The Megyn Kelly Show - The Russiagate ‘Scandal’ and Media’s Shaming of the Unvaccinated with Glenn Greenwald | Ep. 162
Episode Date: September 17, 2021Megyn Kelly is joined by co-founder of “The Intercept”, author of “Securing Democracy”, and Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, Glenn Greenwald, to discuss the new proof that the ‘Russiagate�...�� scandal targeting Donald Trump was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign, the unprecedented migrant problem in Texas, the drone ban placed on journalists trying to cover the surge, General Mark Milley’s defense of calls to China as ‘perfectly within the scope of the job’, Don Lemon’s pubic shunning of unvaccinated Americans, Anna Wintour’s crusade to make the Met Gala even more exclusive and insufferable, Meghan and Harry’s airbrushed Time Magazine cover (and life), 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
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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 Friday. Joining me today,
Glenn Greenwald, one of my very favorite people, a brilliant, brilliant journalist,
and just all around good guy. He's the co-founder of The Intercept, author of Securing Democracy and a Substack journalist.
We've got so much to cover from the new crisis at our southern border, the rising two class system in America that pins the mask against the unmasked.
Updates on General Mark Milley's communications with China, and now he's speaking out in his own defense. And incredibly new proof today that the endless Russiagate scandal was, as we now know,
a setup. But wait until you hear the evidence that's just come out. Glenn, so good to have
you here. Thanks for being here. Always happy to be here, Megan. I think
in addition to that very generous introduction, I also need some kind of indication that I'm a
very special friend to the show, since some of your some kind of indication that I'm a very special friend
to the show. Since some of your listeners may not know that I was actually the first guest,
the debut guest that helped launch it. I'm very proud of that. And I'm thrilled to see your
success. Thank you. We owe it all to you. Really, we should have had you on the first day of the
serious launch. Not all to me, maybe like 80%. You've also done a lot of work for the show too.
Well, you know, you actually were an inspiration
when I started the podcast
because our conversation was so good.
It remains one of our most downloaded episodes,
our very first podcast ever, September of last year,
that I was like, I am doing the right thing.
This is what I want to be doing.
Long form conversations with smart people
from whom I can learn.
I don't have to get up and down on the story in two minutes. You know, it was sort of a taste of what was to come.
That's nice. Yeah, I totally agree. I think this format brings out the best in everybody.
All right. So let's talk about the news of the day, which is which begins with a guy named Michael
Sussman. This story is incredible. And I recommend that everybody read. Well, you should read Andy
McCarthy on National Review no matter what, because he's brilliant.
But especially if it involves something legal, he's always got great insights.
And he has a great piece today that walks us through what the story is with Michael Sussman.
Broad brush. Here's what's happened.
We've gotten an indictment now in the John Durham investigation.
He was the special counsel appointed to look into how the hell did Russiagate happen? How did we have, you know, all of these accusations being hurled around and an impeachment and all of this based
on a bunch of nonsense. So we have the special counsel, John Durham, looking into it. And he
has just secured a grand jury indictment. His investigation is not over, but he had to do it
because of the five year statute of limitations against this one guy was about to run this set this this saturday or sunday so he's gotten an indictment against michael sussman who is
michael sussman he's a prominent cyber security lawyer who happened to work for hillary clinton's
campaign who went into the fbi five years ago and said basically there's there's a problem. There's a back channel communication based on where there must be fire, FBI. And he's speaking to the
general counsel of the FBI at the time with whom he had a relationship and didn't disclose any of
his campaign ties. And apparently, according to the FBI, anyway, he's denying it when asked,
specifically denied that he was representing the Clinton campaign. And what Andy McCarthy's reporting shows us because he read the whole indictment
is the same time the guy was denying his relationship with the Clinton campaign, Glenn,
he was billing his very time meeting with the FBI back to the Clinton campaign.
So it seems like they've got him dead to rights if they can prove any of this.
And all of this tells us what?
So this is the second indictment that the Durham investigation has uncovered or extracted.
The first one took place in January when an FBI lawyer pled guilty to having lied to the
FISA court, submitting altered documents to the FISA court in order to persuade that court to issue
warrants to allow them to spy on Carter Page, who, as everyone might remember, was a former official
of the Trump campaign. It was somebody that Russiagators and liberal fanatics adamantly
believed was about to be in prison, that he was a Russian agent. And when the Mueller report came
out, they said they couldn't find any evidence that Carter Page ever was acting as an agent for the Kremlin, but they lied to the
FISA court. The FBI did, and Durham got a guilty plea from the FBI lawyer who actually altered
documents to convince the FISA court to let them spy. So this is the second time now that he's
found alleged criminality, not as part of the alleged Trump-Russia collusion that consumed
the media and our politics for four years or more, but as part of the origins of that scandal.
Who is it that created that scandal and how is it that it got disseminated? And so the fact that
people, there were so many media frauds, Megan, as part of the Trump-Russia story that I think
people have forgotten them all. But this issue about Trump supposedly having a secret server that allowed him and his organization
to communicate with this Russian bank was very consequential during the 2016 campaign,
in large part because they got one journalist, Franklin Foer, who used to be the editor in chief
of the New Republic at Slate now, who wrote an article
ratifying it all. They got Hillary Clinton herself to issue a statement during the campaign,
tweeting it, saying, this is extremely disturbing. We know that Jake Sullivan,
who at the time was with the Clinton campaign, is now Biden's national security advisor,
was deeply enmeshed in this story. And then you had all of these Russiagate personalities on TV
who profited so much from pushing this conspiracy theory,
Chris Hayes and Natasha Bertrand, who now is at CNN,
all of those MSNBC people who for two years claimed
that this story was very substantial.
And one of the things the indictment says,
and I think it's the reason why they're so angry at this lawyer
who went to them and pushed it, was the FBI quickly concluded that there was actually no
evidence to it, that this was a very ordinary kind of internet activity, that there was no
evidence, there was any communication, let alone a clandestine server between Trump and the Russians.
So the FBI learned very quickly that the story was false, but let the media for two years
treat it as though it were real.
And they're now kind of trying to scapegoat this lawyer, who definitely is to blame, by
saying, oh, he tricked us.
If he had told us the truth that he was working for Hillary Clinton's campaign, we wouldn't
have even looked at it.
We would have known it was just a political trick.
But by hiding from us the fact
that he was working for the Clinton campaign and pretending he was just an ordinary citizen,
we spent our time and resources chasing it down, but quickly realized there was nothing to it.
This is what Rick Grinnell just said on Fox News. He was like he's basically thrown the
card on the claim by the FBI that they didn't understand right from the get go that this guy was a Hillary Clinton
campaign operative and was not there as just Joe Good citizen. Here's Rick on Fox the other night.
I don't believe that the FBI officials were duped by an outside lawyer working with Hillary Clinton
who lied about his client inside the FBI, the Russian collusion investigation continued,
not because some lawyer lied to them
about who he was working for,
because the FBI leadership
knew this information was wrong.
They knew it was made up.
They continued the investigation
because it would help Hillary Clinton.
And that's what you're saying,
but that doesn't really help Michael
Sussman today because you can't lie to the FBI, even if the FBI was like, this guy's probably a
liar. You can't do it. And they have a new problem to deal with, which is this investigation. Right.
I mean, John Durham, he didn't waive any right to to pursue this claim. And so Michael Sussman
is going to have to answer for, you know, mistruths that he offered to the FBI. But it's beyond that, Glenn, right? Because
what they allege is that this guy, Michael Sussman, was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign
and for another client and the other clients unnamed. But apparently this other client
expected to get an important government cybersecurity position in the Hillary Clinton administration. And this guy, this unnamed
guy, ran a tech company. And the FBI or John Durham, I should say, his people have spoken,
I guess, with the employees of this tech corporation who say our boss made us run
extensive queries regarding Donald Trump and his campaign and their databases. And we were
uncomfortable doing this kind of spying.
Because, you know, we knew it was wrong. But our boss is a very powerful person and made us do it.
And we went to our boss and said, you know what, the evidence is pretty weak. This is weak sauce.
Like, as you point out, this is sort of very benign server activity that you're trying to claim as a link to Russia. that that executive was like, I don't care because basically this is a political project. So this is what we have here is this tech exec who wanted a job in the Hillary administration and Hillary campaign, the Hillary campaign, a lawyer, very connected with the Clinton campaign using privileged access to non-public information. This is from Andy McCarthy now for political purposes.
They concoct it into a political narrative that they know is baseless, but they can convincingly spin it to suggest Donald Trump is in cahoots with Putin. They simultaneously peddle it to lie to the
media and the FBI. By the way, they got it placed in the Steele dossier to the infamous Steele dossier. And the FBI opens an investigation of Donald Trump because Team Clinton, Team Clinton has
made it happen.
It's all there black and white.
Yeah, I mean, there's so much there.
And to me, the overarching point of everything you said, of what Andy McCarthy wrote, of
what Rick Grinnell said on Fox.
To me, the overarching point is that whatever
wrongdoing there was on the part of Trump related actors, most of which, if not all of which took
place not prior to the Mueller probe, but during it, almost all of the convictions were process
crimes. If they lied to Mueller, they covered up evidence, things like that. No one was convicted or even charged on the core allegation that launched the entire scandal and
launched the Mueller investigation, which is, did any Americans criminally conspire
with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election? That was the core foundational
claim that the Clinton campaign made that led to that four-year scandal.
And not only did Robert Mueller close his investigation by indicting zero people,
zero Americans on that central claim, he also issued a report in which he said he couldn't
find any evidence to establish any criminality with regard to that. So what I think this is
starting to show is that there was real criminality in connection with Russiagate.
And during the 2016 campaign, it just is the criminality and the corruption was done by those who propagated the Russiagate conspiracy theory and peddled the scandal, both in politics and law and in media and in government and not the people who they spent all that time accusing.
Let me just make a couple of quick points on some of what you just said. So as to Rick Grinnell's point that
he seriously doubts that the FBI really believed that this Clinton lawyer, David Sussman, was just
some average citizen, kind of like a whistleblower on his own accord going in. Of course, that's the
case. You know, David Sussman was a partner in Perkins Coie.
Is it David or Michael? I think it's Michael Sussman. Michael Sussman. I think David.
How many Sussmans are there? Okay. Michael Sussman. Keep going.
Yeah. So he's a partner in Perkins Coie, which is a huge Wall Street or Washington law firm as well
that's highly connected to the Democratic Party. One of the partners in that firm is Mark Elias,
who has received a lot of social media stardom over the last four years. He was the general
counsel to the Clinton campaign, the lead lawyer in the Clinton campaign. He served in the same
role during the John Kerry campaign in 2004. So the idea that there's a partner at this law firm
that is very intertwined with the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic Party for years and years and years, one of the most influential in Washington,
just happened to stumble on this information as a private citizen, of course, is something that the
FBI would never have believed. But I, you know, for me, Megan, I keep getting back to the fact that
what to me this really is more than anything is a media story.
You know, when I was at The Intercept in 2016, when the story was published,
we immediately, all of us, even the kind of hardcore liberals said,
this story doesn't add up at all.
There's zero evidence to justify a claim of this incredible.
And we actually published an article by four journalists,
all of whom have extensive tech experience in analyzing internet
data. And it essentially said the story has huge evidentiary holes in it. But MSNBC and CNN and
The Atlantic and The New Yorker and The New York Times were all off and running with it.
And it became a major part of the campaign. So we can debate the legalities of it. I mean,
it is interesting. The question of whether lying to the FBI should be a crime is something that was debated,
at least for me, during the Michael Flynn prosecution.
I actually agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other longstanding liberals on the court
that it shouldn't be a crime to lie to the FBI without more conduct to it.
Otherwise, the FBI can kind of lure you into becoming a criminal
like they did with General Flynn
by saying, tell us about that conversation.
And you should have the right to deny
to the FBI that you've done something
you've actually done.
But leave that debate aside.
I took that side with the Michael Flynn case.
It's still my view.
It's Ruth Bader Ginsburg's view.
That's not the prevailing view.
The prevailing view is
if you lie to the FBI, you're a criminal.
That's how they prosecuted General Flynn.
They prosecuted Martha Stewart that way. And they're now prosecuting
this Hillary lawyer that way. So, you know, I still think, though, that the story is a political
and media scam, that it was the media who participated in knowingly disseminating a story
that had no basis in evidence from the start because they thought that it could manipulate
the outcome of the election in Hillary Clinton's favor. Yes, no, I agree with you. So and I don't even think
that that the Durham investigation is all that interested in Michael Sussman. They had to pull
the trigger on this because the statute of limitations was about to expire. But I think
he much would have preferred to come out with a full kit and caboodle when he's done and say this
is these are all the wrongdoers and this is how they concocted this narrative. But what's interesting about this case is that
the indictment tells the story. For the first time, I think we get in great detail where John
Durham's going, what evidence he's found, and you have it exactly right. This is going to be a
sweeping indictment, used not in the criminal sense, but possibly of the Hillary Clinton campaign and how she and her
media and legal operatives unleashed this entire false narrative on all of us. And the media,
desperate to bring down Trump, ran with it, completely checked their skepticism,
their willingness, their responsibility to investigate and went with any story from the
Steele dossier to all of this
nonsense without bothering to check because it was too good. Yeah, I mean, that to me is the
one of the principal scandals of the Trump years. The Trump era is what happened to American
journalism. I've always been a critic of colleagues in the media. I've always had different views
about how journalism should be done than a lot of people in kind of the corporate world of media
companies. But my views of them radically changed as a result of their conduct during primarily the
Russiagate scandal when I saw their willingness to, and this isn't an exaggeration, relinquish and sacrifice every
precept of journalistic ethics and limitations on what we're supposed to do as reporters
in this monomaniacal pursuit to first help Hillary Clinton win and then, once she didn't,
to destroy Donald Trump's presidency. And it really is true, Megan. And I saw it from the
inside. I saw it from reporting on this story
for four years to the exclusion of almost every other, that it wasn't just recklessness,
that they just weren't careful enough in how they were vetting this information.
Anytime the CIA or the FBI or Adam Schiff or other Democrats on the committee, on the House
committee or the Senate committee investigating Russiagate, leaked to them information that was incriminating about Donald Trump, they would instantly publish
it without caring whether it was true or false. It wasn't that, oh, they looked and they didn't
do such a good job. It was they didn't care. They wanted information in their hands, in part
because it served their political interests, but in part, it also served their pecuniary interests. I know you've talked about this before. In 2015, MSNBC and CNN both were on
the brink of collapse. Nobody was watching their shows. The New York Times was having serious
financial difficulty. Trump in general, but Russiagate in particular particular was a huge boon to the whole media industry.
People were not just watching cable news at record rates for years because of their fears of Vladimir Putin and his relationship with Donald Trump and this conspiracy theory that he had taken over our country through blackmail, through the Steele dossier and the like.
They were buying books and making many, many people rich who were peddling these conspiracy theories. The people who wrote it most, like Natasha Bertrand and others, got promoted. She started at Business Insider, then moved to The Atlantic, now is at CNN on television. It was great for all of their careers. It was great for the industry, and it also served their political interests of destroying Donald Trump at the expense of all of our politics. Our politics was swallowed up by this fake scandal,
hundreds of millions of dollars spent chasing a non-existent scandal. And they were lying and
disseminating knowing lies the entire time, both the political circles of the Clinton campaign
and their allies in the security state and their media partners. And that to me is the huge scandal.
The lies told by the media over and over, democracy dies in darkness, Washington Post.
OK, I look forward to their front page article about what we've just learned and what we've
been learning about the John Durham report and where it's going. But look at MSNBC. You
mentioned Chris Hayes. Rachel Maddow has never backed off of that. She was as
deep into all this nonsense as anyone. There was a report. She was just renegotiating her deal with
MSNBC. They reportedly were trying to get her to stay for thirty five million dollars a year.
That's what that kind of lying gets you. Thirty five million dollars a year at the NBC empire.
OK, there's no accountability. There's no disincentive to
keep doing it. And people who watch her think that she's the most credible person in news.
You know, there's I would say there's four journalists who were most responsible for this
Trump Alpha Bank story, which the indictment itself. And remember, this indictment was issued
by John Durham, who's a
longtime respected prosecutor, but with the approval of Merrick Garland, Biden's attorney
general. So there's zero partisanship going on in the Durham investigation, at least so far as we
know. But certainly Merrick Garland approved this indictment. And this indictment says that this
story was fake and that the FBI concluded early on that it was fake. The reporters most responsible for
pushing it, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Natasha Bertrand, and Frank Foer, not one of them,
not one, has even acknowledged this indictment or mentioned it, let alone held themselves
accountable for what they did in light of these new facts. Why? Because they know their jobs don't require that. They know that
their viewers don't care if they tell lies as long as those lies serve the right political side.
That is the warped incentive scheme that has been created. I mean, look, I was close friends with
Rachel Maddow for a long time. I used to go on her show all the time. She's an extremely smart
journalist, an extremely smart human being. But over the last five years, she became probably the single most partisan loyalist on television, even more than some of the people on Fox who I would put into that same category, willing to say or do anything as long as it advanced the cause of undermining Donald Trump. And as a result, she made one falsehood after the
next, peddled one insane conspiracy theory after the next. You could watch her virtually crying on
TV talking about how Vladimir Putin is going to cut off all the heat to people in North Dakota.
I mean, crazy, crazy stuff that got debunked over and over. She was the prime champion of
the Steele dossier that has been now wildly discredited. And as you say, not only didn't she suffer any repercussions,
she got richly rewarded. And that was the incentive scheme that has now been created,
which is if you lie on behalf of American liberalism, that is the way to succeed and
thrive in journalism. And that's what's so deeply concerning. That's the thing. I don't even know
that I was going to say she was used. She was used by them. But I think that's too generous to her. I think she was on the inner
circle. She she understood. I don't think she was duped. I think she understood that there was very
good reason to doubt all of this. But she's so agenda driven and perhaps driven to line her own
wallet that she didn't care. Yeah, you know, it's always hard to know other people's
motives, right? I mean, it's hard to know our own, but sometimes it could just be that you become
such a fanatic, right? You become so fanatical and convinced that your cause is just that you lose
willingly any moral constraints on what you do. You just tell yourself, I never need to pull back
and ask whether what I'm doing is right or whether what I'm saying is true. Because what I know
foundationally is that my cause is so just, I'm such a deeply good person that anything I do is
justified, kind of a means justified, an end justified the means mentality. And I think that
was at least part of what her and so many other
people in media ended up getting swept up in. Some of them are just dumb. Some of them are
just kind of susceptible to group thing because they don't have very good critical faculties.
Yeah. A lot of them are. I got a leak from the FBI.
Yeah. All right. Now I have to take this opportunity to give my husband, one of my
husband's books, a shameless plug. He's, He's an author. His name is Doug Brunt.
And he wrote a book called The Means,
as in The Means Justify the Ends.
And it's about politics and media
and how people within both of those groups
too often have that very mentality.
And it's a great novel that sort of takes you
in depth on a presidential campaign.
Anyway, it was a bestseller.
You'll love it.
All right, I am joined by one of my favorite people,
Glenn Greenwald.
We're going to pick it up with him after the break on a couple of things.
Mark Milley now speaking out in his defense. We'll tell you what he's saying.
And we're going to dive into immigration because a new crisis has sprung up along our southern border.
A surge of 10,000 people under a bridge right now. It's a humanitarian crisis.
What is the Biden administration doing about it? Plus, Don Lemon is now calling for the shaming and shunning of some Americans.
We'll get into that. Stay tuned.
Welcome back, everyone, to The Megyn Kelly Show, joined today by Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.
I want to turn now to the southern border. 10,000 immigrants
have arrived in Del Rio, Texas over the last few days. And the FAA has implemented a two-week
temporary flight restriction over the area. So no news drones can get proper footage right now
of this unfolding crisis. Glenn's got some thoughts on that and says everyone who cares
about journalism should be demanding an explanation.
And yet they're not.
So let's just frame up the crisis before we get to the ban on the airspace, Glenn.
Already, we've got illegal crossings at a 20-year high, 21-plus year high.
Thousands of Haitian immigrants are down there right now.
They crossed the Rio Grande.
They're sleeping outdoors under a bridge in South Texas. It's being described as a humanitarian emergency. Customs and Border Patrol is saying this is unprecedented, an unprecedented logistical challenge. They don't they they don't know what to do. How are they going to take care of all these people? There's like a bunch of port-a-johns. That's about all they have. They have no running water. They got nothing. This in the midst of a time in which in July, we had 200,000 people
apprehended at the border. That was a record. In August, we had another 200,000 people apprehended
at the border, and only half of those were returned to Mexico. So that's a net of just
200,000 people coming into the United States. And I'm sure they're being processed right now.
In reality, what happens is they say they want asylum. We say, OK, show up for a court proceeding and only 15 percent ever get asylum and then they're released back out into the United States. So the system is completely messed up from the get go. But this is happening because they believe Biden's going to give him a pass that they're going to be able to stay in the United States. This is their one chance. Now they're here. We don't know what to do. Yeah.
I mean, you know, there is an element of truth to the argument that in a lot of these countries
like Guatemala and El Salvador and Nicaragua, the United States has been interfering in
those countries for a long time, often fueling civil wars and over, you know, engineering
coups and that a lot of the suffering that these people confront in
these countries can be attributed to the fact that our own government has been a cause, not the only
cause, but a cause of instability in that region based on the Monroe Doctrine that we control out
in America. So you can make the argument that we have some responsibility to the people in these
countries, like, you know, like a lot of people believe we have responsibility to certain people
in Afghanistan after having been there for 20 years people believe we have responsibilities to certain people in Afghanistan
after having been there for 20 years,
who we made promises to
after destabilizing their country and the like.
So that's an argument that I think we can debate
about what is our responsibility?
Should we be helping those countries?
How do we help them?
The problem is, is that this issue of immigration
was probably the single most politicized one
during the Trump years.
Whenever I would try and get answers from people, what is it that Donald Trump has done
that is so morally evil that justify these comparisons to like Adolf Hitler that make
him the worst president in the world? And your view of things that you said about George Bush,
but now you like Bush and say that about Trump, they would instantly say his cruelty in terms of
his treatment of immigrants. And so Biden made this a big campaign issue. Started the Democrats saying, we need to welcome these people. We need to be more
humane to these people. And they heard that message as you should come. If you come, we will
welcome you. And you don't need to debate that. That's what they say. And so the Democrats
extracted a huge amount of political capital and political gain, manipulating the emotions of these immigrants
who are fleeing for a lot of times very good reasons. Their country is drowning in crime and
joblessness and all other kinds of problems. They're not evil people for wanting to leave.
But the Biden administration played with their emotions by encouraging them to come,
but then doing absolutely nothing to process them and hoping, and it turned out that it would be the
case that the media would lose interest in everything that's happening at the border.
Now that Donald Trump is no longer president. That's exactly right. And, and she Kamala Harris
was basically saying, okay, I'll do it. I'll be the person who takes care of the root causes
of, of corruption down in Latin America. And forgive me for not remembering whether it was
Guatemala or Ecuador, but she was like, yeah. And she was like, I will hold, you know, I'll speak truth to power. I will
hold you accountable. And, and the president was like, it was not me. I'm good. And then
all this corruption started to unfold around him. All these stories started coming out about his
corruption. She was like, la la la la. I do not hear a thing. I don't know. Nevermind all that
stuff I said. So we're not holding anybody accountable for anything. We're not addressing root causes and we're not addressing acute
results right here at our southern border. It's basically Greg Abbott who's going to have to deal
with this by himself. You know, it's so interesting is the policy, the way the politics have changed
around immigration is so fascinating to me. When I, you know, I first started writing about politics
in 2005. That was when I kind of
transitioned out of being a lawyer into being a journalist. And back then, the idea of what they
called comprehensive immigration reform was being championed by George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And it was viewed as kind of a plot by the Chamber of Commerce and big business and,
you know, international capital to flood various markets with cheap labor in
order to undercut unions and undercut the American worker because people who are pro
business wanted a huge flood of immigrants because they wanted the labor market to be
as saturated as possible so that wages would decline.
And people on the left, like Bernie Sanders and labor unions, were famously
anti-immigrant, as were a lot of civil rights groups, on the grounds that the people who are
going to suffer most from this uncontrolled immigration were likely to be African Americans,
American citizens who are Black, who are going to lose their jobs as a result of this glut of
immigrants. And now it's virtually unmentionable taboo on the left to even raise the
question of whether it's fair to American workers, the people that the left is supposed to represent,
or fair to these immigrants to have this huge flow of thousands and tens of thousands of people and
hundreds of thousands of people coming from the region in which I live, South America, Central
America, that the United States absolutely absolutely completely ill-equipped to
handle. And you see a humanitarian crisis, but also the more that enter, the more the American
worker is harmed. And the politics have changed so dramatically that if you're a Democrat,
if you're a liberal, even if you're on the left, you have to see it through like an identity prism
that either you're a racist or you're in favor of
uncontrolled immigration. And I think that's really distorted the debate. All right, stand
by because we're going to be right back with Glenn Greenwald in one second.
Welcome back, everyone, to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm joined now by Substack journalist Glenn
Greenwald, and we're going to dive into General Mark Milley,
because in recent days, this guy's been in some hot water over revealed communications with his Chinese counterparts.
And, Glenn, he is coming out today and defending himself.
Now, keep in mind, this comes from a new book that's coming out from Bob Woodward and Bob Costa.
No more Woodward and Bernstein.
Now it's Woodward and Costa.
And so we haven't seen—I haven't confirmed any of this stuff. No one has,
but this is what they report that, that Milley basically subverted the chain of command and conspired with the Chinese to let them know that if Donald Trump launched a nuclear attack or some
other attack in his waning days in office, that Milley was in charge and he'd make sure it didn't happen. And that he looked at all of his top generals and said, you understand
procedure runs through me if Donald Trump gives such an order. Milley comes out today and says,
I think it's best that I reserve my comments on the record until I do that in front of the
lawmakers who have the lawful responsibility to oversee the US military. I will go into any level of detail that Congress wants to in a couple of weeks because he's
supposed to be speaking to them. But apparently he's saying that he believes his behavior was
perfectly within the duties and responsibilities of his job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
saying that these calls are routine and were done to reassure both allies and adversaries in this case in order to ensure strategic stability.
Seems like just another way of saying I did it, but I had a good reason to do it.
Your thoughts?
This was, I think, a really underrated dynamic in the Trump years, which is right from the beginning.
There were all kinds of reports about the CIA purposely undermining Trump. They
would celebrate it in the media. They would say the CIA has decided that there's certain classified
information they don't trust Trump to have because they're afraid he'll pass it to Russia or handle
it irresponsibly. There were stories about Trump ordering troops to be removed from Syria and
Pentagon officials and CIA officials deceived him into believing they had when, in fact, they just Kelly, who was the chief of staff of President
Trump and General Mattis and H.R. McMaster, who was an astroskeletal advisor, heralding them for
saying, you know, the people are going to save us from Trump. And then on the other hand, saying,
oh, there's no such thing as a deep state in the United States. Only crazy conspiracy theorists
believe that when the whole idea of a deep state, which comes from decades of foreign policy scholarship, is that if you have a democracy on the surface, but in back of it, have this kind of permanent military and intelligence apparatus that acts as a backdrop or a safeguard against a president who was elected doing bad things, that's what a deep
state is. It's something there that will override the will of the elected leader by exercising their
own judgment about what's best for the democracy. This is what happened repeatedly. And this seems
to me to be to be what happened here, which is this was not a case where General Milley
called a concerned adversary or other country worried about something to reassure
him, he was calling the Chinese to essentially tell them that he would go behind Trump's back
if Trump was doing anything that he thought was too threatened to the Chinese and would tell them
about it without permission and would act to stop Trump. That is an extraordinary thing to do
because it's to take away some civilian control of our government and hand it to the Trump. That is an extraordinary thing to do because it's to take away some civilian
control of our government and hand it to the military. Yep. And now you've got it's I think
it's 26 Republican representatives, a retired general calling for a military treason probe
of General Milley saying, look, this is blatant disregard of civilian control. He gave aid and
comfort to America's principal adversary, the Chinese Communist Party. His pledge to China is nothing
less than outright treason, they say, to conspire with a communist, malfeasant, hostile and
genocidal government about our intentions or lack thereof with utter disregard to the implications
of said promise on our national security or our service members. It's nothing short of craving at
best and treasonous. I mean, that's the thing that I can't get past, Glenn. If Milley did this,
it's telegraphing so much to the Chinese, right? It's basically saying,
I got a guy in the Oval Office who's a nutcase who in his waning days in office might launch
a nuclear attack on you. Now, maybe Milley's counterpart over in China was grateful for the
information, but who the hell knows what the Chinese would have done with that information?
Who knows whether they would have had plans to grab some of our guys so that if they were in a hostage situation or wanted to create one to sort of hold over our heads or if they scrambled some sort of jets or if they moved some aircraft carrier.
I have no idea what the Chinese did, but you can make a good argument that we were less safe after Milley's phone call to his Chinese counterpart than we
were beforehand. And I do feel like this guy, he might not only need to lose his job, he might
wind up in cuffs. Look, I mean, beyond all that, like, do you trust Mark Milley more than Donald
Trump, which is the debate that they want to have? Because they know a lot of people view Donald
Trump as this kind of maniacal figure, especially after he lost the election and was mentally decomposing or whatever they claim.
There's there the founders in drafting the Constitution foresaw the possibility that the elected president would become mentally imbalanced or unstable or otherwise incapable to exercise the duties of his office. And there's a provision in the constitution about how you handle that. The 25th amendment, which is the cabinet can initiate those
proceedings. The Congress can, and you can remove or temporarily suspend a president if they're
actually, you know, kind of crazy. And the way that Mark Milley was suggesting to the Chinese
Trump had become, he didn't do any of that. He bypassed all of those constitutional processes, those Democratic safeguards to basically seize control of the levers of power on his own, even though nobody elected him.
And so, you know, I've been trying to think of an analogy to convince people who hate Trump to find this alarming.
So, you know, you can imagine, say, in 2011, when Obama and the Obama administration really wanted to get involved
in the NATO war in Libya to take Gaddafi out. Obama didn't really want to, but Hillary Clinton
did and Susan Rice did and Samantha Power did and convinced him along with the French and the
British to do it. And there was a big debate at the time. And the Republicans who controlled the
House actually voted against authorizing that war. And Obama ignored that and went ahead with with
bombing Libya anyway. And to this very day, Libya is a huge mess as a result. Imagine if a right
wing general inside the Pentagon had called Gaddafi during that debate and said, hey, I just
want you to know that anything Obama's planning with this war that I'm against that I think is
crazy and will unleash a huge crisis in that area
and in Europe, I'm going to tell you about in advance, you'll never be taken by surprise by
anything that we do. And I also give you my word that I'm going to do everything to stop Obama
from executing this war, even though he is my commander in chief and under the constitution,
I'm duty bound to follow his orders. That would be treason, clearly, calling an enemy of the United States with whom we were at war and vowing to give them
inside classified information and to subvert the president in order to protect that country.
That's exactly what General Milley did here. So whether it's illegal or not is something that I
don't want to rely on Bob Woodward and Bob Costa's book in order to conclude. I'd like to see a process that investigates that and surfaces the evidence. But politically, it seems extremely
dangerous, not just that it happened, but that so many people seem comfortable with it.
Yeah, I was talking about this with Michael Smirconish on his show on Sirius XM earlier
today. And he was saying, and I agree with him, Milley probably is the source.
Milley's probably Woodward's source. Milley wanted to make himself look good. Milley thought
an adoring liberal base would think this was amazing that, you know, he was the stalwart.
He was the barbarian at the gate, right, to prevent the evil Trump from doing something awful.
And I think, you know, I'm hoping that cooler heads who can put their politics to the side will prevail and say, prevent protecting us from the duly elected commander in chief from Biden on down. And,
and in fact,
that letter I was referencing from the Republican says the corporate media is
reporting the story quote,
as if America were rendered a great service by general Millie,
by the way,
that's what Millie has been counting on.
I believe if he's the source and I,
we just took a quick look.
Here's,
I mean,
CNN analyst,
Mark Hurtling said what Millie did was ensure the guard rails were in place.
I give him high marks for this based on what's described in that book.
MSNBC analyst, retired General Barry McCaffrey. It's part of the deterrence of unwanted combat.
It says, I think we ought to be fortunate. We got this Princeton grad, tremendous combat officer, extremely intelligent, law based, trying to safeguard the transition to a duly elected President Biden administration.
That's where the media is going with this. It's dangerous on many levels.
It's despicable. These are the same people who spent four years screaming about democratic norms
and about the threat to the constitutional order that the Trump administration
poses. And yet here they are explicitly, not implicitly, explicitly advocating that the person
who, whether you like him or not, is the person who is duly elected by the American people in a
free and fair election in 2016 to be their president, in their view, has such poor judgment
and is intellectually inferior to people like Mark Milley, who went to wherever, Princeton or
whatever, and who studies the sacred text of white rage and white fragility, that it is legitimate
and even desirable to clandestinely transfer power from the person the American people erroneously elected and instead
put it in the hands of somebody who's the guardian of the republic who nobody elected that, Megan,
this is, you know, it's kind of like the thing that ties together everything we've discussed
since we started today, which is the reality is, is that the liberal sector of the United States,
led by the vast majority of the corporate media,
which identifies with American liberalism and serves its agenda now, genuinely believes that
Donald Trump and the Trump movement are inferior to them intellectually and morally and are a grave
threat to the United States. And therefore, anything they do, anything they do in the name of stopping him,
whether it's disseminating lies, whether it's deceiving this FBI, whether it's consuming our
country in a fake scandal for four years, whether it's allowing generals to subvert and ignore
presidential orders, they believe it's all justified because they're battling against
a group of people, half the country that they regard as
their inferiors. And that is the spirit that's animating what they're saying.
And who knows whether General Milley might have thought, you know, we got the 25th Amendment,
maybe I should do something with that if he saw Trump decompensating, right? I have no idea what
went through his head. But that really wasn't an available option to him, if that's what he in fact felt, because that card had been played so many times, just like the impeachment card had been played so many times to have actually rendered something like impeachment kind of a shoulder shrug yawn situation.
It's like another impeachment. OK, this is what they do now. But you couldn't you can't do 25th Amendment now because they said that from almost day one of Trump's presidency, they completely burned all
of their credibility with the public justifiably. You know, I think there's a good analogy to that,
which is there really is racism in the world and there really is misogyny in the world.
And there really is homophobia and transphobia and anti-Semitism in the world. But if you get to the point where you exploit those concepts and
weaponize them cynically over and over for political advantage by just calling any one of
your political adversaries a white supremacist or accusing reporters who are reporting on you
being misogynistic the way that Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post did today
because Politico was going to report on her, or if you accuse anyone who questions or criticizes
the Israeli government of anti-Semitism, you drain those concepts of all their meaning.
It no longer stings because people come to believe that that just gets tossed around and that when
it does, it no longer is meaningful. They trivialize those concepts. That is absolutely
what has
happened that what happened with these constitutional safeguards like impeachment,
they trivialized it and toyed with it and played with it for so long. They impeached them twice
over trivialities. And as you say, they constantly talked about using the 25th Amendment against him
to sow doubts in the public mind about his mental stability that maybe we don't know. We weren't there.
Maybe the way that Trump handled his election defeat was so kind of unhinged that it got to the point where there were questions about his mental stability in the 25th Amendment might
have been a viable process. I don't know. But as you say, we don't know. It wasn't an option
because they burned their credibility to do that. You know, it's if Trump really was having mental faculty decline in a meaningful way at that time
or thereafter, I would like to know it would be relevant to the media, be relevant to the country
as he might run again. But none of that will ever be taken seriously now. None of the none of that
will be it'll all be seen as a political move against him. Thanks to things like this. And
just for the record, the notion that Trump was going to unleash war against China in his last few days in office, this this president
was going to do that makes no sense, Glenn. So one does have to wonder what the hell was Milley
doing? Like, why would he have been doing such a thing? You know, it makes so little sense for so
many reasons, including the fact that the charge against Trump was that he was always too soft on
China, that he wasn't sufficiently confrontational with them at the start of the COVID pandemic,
that he seemed to like the leaders of China or respected them in that Trumpian way for being
strong and tough. But he also prided himself on the fact that he was the first president in decades.
And whatever you think about him, this is just indisputably true, that didn't start a new war. He didn't get the United States into a new war in the four years
of his presidency. You have to go back many decades to find a president about whom that's
true. So the idea that in his last days, an opposition group has just randomly started
war with China, which he really never exhibited much animosity towards to begin with is, I mean, it's incomprehensible
that that could possibly be true. And, you know, the problem, Megan, is, is that I just don't trust
any of these people anymore. I don't trust what the Washington Post and the New York Times say,
or what, you know, generals and intelligence officials and government say. I wish I did.
It would be so much better if we could, but we just don't. But I have government say, I wish I did. It would be so much better if we could.
But we just don't. But I have to say, I feel like we're never going to know.
You're selling yourself short because you didn't trust these people ever. Really,
it's been 20 plus years since you trusted any of them. And we've all just gotten a lot smarter lately, thanks to you and others like you. All right, stand by. Up we're going to talk about
with Glenn Greenwald about Don Lemon now calling for the shunning and shaming of Americans who don't believe exactly as he does.
We'll get into it.
Welcome back, everyone, to The Megyn Kelly Show.
I'm joined today by Substack journalist Glenn Greenwald, also a Pulitzer Prize winner.
The wedge dividing Americans into this COVID caste system, you know what I'm talking about, right?
It's growing larger by the day.
And Glenn recently published a Substack piece on the visual class division at the Met Gala.
But I have to tell you, before we get to the Met Gala, Don Lemon, Don Lamond, as Tucker calls him, on Wednesday night took it to a new level. He was taking aim at the some 46% of Americans
who are not fully vaccinated. And he wants them to know, Glenn, he wants you to know and me to know
he's had it. Here he is just the other night. I think we have to stop coddling people when it
comes to this and the vaccine saying, oh, you can't shame them. You can't call them stupid.
You can't call them silly.
Yes, they are.
The people who ate it and abetted Trump are stupid because they believed his big lie.
The people who are not getting vaccines, who are believing the lies on the Internet instead of science.
It's time to start shaming them.
What else?
Or leave them behind.
So it's time to start shaming people, Glenn, because our moral arbiters, Don Lemon and
Chris Cuomo, know better.
Yeah, those intellectual and moral giants, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, are going to guide
us in our choices and punish us if we don't instantly submit to their superior wisdom.
You know, I feel in part so enraged hearing that, just that condescension for so many
millions of people for the crime of not immediately agreeing with their point of view.
But I also think it's really important to hear them say that, that openly and that explicitly,
because that is how they think.
And, you know, I don't know what your experience has been, Megan, but, you know, in terms of
the question of the vaccine, I did decide early on that I was
going to take the vaccine, but I was very happy that I had the ability to inform myself about all
the pros and cons and read as much as I could and make that decision for myself in consultation with
my doctors based on my age and my health and every other consideration. And my husband had
a different set of choices. He actually had COVID.
He's a little bit younger.
So we debated whether he should take it
given the natural immunity that he had.
And we were happy he had that choice.
He took it.
Today, my 14-year-old son got the vaccine.
In fact, he just got it while we've been talking.
I just got the picture.
And I still am in doubt
about whether that was the right thing to do.
You know, we ultimately decided he should,
but given that he's 14,
do you know that 74 million people in the United States, 74 million are 18 years or younger? And the grand total of people who have died from COVID since the beginning of the pandemic
16 months ago who are 18 or younger is 362. 362 out of 74 million, a virtually non-existent risk for children who are
now injecting with this vaccine, despite not knowing the long-term risk. So I hope people
get vaccinated. I believe in the vaccine, but I would want to be persuaded to take it and not
bullied or coerced. And what they're going to do is they're just, it's going to backfire because the more you hear people like Don Lemon telling you that you're stupid if you
don't obey, the more the instinct is to just purposely defy what what what he's telling you
to do. That's how we got Trump in the first place. And they still haven't learned that lesson.
I want to talk about Don Lemon for a second. Don Lemon thought that that Malaysia airplane was sucked up by a black hole.
Don Lemon thought a woman being allegedly raped by Bill Cosby could have stopped it by biting his
penis while she was being forced to perform oral sex. Don Lemon's an idiot. And Don Lemon is in
no position to be lecturing anyone when it comes to morals, nor is Chris Cuomo, right? Chris Cuomo
decided to dismiss all of the accusers against his brother, whose claims were backed up and verified by independent
witnesses as part of, quote, cancel culture. He didn't give a shit about any anything his brother
had done and is in no position to lecture us. Don Lemon is credibly accused of shoving his hands
down, fondling his own balls and then rubbing his hands along the face of a complete stranger in a
bar witnessed by a bartender
who is independent, not connected to either man. OK, there's a lawsuit about it right now. Lemon
denies it. But I don't want to hear from Don Lemon on morals, on stupidity, which he is an expert on.
I don't want to hear from him at all. And this is a pattern for him. Yes, you're right. It's
important that we see them say it so that we know what they really think about half the country.
But we've had many lessons from Don Lemon when it comes to that. Who could forget this now infamous segment that he had with Rick Wilson and the guy, Wajah Ali. I forget how you pronounce his first name. Forgive me. But here they are talking about Trump voters before the election. Listen. That Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is, you know,
an administration defined by ignorance of the world. And so that's partly him playing to their
base and playing to their audience. You know, the credulous boomer Rube demo that backs Donald Trump
that wants to think that Donald Trump's
a smart one and y'all elitists are dumb.
You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling.
Your math and your reading.
Yeah, your reading, you know.
Your geography, knowing other countries, sipping your latte.
All those lines on the map.
Only them elitists know where Ukraine is.
And those those Democrats with their maps, they think they're so smart.
Look at him. He's crying. He's laughing so hard.
All right. Forget Don Lemon. I've had enough of him.
But this is not it's not just Don Lemon. It's not just Chris Cuomo, Glenn. It's a lot in the so- of the Chinese government that there was no evidence of person to person transmission in order to downplay the pandemic.
In February and March, Fauci and the World Health Organization said that not only was wearing masks unnecessary if you were asymptomatic, but that it could actually be harmful.
And they told us that for several months.
For five months in the beginning of 2020, they said it's your moral duty to stay home
and not go out for any reason, even to go to a deserted beach.
If you do that, you're sociopathic and killing grandma.
And then suddenly the Black Lives Matter riots happened.
And they told us it was our moral duty to go participate in densely packed street protests
because racism was a greater threat to the public health than the coronavirus pandemic.
And then, of course, for an entire year, we were told that you're not even allowed to suggest
that we don't know the origins of the coronavirus, whether it came from a lab in Wuhan or whether it
jumped species from bats or other animals. And now suddenly everyone recognizes that we
have a real debate about that. So over and over, their decrees from the really smart people who stop, you know, stop at the
idiots who don't obey has been nothing but one of one error after the next incompetence
and ineptitude.
And yet they still continue to be so enamored of their own intellect that they actually
want to now structure a society, Megan, no exaggeration, of segregation where you are a second-class citizen if you don't adhere to
their judgment about what substances you should put into your body, regardless of how old you are,
regardless of your health condition, regardless of whether you've already had COVID once or more
and thus have natural immunity. They want to prevent you from having a job, from going into
public places, from going on an airplane. They really do want a society where disobeying their
superior judgment results in severe restrictions on your life, your ability to talk on the internet,
your ability to express yourself. It is such an authoritarian mindset grounded in extreme
condescension toward the intellect and morals of anyone who doesn't see
the world as they see it. The only way around it is to be an Afghan refugee or someone sneaking
across the southern border, none of whom is required to get a vaccine. That's your only way
to avoid the big thumb of the federal government. But you're right. And their judgment is everywhere.
I mean, there was an article out on The Daily Wire today talking about how Amazon temporarily in error.
It was human error. Glenn censored an advertisement for a new book coming from the Heritage Foundation that's critical of Black Lives Matter.
It's called BLM, the making of a new Marxist revolution.
Oh, you know, it was a mistake. We didn't really mean to censor the ad, but, you know, it's been rectified.
That mother of the fallen Marine killed with 13 service members in Afghanistan while trying to evacuate people. She was critical of Joe Biden. She got her Facebook account suspended and her Instagram post taken down. Oh, it was done in error that they didn't think it would be good for their reputation to do business with her. Oh, sorry, that was a mistake. You know, that was done. Why do all the
errors always go against one particular party or people with one particular viewpoint or ideology?
I mean, this is what I'm saying is, you know, there was a recent announcement from PayPal,
which is now central to our financial system. A lot of people
need PayPal in order to earn a living, in order to transfer money and pay bills and receive money,
that they are now partnering with the Anti-Defamation League, which used to be a
well-respected organization against anti-Semitism and has since earned a well-deserved reputation
for being just a liberal advocacy group, kind of like the ACLU and others.
And they're going to defer to who the ADL says is an extremist and cut off their ability to use PayPal.
So we're going to have segregated financial services,
segregated social media accounts,
different ways that people can or can't access the media.
Just this week, Senator Elizabeth Warren
and Congressman Adam Schiff
each separately wrote a letter to Amazon complaining about certain books that Amazon
was, quote unquote, promoting because they're bestsellers that are about covid and contain
information that those politicians believe is misleading or otherwise unproductive.
And they're essentially demanding that Amazon censor it. Censorship has become
one of the dominant priorities of the Democratic Party. I mean, they've hauled
CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google to their committees three or four times in the last year
to explicitly demand that they either censor more or suffer regulatory and legal reprisals.
So this is becoming a really dangerous political faction.
Speaking of people throwing out, you know, ridiculous claims, you mentioned Jen Rubin today of The Washington Post, their so-called conservative at The Washington Post. Such a joke,
just like Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt are MSNBC's conservatives.
What? I don't know that story. What is she doing? So the Politico was writing an
article on the obviously bizarre fact that Jen Rubin has become the single favorite columnist
for the Biden White House. They retweet her more than any other journalist by far. They pass around
her articles more than any by far because she is basically a more loyal spokesperson for the
Biden White House than Jen Psaki is. So they love her. And Politico did an article on how
unlikely it is that she would serve that role, given that she was one of the most vicious critics
of Barack Obama, you know, claiming that he was his allegiances were to Islam and not to the United
States. Every toxic attack on Obama,
she was voicing because she was a huge fan of Mitt Romney
just eight years ago.
And now suddenly she's the leading Democrat.
So they sent her a request for comment
and she wrote back this deranged email to Politico.
And at the top, it said, off the record.
They didn't agree to that.
She just proclaimed it.
And it basically was this rambling message saying,
oh, of course you people at Politico
are yet again attacking a powerful woman.
Your misogyny is so evident,
accusing them of just being misogynistic
for reporting on her bizarre trajectory
from GOP propagandist, lover of Mitt Romney,
to the leading propagandist for the Biden White House.
And she just pulls out this misogyny accusation out of nowhere.
And they publish the email.
And you're attending another Biden White House official is accused Politico of having breached
an off the record agreement, which they never actually met, entered with her as a journalist,
you know, making you someone can't just send you an email and put at the top off the record
that then you have to agree that they're allowed to order you not to report it.
So that was that was the little controversy of which she knows very well.
Jennifer Rubin knows and Neera Tanden knows, too. But the sort of the overall elitism in all of this and the and the the one sided censorship when it comes to points of view or behaviors, right,
what have you, it's it's evident everywhere. And you've been on this sort of elitism for a long, long time.
And you've lived it.
Unlike AOC and her stupid dress,
you've actually been consistent
in pointing it out
and calling it out when you see it.
And it's everywhere
when it comes to COVID.
I saw you had a great piece
not long ago talking about how
when it comes to COVID,
they refuse, sort of the press
and those in charge,
refuse to apply the cost-benefit analysis
to any of these COVID debates. You know, it's like the elites can run to the mountains and to the press and those in charge refused to apply the cost benefit analysis to any of these
covid debates. You know, it's like the elites can run to the mountains and to the beach and to
Florida to avoid all of these restrictions that they're imposing on people. But it's the poor
working class that have to stick around and suck it up. And you had a bit in there about Nancy
Pelosi and mask restrictions. And I guess it was a fundraiser not too long ago. What happened with her?
Yeah, so Nancy Pelosi had a fundraiser for rich donors to the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, the DCCC,
in Napa, the very upscale wine region
near San Francisco where she has her sprawling mansion.
And it was an outdoor event,
but it was held about a month after Los Angeles County had
reimposed its mask mandates for large outdoor gatherings. And San Francisco had in place,
just a few miles away where she lives and where liberals govern, a mask mandate that says that
you should wear a mask anytime that you're in close contact with large numbers of other people, even outdoors. And yet this event was a huge number
of rich Democratic donors, almost all of them white,
sitting at tables, one on top of the next,
like not a molecule of social distancing.
In fact, I would have been uncomfortable
regardless of COVID, sitting that close to people,
you know, even before COVID,
they were right next to each other,
breathing on each other, talking to each other.
And then she was up front speaking.
They were listening, sort of.
Not one of them, Megan, was wearing a mask
of the rich white donors who were seated at the table
before even eating.
They didn't have food.
And then they had servants,
almost all of whom were non-white,
walking around, bringing water,
you know, getting ready
to serve the food, and they were all masked.
And this is something that has become very commonplace now where the kind of servant
class has to wear a cloth over their face all of the time, while somehow people who
are in richer or more elite positions don't have to.
They're allowed to show their face.
And that doesn't seem very scientific to me. I
don't understand how people who are working hourly wages are more vulnerable to transmitting or
contracting a virus than people who are wealthier in an elite position. It's something we saw at
Obama's birthday party, where his 400 closest friends partied in the indoor tent with no mask
while the waiters and servants wore masks. And then we saw it again at the Met Gala, where AOC was walking out of the Met Gala,
and there was a servant carrying the train of her gown. She was unmasked, waving royalty to the
adoring fans, and the servant behind her was wearing a mask. And it just is a very kind of
vivid illustration of this growing
chasm between cultural, political and financial elites on the one hand and the way that ordinary
people on the other are treated that most people in this country are very well aware of.
And sadly, all of our kids are in the serve class and all of them, they will be the ones
masked and holding the train of AOC's dress. And that's exactly the way she wants it. And then when called out on her ridiculous hypocrisy, I've been trying
to get this quote on the air for three days. I finally remembered to pull it, Glenn. This is
her defense after she took an appropriate rhetorical beating for her nonsense. In response,
okay, wait, here it is. I thought about the criticism I would get, but honestly, I and my body, I and my body have been so heavily and relentlessly policed from all corners politically since the moment I won my election that it's kind of become expected and normalized to me. You see that she's just like Jennifer Rubin.
No abuse that she takes from the press or any criticism she gets is real.
It's just part of the ongoing policing and abuse of her and her body, because I presume
she's a woman.
She's a woman of color.
She's a woman standing up for socialism by putting weird letters on a weird dress.
Well, yeah, the second part of the statement even makes more explicit that that is what she's
saying. She said, you know, a lot of this discomfort and anger about what I did is just
people's discomfort from having a woman of color be in power. She blamed it on white supremacy and
misogyny. She described her and her designer who is engaged to someone who's in the family of the
family that founded Lehman Brothers and who's close to a billionaire, if not a billionaire,
as a working class immigrant. She emigrated from Toronto. You know, the trek from Toronto to
Manhattan is a very, very arduous one where people face all kinds of trauma and dangers. And she made that
trek and arrived safely in Manhattan with her billionaire boyfriend. So, yeah, of course,
that was the response. And, you know, honestly, what you're saying, I, you know, my view as a
parent has changed in a lot of ways, for instance, becoming a parent. It does infuriate me that my
kids have to wear masks all day in school for nine
hours and not see each other's faces.
And, you know, despite the fact that the risk is so low.
And then I watch AOC traipsing around on a red carpet with no mask of any kind, nor do
any of the other celebrities near her have it.
You just see that it's not about anything scientific.
It's about social control and creating a cast of people who believe
they're exempt from the rules they impose on everybody else. Oh, it's infuriating.
We've got to discuss the Met Gala because I want to get a little bit more on that. But I also want
to talk about there's this new series. OK, you may not have heard about this, but it's called
it's it was it's coming out on CBS or it was and it was going to be about activists. Right. You may not have heard about this, but it's called, it's, it was, it's coming out on CBS or it was, and it was going to be about activists, right? And it stars Usher, Julianne
Hough and Priyanka Chopra Jones, Jonas. And I cannot wait to tell you what's happened to it
and why I'm very much in favor of them not hosting an activist show. We'd love to know your thoughts
on general Mark Milley in the, in the meantime, on his less than ethical phone call. We'd love to know your thoughts on General Mark Milley in the meantime on his less than ethical phone call. We're going to take your calls in just a minute. Give us a call here,
833-44, like Syracuse's 44. That's why we put that in there. Megan, M-E-G-Y-N, like O-B-G-Y-N,
but M-E-G-Y-N. That's a whole story too, thanks to my mom. 833-446-3496. Call in now. We're going to take your calls shortly.
Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show, everyone. It's Friday, so I'm ready to answer your calls and have some fun. Do you want to send a message to Don Lamont? Thoughts on the border? Maybe a
personal question about my life or career? We'll see. Call me at 833-44-Y-N. That's 833-446-3496. In the meantime, back with me
is Substack journalist Glenn Greenwald. So Glenn, I had to ask you, because I have been to the Met
Gala, and it was just as insufferable as you would think. But I thought it was, I didn't realize that
Anna Wintour, a couple of years years ago was sad about the Met Gala
and really thought that there was a massive problem with it and did something to fix it.
Can you tell us what that was? Yeah, it was in 2014. And she started believing that it was
insufficiently exclusive, that people who didn't deserve to be there were able to get in because
in her view, the ticket prices were too low. They were only $15,000 a ticket. And she felt that enabled
kind of a certain form of riffraff to be able to vandalize her event. And so she raised the
prices to $25,000 a ticket in order to maintain the high level that she believes the Met Gala
should exhibit. Oh my God. And meanwhile,
they're like, this is a charity event. This is a charity event that the charity they're supporting.
It's like the Mets costume wing. They talk about it, like trying to defend the thirty five thousand
dollars a ticket that it's now by saying, like, it's for it's for kids. It's like starving kids
in Africa. No, it's to help the costumes at the Met have more money and better cases.
Yeah, well, that was, you know,
that was the joke of AOC's going is that,
you know, it's probably like
one of the most vulgar testaments
to the accesses of capitalism and inequality
that has been conceived of since,
you know, the parties of Louis XIV
and the French aristocracy.
And obviously she just wanted to go because she wanted to hang out with Rihanna.
And instead, you know, but she also wanted to keep her socialist street credibility.
So at the last second, she's like, hey, why don't we just spray paint, you know, tax the rich on my dress as though like any of those liberal celebrities are going to be offended by that message.
And that way I'll get to, you know,
make my presence there something noble.
But yeah, you know, there's been articles
in like Town and Country
and sort of the magazines of the landed gentry
about how the Met Gala used to be the best of high society.
And now it's been vulgarized by the fact
that celebrities go who don't even
care about the Met and probably don't even know what they're raising funds for. But you're right.
If AOC is going to go to a charity gala, you would think it would be to help homeless people or
people on the verge of eviction or something like that, as opposed to buying more extravagant
costumes for the Met. Yes. And by the way, when I went to the Met Gala in the bathroom at the Met, there were a bunch of people whose names you would know,
like pretending to be humping one another. Very classy event. And then the men's. So I went into
the women's restroom and I saw that men and women in there doing that. All names you would know.
And my husband went to the men's restroom and we met, you know, afterward. And there were two very
well-known people snorting cocaine off of the bathroom in his bathroom. So like, oh, this is very classy
and exclusive, Anna. Well done. Now, one of the groups that Anna Wintour is obsessed with is
tennis players. And so it's no accident that, you know, she's had Roger Federer there. She had
Naomi Osaka there this year. And I wanted to spend a minute talking to you about that because Naomi
Osaka was not only at the Met Gala, but she also wound up on Time's Most Influential People
this year, along with Meghan and Harry. I mean, it's crazy to me, Glenn, that you've got
Alexei Navalny on there as one of the world's most influential people. And he really has been,
along with like Harry and Meghan, Meghan Markle, like a C-list actress who wound up
marrying a prince and royal life was too hard for her. So they ran kicking and screaming to their
$14 million Montecito mansion. Okay, so that's who's on the list of the Time 100 this year.
But I do have to tell you, I've been fascinated to talk to you and hear your thoughts on sort of
Naomi and Meghan, for that matter, two women of color in very,
very prominent positions who you are not allowed to criticize at all. And you tell me why that is.
Yeah. Well, so it's interesting. Tennis has been probably the sport that has played the biggest
role in my life. When I was young, I was obsessed with watching tennis. My childhood hero was Martina Navratilova. I actually signed a contract to do a film about
Martina Navratilova along with Reese Witherspoon. And then Martina made some comments about the
trans movement and whether trans women should be able to participate in sports that got her
kicked out of a bunch of LGBT groups and rendered radioactive. And so the project was killed.
So I've been really interested in tennis for a long time.
I have a couple of friends who play professionally
on the circuit now.
And when Naomi Osaka made that announcement
about how she was going to refuse to do press afterwards,
the press conferences that are mandatory for every player,
you know, she sort of said, well, fine me, go ahead and fine me.
As though like her wealth, which is vastly greater than almost every other tennis player,
means she just gets to buy off having to abide by the same rules as the other players who
can't afford to get those fines.
And the sympathy that was so overwhelming in her favor, as though the minute you utter the term,
I'm suffering or I'm engaged in mental health
or a young woman of color
meant that she's the marginalized person.
When in reality, Naomi Osaka
is one of the most powerful people on the planet.
She's one of the richest people on the planet.
She is the highest earning female athlete in the world.
She made $55 million last year.
She's well on her way to being
a billionaire by the time she's 30, a billionaire. She carries incredible cultural cachet. But if
you criticize her or Meghan Markle, and you just told the story of Meghan Markle, you get accused
of bullying because they're supposed to be looked at as these weak and marginalized people, which
A, is incredibly ironic to talk about strong women athletes
as being these fragile little China dolls
who crumble at the minute you criticize them.
But I also think it exhibits
the kind of framework
that we've been taught to see the world through,
which is class is totally irrelevant.
So if someone's extremely rich,
it doesn't really count as a metric for how
you evaluate them. The only things that matter are gender and race. So a black woman who's on
her way to being a billionaire at the age of 23 is supposed to be considered marginalized and less
powerful than, say, some out-of-work white coal miner in West Virginia whose entire community has
been ravaged by the opioid epidemic
and who hasn't had a decent job in 20 years because it got shipped overseas. It's such a
distorted way of looking at the world. But people like that are the beneficiaries of it.
That's so well said. So well said that the the one that really incident that really showed it with
Naomi was when she had that moment. She got emotional at a press conference after all the nonsense, after she said she's an introvert and she can't deal
with press and so on and so forth, but then went on the cover of Time and went on the cover of
Sports Illustrated and was the last person who she lit the Olympic torch. Now she's at the Met
Gala. Now she's Time 100. She has a Barbie. She had a documentary made about her. But this one
little guy from, I think it was like some Cincinnati sports paper says to her, like, you know, how do you reconcile all the media appearances?
Plus what you say is an introverted nature.
And she was like overwhelmed.
And then her her agent came out.
He was like, he's a bully.
He's disgusting.
Came after this poor guy probably makes a 40 grand a year if he's lucky.
And he and the media went with that. He was her bully. I mean, there's no job more difficult than working for a local paper,
especially in like a smaller mid-sized town like Cincinnati. And then you're a sports columnist on
top of it. You're totally dispensable. I'm sure he makes exactly what you said, maybe even less.
He has no job security at all. These papers close more often than they hire
and lay off huge numbers of people.
He has a very precarious job that's very difficult.
He probably has to write, you know, 20 articles a week.
So just working day and night.
And he, I don't know if you heard it, the audio,
but the question was asked so respectfully.
Yes, it was kind.
And it was a very valid question.
It was just like, hey, on the one hand,
you say you have a great deal of problems
dealing with press, but on the other hand, you're doing a lot of press for these other ventures. Like, on the one hand, you say you have a great deal of problems dealing with press.
But on the other hand, you're doing a lot of press for these other ventures.
Like, how do you as you say, how do you reconcile that?
She burst into tears, left the press conference, did come back. Her bully, even though most people couldn't dream of having life like Naomi But be kind, everyone be kind. And by the way, protect the
environment. Oh, wait, I'm just going to go on this private jet and go off for my polo match in
Aspen, which is what Prince Harry did while he's lecturing us about preserving the environment.
I mean, and how they want their privacy, except for their 50 million from Netflix and Spotify.
And now the Time 100 and the airbrush cover, which I was saying on GB News
the other night, was absolutely perfect because it reduced him, made him smaller, which is exactly
what's happened since he married her, airbrushed away all of their realities, right? Like their
flaws, whatever they may be, whether it's receding hairline or what have you. That's exactly what
they want done and what they're doing in their sort of PR campaign. I could go on. But I got
to tell you about this one thing. OK, this is Debbie Murphy, our producer.
She's really been wanting us to get to this.
She also is one of those hard trodden immigrants from Canada.
God knows what she had to do to get here from there.
And actually she went the other way is the truth.
Okay, CBS is now scrapping its competition show,
The Activist after backlash
and turning it into a documentary.
This is from the website Mediaite.
They had they'd been launching the series called The Activist, and it was going to be a model for a competition show where they showed a wide audience the passion, long hours and ingenuity that activists put into changing the world, hopefully inspiring others to do the same.
Well, even the far left,
Glenn, didn't like it. I mean, the right, I'm sure, was rolling its eyes. But the far left said,
this is performance activism. That's not the real thing. We can't have a show about that.
And the thing that jumped out to me about this is just perfection. And it is still going to be a
documentary, so we're still seeing these people it's going to be hosted by
usher julianne huff and priyanka chopra jonas okay now um julianne huff got in trouble a couple
years ago i know this i saw it after i left nbc because she actually wore blackface she went as
one of the characters from orange is the new black uh she wore blackface on halloween it was
photographed by many people had to do a big public mea culpa priyanka jopra jonas endorsed skin lightening um and got in a lot of
trouble over for endorsing this cream in india to make your skin lighter which you know is sort of
a racist thing to do because it suggests that lighter skin is better than darker skin and usher
was repeatedly infected or was accused and sued many times of repeatedly infecting women
with herpes without telling them as required under the laws of several states so these are the three
couldn't be more perfect in a way they should be interviewed by don lemon and chris cuomo
about their new show how to make The backlash to it was so intense.
I think it was one of the most
ratioed tweets on Twitter
when they unveiled it.
And it's very rare to see a show
that planned and that promoted
have to be radically reworked.
Because as you say,
it wasn't just one sector
of the society that reacted
with revulsion.
It was pretty much everybody
thought it was the most
preposterous thing in
the world that you're going to take social activism and turn it into some kind of like
commercialized competition led by celebrities, those in particular.
It's amazing. And you know, it's just, it's a good reminder because we do get lectured at
every turn in our lives now, whether you're, you know, trying, if your wife gets canceled at the
bank or your book doesn't get promoted, or, you know, even if you're a black conservative,
you can't get your films made. Just ask Shelby Steele, right? Who's like had, had real trouble
getting his, uh, his movie, what killed Michael Brown on Amazon. It's just a reminder that the
people judging us all the time are frankly human.
They make mistakes.
They do and say stupid shit just like everyone does.
And we used to be at a place in our society where we understood that and we weren't so
awful to one another about it.
Glenn, gosh, I love talking to you.
I could talk to you every day of the week.
We got to do like a co-host situation because you're so interesting.
Thank you for doing this.
I love being here, Megan.
It's always great.
I'm always happy to come back anytime. Yay, I'm going to take you up on that.
All right. Up next, we're taking your calls and we have a special announcement up next. I'm excited
to bring to you. Call us in. Let us know what you think about the 10,000 immigrants waiting to cross
while they've crossed our southern border and they're sitting there under a Texas bridge right now. Or let us know whether you think General Mark Milley should be tried for treason.
833-44-MEGYN.
That's 833-446-3496.
Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show, everyone.
Phone lines are open at 833-44-MEGYN.
That's 833-446-3496. And we have a very special first caller today.
And it involves a special announcement that we want to bring to you about our executive producer,
Steve Krakauer, who you may know if you've been listening to our podcast this past year.
He's not with us this week for a very good reason. He and his wife just had a baby.
They have a new daughter named Mia. Steve, how are you? Hi, Megan. First time caller,
longtime listener. This is exciting to be on this side of things. Congratulations. We're so happy
for you. And how is it going so far? We're showing some pictures of you and the babe.
Thank you so much.
Yes, it's going well.
You know, this is our second child.
It's been five years.
We had our son, Jack, five years ago, almost to the day.
And Mia came Monday.
Everyone's doing really well.
You're kind of piecing together about three hours of sleep or so a night.
So I'm a little bit delirious.
But otherwise, it's been going great.
She's doing great.
And mom's doing well. And I was just kind of a bystander, but very happy with everything.
Everything went okay with the delivery?
Everything went okay. Yeah. I mean, it was, it was pretty smooth. I mean, we,
you know, I say that as someone who was just kind of sitting in the chair next to my wife.
It was so easy for me.
I know exactly. They were trying to get me to cut the umbilical cord. I was like,
please do not give me the scissors. And it was was just i just wanted to kind of be a moral support i don't
want to have anything you know potentially go wrong but everything went well i was just there
to cheer up that totally reminds me of doug he was he is not somebody who deals with needles or
blood very well at all he was like i'm gonna stay on this side of the drape right i'll be on this
side of the drape exactly i just looked right at on this side of the drape. Exactly. I just looked right at Megan.
I was not looking anywhere else.
I was like, just look at me, lock eyes.
I'm not looking anywhere else.
I think that's very smart.
Steve's wife is named Megan, too.
I think it's very smart because let's face it.
I mean, a good husband-wife relationship has to have, you know, a lot of things that in
order to make more babies, you need to be able to look at the other person and think
certain thoughts that are tough. If you see certain things.
Yes, I just wanted to, you know, just keep my focus. I did my part, which was very minimal,
the best of my ability. But no, it was great. Everyone's doing well. And yeah, it's been,
you know, it's just sort of getting the getting back into the into the mode of having a newborn
now, which is challenging, but also fantastic.
How about Jackson? How is he doing with baby Mia?
It's funny. He's been real cute about it, talking about how excited he is.
He's wearing his new brother's shirt yesterday at the soccer practice, but he's very nervous around her.
We haven't even gotten to the point where he can hold her. I think he just
thinks of her as she's very fragile and he doesn't want to do anything that can mess up. So he's been
very cautious. Although I think we're going to approach that this weekend. Perfect. Good. That's
not a bad way to start off when you've got a little toddler at home and introduced to a new
baby. So have you been listening to the show? What critiques do you how do you think we're doing without you? I have no, it's been so interesting. I have to say,
you know, I, I would listen to some of Brett Weinstein on Spotify. And I got some YouTube
with the fifth column guys yesterday. And I actually was on Wednesday, I was in the car.
And I was like, Oh, let me turn on. And there was Scott Galloway. It was a great conversation. I
loved it. And so yeah, it was it was very unique to kind of be for, you know, a year of being behind the scenes and now being kind of a listener and a fan.
I thought it was a great week of shows. I was listening to Green Bull before I got on it.
That was great. Awesome. Well, we've had a couple of technical snafus, which now I can't blame on you because you're not here.
But, you know, we're working it out. As you know, we're a new show. We haven't figured everything out yet.
That's right.
Week two, I still will take the blame.
You know, I'll still serve in that role.
Well, we can't wait for you to come back.
Debbie's doing a great job holding on the fort without you, but everyone misses you.
And just so much love to you and Megan and little Jackson and newest little Mia.
We love you guys and wish you all the best.
And don't even think about us other than as a source of news and entertainment until you come back.
That's right. I'll be I'll be a consumer still. But no, thank you to everyone there. I'm excited to get back. But I'm going to go back to you.
Much love. The newest member of the Devil May Care media family, little Mia Krakauer.
All right. We're going to take our first caller as well. And our phone lines are
still open, so you can call in. We've got a good chunk reserved today. We're figuring that out as
well. 833-44-MEGAN. That's 833-446-3496. All right. Let's talk to, let's see, Dale in Iowa,
caller number two. What's on your mind, Dale? Hey, Megan. I am a 12-year veteran of the U.S.
Army. I'm a first-time caller, but a longtime viewer and listener from America Live, Kelly Feil. Your podcast and your book, Settle for More, is still one of my favorites.
Thank you. But to me, the call to – if it's true that Speaker Pelosi called him and then he met with all the people that report to him and then reached out to the command generals of whether it's Pacific Command, Central Command, the fleet, to me, that's illegal.
He is prohibited by law from – he has no command authority.
He's an advisor to the president.
So if he did that, that would fall under the UCMJ – obviously you're a lawyer.
That's the military's code of justice.
So if that's true, then he should be tried under that for potential court-martial.
I think you're right. for potential court-martial. Then the call to China, whether it's again, true that the secretary
that Miller, secretary of defense at the time, and he made that call, then we were talking about
in the area of treason. Yeah. I mean, I hate to throw that word around, but I have to say,
I think you're right. I think this circumstance warrants it. It's like, I mean, if you're, if calling up the Chinese and telling them there's
some, there might be something off with the sitting U.S. president and you're going to stop
a potential military strike against them, is it treason? I don't really know what is.
And we better get to the bottom of this. I mean, the Republicans are not in control of the house
at the moment, but I don't see how the Democrats blow this off and don't have any
hearings on this. I mean, they are going to have him in front of them next week. So you can guarantee
that there's going to be questions about it. We'll see what Milley says. But this this looks terrible
and is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. I think, you know, honest Democrats will admit that, too.
All right. Let's talk to Gene,
number caller number four, who's got some thoughts on Don Lemon. Hey, Gene.
How are you, Megan? So good to hear you on the radio. I miss you on TV and you're a beautiful
and talented voice that needs to be heard. Now you come on right after Glenn Beck on my drive home
or drive to work and here in Texas.
And I'm glad you're on the radio.
That's nice. I love thinking of that.
Love thinking about you down in Texas and my other friend up in Iowa, you know, like out in the heartland and outside of the coastal elites.
Just get the news in a way that you trust.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
You bet. Yes, I have a brother who is a veteran that has, you know, has chosen not to get the vaccine for a religious reason.
And, you know, for our for this administration and for Don Lemon, you know, basically, you know, basically telling people that there're as bad as the Taliban, you know,
because they don't want to get the they don't want to get the vaccine.
And the entire thing, you know, the entire time, you know, during the debacle in Afghanistan,
you know, both women and Maddow as well, all they could talk about was mask mandates, you
know, about a vaccine that, you know, back in a year ago, they would never want to touch.
Yes. You know, it had something to do with Trump. And now it's just the hypocrisy.
It's it's overwhelming. Yeah.
It's plain as the nose in your face. 100 percent. You know, one of the soundbites we didn't get to today was Joy Reid going off about how,
yes, I did have my doubts under Trump of the vaccine. She was one of the people who stoked
those doubts and others. And now they want to look at all the others who have some doubts,
not based on that nonsense about like, well, Trump's going to do something to the vaccine,
but about, you know, based on a year of Fauci misleading us and reversing himself and say,
oh, you're a bunch of rubes. You're also dumb. We know better.
And it is infuriating. And it is maddening. I feel the same. I'm like, who are these people
to lecture to us? And by the way, all of the media censorship is played into it as well,
right? Because people don't trust the media. They think that some hidden truth is being hidden,
concealed from them. It's better to let people figure it out
for themselves. But we've decided to go a different way. Anyway, I appreciate the call.
Thank you very much. Right now, I want to talk to let's see, looking for Ron from North Carolina.
Hey, Ron. Hey, Megan, good to talk to you again after 10 years.
Did we talk 10 years ago? I was on your talk show, or not your talk show,
your midday news show, November of 2011 on the Baby Lisa case. I'm a private investigator.
Oh my God, Ron, that's so crazy. Can I tell you, I was just talking about that case the other day
with two people who were involved in it. And we may do an update on that. Oh,
it's so nice to talk to you again. Thank you for being here. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, I was actually heavily involved in that. I don't want to bore the
listeners with it, but you interviewed me on the missing phone part of the case.
Okay.
And you know that somebody allegedly made some phone calls. And actually, ironically enough,
it was the only time I was on because Bill Stanton, the guy who was trying to do some investigations, told one of your producers that if I was ever on again, he would not appear on your show.
Oh, I love Wild Bill Stanton. I don't know that piece of the story. Well, what's on your mind today? Well, I just wanted to see if you're going to do, I know you're in a different medium
now and wanted to see if you're going to do any follow-ups on that. It's still very open here.
And I was actually called into the FBI's office a few months after you and I spoke and was told
to stop interviewing people on the case. I'm a former news director, radio news. And that's kind of how I got involved with this through that and being a private investigator
here.
That's crazy.
And I called you and said, hey, we don't want you talking to any more people of potential
interest.
And we also don't want you to admit publicly that we even talked to you today.
Oh, well, yeah, I can see you took that direction very well.
We may indeed do a follow up on baby Lisa. People may remember this is this little 10 month old baby that was taken from her crib in the middle of the night. I mean, seemingly without a trace, no fingerprints were found on the windowsills, on the cribs, on anything. And everyone thought it was the parents, but there was no proof of that and um she she never was found uh let me go to
kevin in new york who's got a question as i understand about journalism hey kevin hey megan
you know every time i hear congrats by the way in the show and all that and every time i hear you
throw out your name and spell it i remember you saying it's a while back i forget who said it but
someone aggravated you by calling you imagine yeah i can never i can never pick up that story anyway um when it comes to uh you know you mentioned like
don lamon and the others and even on all sides and stuff i just wonder you know what is the
who is in your opinion other than yourself who could be like the neutral who is it possible to
have a neutral person to have some kind of journalism summit, to get everybody, all these characters,
whether it's TV or radio or wherever,
and just have it out.
Wouldn't that be fun?
And who could possibly broker that?
Who would just do battle?
You mean like a Hannity versus Maddow type of situation?
Oh my gosh, wouldn't that be great?
It seems to be.
It's very frustrating to have it every four years or eight years when you have like a national presidential debate and you get to see all they don't want to have to subject themselves to that sort of cage match. But I will say,
picking up on a couple of calls that we've had now and your point, someone asked me recently
whether I think we could get back to objective journalism and less partisanship. And I don't
think so, because I think not only did the media totally reveal its bias in the past election and
under Trump, they revealed their hatred,
their hatred for the other half of the country, right? For anybody who's not a far left progressive.
That's tough to forget. Even if they start reporting in a way that's more fair, you know,
they hate you. And that's a deep, deep ongoing problem. Listen, I'm so excited to talk to you
guys. I've never had a show where I get to talk to the viewers and the listeners and I appreciate it. And I don't want you to miss the
show next week on Monday. We're going to have Dr. Drew here. Uh, and we're going to talk about
anything and everything. And then next Friday, my pal Tucker Carlson's coming on the show,
really looking forward to that. And today's show is going to be available on any podcast
platform for free and on YouTube at youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. Thanks, everyone.