The Megyn Kelly Show - Steele Dossier Implodes and Rittenhouse Trial Nears Conclusion, with Kash Patel, Erik Wemple, and Julio Rosas | Ep. 203

Episode Date: November 15, 2021

Megyn Kelly is joined by Kash Patel, former Pentagon Chief of Staff in the Trump administration, Erik Wemple, media critic for The Washington Post, and Julio Rosas, senior writer for TownHall, to talk about the truth about the media's disastrous Steele Dossier coverage, particularly from MSNBC and CNN and McClatchy, whether the media will correct the record about its faulty Steele Dossier reporting, what Durham's investigation has shown so far and where it may go next, Rep. Adam Schiff's culpability in spreading the Russiagate and Steele Dossier conspiracy theories, Steve Bannon and Patel's own January 6 committee "vendetta subpoena," the latest in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, what may happen after the Rittenhouse verdict, 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 on a very busy Monday. We've got a packed show for you today and a variety of stories breaking this afternoon. In just a bit, we're going to get to Trump ally and podcast host Steve Bannon, now expected in court instances deleting portions of articles about the Steele dossier. This is a separate but not totally unrelated story in some ways in the wake of new information about the now, I mean, totally discredited document, totally discredited. Remember, we talked a couple of weeks ago about why ABC put Christopher Steele on the air and allowed him to continue to tout the document, the Steele dossier, as though it still had some sort of relevance or truth in it.

And he touted in particular the so-called P-tape, alleging Trump had paid prostitutes to pee on a bed in Russia on the bed that Michelle and Barack Obama. It's all a lie. It was a lie. It was a lie pushed by people hired by connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. That's really what happened. So now bit by bit, some of the media responsible for pushing that story nonstop for four years of Trump's presidency are coming to grips with whether they have to admit that they went along with the massive fraud, unquestioning, because they hated Trump so much they wanted it to be true. So do they now that they know they were either duped or they were willing participants, did they come clean with their audiences or did they try to just skirt by like it didn't happen?

What? What's Steele dossier reporting? What Russia gate? We have a really interesting guest today, Eric Wemple of The Washington Post, who's written really tough articles on the media. He's he's of the left wing media, but he writes tough articles on both the left and the right wing. So we're looking forward to speaking with him. But we're also going to be joined by Kash Patel. Now, Kash is an attorney. He's a former Trump administration official. And not only did he work for Devin Nunes in just deconstructing the whole Steele dossier, but now he's in the crosshairs in the same way Steve Bannon is, because this same committee that's now investigating January 6th, again, it's a separate thing, but it's Trump related. They're coming after Cash. They're coming after Steve Bannon.

They're coming after others saying, give us all your documents and testify before us about everything you know about January 6th. And Cash and others feel like this is retributive, that this is retribution for their role in uncovering the truth about the Steele dossier. Okay, so it's this long story, but I'm going to spell it out for you in ways that are easy to understand, as always, we hope. It's always our mission. But we're going to begin today with the latest from Kenosha and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, where the judge just issued some major rulings, including dismissing, it was technically the lesser charge, of course, versus intentional murder. But it was an important one, possession of a dangerous weapon. That is huge. I'll explain

how in a minute. Today, we've got Julio Rosas with us, who's in Kenosha now and has been throughout this trial. He was in Kenosha the night of the Rittenhouse shooting as well. Welcome, Julio. Thank you so much for being here. Yeah, thank you for having me. Okay, so let's just set it up for the audience. What got you involved in this case first? You were in Kenosha on the night in question, and what did you do? So I was in Kenosha because I was actually familiar with the area

because I'm from Illinois originally, and I saw that Sunday evening where, you know, the video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. And because I was familiar with Kenosha and how a relatively small town compared to some of the other cities that covered riots. And I knew that just the law enforcement was not going to be enough to prevent any rioting. And unfortunately, I was correct. You know, riots broke out that Sunday night, and I came in on Monday, covered the riots for that evening, and then covered the aftermath the next day on that Tuesday. And, you know, again, it was kind of, you know, we're expecting some more riots to happen. And they did. I just want to be clear, because the media has described the Rittenhouse shooting as taking place during a protest, which is absolutely not true. They were rioting. And it's because they were rioting at the courthouse in the very building that I'm in right now. The law enforcement pushed them out of the park that's across the street, down the street, because they still were attacking law enforcement and damaging property. But then they were pushed into the group of armed civilians who had come to protect further businesses from being damaged. And then that's

kind of cascaded into the events that did lead to the shootings from that night. And so your videotapes have become yet another star witness, if you will, in this case, because you captured much of what was captured, what was what happened on tape. And you tell me, because I said this to a lawyer last week, I don't believe that Kyle Rittenhouse would have a chance of being acquitted, as I think he should be in this case, had it not been for the videotapes. No, absolutely. And it just highlights the kind of the importance of the work that myself and people at Daily Caller, The Blaze and some other independent guys were doing because we, I mean, from the get go, the media, you know, the mainstream media were trying to downplay the riots, these very destructive riots that were happening. in may and then it just kind of continued on and we were going from city to city because uh you know that that's what that's what our job is you know to kind of uh report in these very

hectic situations and yeah no there was no mainstream media outlet out at the scene of the shooting they were kind of around uh cnn i found out was actually up here by the courthouse so that's why they weren't here because they were doing their live shots uh outside the building but um no and look we obviously didn't set out that night to try to prove someone's innocence we were just there to record what happened it just so happened that because of what we recorded and what we saw um it actually just completely goes against the the large part of the media narrative that this was some white supremacist mass murderer wannabe. It just didn't make any sense at all with what has been perpetuated in the year and even what's been perpetuated as trials been going on. And I'm sure we'll get into that. But, yeah, no, we we we are just out there because we want to show the American people what is happening in these hectic situations in real time. Yeah, they paint Kyle Rittenhouse as though he were on a killing spree

that night, a white supremacist on a killing spree at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest, not riot. And none of that has been proven. Not one piece of that. Nothing about Kyle Rittenhouse being a racist or a white supremacist. His sin appears to have been the original sin, being a white guy with a gun who showed up at a Black Lives Matter riot to try to protect and keep the peace. But then he found himself in three very dangerous situations and he did defend himself. And the question for this jury is whether he was really the provocateur, the initial aggressor, or whether it was true self-defense. And both of those things have to be proven by the prosecution. Once a defendant asserts his defense of self-defense, it's up to the prosecutor to disprove it.

This prosecutor has the affirmative burden of proving not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And boy, is that going to be an uphill battle? And we'll get into that in one second. Just want to give the audience watching this because we released this on YouTube as well as live on Sirius XM at noon east on Triumph 111. And as a podcast of the video, some of the video that you captured that night, this is soundbite one. Let's take a look. Oh my God. Why don't you tell us, Julio, what was captured there?

What are we looking at? So that was the second half of the shooting. This is where Rittenhouse shot and in the Huber and Gage Grosskreutz. And so I was up the street when the first shooting happened, when Joseph Rosenbaum chased after Rittenhouse into the car lot. Rittenhouse's avenues of escape was cut off from the cars in the lot. And then Joshua Zeminski, this random guy, fired a gun in the air. And then that so it's a combination of those of those three things. It appears that would change from Kyle going in from flight mode into fight mode because

um as has been proven throughout the trial uh rosenbaum reached for the weapon and that's when kyle shot him and so uh when those sets of gunshots happened um me being the uh uh interesting interesting person that i am i started to run towards where where the shots were coming from and uh and actually to my surprise a lot of other people in the crowd also started running towards that too i thought that was kind of interesting and so we saw this kind of mass movement happening going down the street well and then i saw who i later found out to be kyle rittenhouse going up the street and i thought oh well that's weird uh because you know everyone else is going one direction and we have this one guy with a rifle going the other way uh but then

as as he was kind of running past me, that's when I heard people, oh, he shot somebody, he shot somebody, get him, get him, get him. And so then he was attacked from behind a few times, and that's what appears to cause him to stumble. And so that's my, you know, and at that point I was recording the video that you were playing. And so, you know, Anthony Huber came up with a skateboard,

hit him in the upper body area, you know, the neck or the head area. And while also trying to take the gun away, that's when Rittenhouse shot him and then engaged Grosskreutz that first had his hands up. And as has been shown in the trial, Rittenhouse did not shoot him until Grosskreutz put his hands down with a gun in it with with his handgun and advanced towards Kyle. Yeah, we heard testimony. Yeah, we know we've been. But but let me let me ask you, just to say, you know, my audience has heard all this because we've been going over a frame by frame for a week now. But I want to get to the what's happening right now, because the jury's about to get the case. The closing arguments are about to begin. And as I see it, the entire prosecution now comes down to the question of whether Rittenhouse provoked these attacks. I don't think the claim of self-defense has fallen at all on its initial merits. You know, sort of the test for whether you are using self-defense in this kind of thing is pretty simple. It's, you know,

did he, was Rittenhouse the initial physical aggressor? Was he facing an imminent threat? Was he defending against a deadly force? Was his subjective belief in the necessity of force reasonably objective? You know, could it be sustained? I think the prosecution is going to fail to disprove any of those. I think Kyle Rittenhouse will come out ahead on all of those and he'll have a colorable claim of self-defense. And then the prosecution's only plan, its only chance is to say, well, you provoked the whole thing. If he provoked the whole thing, he could lose that right to self-defense, right? You can't go in there. I can't provoke you to attack me just because I want to murder you, right? And then like use it as an excuse. But the law also says I can't do something unlawful that would, that is reasonably likely to provoke violence and then play the victim. It does allow me if violence then ensues to defend myself if deadly force is used against me. But the, the, the linchpin to that second sort of avenue of provocation is, was he behaving unlawfully? Did he, what was he doing that was unlawful

and likely to provoke violence? And even though the prosecution did not even mention provocation in its opening statements, they seem to have been pinning this on the unlawful weapon that they say he has. He had a charge against him that his AR-15 was unlawful in the state of Wisconsin. It was a long gun and he's under 18. That charge is dismissed. The judge dismissed that this morning. How huge was that? I mean, it's pretty significant because, I mean, even still to this day, people still believe, for whatever reason, that Kyle went from Illinois to Wisconsin with AR-15. But that's not what happened. The AR-15 never left Wisconsin until after the shooting. And so, no, you're absolutely right. And it's funny because

at the very start of the trial with Assistant District Attorney Binger's opening argument, he initially made this claim that, oh, well, actually it was Rittenhouse who first chased Joseph Rosenbaum. And we have video from this FBI drone that would prove it. And it didn't, number one, and none of their witnesses, as I'm sure you guys have discussed, you know, none, that has never been proven that Rittenhouse first chased after Rosenbaum. And so now they're switching it up by saying, well, actually, well, he provoked them, because he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum and the Zeminskis. But, and even though they did not,

even though the prosecution did not bring the Zeminskis to, to testify for that fact, because it most likely did not happen. And the only evidence that they have for that is this very blurry photo from a different video source, not from the FBI plane, but from a very different video source. And it's very blurry. It's very grainy. And they're saying, well, okay, we'll see that is proving that Rittenhouse first provoked everything by pointing the gun at these people. And it's just, I think in my non-legal expert opinion, it just shows that this was just a terrible case for the prosecution from the very start. They've completely pinned their whole argument on something else

than what they started from. And so it's because they haven't proven that. Now that so now that it's all I think he's all in on provocation, he's got to go for Kyle Rittenhouse, he provoked the whole thing. This is you know, what was he doing there? He had an unlawful weapon. Okay, that's gone. He's not going to be able to argue that the unlawful act that was likely to provoke violence was an unlawful weapon because that charge is gone. So now he's going to say, OK, let's take a look at the first killing Rosenbaum. By the way, that's that's charged as reckless homicide, reckless homicide of Rosenbaum. The intentional murder is the next guy, Huber, the guy who beat Kyle with the skateboard.

That's the one they're saying was sort of the most egregious act by Kyle Rittenhouse. But you can see Huber as the initial aggressor on the tape. But they're basically trying to say Kyle Rittenhouse went there. He had the weapon. He engaged in the reckless homicide of Rosenbaum because he was the initial aggressor. He's the one who pointed his gun at somebody near Rosenbaum. Then another person's gun went off and Kyle Rittenhouse wound up shooting Rosenbaum. And they're saying everything from that point thereafter, everything from that point thereafter made Kyle an active shooter in the mind of everyone there. He was the provocateur and they're trying to sort of label him as the provocateur from that moment forward because he was perceived as this active shooter. And these good Samaritans, Huber and Grosskreutz, were trying to disarm him. First of all, shooter and these good Samaritans,

Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to disarm him. First of all, they were not good Samaritans. Can you speak to that? No, no, yeah, no, they weren't. And it's also interesting because, I mean, I've never seen an active shooter run towards the police because that's what Kyle was doing after he shot Rosenbaum. I mean, I looked up the definition, the FBI and DHS, they said, basically the definition, they're trying to kill as many people as possible. And look, I will tell you, as someone who was there that night, not just Rittenhouse,

but all the individuals that were armed that night, they had plenty of opportunity to just start mowing the crowd down, right? I mean, the police were up the street. It was just the two groups facing off. And some of the rioters, some of the crowd of rioters, or some of the people in the crowd, did have handguns, did have some weaponry of that type. But they were vastly outpowered by the rifles and shotguns that the armed civilians had to protect the property. And so it just, it makes zero, that whole argument just makes no sense.

Because in fact, actually, there were plenty of times in that night where the armed civilians were trying to deescalate the situation by pulling people away from the crowd. And in fact, they even move themselves from the ultimate gas station where a lot of video where you see Rosenbaum, you see Huber getting confrontational with them. They actually went from that gas station to the gas station across the street to try to, you know, just like remove themselves completely. So, I mean, that's that does not scream active shooter. And also the fact that we have interviews that Daily Caller did and The Blaze did with Kyle, where he's explaining like, yeah, I'm here as a medic. You know, I want to help people who get hurt. And he did. And he testified to the fact that he helped some of the protesters, some of the rioters

that got shot with some of the crowd control munitions. I mean, I mean, yeah. How do you how do you make an argument that, oh, yeah, that that is clearly someone who just wants to start killing people. And then again, as the trial has shown, the only people he shot or shot at because there was the jump kick guy. So technically for each I have four people, but only struck three were actively attacking him. Well, the other thing is, I mean, there was a lengthy criminal history.

I mean, this is not a justification for shooting them. But the attempt to paint these guys as coming after Kyle Rittenhouse as these like sweet, loving, good Samaritan types, it isn't true. I mean, there was a long criminal history behind the first guy Rosenbaum and Huber too had a long list of problems. Gross crates I haven't looked into, but I've read some allegations. The point is these guys were there and it appears that they were there for some trouble that night. And if you're going to sort of style this as angels versus demons, you're going to fall pretty rapidly in the, in the process because it, it does not appear that they were there to keep the peace. Kyle Rittenhouse at least has some evidence he was. Um, and you can see on tape them coming

after him aggressively coming after him to try to just say, well, you, you know, you shot Rosenbaum after you heard a shot in the air as Rosenbaum was reaching for your gun and yelling F you. And at that point, once the crowd saw you shot him, you basically were on the hook for anything else you did. You know, if somebody tried to smack you in the head with the skateboard, you had to sit back and take it. If somebody tried to grab your gun like Rose crowds did, you had to sit back and take it. Well, that's not going to fly.

The law's not going to allow that kind of a conclusion that the instructions aren't going to come down like that. And I understand today the prosecution got a very favorable instruction on that blurry photograph. That was a late minute addition to the prosecution's case. They were very excited about it. They got this sort of last minute drone footage showing what they say is a Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his gun sort of in the direction of Rosenbaum's buddy, the guys who you said never actually came to testify. And we're going to pick it up right there after I squeeze in a quick break. Julio, thank you for being here with us. And what happens after the verdict? We've got an update on the National Guard and so on. I will talk to Julio about that momentarily. Julio, the big reveal as the trial closed, this was the assistant district attorney

Bingers, you know, sort of the closest thing he had to a smoking gun. His case was totally falling apart. And then this thing came in and it was from drone footage. They said they had just gotten their hands on and we'll put the images up if we have them. But he he claimed that it showed Kyle Rittenhouse moments before he shot the first guy, Rosenbaum, pointing his gun. Kyle's story was I was running away. I mean, forgive me, because the YouTube audience is going to be like, where, how? And the answer is, I have no idea. But Rittenhouse's story is that he was running away from Rosenbaum. This is what all the eyewitnesses testified to as well, that a third party shot a gun into the air.

Rittenhouse turned around and Rosenbaum reached for Rittenhouse's gun, yelled F you. And that is when Rittenhouse fired. Well, the prosecution claims that that picture is of Kyle Rittenhouse just prior to shooting Rosenbaum, pointing the gun, pointing the gun in the general direction of Rosenbaum. And, um, the, the defense objected saying this blown up image, which is what they had to do to make us see anything shows us nothing. And it's confusing because when you blow up an image from teeny tiny to huge, the pixelation technology on the camera or the device will fill in the pixels all around the relevant image, thus distorting it and not give the jury

an accurate presentation. Witnesses online have pointed out, many people have pointed out that this picture appears to show Kyle, if it's Kyle R riddenhouse at all he's holding the the butt of the rifle against his left shoulder instead of his right shoulder which is how he normally holds the gun and now there are pictures of him holding a gun and so on um he's right-handed and why would he be doing that right so there are real questions about this and and we understand this morning from andrew branka who's in who's been following this for legal insurrection. He's been great that the judge said this morning in, you know, they're trying to get this jury to decide that Kyle, to speculate and said, you can say that pointing a gun at someone without justification is unlawful, but you cannot invite the jury to speculate as to whether the gun was pointed at someone. You need actual evidence of that.

So to me, that sounds like he may not be allowing the prosecution to argue that this picture we can't make out is evidence of Kyle pointing the gun at anyone. What do you make of it? No, I mean, and that's why I was kind of surprised that initially the judge last week was going to allow it. But I mean, there's a reason why they're still they were still debating about it this morning, because, yeah, no, it doesn't – it barely shows anything. I mean I have bad eyesight, but even I can see that that picture is not conclusive at all. And the judge is absolutely correct that their job is to not speculate. Their job – they have to make a verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

And so – but that is what the prosecution has been resorted to – has had to resort to because that's how weak their case was from the beginning. And like I've mentioned before earlier, this is a completely different argument than what they made in their opening, their opening statements two weeks ago. So I just, I just,

this just, this should not have gone to trial clearly. But at the same time, I'm kind of glad it did because it really, I mean, it really has gone over so many things that we a lot of us knew last year uh but now people are finding out for the first time um but even still uh unfortunately there are still those who you know let's say there is a not

guilty verdict on the serious charges uh there are going to be those uh in the country who will think well this is a grave uh you know you know, justice was not done because clearly he was guilty from the start. But I just I just implore people, just look at the videos that were taken that night. And there should be no doubt left in anybody's mind after seeing that. If this judge is telling this jury and these lawyers, it is not OK to ask the jury to speculate about whether Kyle Rittenhouse pointed that gun at the Zeminskis. That's the guy who fired in the air right before, you know, that caused Rittenhouse to turn around and see Rosenbaum charging him and then shoot. That's a great ruling for the prosecution. So, you know, we're all sort of watching it piecemeal, trying to get our arms around what the judge is and is not allowing. And he's not always perfectly clear on it as they are about to start closing arguments. So we'll see what the prosecution does and whether it draws an objection and what he does with that photograph. But if that photograph's out or he can't really argue it shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun, then they literally have nothing to undermine the self-defense claim. I mean, then they have nothing to undermine the self-defense claim. Nothing.

And I don't know. I mean, I think this judge would be within his rights and just not even letting it get to the jury. I don't think he'll do that. I think he will let the jury decide. But you're right. And now what do you make of the fact what's the buzz there about the fact that the judge did allow and lesser included charges? So he's giving the jury a way of convicting Kyle on, you know, they're not making him just look at, let's say, Huber, the guy who beat Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his gun. All he was facing conviction on was first degree murder on that case, intentional homicide. Now they're going to be lesser included charges there. And, you know, I can see the argument that that's not so good for Kyle because a jury afraid of civil unrest of what the, you know, town is going to do, what the

nation's going to do might try to so-called split the baby on some of these charges. Yeah, I don't, that's, that's not good because i mean you're absolutely right i mean in terms of the jury having to worry because potential jurors at the very start of this uh quite a few of them did uh voice their concern for their safety uh for the town safety uh and in fact one of the potential jurors said that no one wanted to be in the room at that moment and honestly we can blame them right because i mean again this has been so uh misconstrued and twisted and people just haven't looked at all the facts and they they've made baseless claims based on not knowing all the facts and so no i i think that i think this is that is something that they could try to do to

try to placate the mob was like okay well we're not going to go for the serious charges but we'll we'll throw them a bone or something and yeah yeah, I mean, and, and Megan, as I'm sure, you know, you know, juries can be, it can be a fickle thing. You know, everything can go right in a trial for you, but you know, ultimately it's what they decide. And I think, I think unfortunately we, there is concern about that external pressure because last week the judge revealed that someone was filming the jury while they were being picked up at the bus stop that morning. And so, I mean, and then we had that example of that activist in Minneapolis saying that, oh, yeah, we have people in the courtroom and elsewhere taking photos of the jury.

So, I mean, that that that but that's not how justice is supposed to be done. Right. That is not how this is supposed to work. It's supposed to just be on the facts of the case. Well, and we're also now hearing there are threats to the judge that he's revealed. He's received threats that threaten the lives of his children, that promise payback, and also that state that Kyle Rittenhouse, quote, will not live long if he is acquitted. An email that was released, this according to the Daily Mail's reporting, states the hope that one day Judge Schrader's kids become victims to the most heinous homicide known to man. So he feels the pain. And it goes on from there. I mean, this is, to me, the bitter irony of all this is that the protests in Kenosha happened because these activists rushed to judgment in the police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake, in which the police

have been totally exonerated. Jacob Blake was the aggressor. Jacob Blake resisted arrest. Jacob Blake pulled a knife on the cops. And that's why Jacob Blake got shot. He lived, but that is why he got shot. And so the protesters who decided to burn gas stations and other buildings that night were protesting the justified shooting of a man who pulled a knife on cops. Now, Kyle Rittenhouse goes out there and now he's on trial. The media totally misrepresents that case. And now we may see rioting if he is exonerated, as I believe he should be, as the evidence suggests he ought to be.

I mean, how disgusting is this? And the judge is facing death threats and his kids are facing death threats and the jury's facing threats. I mean, do people see how insane this is, how the downward spiral out of actual justice is occurring every step of the way? Yeah, I mean, Megan, to say that, like, you know, the feeling of frustration and aggravation, I mean, doesn't even begin to convey, you know, what I actually feel because, yeah, I've been, I was here, you know, I saw it and I experienced, you know, much of what

happened here in Kenosha. And it's just a sad reality that, you know, because, you know, Kenosha is not a super wealthy town. You know, these are just everyday average Americans. And they had to deal with the wrath of rioters because, yeah, as you mentioned, they jumped to conclusions. Because admittedly, yeah, when I first saw the video, I thought, okay, that looks pretty bad.

But it also didn't make sense. Like, what got it to that point? And then, yeah, the Kenosha district attorney looked into it, the DOJ looked into it the doj looked into it and they said well actually the officer was shot in self-defense and so and and so we we have all of these cases where you know the media even with the trial even as the trial is ongoing when it's in broad daylight and there's multiple cameras showing it they've misrepresented uh some of parts of this trial i mean gage grosskreutz

completely agreed with defense whole claim to self-defense uh when they were cross-examining him instead the media led off with by saying oh yeah well he thought he was an active shooter and maybe they included that included uh you know five six seven graphs down in the story right but people's main takeaway was like oh yeah you know he was in the right because he was trying to stop an ex-jugger. That's what was going through his mind. But no, it's very disgusting that this is the environment that we're working in. And a large part of the mainstream media has made things worse. And, you know, if, you know, if Rittenhouse is acquitted, and if there's unrest that follows, that's going to be on them as well because they have helped ban the flames. And it's just, it shouldn't have to come down to

a handful of street reporters such as myself to try to accurately portray what's going on in these chaotic situations. But unfortunately, that's the reality that we're living in. And no one's even claiming, Jose, that, no one's claiming that, Julio, sorry, forgive me, that the video is inaccurate, right? No one's claiming that it's fake, it's doctored, right? We're not out there to try to paint some sort of narrative. We just record the videos. And there's also other, I mean, there's also like a local live streamer who testified that the prosecution brought up that also destroyed the prosecution's case. And so that's from a quote unquote non-conservative source that further strengthened Rittenhouse's claim to self-defense. So no, I mean, I can speak for myself. My video is not

doctored. It's not taken out of context. And it's just, it is what it is. And again, that's why I always tell people just look at the videos from that night. And there's multiple videos, right? It's not just me. It's not just two videos. It's multiple videos. Well, so now let me ask you this, because there's the National Guard's apparently ready for this verdict. And they predict it's going to happen pretty quickly. Who knows? Juries do what they're going to do here. They've already received the instructions that's happening today. Then they do the closing arguments. That's supposed to take only about 90 minutes per lawyer.

We'll see. And then they're going to retire and start their deliberations. The governor says the National Guard's ready and that he's authorized 500 Wisconsin National Guard troops to support Kenosha authorities. The sheriff has said we've not yet officially requested the National Guard, but they may. And you tell me, because the governor made an interesting statement. He said, quote, we continue to be in close contact with our partners at the local level to ensure the state provides support and resources to help keep the Kenosha community and greater area safe. We continue. My feeling reading this, then he goes on to say Kenosha community has been strong, resilient, has come together through the incredible difficult times these past two years.

The healing is still ongoing. I don't know if you, maybe you're in close contact. Maybe that's a continuation of something. But the continuation of providing support and resources to keep Kenosha community safe. Isn't that how this whole mess started? The failure by authorities to keep the peace. I'm not condoning what Kyle Rittenhouse did. I've said publicly, you know, I realize there's a strong camp on the right saying he had every right to be there with his gun.

I don't see it that way. I'm like a mom and I don't think a 17 year old belongs with an AR-15 in these protests trying to keep the peace. The police should have done their job. The governor should have done his job. And when they don't, bad things happen if private citizens try to step in. And this case is a pretty good example of that. However, for him to now say, don't worry, we know we've come together. We've been keeping the peace. No, you haven't. You have not. You failed in your job. That's really what led to this whole mess. No, absolutely. And that's what I always say when I talk about who's really at fault here. And it's

the fault of the state and local officials. I mean, after the first night of rioting, only 125 National Guardsmen were activated. Now the governor has defended by saying, well, that's really the only quick reaction force that we had at the time. So that's why it was so low. But remember, we were in month three of riots happening. I mean, this wasn't the first riot that happened in 2020. This was after multiple weeks of unrest throughout the country, pretty destructive. And Minneapolis is not that far from Wisconsin, right? I mean, so they should have had a much better plan in place in case, hey, maybe a city in Wisconsin could be the next town where there's massive riots. And so thankfully, I guess they've learned

from that mistake. But yeah, ultimately, this whole situation is the fault of the state and local authorities, because then, yeah, you're right. When there's a power vacuum, bad things happen. And I can talk to, you know, that happened at the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle as well on a much, you know, lesser example of that. But there was no cops around. And so what happened? People were stealing from each other. There was fights all over. But yeah, when there's no law and order, bad things can happen. 6th, 2017. But they don't care at all. Wait, 17, 21. I'm really, I must be tired today, Julio. But my point is, yeah, when they care about, they care about it when it's a Trump supporter, and they don't seem much to care about it when it's violence created by Black Lives Matter protester. But if you're somebody there who finds himself embroiled in a conflict against somebody

who labels themselves a Black Lives Matter protester, watch out because then they can then they'll throw the book at you. And that's what we're seeing right now in a case that it seems to me this judge even knows never should have been brought. And the bitter irony, if his acquittal, if that's what happens, results in more riots. That's just, you know, it's like a never ending cycle. Listen, thank you, because without truth tellers like you and the, you know, the quick thinking and courageous willingness to be in the mix and to videotape what you saw, we wouldn't know, you know, we wouldn't know what the truth was. So all the best to you, Julio, and we'll have you back on. Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Coming up, speaking of January 6th and all of the goings on under Trump, we've got Kash Patel. He's a former Trump administration official. We're going to ask him about Steve Bannon's arrest for not complying with the subpoena of those trying to get to the bottom of January 6th. They want him to be deposed. They want his documents. And he said no, because Trump asserted executive privilege. Kash Patel is in a similar situation. So is this retribution for a lot of Trump officials dismantling the claim of these very same Democrats on the so-called Steele dossier? The two things may be related. We're going to get into it in just a minute. And remember, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video show and clips when you subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. And today you can see some of the visuals in the Rittenhouse case, which would be helpful. Or if you prefer an audio podcast, a lot of people like to do that. You can subscribe and download on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts for free. There you'll find our full archives with more than 200 shows, including my monologue last week, breaking down all the legal angles to

the Rittenhouse trial. And I have to say, watching the case right now, nailed it. Predicted the gun charge, understood the provocation, and you will understand it too. If you just go back, it was, I don't know, was it Wednesday of last week, you guys? Wednesday or Thursday, you'll check it out. You'll find it. Yeah, Wednesday. All right, so stay tuned. My next guest is involved in not one, but two major stories in the headlines right now. Kash Patel is one of the people subpoenaed by the House Committee

investigating the January 6th riot on Capitol Hill. Well, just a few hours ago, Steve Bannon, a former advisor to former President Trump, turned himself into the FBI for failing to comply with his similar subpoena. So what does Bannon's indictment mean for Kash Patel? We'll ask him. But this is not the first time that Cash has been in the crosshairs of the Democrats. For years, Cash has been relentlessly dismantling their Russiagate narrative. That's why they don't like him. Last week, another indictment relating to the Steele dossier came down, further chipping away at this whole collusion narrative, which was a lie. So will there ever be a reckoning for the lies told to the American people by the Democrats, by the media, and they hold on to them still? Kash Patel is a former Pentagon chief of staff and a senior fellow for the National

Security and Intelligence at the Center for Renewing America. He's my guest now. Kash, great to meet you. Thanks for coming on. Megan, thanks so much for having me on. Really looking forward to being with you here. All right. So just to set the stage and we'll do I know that you are like neck deep in all this, but let's let's do Steele dossier 101 and assume our guests are not our audience, not as up to speed. You were working for Devin Nunes at the time, and you see the Democrats going nuts with Trump collusion, Trump collusion, Steele dossier. This guy, former spy, he says Trump has a P-tape and Putin's got compromising material on him, compromise. And Steele is to be trusted. He's this former British spy. And we know he really knows his stuff about Russia. And this is how it was fed to us. And Trump was behind

Russia's, the leak, the WikiLeaks documents that got the DNC's emails and so on. Trump orchestrated it all and that his connections with the Russians go back years and years and years. This is my thumbnail sketch of what was in the media back then based on the Steele dossier. Like, no, no, not really. And just walk us through when you came out with that report with Nunes, basically what your pushback was on the narrative back then. And this is in the midst of it all when everybody's buying it. Absolutely. So that was one of the best thumbnail sketches of Russiagate I've ever heard. So you should take it on the road. But as a former federal prosecutor, former public defender, who tried 60 jury trials to verdict criminal trials, and as a former intelligence officer, before I went over to Devin and led the Russiagate investigation, one of the reasons he brought me over was my background. And he said, how do we take this thing on? And I said, there's a couple ways to do it. One, we got to follow the money. Someone paid for this thing. So we have to use

that as Avenue A. Avenue B, you have to follow and dismantle the credibility or verify the credibility of the sources, the sources being steel and the likes of Danchenko and all these other folks that have now come to light. And so that's what you have to do when you piece together this thing called a FISA warrant. And all that is, is fancy speak for a search warrant that goes to a different court because it has different collection capabilities. The standard of proof is still the same probable cause. And what you have to do is say, hey, do these people that Steele used and is Steele himself credible?

Does he have any biases? And who paid for it? Where did the money come from? Did it come from his opponents? Did it come from his supporters? And was the FBI and DOJ at fault for any of the information? Did they fail to disclose evidence of innocence and some of these biases and credibility? So those were the-

And just to jump in, just to jump in. So because it's like, hey, Christopher Steele needs to get paid. He's not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. So let's find out who paid him. And secondly, who did he give the information to? Well, FBI, DOJ, they, like reporters, are supposed to be super skeptical when somebody comes to them. And especially if they might, in a case like Christopher Steele, have reason to believe that the person bringing it to them has deep ties to a candidate running for president who hates the other candidate running for president about whom the negative information is. So it's like red flags everywhere. You're sitting in front of a red flag right now. It happens to be our American red flag. This is the old fashioned red flag that a reporter, the DOJ, the FBI should have had

all over them saying, holy shit, this is a hit job. It's a hit job by Hillary and Clinton and Trump move on. But boy, did they go another direction? Yeah, look, they just didn't want that narrative to be true. And Devin and I had an agreement. Whatever we found, we were going to put out. We didn't know what we were going to find back then. We didn't know we were going to find the DNC and Hillary paid $10 million to the lawyers to buy Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS,

and then corrupt the FBI into the plague's political scandal in history. We didn't know we were going to find their sources, hated President Trump or then candidate Trump. They combined together with the political hacks like Adam Schiff to put out this narrative with willing participants in the mainstream media to lie to the American public. And let me jump in again. Let me jump in because I want to keep it 101. I want to keep it 101. So on that front, Christopher Steele openly hated Donald Trump and didn't want him to be elected and said that to basically everyone. The FBI knew that the DOJ knew that. But they went in to get this FISA court warrant, this sort of secret court that gives you warrants on somebody that you need to spy on as, you know, our intelligence services, because they might be bad and you can't really notify them. You know, if you think it's an actual bad guy, they didn't disclose any of Christopher Steele's multiple conflicts of interest, his connection with the

Clintons, or that basically they already had reason to believe the entire Steele document was a load of crap. They'd already been warned and they didn't disclose any of it. Therefore, they got their warrant and we were off to the races on the whole Trump investigation. So now years later, now the whole thing's collapsed. We know Christopher Steele has no credibility. I mean, we know it. Objective people know it. I'm not some Trump sycophant. I'm telling you, it's bullshit. So we know that the mainstream media keeps putting him on TV, celebrating the guy. And yet there's little John Durham. And explain for the audience who John Durham is. Yeah, absolutely. So after a Russiagate investigation, the attorney general appointed a

special counsel. What's a special counsel? It's a lawyer who's charged with leading an intense, a high profile investigation that can't be run within the Department of Justice itself. John Durham comes online, career federal prosecutor, comes in and investigates Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and also investigates the investigators, the people in the FBI and DOJ, like Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page, who helped perpetuate this fraud, not just the Christopher Steele's infusion GPS of the world, but he's looking at everything. And fast forward to today, he's now issued three indictments, which I speak to the which I think speak to the entire Russia collusion narrative. One against the FBI lawyer. He caught an FBI lawyer lying to a federal court to get the FISA warrant on Carter Page. Two, he got suspended in an indictment, suspended the lead Democratic lawyer who was paid all that money that we talked about.

He's been indicted to the FBI for helping perpetuate the Russia collusion narrative based on the Hillary's campaign. And three, the Danchenko indictment. Why is that important? That's important because basically he was Christopher Steele's main source, the guy that Steele said, I've got all this great Russian information from this Russian who now comes out and says, I never gave any information to Christopher Steele. And oh, by the way, he's now charged by Don Durham for committing a felony. Yeah. OK, so nobody's heard the name Igor Denchenko, but he and he's pleaded not guilty to having lied to the FBI. That's what he's being charged with, having lied to the FBI. Not so much like having lied to Christopher Steele or sort of being part of this collusion in the first place to come up with a phony narrative, but having lied to the FBI about it. So explain exactly why this further under undermines the

Christopher Steele dossier. Sure. Basically, look, Steele says he wrote his dossier based on all this subsource network that he had based in Russia, even though he, Christopher Steele himself, hadn't been to Russia in almost 20 years. The main source of the dossier, the book against Trump, was this guy, Igor Danchenkov. And he has now been indicted by John Durham. Why is that a problem? One, it goes to the credibility of Steele's main source. But two, more importantly, as we learned in the Danchenkov indictment, he provided no verified credible information to Christopher Steele. That's what he, Igor Denchenko, the charged defendant under John Durham, is telling the world. And Christopher Steele has spent the last four years lying to the world

about Denchenko and his credibility. So he got caught. And now the world sees that his dossier is based on not verifiable information. And the source said it's total BS. And he's not the only one. Sergey Milyan came out, another source that Steele said was in the dossier. And now it's been proven in the Washington Post that the issue three redactions from their years of reporting where they accused where they said Steele was using Milyan as a source for the dossier. Enter John Durham.

John Durham proves that Steele never used Millian as a dossier and that Steele lied about it. So it's another big credibility problem. John Durham seems to be alleging that Denchenko also lied in saying that he got some of this information from this guy named Sergei Milan and claiming that some guy named Charles Dolan, who's a Clinton crony, didn't provide anything to him. And what Durham seems to be saying is, Sergei Milan wasn't your source. It was this Clinton crony named Charles Dolan. You were totally connected to the Clintons and you lied to everybody about it. And I've heard two camps on this, Cash, you tell me. I've heard some say, you know, durham saying he lied to

the fbi about his sources and one camp saying the poor fbi they were duped and the other camp saying oh please oh please the fbi knew you can you can lie to somebody who already knows the answer and still get charged let me let me pause i'll just pause it there because we have a hard break that we always have to hit at 12 55 45 so I'll leave the audience hanging on that exciting question, whether it's known and it was known by the FBI that it was a Clinton crony behind this entire thing or not. When we come back with Kash Patel and we'll ask him about these, the Bannon arrest and what's what's Kash going to do? Because he's facing a similar subpoena in just a couple of minutes. Don't go away. Exciting day here on The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm starting to wake up. Here with me now, Cash Patel, former Pentagon chief of staff and a senior fellow for national

security and intelligence at the Center for Renewing America. He was right in the heart of debunking this whole Russiagate narrative and the phony Steele dossier when it was coming down and was big time targeted by the Democrats. They called them all sorts of terrible names and the press, by the way, too, for not not just at the time, but for months and years thereafter. They've tried to demonize you, Cash. But now we know that you were right to be casting doubt on this deal dossier, to put it charitably, and that it's fallen apart. And that thanks to this latest John Durham indictment,

what we know is that the the main source behind the dossier was a liar. He lied about how he got his information about from whom he got his information. And it seems like the Clinton crony, Charles Dolan, was very much involved in spoon feeding this guy bad information that would hurt Trump. So why haven't we seen more of that in the media? I wonder. But let's start before we get to this guy, Charles Dolan, the Clinton crony, with whether the FBI, like the guy in the casino in Casablanca was shocked, shocked that there were lies being told. Right. There's there's gambling here. I mean, that's kind of what John Durham is saying. Right. This guy lied. This this Igor Denchenko lied to the FBI about his sources and enforcement agency wasn't duped. They were in on it. Let me give you some concrete facts. When we pulled the FBI and DOJ's own documentation during Russiagate investigation, it showed that the FBI knew when it applied to the FISA court for that warrant, they knew of the connection between Christopher Steele and the Hillary Clinton and DNC campaign and withheld it. The FBI knew Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump and had a bias against him, and they

hid it from the federal court. The FBI knew that there was tens of millions of dollars coming in from the DNC campaign through their lawyers, and Fusion GPS bought and paid for Christopher Steele with that money, and they hid it from the FISA court. So there's no way this FBI or that FBI can say they were duped under James Comey and his magnificent ego. There's no way that could possibly have happened under that guy's egomaniacal reign. or that FBI can say they were duped under, you know, James Comey and his magnificent ego. There's no way that could possibly have happened under that guy's egomaniacal reign. But also there's the Annie McCabe and Peter Shrocks of the world whose text messages we have that show

themselves admitting they knew this information. It's for the public to see. So they weren't duped. They were in on it, which is why it's so terrifying that the FBI and DOJ can be hijacked by one political party to be used against an enemy. 100 percent. This if you haven't been paying attention. Listen, I went into this whole thing. I was like, you know, not a particularly huge Trump fan, you know, but I was still objective about him in trying to assess what he's actually done and what he hasn't done. And this stunk. It stunk to high heaven. And it's it's been completely debunked now just for people out there who are looking for an honest assessment. There is no absolutely no piece of the Steele dossier has been confirmed, upheld.

It's gone entirely the other way. This is a Hillary Clinton operation. That's what the evidence has shown. But you tell me, Cash, because John Durham knows more than, you know, even you. He definitely knows more than I know. So he knows the FBI wasn't duped. So why is he indicting people like Danchenko for lying to the FBI? Well, so what John Durham has done is transition the whole Russiagate hoax. So we got to stop calling it that and call it what John Durham has validated to be. It's an organized criminal enterprise. Yes, it's a mob style conspiracy that was issued by James Comey and his acolytes. And that's what John Durham is working.

When I was putting together federal prosecutions, you start on the bottom of the pyramid and you get the guys you can get for process crimes who are going to flip up and don't want to go to jail. And that's why I think all roads do lead to Deputy Director Andy McCabe. You can't just indict him right away. You have to build those building blocks. What gives me confidence in John Durham is the Charlie Doles of the world. Look, we issued 20 congressional subpoenas to obtain documentation related to the FBI's

FISA warrant application and Christopher Steele. Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray withheld 35 to 40% of those documents. Myself and Devin Nunes had never heard of Charles Dolan until last week. Now it's bad because they violated congressional subpoenas, but it's good because it means John Durham is actually getting the missing third of information that we never got in using in federal indictments. And that's what I think is most telling about his organized his exposure of this organized criminal enterprise. Wow. I mean, it's just so crazy to think about it that we spent years trying to look at the Trump campaign and see if they had colluded with Russia.

And that's how he got elected, you know, by playing dirty behind the scenes. And the truth appears to be that the other candidate in that race in 2016, Hillary Clinton, was the one playing dirty and essentially using not the Russians exactly, but a story about the Russians, a fake story to try to hurt the other candidate. And then once he beat her to try to ruin his presidency, it's crazy. I mean, this is like if you pitch this in a movie script, they'd be like, no, no one's going to believe this nonsense. So, OK, so so none of that is particularly good for the people who are higher up than the Denchenko's of the world. So you think further indictments may come down by John Durham when, when all is said and done. Can you speak to that a little bit more? I want to get to Adam Schiff in one second, but speak to that a little bit more because Andy McCarthy, who I do love,

he, he's been following this closely and he says, okay, so does this mean, this is in the wake of Denchenko's indictment? Does this mean that John Durham is nearing a sweeping conspiracy indictment? Will there be criminal charges that target the real 2016 collusion, not between the Trump campaign in Russia, but between the Clinton campaign and U.S. officials who abused government investigative powers for political purposes? He says almost certainly not. All signs of the Durham's going to end this investigation with a narrative report. Wah, wah. That's a boring, long winded way of just telling us what he found as opposed to indicting the big fish and that it may end sort of with a whimper instead of

a bang. You disagree? I disagree. I look, I love Andy McCarthy. We're both former federal prosecutors. I've worked with him in the past. I just think he's wrong on this one because I don't expect the James Comey, Hillary Clinton of the world to be indicted. Let's just, you know, level the playing field here. I do expect Elisa Page's, Peter Strzok's, Fusion GPS's of the world and ultimately Andy McCabe to be indicted and or go down in Don Durham's report. The higher level people will be talked about in John Durham's report, Comey, Clinton, Brennan, Clapper, and the DNC and the like. But the information that John Durham has revealed, i.e. the Charles Dolans of the world, and the credibility problems that he continues to expose in the Steele dossier, he's not obtaining bank records for 10 years.

He's not sending a federal subpoena to the Brookings Institute, a think tank, so he could just mete out a few process crimes. He's gathering this information and issuing 40- 50 page indictments because it's his only way to speak to the public legally about what he's currently working on. And he's identified the Jake Sullivans of the world in those indictments about their culpability in this grand conspiracy. So I don't think as a credible prosecutor, you issue those kinds of sweeping indictments currently, if you just want to dirty the water. That's not John Durham's style. He's never done that. He's not been a Democrat or Republican. He's just been a career prosecutor. So that's why I disagree with Andy. And I think that Andy McCarthy, excuse me, Andy McCabe has

the biggest problems of it all, because I believe he's, he won, he was caught lying by the inspector general. And two, we also caught him lying to us in Congress when we deposed him. He leaked to The Wall Street Journal and then lied about it. And that's technically why he lost his job, because he leaked to The Wall Street Journal and make himself look good. And then when he got questioned about the FBI, he's like, oh, I don't remember anything about it. Meanwhile, it's a very huge deal as a record show when he was actually doing the lying. I mean, the leaking. So, yeah, that's why he got fired on paper, but he was up to his neck in Russiagate. And all the people you just mentioned are FBI people, right? Peter Strzok and Lisa, whatever. I mean, all those people you just

mentioned, they're the ones who are the lovers who were texting Lisa Page and all of them. So those people, if those people go down, but I also heard you talking on a podcast recently about Fiona Hill. And can you just put some meat on those bones? Because speaking of Brookings Institution, that's where she came from. And it's sort of a left of center think tank. And I heard, I think it was maybe an Andy Stell describing that as sort of the Democrats State Department in waiting when they're out of power. That's where all their would be State Department people are working like Fiona Hill. But she worked for the Trump administration. And so what do you think? Why do you think she may get the wrath of John Durham in this whole thing? Yeah, great question. So Fiona Hill orchestrated

the Ukraine impeachment fiasco while she was in National Security Council under Trump. Why is she important? Do you know who used to work for Fiona Hill? Igor Danchenko. She was Fiona Hill's research assistant. Also, do you know who introduced Christopher Steele to Igor Danchenko? Fiona Hill. Do you know who introduced Igor Danchenko to Charles Dolan? Fiona Hill. to the world during the Ukraine impeachment fiasco that she, and I'm paraphrasing, had no idea what Christopher Steele was doing or how those gals compiled that dossier. I think she has problems with lying to Congress under oath for making that statement after we have now proven, or Durham has now proven, she made those introductions. She works at the Brookings Institute, and the Brookings Institute was subpoenaed by John Durham in the spring of this year. It's no coincidences. There are no coincidences in federal indictments. It just keeps spiraling upward, upward to bigger and better known names. And I see your point. It's

going to stop eventually. There's not going to be the Comey indictment or the Clinton indictment. But, you know, the same newspapers that reported with such zeal that Trump and everyone around him may have been conspiring with Russia ought to be reporting things like this, right? Like who's caught in this net and who actually misled knowingly or otherwise or cooperated with the FBI to mislead that that's a big story. And we should see more people openly covering it. Or let's spend a minute on Adam Schiff because boy, oh boy. I mean, if there's like one person who pushed Russiagate more than any other, you tell me it's Adam Schiff, is it not? He's the worst. He's the biggest liar, I think, in the history of Congress.

OK, so just to give the audience a flavor, here is this is soundbite number seven. Here is what he was saying all along about the Steele dossier and his case against Trump when it comes to Russiagate and collusion. Listen. So there's clear evidence on the issue of collusion, and this adds to that body of evidence. There's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight, and that is true. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion? Yes, we have. You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. And there is significant evidence of collusion. There is ample evidence, and indeed there is, of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy. All of this is evidence of collusion. But let me just add to that because he recently went on The View and there was a conservative former Trump official, I think, on set with him who

pressed him and watch what happened. But you may have spread racial disinformation yourself for years by promoting this. I think that's what Republicans and what people who entrusted you as the Intel committee chair are so confused about your culpability in all of this. Well, I completely disagree with your premise. It's one thing to say allegations should be investigated, and they were. It's another to say that we should have foreseen in advance that some people were lying to Christopher Steele, which is impossible, of course, to do. But let's not use that as a smokescreen to somehow shield Donald Trump's culpability for inviting Russia to help him in the election, which they did, for trying to coerce Ukraine into helping him in the next election, which he did, into inciting an insurrection, which he did. None of that is undercut. None of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele. No, I think just your credibility is. Well, I think the credibility of

your question isn't out. I'm just looking at the transcription of it. Let's not use that, right? It's another, okay, just to go, I completely disagree. One thing to say allegations should be investigated. Another to say we should have foreseen in advance some people were lying to Christopher Steele, which is impossible, impossible to do cash. How could they possibly have known? Then he goes on to say there, but let's not use it as a smokescreen to shield Trump's culpability for inviting Russia to help him in his election. That's that stupid soundbite they complete. They play all the time when he's like, Russia, if you're listening, I could use that's the invitation it was just puffery uh which they did for trying to coerce Ukraine into helping him into the next election which he did to inciting an insurrection dodge dodge dodge that's him trying to get out of bounds

get off of evidence evidence evidence I've got all the evidence well where is it let's see it and you tell me whether he's going to get a pass. He got unlucky that day because a former spokesperson for Pompeo was on asking him. No one else is going to ask him anything. No, he's never going to. He hasn't gotten asked a hard question in the past, and he won't get to ask a hard question in the future because he doesn't take them. He doesn't come on shows with credibility like yours. And look, the mainstream media is as big a culprit in this entire Russiagate criminal enterprise as is Adam Schiff, who lied to the American public.

And they now know it, which is good enough for me that he lied for four years about Russiagate evidence. But the mainstream media is the one I'm taking on now by suing Politico, CNN, New York Times for defamation. I've got $150 million in lawsuits going against them based on their reporting of Russiagate and me. And I'm also helping others at fightwithcash.com with a K raise money around the country to clear their names, because that's

the only way we're going to get some credibility back is by restoring the bankrupt media, the mainstream media to report truthfully and without bias. And that's what we're doing at fightwithcash.com. You can check us out. I encourage you guys to follow us and help us out where you can. It's worth doing, and we need more Megyn Kellys of the world and way less Adam Schiff's. Thank you for that. So you just, before I want to ask you about the January 6th subpoena, but, and I know you're limited what you say, but before we get to that, can you, I hate to skip past what this has done to you, right? Because you, Nunes, anybody who pushed back, like, you're a kook. You're a nut.

You're a Russian bot operative. You're in on it. And for years, you and others like you, I've heard the stories like neighbors turned on you. Friendships were lost. Pilloried in every article in the media. Just walk me through some of what that was like for you personally. Well, look, as a as a guy, a lifelong hockey player,

federal prosecutor, public defender, you can sort of take it right. But what what matters is that your family has to read those things. I was called a genocidal dictator, Megan. That's pretty ironic and gut wrenching for the son of a father who escaped an actual genocidal dictator in Uganda and fled to America and lived the American dream. But Adam Schiff didn't care about any of that. And then there's the defamatory conduct, right? Let's put aside that they went after Devin Nunes' 90-year-old grandmother. How about the straight-up lies to the American public and the world just to excoriate us, just to lessen our fact-based findings? So it's one thing that we could take it. It's another that our families hadbased findings. So it's one thing that we could take

it. It's another that our families had to live it. But the other thing that drove me to fight with cash.com is because of it. We have to have a course correction and we're fighting for it and we're raising funds for it. So I encourage you guys to check it out. We're not taking an aid. We're going across the country to every state. That's why we're having Eric Wemple on the Washington Post because he's been calling out his own industry saying this is BS, what you guys have done. All right, let's talk for a minute about January 6th and all the subpoenas that are being sent out to people like Steve Bannon. I know you got one, too. And here's the deal. Donald Trump is the person who holds the privilege, the executive privilege. And the courts have been pretty clear. You don't lose it just

because you're the former president, not the sitting president. And Joe Biden has said, give it, give it up, give everything. And Trump's over there saying, oh, hold, slow your roll. You know, I have an objection. And that's playing out right now in the courts. We don't have a final ruling. The Supreme like comply with the subpoena or or comply with your former boss's orders not to hand over the stuff. And I know you and some others have been trying to come to an agreement with these guys trying to seek so much. Steve Bannon basically just gave the big middle finger, said go pound sand. And now he's been arrested. Now he's been indicted. So let me just ask you for your reaction on what happened to Steve today. Yeah, look, Steve, Steve has always done things Steve's way. And I think everybody knew he was going to do this this way. It wasn't a surprise to anyone. And I think he's fighting for not just executive privilege, but for his own personal rights under under serving in the Trump administration thereafter. As for me, look, I have no problems calling it

what it is. The January 6th committee has issued vendetta subpoenas. They didn't call me or my lawyers or email me. We've all run congressional investigations. There's a proper way to do it, and there's a political way to do it. They just went straight to the subpoena and said, you know what this is going to do? Cash is going to have to come off mission and spend $150,000 on lawyers. That's why I believe they did it. I got nothing to hide on January 6th. I will tell the American people the truth all day long on January 6th, especially the DOD's involvement. We acted with great vigor and speed, and I was proud of the men and women in uniform that we employed and deployed on that day.

And I've got no problem selling them that. But they don't want to hear the facts. They want to hear the politics so they can drive that into the midterm election. And they want me to spend 150 grand, which is why I'm asking everybody to help me out, too, at Fight With Cash. So you think this is payback for your pushback reporting and report, actual report on their fake Russia stories? Yeah. You know who one of the lead people on the committee is? Adam Schiff. You know who sits next to him? His peanut butter sidekick, Eric Swalwell. These two guys, I ran Russiagate against them. We use the facts. They use politics. They're using politics again to exact vendetta subpoenas because that's how petty they are. They don't care about

serving the mission like we did. They think the mission exists to serve them and their egos. And that's just the difference between us and them all day long. So can I ask you if the Supreme Court ultimately denies Donald Trump's privilege claim and it can't go any higher than that, will you comply with the subpoena? Yeah, I'll follow the law. I got no problem following the law. My lawyers are on it. They're talking to the committee. I'll follow the law today, tomorrow, next week, next year, whenever it comes to it. Who is the peanut butter and who is the jelly exactly between Schiff and Swallow? I'm not sure. Maybe one's just like creamy peanut butter on the other one's chunky and they don't deserve jelly. Chunky. Oh, that does give a mental image, doesn't it? Cash, a pleasure. Thank you so much for being here.

Thanks, Megan. Love to be with you. Coming up, Eric Wemple on the disastrous media coverage of the Steele dossier and what corrections may be coming next and ought to be. A closer look into the unraveling of the Steele dossier would not be complete without looking at the role legacy newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, and many in the mainstream, NBC, ABC, and so on, played in pushing the narrative night after night. My next guest is working to hold the media accountable, including his own newspaper. Joining me now, Eric Wemple, a media critic for The Washington Post. Eric, thank you so much for being here so I can speak to this firsthand. You hit everybody. I've been hit by you. Left has been

hit by you. Right has been hit by you. And I will say you call them like you see them, even if it's at your own newspaper. So let's do the same thing with you that I did with Kash Patel and assume that the audience has not been following this anywhere near as closely as you have. And give me the broad brush overview on what you think the media did wrong in covering this story. First of all, thanks for having me. I'm happy to do that. Okay, so Christopher Steele started putting together these memos that formed a dossier. There are about 17 memos. He started putting them together in like June of 2016. This was financed by the Democratic National Committee and by the Clinton campaign through an intermediary, which was Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson. This was a longtime democratic,

not democratic, longtime journalist who became a researcher, founded his own firm. And so they proceeded and they put these dossier together. And over the course of just several months, they came up with these remarkable, remarkable revelations about Trump and Russia. And they were shrouded from public view until after the election. BuzzFeed published all of these allegations in January 2017. But just before the election, David Corn of Mother Jones reported about the existence of this document, and he abridged it a little bit and said it contained these allegations about Trump and Russia, and that it was put together by this very credible former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who was indeed the person who compiled the dossier. So it didn't, I don't think, have a huge impact on the election

so much. But once BuzzFeed published it, it was out there in the open, and then it was fair game. And that's where I sort of come in and discuss how CNN, MSNBC, the McClatchy newspaper chain, and a lot of different pundits really, really added a lot of credibility to this thing. They constantly hyped it. And any little thing they could glom onto, they did. And they made it sound far more credible than it was. And then the Mueller report sort of was a blow to its credibility, but not a mortal blow. And then the Justice Department inspector general in December of 2019 just blew the thing out of the water, said the FBI had found that this document was either based

on publicly available reports, was inaccurate, or was unconfirmed. And so it's three baskets, all of which pretty much amount to a lot of garbage. So that's what happened. And, you know, I have named the organizations that were really front and center in pushing this thing. I think the two worst offenders in terms of, you know, volume is MSNBC and CNN. But the McClatchy newspaper chain buttressed one key allegation in the dossier, and that was Michael Cohen having allegedly visited Prague to meet with Kremlin representatives for some collusive purpose. That hasn't that hasn't ever that hasn't ever panned out. You know, I think at this point, we can say it's bullshit, right? Oh, can I say that here? I'm sorry. Yeah, no, you can. And just to jump in on that, the story was that Paul Manafort,

who had been running the Trump campaign, he was the original connection with the Russians and helping sort of pass information. And then when he got in trouble, it was given to Cohen. So Cohen took the secret trip to Prague. And even Cohen was like, no, I didn't. No, no, I didn't. And the media that wound up falling in love with him won't accept that. Right, exactly. Because now Michael Cohen later, you know, flipped on Trump. And so he still says he didn't visit Prague. And everybody's everybody's saying, well, if Michael Cohen flipped on the president and he has nothing more to hide, why would he hide his trip to Prague? Right. Right. Why would that be the one lane he didn't feel comfortable impeaching Trump on? Right. Because, you know, you know, I just don't know.

I mean, it's all it's all a lot of silliness. And I think, Megan, if you think about it, if you put together the greatest investigative reporters who have ever existed, you know, Bob Woodward, 10 or 15 or 20, you sent them to Russia in June of 2016, it would take them years to come up with one quarter of what Steele alleged over the course of, like, several weeks. So it was absurd on its face. There were all these extravagant allegations, namely they said that the Russians had intercepts of Hillary Clinton when she was over there. They didn't even talk about the emails.

They had some other exotic form of intercepted communications that they claim to have had. So anyway, and of course, what do you think this was a function of, you know, especially back in 16, but I mean, equally in 20, the media hated Trump, definitely wanted Trump to lose, wanted to believe when you get into the place as a reporter of wanting to believe it's true, gosh, you have to be so careful about checking yourself over and over again, which is even harder when all the press around you is jumping on the story, advancing it, getting leaks from the FBI, the DOJ, people you would normally find credible. And it's very hard to go back to the newsroom and say, now wait, what do we actually know? What are the reasons to doubt? What does the confirmation look like? And it just seems like that just wasn't done. It wasn't done. But I would say as a caveat that there were several many newspapers that didn't jump in with both feet. New York Times is one of them. A couple of the other networks, the ones that I named are really the main culprits. And when you talk about, you know, wanting to believe in my own, I know that that involves something of an unlawy speculation. I think that's fair. You know, when you watch media coverage, you can sort of, at some point point divine some degree

of motivation. The way I see it is that really showed up to me the strongest on Rachel Maddow's show. Because on her show, she really seemed like she was wanting this thing to be true. And she kept going back at it and say, oh, it looks, you know, every time there was some little bit of positive, you know, correlation with reported facts and the dossier, she's like, this is lining up. She did a special report about it, I think was late in 2017. And she's talked about Christopher Steele's deep cover sources inside Russia, deep cover. And as we found out later, basically Christopher Steele and this other guy, they basically had nothing. This was a research guy who had worked at the Brookings Institution. This was no deep cover operation. It wasn't even close. But it struck me that she was really,

really hoping that this was going to come true. She seemed to fancy herself a modern day Woodward. You know, she was going to be the one to get the leaks, to bring them down and show. And this is what our team pulled something, just a little sample of Rachel Maddow on this story. This is soundbite number 10. Take a listen. Russia.

Russia. Vladimir Putin. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia hates Russia. Russia. Russia. Putin. Russia's. Russia. Russia. listen. Russia, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, hate Russia, Russia, Russia, Putin, Russia's Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russia, Russia, Moscow, Moscow, Russia, Russian, pro-Russian, Russian, Russia, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russians, Russian, Russian, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians,

Russians, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russia, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Moscow, Russian, Russian, Russia, Putin, Russian, Russian, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Putin, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, against us, Russians, Russians, Russia, against the US, the Russians, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian government scheme, the Russians, Vladimir Putin, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Russia, Putin, Putin and Russia, Russia, Moscow, Russia, Russian, Russia, Russia, the Russians. That's amazing. That's amazing. And you know what, Eric, that was all from one show. That was from one show in March of 2017. But it does give you the flavor of what her show sounded like night after night. and I do think that there's something of a bifurcation. When she was covering, you know, sort of like trials and court proceedings in the United States, she was pretty careful to stick to what was in the papers.

With the dossier, I felt she went completely off the rails, and you're right. I think that that compilation does show the selectivity, you know, the story selection, which I think is that compilation does show the selectivity, you know, the story selection, which I think is a really important thing for news organizations to consider. How many segments are they giving over? How much total airtime are they giving over to something? Because I think that cements readers' and viewers' sort of view of the world as much as anything else does. Like, even if you have more or less

factual coverage of Russia, and it's the only thing you cover, that's a problem, you know? But you can feel the excitement, you know? I mean, I remember watching it being like, my gosh, people are salivating. They think this is going to be the thing that gets rid of the guy they hate. And it's like, okay, you know, you gotta, gosh, you gotta be so careful, especially when you have a story like this, which is just fraught intelligence, you know, sneaky intelligence sources that you can't verify firsthand. And now, of course, thanks to Horowitz, the IG, we have seen it fall apart. How about, let's talk about the lack of apology. She's never apologized or corrected the record, nor have most of the reporters who pumped the story. There's another montage I want

to play because what what the media did over and over was instead of saying this part has fallen apart, you know, like this as the story evolves, you can almost forgive a reporter who sees like, OK, this part fell apart. OK, that part fell apart. And then, you know, three, four or five years later, you're like, you know what, the whole thing was bullshit. And I apologize. You know, what we heard was, well, it hasn't been disproven. Nothing's been disproven yet. And we have a montage of that. This is soundbite nine. It may be dirty, but it ain't big. Is there anything in the dossier that has been disproven? No, no, I guess the answer, the short answer to the question. Has anything been soundly disproven about the Steele dossier? And I would agree with Jim Clapper, I haven't seen anything. Because a lot of these facts have not been disproven.

It's not been corroborated, but it hasn't been disproven either. The dossier, in fact, is far from bogus. The dossier is far from bogus. This portion of the dossier hasn't been publicly proven or definitively disproven, but obviously were it proven true, it would pretty definitively established extremely involved levels of collusion. I'm still waiting for the innocent narrative to come out. Some elements of the dossier have been verified, but none so far have been publicly disproven. To date, none of it has been disproven and whole big parts of it are holding up. The dossier holds up well. None of it has been disproven, as you said. It's a fact that

none of it, not one word has been disproven. In fact, a lot of it turned out to be right on the money. Oh, man, it's just embarrassing. That's put together by Fox News. Not disproven in almost all those. I think all of those were from MS or CNN. Your thoughts? these people about this ever since then. I've been calling them and emailing them and asking them, do you have any regrets about how you reported this? And just about down to the person and the organization, there has been no acknowledgement. Do they even respond to you? Oh, I get responses back, but I don't get a lot of on the record stuff. And at this point, I refuse to go off the record with them. But this is really, really shameful. I mean, I just want to say that in December 2019, when the IG report came out, Megan,

there were a couple different things in the IG or three different things in the IG report. One was that the Russian investigation was properly premised or appropriately premised. In other words, predicated or whatever. You're a lawyer. Another thing was that the FBI had screwed up the FISOs because they relied on the dossier. But the third one, and I felt it was maybe even the biggest one there, was that the dossier was total garbage. that the dossier was not worth the paper it was written on. And so I checked, this is what made me so mad, and well, it really riled me up because I went and looked at all the coverage of the Horowitz report, and almost down to the single organization, no one was emphasizing the collapse of the dossier.

And I said, oh, my God, these are all the same people who had been hyping the dossier, and now they're not turning around and saying, hmm, guess we were wrong. So that's why I did the series to begin with, because I felt there's never, ever been the reckoning. I mean, McClatchy to this day stands by its reporting on Michael Cohen. And the thing about that compilation that you just ran is that when you say something hasn't been disproven, that could apply to any conspiracy theory that floats in the ether, that has ever floated in the ether. Hasn't been disproven that Bill Gates put a chip in the vaccine. Like, come on. Don't be ridiculous. UFOs.

UFOs. Pick your pizza game. But that's real. Stop that. UFOs. Don't get me started. We did a whole show on it. Yeah.

Okay. Sorry. But you know what I'm saying, right? That doesn't, you know, logically, that doesn't serve as buttressing an argument, right? That it hasn't been disproven because it could be so far out there that it will never be disproven. And that's never been the reporting standard anyway. When do you ever say like somebody gave me a tip? Great. Has it been disproven? No. Run with it. That's not the standard for reporting. It's absurd. It's absurd that they ever, you know, look, I think you can say that for like a week, right? Maybe a week or two. But we're five years in.

Yeah. You know, we're five years in. Once you have an inspector general report, I mean, it's time to face the music and be honest about the fact that you were wrong. You got the story wrong. And so now that actually didn't do it for a lot of outlets. That wasn't the come to Jesus moment. But now the John Durham investigation goes on. And now he's on indictment three. And we just had Kash Patel sort of walking us through that. And so now the latest indictment basically really puts the lie to some very specific reporting that outlets did. Washington Post is one of them. They have issued a correction because this guy, Danchenko, has basically been accused explicitly of not basing his reporting, quote unquote, his sourcing, his reports on this guy, Sergei Milan. That wasn't his source. His source was this Clinton crony, this other guy. And they were working together to come together with this nonsense and they gave it to Steele.

And so the specific report saying Sergei Milan was the source for the Steele dossier, you can't leave those up there. You know, I mean, you just can't. So you tell me, because it sounds like the Washington Post has issued a correction on at least that piece of it. Are other outlets coming to terms with the latest indictment and what's in there? So the three main ones that I reported on were the Post and the Wall Street Journal and ABC. Last Friday, the Post took a pretty drastic or pretty dramatic response. It completely rewrote the stories that Millian was mentioned in, and it put editor's notes saying that it could no longer stand by that material, and that they had gone back to their sources and the sources couldn't stand by what they had originally told the Post,

or at least one of them said that he or she couldn't stand by what they'd originally told the Post. So the Post did a big thing where they re-edited the story. They didn't call it a retraction. They put an editor's note on, but many people rightly like you call it a correction or a retraction. I thought a retraction was in order. But I thought,

I think that the hygiene there is overall pretty good, you know, pretty sound. Wall Street Journal appears to be sort of like taking it and reporting on these new allegations and putting them alongside their old story. To me, that doesn't work because, quite frankly, the Wall Street Journal based its original story on like one anonymous source. And then on the other hand, you have an

indictment which uses the strength of federal, you know, evidence gathering, um, you know, um, uh, power, you know, you have emails, you have interviews, you have all kinds of, you have the full investigative weight of the federal government getting all this information and it completely contradicts what you reported based on one anonymous source. That seems like to me, like kind of a blowout, doesn't it to you? Yeah. Yeah. It's time. It's like the curtain has fallen. It's time to get real about what's on stage and the audience is seeing. And yet they're not. And here to your example, back to Rachel Maddow, this apparently from November 4th, when that was that was the day I think it was the day the Denchenko indictment came down. Yeah.

And here's Rachel Maddow and her coverage of that that evening. It's also worth noting that this new indictment, just like the last one, spends comparatively little time talking about these alleged false statements and a lot of time talking about people Igor Denchenko came in contact with or talked to who are horror of horrors, Democrats. The unmistakable impression is that this indictment is designed to smear Christopher Steele's intelligence reports as things that were deliberately made up and concocted by rascally Democrats. And whether intentionally or not, when you look at the balance of those pages, they have subtle dog whistles to these kind of pro-Trump conspiracy

theories. So as you look through there, these subtle sort of one-sided portrayals of the facts that lay down a narrative that plays into this sort of prior assertions by President Trump, by the prior administration, by his enablers in Congress and the media, that this was all somehow nonsense. And that can't be unintentional, in my opinion. That's unbelievable. That's Peter Strzok. That's one of the guys at the FBI who could face indictment at some point. That's not the guy you put on to talk about whether this is whether John Durham's investigation is going anywhere. Of course, he's going to say, no, it's nonsense. Well, that that that that particular segment that blows my mind, really, quite frankly.

I mean, I will say, just as a caveat before I talk about Maddow here, the previous, the second Durham indictment has been blasted by some of the people who are elliptically mentioned in there. Some researchers who have said that Durham improperly abridged their emails and stuff. So, you know, as you know from your own legal career, you never, ever place 100% faith in the charges and indictment. They're allegations. That said, what Maddow did there with that segment was one of the most disingenuous things, certainly the most disingenuous thing I've seen on her program. And it borders on just outright dishonesty because she is essentially dodging her own history with the dossier and pointing over, you know, to the wider Russia-Trump tableau, to the wider Russia-Trump situation. And there are indeed many prongs of Russia-Trump that are not mentioned in the dossier. So I can see someone making that argument, but not her.

Because she doesn't have the credibility and she doesn't have the background of having been skeptical of the dossier in order to make that argument. She went all in on the dossier. And now someone here is exposing the dossier as a fraud with no sources. And she's saying, well, look over there now. Yeah. And she's saying, oh, what they're really complaining about is that the source, you know, Christopher Steele's main source, this Danchenko, they're really upset that he was cavorting with Democrats. It's like, well, no, what he's saying is that Danchenko, the main source for the dossier, was colluding with, for lack of a better term, this guy, Charles Dolan, who was a Clinton crony, which is very relevant. That's very relevant when it comes to sourcing and credibility and whether this was anything anybody should have placed any stock in whatsoever. It's 100% relevant. In fact, it's a gift to the public knowledge on this question. I mean, whatever Durham's motives are, we can talk about that, you know, till the cows come in. I don't, that's not my bailiwick, right? But we now,

you know, it's basically, you know, it's alleged here in a pretty competent way. It hasn't been, it hasn't been refuted by Dolan himself, right? So you have this situation where this guy, according to Rachel Maddow, is one of Christopher Steele's deep cover sources. And where is he going for information? He's going to a democratic opera. The emperor has no clothing. You know, nothing. There is nothing there. There is no professionalism behind this research operation.

There are no real good sources. And so he is, this guy who's in charge of putting together this dossier, is scrambling. He is scrambling, clamoring for any information he can get. So it's this circular loop where this research project, this opposition research project is funded by Democrats. And then a long career, longtime Democrat is feeding information into it. Yeah. You know, and I mean, it bears noting that, of course, this was no small deal in the Trump presidency. This remained a constant distraction and a massive one and a legal distraction for him between the impeachment and the never stopping media coverage and the rush to judgment by his detractors. And it was just in the media everywhere you looked for years, for years. So it's a big deal that it was made up and that the press won't acknowledge it falling

apart entirely. It's a it's a big deal. And I mean, we could spend another whole segment talking about how this helps undermine faith in the media. You know, Eric, I've said before, it's like the media has been so they don't understand why people don't trust them. You know, why don't you leave it? Why don't you believe us when we say the vaccine safe for because of things like this, the people you're trying to convince about that a lot of them are Republican. You can't get it back after you've lost the credibility. It's really hard.

Anyway, well, let's do that as a part two another day because it's been a pleasure talking to you and your coverage on this has been truly must read. Really appreciate the honesty. Well, thank you for having me on. Have a good day. All the best. I want to give you a quick programming note. Tomorrow, we're going to take a dive into the James O'Keefe story. You know, the FBI raided his house and that of two of his reporters. It was absurd over a diary he'd already contacted law enforcement on.

And since when does the FBI investigate a missing diary of a presidential candidate? Biden wasn't even president when this happened, when the diary went missing. So we're going to take a deep dive on that with his lawyer. Plus, we're going to have the latest on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial with his former lawyer. Robert Barnes will be back on the show. Quick update for you from the trial. The ADA, I think they've broken for lunch. The ADA is arguing Binger. He's talking about provocation. Yes, of course. He's trying to say if the defendant provoked, he must exhaust all reasonable means of escape. Did he? He didn't have to shoot. He chose to run to the cars. The crowd was already running away. There was a huge open space. He

could have circled back around provocation. That's what it's going to come down to. Go ahead and take a look at our video from last week. YouTube dot com slash Megyn Kelly. If you want to watch it, download the show and we'll do it all over again tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.