The Megyn Kelly Show - Shadowbanning Science, and Meghan and Harry Dishonoring the Queen, with Dan Wootton and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya | Ep. 455

Episode Date: December 16, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, the revelations in the Twitter Files that his scientific perspective was "shadowbanned," whether the government was behind the blacklist and suppression, the consequences of censoring COVID lockdown conversations, how Drs. Fauci and Collins "abused their power" in suppressing scientific discussion, a new "second opinion" committee formed to counter the CDC, Elon Musk suspending journalists for "doxxing," and more. Then Dan Wootton, GB News host and Daily Mail columnist, joins to talk about how he actually broke the "Megxit" story despite Prince Harry's claims, Prince Harry claiming his family was jealous of Meghan Markle, how Harry and Meghan dishonored and lied about the Queen, attacks on Prince William from Harry and Meghan, whether Meghan wanted the Royal family life to work or not, what Meghan really sacrificed, claims of racism about the U.S. and U.K. by Meghan, attempts to craft false narratives, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday. Before we head into the weekend, we have a whole lot to discuss. I'm looking forward to this show. My pal Dan Wootten will be here in just a minute of GB News to talk all things Harry and Meghan, and he is ready to reveal discussions he's had with the palace behind the scenes about these two. Dan's going to dish the dirt. So we'll get to all that in

just a minute. But first, we're joined by another show favorite who recently found out he was one of the ones shadow banned by Twitter after they said publicly and under oath that they don't do that for going against the official government narrative on COVID. This comes as the new boss of Twitter, Elon Musk, is facing scrutiny for bans on media members overnight. Here to talk about the very latest is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Jay, great to have you back. How are you? I'm doing well. Merry Christmas, Megan. And to you. This is crazy. When I saw your name pop up there, it was like Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, these bomb throwers. You know, I love those guys, but they're bomb throwers. You're not a bomb thrower. Dr. J bought a chart. Like, what is Dr. J doing up there? What was your reaction when you first saw this?

Apparently, I'm quite dangerous, Megan. I mean, I don't really understand it. What Twitter did was effectively deny the American people access to a basic fact, which is that there was a scientific debate going on about the necessity of lockdowns, of school closures, vaccine mandates, all of it. They wanted to create this idea that no one reasonable opposed them. No one with scientific credentials opposed them. And that was just a lie. There was a tremendous debate going on. What happened with Twitter was, you can see in real time what the cost of censorship was. The cost of censorship was that people in this country lost their jobs. We created this idea that people were biohazards and that science supported all of these things. In fact, there was a univocal support for this among scientists.

That was never true. It was an illusion of consensus. Remind me, the Great Barrington Declaration came out in October of 2020? Yes. Okay. And just to set it up for the audience, I'm sure most people know by this point, but we were all locked down happy.

Fauci and his brethren were pushing them at every turn. And you and two other very well-respected doctors, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and forgive me, I'm blanking on the woman's name. Sinatra Gupta, yeah. Thank you, Sinatra Gupta. So the three of you come out, all from very highly respected universities. You're Stanford, they're Oxford and Harvard, come together and say, there's another way. Here's another option. Instead of these restrictive lockdowns and school closures, let's do, quote, focused protection where we focus on the most vulnerable to this disease, like the elderly. And the rest of the people can be more free and we don't have

to have these restrictive lockdowns. So that's what you did that was so controversial. Go ahead, keep going. Yeah, exactly. So we wrote that piece. Four days after we wrote it, you have Francis Collins, the head of the National Institute of Health, write to Tony Fauci calling for a devastating published takedown of the premises. And I started getting hit pieces on me asking me why I wanted to let the virus rip, all this nonsense, essentially a propaganda war. I think part of that propaganda war was this social media suppression. I joined Twitter in August of 2021. I mean, for various reasons, I hadn't

decided to join Twitter before I joined because I wanted to tell the American public and the world public that there actually was an alternate voice, an alternate viewpoint among scientists on these lockdown policies, on vaccine mandates, all this nonsense. And what happened was that the day I joined Twitter, when I posted a link to the Great Barrington Declaration, I was placed on this trend blacklist. Now, it's an odd thing to see it in black and white. I suspected it. What that what it meant was that in America, let's just not forget, we're not living in some, you know, Cold War Russia in America, in the United States of America, you were blacklisted because of your point of view. Keep going. 50s era bad movie where I'm some communist and I'm sitting in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee or something. And so I would post, my Twitter followers would see it. I mean, partly because you were so kind to put me on the air and others that I think I got a big Twitter following, but it's not huge. It was like 200,000 people, which is a lot, but it's

not like all of Twitter. So what happened, I would post something, my followers who were interested in what I had to say would see it, but the rest of the Twitter had no chance of seeing it. And so it restricted the, you know, where my arguments would go. I mean, I wanted to reach the public at large to tell them there was a debate going on about the science underlying all these COVID policies. That was the reason I joined Twitter. I think, Megan, what happened was that Twitter wasn't acting alone. They didn't decide by themselves to put me on a trend blacklist the day I joined Twitter. That doesn't make any sense from a business point of view. Why would they do that? I actually got to visit Twitter HQ, and I got to see some of their internal tools around my file. And what I found was that there

was messages that said that there were people asking for me to be placed on a blacklist the day I joined. We didn't specify exactly who they were in those internal files, but I very strongly suspect that those forces included people both on Twitter and outside Twitter who wanted to make sure that my voice was not heard. And I believe very strongly based on, and I can tell you in a minute about from a court case I've been involved with by the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney General's Office and the new Civil Liberties Alliance against the Biden administration, I think it was federal agencies that were actively telling Twitter who to censor and what to censor that was responsible for this Twitter censorship of scientific discussion.

Well, don't we think, I mean, wouldn't that have to be the case? Who at Twitter, you know, somebody in their probably young to mid 20s is sitting there trying to overrule doctors from Oxford and Stanford and 1.0, what would make them want to put me on a trend blacklist? It was somebody outside telling them to do that. federal agencies, including, you know, the CDC, including the health agencies, what they're deeply concerned about, the Surgeon General's office, they're deeply concerned about spread of misinformation. By that, what they meant is legitimate people with credentials and good arguments outside that contradicted what they were saying. You remember back to last year, you had the CDC director telling people that if you are vaccinated, you can't get or spread the disease.

That was false. It was clearly false on the data at the time. And yet the CDC and the federal agencies labeled people who disagreed with them as spreading misinformation, even when it was 100% accurate information. The idea that the vaccines could cause myocarditis in young people, that was documented pretty early in 2021. And yet people that spread that information were suppressed. Martin Kulldorff, my colleague who wrote people can provide them with a false sense of confidence

and that by requiring masks, you may actually even end up killing vulnerable people who went out in public thinking that they were protected against the disease when they weren't. That was 100% factual, and yet that was suppressed by Twitter. It's absolutely shocking. And the reason it's shocking is it's not so much the First Amendment violation, although that's bad enough. I mean, my basic civil rights were violated. But what's shocking is that the consequences were that we adopted a whole range of ridiculous policies that harmed children. It harmed parents. It harmed working class people. It harmed vulnerable people for nothing. And those policies wouldn't have been adopted had there been a legitimate debate, had Twitter and

the government permitted a legitimate debate. Censorship actually killed people, I think. We had to go looking for opinions like yours, people who didn't trust Fauci or Collins or the uniform message being shoved down our throats by the government, by Fauci and so on. We had to go looking for it. And people who didn't know your name, how do you go look for Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and the Great Barrington Declaration if you haven't heard about it? And if Twitter is suppressing the circulation of it from anybody who's not already following you, they keep your universe already as small as it already is. And you know, before we get off the subject of government interference, because I think you and I both believe the government made Twitter do this.

They pressured them to do it. And Twitter did it, though the proof is developing in your lawsuit against them. This is what Jen Psaki said on the record in July of 2021. So not quite a year after your declaration came out. She kind of gave up the game and sought to. We are in regular touch with these social media platforms. And those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. Given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General's office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.

But just so the audience understands, that takes it to a totally different level. It is one thing for Twitter, a private company, and we can argue about whether it's entirely private because, you know, it was publicly traded. But in any event, and there's a distinction there that may matter. But in any event, private company can do what it wants. Not so for the government. We have a First Amendment for a reason. They may not suppress our speech and the government can't do through a private party like Twitter what it couldn't do to you directly. That's why this is deeply problematic legally. And it's why they're getting sued now by two states attorney general, in addition to you and your fellow doctors who want to figure out

for very good reasons whether the government's handprints are on this. I mean, just listen to that. I mean, it's actually in our lawsuit, the judge allowed us to depose Jen Psaki. And she and her lawyers told the judge that she had nothing related to actually add that she didn't need to be deposed as a consequence of, you know, she didn't participate in any censorship efforts. And yet from the White House podium, there she is fully admitting that she was involved in this suppression effort. It's absolutely shocking. I mean, I grew up in the U.S.

I mean, I came to the U.S. when I was four. I never imagined a time in this country where the administration would openly embrace the censorship of speech, legal speech. And just to top it all off, there was no misinformation in what I was saying. I was reporting actions. Which actually doesn't even matter. It doesn't even matter legally. But yes, this is what is really galling is you are correcting the record that we've been force fed by Fauci and others, I was saying what I saw in the scientific literature. I'm reading the scientific literature. I'm looking at what the CDC or other authorities are saying. And it just doesn't match. So what am I supposed to do?

Not speak up? And so I mean, I think that had there been a legitimate scientific discussion, had that been allowed by the government, we would not have had these policies. I mean, I just think about all these kids that didn't get an education. You look at the learning loss numbers. You know, Bacon, it's not just that those learning loss numbers mean that the kids don't know how to do math now. That has lifelong consequences. There's a social science literature that says that these kids that are robbed of an education now will for years, they'll be poorer, they'll be less healthy and will live less long. You know, one estimate from early in the pandemic was that even the spring closures left a five

and a half million life years lost for American kids. That was published literature. That's just a couple of those. And by the way, if you want to hear our first interview with Dr. J, you can go back to that April 2021 interview we did in which you predicted all of this. You were predicting these would be the consequences we've got in the U.S. Learning losses observed in many states in Texas, for example, two thirds of children in grade three tested below their grade level on math in 2021. We could go on. The stats are terrible. Not to mention the ER visits for suspected suicide attempts, jumping 31% in 2020 compared to the year earlier, up to 51% higher among girls aged 12 to

17. And then you go down the list. More than 370 million children globally missed out on school meals during school closures. For many of those kids, that was the only reliable source of food and daily nutrition at all. Heightened stress, school closures, loss many of those kids, that was the only reliable source of food and daily nutrition at all. Heightened stress, school closures, loss of income and social isolation resulting from COVID pandemic. This is how the CDC phrases it has increased the risk for child abuse and neglect. What they really mean is we forced them to stay at home with abusive parents who beat them. And it was just yet another consequence of the unnecessary school closures that you were speaking out about. And, you know, it's globally, it's just it's a hundred million people were

thrown into poverty. So we hear things like supply chain disruption. The pointy end of that supply chain disruption is some poor person in the middle of a poor country loses his job. Now the family is earning less than $2 a day of income. They face starvation. Tens of millions of people actually face dire starvation as a consequence of these lockdown policies. And they're put in this really difficult place. Their kids can't go to school because the school is closed. That's where the kids get their meals from.

In Uganda, four and a half million children never went back to school after the closures for two years. That's a generation of kids that will never have their full potential. I mean, they'll die early. And many kids in poor countries, you have a family where they can't feed their kids. They sold some of their little girls into sexual slavery because they were put in this position of either starve or do something horrible morally. It's one of these things where we make these policies and we say, okay, we're doing it to stay home and stay safe. It's such a privileged position that people took, the CDC took, rather than take the big picture and say, look, what is

health more broadly, which is what they're supposed to do, they narrowly focused on one infectious disease and said, look, let's try to prevent that. And they didn't pretend they had technology to prevent it, which they didn't. And as a result, every poor person on the face of the earth was hurt. There was a tremendous number of children. Small business owners in the US was hurt. Every, you know, it was tremendous number of children, small business owners in the U S were devastated. We, we, we basically did this on the, in the name of science, but it was not actual science and social media companies abetted it by suppressing dissent.

They were co-conspirators in, in the suppression that was being unleashed by the government. Two things in your lawsuit, um, who are the defendants in the lawsuit? It's the Biden administration. The Biden administration is the defendant. So you, several scientists, including yourself and Dr. Martin Kaldor, if he's involved, have sued. You joined a lawsuit filed by the states of Louisiana and Missouri alleging that the Biden administration worked with the tech companies to censor American citizens, specifically

on the issue of COVID. And depositions are going on in here as according to what I read, Jay, you tell me. But it appears that in the course of discovery, you've received at least the following evidence that the CDC sent a chart of posts to Twitter that it deemed misinformation. That's I mean, that's that's concrete evidence of collusion between them. And then you got to take the deposition of Anthony Fauci, who suddenly, Jay, even though we have it on paper between Fauci and Collins, the head of the NIH at the time, talking about how they were going to smear you, the three of you at the Great Barrington Declaration, fringe epidemiologists, they call it fringe, because, you know, those universities I just mentioned, they're big on hiring fringy people, fringe and how and Collins on the record saying,

like, we need to tamp this down like right now. And why hasn't it got been tamped down already? Despite all that, Fauci basically went in there was like, who? Jay, who? Great. What? I don't know. No, I don't remember. I have no idea. I haven't I haven't really had the time to look at that. That's a blatant lie. We know that's not true. I mean, you know, he said in a seven-hour deposition, he said 180 times or something. I don't recall. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. To basic things like, you know, he does. It's funny, like on substantive issues, like he did this like crazy change of mind about masks. If you remember early in the pandemic, he was saying masks don't work, you don't need them. Then later he said, oh,

I was just lying about that. I didn't mean it. Masks did work, but I wanted to save it for hospital workers. And the question was like, we asked him why, the lawyers asked him, why did he change his mind? On what evidence he changed his his mind there's a long record of him saying before the pandemic the masks don't work for respiratory virus pandemics um and asked him why and he said well there's studies well what studies i don't recall you know he's a he's basically the face of science itself in the united states and he doesn't he can't cite a study that says why he changed his mind in April 2020 about mass or March 2020 about mass. The reason is not because he doesn't recall. It's because there was no reasonable study, no high-quality study that would have justified him changing his mind.

Yes. I mean, it's amazing. Like, the American people deserve better. He put himself up as essentially the high pope of science. If you criticize me, you know, Tony Fauci says, you're not criticizing a man. You're criticizing science itself. At the very least, you should be able to cite the science. And yeah, on, I mean, going after me, this fringe, by the way, Megan, I got some, a friend of mine wrote, sent me a business card that says fringe epidemiologist on it. We'll just hand it out to people now.

Great. I mean, now I think it's better to be on the fringe than anywhere else. I think, you know, these people, people like Tony Fauci, Francis Collins, the head of the National Institute of Health, they abuse their power. They sit atop this vast pile of money that supports the scientific research of a very large number of prominent biomedical scientists in the United States, including almost everyone who does infectious disease epidemiology. It's not just that they have money, the research, their support, the NIH support creates this sort of like social structure. You can't advance in biomedicine unless you have NIH

funding. I don't get tenure at Stanford University unless I got an NIH grant, which I did. And so like the problem is that they do this and they essentially send a message to other scientists. You used to say silent. If you talk, your career could be ruined. Your career could be threatened. You may never get another NIH grant. That's implicitly what they're saying when they say fringe and devastating takedown. That message was heard loud and clear. A lot of scientists who disagreed with the policy that Tony Fauci was pushing stayed silent. They censored themselves as a consequence. The whole purpose of this regime, the censorship by Twitter, the devastating takedown by Tony Fauci and Francis Collins,

all of that was designed to create an illusion of consensus that never existed about COVID policies, about lockdowns and all the rest. An illusion of consensus here, just for the audience, is what they said. This is from Francis Collins to Fauci, then the director of the same group. He's always been the director

of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and several others. He writes, hi, Tony and Cliff. See the Great Barrington Declaration dot org. This proposal from three fringe epidemiologists who met with the secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet. Is it underway? And it goes on from there with them reassuring that it'll happen, oh, everybody's got a mask up. And I only lied before to get to make sure emergency workers would have enough masks. Well, about two weeks ago, he was asked by some reporter,

do you have any regrets in how you handle the pandemic? And he said, no, I don't. I have no regrets. Well, then we, among others, criticized him, given some of the figures you and I just discussed about school closures and so on. And he got a do over on it. Another reporter asked him the question, and he did think of a regret and it had to do with masks. And here's his new explanation in line with the one you just said he gave in the deposition. It's SOT5. Is there anything you would have done differently looking back? Well, of course. I mean, to say there's something that nothing you would have done differently means you were perfect. And nobody's perfect by any means. Certainly not. Not I. The science gives you information that's present and current at the time. And when that changes, you need to change. Some people call that flip flopping.

It's not flip flopping. It's not flip-flopping. It's keeping up with the evidence. Looking back, would you have recommended masking up sooner? Oh, absolutely. Had we known that it was aerosol spread and that a lot of the transmission was from asymptomatic people and there was asymptomatic spread going on under the radar screen, of course. There it is. So now it's it didn't have to do with maintaining masks for emergency workers. It's that we didn't know it was aerosol spread. And we didn't know it could be spread by asymptomatic people. I mean, there's a few things that are really, really wrong with that. So first of all, if you have aerosol spread, you know, masks, as most people wear them,

are not tight-sealed. People aren't trained to wear masks tight-sealed, especially early in the pandemic. They pushed cloth masks, for God's sakes. Even surgical masks leave gaps. You know, if you ever wear a mask and you get your glasses fogged up, that's aerosols escaping. The aerosols stay in the air. The masks don't stop aerosol spread.

So that itself was a mistake of the science. The second thing is, you know, early in the pandemic, I ran a study. It was a study of antibodies in the population in Santa Clara County and then another study in L.A. County. A whole bunch of these studies were run early in the pandemic. What we found was that the disease had already spread pretty, you know, like three, 4% of the population, 50 times more infections than people that identified cases in April of 2020. Tony Fauci knew about this because we have FOIA emails where he is discussing this study. Most of it's redacted,

by the way, so I don't know exactly what he was thinking, but he knew about the study. That in April of 2020 should have indicated to him that the disease was very, very widespread. So given that, why did they adopt this suppression strategy? The idea was that you could suppress it to zero, maybe? I'm not sure what they had in mind. Flatten the curve so that hospital systems are ready. April of 2020, we already built reserve capacity in the Mercy ship in New York and so on, which went unused. Really, what should have happened is as soon as those studies came out, the powers that be should have adopted a policy of focused protection. We knew very early on it was older people that were at risk. We never needed to do any of that. And it was clear from the scientific evidence at the time, Tony Fauci failed mainly because he did not read the science properly. And as a result of that,

he used his power to get his way on the basis of false ideas about what the science actually was saying, even at the time. It was an utter failure of someone who'd been placed in such a position of high trust. And as a result, so many people have suffered, not just from the disease, but from the policies adopted. People are still- And now he won't take any responsibility for it.

We just, we looked it up. We read the transcript. He failed to recall things 174 times in his deposition, 174 times. And it's smarmy things like, you know, do you know who Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is? Oh, you know, I don't I don't know. I don't know. I may be familiar with that name. He knows very well who you are. You're the man he tried to smear and worked with Francis Collins. If you can just tell him, trust me, as a lawyer, I can tell very easily how smarmy and squirmy he is. And then now a couple of things. OK, that I want to get to.

One of the problems that we've had all along is that he runs he and Collins were running NIH in the subgroup and we can't trust the CDC. Rochelle Walensky, they're in on it, too. I mean, that's not conspiratorial, but really they're in on it. They are. They've been part of the suppression and the censorship. And people like me have been saying, where do we go from real information? You know, you've got Jay and you got Martin, you got but like, where do we go? And this is what's so promising about what they're doing in Florida, because you've had a busy week. You went out to Twitter headquarters, met with Elon. That's a brilliant idea, by the way. But you also went down to Florida and you're going to be part of this group, which I'm very excited about. I see this as the antidote to those groups I just mentioned. When it comes to getting real information, it's going to

be headed up by Dr. Joseph Latipo, the Florida Surgeon General, who we love. He's been on the program, too. And what what are you guys going to be doing exactly? So I think it's called the Public Health Integrity Committee or something like that. I'm thinking of it kind of as a shadow CDC. The idea is essentially to give a second opinion when the CDC pushes forward ideas that don't actually correspond

with the scientific evidence it's saying, which has happened repeatedly, right? You remember Rochelle Walensky saying to the public that the vaccine, if you get the vaccine, you can't get infected and you can't spread the disease. That wasn't true. In fact, it was clearly not true at the time she said it. On the basis of that false information, vaccine mandates were imposed all across the country and people lost their jobs for nothing. So the idea of this Public Health Integrity Committee

is in real time when the CDC puts out information that doesn't correspond with the scientific evidence, it's actually saying, we will provide the American people with a second opinion. Saying, look, here's what scientists, other scientists are saying, here's the evidence, make up your own mind. And it's very clear, it's actually, to me actually,

it's actually a sad thing because the CDC itself should be doing this. They should be conveying the range of scientific ideas about a particular topic rather than trying to adopt a party line and then saying, well, this is true. Anything else other people say is misinformation. It should never have been that way. You know, this is science is not politics. Public health is not politics. It should be the case in public health that we reach 95% of the people, 99% of the people, because we're, we have this, you know, we're relying on data on empirical, on empirical reality, not on, not, not on like, you know, it's, I'm not, I'm not a politician, Megan. I'm not, I just, the whole idea that I've been in public is, is, is actually kind of crazy to me. I'm just a scientist. So the goal is to try to restore science and public health to its proper place. And it's funny because it's Governor DeSantis putting this forward. It looks like politics, but it's not politics. The idea is to restore science so that everyone can trust it again. What's happened during the pandemic is that you had this politicization of science by

our public health agencies, by the CDC, by the NIH, even by the FDA. And it's crushed the trust that public has in science and in public health. That is a disaster. And so the right thing to do is to restore that, is to have a second opinion. And that's the goal of this Public Health Integrity Committee, is to provide the American people a second opinion when the science, capital T, capital S, goes wrong. I love this. According to Politico, they say they they're going to launch a study on people who died of cardiovascular problems after they received the vaccine. The study will coordinate with the state's 25 regional medical examiners offices in the University of Florida to determine whether people have died from heart complications created by the vaccine. DeSantis also reported this earlier this week, asked the Florida Supreme Court to impanel a grand jury to investigate wrongdoing linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, including spreading false and misleading claims about the efficacy of the doses, saying to the Supreme Court, asking for this grand jury to be impaneled, state supreme, I should say again, that the pharmaceutical industry has a notorious history of misleading the public for financial gain. It's so true. Why did we put our trust in them so implicitly and run around getting these shots in our arms without asking more questions? One

of the reasons is they made sure the messaging to us was uniform, near uniform. And that's what, that's how you got swept in. Let me ask you a question before I let you go. Elon in the news today, I'm sure you're feeling pretty good about him, but he's taken a beating because he kicked off Twitter. Several journalists, including reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, not all reporters, handpicked. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and other outlets on Thursday night who had covered his dispute with this guy who created a handle that tracked Elon's private jet. And Elon felt doxxed, you know, that felt unsafe, felt like putting this out there was going to put his life in danger. And he had that guy's account suspended on Wednesday, although he had earlier said he

would not ban that guy. But then he did. And then he permanently suspended, at least for now, these journalists who, as far as I can tell, all they did was shared links to that guy's handle, which revealed Elon's location in the process of their reporting. Now there's been blowback by the left and the right on this decision. What do you make of it? I mean, on the one hand hand i can kind of understand where elon's coming from his his kid apparently the the site that said where his kid was was and somebody like stopped the car where his kid was if my child is is doxxed in that way and put under some threat

i would i might react this way on the other hand, I'm against censorship. I don't think that Elon should have gotten rid of these journalists. I do think there's some hypocrisy all around you. These journalists, many of them were fully on board when I was censored. Where were they when I was censored? Even when it came out, when it came out last week that you were censored, they yawned. They were literally sending out yawning emojis. They could not have cared less. Keep going. Yeah. So I just, I, at this point I, I, I mean, it's, it's I'll tell you one other incident. So like, I actually did have a, like a 12 hour suspension once from Twitter when what happened was a journalist was writing a hit piece on me

where they wrote to me asking me whether I'd been coke funded, and you know, all these like, when did you stop eating your wife kind of stories, questions. And it was ridiculous. I've never taken any coke money. I don't I don't. I mean, I'm, again, I'm a scientist. But and so what I was really quite upset about the about the line of questioning. So what I did is I took the email verbatim, the professional email the journalist sent me, and it has email and has like work number number and put it on Twitter just to tell people, look, this journalist is trying to write this hit piece on me. Twitter suspended me for 12 hours for doxing. That's not doxing. Yeah.

And I took the thing down. I didn't realize that a journalist would care that his work email or his work phone number would be online, but whatever. I mean, it is what it is. If I'd known that he would be upset about it, I wouldn't have done, I would have like redacted that. I didn't even notice the phone number there. And yet Twitter kept me offline for 12 hours. Where were those journalists when I was kicked offline for 12 hours? Where were those journalists when I was put on this shadow ban, this Twitter blacklist? I have a lot, I don't agree with the decision that Elon did, but I have a

lot more sympathy for Elon here than I do for these journalists. These journalists are absolute hypocrites on free speech, many of them. I don't know about all of the ones that were suppressed, but the journalism profession as a whole, especially the mainstream journalism profession as a whole, as best I can tell, they don't actually favor free speech. They just care when their free speech is suppressed. We got to care when everyone's free speech is suppressed. Absolutely right. I don't I think Elon's got to reverse those suspensions of those reporters. The one guy targeting him with repeated updates on where he is, that's more problematic. I understand they stopped his son because they thought it was him. But still, it does show the danger of this practice. But I think those reporters need to come back online as hateful as they may be when it comes to this particular issue. We've got to stand up on both sides. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, so grateful for your service.

Sorry for what happened to you. And I don't know. I know you're not in politics, but like there could be a day after all this. This is how politicians, the good ones, are born. Although we need you in medicine, too. So I want to go back to doing science quite like i'd be very very happy when the when i need to go back to that you can resume your private life uh well thank you thank you for everything all the best to you

thank you you too all right coming up we have dan wooden here and he is fired up about part two of the megan and har quote, documentary. Don't miss that. Well, Meghan and Harry's six hour Netflix, quote, documentary is finally behind us. Thank God. But more truth bombs are popping up left and right. Like the claim that Harry makes about his own father allegedly leaking an email Harry wrote to him saying the couple was willing to give up their titles. This is an allegation made in their film. His father betrayed him is the implication because five days after he put it in writing to his dad, it wound up in the papers. Well, our pal Dan Wooden is the Daily Mail columnist and GB News host who broke the story of Megxit, including that claim. So did then Prince Charles, now King Charles, leak you this story, Dan Wooden, as Prince Harry just alleged? Great to be here,

Megan. Sadly not. Sadly not. I would love to think that the new King had a hotline directly to me, giving me all the juice. But no, actually, Harry got this one completely wrong. It's one of multiple lies, as you know, in the start of January. Well, Meghan, I actually had the story on the 26th of December of Megxit. I have proof of that because I was actually speaking to his communication secretary at the time, who, by the way, Meghan, was offering me some of that horrible, nasty briefing about other members of the royal family that Harry claims to despise so much. Oh, really? I mean, that is the central claim of their pieces that they would never do to other members of the royal family what they believe was done to them, which is to be used as a dumping ground for negative stories when somebody else's name was in the press that he and William promised they would never do that to one another.

And now you're telling us on the record that that his office, Harry's office, tried to use you and other reporters to to do negative stories about the other royals. Yeah, absolutely. And the thing is, this isn't about planting stories. That's wrong. Journalists who have stories speak to the courtiers at the palace. And before all of this went on, usually those courtiers, if they knew you had an accurate story, would do what any good PR professional usually does, and that is try and shape the story with the other side. And so I was more than happy when I had the story of Megxit

to hear what Harry and Meghan had to say about it. And actually, what they had to say was fascinating. They briefed me via their communications secretary that the reason they felt like they no longer had a future in the royal family was because they had seen a photograph of the Queen or the late Queen, now King Charles, Prince William and Prince George, which was prominently displayed on the Queen's desk during her Christmas message. And they viewed that as some sort of subliminal message from the palace that they didn't have a front role job to come in the institution. That's ridiculous. That's the line of succession. I thankfully included that in the story.

That's absurd. That's the line of succession. Hello, even I know that as an American. But wait, he goes on to say in the documentary, the reason he knew it was King Charles's office who leaked this was that in the reporting was the news that he had offered to relinquish his title. And so he had only said that to his dad. So he's basically saying it was either me or it was my dad and it wasn't me. Exactly, because that was one of the key parts of my story when I revealed Megxit, the fact that they were prepared to give up their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles. But again, I had that for numerous days before this email from King Charles or to King Charles had been sent. But I think this all feeds into an overall narrative, Megan,

of Harry and Megan as these uber paranoid people who love to drag each other down with conspiracy theories rather than lift each other up. And remember, it's never their fault. So no one close to them was ever leaking stories, Megan. If something went wrong, it always had to be the fault of King Charles or Prince William or Kate, who have become the bogeyman for the Sussexes. That's exactly right.

The amount of grievance in this piece is truly shocking. But we've switched a little. They maintained the racism claim throughout episodes three, whatever we did, four or five and six that had been posited in one, two and three. But they also switched to two. Great Britain is racist. Don't forget, it's Brexit. Brexit showed how racist all the Brits are and all the people cheering for them in the streets and crying just upon seeing them. Those are racists, at least if they voted for Brexit.

That was what part one posited. I'm not making this up. Then we get to part two and we get, yes, they're racists, but also the royal family who are also racists. We know that from the Oprah interview, according to these two. The royal family are also a bunch of jealous little brats. They were jealous of her. It reminded me of the following. Okay, I'm just going to go to SOT 30

just to tee it up what we're about to hear from Megan because she reminds me exactly of this person. Here it is. They're not even trying. They're jealous of me. Okay, so that was her motivation for this scene, which is Sat 10, Harry talking about the two of them. The issue is when someone who's marrying in who should be a supporting act is then stealing the limelight or is doing the job better than the person who was born to do this. That upsets people. It shifts the balance. Because you've been led to believe

that the only way that your charities can succeed and the only way that your reputation can be grown or improved is if you're on the front page of those newspapers. But the media are the ones who choose who to put on the front page. That's the thing, Dan. They were just too good. And those petty royals were jealous they weren't on the front page, including the Queen, including the Queen. I know, Megan.

I have to point out the Queen has been appearing on newspaper front pages, or had been since 1926. The idea that she erupted in rage because harry and megan happened to be on the front page of her favorite newspaper the daily telegraph after one event is the most delusional claim i think of her from harry the queen loved it when other relatives took center stage she had no problem you know this this was a woman who had been the centre of attention for her entire life. So that was completely ridiculous. But I think actually, looking at this from a macro level, what happened, Megan, is that the entire narrative that they had

tried to form collapsed in episode four, five and six. Because as you say, one, two and three, volume one, was all about trying to convince an international audience that britain was some sort of racist hellhole brexit was proof of that as you point out and that by the time they married into or meg married into the royal family she didn't have a hope because of the horrible nasty institutionally racist monarchy british press and public. The problem is, then we go to the true story briefly, that actually, she was incredibly popular after the wedding. So they have to try and do this huge narrative turn. And the way that they have been able to, I think, justify it it in their head and at least justify it

to uh the netflix producers who are terrible at fact checking is that this happened because they were too successful megan they were just too popular the british people actually loved harry and megan too much and william and charles and the the Queen and Kate were so jealous about it, they conspired with folk like me, the British media, to bring the couple down. It had nothing, Meghan. It had nothing to do with the fact that Markle had thrown her father under the bus. It had nothing to do with the fact that she had bullied multiple staff members, including No, those are made up stories. But their documentary, again, air quotes for the listeners in it, Veruca Markle claims that those are all made up stories.

That's that's all baloney. There was no bullying. The stuff about her father, she was the victim, not her dad in any way. And the palace was evil. And every negative thing we've heard about her is made up by the evil palace or the media or both to make her look bad, because really, it's a them because clearly that is just Biden to the angry black woman trope. So actually don't even talk about it, because if you even talk about these allegations, right, by multiple staff members, you are being unconsciously biased and unconsciously racist. This is the narrative that Harry and Meghan formed in the documentary. I don't think it stands up to any scrutiny. What I found fascinating is that the moment that Meghan realised the public had turned was when a member of the public approached her on the street during a walkabout in Liverpool and said to her face, I don't like the way you're treating her father. But Meghan's reaction, rather than to think, actually, maybe this person has a point.

My dad is alive. I've been very positive about him in the past. He single-handedly raised me for about 10 years. Rather than think that, Meghan thinks, goodness me, they're buying into the lies of the horrible tabloid newspapers in the uk but dan it's even worse it's even it's even worse than true about her father can i tell you something it's even worse than that so let's say she in her own mind really sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way he she treated her father okay so she's like this person's a moron who's believed lies

that have been written about me in a tabloid. Where was this person? This person was in the midst of hundreds of people crying. They were so happy to see her waving British flags, trying to hug her and loving her. This is how small and petty these two are. Just like how she picks the one comment, you and I discussed this before, on some comment thread on a website article about her that may have said something negative about, let's say, Archie or whatever. And she turns that into the whole narrative about her. That's what she did there. She ignores the

throngs of lovers to focus on the one person who believes the tabloid headline to say the whole system was against me. Totally. And you know, I think she did that, Megan. And I think we've really got to start being honest about this now. She never wanted this to work. She realized that she wasn't going to be in some palatial 20 bedroom mansion because we know thanks to the documentary she was very unhappy about staying in nottingham cottage on the grounds of kensington palace by the way i'd love to stay in nottingham college uh cottage uh megan it's it's in one of london's best suburbs it has two bedrooms two reception rooms large garden, and you have about 20 servants waiting on you all day, making you dinner, bringing you food, cleaning your bedroom. I would happily stay in

Nottingham College. But we know, thanks to the documentary, this isn't what Meghan expected. And that was backed up when Oprah came for tea. And Oprah, I presume she lives in some 25-bedroom mansion, doesn't she? And looked around and said, what the hell are you doing here? People wouldn't believe this. That's exactly right. And they said, and instead she said, you should see Montecito. And then there were eyes on the prize. That thing about the cottage is absolutely horrifying. Prince William stayed there. I learned that from Dan Wooten's reporting. It was good enough for the future king and it was good enough for Prince Harry. By the way, not for nothing, but when they, like, he was in his mid-30s when they got married.

When I was in my mid-30s, I got married to Doug. You know what we lived in? We lived in a one-bedroom walk-up in downtown in Chelsea in New York. And upon moving in, the first thing I saw was a big rat. So she can spare me her stupid sob story about living on the grounds of Kendrickson Palace. All right, stand by, stand by, quick break. God, there's so much more to get to. Dan Wooden, so thankful to have you here today.

Don't forget, quick programming note, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on SiriusXM Triumph Channel 111. Every weekday at noon east, the full video show at our YouTube channel, along with clips, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. Audio podcast, anywhere you get your podcasts for free. And there you get to our full archives with more than 450 shows. Before people concerned, we were living at a palace. And we were, in a cottage. We were living on palace grounds.

Kensington Palace sounds very regal. Of course it does. It says palace in the name. But Nottingham Cottage was so small. The whole thing's on a slight lean, really low ceiling, so I don't know who was there before. They must have been very short. He would just hit his head constantly in that place

because he's so tall. It was just a chapter in our lives where I don't think anyone could believe what it was actually like behind the scenes. Well, Oprah came over for tea, didn't she? She did. And when she came in she sat down she goes no one would ever believe it no one would ever believe it

my god well back now with dan wooden just one of the disgusting moments from this piece for the can i just point out yeah can i just point out they were only actually going to be in that cottage temporarily because they were renovating a huge suite of rooms, a big apartment within Kensington Palace for the couple to move into. They then decided they didn't want to be there because it was too close to Catered Wills, even though a whole load of money had been spent. So instead, the Queen found them another cottage. It's called a cottage, Megan. It's a mansion, Frogmore Cottage, on the grounds of Windsor Castle that was renovated to the tune of two million pounds by British taxpayers. So we should not shed a tear for

the terrible hospital that Megan was having to live in. Oh, I mean, we all know it's ridiculous. Do you remember her yesterday piping it about how like she had it so hard because she actually had to work when she was pregnant? She was pregnant. Hold on. I think we have that. It's soundbite 31. This one really fired me up. 31. Here they are. It's Harry and Meghan on the first day of their Australian tour. They seem to speak so effortlessly for a different generation. She and Harry are the superstars of the British family. I mean, looking back on it now, amazed we managed to do what we did. Well, also even harder when I was pregnant. Oh, my God.

Honestly, can I just say, like, has she ever seen a female police officer standing there directing traffic or fighting crime on the street while she's nine months pregnant? Has she ever seen a nurse or a doctor in a hospital standing all day on their feet while they're pregnant? A teacher who stands there dealing with young kids all day long while she's pregnant? Could she shut up? No one cares. She had to be adored by a bunch of Britons out there while she happened to be pregnant and then went home for the foot massage. I, they're so out of touch, Dan. It's baffling to me. It's a marvel. It is. I mean, it's unbelievable, isn't it? I think it's what happens, Megan, when you get rid of the people around you who could tell you home truths, your old friends, your own family members, and you surround yourselves with celebrity

sycophants and yes, men and women, because surely someone at some point is going to give them a reality check because there's so much of this Megan they also claim that they are these environmentalists and then boast in their wedding speech that they've taken more air miles than any couple in the world the contradictions in the way that they act and what they say is so off the scale. But it shocks me that they have lost all touch of reality. And not only that, let's not forget, how many times we see the queen out there shaking hands, saying hello to people, working the lines, letting the people see her, even in her much more frail state when she was now we know near death. Like, could you just check yourself for a minute as a young, healthy, fit woman? Pregnancy is a new physical challenge, but you don't get extra credit for it because you know

what? Millions of people do it all the time. And we don't ask to be celebrated for the fact that we worked while also making a baby. It's called life. It's the life cycle. But a word on the queen. OK, because to me. This was you and I talked about the queen after she died, and I quoted of all people, Paris Hilton on your show, who called the queen the original girl boss. And you think about what this woman accomplished in her life and you really have to respect her. I mean, whatever. No one hated the queen. She was incredibly magnanimous. She was incredibly accomplished. She almost never misstepped. And there are image of her is mostly as a woman who is pretty much a badass, except in the eyes of her grandson, who would like us to remember her as this feeble, know-nothing, disempowered weakling,

which is how he portrayed her in Soundbite 9, where he talks about going to the Sandringham Summit, where things were falling apart. They were going to go negotiate, Megxit. Charles was there. William was there. Harry was there. The Queen was there. And this is his description of how it went down. Nine. It became very clear very quickly that that goal was not up for discussion or debate. It was terrifying to have my brother scream and shout at me and my father say things that simply weren't true. And my grandmother, you know, quietly sit there and sort of take it all in. I think from their perspective,

they had to believe that it was more about us and maybe the issues that we had as opposed to their partner, the media, and themselves. Once I got in the car after their meeting, I was told about a joint statement that had been put out in my name and my brother's name, squashing the story about him bullying us out of the family. A sign of public unity from the brothers who issued a joint statement

calling the report false, offensive, and potentially harmful. I couldn't believe it. No one had asked me. No one had asked me. No one had asked me permission to put my name to a statement like that. And I rang Em, and I told her, and she burst into floods of tears.

Because within four hours they were happy to lie to protect my brother. And yet, for three years, they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us. Oh, a lot to unpack in there, Dan. Yeah, Megan, this is when I get mad. So let's deal with the Queen first before we come to the outrageous claim about Prince William. Harry needs to understand that the Queen made every important decision

when it came to the royal family and the monarchy. He may not want to accept it, Meghan. He may be in denial. She didn't want to see you, Harry, because she didn't want to have to tell you to your face before the summit that you weren't getting your way. It was the Queen's decision and the Queen's decision alone, Meghan, to reject what the Sussexes had put on the table. She was absolutely clear that there was no way for there to be a half-in and half-out role for this couple. You're either all in. You're either all in doing the good work for the royal family,

for the Commonwealth, or you go to Hollywood and you make your millions and we'll support you as family members, but you cannot be working for me, putting my reputation on the line when you're taking $100 million from Netflix, which is what we now know happened and probably what they had planned all along, by the way. So Harry's purposeful misrepresentation of the Queen is outrageous. She was not some little old woman who had no idea what she was doing and was bossed around by the men in gray suits. That absolutely undermines what she was as you say as the first female girl boss she

was in charge of the royal family she made the decisions she was not bossed around she was the boss so harry's got to move on from that one number one and stop misrepresenting the queen but then the william thing man i just find completely outrageous because there was one proven bully in the royal family. It was your wife, Harry. It was Meghan Markle. It was not Prince William. And remember, Megan, I've spoken to people who work in the royal family for many years. And guess who was there picking up the pieces for the bullied staff of Meghan Markle, it was Prince William, who would very often offer them a hug, offer them kind words. And what does he mean? What does Harry mean that William bullied him out of the family? What is the evidence for that? I'll tell you what it

is. It's a smear. It's one of those planted stories that Harry seems to hate so much. And let me tell you, Meghan, there is no going back now between William and Harry. This is it. He attacked Kate in the Oprah interview. This is now a direct attack on the personality of the future king. It's also a lie. William was angry at Harry. Of course he was. Harry was acting like a petulant, selfish brat. That does not make him a bully. Absolutely right. And just to fill in the lines there, the other allegation about the queen, which led up to what you just said, was he claimed he had a visit set with her prior to this, and he had arranged it directly.

And then suddenly, after she spoke with the men in suits, it was canceled, and she said something to him like, I thought I was free, but I guess I'm busy. They tell me I'm busy. I mean, he really paints her in like, it's your daffy old grandmother who's really lost it kind of light, which was very disrespectful. She did not want to see him.

So then there's Megan, who weighs in directly in a bit in a way on william she clearly can't stand william and kate can't stand them and the film shows a moment in which harry gets a text from william i think this is right after the oprah interview harry gets a text from william and, again, they happen to have it on camera. The cameras are with them at every moment when Beyonce texts, when the future king of England texts. And here's how that went. So how do we deal with that? Like, how on earth? Like, he walks.

I know. It's your brother. Not going to say anything about your brother, but it's so obvious. It's like... It's even more obvious about the old track cover. Again, Jason, the former aide of Meghan and Harry, as opposed to... That's what I keep saying. I'm like, why are we talking

about him as her former aide and not as the person who works for your brother? That's why I'm not living in a different country. Because all the comms teams basically like try to outdo each other. But this is the contract, the symbiotic relationship between the two institutions working the best that it can. Okay, this is a related issue involving William where they're saying he texts after Oprah and they don't tell us what the text says, but I bet it's going to be in spare Harry's memoir. But secondly, now they're railing because a guy named Jason Knopf, he weighed in in Meghan's lawsuit against the Daily Mail in a way that was not helpful to her. And she's mad and she's accusing him of helping. She basically is saying

now he works for your brother, this guy, Jason. And he wouldn't have weighed in in this case if it weren't for your brother. That's what she's implying. And it's so obvious and basically to your brother. So what do you make of that? Well, it's like the Real Housewives of Montecito, isn't it? Megan storming around. If that's what she's like when the cameras are on,

just imagine what she has to say about William behind closed doors. I think that was one of the closest insights into the real Meghan Markle, actually. So I was glad that it was included. But she hates William. She hates Kate. I believe she hates them because they're there for a life of duty and she's not. And they weren't prepared to play her ridiculous Hollywood games. However, when it comes to Jason Knauf and the Royal Communications team and Harry's pitiful claim that he's living in another country simply because there are a few PRs who brief on behalf of their members of the royal family, right? Because the Queen had her own PR. Prince Charles had his own PR. William and Harry used to share this guy, Jason, as their PR,

and then they went their separate ways. Harry and Meghan hired a woman who used to work for Hillary Clinton. And she was a Rottweiler too. You know, she was a brilliant PR woman too. And all they do is argue the cause for their principle, for their member of the royal family. I'm sorry, if you are not man enough to cope with that, and that is what causes you to move overseas. And by the way, Meghan,

later in the documentary, Harry admits he misses his friends. He misses his family. He misses his country. This has hardly worked out for him, despite the fact he's trying to paint it as some sort of fairy tale. Then I'm sorry, you are controlled. You are controlled and you are manipulated.

And I think that is the poison that Meghan has long been whispering into his ear. And I'm not blaming her, by the way. He was susceptible to this. He, for a long time, had started to rail against the institution he was a part of because he wasn't happy with the fact that once Prince George turned 18, George would be getting all of the attention because Harry would no longer be the third in line to the throne. But at the same time, this is all

ridiculous. It's nonsense. It's just not a big issue. He's turned a tiny issue, a very small issue, the fact that the royal family have individual PRs into some sort of mass conspiracy. It's paranoia.

And it does feed into the sense that he's not entirely well. Well, and nor is she, because all the things that she says she was called that now they dismiss as racist because of her skin color. I've been called all those things, all of them repeatedly

and probably in greater numbers than she has. I put my numbers up against her any day. The B word, the C word, the other B word, diva, even bully. I've had all those terms thrown at me. And it's infuriating. It's, you don't like it. It doesn't feel good. But as a grownup, as a public person, you recognize what box that goes into.

That is Megyn Kelly, Inc. That is not Megyn Kelly, the actual woman, right? That's, you're getting attacked because you're a public figure. It's not because they know you. It's not like your mom out there saying it, your best friend out there saying it. She didn't have the maturity to understand that, even though she was told. We know that because they show the soundbite from Prince Charles in it. Now, King Charles saying you can't let you can't let this in what the media says about

you. They refuse to listen. That's how small their little egos are, right? It's like they can't process that. And then there's the moment that's so revealing where she talks about the dichotomy in what the papers are writing and what her actual experience was with the great people of Great Britain. This is so telling to me. It's SOT 25. Watch this. I thought the public, if they've been fed these lies for two years, what do they think of me? What do they think of me? They must hate us. No.

That's exactly the point. The public is not controlled by the tablet. They understand it's candy reading these articles. No one's walking away saying she's horrible, except people who want to believe it. And if you see it from a publication that you trust, it may be a different story. But for the most part, people make up their own opinions and they go with it. And if you learn to ignore the noise over time, if you're a good person, it will shine through. I mean, look what just take President Trump. Look, look what's been said about him. You would think he wouldn't have one single supporter left, but he does.

Why? Because his supporters don't listen to the tabloids. The British public was telling her, we're still here for you. We still see the goodness. We're rooting for the royal family and for you to work into it. And she couldn't accept it because of the one person who said, I don't like what you did with your father. She's such a brat and needs the constant stroking at every turn that she couldn't, she couldn't make it in this family because she's not strong enough. No, of course. And Megan, actually, she had dream coverage for years.

For the first three years since she came onto the scene. Actually, the tabloids took a very hands-off approach because they were so terrified that harry had made her race her mixed race heritage an issue just days after meeting her so actually for a long time uh the woke media was scared to say anything negative about megan yeah exactly right and then her some of her bad behavior and the bullying claims which she just dismissed this is such an obvious hit job because they came out right before the oprah interview those leaked out one by like the palace had been receiving those correct me if i'm wrong dan for quite some time it yes perhaps it was leaked right before the oprah interview

for a reason but it wasn't just one person it was many people and it had been going on for a reason, but it wasn't just one person. It was many people and it had been going on for a long time. I mean, Megan, come on. The people who worked for Harry and Megan during their time in the royal family are in contact regularly with each other and now call themselves the Sussex Survivor Club. Wow. They are barred from speaking publicly because of draconian British laws, including the Official Secrets Act, which mean that if you work for the royal family, you are completely limited in terms of what you can say. So the reason that they were so determined for the story to come out publicly before the Oprah interview is that they knew what Meghan had planned. They knew what she was about to say in the Oprah interview, and they were determined to get their narrative out.

Now, it's so ironic because, remember, in that Oprah interview, Markle says she was silenced. In fact, the only people who are silenced now are the former staff members and the folk who were bullied by Meghan because Buckingham Palace conducted that investigation and decided to cover up the findings. Nothing was ever released. And the folk who were bullied by Meghan, or at least say they were bullied, cannot speak publicly. It would be against the law. They could be sued. They could be taken to court because they're dealing with the British royal family. I didn't realize that. I knew that they'd signed nondisclosures, that they were under nondisclosures, but I didn't realize it's actually contrary to law. So that's why we haven't had more leaking from those guys.

She's very upset about her voice being silenced in many different ways, according to her, including at that Sandringham summit that we just talked about where there was a discussion about what's a way to go forward, all in, all out, or halfway in. Here she is talking about how absurd it was that she didn't get an invite to the roundtable at SOT24. I sent an email to the three most senior private secretaries saying, let's have a meeting. Let's get together and have a meeting. Let's talk about this. Because what was happening, what was playing out in public was crazy. And that meeting was rejected. And it was only once Meg had left and gone back to Canada

that it was then arranged that there was going to be a meeting at Sandringham on the following Monday. Imagine a conversation, a round table discussion about the future of your life when the stakes are this high. And you as the mom and the wife and the target in many regards aren't invited to have a seat at the table. It was clear to me that they planned it so that you weren't in the room.

What do you make of that, Dan? Well, I've got a few things to say about it, actually, because, look, I'm going to be honest, they didn't want her there. There was no love lost between the Queen and Meghan, between Charles and Meghan, and between William and Meghan, between Charles and Meghan, and between William and Meghan. They thought she was a maligned, negative force on Harry. And the idea was if they could have the summit without her there, they might be able to talk some more sense into him. They might be able to have a more honest family-to-family conversation. At the same time, she could have flown back in. No one was going to stop her if she turned up.

The other thing that is really interesting, though, and this has been backed up now by some of their behaviour with Netflix and with the briefing to other high-profile American journalists like Gayle King, there was a real fear that Meghan would attend the Sandinan summit wide up with recording devices on her. There was huge paranoia, and there remains huge paranoia within the royal family now, that they cannot speak frankly to either Harry or Meghan

because they are on such a mission to try and destroy the monarchy that they want evidence that they can at some point potentially broadcast. So that is why there is a real lack of trust about conversations with Meghan. They didn't particularly want her calling in via speakerphone because they thought that conversation could be filmed. And you can understand, Meghan, why they feel that way looking at the documentary and the clip that you've just shown, because of course, while they didn't actually show what Prince William's text message said, they did react to the receipt of the text message.

And I think it was quite obvious that William probably didn't have very positive things to say. Everything is curated. The moments with William's text coming in, the moment with Beyonce coming in. And then there's the story about the airline pilot who is, you know, just like the Lion King actor who allegedly said she was just like Nelson Mandela. Remember that guy who never surfaced? And then they found all the all the South African members of the Lion King cast. He didn't exist. He didn't exist. No, I never said that to her. No, at the event, they found them all. Nope, didn't happen. I don't know whether this person is real or not, but this is how she sees herself. Trust me, the only reason she read that Beyonce text talking about how she's breaking down these historical barriers, how did she put it? Oh, you were selected to break generational curses that need to be healed this woman actually read this about herself in a text she says it's from beyonce in her own documentary

she that's how she feels about herself that's why she read it can you imagine them making a movie about you and you being like let me just share with you what beyonce says about me i was selected to break generational curses that need to be healed. First of all, I guarantee you that Beyonce knows. By the way, Megan, her husband, Prince Harry, then says that that was really well put by Beyonce. Mate, you're only in this mansion because you have a title because of a hereditary monarchy. Do you not understand? Do you not get this? It's just mad.

Not self-aware at all. But I guarantee you, Beyonce knows nothing about British history when it comes to this issue either. She's just firing off what she's been told by the woke police is the right thing to say. So these two elevate it to putting it in their Netflix documentary because, you know, they're awesome and we're supposed to be celebrating them. And then she comes up with this story about what allegedly happened to her on the Freedom Flight. I don't know. There was the one, she was on it. She was leaving the UK and this airline pilot or personnel

comes and allegedly squats down and says the following, stop, 21. Get on the plane. And it's not the pilot, but whoever's sort of overseeing the crew. And he came, and he knelt next to my seat, and he took his hat off. And I just remember looking at him, he goes, we appreciate everything you did for our country. Oh my God.

And it was the first time that I felt like someone saw the sacrifice. Not from my own country. For this country. It's not mine. We landed in Canada and one of our security guards who had been with H for so long, these guys were so wonderful. I just collapsed in his arms crying. I was like, I tried so hard. He goes, I know you did.

I know you did, ma'am. I know you did. Oh, the sacrifice, Dan. The sacrifice she made in marrying prince harry the sacrifice in giving up a moderately successful tv career when you had wanted to be one of the most famous people on the planet to go and marry one of the most famous people on the planet who let's be honest you have been stalking for some time. We knew she wanted to find a famous British bloke. The moment that she knew there were friends within the Soho House group who could get her in contact with Prince Harry, she made her move.

There was no sacrifice. This was all incredibly well planned by Ms. Markle. That said, the idea that she tried hard is just nonsense. She didn't give it a go at all, Meghan. She soon realized that being a member of the royal family was actually going to be a lot harder than acting on suits. She didn't have lots of minions to look after her every need. And believe me, in my work, I've also spoken to many folk who worked for Meghan during her time on Suits when she was a minor sort of B-list movie actor who would film movies in Europe. And she was a real diva. I'm not saying there's anything

wrong with that, by the way, but she wanted all of her needs attended to. She wanted to fly first class. She had a big rider. This was an actress who certainly believed that she deserved to be treated in a particular way. And actually, it's so hilarious, isn't it, that the royal family that has literal servants working for you 24 hours a day did not live up to those Hollywood expectations. But she didn't try. So I don't think there was a sacrifice in the first place. I don't think many people in the world would think going to move to become a fairy tale princess in the UK is much of a sacrifice. But it's this idea that she made a real effort to make this work that I take real issue with, because I think it's the complete

opposite, actually. She did everything possible for it not to work so that she could have this victimhood narrative now, so that she could be paid for by Spotify and Netflix and lots of other big companies now, and so that she could live in the 20-bedroom Montecito mansion that she always believed she deserved from the moment that Oprah Winfrey stepped foot into her apartment at Kensington Palace and said, you can do better than this girl. You can do better than this girl in Hollywood. The talking about sacrifice, what did she do? She married a prince. She lived in a castle. She wore the crown jewels. She went around being adored by place after place. She drew some attention, thanks to Harry's selections, the palace's selections of where

they might go, to causes in need. That should feel good. That shouldn't feel like a sacrifice. That should feel like something that you're proud of. And by and large, she was adored by all of the British citizens for the most part of her, her time over there. How is that a sacrifice? She literally talks about herself like she's a Marine, like she's a Navy SEAL. She's made no sacrifice. She is the one who chose to give up her country and her citizenship and her religion. She chose to do that. And does anyone think she did that

for you, Dan, for the people of Great Britain? She did it for herself. She did it because she wanted more than anything else, the fame, the instant global worldwide fame that would come from marrying Prince Harry. And she got it. She got it before they even got married. It had already been bestowed on her by the nature of their relationship. That's it. That's all it took. That's why he's famous.

And so she had the crown jewel she was really after from the moment go. Well, indeed. And let me tell you the one thing that she did sacrifice, Megan. And this should be the only sacrifice that she cared about. She sacrificed the ability

to raise attention and tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds to the causes that she claims to care so much about. Because think of Princess Diana and the work that Diana did within the monarchy. And I know people criticize Diana, but Diana was never about the money, Meghan. She only wanted a divorce settlement from Prince Charles so that she could continue her good work. And if you think about that good work, she raised huge international attention around landmines. She raised huge international attention around the issue of bulimia, the eating disorder, which she had suffered from herself. And she made game changing progress, especially in the 80s, to the cause of HIV and AIDS sufferers. So there are

three causes that at 37 years old, when Diana was taken from us, 36 years old, sorry, when she was, Diana was taken from us, that she had made a game changing progress for simply through her work in the royal family. Now, what did Meghan do? What did she do? What did she do through her work in the royal family now what did megan do what does she do what does she do during her time in the royal family now obviously in the documentary the only thing that they can point to is the fact that she became close to uh the survivors of the terrible grandfell fire tragedy in london and she was making this cookbook with them, which was the start of something that could have been amazing. But I think the real sacrifice was for the ability for Meghan to do good in the world. But as you say, that was never really what this is about.

She loves to virtue signal. She loves to talk about feminism. She loves to talk about being a game changer. But when she actually had the opportunity to do it and to represent the people in the Commonwealth, she said, no thanks. And by the way, I mean, I can't imagine sitting there and being the one like, so I said, let's do a cookbook. And before I knew it, it was number one. Let somebody else tell the nice story about you. Don't be such a dumbass PR wise. Let somebody else tell the nice story. Don't you don't tell the nice story about yourself because it's a turnoff.

You don't travel to Uvalde and put yourself in the middle of a school shooting situation that has nothing to do with you at all and show up to where all the paparazzi are so they can make sure they see a picture of you paying tribute. You don't make sure the windows are down when the photographers are there at the queen's Jubilee. Like she always makes, you don't go to where the sex workers are and write empowering messages on bananas for them because your advice is what's really going to get them out of this situation. She always makes it about her because her ego, honestly, it's like, what is it's like big ego, but nothing to back it up. There's a term for this. But what's really there is an empty vessel who, no matter how much you pour into it, will remain empty.

Because Diana, Megan, went out night after night after night with the homeless folk in London to spend time in hospitals in London with cancer patients, with children who were suffering. And I just think Meghan did none of that when she was in London. Now, sure, there was a pregnancy. Absolutely, I accept that. But really, the opportunities for her to make a difference were massive. You know, Megan, when she joined the royal family, she had every single cause and expert put in front of her, at least the option to meet all of these people. And she rejected all of them, bar a couple. So I really never think she was that interested in furthering the good causes, which the royal family are meant to be about. Because of course, as well in the royal family, there are nonpolitical causes, too. And we know that Meghan is now a hyper-partisan figure.

And she's really only interested in furthering causes that are backed by the Democratic Party in the U.S. And she's got him, too. We learned so much more about Harry in part two than we ever wanted to know what a what a petty man he is. What a biter, backbiter to his brother who's been, you know, his big brother his entire life. They were supposed to be thick as thieves. And what's he mad about? Some bad articles that he allowed that to ruin his relationship. She's abandoned her family. He's abandoned his. They talk in the piece about how you can create your own family, like a family of friends well good luck with that in california okay that's all i'm gonna say stand by because i want to pick it up there at the loss of both families and her her version of sacrifice we've got more on that after this quick break with dan wooden

okay so dan there's a couple things here before we get to her, her grand finale, you know, where she shows us her beautiful life now and how she's winning. Love wins. Hashtag love wins. I think that was Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan. So bad, bad move. Look how that worked out. She goes back to the way the evil media has taken advantage of her. And of all things, she points to that ITV interview she gave and she claims little doe-eyed, sweet little Megan had no idea that when you are miked up and you are standing in front of a camera giving an interview to a reporter, what you say may then appear in the press. So we've cut the original soundbite. If you watch the documentary, she claims this was basically a sandbag by the interviewer that she said this on camera,

but she didn't expect them to even use this. And she has to say that because it was such a ridiculous moment when she was in South Africa and once again found a way to make the story about herself. Flashback here in soundbite 32. So you add this on top of just trying to be a new mom

or trying to be a newlywed. It's, yeah, well, I guess, and also thank you for asking because not many people have asked if I'm okay. But it's a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes. And the answer is, would it be fair to say not really? OK, it's really been a struggle. Yes. I mean, how is she to know that the reporter was going to use that and people would react to him?

Let me give you some background to the guy doing that interview, Megan. He's called Tom Bradby. He is a longtime friend of William and Harry. And actually, after that interview, William ended the friendship with Tom Bradby because he felt like Bradby had sided with the Sussexes over the Cambridges. That interview had been planned for weeks and weeks and weeks. Meghan knew that it was going to be part of a primetime TV special, which she would use to start to address the fact that she was unhappy with the new royal family.

So the fact that she is now prepared to throw Bradby under the bus again in front of millions of people and claim that he somehow set her up is ludicrous. It was all planned. Of course. And nobody made her say that. But here's the good news. It ends in triumph. She's free now of you horrible people.

She's over here in America, which we're told is just a home of racial justice, sweetness, love and light. Wait, that's not her message. Wait, it has to be in order to justify leaving your country for mine, given all the racists over in Great Britain. I don't quite understand the logic, but maybe she'll get me there.

Anyway, she feels good. And you know why she feels good? Because she is wearing color, Dan. Among the other tortures the royals put her through, she had to wear oatmeal. Watch, this is soundbite 26. Until that last week in the UK, I rarely wore color and I never wanted to upstage or ruffle any feathers. So I just tried to blend in, but I wore a lot of color that week.

I just felt like, well, let's just look like a rainbow. It's like looking at Nelson Mandela. It's like Nelson Mandela all over. The slight issue, of course, is that she wore colour all the time during her time within the royal family. So it's just another lie. It's just another ridiculous lie. But who cares what colour you were wearing?

What, she was free, wasn't she, Megan? She was free. And of course it is in reference to what you said before you played that clip. It is actually, I think, important to note the only real world example of racism that Meghan Markle has ever experienced in her entire life was when

a bad apple called her mother the N word in Los Angeles, which she has chosen to return. Not to denigrate my own country, but I'm just saying for people like Meghan Markle, who are woke and constantly lecturing us, they don't really love America. And they don't really see this as like the center of racial justice and homogeny. So I'm not exactly sure what the thought was in running, running from the racist Great Britons who voted for Brexit over here to America. In her world, the world of the woke were equally, if not more problematic. Yeah. And can I just, Megan, just give one word, right, to my country and to the people, the government actually commissioned a great guy, a black guy called Tony Sewell, to bring together a wide range of top British black academics for a long running report into racism in the UK. And that report has now been released, Megan, and found that Britain is not an institutionally racist country.

And there is proof and evidence to back up everything they say. And in fact, when you look at where there are discrepancies in achievement, it is down to class and not down to colour. And white working class boys in Britain are one of the most underprivileged groups. So I just am sick of this narrative that Harry and Meghan are trying to put on an international pedestal that Britain is a racist country because, Meghan, provably it's not. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. Of course, racism exists everywhere. But the UK is actually one of the least racist countries in the world. That is a fact. How dare Harry of all people say that about the country that has given him so much. It was just, I was deeply offended by the nerve of that guy, his education, his upbringing, all the riches

he's been bestowed intellectually in terms of the people who have been around him his whole life, not to mention actual pocketbook cash to turn around and stab them in the back like that. I mean, it's unforgivable. They've also decided that, I guess, the christening of their children or at least Lilibet, even though she was named Lilibet Diana, you're not allowed to have anything to do with it. You Great Britons, you don't get to take part in it, even though they clearly want the daughter to have the names. Oh, I was named after all the royals. But they can't have anything to do with it. And they include this rather remarkable reveal by Tyler Perry that he's the grandfather, which we didn't know before this at Soundbite 15. We'll call and we'll chat.

We'll talk about silly things. And they were pretty serious on the phone. I go, okay, what's going on? They said, well, we'd like for you to be Lily's godfather. I go, well, I'd take a minute to take that in. And I thought I'd be honored. I'd absolutely be honored. And I got off the phone, took it all in, and then I called them back.

I go, uh, hold on a second. Does this mean we got to go over there and do all of that in the, in the church with them and figure all that out? Cause I don't want to do that. Maybe we can do a little private ceremony here and let that be that. And if you have to do it there, then it's okay. Surprise. What'd you think? The bloke who they had never met until he offered them his mansion in Los Angeles and a private jet for them to escape the hell hole of Canada with shock horror.

There was a photographer trying to snap them. I mean, you know, when do they realize that you can't replace genuine people in your life, especially family members, especially your flesh and blood with Hollywood celebrities who are only interested in you because of your fame and your status? When are they going to realize that? I mean, if you look at Tyler Perry compared to Prince William, right? William has stuck by Harry through thick and thin. He was there for Harry when he was trying drugs and in lots of trouble for that. He was there for him when he

went through a really bad mental health period and was lashing out at folk left, right and centre. He was there for him when he was caught wearing a Nazi uniform at a birthday party and calling one of his colleagues in the army a very offensive term for Pakistani people. And I think Tyler Perry is there for you because it's good for Tyler Perry. He wants to be friends with royalty. And I think it says everything about this couple, that they choose their friends and their new family based on status and fame and wealth and what they can give them rather than actually the people who've been in their lives for some time, in some cases, their entire lives, because they don't want to have to hear any home truths. Yeah, that's exactly right. They totally ghosted her dad, who again had been,

according to her, a good dad her whole life. This isn't some crap dad. This guy was there for her. He helped raise her for many years when we're told Doria was not around. He paid for her education. He he he loved her and she loved him. He messed up in dealing with a paparazzi who she's just told us in six hours are very difficult to handle. And it can be a real challenge for even sophisticated royals. Nevermind some poor guy living in Mexico who hasn't had to deal with this in his life, but that's unforgivable. He's ghosted. The dad's out, Tyler Perry's in. Yeah. Well, last night, Megan, on my GB News show, I was speaking to Sam Markle, who I've known for years and years now, and she's obviously in a wheelchair in Florida. She has lots of health issues. And guess who arrived in the middle of the interview? Thomas Markle Jr., her brother. They had flown with Thomas Markle Sr., who is recovering from

this life-threatening stroke that he suffered earlier this year, so that they could be all together as a Markle family united as they are attacked and pissed on from a great height by their daughter and their sister. And I just thought, actually, I'd rather be with the Markles, you know, in Sam's modest house in Florida, surrounded by love and people have been there forever than in that mansion with Harry and Meghan surrounded by sycophants and wannabes and users. Guess what happens when you need a kidney? You need a family member.

You're not going to get it from Tyler Perry. Just remember that. Dan, such a pleasure. I love listening to you. Love reading you. Really appreciate you coming on today. All the best, my friend, and Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas.

We'll speak at the New Year. Yeah, I look forward to it. Thanks for all the laughs and info this year as well. An update for you now regarding an interview we did earlier this week. On Tuesday, I spoke with John Ramsey. He's the father of JonBenet Ramsey, the little girl who was murdered inside her home on December 26th, 1996 in Boulder, Colorado. John talked to us about a letter he sent a few months ago to the governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, about John Bonet's case. John requested a face-to-face meeting with the governor to talk about different steps he wants taken in this investigation, including new DNA testing of evidence that John and his supporters would pay

for so it would cost the state nothing. John told us the governor never bothered to even respond to him. So we reached out to the governor's office as well, asking why the governor is blowing off Mr. Ramsey, a grieving dad, and for the governor's exact argument for not moving forward with the private DNA testing. We also asked whether the governor is comfortable with the possibility that John Bonet's murderer will never face justice unless different actions are taken in this case. We set a deadline for a response and it has come and gone and crickets. They didn't bother to respond to us either. After everything he's been through, John Ramsey at least deserves a dignified response.

So we will be following up with the governor. And if you live in Colorado, we hope you do, too. You can contact the governor's office at 303-866-2471. That's 303-866-2471. We hope you do. Now, quick turn into the mailbag. Some of the mails we've gotten at Megan Kelly, Megan at Megan Kelly dot com. Julie says some people think you shouldn't be giving H&M this much coverage. I totally disagree and actually find it to be an education on what power, prestige, and celebrity can do to someone's personality.

I agree with that. Donald says, when you went to Amsterdam, did you get to see Anne Frank's home by chance? Yes, we did. It was stunning, chilling, and that alone is worth going to Amsterdam. I will never forget it

and neither will my children. Thank you so much for joining us today. Next week, it is history week on the show. You're going to love it. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.