The Megyn Kelly Show - Tucker's 1/6 Footage, Fauci's Lies, and Chris Rock's Special, with Emily Jashinsky and Eliana Johnson | Ep. 507

Episode Date: March 8, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Emily Jashinsky, host of “The Federalist Radio Hour," and Eliana Johnson, co-host of "Ink Stained Wretches," to talk about Tucker Carlson airing new January 6th footage, the hysterical reaction from the media and criticism from sides of the aisle, false reporting about January 6 deaths and Brian Sicknick, the truth we're learning about the lab leak theory and Dr. Fauci's lies, the media's culpability in how they covered Fauci's claims, the management at Fox News in the Ailes Era and now, Trump's five-point plan to take down DeSantis, Fetterman's time in rehab, Novak Djokovic still banned from American because he's unvaccinated, Chris Rock slamming Meghan Markle while she continues trying to monetize her life, Rock punching back at Will and Jada Smith in his new special, Vanderpump Rules drama, and more. Plus Megyn describes her recent encounter with Margot Robbie.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Tucker Carlson releases new footage of January 6th this week and causes an absolute meltdown. I mean a meltdown. I mean, a meltdown. Also, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle decide they don't hate the royal family enough to keep from referring to their daughter as a princess for the first time. Also, little Archie, you'll be very relieved, is now called a prince. Remember how worried she was on Oprah that the racist royal family wasn't going to let him have his proper title. What does she say now? Are they are they less racist?

What's up? We'll see. We'll get into it. And yours truly comes face to face with Margot Robbie, one of the actresses who starred in the Fox inspired movie Bombshell. I'll tell you all that happened. There's a lot going on today. Today is the perfect day for the EJs to join us. Emily Jaschinski is culture editor at The Federalist and host of The Federalist Radio Hour. And Eliana Johnson is editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon and co-host of the Ink Stained Wretches podcast. Ladies, great to have you here. How are you doing? Good to see you, Megan. Good to see you.

Likewise. All right, so we'll get the Margot Robbie thing out of the way. I was at a media conference out in Deer Valley, Utah, and it was great. Had a wonderful couple of days out there, I have to say. It's one of those things, just for the record, that I didn't really want to go to. I agreed to go to it, but then I didn't want to go to it because I am a little like socially averse. You know, I just, I'm, I'm not, I, people think I'm skilled socially because I'm decent at this job, but the two things do not lead to the same results. And I always feel uncomfortable and I never, I'm not a very good glad hander. And I usually just try to avoid those things because I don't do very well at them. Um, but I was like, you know, I'm going to go, it'll be a chance to

meet some new people and have a nice time and ski a little. And I did. And I had a great time. I really did. I met a woman named Catherine Winnick, who stars in Vikings and Big Sky. Delightful. Love this woman. And then I did manage to say hello to Margot Robbie, who was there as one of the presenters. And can I tell you, she was very sweet. I wanted to say hi because she started this movie Bombshell in which the Fox News Roger Ailes story was depicted. She did not play me. Charlize Theron did, but she played a composite character of the women of Fox News. And for Margot, this was, you know, an acting job. And if she did great, I mean, I don't know if you know Margot's history, but like I, Tanya is one of the greatest movies of

all time. She was amazing. Wolf of Wall Street, she's done a lot of great films, but she did a wonderful job in this. And so many women have talked to me about that movie bombshell that it was nice to shake her hand and say, tell her the praise that I had received from women who actually lived it about her portrayal of it. You know, some of those scenes in the fake Roger Ailes office were so disturbing. They're still like frontal lobe for me watching her do it. So anyway, it was nice to shake her hand. She was very nice. You never know with the Hollywood types, whether they're going to be nice or not, because, you know, 13 years at Fox news and I'm more on the other side of the political aisle for most of them, you know, and some of them hold your politics

against you. She was not one of those people. She was super nice. And she said when she met me, oh, my gosh, she said it's the real Megyn Kelly. She goes, I'm used to Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly. She's like, but it's the real you. And we have had a delightful exchange. So good for her. Good for Lionsgate for calling attention to that issue through the form of that movie. I didn't approve of everything in it. My husband did not approve of a scene that Margot was in, but Margot did not write any event, it was cool to meet her. And I was happy to see there's a Hollywood type who is kind and warm and friendly and not holding politics as stakes in any sort of nice momentary meet and greet. OK, that's the Margot Robbie story. Moving on to bigger and more significant news. Tucker Carlson. So he drops the January 6th bomb on Monday night. And this is footage that he's called through from Kevin McCarthy. It was given to Tucker exclusively. And it's all the videotapes

that McCarthy had from Jan 6th. Notably, the Jan 6th committee had this footage, but we didn't see a lot of the things that were shown on Tucker. So I think McCarthy's goal is to sort of get some counter narrative out there, show the public some of the stuff that the Jan 6th committee did not show us. And it was interesting. I think it was actually very interesting. You know, I think Tucker downplayed some of the overall sense of what happened on January 6th. He kind of did the mostly peaceful thing that CNN did during the BLM riots, which is not accurate. But he did break a lot of news on sort of what was happening behind the scenes in some of these instances. And I think overall, we're better off having seen this footage than not having seen it. I'll start with you, Emily. What do you think? Yeah, I would agree with you that there's different language I would have used from Tucker, but that's such a small issue compared to the fact that his footage suggests the panel that House Democrats created, the select

committee on January 6th that they impaneled to look into this, seems to have hid evidence from defendants' attorneys. Someone was on Laura Ingraham's show, one of the attorneys for the defendants, last night said that there was footage Tucker has released that they were never given access to despite asking the DOJ. That's a huge story. The January 6th committee seems to have deceivingly kept evidence about the case of Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon shaman. Whatever people think of the Ray Epps theories, they also seem to have misled the American people about Ray Epps' timeline of where he was in and around the Capitol. so those to me are much much much bigger stories than whatever Tucker's take on the event may be and even his take on it has been misrepresented by the media there was a

tweet from David French that said you know there's so many people who haven't seen violent clips like this one and he linked to a clip of real violence happening at the Capitol that day I went and looked at the first five minutes of Tucker's show on Monday and pulled screenshots of him showing the violence. His narrative is basically that, yes, there was violence. You didn't see the full story, though. And as somebody who was reporting on the ground at the Capitol on January 6th, I still insist that was the strangest thing,

is that there were different things happening on different parts of the Capitol. I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist. I think it's just incompetence as so many conspiracy theories actually are. The sad reality is that our government and the law enforcement in this case just had layers of incompetence. And that's the real story. You know, QAnon shaman Eliana is one of the interesting ways in and out of this story and its latest developments because QAnon shaman is shown by Tucker walking around the Capitol. And it does look like he's being escorted by police. At one point, he walks by seven to eight of them and they're kind of letting him walk around. And Tucker points to this is like, I thought he was a violent insurrectionist.

I thought he was one of the most fundamental threats to democracy since the Civil War. This is what we keep getting told. Then why isn't anybody reacting to him accordingly? Now, the Capitol Police have responded and Democrats have responded. It's called de-escalation. That's what they say. You know, and the Capitol Police are mad that Tucker didn't check in with them for their narrative, though it's been given many timesation. We were outmanned. We're outnumbered. And it doesn't make sense to really go after any particular individual under those circumstances. Well, okay. It is a little strange that we have seven to nine officers in one instance, and they're not going after him. And if he's, if they really believed he posed a threat, I can see, you know, like, look at this. It's, it is a little strange. And if I were QAnon Shaman's lawyer and, and I presume that they have all this footage, they would have had to receive it during his trial at which he pleaded guilty. He didn't actually have a trial, but he pleaded guilty.

So I'm sure they had this video. But I do wonder why QAnon Shaman's lawyers didn't get more into his state of mind to say the guy didn't believe that he was actually committing a felony because he did have an armed escort through half of his journey inside. That's what I would have argued. So as a lawyer, it raised some questions for me. And I don't think the Capitol Police and the de-escalation thing, like I get it in general, but it is weird. There are so many cops opening the doors for him, letting him have a total pass. It does make you stop and wonder. Well, I think we know the Capitol Police from January 6th weren't the most competent force in the country. But to zoom out a little bit, I think one of the

main problems that we're seeing here is we've only seen this footage filtered on the one hand through the January 6th panel, which had the former president of ABC News selecting and editing clips that were then shown to the country. And on the other hand, it's now being filtered through Tucker Carlson. And I think what really needs to happen is all of the footage should be released and interested people should be able to go and see it all without these partisan filters. I'm pretty sure we know the politics of the former president of ABC News and we know Tucker Carlson's politics. Look, bottom line is whether these the January 6th protesters were violent insurrectionists or whether they were peacefully disrupting proceedings of Congress, these guys were not

supposed to be inside the Capitol. They weren't supposed to be in Nancy Pelosi's office putting their feet on her desk and they were disrupting lawful proceedings of Congress. And I think to try to whitewash that is distasteful. Sure, you can argue it wasn't as bad as some people made it out to be. But, you know, if one or two or five people did that today, walked into the Capitol and went onto the House floor where they weren't supposed to be, that would be a major event. And so I think we should release all the footage and not try to say like, you know, this this wasn't so bad. It's not good. You know, Emily, I think I get why it's controversial to release it to Tucker. But I also feel like that January 6th committee was so disgusting in its partisanship. And there was no defense. It was a it was a clown show. It was a

it was a circus trial. There was no defense. Adam Kinzinger is about as much of a Republican at this point or certainly a Trump defender as Jennifer Rubin, you know, or Nicole Wallace. It's a joke. And Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. Right. He's what? Yes. CNN contributor Liz Cheney is a Republican, but nowhere near a Trump defender or somebody like a Jim Jordan who would have been poking holes appropriately in some of the things the Jan six committee did. And so it was so one sided. I think McCarthy probably chose, you know, a partisan, you know, and I, as somebody who is more of a pundit as opposed to a straight news journalist like Tucker for a reason. Here he was. McCarthy got approached by CNN on whether he regrets it. Chuck Schumer is very bad. Do you regret giving the tapes to Tucker? This is just yesterday.

Here's how McCarthy responded. Do you regret giving him this footage so he could whitewash the pencil that day? No. I said at the very beginning, transparency. What I just want to make sure is I had transparency because I know in CNN, I mean, I had here where you guys actually broke where we were. This is a secret location, Fort McLaren. I don't know if you got concerned by that. I don't even know from a point of view of security if we could ever be taken there again. But when you broke that at CNN. So he's pointing out because one of the objections the Democrats are raising is there are secret routes inside the Capitol that could be exposed in these videos. I don't think they're actually saying they were exposed in the Tucker videos. And Tucker says

all the stuff he's okayed for air has been run by congressional authorities, presumably from McCarthy's office, to make sure no secret routes or locations were disclosed, as CNN did, according to McCarthy. So he's trying to play the holier-than-thou card, like, I couldn't trust you people at CNN, so I went to somebody I could. What do you make of it? Well, yeah, and contrast that with how Mitch McConnell handled similar questions. He came out talking to reporters with a prop, totally prepared to criticize Tucker, not to criticize the problems in the Democratic Party that Tucker's reporting seems to be exposing. The same thing is true of Kevin Cramer, of Tom Tillis, of Lindsey Graham, of Mitt Romney. These are all Republican senators who took this bait,

what I would consider bait, asking if it's okay to whitewash January 6th from Tucker's perspective. What Republicans should be laser focused on is evidence here. This is new evidence, and it's evidence that Democrats acted poorly. So the small story of whether Tucker is a partisan, I would just say that priorities should be more in one direction instead of on that partisan bickering front. And I remember sitting down with Kevin McCarthy in September, I think it was, and talking to him about the Democrats committee, which they said was bipartisan because to your point, Megan, it had Kinzinger and Cheney on it. Wouldn't see Jim Banks and others. But they he's basically trying to make a point that that committee was so partisan in its nature that it has forever changed relationships between both parties in Washington, D.C., because it shattered precedent.

They subpoenaed phone records from members of Congress, et cetera, et cetera. changed relationships between both parties in Washington, D.C., because it shattered precedent. They subpoenaed phone records from members of Congress, et cetera, et cetera. And that is when you see Kevin McCarthy turning around and fielding a question so differently from Mitch McConnell. That's where that's coming from, is how for House Republicans, this was like a fundamental event that reshaped their mindsets in a different direction, basically. So I think it's really interesting to see how everybody's reacting to this. And I agree with you, put it all out there because it is partisan filtering in either direction on a very important consequential tragedy. One of the ugliest days, I think, in American history, not worse than 9-11, like Steve Schmidt said on MSNBC. But we should be able to just adjudicate the evidence for ourselves at this point.

He's an idiot. Anybody who compares this to 9-11 is an idiot and should be written off immediately. I made this point early on and I was attacked as like a truther on January 6th. It's like, would you take a seat? You can say it was terrible and that there was terrible violence that day without saying it was worse than 9-11, you morons, you partisan ideologues who are trying to mislead us. Those are the ones who get us in trouble. Tucker's trying to sort of show the other side right now, which we haven't seen because there was nobody representing the Trump side or the, I don't know, the protesters side, if you will, because there's always a defense at that committee hearing. But I agree with you fully, Emily, that

one of the interesting things about this story, and we'll get to the Fox Dominion updates to that story as well, is who's landing where? Who's saying what about it? And what are they saying? Because these intra party squabbles are interesting on a Republican level. And then this one, this Jan 6th is more complex than that. It's Dems versus Republicans, but it's also Republicans versus Tucker to some extent. And that's the Mitch McConnell quote you just mentioned. Here's what he said, Eliana. I wonder, why do you think he did this? Listen, Sot 3.

My concern is how it was depicted, which is a different issue. He's holding a police statement. Clearly, the chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly describes what most of us witnessed firsthand on January 6th. It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this in a way that's completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at Capitol thinks. Wow. What's that about? I don't actually think it's that puzzling. You know, first off, these Republicans were there that day.

And I think that the statements are colored by their own experience. If a crowd of protesters stormed your office and disrupted your workplace, I think that would be jarring. And and, you know, you'd be shaken up by it. Abby would never allow that. She would. Abby would throw down. She would never let them pass the gate. You're in good hands. But more importantly, I think McConnell and the other Republicans who are taking on Tucker have come to see that point of view, the kind of, oh, January 6th wasn't that bad. They saw those arguments play out on the campaign trail in 2022 in the midterms. And they think that carrying on, like advancing those arguments is a political liability for the Republican Party. And they are trying to tamp down the crazy ahead of 2024. Okay. So that leads me to sort of a second interesting point on this, Emily, which is

according to Mediaite, and already I can see their report is half wrong. They say that the rest of Fox is not covering this. I think they also said Hannity and Ingram ignored it, which isn't true. Ingram, you know, as you point out, did have somebody on as a follow up. But I think it's true that most of the Fox day side is not covering it. Brett Baer did one report using their Capitol Hill producer, Chad Pergram, which included some of the criticism. But it's not like, I mean, trust me, I worked at Fox for many years. So if somebody gets a big, big scoop, you ride it, you ride the wave, you blanket the channel with it, you have it exclusively, it's yours, nobody else has it. The fact that it's not ubiquitous across the channel definitely says

something. And Chuck Schumer came out yesterday and basically challenged Rupert Murdoch to not let Tucker air this stuff anymore, which as J.D. Vance tweeted, what are you doing? Like, what is the media doing? Not pushing back on this, like, attempt from a senator to to threaten, not threaten, but I guess pressure a media. Let me forgive the interruption. We have that. Let's play it and then I'll let you finish your thought. Here's Chuck Schumer. Last night, millions of Americans tuned into one of the most shameful hours we have ever seen on cable television. Fox News host Tucker Carlson ran a lengthy segment last night arguing the January 6th

Capitol attack was not a violent insurrection. I don't think I've ever seen a primetime cable news anchor manipulate his viewers the way Mr. Carlson did last night. I don't think I've ever seen an anchor treat the American people and American democracy with such disdain. He's going to come back tonight with another segment. Fox News should tell him not to. Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, tell Carlson not to run a second segment of lies.

I urge Fox News to order Carlson to cease propagating the big lie on his network and to level with their viewers about the truth, the truth behind the efforts to mislead the public. Conduct like theirs is just asking for another January 6th to happen. Go ahead, Em. I mean, that's just completely like a great example of how I think so many people criticizing the package that Tucker aired on Monday did not watch the full package. And that's where I think there are a lot of other people like me that feel like they're in between a rock and a hard place on this question.

Like it sucks when people downplay January 6. It was ugly. It was horrible. It was dangerous and it was tragic. On the other hand, it has been exploited and mistreated by people who claim that they should be the censors of information and by people who claim that they have the moral high ground as reporters or as politicians. And so it is if you watch the full segment, if you watch the full episode of Tucker Carlson

tonight from Monday and from last night, again, there is language that I would have used that is different. But at the same time, I don't really think it was that focused on downplaying so much as raising questions about things Democrats had in their possession that they did not show. So Mitch McConnell's version of what Tucker did, Chuck Schumer's version of what Tucker did, I think is just discordant with what viewers actually saw, which to Chuck Schumer's point, it wasn't really as bad as you think. If you watched the full segment of Mitch McConnell, watched the full hour, which I doubt they did, maybe they did, but I doubt it. I just don't think it was as like whitewashing and downplaying. And there are people who do whitewash. There are

people who do downplay January 6th. But I just don't think that's what Tucker did. I don't think that's what Fox did. I agree with you, Megan. It's interesting that Fox isn't picking it up, but it might be because on the news side, they are getting a lot of pressure. And some of the leaks that have come out of the Dominion lawsuit show that they're very sensitive and they're probably spooked by the lawsuit in and of itself. But that's no excuse not to ride your own reporting. Either you stand by it ride your own reporting. Either

you stand by it or you don't. Either it belongs on the channel or it doesn't. You know, either if Tucker airs it, it's it's fair game for the channel. You can't just have like run and hide once he breaks this big story. It's like, oh, it's not happening. That that makes no sense to me. To your point about not not showing all the footage. Brian Sicknick is a great example of that. So Tucker has footage of the police officer, Brian Sicknick, walking around after he was allegedly attacked. And in the words of the leftists who covered this, including the New York Times and the Washington Post early on, murdered. They were accusing the riot writers of murdering Brian Sicknick prior to this point where we see him walking around with a fire extinguisher. Now, that's not true. The New York Times had to retract its reporting a month after it dropped it because some, you know, not as well known sites, I think like Revolver News came out saying, your reporting's bullshit, New York Times. Brian Sicknick was not killed with a fire extinguisher.

He was walking around the Capitol and people who knew him saw it. So Tucker has the footage, which he says, and I haven't gone back and looked at all of it, so I'm taking his word on this, was not aired by the January 6th committee. Now, since then, we know, thanks again to that initial report by Revolver and then others who followed up, Glenn Greenwald did great reporting on this in April of 2021, Brian Sicknick was not murdered. Brian Sicknick was a police officer there that day who was sprayed by bear spray by two guys, one of whom unleashed it on him, we're told. And then later that night, late that night or the next day, had a blood clot. He suffered from two strokes, which the medical examiner said, you know,

the whole, all of the events of January 6th may have contributed to his death, but it's unclear. And the medical examiner also refused to reveal whether Brian Sicknick had a preexisting condition that made that blood clot and stroke, those two strokes, more likely. No one's been able to say the bear spray caused the stroke. The medical examiner just suggested that certainly the day's events, stressful day and so on, didn't help. I'll get the exact language of what he said. But my point is, why wouldn't the January 6th committee set the record straight?

Because what we had instead was people like Raskin and others continuing to push the lie that Sicknick was murdered or that he was killed as you know, that day as a result of the insurrection. That's too strong based on what the medical examiner said. And to this extent, what Tucker's doing is a public service, Eliana. Well, the goal of the January Sixth committee was not to set the record straight. It was to lay the groundwork for a referral to the Justice Department for a prosecution of President Trump. And Megan, I laughed a little bit earlier when you said that everybody's worried, you know, the Democrats are worried that Tucker Carlson showing this footage has exposed the

Capitol to a security threat. And I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but we all know it's kind of true. There is nothing the Democrats would like more than another raid insurrection at the Capitol, because this has been a political goldmine for them, climaxing in the January 6th hearings at the Capitol. So, you know, give me a break. And the mainstream media, by the way, which completely distorted the Brian Sicknick's death. Both the Democrats and the mainstream media, to the extent there's any distinction between the two groups, have been milking this event for everything it is worth and treating it as a political football from the moment it happened. Yes. OK, so just to tell you exactly what the medical examiner said, they said Sicknick's participation in defending the Capitol that day, quote, all that transpired played a role in his condition. That's what he said. That is a far cry from he was

murdered that day. That is what the left has been saying about Brian Sicknick. And you know what else they've been saying is that five people were killed that day. Five people were killed. That's not true either. Two Trump supporters who were at the Capitol that day had heart attacks. That is not like that's not what they're trying to imply. They want us to believe that the Trump supporters were the one causing the heart attacks, causing people to die. Two Trump supporters had heart attacks. One person OD'd on amphetamines, who was again, a Trump supporter, part of the crowd. Then there was Ashley Babbitt, who was a Trump supporter trying to break into, I think it was Nancy Pelosi's or one of the secure parts of the Capitol. She was shot by police, though she was unarmed. I'm not one of those people who says she was

murdered. She was breaking the law. And I understand why she got shot. I would not use the term murder for her either. But that's number four. And they count Brian Sicknick, who died the next day of two strokes caused by a blood clot. And the strongest thing we have on him is all that transpired at the Capitol played a role in his condition. And to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know whether that's true or not. I do know that in a lot of these cases, sometimes the medical examiner will say something like that so that you can get death benefits saying the person died in the line of duty. It's a lot more beneficial for the police officers, survivors, his, his next of kin. I'm not saying I know that that's what happened here, but let's be honest. Two strokes the next day after the man was walking around post the attack is not does

not support the murder line or killed in the insurrection that we've been fed. So anyway, we were not shown that footage and it's important to show it. And and even today, you've got people out there with the five people were killed that day, misleading lies, because to Eliana's point, Emily, they want to play it up. It was bad enough as it was. We've seen the footage of the cops getting beaten, right? That's bad enough. And the people hanging and desecrating the Capitol, it's disgusting. And defecating in the Capitol, disgusting. And I believe lawmakers were scared. I've heard from Pence's people personally that they were genuinely scared inside the Capitol that day. I get all of that. But that January 6th committee was propaganda. And this is the answer to it. Yeah, I do think it was personal for Mitch

McConnell and Chuck Schumer in ways that are like emotionally understandable and resonant, because if you watch the documentary that Nancy Pelosi's daughter Alex made, there's actually some really interesting footage of Republicans and Democrats in congressional leadership working together to try to solve the situation. And that brings us to exactly the point you just made, Megan, is that when we're litigating how all of these people died tragically, we are our inability to have any sense of unity as a country over what happened on January 6th and to just come together and agree. Things have gone way too far out of control. A lot of that is because people in regular America are responding to the fact that corporate media and the Democrats did did get a lot of this wrong.

I was going to say lie to them, but I don't think it was all intentional. I think a lot of it is just incompetence, ignorance, arrogance, all of that combined. And so you have average Americans reacting and saying, so why didn't they show this footage of Jacob Chansley being escorted around the Capitol building by police officers? Why did they get the timeline on Ray Epps wrong? What are they hiding from us? And so then we have to relitigate this over and over again. I immediately, after walking off Capitol Hill that day, took so much shit from some people on the right, who had good reason, by the way, not to believe any of the reporting that was coming out of the Capitol, because they have been lied to by the media for years, saying, that was leftists,

that was Antifa. I saw a guy screaming at people who jumped up on statues, you know, you're making us look like a bunch of effing leftists. Like there were even those divisions among the people that were there. But it is just the fact of the matter. There were real Trump supporters. There were people who were very angry that day, fully believed the election was being stolen out from under their noses, which it was not, but fully believed that and were angry enough to riot. That's the real story. And the fact that we have not been able to handle this with any sense of unity or seriousness for the last two years is a tragedy as well. You know, the other thing is, once again, I know we want to focus on, you know, OK, was was Tucker right about like

these were sightseers? I think he might have used the word sightseers. I'll go back and check that. But no. OK, some of them were. But the dishonest, like these same people who are playing holier than thou right now, Eliana, are the same people who literally use the term mostly peaceful in describing the BLM protests. I mean, literally use that exact term. It was on a CNN chyron and who won't acknowledge the fact that 2000 cops got injured in the BLM protest. 2000. That's according to law enforcement groups that have actually taken the numbers, not to mention the number dead, which is way higher than five.

And they weren't they didn't die by heart attack in those protests and the arsons and the hell that they unleashed on our country post George Floyd. I mean, you could go back to just May and June post George Floyd. 700 cops were injured just in that period alone. Then none of these people gave a shit. Sorry, they didn't. Lent. Anyway, they didn't care. So please just like spare me. It's still for me is very irritating to listen to people like Chuck Schumer try to pretend he cares when he couldn't have cared less about the violence that was going on

to the cops that got hurt in places like Kenosha. That's where CNN had the mostly peaceful Chiron. Right. So it's like, could you just take a seat? And by the way, Chuck Schumer, too. Here's the other thing. I don't think I've ever seen a primetime cable news anchor manipulate his viewers the way Mr. Carlson did. Do you watch Rachel Maddow? Did you take in one minute of her Russiagate coverage or her Trump tax return nonsense? Give me a break. and Chief Thursday. Megan, you know from having spent time there, there's nothing Democrats like to do more than inveigh against Fox News because it has an enormous audience. It's what, three times, four times the audience that Rachel Maddow has. It clobbers their cable news channels in the ratings every single day. And this is a purely political exercise on the part of Chuck Schumer and the Democrats who are bashing Fox News. And I think the sad part about this is and this gets into the Dominion stuff a little bit, is that the devolution of Fox News

over the past few years has made, you know, for a long time, everything they said about Fox News was a load of crap. But some of the things that have happened over the past few years, like Fox News has fulfilled some of the criticisms that they've had had of it. And that is painful for those of us who are conservatives. We'll get to that in our next block. But here's the Tucker quote. Overwhelming majority were not causing damage. These were not insurrectionists. These were sightseers. Well, so he did use the term sightseers. So it is true. That is true of some sites, some, some were sightseers and some were rioters. And I don't believe that this was an insurrection at all legally or in any other way. But it was a riot. I mean, I don't think there's much doubt about that. You don't have to, you don't have to understate it or overstate it to stay truthful on this. And someone should tell

Chuck Schumer that because he was way off in those comments. And to suggest that like you shouldn't run it. Fox has this scoop and they shouldn't do anything with it is just totally disingenuous. I mean, no news organization that got this leak would not do anything with it. That's absurd. And that's also why it's weird. Fox isn't doing more with it. I mean, to not do more with it is an indictment by Fox of Tucker, which is irritating. If I were Tucker, I'd be mad. You know what? For Chuck Schumer, he can stay in his lane. He can stick to governing and the news organizations can stick to figuring out what to broadcast.

But it does suggest to me that and the Dominion filings get to it, too. I know we're not there yet, but like who's in charge over there at Fox? Because when I work there- Wait, that's a great tease. Hold that thought. I'm going to leave. I'm going to leave. That's your tease for the next block. Yeah, yeah.

Who's in charge over there? More with the EJs right after this. Okay, Eliana, here we go. Who's in charge over there? The reason you're asking that about Fox News is there's just been a torrent of bad news for them over the past couple of weeks in the context of the Dominion defamation lawsuit against Fox. They're smartmatic. It's a separate group. They've got lawsuits against people like Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, like all the people who platformed the election lies about Dominion being a Hugo Chavez operation that meant to turn the votes that people cast for Trump into Biden votes are getting their asses sued. And it's a good lawsuit. In other words, like it's smart to bring it. Whether they're actually going to win it is a different question. For those who want to deep

dive on that, go see our Friday episode where we had on the New York Times reporter who's been covering this, Jeremy Peters. And then we did two really smart defamation lawyers on how this is going to shake out. For those who missed it, I'll give you the bottom line. If if the case comes down to what an individual's anchor said at an individual time, Dominion is probably going to lose. If Dominion can cast the suit as about the tone on Fox for three weeks versus what Fox executives and many talent actually thought of the Dominion allegations at the time, then Dominion is probably going to win. That's the summary. But today there's more reporting over the weekend. There's been more reporting. Jeremy Peters, same guy, follows up, had a report over the weekend. I'm not going to lie, Eliana made me really sad. The report over the weekend made me really sad. I did not know until I read that report that Bill Salmon had been fired

from Fox because of the Arizona call. I knew our friend Steyerwald had been, that was horrible enough. I thought, I thought Bill Salmon quit in disgust because they're, they're buddies there. They work together. I worked with these guys for a decade plus. They are honorable men. They are good, honest reporters, both of them who care. And I think people would be surprised if they knew the truth about their politics. You know, you can't figure out what the politics of that decision desk are. You really don't. Took me years and getting to know them very well to figure out where they stood and who they voted for.

You'd be shocked. But they're all across the board. It's a it's a mishmash match. So these are not like never Trumpers or pro Trumpers or just honest guys. They made the call in Arizona. I realize it was controversial. It wound up being very, very tight, probably tighter than the decision that decision desk anticipated. But they did get it right. And Steyerwald and Salmon were fired for making that right call. And Steyerwald went out on the air to defend it because Fox asked him to. I mean, I don't know how you lose your job for that, but it happened.

And the article shows that that went right up to the top, Rupert and Suzanne, all of them, and that they had this conference call with the anchors about what to do that I have separate thoughts on. But the reporting today is now about Carlson, Tucker Carlson behind the scenes. I don't know. This stuff doesn't bother me as much. I have to say he's like he hates Trump. All right.

I mean, how do you know how a news anchor feels about anything? Right. It's like the question is not how Tucker feels about Trump. It's how he covers him. Like the question is not how any news reporter feels about Trump or Biden. It's how they cover them on the air. They're allowed to have their own private feelings, not to diminish the overall scandal that they're embroiled in. So what are your thoughts on it,

Eliana? I was struck by a couple of things. The first is that the Arizona call was controversial. And I saw when the New York Times put this article up that a lot of the data gurus, Nate Silver and the others were saying, well, the call was actually wrong. It was too soon to call it and they couldn't have known. And OK, maybe I don't know. I don't have the expertise to know whether the call was too soon. But I was struck by in the internal conversations that are in these filings, the arguments against the Arizona call were not on the merits. They weren't saying, oh, it was too soon. They were saying, we're getting blowback from the viewers. The pro-Trump, you know, MAGA types are mad. And Brett Baier, of all people, saying, we're just taking so much heat. I think we need to walk this thing back. None of it was, none of the arguments against it were based on the actual

merits and the mechanics of the call. And then they tossed two people overboard because of it. And beyond that, I was also struck by the extent to which Suzanne Scott was doing, A, being bossed around by Rupert, which, okay, he's her boss. But I was at Fox from 2008 to 2011. This was very much Roger Ailes' Fox News. And, you know, everything we know was that he pushed back and kept Rupert Murdoch at bay. And on the other hand, being bossed around by her primetime anchors, which suggests that, and by the way, those guys, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, and Tucker Carlson, brag about the fact that they're not accountable to anybody over there. And so I think internally, the job of running Fox News is a talent management job. And that's what I picked up in my three years there. And I was a very junior person over there, but you can pick up a lot of things being pretty junior. It was very clear that like Roger's role there, a lot of it was like reminding talent that you work for me. Like I give you this slot on the air and that is clearly

gone by the wayside. There's no management up by Suzanne Scott and there's no management down from Suzanne Scott to talent. You're, you're, you're a hundred percent right. I'm sorry, but that's exactly it. And you can't lead an organization with the approach of, I am going to keep my head down and my mouth shut enough to maintain my executive role. That's not leadership.

Try to keep everybody happy. Yeah, I just don't want to be, I don't, that could be my head in a basket, is not leadership. That's not leadership. And the egos and the stars that, you know, cable news produces grow so big that they do need to be managed.

And that's like Roger got that. I mean, back in the Roger days, he had Bill O'Reilly. Can you imagine managing Bill O'Reilly's ego? He's a very strong personality. And he was a big star and he was our number one star and our number one show. And Roger understood that he had built that. You know, Roger had built that and allowed that to be built. Not like Bill had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying, you know, it was under Roger's leadership. But when he laid down the law on Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, yours truly,

any of us, we knew it was the law that he was the boss and we had to do what he said. And since he's he left and he was forced out, of course, that's that leads me back to the beginning of the show and bombshell and that whole story. Since he left, they haven't had that strong leadership with somebody who's got 10 and two on the steering wheel and does not let the thing pull too far right or left. That was Roger's genius and never letting it pull too far left. Yes, of course, because news tends to be left and young people you hire tend to be left or too far right. People don't give Roger enough credit for that. He understood where the American people were,

where the audience was. And that takes genius. It takes strength. It takes the guts of a true leader. And I do think that the absence of that is what has led to a lot of these problems. The primetime anchors, of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. Of course, they're running their own individual fiefdoms. I blame them less than I blame the management, to be perfectly honest with you. Like Tucker, what's his job is to put numbers on the board. He's an opinion guy. I totally agree.

You know, it's like I get what he's doing. I don't get why management isn't being stronger about this is our vision. This is where we are OK and where we're not OK. Roger would have had right after Arizona. He would have said whatever. Maybe he would have said it is too close. We're going to take that back the call and we're going to wait. And that's fine. Maybe that's what he would have said, but he would have had a very clear vision. He would not have had a fucking

conference call with 40 people and fired the decision. No, that never would have happened. It upsets me because the thing that Roger did was he protected the news division. He always protected the news division. Why did he do that? Because he understood it was integral to the reputation of Fox News. There could be no Bill O'Reilly, no primetime commentators without the news engine driving the respect for the organization as begrudging as it might have been from our critics. And they're not doing that now. They're not protecting the news division. They're surrendering in these memos. That's what it's showing.

They're surrendering to audience demand or fear of falling ratings. That's not the way. That's not it. Sometimes the audience gets disappointed. You don't think they were disappointed when Mitt Romney lost? I was there, believe me.

The primetime ratings went off the cliff, but you know what happened? They came back. You didn't have to lie to the audience. You didn't have to mislead the audience. They came back. It's a long-term game. And they need a strong leader who understands that. And I'm sorry, because I'm friendly with most of these people. They don't have it. So that's my two cents on it. What do you make of it, Emily? Yeah, I think there's two things going on. First is that Roger Ailes is somebody who is basically,

it's impossible for anybody to step in those shoes without some like cataclysmic level of destruction for at least some period of time. It does seem though that they're continuing to struggle longer than beyond what seems reasonable, beyond what you would expect. I mean, we're coming up on a decade pretty soon here of the post-Ailes Fox News era. So, yes, I think that's part of it. But secondly, I also think Fox News is caught in one of the strangest places in all of corporate media. They're basically the one network, the one news channel that is willing to give voice to people like Tucker Carlson. And that means, by the way, and have like Glenn Greenwald on. You won't find him on any other corporate media network these days. And so that means they are managing this news division

with an audience that is very different from the sort of corporate bosses in New York, you know, for good or for bad in different ways. But there's the coming apart phenomenon that Charles Murray wrote about back in 2012, where you're looking at how different the audience is from the people who are in the Tony Manhattan skyscrapers that are trying to manage this company. I feel like they are right now, without Ailes' leadership, struggling to know where the clear

boundaries are and should be because they don't know when to give their audience the benefit. And another thing to Eliana's point that is so disappointing from what's come out of the lawsuit is just how obsessed with like Newsmax. They're upset about they're worried about competition potentially from Newsmax in the weeks after the election, after the Arizona call. I mean, it is all just an obsession with money. And of course, that's what corporate media is. And I don't think anybody has a lack of understanding of that. But in some of these cases, it's just like, really,

really, there's a profit question at stake here, not the fact that this report might be glaringly incorrect. So just the insight into the way the boardroom was sort of handling the news side of the business was really interesting. But as somebody who grew up in Wisconsin, watching Fox News, as a conservative, as somebody who went to church every week and thought differently, believed in the Second Amendment, Fox News meant a lot to me growing up. It meant a lot to a lot of people in the so-called flyover country. And so it's a very, very hard position, I think, for people making millions of dollars

living in the New York area to try and manage this massive corporation with the one sort of anti-establishment audience in media. You need, look, I'm biased because I love this guy, Tom Lowell. He was my executive producer. When I first, I had never even anchored a live broadcast when I was very young there. And he, I he, I got thrown into like the weekend 11 AM spot. Suddenly, you know, I was like, I was doing a pre-taped show for the first time as an anchor that weekend. It was like subbing for Geraldo, but they're like, you're here and we need somebody live at 11 AM. I'm like, Oh God, I've never done live. And it was Tom Lowell. And you would think, you would think that the executive producer would be like, okay, I'm just going to stick

with the nice little rundown that you have. You're going to do it. Your first, no, Tom Lull, typical Tom Lull was like, we're throwing it out. There's breaking news. He's in my ear. I'm like, holy shit. What is this thing? A beautiful relationship was formed that day. And he was my EP from that point forward, America's Newsroom, America Live, the Kelly file. And now he's in senior management over there. Tom Lull is the closest thing they have to Roger Ailes without the harassment. He's a leader. He's strong. He loves the channel and he loves the news, but has his finger on the pulse of what the audience wants. You need somebody over there who loves the channel enough to understand when the answer is no, right? When you have to disappoint the audience and you have to stay within the factual bounds, but also is fearless. You need somebody who's going to say, I'm fine

taking the risk. Tucker has a big exclusive where he's going to do his thing. And then the news division is going to do its thing. And it's going to be a thing of beauty. And the Chuck Schumer soundbite is delicious. And we're going to run it on loop all day and defend our channel and what we do which is tell the other side of the story brit hume used to say it's like picking money up off the street like picking money up off the street they won't tell it we'll tell it we are serving the country by telling the stories that they won't tell don't be embarrassed about it fucking paper the channel with it but be truthful you know and if you have a disagreement with the way the way your primetime opinion hosts tell it then then you tell it.

Tell it properly through your news people and don't just be embarrassed with one with one pre-taped segment with a Capitol Hill producer. Own it. Anyway, I like I got so many feelings about it. I'm so conflicted because I love these people, but I don't love what's happening there. All right. We have 30 seconds left for a comment. Who's going to say something? Megan, this is internal Fox News politics, but I think one of the things that's led them astray here is that they put a lot of stock in having a female CEO in the wake of the Roger Ailes scandal. And if you Google Suzanne Scott, you'll see dozens of mainstream media glowing profiles that do not get in, that do not really get into the nitty gritty there.

And I think that's that's one way they want to stray is they want the identity politics route as opposed to, you know, you mentioned Tom Lowell. Pretty sure he's a white guy, Megan. And I'm not I'm not sure that's what they were trying to go for and his lies. I mean, where to begin? We won't be able to cover them all, but we did get some more interesting information shedding light on the lies about how he manipulated the message about lab leak versus natural origin early on in the pandemic. This guy, it's amazing he's gotten away with this. It's amazing the mainstream media doesn't show more interest in what are clearly lies.

They come out every week, but they just won't love their little Fauci superhero doll. Each one of them goes to sleep with it at their bedside every night, and they can't, you know, no narrative could be advanced that contradicts it. The House Oversight Committee has new evidence behind Fauci's role.

They've got new emails now. And it relates to that article very early on in the pandemic, which had like all these virologists, some of the world's most respected saying, we've looked and natural origin. It wasn't a lab leak. And then Fauci and Collins, who ran the NIH, Collins was Fauci's boss, promptly went out and touted it. Look at this. Look at all these respected people, not connected to us, not connected to us, who went out there and they wrote this article, dispassionate, objective, saying natural origin. leak is racist. Take a seat if you're a lab leaker. You're a fringy conspiracy theorist. The respective virologists say natural origin. Look at this Nature magazine article. And Fauci went so far as to basically pretend he didn't even know these people. I can't remember even the names of who was on this paper. We have a little bit of that just to take you back to

April 17th, 2020, Fauci. Dr. Fauci, could you address these suggestions or concerns that this virus was somehow man-made, possibly came out of a laboratory in China? There was a study recently that we can make available to you where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now

is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human. So, I mean, the paper will be available. I don't have the authors right now, but we can make that available too. Okay. First of all, he's so tiny. Isn't he my God? It's like right next to Trump. It's like he's two giants that found. He's so small in the middle. Okay. He can't even remember who it was. And we've had people who were involved in this, like Dr. Bob Gary, by the way, if you haven't listened to that episode, you should. Episode 426.

Go back and listen on this show saying it was just an objective search for the truth. We were totally open minded to the lab leak theory. Well, now we see courtesy of the House Oversight Committee emails showing like here's one by this Christian Anderson. He was one of the main guys involved in this. His name's on the paper. This is from February 8th, 2020. He emails a professor in Germany. Our main work over the last couple of weeks while they're writing this thing has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab leak theory, any type of lab theory. So it wasn't objective. It wasn't some open-minded search. They had been tasked to go disprove the lab leak theory because China,

they were in bed with China. They were protecting China. The US was funding this whole thing, including what was happening in the Wuhan lab, including gain of function research on bat coronaviruses to make them more lethal or more contagious, and we didn't want anybody taking a closer look under that hood. That's the truth. Then you have Dr. Anderson and his group stating, as for the conference call of February 1st, Dr. Fauci, okay, they say Dr. Fauci did not, in Dr. Anderson's view, attempt to influence Dr. Anderson or any other member,

but the select subcommittee says that assertion is demonstrably false on february 12 2020 dr anderson wrote to nature requesting the publication of what would become that article and in it he wrote um there's been a lot of speculation there's been fear-mongering we're going to write this article uh for you nature and he's and writes, prompted by Jeremy Farah, that's a British guy, Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, etc. We have been working through much of the primarily genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypotheses around the origins of the virus. So he says this effort, this nature article is prompted by Fauci. He says

it right here. It was prompted by Fauci. Fauci has been telling us he had nothing to do with it. And then you have the other admission, as I just pointed out in this Dr. Anderson email to the professor in Germany saying, and our purpose is to disprove the lab leak theory. Okay. You follow? So it was all lies. Every day we get new emails that show Fauci's been lying and his little virologists who participated on that, that nature article, which they use to shame honest virologists out of saying it was lab leak. It was all a Fauci operation. It was disinformation as the media likes to call it. And you'll hear basically nothing about this in the mainstream media.

Eliana. He is a politician who never ran for office and was never elected to anything and had no business prescribing national policy for the country. And that clip you played of Fauci lying to the American people while Donald Trump stood up to one side of him and Mike Pence stood to the other, I think is a hell of a primary campaign ad against Donald Trump, who, to his discredit, empowered Fauci during the first year of COVID. There's no question. And that's a serious issue for him is his embrace of Fauci. And he never fired Fauci. One of the other things he's saying now is he's going to get rid of the Department

of Education. His critics are all like, why didn't you do that in your first term of office? That you actually could have done before. But he didn't fire Fauci. And Fauci is still a little mini God. Small as small, though he may be, Emily, he is a little superhero to the left. And they won't report on this. He's been lying to us all along. Of course, his fingerprints were all over the Nature article. He didn't give a shit where the pandemic originated because China. Well, yeah, and that's because China and because from the perspective of another country, I mean, I cannot get over how cynical it is for American elites to intentionally weaponize charges of racism. I mean, they intentionally weaponized charges of racism to cover for China and also

to cover their own asses. That's what Fauci is doing here. He knows that this was happening under his tenure, and it looks really bad. Their intel, that's another thing. Look at what Mike Pompeo has said in recent days. It was a lab leak. The American intelligence community had indications from the beginning that this was a lab leak. Anthony Fauci was almost certainly aware of that. And so they're aware that it looks like there's something going on in a lab that was being funded with American taxpayer dollars. And so they hold up racism as a shiny object, insulting, offending Americans, actually disrupting the journalistic pursuit of truth, doing all of that to cover

their own asses. It is just like so cynical and disgusting. Every single day that passes that we learn more, we realize how much more cynical and disgusting it was. But in the meantime, Fauci was treated, I mean, there were like several bars here in DC that had like Fauci themed drinks over the course of 2020, probably still sell them today because he got like photo shoots. He had spreads in magazines because journalists didn't do their job of treating him with skepticism as a public official and instead changed, turned him into a hero, which allowed him, empowered him in turn to cover his own ass by weaponizing these cynical charges of racism. All the other things I think he think I'll just make this point. I'll give you the floor. But they continue

to say this is just an objective search for truth. That's what led to the Nature article, even though 48 hours earlier, they'd all been saying fur and cleavage site suggests lab. It was created in a lab. This doesn't come from a natural animal. 48 hours later, after talking to Fauci and Collins, suddenly they're all on board with no way. Was it a lab leak? Right. And there's more evidence of that switch in these papers, these emails. I mentioned Dr. Jeremy Farrar. He's a Brit who seems to me as corrupt as Fauci is in this whole thing. He's now, by the way, the. Um, this has been, he'd been saying the same stuff as Fauci has, but he was more involved in the draft of this nature article than we previously knew. There are emails from Feb 10 and Feb 11th, the day before the draft was submitted to nature, or these virologists are all coming to this. Oh, so open-minded and like

ready to go wherever the evidence takes them. And here's one of these virologists emailing another. Um, he says things are moving so quickly. it's hard to keep up. Comments welcome. I favor natural evolution myself, but the furin cleavage site is an issue. I'll have a chat with Jeremy Farrar in a little while to see if we can get you more directly involved. Again, Farrar's kind of saying he had nothing to do with this. Okay, well, he was. And then it goes on to say that the other guy responds to him. This is it's well reasoned to provide a plausible argument against genetic engineering. It does not mean the draft of the Nature article eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture at the Institute in Wuhanuhan meaning lab leak it does not eliminate that possibility given the scale of the bat coronavirus research pursued there and the site of emergence of the first human cases hello which were in wuhan we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess and the other guy says i i agree talking to jeremy farrar in a few minutes um then goes on to say seems to have

pre been pre-adapted for human spread since the get-go. Where was that in the Nature article? Why did these open-minded virologists not include any of that in there? Because they were trying to spin us. And what Fauci and Collins did after that Nature article was published was tout it from every lectern little Fauci could manage to see over Eliana every single one to shame anybody out of covering it the other way Megan you were asking why isn't the media covering this uh you know they were the ones who were uh treating Fauci as he was their appeal to authority, and they were the ones broadcasting every claim he made

every day ad nauseum, and by the way, still are. So reporting on this would discredit all of the reporting that they've been doing for the past three years. So they are invested in Fauci as a mythical hero, and I don't expect a tremendous amount of coverage of these new revelations, but by the way, this stuff isn't the Fauci stuff is new, but it is on trend in that we already knew that, um, if you recall, uh, a host of virologists signed a letter to, I believe it was nature magazine in 2020 saying, um, the lab leak theory is crap. And only later, a couple of months later, six months later, maybe it was revealed that Peter Daszak organized that letter. And he was connected to this. This dirty pool has been happening the entire time. And what we're

learning now is that Fauci was at the center of it. All of it. He was the one who funded the gain of function research through EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak at the Wuhan lab. And Fauci knew that he had done this and that it was likely to come out. And he didn't want that for obvious reasons. And now we see the extent of his cover up, trying to get all of his BFFs to whom he would later grant. In some cases, some of these virologists got $10 million grants from Fauci shortly after this. He got all of his BFFs to whom he would later grant in some cases, some of these virologists got $10 million grants from Fauci shortly after this. He got all of his BFFs to say what he wanted them to say in that Nature article. And they did like good little puppies.

And Fauci was off to the races with his fringe conspiracy theorists, lunatics, racists. If you say lab leak, it's just more and more evidence on it. Peters out every day and the american public ought to be informed because there are still doubters out there and there's still people who believe in fauci whose edicts on things like vaccines are still haunting many americans and not just americans novak djokovic number one tennis player in the world cannot come to the United States. He couldn't come last year to the U.S. Open. He cannot come in the BNP Paribas Open, which is this month, because the Biden administration is denying him entry. The events begin today because he's unvaccinated, Emily.

I was just going to say, imagine being in Australia. Imagine being in France where their government is already kind of freaked out about the social justice ideology being exported from America into the rest of the world. Although I would say France did a lot of exporting of that earlier in the 21st century, in the 20th century, than they may perhaps like to admit. But imagine being Novak Djokovic and looking at this, seeing how your country was wrecked because the American bureaucracy, I am deeply embarrassed to say, is Byzantine and completely out of control to the point where we're doing gain-of-function research

like this after that pause in 2014, like this in a way that is so unaccountable, so unsafe, that there was potentially, and it looks like seriously, according to intelligence assessments, a lab leak that changed the course of world history that left people dead, that left people dead. And the Americans are weaponizing racism to cover their butts and to cover for the Chinese. Just imagine being another country. I'm not saying other countries are perfect. I'm not saying America is perfect. But what we have done here and what Fauci specifically, the more we learn, like revelations like this, I think show clearly how embarrassing what he did was for the United States.

It's not just a gross statement on our media. It's a statement on how our government and our media are allowing the United States sort of bureaucracy, the most powerful country in the world, the most powerful bureaucracy in the world, to have all of its tentacles and all of these different things around the world, but not be held accountable for them, not hold themselves accountable for them, not be able to monitor the research, not be able to control the research. And it is just like I said before, the thing that comes to mind is deeply embarrassing.

And to look at what's happening to Djokovic right now, to look at the way he's treated by our media after they helped our elites spread these charges of racism and these false narratives is just like, it's so embarrassing as an American. How dare we keep him out at this point, Eliana? How dare we keep him out? There were reports early on that he had COVID, right, that they were taking pictures of him. They're like, oh, he's circulating with people while he has. Well, if that's true, he's got natural immunity, which we've just learned officially from the liars who have finally come around to admitting that's even better for preventing future cases than the vaccine is. So best case scenario for Novak Djokovic, he's already had it and he should be fine coming into the United States.

But let's say he's never had it. Who cares? Who cares? The vaccines, those of us who are vaccinated can still get COVID. Those of us who've had COVID can still get COVID. We talked the other week about Savannah Guthrie, who I guarantee you has had every booster ever invented, who had to run off the Today Show set because she got COVID. The fact that he that yeah, she and she's had covid twice and she's had the vaccines. Oh, and he's had it. He's had it twice, too. So anyway, the point is, what basis do we have for keeping him out of the country? Him being vaccinated or unvaccinated is not going to affect a single American. It's ridiculous, and I think one of the most maddening things about the COVID epidemic has been the from the people who say we have to follow the science and who beat us over the head with follow the science, follow the science and tell us, tell folks like us that we don't care about science. are immune to scientific evidence when it doesn't suit their policies or their politics. So the truth is that natural immunity is as good as or better than a vaccine. And yet our policies make

no exception for the unvaccinated if they're naturally immune. And the same with mask wearing, for some reason, every medical office I go to in this country requires one of those silly, useless, you know, paper masks. And, you know, my my one year old's daycare instructors are still wearing masks. So that stuff is really frustrating. And I do think really undermines the credibility of our medical establishment. Fauci has done Fauci single handedly has done an enormous disservice, disservice in terms of people like me who, you know, I'm vaccinated. I used to trust doctors a lot more than I do now. I look at all of that stuff with a lot more skepticism now after COVID than I did before. I know. So now it's got a political angle to it, which is kind of interesting.

Ron DeSantis weighing in on the Novak because this is they basically call it the Miami Open. He's the governor of Florida and obviously eyeing a presidential run. So he weighs in, urging the Biden administration to to enforcement of a misguided, unscientific and out of date COVID-19 requirement. Even as you enacted the proclamation on air travel that remains in force to this day, your administration pointedly allowed thousands of unvaccinated migrants to enter our country through the southern border. And reportedly, according to Fox News, he's wondering out loud whether Djokovic could potentially enter the U.S. by boat. They're citing him as saying, it's not clear to me why, even by the terms of your own proclamation, Djokovic could not legally enter this country via boat. So maybe he's going to be on like a little sailboat trying to get in via the miami port it's absurd it's going to be a campaign issue it'll be used against joe biden by the republican

and it will probably be a more effective hit if it's somebody who doesn't have trump's record on fauci and so on however Trump would not acknowledge that because we now know Trump is prepared to hit Ron DeSantis on COVID. It's part of his plan, I think, to hit him on COVID. Yeah. We now have Trump's five-point plan to take down DeSantis. I don't know how he got his five-point plan, but we got his five-point plan. Axios got his hands on it. And here's what he's going to do to take down DeSantis. One, he's going to say DeSantis used to support, and I'm sure Trump will say he still does, changes to Social Security and Medicare, including votes as a U.S. congressman to raise the eligibility age for Medicare.

Number two, disloyal to Trump. That you get. Number three, wants to cast DeSantis as a lackey of Paul Ryan. We all know how that's going to sound. Number four, DeSantis' response to COVID is a top Trump target, says Axios. Even though the governor is known as being anti-lockdown, anti-mask mandate and so on, Trump's going to use DeSantis' caution in the earliest days of the pandemic and try to fight the issue to a draw. A March 2020, March 2020 headline in the Tampa Bay Times said DeSantis orders major shutdown of beaches, businesses in Broward and Palm Beach counties. Number five is DeSantis took heat for muddled comments in a Fox News interview last week about whether to maintain financial military support for Ukraine. Trump's going to paint him as wishy-washy on the war while Trump takes the MAGA line of cutting aid. All very interesting. I'm interested in the five-point plan. I do

wonder how the COVID thing is going to go. Thoughts on that, Emily? Yeah, well, to Eliana's point, Trump has a lot to answer for in terms of how he framed the vaccine, because it's not just about masks. It's not just about closings, et cetera, et cetera. What a lot of people have shifted to over time, and a lot of reasonable people, you won't hear it in the media, which is afraid, terrified, actually, to broadcast any opinion that goes against what Dr. Fauci insists is the absolute truth, no matter what. But there are a lot of people in this country who have been just absolutely jaded when it comes to the entire medical establishment and its relationship with the political establishment,

specifically because of the way the Trump administration, not the Biden administration, but the Trump administration talked about the vaccine. And so Donald Trump can make that attack on Ron DeSantis. I don't know whether or not it will stick because a lot of that depends on, you know, a head to head actual confrontation. What would that look like? You know, we had a lot of great things on paper, you know, that Republican candidates in 2015 said they were going to use against Donald Trump. And then in practice, they utterly fell apart because he told some hilarious joke and that nobody ever. Yeah. Yeah. Remember, he told us how to spell it. L.I.L.

It was like L.I.D.D.L.E. Right. He did a little. But yeah, now he's got Meatball Ron, which is honestly hilarious. I could not. Oh, wait, there's some other contenders on that. The Bloomberg reports Trump is considering new nicknames for ron desantis um ron dishonest abby abby laughed at that one she likes that one i guess ron establishment establishment and then last but not least tiny d oh man that's that might work that's pretty good as good as as good as Meatball Ron. And Meatball Ron is really good. Meatball. I don't appreciate the insult to the meatball.

I mean, like, to Santus also. But, like, as a daft Italian, no. Don't bring the meatball into it. And no man wants to be referred to, as I said before the show, as tiny in response to what Steve Krakauer said. Or tiny D, which is totally different. Just any master of innuendo. Eliana, what do you make of the five point plan? You know, some of them are stronger than others.

I think on covid, I don't think that's going to be his knockout punch, I'm guessing. But I do think on entitlements, that's the place where Trump has been consistent. And it will be interesting to see where DeSantis lands and what his message on that will be on the campaign trail. And on Ukraine, Trump is right. Trump has a very clear position. He wants out of Ukraine. And we don't know yet. He's right. DeSantis' comment was not clear. So it will be also interesting to see where DeSantis lands. But to the extent DeSantis can articulate clear positions on these things, you know, I think he can he can punch back. The other thing I would say is Trump has not exactly been known as a guy who sticks to plan.

And so I am skeptical that he's going to have a five point plan and execute it cleanly. So we'll see what happens. Right. You raise a good point. This is clearly one of his advisors, five point plan and whether Trump uses it or not. He will use those nicknames for sure. Who's going to take me on that? We're going to hear Tiny D at a debate. I totally believe that. And DeSantis not looking like that much of a meatball these days. I have to say he's looking pretty slim and slender. Last I saw. Calm down. I have to say again, like pejorative use of the meatball. I'm not in support of it. No, it feels wrong to me. All right. I know. Right. Exactly. Fredo is not a slur. I object to that. That's not correct. Fredo can be used against the right person. And he is that man.

Can we just spend one minute because there's a bunch of great culture stories that I want to get to you guys with. But John Fetterman is still at Walter Reed Medical Center. He's been there for 18 days plus now, I think, for his severe depression, getting it treated. But now we get a report that from his chief of staff posting a new photo. And the tweet is productive morning with Senator Fetterman at Walter Reed discussing the rail safety legislation, farm bill, and other Senate business. He's well on his way to recovery. Wanted me to say how grateful he is for the well wishes. He is laser focused on Pennsylvania and we'll be back soon. Really?

Is he a challenge? I mean, give me a break, Megan. The Beacon had a wonderful piece about how all we heard by our reporter, Chuck Ross, about how all we heard from the Fetterman campaign on the campaign trail was, I got a doctor's note here that says I am in peak physical condition after my stroke. Oh, another doctor, peak physical condition. I am perfectly fine. And then he gets into office and we hear, oh, he relapsed because he didn't take the recommended rest.

And it's like, wait, on the campaign trail, your doctor's note that you were waving around didn't say the guy needs to rest. And again, the mainstream media is not calling the guy out on the completely inconsistent messaging and how he BS'd. Well, I gotta say, like, it was pretty clear the guy was not well.

So I think the people of Pennsylvania rightfully voted this guy in. But his campaign spokesmen were lying all over the place about what the actual medical condition of the guy is. And instead, all we get from the mainstream media is lauding his courage for admitting to depression and checking himself in. You know, it's pathetic. Right.

And his honesty and being so open about his depression. Oh, really? When you said the people of Pennsylvania rightfully voted him in. Is that what campaign donor to say he's in peak physical condition. But it was pretty obvious when he debated that this guy was not fit to serve. And yet, like the people of Pennsylvania did make their choice. They voted him in. He won that election and they got what they voted for. You know, the guys hospitalized. Well, one thing I would laser focused, laser focused on PA. Go ahead. Super quick. I did the math and it was right after Fetterman won. I always thought he was a better candidate than people expected. But right after he won, I was a little caught off guard, not because Oz is a great candidate either, but just because the debate performance was so bad. Enough votes had been

cast by the time that debate happened. As the media had been lying, as Fetterman had been lying, the media had been letting him lie about his condition. More people voted by the time before that debate happened than his margin. So he had enough votes to beat Oz before that debate even happened. And so the media is complicit and continues to be complicit in not serving the constituents of Pennsylvania very well. That's a very good point. There were a couple of newspapers that, you know, sort of boldly said, this is BS. He's got a debate. And his team managed to stave off that pressure to the end of October. So we were only what, I don't know, a week or two away

from the vote. And as you point out, he had already banked enough by that when it was good calculations by his team, which is now laser light focused on misleading us about what's happening inside of Walter Reed. That's my dollar. Can't stop this guy from legislating. Yeah. All right. I'm sure. I'm sure. Right.

After he leaves his, you know, in-depth therapy meetings, he's out there asking about the, the farm bill. Come on. Anyway. Okay.

We have to get to Chris rock on Megan Markle. We have to get to Megan. And finally her son, Archie gets the title he deserves. Does she no longer think the royal family is racist? And Emily is very fired up about Vanderpump rules. There's a tease for you. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. Lots to get to. First of all, I was off the past couple of days and I didn't get to talk about the Chris Rock special and his comments on Meghan Markle, which I, of course, loved.

Here he is. And for those who forgot, Meghan Markle was on Oprah a couple of years ago complaining about little Prince Archie. And he might not get the proper title because the royal family's racist and they might withhold it because she's part black and so is Archie. And then she went on to say they're so racist, there was concern expressed. They were interested in the royal family about just how dark this baby was going to be. And Chris Rock had some thoughts on that. Seemed like a nice lady. Just complaining. I was like, like did she hit the light-skinned lottery the light-skinned lottery and still going off complaining acting all dumb

like she don't know nothing some of that she went through was not racism it was just some in-law. But she's complaining. I'm like, what the fuck is she talking about? Oprah, they're so racist. They wanted to know how brown the baby was going to be. They're so racist. They wanted to know how brown the baby's going to be. I'm like, that's not racist.

Because even black people want to know. So well done. So brilliant. It's like it's like between that and the South Park thing, Emily, it's like the comedians have a they do a better job of bringing home someone's stupid, narcissistic, woke BS than the pundits could take a year to do. And it's taken us like as a culture several years to where comedians and Chris Rock is generally pretty fearless, but as a culture where we feel comfortable laughing at Meghan Markle because for a while her charges of racism to her critics that this was sort of any criticism of her was categorically rooted in white supremacy, really cowed a lot of people out of even dealing with it. And I think ended up giving, on a serious note,

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, this whole lot of cultural cash. That's how they got deals with Netflix and Spotify to the tune of millions of dollars. They're involved with the Aspen Institute, which is like kind of censorious. They're critiquing our First Amendment and involved with a First Amendment type of group

or a press freedom type of group or a press freedom type of group. And all of that is because they were able to build and build and build on their reputation in the absence of criticism, because so many people were afraid to criticize them in the early years that they were weaponizing those charges of racism. It's not, of course, to say that they didn't get any of it, but to cast categorically all of the critics as racist has always been ridiculous. People loved Meghan Markle until she started being annoying. And we were both ripping on that Oprah interview. It was absurd on its face. If you were just objective and not under the woke spell of like,

Oh, we've got to support her because she's got a black mother. No, this is a nonsense lying person. And if you paid any attention to her, it became apparent pretty quick, quick. The thing is though,

she won't, she won't own up to any of this. Now she'll certainly, she's not going to reverse her claim on the racism, uh, just because Chris Rock said it, though. Harry seemed to, right. He did his book tour Eliana and he was like, did she say that? Did she use the term racism? And Tom Bradbury's like, well, she said, you know, that they were concerned about just what color the baby's skin was going to be. And he's like, she didn't use the term racist. So that somehow means that's not what she was implying. Even though all the news media ran with. She says there's a racist in the royal family and

she never went out to correct them. Will she come out to correct herself? Because she also said the royal family's racist because there's been debates about what title little Archie's going to get. And she suggested that's because she's half black and Archie's one quarter black. And that was her other charge of racism. And now we get the update today via the Daily Mail. Harry and Meghan have christened their daughter, Princess Lilibet Diana, and they have updated the website or will now be updating the website to call little Archie Prince Archie. And the whole concern was when Charles becomes king, will they get what is normally bestowed to the grandchildren of the

monarch, which is the title of prince and princess? And she was saying they're talking about not giving that to him. Well, they got it. So are we reversing our claims of racism now or aren't we? Where do we stand on that? So ridiculous to me that Harry on that point acts like he would never say anything negative about his family. If my memory serves correctly, you know, he basically said that of them. And beyond that, these two ditched the royal family, came to the States. It's not clear to me why, having said everything they've said about the royals and the culture of the palace, why they would want these titles for their children. That seems somewhat puzzling to me. Because they have their titles and they have the royal stationery. And this means nothing to them, but it's super fun to be a royal. So you

can pound sand if you don't like it. And they may or may not go to the coronation. They've been invited to the coronation. But these two losers, I mean, as if they're going to skip that. Does anybody believe that? Have they ever chosen to forego a chance to be the center of attention or on cam? They will be there. I mean, Lord knows those Netflix cameras are following them to that coronation.

I know. It's their only cultural relevance. But maybe not because again like they've had projects scuttled in like the last year i think interest in them is really waning there's a lot of interest obviously in crit like people who are willing to criticize them like you megan your stuff does really well when you talk about them because there's a huge market for it that's not being served because people are actually like what are you talking about you're insulting this country You're insulting decent human beings. And you're

trying to make money and profit off of all of it. And then you want to turn around and use those profits to censor us, to make our lives more unfair, to do all of these different things that is an abuse of your power. And so I think people are absolutely sick of it. So to the extent, I actually don't know how much longer they'll really be able to monetize this at the scale that they were originally, because I don't think there's much interest or an appetite for lionizing them, at least right now. And if they aren't going to stop, if they're not going to take any deals that stop short of lionizing them, I mean, their cash cow might be in trouble. They're loathed now. They've lost all their approval. They were above water before their Netflix special and their and the book Spare. And now they're below water. Both of

them. They're the least popular royals. They've overtaken Prince Andrew as the least popular royals. And that took some doing. So that's that for them. All right. Chris Rocco goes on in this special to respond for the first time to Will Smith. And it's actually really interesting what he says. He basically suggests he was mad because Jada cheated on him and he was working out his issues on me. Here's a little bit of that. It's not eight. Will Smith practices selective outrage because everybody knows what the fuck happened everybody that really knows knows i had nothing to do with that shit i didn't have any entanglements for people that don't know what everybody know wills and his wife was fucking her son's friend okay we all been cheated on everybody in here been cheated on none of us have ever been interviewed by the

person that cheated on us on television. None of us. They're like, hey, I was sucking somebody else's dick. How did that make you feel? She hurt him way more than he hurt me. Oh my gosh. Pretty brilliantly done. Here is the clip to which he was referring. It's Will and Jada Smith on her Red Table Talk, a YouTube show where she raised her infidelity with her own husband. Here it is. You know, as time went on, I got into a different kind of entanglement with August. One thing I want to get clear about and clean up one of the things that was kind of swirling

in the press about you giving permission, which is, you know, the only person that can give permission in that particular circumstance is myself. Yes, exactly. Yeah. I think so so I mean, cause this is your red table and you like brought yourself to the red table. I think you need to say clearly what happened.

As far as what? You and I decided we were gonna take our space and what happened. Yeah. And then I got into an entanglement with August. That's what I said. An entanglement? Yes. That's what I said. An entanglement? Yes.

Yes. A relationship. Yes. It was a relationship. Absolutely. Oh, boy. So Chris is saying he, Will, was feeling emasculated and angry and took it out on him. It's not a bad theory, ladies.

What do you think? I think that's exactly what happened. And by the way, if people haven't watched that full video of their conversation, that Red Table show she has is nuts. Like it is just off the charts weird. And this is a great example of that. Both of them are just strange people to begin with.

But I think Chris Rock's point about the emasculation sort of bubbling and bubbling and bubbling, you can see how his little barb might have tapped into that, especially in a high stress night. And so like, listen, Will Smith's a weird guy to begin with. But when you are in a high stress situation and you just hit the right nerve, I think that's probably the best explanation. So I totally buy the Chris Rock theory. Oh oh i like i have been a fan of jada's and i understood that she had strayed um but i had never seen that that is pretty in your face i mean it's quite literally in your face eliana uh that is something and i will say uh you know chris rock didn't punch back but that is one hell of a punch back in his comedy routine. He laid in wait.

He laid in wait and then he walloped him. I know. Pretty well done. Pretty effective. Don't punch Chris Rock in the face. Here is a little bit more. First of all, he went on to say the slap still hurts. And he said, the reason I didn't punch him back is because my parents taught me not to fight in front of white people. But I will say this is kind of interesting because people are sort of praising Chris Rock and he is a genius and that this special has got a lot of great moments like that. It's not anti-woke. There's quite a few things in there. I don't know. You tell me what you think. Here's just a little bit more for the context and how the true flavor of the whole special is. It's SOT11. Everybody trying to be a victim. People that know good and goddamn well they ain't victims.

Like white men. When did white men become victims? White men actually think they lose in the country. White men actually think they lose in the country. Did you see the Capitol riots? White men trying to overthrow the government that they run. I don't know about that one. You know, white men right now, you're applying to college. Would you want to check that box? Is that the box you want to check? I'm a white man. You know, you want to apply to BlackRock right now as a career, as a banker, an analyst. Do you want to check the white man box?

I realize these are places where white men used to have power in a majority. They don't anymore. And it's through no fault of their own. As the mother of two future white men, I feel for them because they're going to be, you know, they're going to be forced to pay for a situation they had nothing to do with. And, you know, their their gender and their skin color that they have absolutely no control over. As you've noted before, Megan, this isn't just errant speculation or random hypothesizing. This is actually borne out by reporting. This is borne out by obvious shifts in demographics, which aren't a bad thing, but they definitely exist. And so he's not correct.

I think he's still funny, and I'm glad that this is a special that is heterodox. It has anti-left, anti-right, and people can just sit down and enjoy it and have some of their priors challenged in the way that comedy is supposed to do that's fantastic I'm glad we're out of space where Netflix is doing that with Chappelle and Chris Rock because we took it for granted for a while and we saw how fragile that balance was great stuff but it is it is true that there is actually discrimination nobody wants to say it but in like fortune 500 HR departments in college admissions, this actually is happening.

So whether or not Chris Rock thinks that it's happening, maybe he doesn't see it happening. There are a lot of people who do see it happening. And there are a lot of people, I think more importantly, who feel it happening. And that's what ends up partially, not fully, but partially motivating people on January 6th to do horrible things to which there's no excuse for. But if we ignore the fact that resentment might be building, we're going to be caught off guard more and more by things like January 6th. Yeah.

Eliana, I've told this story before, but I was talking to a friend of mine who's on Wall Street. He's a banker and he's in a position of power. And he had like six people under him. And he was told he had to get rid of two. And I guess like, there were some in the group who are female, there were some who are black. And there were a couple of white guys. And the white guys were the best performers by far, by far, like it wasn't even close. And they were said, he was told it cannot be anyone other than a white man. You got to fire

the white guys, even though they were the best performer. Like that's messed up. That's like, that's stupid for one's bottom line. And I don't know that Chris Rock is getting it. Like it actually isn't what it used to be. I grant you 50 years ago, you'd want, if you're given the choices that that'd be the box you'd want today. It's you're sort of ignoring the the the crisis that's going on with a lot of teens who happen to be white, happen to be male to say they've got it made. And it's the way it used to be. It's not to say we don't like diversity. It's not to say we like we don't like other other groups coming into power. But right now, white boys are being held to account for sins of the past with which they had nothing to do? I think that's pretty obvious. And for any mainstream institution that's not explicitly conservative, these things are happening.

That's why they, that is what diversity, equity, and inclusion departments do in every place. Google, Facebook, you know, every bank on Wall Street has one of these departments and they issue edicts that require racial bean counting in in hiring. Yeah, it's like I mean, why? It's by the way, it's not legal. You can't just fire the white guy because he's white. That's that's still illegal. Just in case people were wondering. All right. Let's end it on a nice note because I'm honestly, I've said this before, but my friend told me to watch Real Housewives of Miami and only the last two seasons.

Forget the first three. It's the most delicious thing I've seen in years. I so good. I live for it right now. It's so I'm so sad that it ended like we're waiting for the reunion. And you feel this way, Emily, as I understand it, or have some strong feelings about Vanderpump Rules, which is based on Lisa Vanderpump, who used to be part of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. And then she left. And now this whole series has been like 10 series long,

10 seasons long about the people who work at one of her restaurants, as I understand. I haven't watched it. But what has you so fired up about Vanderpump Rules? I don't say this lightly to either of you, but I am disappointed that neither of you is a Vanderpump Rules fan, because this is really the greatest reality show of all time, in my opinion. I think it's competing with Jersey Shore for the top slot. But Vanderpump Rules is a reality television goal that has been for about 10 years now.

And there's a serious point to be made in all of the drama that's unfolding, which sees one main cast member cheating on another main cast member with another main cast member. One of these relationships was nine years long and was destroyed by revelations of cheating that sort of drip dripped out over the Friday and the weekend. And this is a couple that was cohabitating together for a very long time. The woman did not want to get married or have children. The man did want to get married and have children.

And all I wanted to make the point of is it reminds me of this BuzzFeed article that ran about a year and a half ago about how Gen Z is rejecting, quote, sex positivity. A victim of sexual assault in this article said, quote, HBO really did a number on me and pointed at sex in the city and girls shows that glamorized the sort of sexual revolution, liberty and lifestyle where you can just live with people, sleep with lots of people, and not date to marry, and that's empowering and that's fine. And I think Vanderpump Rules actually really tragically,

but in some ways hilariously documents what happens to people. I mean, there's human wreckage that's at stake every single day in the culture, post-sexual revolution in ways people didn't anticipate and in ways that were glamorized. And there's just so much hurt playing out hilariously, again, on Vanderpump Rules right now,

but I don't see anybody in the corporate press covering it from a perspective of like, hey, maybe this says something about the way young women and men were taught to date, that we're taught to have sex, we're taught to respect each other. I think it goes beyond a reality show and speaks to the experiences a lot of young women have had over the last 10,

15 years in American culture. So well said. Now I'm kind of into it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the one who got cheated on? So the woman is with the man and the woman got cheated on by the man who would have preferred to have a married lifestyle. Didn't didn't those two get together by cheating to begin with? Allegedly, yes. At the Golden Nugget. Oh, another nugget. Yes.

And he was dating another one of the cast members. It is just the most they have like org charts of who slept with who on Vanderpump Rules that would blow everyone's mind. You lose them how you get them. That's what they say. everyone's mind? You lose them how you get them. That's what they say. That's right. You lose them how you get them. Do not begin a relationship with somebody by cheating and think it's going to last. It isn't.

That's my professional political analysis. Ladies, this has been so fun. So wait, just my parting words. Do I need to go back and start? Should I get into Vanderpump Rules, Emily? Yeah, for people who haven't seen it, start at the beginning because those early seasons are the best

and they're super, super watchable. They're very bingeable. And for all of the serious stuff that I just laid out, they're pretty lighthearted. I mean, I'm in a dry period right now because my Miami gals have gone away. I have very strong feelings about all of them. We can talk about that on another day.

Wonderful to see you both. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Megan. All right. We're going to be back tomorrow with Steven Crowder and Bridget Phetasy is back on the show. Looking forward to that. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.