathetic to Gaza, too critical of Israel, and now he wants to take Barry Weiss, who, again, I have respect for her accomplishments and success, but is what she has built anywhere near worth $100 million, go look at how many people listen to her podcast or how many people watch her videos on YouTube. It is a tiny footprint. And to place her at the top of some in some kind of like editorial or ideological enforcement role at CBS when she so aligns with David Ellison on the issue that's of most of greatest importance to both of them is something that concerns me because I really believe in a media that is kind of divorced from clear-cut

agendas where the reporting is shaped by that. I have no jealousy of very, I've done very well in journalism. I'm thrilled for her that she has. I really like her wife, Nellie as well. I like both of them. But I do think there are things to question in this deal in terms of exactly why it's happening and exactly what it will entail in terms of Barry's influence over CBS News in particular. That's very interesting. My own feeling on it what I saw was it's like Barry's doing well with the free press. She's got a lot of investors who she's doing a good job for and they'll probably take a hefty amount of that money. But to me, this feels like somebody comes up to you and says, I've got this beautiful ship. I'd love for you to captain. It's absolutely gorgeous.

You might even call it unsinkable. It's going to set sail on the Atlantic. We're going to head north into the Arctic area. There may be a couple of icebergs. I'm sure you'll be fine. Here's the wheel. Why would you go into mainstream media right now? Like, it's dead. It's dying. It absolutely is on track for the iceberg, I just don't understand the allure. And I really don't understand the allure to go to a television network, which is not Barry's background at all. And it's for me, and I really love Barry and Nellie, too. I worried they're going to eat her alive because CBS is among the worst when it comes to being insular. Like you have to be raised at CBS to be respected by the CBS people. Ask Katie Couric if you don't believe me. Ask Catherine Harage

if you don't believe me. You know, to whatever you think of Katie Couric, within that circle, she would certainly be considered one of the most storied, established journalists of modern times, and they hated her guts that she didn't rise up within CBS and she didn't come from the evening news and all that crap. There's no way they're going to respect somebody who did a stint at the journal and the Times and then went off in independent media. as a television editorial boss. And I'm sorry, but they're also not going to respect somebody who's young and a woman because CBS is not built that way.

Again, ask Katie Couric, ask Catherine Harwich. I've watched it happen time after time. So I just don't get the allure. Like, are we on an independent media train where we're, like, creating and building something new that matters and is really going to replace these dinosaurs? Or are we going back into the dinosaurs to try to. to somehow put the paddles on them and continue to ask for a charge

when the patient has long since expired? Yeah, it's such a good point. I'll just give me this quick anecdote. You know, I founded the Intercept in 2014, and we did so with Pierre Omidyar, the multi-billionaire founder of eBay. And at the time, he was strongly considering buying the Washington Post

for the same amount he invested in the media company that we created, which was $250 million, and ultimately Jeff Bezos bought it instead. And I remember him telling me he wanted to buy the Washington Post to change it, but realized that with an institution that kind of longstanding, that kind of ossified, even if you buy it, you're the owner, it's extremely difficult to change it. He decided it would be just better to start something from scratch that he felt he could put his imprint on.

And I do think, while I do express the concern that Barry's going to go there and exert a lot of influence, I think more likely is what you said, which is kind of like the rotted roots of CBS, even with new ownership, probably telling her she'll be protected or whatever, is more likely to consume her and change her and the free press than it is the other way around. And also, I think you're so right, this is a dying medium, not just cable, but network news. Like, I have never heard anyone under 40 being like, hey, did you catch 60 minutes, you know, the other night? That's not where they get their news from. and Barry has created something, whether I like it or not, that is extremely influential because

of it's independent. And I have seen people go in the reverse way like you and Tucker, for example, were freed when you finally got out of working for a major corporation. And I had that same experience. Like even if you don't realize the constraints that are there, they're still there, just going to work there every day. Why would you want to sacrifice the credible freedom and liberty that you have of being your own boss and having this great influence to go basically.

basically become an employee of a stodgy old corporation that seems to be more dying that it is rejuvenating. Maybe it's just the allure of a brand name job, but I don't really see the kind of person who, yeah, yeah, I wouldn't do it. I think she's going to hate it. They're going to be nasty bitches to her. And I use that term in a non-gendered way. I think they're going to be terrible to her. I think she's doing something really exciting right now, and she is succeeding. And fine, the exit plan, if she wants to sell the free press, I have no judgment on that. I'm sure she could build something else awesome from scratch. And she's got a lot of investors who love her because Barry's liberal.

I mean, she's more of an old school liberal. And she's not woke. So she's safe, you know, because a lot of these leftist investors, they love that kind of, they're not woke either. They can't say it publicly. They love the things that she writes that are non-woke, but they still don't like Trump. So Barry's a great investment for them. and they probably would get behind any new publication or project that she would put out there. But this just is not it.

Honestly, Glenn, I can tell you truly, if anybody, if Fox News came to me tomorrow and said, would you come in and head up editorial or any other organization, you know, come in and help us, maybe like an ABC or CBS and like help us write the ship, I would say, no, thank you. No, thank you. I've already gone into these networks and seen the hatred they have for people who are genuinely not of the and for outsiders, which Barry 100% will be considered, notwithstanding her liberal bona fides card. And they're miserable places to be. CBS is notorious for how unhappy everyone is. So I just think, like, why it's so wonderful to be independent and not to have these corporate

bosses. You and I are in this great place where if somebody loves our product, maybe we'll license our product to them. That's fine. They don't own us. It's like, whatever. But there's no way they own us. You wouldn't give your editorial freedom up. I wouldn't give my editorial freedom up. And you go and join one of these organizations and they're the ones who control you, not the other way around. Right. Even if you're being promised, which I'm sure Larry Allison's son is promising her, no, like you're going to go there. You're going to have total absolute freedom. The nature of a corporation is not consistent with that kind of freedom. You have too many factions, too many power centers to please. There's no way that you can go there with all the people

around you from the top and the bottom, insisting that you act a certain way that you stay with in certain planes. What happened to Chris Licked at CNN? Exactly. I mean, he just tried to, like, modify it a little bit. Like, hey, let's not be the spokesperson and the arm of the DNC. Let's get back to what made CNN successful. And he was gone in an instant because there was a huge internal uproar over it.

And she was driven out of the New York Times because of that. You know, this very catty high school behavior of, like, sniping at her on Slack. That's what she left. And she, again, for better or worse, I would say for worse, but for better or worse, she created something genuinely influential that she runs, that's her creation. Why go give that up and work? And I can see if CBS were still this major powerhouse, like, the 1950s, and we were, you know, in the area of three networks.

Oh, you get to run one network? Great. That isn't power anymore. That's almost obscurity. That's how I feel. I hope she doesn't do it. I want her to get her payout, so I'm kind of torn because I think she just, deserves all the riches, and I hope she spends them well and enjoys her life fully with Nellie

and now they're children. But I just think this is the wrong move. She's not the right person for this job. I can see why they want her. I can see why they need her. I don't see what she gets out of it other than, you know, the paycheck, which, okay, I'm not going to shake a stick at that because it is nice to have money, and I'm sure Barry would love to have that cushion on her, on her bank account. So anyway, all the best to her. Words of caution sounded, and now we'll see how it shakes out. Okay, let's keep going. RFKJ was on the hill this morning getting roasted by very annoying people. I mean, back to Colorado's Senator Michael Bennett, angry, angry man who gets RFKJ in front of him. This is the finance committee. It wasn't the oversight for health and

human services, but the finance committee. So it wasn't exactly the cast of characters that was there for his confirmation, though it was largely duplicative. I'm trying to remember whether that's true. In any event, here is Michael Bennett going after him because he's very, very angry that Kennedy dumped all these people who were working on the vaccine group at CDC and wants them replaced with other people who, it's not that they're all vaccine skeptics, it's that what Kennedy says, is they actually just want data. They don't want to assume that babies need the hep be shot when they are one hour old. They want data to prove to them

that's a necessary, quote, vaccine injection for a one day or a one hour year old. And so that's who Kennedy wants to put on this board. In any event, here's Michael Bennett questioning him about it in South Five. If your panel recommends changing the vaccine schedule for children,

do you anticipate that fewer children will receive these common vaccinations, yes or no? What I would say, Senator... The obvious answer is yes. Should parents and schools of Colorado be prepared for more measles outbreaks as a result of that, Mr. Secretary? Senator, how about more mumps outbreaks? I don't...

I do not anticipate a change in the MMR vaccine. You know, A-ZIP is an independent panel, so... Well, it's a panel. You just put those folks on. Far from what you said, there are people with ideas that are completely outside the mainstream. And you were never there complaining when the pharmaceutical companies were picking those people and then running their products through with no safety. You can characterize it any way you want.

I quoted them today. What I said was accurate. What you said were lies. Are you saying, Senator? Moving the Titanic. Are you saying that the M RNA vaccine? vaccine has never been associated with myocarditis or paracartitis. I am saying, I am simply, I am simply trying to tell us.

I am simply trying to say that the people that you have put on that panel after firing the entire- You have a question. If you watch a whole segment, just Ben, it's angry the whole time, spitting mad at him. But I did think that was an interesting exchange because Kennedy gave as good as he got and was not taking it lying down, Glenn. but clearly they want his scalp. They wanted it when he was in the confirmation hearings, which he did pass, and they wanted just as badly, if not more, now.

Yeah, Bobby Kennedy grew up in the Oval Office, you know, like he's not going to be intimidated by people in Washington. But I will say that what this, for me, what this shows is that these people can never come to terms with the radical failures of their, you know, venerated institutions and experts like what everybody saw happen throughout COVID in multiple different ways. So they're basically saying, like, look, these are the experts that you have to stick with. But Trump ran on a platform and so did RFK Jr. of clearing them out. And they think that these people that they consider the authorities, no matter how much they

are always permanently entitled to that status, no matter how much the American people conclude rightly that those people don't deserve to be listened to anymore and that change is radically needed. The other thing I will say that's so interesting is that RFK Junior's primary critique of the health establishment is actually a very left-wing critique. It's been very popular among the left for a long time, which is that it looks as though it's being driven by scientific conclusion. In reality, the scientists are chosen and dominated by the drug companies who these scientists do the bidding for. So whatever product, these drug companies want to be approved or want to be mandated, these scientists who are, you know, in a lot of ways devoted to or controlled by

the establishment of these drug companies, does it. And RFK Jr. is saying, we need to remove these drug companies from the regulatory process. They've captured the regulatory process. And we need independent minds here to separate themselves from the drug industry to make assessments, not based on the profit of the drug companies, but based on the actual health needs of the American people. And that is a critique that, for me, is extremely compelling. And it's even more compelling by the fact that we've watched for five years, the worst epidemic of our lifetime.

These scientists get pretty much everything wrong and lie constantly. And the fact that they still think they're entitled to permanent power status shows what the kind of entitlement mindset is of the Michael Bennett's of the world. Yes. And on the same line, you had Virginia Senator Mark Warner, who tried to get you. He had to try to gotcha question with him about how many people died from COVID. Now, everybody listening to our voices right now knows the asterix that you would have to put behind any such number because we all know the hospitals were overstating the deaths. The hospitals got more money depending on the patients who were there and you could go in with the gunshot wound to the heart, but technically a pulse.

And if you died two hours later, but they tested your corpse positive for COVID, they'd say it was a COVID death. It was insane. There was great reporting on this. Michael, David Zweig, did a lot of really important pieces on all of this. And so that's why JFK in this clip you're going to see hesitates, but Virginia Senator Mark Warner thinks it's absolutely knowable and tried to cross-examine him with this gotcha in SOT 6. Do you accept the fact that a million Americans died from COVID? I don't know how many died. You're the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

You don't have any idea how many Americans died from COVID? I don't think anybody knows that because there was so much data chaos coming out of the CDC and there was so many perverse incentives. You don't know the answer of how many Americans died from COVID. This is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Do you think the vaccine did anything to prevent additional deaths? Again, I would like to see the data and talk about the data. You have had this job for eight months, and you don't know the data about whether the vaccine saved lives.

The problem is that they didn't have the data. The data by the Biden administration absolutely dismal. So who is politicizing? You're saying the Biden administration politicized? all the day, go back to what I can't well just said. They fired Dr. Gross. They fired Dr. Grubb. They fired Dr. Grav. They fired all the people who questioned the orthodoxy. How can you be that ignorant?

Wow. And just to add to that, Glenn, you've got now the woman who headed up the CDC, uh, Dr. Lisa or Susan Menares, who wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, taking aim at RFKJ. I was fired. after 29 days because I held the line and insisted on rigorous scientific review and she goes through. He pressured me to resign. I was really just trying to hold the line on science around vaccines, you know, basically suggesting like Kennedy's not into them and he should be because they're life-saving. None of these people are realizing the absolute collapse of trust we've had in these organizations and that this whole like trademarked.

the science thing is not working on the vast majority of the American people anymore. Well, also, like, this question of, like, how many deaths and the point they're trying to make is that COVID killed a huge number of people and it killed a lot more people in the United States than in virtually every other country, if not every other country, by percentage, which, okay, let's assume that's true, like huge numbers of people died of COVID in the United States. The people who were in charge, it wasn't really Biden or Trump. It was the scientific establishment that has run science and health policy in the United States for decades. It was Tony Fauci and everybody on down. They all got their way with everything.

These moronic policies of masks and forced vaccines. And remember that idiotic six-foot social distancing, which turned out to be a complete joke. School lockdowns without regards to the consequences lies about the origins of COVID. Everybody understands except these people in Washington that the people that they want to venerate as the experts who you cannot question, who you cannot touch, that if you question it all, you're being unscientific, it was those people who radically failed, and they didn't just fail because of error that was understandable. They failed because of arrogance and deceit. They banished any questioning up to the point where you got banned from the internet.

If you questioned any of these orthodoxies, including many of which that turned out to be completely false, not just questionable. So the anger and arrogance that they continue to maintain, like, how dare you question these numbers that have been handed down from, you know, Mount Olympus, when so much of what they handed the down turned out to be false, shows the kind of insularity that they cannot lose. Like, they just don't understand the American people don't trust them in these institutions any longer, including science and for good reason. Yes, my gosh.

Yes, so well said. It's infuriating because I watch that. My basic takeaway is if RFKJ doesn't like Susan Monares, neither do I. Goodbye. I don't trust her. He was put in there to blow things up and do things differently and restore trust in these institutions and quickly realized, even though he'd worked with her for a couple months and apparently thought she was okay, because she got confirmed, changed his mind. Fine. He's the head

of the group. He's at the top of HHS. Sure, it's a pain in the ass to have to confirm somebody new. I don't care. Martin Koldorf would be amazing. He's brilliant, part of the Great Barrington Declaration. One of the few who was honest, from Harvard, the left should love him. But because he joined in that, you know, focused protection pitch, they don't. Here is RFKJ in an exchange with Senator Ron Wyden, who also hates his guts of Oregon, having a contentious exchange about that op-ed by Monares in the Wall Street Journal. And RFKJ speaks to it a bit, SOT3. She was told to pre-approved the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel filled with people

who've publicly expressed anti-vaccine rhetoric. Did you, in fact, do what Director Moneris said you did, which is tell her to Just go along with vaccine recommendations, even if she didn't think such recommendations aligned with scientific evidence. But you have an opportunity to call her a liar. I never said that. So she's lying today to the American people in the Wall Street Journal. Yes, sir. Okay.

So one way or the other, we're going to have a hard look at vaccines. And whatever they do, they can give them a hard time about Menares. One way or the other, Glenn, we are going to take a hard look at these vaccines. and have an actual debate about whether they're safe and effective. Kennedy's already doing it. And these people are going to do their level best to stop it however they can. They don't want it. They just say it's settled science.

We can't have these discussions. I don't think they're going to win this time. Your thoughts? I mean, the aspect of the clip with Bennett, the first one we showed that I thought was very revealing that we'd mention was, RFK Jr. were saying, are you trying to deny the link between the COVID vaccines and myocarditis, which if you recall, and I'm sure you do, anyone who raised that, people were on Joe Rogan raising it, Joe Rogan himself was raising it, they were called anti-vax. There can be a link between, yeah, between vaccines and myocarditis and still, on the whole,

the vaccine might be still desirable because the benefits outweigh the risk. but to simply deny the truth or to insist that everybody lie because questioning the vaccine might lead others to be more skeptical about it, that's the kind of really condescending deceit that has characterized elites in the United States for way too long. And of course, Bennett won't now acknowledge or even address the question because we know there's lengths between the COVID vaccine and myocarditis, but at the time it was so vehemently denied that anyone who raised it was treated as almost a criminal. I don't think RFK Jr. has all the answers. I don't think his scientist, the one he favors, should also have this unanimous ability to implement policy

without debate and be questioned. But I don't think he's asking for that. He's saying we need a shake-up in the health policy institution because of how wrong they've been in so many corrupt ways. And that's what offends people in Washington whenever you question establishment prerogatives. And that's what the American people hate most about Washington is the establishment. And Democrats are always in the position of defending it, as are many Republicans. But Democrats have almost tied themselves to the establishment. They think any questioning of it is almost like sacro-like irreligious, you know, or some kind of sin, even though the public has turned against these people completely. They've lost us. They lost us long ago. They lost us in part because they

put guys like this in charge of our vaccine policy. Here's that Dr. Dmitri Daskalakis on with Caitlin Collins the other night on CNN. Sot 11. For my entire career, been an advocate for the LGBTQ community through my work in HIV, through my work in MPox, I find it outrageous that this, that this administration is trying to erase transgender people. I very specifically use the term pregnant people and very specifically added my pronouns at the end of my resignation letter to make the point that I am defying this

this terrible strategy at trying to erase people and not allowing them to express their identities. So I accept the note from the press secretary and counter that with, I don't care. That's the Biden administration's idea of science. Pregnant people. That's who we should be listening to, according to the Ron Wyden's and the Michael Bennett's of the world. You know, I have to say, like, I lived through the gay rights movement, which basically succeeded in all of its forms way beyond what anyone actually thought was possible. And I believe the reason for that was that there were constant debates, like Americans are basically, in my view, good people who are open-minded and they might have ideas because they've been taught to have ideas. And the more you engage with people, the more they see the reality of things, the more just kind of accepting they become. Like, we're not interested in controlling other people's lives. I really believe that would have been the trajectory of trans people. And actually, it had been the trajectory of trans people. No one really cared about trans people. They've been around. for quite a while.

They've had victories in terms of legal rights until this sort of mentality started dictating, like, how dare you question anything? The minute you question anything, you're an evil person, we're going to shove this down to your throat. We don't care if you understand it. We don't care if you agree with it.

We're going to subject your kids to it. That is exactly what in most cases, the gay rights movement avoided. It was much more about engagement and persuasion and debate. And unfortunately, like a lot of the modern day left does not believe in any of that. They have this very imperious attitude that they're going to force people

even to change their language and their most fundamental beliefs not through persuasion but through dictate. And when you do that to people in general and Americans in particular, we're still endowed with this kind of, like, we have the right to think what we want and do what we want.

All you're going to do is create massive backlash and in so many ways what they claim to be so afraid of is their own creation. Yeah. As soon as you say pregnant people, I'm out. You're not a scientist. You can't lecture me on science. You've lost me.

And I speak for millions. Last one, Ron Johnson. who spoke some sense and was one of the only ones today in SOT 7. Here's the facts. The Veyer system that was touted in October. Vairs. In 2020, this great safety surveillance system on COVID, a few months later, when they didn't like the results,

they started dengrating their own system. But Veyers shows that there have been 38,742 deaths reported on Veyers worldwide, associated with the COVID vaccine. 30,742. 9,252 of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination within one or two days. He's a hero.

He's been so great on all things related to health and COVID and Maha. Thank God he's there, Glenn. I'm going to take a quick break. I've got to come back. There's something insane that we have to discuss, but I'm going to do this break and then we're going to come back on a lighter note.

I think you'll enjoy it. Let's be honest. Afternoons can be rough. Energy fades, cravings kick in, and focus goes out the window. What was I saying? Oh yeah. The quick fix is another coffee, but that can lead to jitters or a crash later. Peaks sun goddess matcha is another option. Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this matcha is not just a drink. It can be a better daily habit. It gives steady energy and helps you focus without the ups and downs. This is not just any macha. It's organic, ceremonial grade, and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil far away from pollution. It is shaded longer for more nutrients and blended by tea masters.

That's how serious they are about quality. This taste is smooth, it's creamy, and it's rich, not bitter like lower quality matcha. It packs powerful antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady. Right now, you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free rechargeable frother and glass beaker. It's backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee. So go to peaklife.com slash Megan. That's P-I-Q-U-E-life.com slash Megan to try it for yourself. Again, that's peaklife.com slash Megan.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on Sirius X-M. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly. Megan Kelly. You can stream the Megan Kelly show on Series XM at home or anywhere you are, no car required. I do it all the time.

I love the Sirius XM app. It has ad-free music, coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK Show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Back with me now, Glenn Greenwald. Okay, Glenn, so we've now got the official write-up from the left on marriage and whether,

it's worth your time. This is written on MSNBC by someone named Christina Wyman, and here is the headline. Taylor Swift's about to find out what a lot of married women already know. Hat tip, marriage sucks is where she goes with this piece. I'm going to give you some excerpts. I might be the only one who's not bursting at the seams with unbridled joy over Taylor Swift's engagement news. To be sure, romantic love is real. Science believes it lasts for about two years' tops. But science has also discovered something else. When it comes to hetero-unions, men stand to benefit much more than women do from marriage. And it is widely known, okay, that's her sourcing, widely known that single women are thought to be happier than their married counterparts. That's a complete lie, Christina Wyman. Completely untrue, the studies show exactly the opposite. Not to say you can't be a happy person as a single woman, but the data show you're

more than twice as likely to be happy if you're married with kids. Our first four years of marriage, she says about her own, turned out to be the hardest of our relationship. She goes on to say a bunch of bad things about marriage, and I keep waiting for her to get to the part where they get divorced. No, they don't get divorced. She's still married to this person about whom she's going to say a bunch of terrible things. There's nothing magical about marriage. Nothing. Not one thing. Even for the happiest couples. Nothing magical about it. Just know that. My spouse and I do share a lot of happy moments in copious laughter, for which I'm grateful. We love each other fiercely and work hard to give each other good lives. But here's the caper. Despite our love and commitment to each other,

most of our days together are marked by drudgery, negotiation, mild arguments, odd smells, and tedium with a healthy dose of mind-numbing, irritations. that has made me want to throw in the towel more times than I can recall. I have no doubt he's experienced the same because we talk about it. She goes on to say, they're in couples therapy, working out the very real and sometimes deal-breaking kinks. Marriage is rife with such realities, and celebrities don't get a pass on these basic truisms.

This is the funniest thing, Glenn. I know you are a widower and that you had a happy marriage. I could not relate to this piece less. I think what's really happened to poor Christina is she's married to the wrong person. Clearly her husband has married the wrong person. It's never going to work out. Here's a pro tip for you.

You should just cut your losses now and find new spouses or move on and be the lonely woman who you wish to be, Christina. Because there are many of us who would argue there's plenty that is magical about marriage if you choose the right person. It can be utterly life-changing for the better. It can lift you up in everything you do, not to mention then adding children to the mix,

which is a whole new and unknown level of happiness for every normal person on earth. She sounds like Michelle Obama speaking about marriage as the darkest of institutions that's going to ruin your life. And it reminds me of what J.D. Vance said that these so-called childless cat lady, really need to understand their misunderstanding the possible joy that could be available to them in making a different choice and reminded the left that going out there lecturing everybody and how terrible marriage and families are is one of the reasons why people look at you on the left and say, I don't want anything to do with these people. They don't understand my life or happiness creating choices at all.

Your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I will just say like everything, you just read could not be further away from my own personal experience either. And, you know, there was a time in my life when you're young and you don't, like, necessarily know that because you haven't experienced it. But every single thing good in my life, every single thing good in my life came from my 18-year marriage that only ended because of death. And because of the kids we raised, like no matter what I accomplished in my work or in any other realm, those will always be the things I value most. Those will always be the things that, of which I'm proudest, but also like,

which give me a level of happiness and purpose and fulfillment that nothing else could ever provide. And also, these are not just like anecdotal. Like, why would she just because of her own, like, misery and her own gross broken marriage, like, project that onto everybody else and say, like, I have this horrible marriage, therefore you, like, who's so narcissistic to universalize their own personal experience? But there's so much science and, like, I have a small farm just because I love animals. And you watch like pigs and goats and like any horses and they all have their own like inbred needs of like social companionship and like how their kind of like needs function and what they need to be fulfilled. And it always involves some sort of coupling or some

sort of pairing for reasons that are obvious like the ability to for two complex adults to both enrich each other's lives by finding a way to like connect on the deepest levels. And it doesn't mean you don't fight it doesn't mean you're not irritated sometimes but the the joys are so much bigger and society benefits you benefit i mean i just don't also like if she's so unhappy who cares like go see get a therapist why do they feel a need to like advertise their unhappiness and then turn it into some like universal principle where you're trying to convince everybody else that they're as miserable as you are like what is the need of that that the institution just sucks you know i think about it Like, sometimes I think about our friend Maureen Callahan, who's not married, and is totally happy and, like, sparkling as a woman, as a person, thriving, brilliant, lots of friends, just such a rich person in the fullest definition of that term.

And I see it, and she's not my only example in my friends, but, like, it's very possible to be very happy, not married. However, if you want to get into stats as opposed to just, it's widely known, single women are thought to be happy. than their married counterparts. The stats show the opposite. There was just one done in March of 2025, surveying 3,000 American women between the ages of 25 and 55. It concluded that married mothers are nearly twice as likely to report being very happy compared to single childless women, nearly twice as likely. And it goes on to talk about how enjoyable lives even felt within the past 30 days. 47% of married mothers say, yeah, it's felt really enjoyable. Most or all of the last 30 days, only 34% of unmarried childless women say that. And it's for some of the

reasons you mentioned, you know, just human interaction and touch and having a buddy and a best friend with you at all times and someone to go through life with and, you know, work out problems with. And I don't mean to rub it in, Glenn, because I know you're still, you know, obviously you lost somebody very important to you. But you know my point is simply marriage as an institution is good and valuable. And finding a lifetime partner is good and valuable and does not deserve this dumping from somebody who chose clearly the wrong partner. And I will tell you, as somebody who did get a divorce, you know, I was married before there was Doug, there was Dan, and Dan and I are still friends. I will tell you that if you are having to work this hard all the time, like she says,

like Michelle Obama says, you probably married the wrong person. Because now having married the right person, and we've been together, we've been married almost 18 years now, it's not effortless, but it's close to effortless. It's really close to effortless. It's great. It's exciting. It's wonderful being with it. It's not like, you know,

running through the wheat fields all the time with your hair flowing. I'm not saying that. Right. But it's fun and it's uplifting and you look forward to seeing the person. You have random hugs throughout the day and, you know, just like caressing.

And I don't know. You can just do quiet, nice things for each other and show respect for each other and Doug's a gentleman. Like all those things uplift me in my life. I can't imagine sitting in this relationship with constant bitterness infesting my worldview to the point when when Taylor and Travis get engaged. Even Megan Kelly said, I wish her well.

And I'm a critic of this woman. She's got to dump all over it like, fuck off. I'm miserable and you will be too. Yeah, just really quickly, there's this really fascinating end of life research where people who are in the end stage of their life and know it, they get asked like, what do you wish you did more of? And almost nobody says, I wish I worked more. I wish I had more promotions. Almost everybody says, I wish I had more time with the person like I was married to.

I wish I had more time with my kids. I wish I had done these things more with my family, the people who are closest to me, my friends. That's ultimately what makes life matter. And if you're so bitter about that, you're basically bitter about life. And that's kind of what makes it sad to hear articles like that. Yes. And more pieces need to be written on that reminding people because too many people on the left

are going to listen to this nitwit and let some golden opportunities go by because they think they're going to be happy or sitting alone in front of their TV. night after night. And look, if that's your jam, God bless, no judgment, but there's a really good jam potentially available to you on the other side. And then once you add kids to the mix, exponentially even better. So give it a shot. Maybe don't get your marriage advice from MSNBC. Glenn, a pleasure. As always, look forward to talking soon. Always great to see you, Megan. All right. Tomorrow we've got Link Lauren, and boy, oh boy, do we have a Megan Markle update for you, among other things.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda, and no fear.