All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 16, 2020 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:49:47
20201216_hunter-joe-and-dr-jill-biden-with-salena-zito-and-
|

Time Text
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show 00:02:13
And now, what's up from Kix?
Kix can afford the grants with selfies.
The suit can also be used to crush the details.
We are going to the beauty store at the Nurstres.
And you can also have a kit kit.
So, welcome to the beauty store in your kit.
Kix Beauty Unlimited.
Fiken presentes here at Super Enkele Trends Class Program.
For your ascend-facture and for your drifting.
That's it.
Fiken at Super Enkele Trends Class Program.
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
Attorney General Bill Barr is on the way out, and Hunter Biden is under investigation by the feds.
Oh, and it's Dr. Jill Biden.
Today, with Andy McCarthy of National Review and Selena Zito of The Washington Examiner, they're both here to help us break it down.
Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly.
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show.
Today, we've got Andrew McCarthy.
and Selena Zito.
A word on each of these guests.
Annie McCarthy was one of my favorite guests on the Kelly file on Fox News because this is a guy who's really done it.
He used to put terrorists in jail for a living.
He worked under Rudy Giuliani in the U.S. Attorney's Office and was one of the most respected federal prosecutors in the country.
And unlike most of the talking heads on TV, this is a real trial lawyer who actually knows what he's doing.
And not only has he been all over the Trump electoral challenges and really actually reading the evidence, but he has been all over the Hunter Biden story and knows exactly what Hunter Biden is accused of and can walk us through what the DOJ is likely investigating when it comes to the president-elect's son and how this might cross over to the White House and where we go from here.
So he'll be with us in one minute.
And Selena Zito, she is a reporter with the Washington Examiner.
She's a columnist at the New York Post, contributor there.
And this is somebody who, unlike the elites in media who hang out in the sort of cocktail parties and, you know, the Central Park Conservatory here in New York.
Real Trial Lawyers vs Talking Heads 00:03:08
And so on.
This is a woman who goes to the heart of America, you know, Pittsburgh, the local gas station, Ohio, flyover country, the South, and gets her finger on the pulse of what Americans are feeling outside of the beltway, outside of the coasts.
And that's why she so often gets the mood of the country correct.
She's gotten it right.
And of course, is therefore become a target by some in the press, but you know how that goes.
And anyway, we will get to them in one second.
I want to tell you something exciting before we get started.
which is we are not taking time off.
You know, like all the other podcasts, they're going to abandon you over the holidays.
They're not going to put out new material, most of them.
They're going to put out repeats.
They're going to put out best ofs, stuff you heard before.
But we, we're just a little baby show.
We're just getting started.
So we're not going to leave you hanging.
Plus, I'm really enjoying this.
So I was like, I actually want to keep working.
So we're going to keep the podcast coming out with new episodes Monday, Wednesday, Friday, through Christmas week, through New Year's.
We got you covered.
There will be no repeats.
And to get it all, make sure you subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
So you can get each episode as soon as it is live and download them and then rate and review.
Had a bunch of reviews today.
They were super fun.
They made me laugh out loud.
And I appreciate them as always.
So just know we are going to be putting out new content for you.
And I think you're going to enjoy it.
Actually, some of these are going to be the greatest.
You're going to, a couple of them we taped already.
And they're great.
They're great.
That's all I'm going to say for now.
But just trust me.
Okay.
Before we get to Selena and Andy, I want to talk to you about blinds galore.
Because you know how it is in the peak summer, the sun is really strong.
And in the peak winter.
The sun is really strong.
As we're about to start getting a bunch of snow, it's blinding when that stuff reflects off of the snow and into your house if you don't have the proper.
Window treatments.
And that's where Blinds Galore comes in.
They believe you deserve high quality, custom built blinds and shades.
And that is exactly what you're going to get.
This is more than just a blinds aisle in the hardware store.
These are experts in blinds.
Nothing will get bathed until you order it.
They've got blinds, they've got shades, they've got shutters, they've got drapery, whatever you want to cover your windows.
The experts there at blindsgalore.com have covered over 2 million windows and counting.
They make it super easy to get a completely custom product that you're going to love.
It's a family owned and run company, been doing it for 20 years, led by a mom daughter duo.
They truly want you to love your view.
And give you a designer product without the designer price.
You can do all of this from your home.
This is the best part.
You don't actually have to go down to the store, take your measurements of your window, customize it online, and then you'll be able to see exactly how your blind or your shade is going to look on the screen before you press purchase.
They even make it easy to connect your shades to your smart home, to your phone, or your Amazon Alexa.
It's easy to get the custom blinds and shades you've always wanted in your home at Blinds Galore.
Get started with 15 free samples and take up to 45% off your order.
Visit blindsgalore.com today.
Let them know I sent you by choosing the Megan Kelly Show at checkout.
Beautiful custom window treatments are waiting for you at blindsgalore.com.
That's blindsgalore.com.
And now, Selena Zito.
Okay, so let's get right into it.
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Analysis 00:15:35
You wrote an interesting piece recently, which I think is a good place to kick it off on how the elites are still not getting it.
They're still not getting it.
Despite four years of Trump, an election in which he won, a second election in which he nearly won, they're still thinking he's going to go away.
And this weird coalition that came up underneath him will, you know, maybe fade.
And, you know, Trumpism could fade into the background and his deplorables hopefully will too.
That's my summation of what many on the left think and hope.
And you're saying, guess again.
That's absolutely right.
And so what they don't seem to understand is they believe that this coalition of voters that Donald Trump caused them, what they had missed in the, I would argue, since 2006.
When Republicans lost the midterms, I believe that's when this started.
What they don't understand is that Donald Trump was a result of this coalition.
He didn't cause it.
And it is not going away.
This is who the Republican Party is.
I would call it a conservative populist coalition.
And it has shown its durability and its strength.
If you just look at what happened, not only at the top of the ticket, yes, he did not win, but he did not win by not much, if that makes sense.
Yeah.
But look down ballot.
This is where we were supposed to see this massive blue wave, right?
The expectations were this is going to be an overall rejection of Trump and this conservative populist coalition would diminish, and Republicans would not win down ballot.
That turned out to be the exact opposite.
Republicans not only did not lose by double digits in the House as predicted, they have won at least 12 seats.
A couple are still in, oddly, are still being counted.
But they won 12 seats that no one saw coming.
But they also did not lose a number of Senate seats that they expected.
And even more importantly, down ballot, way down in there, state house races, state senate races.
These are where.
You know, this is the bench, right?
This is where leaders are going to come from.
They stayed Republican in a very massive and stable way.
So, in other words, voters were willing to not vote for Trump, conservative voters, mostly based on his comportment, but they are still conservative in their values.
So, they may have voted for Joe Biden.
For president, but they have voted for their state senator or their U.S. senator, their member of Congress or their state rep. They voted Republican, showing that Biden is the date rather than the person they're going to take to the altar.
He's sort of temporary.
And I would also argue, and I think this is a really important point, Megan, is that most of the league thought and still believe that Donald Trump's candidacy was a black swan.
I would argue that it's not because of the durability of the coalition and the pieces that they, the candidates that they elected.
But I would argue that Biden is the black swan.
He is not really reflective of their base and their coalition.
And he is a placeholder for the party.
He is not what the party is for the future.
Now, when you say black swan, I think of the Natalie Portman movie where somebody turns out to be an obsessed would be murderer.
I guess that's not what you mean.
You mean not representative of the rest of the swans?
Right, right.
Exactly.
It was just an anonymity.
It wasn't really supposed to happen, and it's not going to happen again.
Now, I think for sure one of the reasons that the Republicans rejected the Democrats in so many of these down ballot races is their constant lecturing to people about how they need to talk and live and think and wokeism and cancel culture and the squad.
And I think most Americans just don't want to live like that at all.
And Biden.
Was acceptable for the top of the ticket because he hasn't really been woke, although we'll see whether he can be manipulated by them.
Early signs, I would say, are not good.
But anyway, that already has manifested in the news.
And it's a stupid dispute, but it really blew up this week.
And I wanted to get your take on it.
So I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, but there was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
And what happened was this guy, Joseph Epstein, wrote an, again, an op-ed.
This is his opinion.
And it's entitled, Is There a Doctor in the White House?
Not if you need an MD.
And he criticized basically when people who have PhDs or other doctorates calling themselves doctor as kind of, you know, like, who do you think you are?
And he said, he began the piece with, Madam First Lady, Mrs. Biden, Jill, kiddo, a bit of advice on what may seem like a small, but I think is not an unimportant matter.
Any chance you might drop the doctor before your name?
Well, He should have put a trigger warning.
Trigger!
Trigger!
Because the administration, the incoming administration lost its mind.
And then, of course, the media lemmings followed just as directed.
And you would have thought, I mean, he was telling her, don't vote, get back in the kitchen and shut the you know-what up.
I will tell you, just to kick it off, I didn't think there was anything sexist about this.
I think you could say this to male or female who's using the term doctor.
And it is a little annoying.
It's a little annoying when somebody who's not an MD wants you to call them doctor.
It just is.
That's my own take on it.
But I thought it was amazing how the Biden administration, incoming, sent out their signals and man, did the media respond.
Yeah.
You know, I absolutely agree with you.
I think using the word doctor, when you, it is, it.
In her position of education, is great to use in academic circles, right?
Because they sort of like to, you know, show off their degrees.
But outside of academic circles, it really doesn't have much meaning.
And that not only that the incoming administration is completely tone deaf on that, but also that our profession, What amplified that tone deafness shows the problem that the media, but also establishment and institutional members in politics still don't understand the people that vote for them.
And, in case in point, I have argued this many times whether it is politics or whether it's the media, whether it's Hollywood, whatever the large institution is, they need more people in their.
In their boardrooms, in their decision maker meetings, that are more reflective of the people that they serve or the people that are their consumers or that are the people that buy their products or want to vote for them.
In other words, if there was someone in their administration that went to a state school or sits in a pew every Sunday or just would say to them, you know, guys, it's a little too much.
I think.
I just think y'all need to just step back.
I'm really super proud of what you've accomplished academically, but that doesn't serve anybody well to be scolding them for not using titles.
We are a country that does not use titles, period.
It's sort of why we got involved in this little revolution.
That's what she does everywhere.
I mean, her Twitter handle, I think, is Dr. Jill Biden or Dr. and whenever she has a television appearance, she wants to be introduced as Dr. Jill Biden.
Now, The Wall Street Journal points out they don't even refer to Henry Kissinger as Dr. Kissinger.
So, like, her PhD in education probably doesn't carry the weight from the University of Delaware.
She thinks it does.
But to me, this whole thing was a sad reflection on her.
The need to be called by this honorific, the need to have every media organization use it and to put it in your Twitter handle is sad.
It says something about her that I think she doesn't want to be saying.
And then, as I started reading about this, it came out that.
Indeed, the whole reason she's doing this, like that she, the whole reason she got the PhD to begin with was because she said, and I quote, I was so sick of the mail coming to Senator and Mrs. Biden.
I wanted to get mail addressed to Dr. and Senator Biden.
That's the real reason she got her doctorate, according to an LA Times story that was done on her in 2009.
She was sick of the mail addressing her as what she perceived as a second class citizen.
I'm sorry, Selena, but like the media.
This is gross.
Most of us get annoyed when somebody with a PhD wants us to call them doctor.
And she's not even in like the therapy field.
Like I can make the case for a Dr. Phil, right?
Like, okay, he's at least like helping people.
But she's an educator.
And I just think like this is very telling about where we're going to go.
They saw an opportunity to act woke, to virtue signal, to try to throw the sexism charge where it didn't belong.
I mean, just to give the audience a flavor, here's what we got.
Mrs. Biden's spokesperson, Michael La Russa, issued a tweet to the Wall Street Journal.
You should be embarrassed to print the disgusting and sexist attack on at Dr. Biden.
Running on the WALL Street Journal.
If you had any respect for women at all, you would remove this repugnant display of chauvinism from your paper and apologize to her.
Then Elizabeth Alexander, soon to be first lady's communications director sexist, shameful.
Be better at WALL Street Journal.
Two more Doug Emdorf i'm sorry, M Emhoff, that's Kamala Harris's husband tweeted, dr Biden earned her degrees through hard work and pure grit and he's making her sound like a marine.
She's an inspiration to me, her students and to the Americans across the country.
This story would never have been written about a man, Says who.
How do you know?
And then there's Pete Buttigieg's husband, Chasten.
Chasten?
I can never get that right.
And he says the author could have used fewer words to just say, you know, in my day, we didn't have to respect women.
Can they stop?
This makes my brain hurt.
There's a couple of things going on here.
First of all, she's not requiring people to call her Dr. Biden.
She's demanding it.
Second of all, her reasoning behind it is sort of sad.
If that the only reason you want to achieve a doctorate is because of not having a title on the when you receive mail, is kind of there's some serious issues going on there.
If that and you know, unless that was just a flippant remark, and even then making a flippant remark about that is also just sort of a sad reflection of sense of self.
You know, I don't live in DC or New York.
Pittsburgh, which is what I call the Paris of Appalachia.
And a lot, there's a lot of people around here that do a lot.
And the people that I cover, right?
Like I cover the Midwest, I cover Appalachia.
And the people around here don't really think much of titles.
It's more about what you accomplish and how you serve people.
And demanding a title is completely out of touch on her part.
It's also, there's another layer here that I think is really important to touch on.
Is that, you know, there's some serious examples of sexism.
You know, anywhere in this country, you can find those things happening.
To put this in that category is insulting to people who experience sexism, right?
I mean, this is just like using racism as a throwaway line.
There are people that experience serious racism and sexism.
And putting these little outrages because you didn't use a title as examples of sexism diminishes some of the experiences that women have had.
And then it's also this coordinated event, right?
Do they not think that people do not understand that as you look at these series of tweets and you look at these series of outrages, examples of being outraged, there is a common thread of wording that they use that you know they all got together, like on a Zoom call, and say, okay.
Y'all say this and you say that, and it's these are the type of things that really annoy people.
And I think to a very more important point, period, is that elected officials don't ever seem to understand why they're sent to Washington.
This is not one of the reasons why the Bidens are going to the White House.
They, you know, these parties keep misreading, like voters keep sending them a message with their vote.
And they keep misreading this.
They keep misunderstanding why they were placed in the White House.
Making an outrage over a title is certainly not a.
One of the things we wanted to see them talk about with our vote, with the vote that people cast for the Biden.
And it's fake.
It's fake.
It's manufactured outrage to get headlines that they think will boost support among their Democratic base.
And it's the typical media virtue signaling that we see in every story that involves race or gender or trans people.
Like the media's first instinct is, I have to be on the right team.
I've got to be on the right team.
Sexism?
Yes, I see it too.
Racism?
Yes, there it is.
Without stopping to think as humans, I will say my own interpretation is the only word in there that's even arguably potentially sexist is the kiddo.
But as the Wall Street Journal explained in its own defense, they referenced how Joe Biden publicly refers to her, Jill Biden, as kiddo, including in his 2012 Democratic convention speech.
It's not like just a private term of endearment.
No, yeah.
Come on.
What's good for the goose, right?
Asking Tough Questions of Leadership 00:15:11
So anyway, I love the Wall Street Journal's ultimate response.
They gave, they Essentially, they gave a middle finger where they said, If you disagree with Mr. Epstein, who, by the way, has been like removed from the Northwestern board, their website, you know, he's getting almost canceled now.
So, the Wall Street Journal's response is write a letter or shout your objections on Twitter, but these pages aren't going to stop publishing provocative essays merely because they offend the new administration or the political censors in the media and the academy.
Yay!
Yay!
That is great.
That is our job.
In the news organization is to have these robust, provocative voices that should make people think.
I also think that our profession misreads the power of Twitter in that they think that everyone is on Twitter and is viewing every tweet with bated breath.
I think the Pew Research Center study that they did earlier this month on how many people actually use Twitter.
Is sort of fascinating.
I think it said, let me see here.
Just 10% of users on Twitter produce an astounding 92% of all tweets.
And 69% of those highly prolific Twitter users are Democrats.
And they're not even reflective of moderate, normal Democrats that are all across the country.
They are the most progressive of Democrats.
So it is fascinating to me that they also go on with these outrages.
And use Twitter.
It's almost as if they're just talking to themselves to satisfy their own ego.
You can feel that when you're on there.
By the way, it's Dr. Kelly, just in case you're wondering.
I have a jurist doctorate, and I too would like to be referred to as Dr. And for the record, my dad was a PhD.
He had a PhD in education and taught PhD students for a living at universities and never wanted to be called Dr. Kelly.
He said, just call me professor or mister.
That's fine.
In the classroom, you call me professor.
Outside, I'm Mr. Kelly.
It's just, again, back to my original point.
It says something sad about her that she's constantly making people refer to her that way.
It does exactly the opposite of what she intends.
It diminishes her from the get go, as opposed to her just being really smart and impressive and her walking away and you thinking, wow, wow, as opposed to like, oh God, she needed the honorific.
Okay.
I want to switch gears with you and ask you about Governor Cuomo.
He's, of course, the darling of the media.
He now, he's made some headlines this week because, first of all, he publicly doubted the vaccine before it came out, or right as it was announced.
He threatened to sue the federal government over how it was going to be distributed.
He said he didn't trust President Trump.
He was going to create some independent review board, which wound up being like a nothing.
And then yesterday, as we saw the first person in the United States, a Queens critical care nurse, get the vaccine, there he was, Selena, smiling on camera, trying to take all the credit, preening.
And it's just, you look at the difference in the way they, you know, the media just lets him get away with it.
It's fine.
He's the anointed one.
And by the way, the AP is reporting that.
He is under serious consideration to be the next attorney general.
Well, you know, Megan, one of the things that I heard a lot from people in the early days, weeks, and years of the Trump administration is not the criticism of how the press treated him.
They expected him, then they wanted him to take tough questions.
He was an unknown commodity.
He'd never really been in politics before.
But they would also say in the same sentence I don't mind that he takes tough questions, that the press gives him tough questions.
Questions.
I just wanted to know where that press was for the last eight years, meaning during the Obama administration.
And the same can be said for Cuomo.
He doesn't get tough questions.
If he does get tough questions, he yells at the reporters in a way that you just want to crawl under your desk and hope that he never sees your face again.
And so it all goes to our profession.
We need to give equal scrutiny, equal pressure, equal tough questions to both sides, and not pressing Cuomo on his hypocrisy of how this was covered.
Okay, he's going to be a hypocrite.
He's going to try to get away with it.
You know, many of us might try to get away with whatever we can, but that the press hasn't pushed him on it is that we have let him get away with having this double standard.
Yeah, or the New York Post did a great write up saying, He also wrote a self aggrandizing book about his supposed great leadership.
They're exactly right.
And since then, the cases have spiked, quoting now.
Lockdowns have increased.
He bungled not only the closing and the reopening of the schools, where he came up with a feigned disagreement with Mayor de Blasio.
He's closing indoor dining.
He's just throwing darts at the board while giving a tour on leadership, writing a book on leadership.
To me, it's gross because this guy, of all people, deserves tough questions.
You're right.
Our profession.
Won't throw them at him.
And by the way, I think you're being modest because I know as well as you do that if he had the nerve to come after me the way he comes after these reporters asking him questions, I would love it.
And so would you.
Good.
Well, I kind of would have.
And you're right about Cuomo.
You're also, I mean, I can point to my governor here in Pennsylvania.
The questions that he gets are you have to go through a filter to give them initially.
Now he does take questions with.
Without that filter, but he doesn't have a great dance of not ever answering them directly.
And you have seen it in New York, I've seen it in Pennsylvania, but also in my neighboring states of Ohio and West Virginia, where you just see this sort of winners and losers are picked by these administrations, and they don't listen or talk or engage with the people that they have impacted.
They get away with it.
Wait a minute.
What do you mean there?
You had to submit questions through a, like your questions to the governor had to be filtered.
That in the very beginning, Now we're talking back in March.
The questions had to come, you had to submit the questions to the press secretary, and then someone would read the questions out loud and then he would answer them.
Now that practice has stopped.
He does take the, there are now press conferences where you can dial in and just wait your turn to ask the question.
This is out of the Joe Biden playbook.
I mean, now finally, his lordship will allow some people to ask questions, though.
Very infrequently, does one get an answer?
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
And I think that there are a lot of people in our profession who have forgotten the value of the follow up question.
I don't know what's happened with that.
But it's fair, it's a normal practice for a reporter to ask an elected official a question and for them to answer that and to give the answer they want.
But traditionally, reporters have then been able to say, well, wait a minute.
That's not, you know, what about this?
Well, there's very few wait a minute experiences.
One of the things that Donald Trump will be remembered for, there would be a lot of things, but he was so available to the press.
It was astounding.
That's right.
They didn't like what he said, but he was available to them.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
But, you know, our job is not to like what they say, our job is to continue to ask questions.
That's right.
Whether you liked him or not, He made himself very available.
And that is something that I am concerned that we are not going to see with this administration, this next administration.
I see it as you know, the White House press briefings where there's that one White House reporter from OAN, Chanel somebody.
And she's basically, she reminds me of like Pravda, you know, Russian press whose job is really just to tell Putin how great he is, like just as great as we think you are.
Are you even better?
Could you take the mic and go on for five minutes about that?
It's actually kind of astounding to watch.
But I see her towards Trump like that.
And I see the rest of the media, the mainstream media, in that same way toward Biden and for that matter, Cuomo.
They're obsequious in their approach to these guys.
There's no skepticism toward anybody with a D after their name.
You know, we saw just this week Cuomo was accused publicly by a public figure.
Her name is Lindsay Boylan, who's a former aide of his, of sexual harassment.
I can't wait to see the in depth reports on this from all the mainstream media and the same ones that put on the bogus Kavanaugh accusers without so much of a whiff of credibility.
The alleged gang rape person, and it was all lies.
They're going to be a lot more skeptical when it comes to her than when it comes to Cuomo.
Yeah, and it sort of goes back to what we talked about before with these larger institutions, including large media, where everyone is sort of.
Has the same background, right?
They've all lived in the same super zip code, either if you're in DC or New York, most of the zip codes surrounding those areas are some of the wealthiest in the country.
And they all have great careers and great accomplishments academically.
But so everyone is at the same social events.
There's no diversity of ideas within that set of reporters.
And so I think that's why.
We see a lack of intellectual curiosity because what they see with Biden is sort of what they believe in.
So it doesn't.
Click to them that wow, maybe we should question this, or wow, this might affect people that live in southern Illinois or who live in Kansas or who live in western Maryland in a way that it doesn't impact us.
And we need more diversity in our reporting.
Well, I think that you know, the you watch the lack of interest in the allegation against Cuomo that's that's sort of them not showing their virtue signaling because it's a Democrat.
Right.
If that were Republican, they'd be like, oh, you know, believe all women.
Right.
But it's the same thing.
I sent out a tweet about this today about, I'm sorry to even bring this person up, but Deborah Messing, the actress, who's out there constantly lecturing the rest of us on how we need to be sensitive to various groups, including the LGBTQ crowd, who she thinks she represents because she starred in Will and Grace for some odd years.
But she tweeted out, I hope Trump is the most popular boyfriend in prison.
She's really hoping Trump goes to prison and is subjected to. anal rape by his fellow prisoners.
I mean, that's what she's saying.
And this is this is miss.
I'm LGBTQ sensitive.
And she immediately got shamed by people saying, oh, so we really would appreciate if you didn't use that as your method of attack, even her allies.
And she she goes out saying, oh, I've been an ally to this community for decades.
And I was in no way referencing LGBTQ love or sexuality, but Trump's victimized tens of millions.
And I wanted the tables turned on him.
Apologies for the offensive way I did it.
Well.
I mean, this is a person who wanted to blacklist all of Trump's donors.
Remember, she wanted to out them all.
She wanted to dox them.
She compared Donald Trump to Hitler.
Like these people, they're so quick to claim the high ground when it comes to someone on their team.
But if you've got a Republican jersey on, like Trump, forget it.
Absolutely true.
She's going to get away with this.
She's not going to get canceled by her peers.
No.
She might get dinged a little bit.
But there's not going to be any sort of.
You know, punishment for this.
But yet, what she said is, let's be honest, that was pretty disgusting.
And just in the threat alone of what she hoped for, but also just this assumption that, you know, that LGBTQ would behave this way in prison.
It's just very revealing to her character.
You know, people like this tend to, after they get comfortable of just flipping off whatever they want to in a tweet, they get comfortable and they don't think and they reveal who they really are.
And I think that she did that in this moment.
How out of touch is she, right?
How out of touch are all these people?
Like we just saw, sorry to bring up another tweet, but it feels small, but I did enjoy this one.
Ben Stiller got in a dust up with my pal Janice Dean, who my audience knows has been ripping on Cuomo because he sent six.
thousand COVID positive patients into nursing homes.
And then her, both of her in-laws died in those nursing homes.
And she was mad because the governor, true to form, is raising thousands of dollars for himself at a virtual birthday party.
And Janice sent out a tweet saying, shame on those who are attending this thing instead of trying to raise money for people suffering from the COVID lockdowns and all it like.
And she called them out, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Stiller, Rosie Perez, Henry Winkler.
And It wasn't about it being virtual.
It was about the fundraising for him at a time when people are suffering.
And then Ben Stiller, like so many of these dumb celebrities who don't pay attention to the news, walked right into the blades of that fan saying, um, Nothing wrong with supporting a politician.
As you know, the current president has been soliciting hundreds of millions to overturn the election, not for COVID relief.
You wrote a book about spreading sunshine, apparently.
NFL Controversy and Social Justice 00:08:22
You don't like the governor.
I do.
Don't be divisive.
Bye.
And honestly, you can almost hear his PR agent calling him up, being like, no, backtrack.
No, delete that tweet.
You don't know who you're dealing with.
This woman has every right to complain.
And, you know, as soon as he found out that, and Janice responded saying, nothing wrong with criticizing a politician who likes to profit off the deaths of New Yorkers.
And then she said, you're right.
I don't like the governor because his policies help kill my husband's parents.
Enjoy your fundraiser.
Now, he wound up deleting the tweet.
He apologized.
I'm sure he was advised, apologize immediately.
But this is how out of touch they are, Selena.
It's like, it's fine.
Go ahead, attack her.
She's the one being divisive by saying, maybe you shouldn't be doing a fundraiser in the middle of the lockdown for yourself.
But that's how they think that it's all about getting their guy who's got the D jersey, you know, with more power and in the right office.
Janice is a friend, a dear friend, and what she and her family have gone through has been just devastating.
But she has taken up arms and become a warrior for the people that were lost and for families who have lost people.
And she has called Cuomo on the carpet on many hypocritical things that he has done since the order with nursing homes.
And to your point, again, Hollywood.
What an out of touch entity.
The people that live there, again, live within their own bubble.
They sort of hang out with the same people, and they don't know anyone that is different than them because they're so surrounded by people just like them.
And so he makes snotty comments like that.
And that impacts the bottom line.
People really have taken a turn against.
These against Hollywood, but also just think about the NFL, right?
Look how much people have stopped.
Look at the ratings drop within the NFL.
You know, look where the NFL is located.
Where are their headquarters?
Park Avenue, New York.
I would argue they'd be better served if their headquarters were in Canton, Ohio.
It's more reflective of the people that sit in their seats.
And, you know, Hollywood, but NFL and media, they keep making these decisions based on, on, On where they live and not where the people that consume their news, but also put butts in their seats for their football games or watch their movies.
And they've all suffered because people have become tired of this arrogance and this disconnect from regular folks.
I think you're right that people are tired of it.
People on the right are in the center too.
And you can see the center left getting irritated by it too.
But what's the solution?
Because once you've lost the media, Hollywood, sports, corporate America, I could go on.
What do you do to get it back?
Well, we're heading into unknown territory.
One of the things I have argued since Trump won is Republican establishment and Democrats' establishment folks should have been, the reaction should have been more reflective.
And looked at this candidate and say, okay, if they were Republicans, they should have said, look, he beat 17 of our best men and women, right?
And the Democrats that have said, when he beat what someone said was what everyone said was the unbeatable candidate in Hillary Clinton, what have we and look at him, what have we done wrong?
But there is no admission to getting things wrong.
And I think until these entities, and that goes with our Hollywood, that goes for the NFL, that goes for corporate America, who's decided to now be woke and put woke things in every tweet, every ad, every time you go on their websites.
There needs to be a come to Jesus moment within these corporate boardrooms to say, we need to step back and look at how we've been treating people.
And they're not doing that.
And I don't know that they can do that because I don't know that they can get outside of their bubbles and be more thoughtful about these things.
So, what does that mean?
With the divide just gets wider.
And you are going to see the bottom lines of not just Hollywood, not just.
Media, not just the NFL or Major League Baseball.
And you're going to see them suffer because of that until they're able to be more reflective of how, you know, like they've all decided to become social justice organizations.
They've all decided that.
Just watching yesterday, the reaction to changing the name of the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland baseball team within people on social media, just Is astounding that they're that un.
They just don't understand that this is not going to go over well with their fans, with their viewers.
First of all, as an organization, you're making the assumption that you think everyone that attends your games are racist because the team is named Indians and they support that.
I would ask them to go on to talk to Native Americans and I would.
Say based on conversations I have had, they would say, Y'all are crazy.
This does not bother us.
Well, it's like this push in the real estate industry to get rid of the term master bedroom.
Yeah, that's that's racist.
It's, I mean, soon it'll be master's degrees.
It just be like, I got the degree that follows college and is right underneath Jill Biden's doctorate.
I don't know what to call it.
You know, you're not wrong.
And that is both sad and funny.
Like, I'm laugh crying right now because it's.
True.
It's absolutely true.
And it's sad.
And if you go out there like I do and you talk and you listen to people, they think these corporations and these entities have lost their minds and there's less and less loyalty.
You know, in my book, I talked with Mark Cuban about taking these social justice stands.
And he said, well, we're betting on the next generation.
What they are Finding, I think what they didn't understand is these next generations, millennials, Gen Z, they do not have the loyalty to brand and the loyalty to team in the same way that my generation or Gen X generation did.
And so they're suffering because of that.
They have pushed Gen X people out, they have pushed boomers out.
And there's an expectation that, oh, well, we're woke and we're social justice and we're this and we're that, that these young people are going to come and these young people are like, Yeah, we're not that loyal to you.
So sorry.
Right.
Well, I had Cuban on the program, and he totally denied that the fall in ratings for the NBA, of which he owns a team, for those. who don't know, had anything to do with their wokeism.
And it was patently obvious that it did.
And he's like, no, it didn't have anything to do with it.
And then later that day, after the interview aired, the head of the NBA came out and said, yeah, we're getting rid of that next year.
Yeah, we're not going to do anything.
And of course, the almighty dollar reigns in the end.
So maybe that's the way forward.
But I think to end where we began, your point was this doesn't go away just because Trump is no longer president.
This is the beginning.
This is like mid-beginning.
It's not the end.
I'll give you the final word.
Hunter Biden Subpoena Investigation 00:15:40
Yeah, absolutely.
This coalition was formed not because of Trump.
Again, he was the result of it.
Since the election, if you look at the results down ballot and overall, this conservative populist coalition became bigger, younger, and more diverse, and had more of an impact on American electoral politics than I think people are still willing to acknowledge.
Even the president, from President Trump to incoming President elect Joe Biden.
Neither of them have really acknowledged or understand how broad this coalition is and do not understand the impact, not only that it will have in American politics, but also in American culture and American consumerism.
And they keep ignoring it at their peril.
In a minute, we're going to be joined by Andy McCarthy, and he is going to explain the Hunter Biden investigation and details you may never have heard.
Like, why did some honcho over in China give Hunter Biden a diamond worth tens of thousands of dollars.
This is like, this doesn't smell good, people.
So he's going to break it down in a way you can actually understand coming up in one second.
But first, if you have not yet tried Super Beats soft shoes, you are missing out.
This could be your New Year's present to yourself.
I love Super Beats soft shoes.
They make me feel more energized without the jittery feeling of coffee.
Plus, they taste great.
They're packaged conveniently.
You throw them in your bag before you go off to work so you can have them on the way or while you're sitting in your office.
Super Beats soft shoes.
Combine non GMO beets with a powerful new ingredient, grape seed extract.
It just sounds good, doesn't it?
And it is.
The grape seed extract used in Super Beets Chews has been clinically shown to be two times as effective at supporting normal blood pressure as a healthy lifestyle alone.
Think about that.
Talking about going into the New Year's.
You know, we've got a couple of weeks here, but it's coming at us.
And you know, you're thinking about how can I improve my life?
Here is one way improve your blood pressure.
Better blood pressure means more energy, the way nature intended, without all the jittery stimulants.
Now you can take just two delicious chews a day anytime anywhere, to get the blood pressure support you need and the energy you want.
That's key.
And this holiday season, when you buy a bag of super beats chews, you can get a second for 50 off.
Five oh percent off, plus free shipping when you make your purchase at get super beats.com mk.
That's get Super Beats Beats is obviously B E E T S DOT com mk.
Get super beats.com mk.
And now Andy Mccarthy.
This is a perfect day to have you.
Um, one could say we were Prescient, although we didn't know this was going to happen.
But Bill Barr is leaving, and I know you're his fan.
Why do you think he's going?
I think he's for a long time been kind of whipsawed between a media and a legal culture that really despises Trump in an irrational way.
And Trump himself, who as president just has never.
Try to conform not only to the disciplines and the traditions of the presidency, but how they interplay.
In a way that's very important with the Justice Department.
And I think that's been an uphill climb for him the whole way.
But he's a big boy and this is his second tour of duty.
So it's not like he didn't know what he was getting into.
But I just think it, you know, he's got, at most he would have been there for another five weeks.
So he's leaving a little bit early, but it really did get kind of ugly.
That's why it was weird, right?
Because it's like, why wouldn't he just see it out to the end?
He's been AG for all his time, just see it out to the end.
Well, he may think that he's got a handful of things that he can get done.
He doesn't need five weeks to get them done.
And the weekend, I really think the weekend was bad, Megan.
I mean, the president turning on him the way he did and the attacks, I think the recent attacks have probably worn on him more than maybe even more than he realizes, but certainly more than was apparent to me.
All right, let's get the listeners up to speed on what we're talking about.
So the attorney general's going.
He's been, Andy's. saying diplomatically that it's been tough to be the AG under President Trump because Trump kind of treats the Justice Department like his own personal attorneys.
And he thinks Bill Barr should just be doing whatever's good for Trump.
And Bill Barr has gotten criticized for doing that in the view of some, but not here, not in an area that turned out to be potentially very important.
And Trump is angry at Bill Barr.
And some Republicans are too, because what we learned is that the Department of Justice has been investigating Hunter Biden.
You know, the story that was totally buried, that was actively suppressed by Twitter and Facebook as nonsense because some left-winger at Twitter decided it wasn't true before the election.
I mean, it's crazy what happened.
So they suppressed, they didn't just not report themselves, these news organizations, but Facebook and Twitter actually suppressed the story.
Well, it's true.
The Department of Justice has been investigating Hunter Biden for reportedly tax fraud or tax issues, as well as money laundering.
business dealings with, we're told, Burisma, that Ukrainian company, with the Chinese, all of which people were reporting.
The New York Post was reporting, you know, conservative media was trying to get out there.
We took a hard look at it.
And now it turns out to be, you know, it looks like there's some there, there.
Anyway, Bill Barr announces after the election, guess what?
We've been investigating.
Well, and Hunter Biden came out and said, oh, they're just looking at my taxes, which sounds like BS, but I'll ask Andy about it.
Anyway, so there's been two things to come of that.
Number one, what the hell's going on with Hunter Biden and is he heading to jail?
P.S., how does it affect Joe?
And number two, why didn't Bill Barr tell us this before we all went to vote on who's going to be our next president?
And that's the thing Trump's mad about that it wasn't disclosed prior to the election.
Can we take those in reverse order, Andy?
Yeah, sure.
Well, you know, I was critical of the way Trump talked about the Justice Department before Barr ever came along.
And I think that for the reason that it turned out for Barr to be intolerable at a certain point, which is.
If the president talks about ongoing investigations, then you lose not only the reality of an even playing field that you're supposed to keep with Justice Department investigations, but the perception of it as well, which is equally important.
So if you want to have integrity with the court and derivatively with the public, you can't have a situation where Where the president is talking publicly about people who, in the system, in the four corners of the justice process.
Are presumed innocent and have a variety of rights to fair proceedings.
And it's not about, you know, being a great guy and, you know, just caring about the integrity of the system.
As a practical matter, you screw up the case if you talk about it publicly.
It turns the court against you.
It becomes impossible, not impossible, but it becomes much more difficult to get a jury, to get a fair proceeding.
The government, the Justice Department, is ultimately responsible not just for winning the cases that deserve to be won in a justice sense, but to making sure that the process is just.
So, this was a problem before Barr came along, and it became a high stakes problem, I think, in connection with the election, obviously, once Biden became the candidate.
And I think from Barr's perspective, the Justice Department leaned forward about as far as it could.
Without doing the kind of thing that Jim Comey got fired for at the FBI.
I mean, I think what Trump basically wanted was for Barr to come out and have a press conference like Comey had and lay out the evidence against Hunter, except not say we're not going to indict him, say at the end, this is why we're going to indict him.
He's going to jail and stop his old man.
Yeah, right.
Exactly.
In fact, he kept saying, you know, why isn't this one in handcuffs?
Why hasn't that one been indicted?
What's the Justice Department doing?
They're all asleep with Dorham because he's not doing anything either.
And, you know, in the meantime, that's simply not the way the Justice Department works.
First of all, you don't, you're not supposed to speak until you're ready to charge someone.
And if you never charge someone, then you never speak.
Now, there are certain situations like when you're looking at government misconduct, when, especially if it's Justice Department misconduct, then you have not only a right, but probably an obligation to be public about that.
But when you're just talking about the application of the criminal law to a person, even if the person is the son, Of the guy the president is running against, you have to treat that like a normal case under normal Justice Department rules.
And when I say the Justice Department leaned forward, what I mean is that we all knew when the New York Post started to run these stories about the infamous laptops, that those laptops were seized by a federal prosecutor.
Delaware.
That was widely reported.
They were seized on the basis of a grand jury subpoena.
Under Justice Department rules, you can't just issue a grand jury subpoena.
There has to be an investigation.
So the fact that they, even though the media was saying that, oh, this is all Russian disinformation, the fact is the Justice Department seized the evidence under a grand jury subpoena, which makes it quite clear that there's an investigation.
Can I just stop you there?
So just to take a quick walk down that lane.
That's to me what made the refusal to report on the Hunter Biden news so egregious.
Forget Tony Bobolinsky.
I think he proved credible and nobody came forward and said this guy's a nutcase.
But forget him.
You've got a federal subpoena that was issued to the legally blind computer fixer who had Hunter's laptop, who came forward.
I mean, this story is just so bizarre.
That guy came forward and said, Okay, I've got it.
And he admitted, and it was verifiable.
The Post got its hands on the subpoena, so did the rest of us, that showed.
In December of 2019, the feds subpoenaed those laptops.
So about one hour's worth of phone calls would have told any reporter, the feds have an open investigation on Hunter Biden.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if the last, if the name at the end of that sentence were Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump, the media would have been a hell of a lot more interested in this story than they were.
Instead, they spent weeks saying this is a Russian disinformation campaign.
There was that letter from all the, um, Intelligence officials saying absolutely not, Russian disinformation.
It was that was all BS.
They had every reason to see the truth, it was staring them in the face, and they refused, Andy.
Yeah, that letter was a cynical exercise because there's a sort of a passing clause in it that says, Of course, we don't know any of the underlying facts here.
We're just, you know, Washington graybeards who are telling you how the world works.
But as far as this goes, that we're opining on, we don't really know anything.
And in the meantime, Megan, it's not like this was like on a clean slate.
Two of Hunter's business partners, Bevan Cooney and Devin Archer, were convicted in a federal fraud case in the Southern District of New York in 2018.
In a case where Hunter wasn't charged, but his name came up through the evidence and throughout the proof because they seem to be trading on his name, just like he's, I think, pretty infamously traded.
On his father's political influence over the years.
So you had that.
And then, of course, we have the Burisma stuff and all the stuff that came to light at the time of the impeachment brouhaha, which I think the media tried to basically brush away by just saying, you know, Rudy's crazy and he's dealing with shady Russians and shady Ukrainians.
And if that's the context in which he's.
You know, scraping around for evidence about Hunter, then we can discredit all of that.
And in the meantime, I have to tell you, I, you know, Rudy is, Rudy may have lost a lot off his fastball.
I'm, he's dear to me because I would, you know, he hired me in the 1980s.
So I have a kind of a different view of it.
But whether you like Rudy or you don't like Rudy, if you're trying to get evidence on people who are dealing with shady Ukrainian oligarchs, This is late breaking news.
I hope everyone's sitting down.
You have to deal with Ukrainian oligarchs.
You know, if you want to get evidence about terrorists, you deal with terrorists.
If you want to get evidence about the mafia, you deal with terrible people.
And, you know, I've always said you can take information.
We take information.
I still think of myself as a we 20 years later, but the Justice Department, you take information from anybody who has relevant information, and nobody is off the mark.
As far as who you can take information from, the question is, what do you do when you get it?
How do you corroborate it?
Do you run it down?
Are you skeptical about it given what the source is and you make sure it's good and strong and tight before you use it in the court proceeding?
But there's a lot of information out there that Hunter was up to his neck in bad people, and not just with the Ukrainians, the Chinese, this stream of what was it, $3.5 million from.
Moscow.
I mean, everywhere you look where this guy's collecting lots of money, there's shady characters involved.
And for whatever reason, the media on the one side, and I think this is the whipsaw that Barr was in from the beginning, the media on the one side either won't cover it, or as you say, even worse, Suppresses it or preposterously says that it's Russian disinformation.
You know, the one telling detail about all that all along was any good investigator who's trying to run down the authenticity of something like the laptops.
Chinese Venture Compromising President 00:14:27
The first thing you want to know is does the person who it appears to belong to say it doesn't belong to me?
This isn't mine.
Exactly.
This isn't my stuff.
Exactly.
And he never said that.
So, if I'm the media, that's like an implied admission that it's all his.
That would be the first thing they would say.
Right, of course.
He would have been out there.
They would have put him on camera for that one, saying, Those aren't mine.
I've never seen the blind repairman in my life, nor has he seen me.
But I'm bummed.
And I deny everything.
This is a made up campaign.
They never said it.
It was very obvious that they were his.
So, but here's my question to you.
But let me make it clear, because as soon as we say Ukraine, Burisma, and Chinese, and all that, it's like people are like, huh?
So, I like to keep it very clear.
First of all, do we think we're talking about a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden or a civil investigation?
Yeah, grand juries only do criminal investigations.
Justice Department's in the criminal investigation business.
I mean, they have a civil side, but that's not what this is.
All right.
So, we're talking about possible crimes committed by the president elect's son.
And his name, the president elect, Joe Biden, is involved, though he's not directly accused as far as we know of doing anything.
We've talked about the Burisma scandal on the show and elsewhere before.
Hunter Biden was getting $50,000 a month to sit on the board of this gas company, and he knew nothing about natural gas.
And it was obviously just a payment to the guy to buy favor with the then sitting vice president.
And it may have gone beyond that.
They're going to look into that in terms of Burisma.
But the Chinese piece of this is really interesting because if Hunter Biden was laying the foundation for some sort of a deal or actually struck one with the Chinese, Now, you're talking about potential compromising of the next president.
I mean, this could actually be deeply problematic.
And I know you've been covering the Chinese piece of this.
Can you just help explain what that piece of this looks like, as far as we know?
Yeah, there are two different streams because there are two different business ventures that he got involved in.
And let me just, in an overarching way, say, You can see why the Justice Department people would be very frustrated dealing with the president.
Because, you know, with the second of the income streams from China, which is the one that Bo Belinsky, who you mentioned before, provided information about and was a participant in, there's a lot of money that came in, like, you know, about $5 million.
So you would think.
Instead of running around saying, why isn't the Justice Department doing anything?
Where is the FBI?
Why hasn't somebody been arrested by now?
You would think that the question the president would be asking would be, did you get the $5 million?
I mean, what other question?
What this is about is about payments for influence.
And whether it happens to also be an indictable crime in a political context is beside the point.
The question is did you guys get the $5 million or not?
And it's just, it's beyond me why the Trump campaign was unable to just pose that question in a very clear way.
Or at least say you have three countries here Ukraine, Russia, and China.
And the only things they seem to have in common are that Joe Biden was the point man for Obama administration foreign policy.
And all of those countries at that time thought it was a good idea to pay a lot of money to Hunter.
As a political, you know, what difference does it make whether they get indicted or not?
That, you know, seems to be the pitch that they couldn't make.
But on the Chinese stuff, there is one venture where Hunter goes over to China on Air Force Two with Vice President Biden and basically strikes a deal with an outfit that's got pretty heavy duty ties to the Communist Chinese Party and the regime.
Back, that is the Chinese do, the business venture with all kinds of guarantees and streams of credit and make available to Hunter and his partners a lot of opportunities, very lucrative ones that wouldn't be available to other people similarly situated.
And then there's a second stream, which is much more interesting, where they're talking about ultimately a big energy venture, I think it was in Arkansas.
And ultimately, this was going to be lots and lots of money, but it was going to be a $10 million advance at the start.
That was what Bobolinsky was brought in to kind of, because he's got experience in corporate governance and structuring transactions of this kind.
He was the one who was brought in to structure it.
I don't mean structure in the money laundering sense, I mean structure in the legitimate sense.
And at a certain point, he gets very frustrated because Hunter is pushing to be paid a lot of money for this.
And I think that there's part of the story is that Jim Biden, who is the vice president's brother, is also cashing in here.
And they're not really doing anything to add value to the venture other than to bring the Biden name to the venture.
And ultimately, Hunter.
Just to interject, that's the one.
So, Bobolinsky gave an interview to Tucker, among others, and he said that Jim Biden and he met.
Bobolinsky asked him because you're talking about the Joe Biden name being used and striking this crazy deal with the Chinese with eight figures.
And that he asked Jim Biden, How are you guys getting away with this?
Aren't you concerned?
And Bobolinsky claimed that Jim Biden laughed and said, Plausible deniability.
So, the implication is that they knew what they were doing was shady.
That it was kind of gross and that they were using the Biden name in a way that probably wasn't going to fly with the public, but they wanted to make money.
And that's maybe one of the things that's being investigated.
We've heard reportedly it includes the Chinese dealings.
So keep going.
I just wanted to give some color to the Bobolinsky piece there.
Yeah.
So the guy that the interesting thing is we find out ultimately, Megan, that this venture that the Chinese people on the end of the venture that Hunter is dealing with.
There's a FISA warrant on at least one of them.
Who actually, Hunter in the story, the story gets crazier as it goes on, but Hunter, who really isn't a practicing lawyer, ends up representing this guy in connection with the investigation.
And his job is to try to find out.
What the Justice Department is up to.
And what we ultimately learn in connection, his name is Ho, and what we ultimately learn in connection with his prosecution, he ends up getting a three year foreign corrupt practices sentence and I think got deported.
We think he got deported back to Hong Kong.
Wait, this is who?
Can you just reiterate who is that?
Who is Ho?
His name is Ho, and he is the business partner of the main guy on the.
Second Chinese venture.
Both of them have very high ties to the Chinese Communist Party, the military intelligence apparatus.
And the reason that they become fabulously rich in this business venture is because basically they're backed by the Chinese government.
They run this thing that went from nothing to a kind of a multi billion dollar top, it was like 220 on the Fortune 500 at one point or.
Something along those lines.
So, anyway, this guy, the first guy whose name is Chi, he is the one who Hunter negotiates the deal with and who presents Hunter with this diamond in the middle of their.
I love this piece of it.
This is the best part.
Oh, yeah, it's great.
Yeah.
And he's in cahoots with this other guy who is prosecuted by the Justice Department.
And they asked Hunter to represent this guy.
And we find out in the disclosures in connection with his trial that there's a FISA warrant on him.
Now, we all learned a lot about FISA warrants during the Mueller, the Russiagate stuff, especially in connection with Carter Page.
But a FISA warrant means the government went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and had probable cause that this character was.
An agent of a foreign power, which means he was involved in clandestine activity on behalf of the Chinese government.
So that's the problem.
This is Hunter's pal.
This is, yeah, this is Hunter's pal who Hunter may be representing as a lawyer whose last name is Ho.
Yes.
And the reason I think that that's so significant is that got disclosed, that piece of it got disclosed in February of.
2018, I think, may have been 2019.
Off the top of my head, I don't remember.
But within two weeks, the other guy disappears and is never heard of again.
As soon as they put out the FISA, as soon as the government discloses in court that Ho is the subject of a FISA warrant, his partner suddenly disappears and is never heard from again.
This is Hunter, the guy who struck the deal with Hunter.
And no one has seen or heard from this guy.
Ever since.
He's believed to be in custody in China, but nobody really knows.
Who's the, is it him, Chi, who we think his name is Chi, the guy who's never seen again?
Which one sent Hunter the diamond?
The first guy, Chi, the guy who runs the, the guy who ran the whole enterprise.
Ho is the guy who gets convicted.
And I know this is.
Can you just put some meat on that?
Because I know I listened to you on your podcast with National Review saying, when you get to the diamond piece of this, that's.
That's the point as the prosecutor where you just sit down.
You just introduce that piece of evidence, then you sit down.
Well, yeah, because in every trial, especially when there's a complex trial, what the prosecutor's job is.
And I guess I could be doing a better job of it now.
But the job is to take things that are complicated and try to simplify them, come up with two or three thematic things that the jury can hang their hat on.
Because these are going to be lay people, they're not going to be extraordinarily versed in high finance and international intrigue and the like.
So you want to give them a few things that you can hang your hat on.
And that's the kind of a detail in a negotiation where.
You know, they're talking about doing, as you say, an eight figure deal in connection with energy down in Arkansas.
And there's all kinds of arcana that is involved in all of that.
But while they're having the negotiations, they have a meeting.
And the day after the meeting, Hunter is presented with a thank you card that has a diamond.
Which there's some dispute about how much.
I think Hunter says it's only worth about $20,000.
Other people have appraised it at, I think, $80,000 or something along those lines.
But I mean, it's not the, you know, at a certain point, somebody asks Hunter, I think it was the guy who interviewed him for The New Yorker.
Was it Adam on two, who used to be at The Washington Post?
I'm probably getting wrong who wrote it, but there's a long profile of Hunter in The New Yorker.
And they ask him about the diamond, and he basically says to him, Didn't you think you might have been being bribed there?
And he said, Why would they bribe me?
My father wasn't even in office then.
In the meantime, the father is like gearing up to run for president.
And I think he had already formed a campaign structure and all that jazz.
That's what's nuts about this.
Why would anyone bribe me?
Gee.
Right.
What about I'm this sweet little hunter.
And that's what's so crazy because now, you know, Peter Ducey of Fox News keeps following around Joe Biden saying, What did you know about your son?
Did you know he's under investigation?
And Joe Biden, okay, so the other night was, Thanks for the congratulations.
Okay, as if the press has some obligation to congratulate him after the electoral college.
We don't, okay, we don't.
But number two, all he keeps saying, whether it was at the presidential debate with Trump or Peter Ducey yelling at him, is, I'm proud of my son.
I'm proud of my son.
And the media is letting him get away with this.
Hunter Biden shouldn't be with In 10 foot pole distance of the Oval Office.
Joe Biden's Knowledge of Son 00:05:50
He should be nowhere near this administration.
He appears to be a corrupt guy who is willing to take money for influence on his dad's name and has done it for a very long time.
And it may even have crossed over to the criminal, right?
That's what's being investigated.
And Joe Biden, you tell me, Andy, he should not be getting away with, I'm proud of my son.
That's not going to cut it.
Yeah.
Well, you know, look, I think it's worse than that.
I obviously agree with all of that, but I think the You know, the hands off approach that they've taken on this is not going to make it go away.
And if this was, if the, we all know if the shoe were on the other foot and these were Republicans, forget about whether they were, you know, Trump, who they have like a special kind of insane hatred for.
But let's just say it was a seemingly innocuous kind of, you know, Republican like, you know, Mitt Romney before he became a dog killer or whatever they wanted to paint him as when he ran.
But, you know, This thing would be investigated to the ground.
In a way, the Justice Department investigates things to the ground, sometimes, in some ways, even more.
Aggressively.
And as a result, this hasn't been looked at at all.
And, you know, I don't want to, I don't know if Joe Biden himself has done anything wrong.
I don't know if he's, I mean, obviously, I listened to Bobolinsky's testimony, or not his interview with Tucker, and he's obviously implicated in a way that's a lot more serious than anything they ever had on Trump.
I mean, this guy says that, you know, he not only was supposed to get a 10% slice.
Of a $10 million proposal, but there's documentary corroboration of it.
You know, there's that document where Joe Biden, right?
Yeah.
And Bob Alinsky also says that by the time the deal was finished structuring the deal, it went from the 10% slice being held for Joe Biden was going to be held by, originally it was going to be Hunter, then they changed it to Jim.
So they had a whole plan for how.
This money was going to kind of be held out of sight.
And we're talking about, you know, for those who do math like I do math, which, you know, don't overcomplicate it, this was 10% of $10 million.
So we can all do that math, right?
So, and again, Megan, this is like what we mentioned before.
This is not something that doesn't have context.
There are investigations that are some, one done by the New Yorker, one done by Politico, you know, not exactly.
You know, right wing whack jobs, right?
These guys, beginning with Jim Biden and Hunter for sure, have been cashing in on Joe's political influence since like the 1980s.
There's a whole stream of this that goes on way back.
So it's not like this happened with no context.
And, you know, common sense says if you're Joe Biden, you know, if you don't want people cashing in on your political influence, I don't know.
Maybe after the first decade or two, you tell him to knock it off.
But this is behavior that goes right.
And instead, here's Hunter hopping on board Air Force Two and off to China to cash in on this deal and then off to the next place.
Let's not forget Joe Biden not being honest about what he knew and when he knew it already.
He's said precious little about it.
I'm proud of my son.
To deal with what's being alleged, they've muffed it.
I mean, they've clearly misled.
Remember, there was an allegation that he had met with the, that he, Joe Biden, had met with the number three executive of Burisma, this Ukrainian oil and gas company, at the White House, which, you know, would have lent some credence to this whole story, right?
That his son and they're doing all these dealings and they're trying to get his influence.
And then he was like, well, no, I don't remember it.
Well, no, it wasn't on my schedule.
I was like, Oh, well, that answers it.
And they, once again, were let to get away with it.
I'm glad you brought that up because when we were talking before about authenticating the laptops, I thought one of the more interesting things was that meeting, they found out about the meeting, that is, we all found out about the meeting because of what was on the laptop.
And when they went to Biden's campaign and they said, did you have this meeting?
The reaction wasn't, what do you mean off that laptop?
That's Russian disinformation.
That never happens.
They said, let me check the calendar.
So, you know, you kind of knew that the laptop was, I mean, how many different ways that we need to know it was for real?
But along the lines of what you're pursuing, all I was going to say is because the media didn't do its job, this was not delved into before the election.
And during the campaign, when maybe the Democrats would have looked at it and said, maybe we go a different direction.
Now it's ultimately going to be looked into because this is, it'll be slower than it would be if it were a Republican, but it's going to happen.
And it'll happen while he's in the White House, which is, it's a disaster for him.
It's a disaster for the country.
Maybe it won't be that much of a disaster.
Maybe he's more insulated from it than what appears to me, at least at the moment.
But we'll see.
It would be much better if the media did its job and this was vetted before we had people in office.
Santa Guns and Political Correctness 00:05:57
Okay, a couple of points.
Number one, just to button up that it wasn't on my calendar.
You know, I heard you say this, I've said this too.
That would be exactly the kind of meeting you wouldn't put on your calendar.
So that is not dispositive and they know it.
They know it.
And number two, it was weird that Mitt Romney put his dog on the top of the car for the family road trips.
I'm just going to, I like, I'm just going to say, I'm always stuck in my craw.
He said the dog liked it.
Challenge.
Challenge.
More with Andy in one second.
But first, I shared a hot story a couple of weeks ago and it nearly crashed the internet.
The Scoremaster website was like, help me, help me, because everyone went.
And here's the reason.
The average American has 97 points.
We're talking almost 100 points.
They can quickly add to their credit score, but they have no idea how to get it.
Do you stress out about this?
So many people do.
Back when I didn't have any dough, I really stressed about my credit, which sucked.
And I would have loved. to have had this service with Scoremaster.
This is what these guys do.
They're credit scientists and they discovered an algorithm that will super boost your credit score and not just a few points, which doesn't help you, but 97 points fast.
Imagine that almost 100 points on top of your current credit score.
That could be huge if you're refinancing your home or buying a car, applying for credit.
Here's an example.
Let's say you have just mediocre credit and you're buying a car.
If you go to Scoremaster first and boost your credit score, just the average of 61 points, you could save 9,000 bucks, 9,000 on your car loan.
If you go to Scoremaster and boost your credit, just the average number before you apply for a home loan, so many people are buying homes now as they try to get out of the cities thanks to COVID, you could save almost $100,000 over the life of your loan.
Think about that.
This thing pays for itself.
Same thing if you own a business, from getting a car loan or getting a regular loan, if you're a business, to funding projects, to financing equipments, super boost your business credit score, and you could save a fortune.
Scoremaster puts you in control of your finances.
Enroll in minutes and see how many plus points Scoremaster can add to your credit score.
Visit scoremaster.com slash MK.
That's scoremaster.com slash MK.
Okay, now before we get back to Andy, I want to bring to you another edition of the feature we call You Can't Say That or Think That or Do That.
Oh, wait, this is America.
This time, if you happen to be a little boy talking to Santa, you can't say you want a Nerf gun.
Got it?
Did you see this?
This actually happened.
A four year old boy, four, in Illinois, was making a socially distanced visit to Santa at the mall.
It's a little hard to hear him, so listen up.
And here's what happened.
What do you want for Christmas?
You don't know.
What?
No guns.
Nerve guns.
No, not even a nerve gun.
No.
If your dad wants to get it for you, that's fine, but I can't bring it to you.
What else would you like?
Other toys.
There's Legos, there's bicycles, there's cars and trucks.
What do you think?
What do you think?
It's okay, we're dead.
Don't cry.
What a jerk.
Can you believe?
What would you do if Mall Santa did that to your kid?
So apparently gun control Santa will not drop a Nerf gun down the chimney, but he suggests that the boy's father can buy it for him instead.
Enter the hero of the story, who, believe it or not, is Steven Crowder.
Steven Crowder of Louder with Crowder, friend of ours, put on his Santa suit, did a virtual Zoom call with the little boy and his parents.
Apparently his dad is a cop.
And, you know, I'm sure the family did not appreciate the demonization of people who use a gun.
And Crowder did a hilarious exchange with the boy.
The parents loved it.
The kid did great.
Here's a little bit of that.
I know you've been very good this year.
Now, let me ask you this, young Michael.
What is it?
I know that the helper, again, no association there.
We're looking through HR, and I'll get back to your parents about this.
What was it that you asked that unqualified helper for at the mall?
Nerf guns.
A Nerf gun!
Ho, ho, ho, ho!
Oh, well, that sounds like a wonderful gift, a wonderful toy.
And that man told you no.
Oh, well, let me tell you, that's not the real Santa.
He's what your parents will teach you about when you get older.
He's what we call a communist.
And in even better news, the mall, realizing that it was about to be completely publicly shamed and ostracized, had another Santa wind up going to the boy's home and personally deliver him a Nerf gun.
Do you let your kids use Nerf guns?
I do.
My kids have all got the Nerf guns.
They run around.
They shoot each other.
They shoot through little targets.
I mean, it's like people, Nerf guns do not cause violence later in life.
We got bigger problems than Nerf guns, which kids have used from the beginning of time or its predecessor.
Remember that one kid who got expelled from school for chewing his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun?
We've lost our minds.
Anyway, Merry Christmas.
And remember, kids, if you ask the wrong mall Santa for a toy, the far left thinks it's bad for you, Santa might make you cry, so you can't say that.
Oh, wait.
This is America.
Back to Andy.
Special Counsel Targets and Defund Police 00:15:47
You say this will be looked into, but how?
Because right now, of course, we started this with who is investigating it, the Department of Justice, and Trump's anger that Bill Barr did not disclose that prior to the election.
But we're about to have a new president come in who's going to appoint a new attorney general, one more favorable to Joe Biden, we think.
And Chris Coons, Democratic senator from Delaware.
Was asked about this recently, and he said, Oh, we don't need a special counsel.
That was the question.
Given Democratic AG, we assume under a Biden administration, should we be getting a special counsel here?
Because this is a chance Biden could put his thumb on the scale, or somebody loyal to Biden at the top of the DOJ could put his thumb on the scale.
And he said, No, no, we don't need that because Biden's not going to use the attorney general's office as his own personal counsel the way Trump did.
So you can trust the DOJ.
What do you think?
Well, I would like to be more sympathetic to Coons because I hate the institution of special counsel, even though I grudgingly acknowledge that there are certain situations, and this certainly is the classic one where you would resort to one.
My own view of it, for what it's worth, is that what makes a special counsel pernicious is you're bringing somebody in from the outside who's got one set of targets to pursue.
And every other investigation in the Justice Department competes with every other investigation for resources, and you work on it given what the relative importance.
Of it is and the chance of making the case.
And with the normal prosecutor's office, if you can't make the case in a reasonable amount of time, you close it and you move on to the next thing, which doesn't appear to happen with special counsel.
What happens with special counsel is they investigate things to the ground that wouldn't be worth the normal prosecutor's time very often.
And if they don't find a crime, they create one in the course of the investigation.
So people end up taking all kinds of process counts and false statements and obstruction.
And that sort of stuff.
So I think it's a pernicious institution.
And I also think that if the Justice Department's reputation hadn't taken the hits that it's taken over the last dozen plus years, probably, I guess I'd go back to.
There was a time, I think, where you could say, you know, here is ex prosecutor who is well known to people on.
Both sides of the political aisle, across the ideological spectrum, somebody who's scrupulous, somebody who's competent, and who will do the right thing and investigate cases the way they ought to be investigated, and we'll find out what happened.
And you would trust that.
And I feel that way because I worked in the Southern District of New York for almost 20 years, where we investigated Republicans during Republican administrations, we investigated Democrats during Democratic administrations.
Little or no interference from Washington.
So, you know, I know it can be done.
And if you could identify somebody who, I think, Megan, that much more important than the structure of the independent counsel, which is not always cracked up to be in any event, much more important is the reputation of the individual prosecutor for ethics and scrupulousness and competence.
So I think if the Justice Department had.
Michael Mucchese or a Merrick Garland, to take an example from both political sides, who may have their political points of view, but are very ethical lawyers and were very, very strong professional ethical prosecutors, the public could take comfort that the investigation would be done in a competent way.
You'd have to worry about whether the political appointees in a Biden Justice Department.
We're trying to put pressure on the prosecutor, but you could, you know, that's the kind of thing that Congress can keep an eye on, particularly the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And you could have a decent amount of faith that the investigation would be done the right way.
I'm just not sure we have a reputation for that anymore.
Well, I have to say, I'm glad to hear you point out that it's to say it's not just over the last four years, because Bill Barr has certainly been in the headlines enough as an allegedly, you know, partisan AG.
Pushing the Trump talking points or agenda.
And people forget Eric Holder was probably the most partisan AG we've seen in decades.
I mean, he came out and owned it and said, I am an activist attorney general.
I see that as my job.
But he was pushing Obama's policies.
So no one who writes up the articles seemed to care.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And in fact, part of the reason that Obama.
And Biden as well have pushed back publicly against all of these people on the hard Democratic left.
I used to think of Obama as the hard Democratic left.
Now he's a moderate.
So who knew?
Totally.
Exactly right.
But.
But all these guys who say defund the police, we want to defund the police.
And Obama's there saying, What are you crazy saying, defund the police?
You know, that's just killing us.
And in the meantime, the Obama people didn't want to defund the police.
In fact, they wanted to increase the funds for the police.
They wanted to remake the police.
And that was Eric Holder's job.
And he was not at all abashed about it.
What they would do is they would slipstream behind every one of these big racial.
Incidents, whether it was Trayvon Martin or what happened in Missouri or what have you.
And of course, they would never be able to make a federal civil rights prosecution because there was no evidence that would support that.
But what they would do is slipstreaming behind these incidents, they would open up under a 1994 law that Clinton signed off on.
This is the one that the The one that Biden used to call the Biden crime law, but no one wants to be associated with it anymore because a lot of people went to jail for a long time over it, right?
But there's a provision in that that allowed the attorney general to file a civil lawsuit for pattern or practice of behavior on the part of a municipality or one of its agencies that deprives people of their civil rights.
So what they did was they would go in and they would start these pattern practice investigations.
And nobody can litigate, no little municipality, no even big city can litigate with the Justice Department.
They got a $30 billion budget and they just keep throwing stuff at you.
So, what would happen is they would sign off on consent decrees.
And what you would do in the consent decree was agree to adopt Obama model policing.
And you would do it under the auspices of a federal monitor or a federal court.
But they weren't trying to.
Defund the police was not the agenda.
It was to change the policing strategy that was put in place in the 1990s, you know, all the broken windows and Comstat and the Intel approach to policing, and change it into Obama style, as they call it, community policing, which is a very different kind of policing.
And that was much better than defunding the police.
And Eric Holder was proudly, from his perspective, Perspective, the person who piloted that whole thing.
And that's one big example of what they did, but they politicized not only the law enforcement, the intelligence apparatus.
We had 50 intelligence professionals toward the end of the Obama administration complaining that their reporting was being politicized and, you know, their reports were being edited in order to support Obama administration narratives, like, you know, we're having great success against.
Jihadist, except I think you weren't allowed to call them jihadists, but those people, we were having real success against them.
Religious scholars, according to the New York Times.
Yes, that's right.
That's right.
So, you know, the idea that Bill Barr, I think Barr's legacy ultimately, when we get past Trump and people get more rational again, I think Barr's legacy is going to be that he tried to depoliticize the Justice Department.
And it bothers me so much when people.
Snicker when I say that.
But, you know, if you notice, Jim Comey, not indicted.
Andy McCabe, not indicted.
One indictment at a Russiagate, no matter how much Trump screamed about it, was.
Which is like a classic case that anyone would indict a lawyer for the FBI who manipulates a document to get a FISA warrant, right?
Who wouldn't bring that case?
That's the only case that gets brought.
And what Barr said again and again and again was even though he thought that was an outrageous abuse of power, unless you can show meat and potatoes crimes that are supported by strong evidence, the Justice Department is not going to charge.
Because number one, there's a difference between abuse of power and crime.
They're not always the same.
And number two, if we're going to make this thing work for any future length of time, you have to get the politics out of the Justice Department and the Justice Department out of the politics.
And the worst thing that has happened, some of this was not the FBI's fault.
The Hillary Clinton investigation, they mishandled it, but it fell in their lap.
They had to do that, that was a crit that got referred to them as a criminal investigation, was unavoidable.
But they brought the Russia thing on themselves.
I mean, that thing had no real evidence to support it.
And they not only ran with it for a long time.
Yep.
Yep.
So I think a lot of what Bars tried to do, much to the president's frustration, is get the politics out of the Justice Department and make sure that stuff didn't get politicized, like the Hunter Biden investigation.
And, you know, hopefully that'll be his legacy.
I want to make one other point about Holder, but then I want to ask you a quick question about Trump and the election.
We had Shelby and Eli Steele on the program not long ago, and they just did a documentary called What Killed Michael Brown in Ferguson.
And they took a look at not only the fact that even Holder's DOJ could not conclude that that officer did anything wrong.
They concluded, based on all the eyewitness testimony, that he was 100% justified.
They couldn't make a case against him.
Everyone behind closed doors, at least, would tell the police Michael Brown was charging the cop at the time he shot him.
And contrary to the media narrative, which was hands up, don't shoot, which we now know is a lie.
And by the way, at the time, it was pretty obvious it was a lie, too, notwithstanding what you saw on CNN with Sonny Hostin and Sally Cohn with their hands up and somebody holding a sign saying, hands up, don't shoot.
It was all a lie.
And they, whatever.
Okay, so I digress.
But he was pointing out that Eric Holder, you know, and Democrats are quick to say, oh, but in Ferguson, in Ferguson, he also condemned the Ferguson Police Department as racist.
He also concluded that.
But if you go back and look at this, Shelby, I asked Shelby about this.
I said, you know, he said, for example, I know they're racist because number one, I've seen some bad emails.
And, you know, no organization is perfect.
It's not great to see those kinds of, you know, bad jokes and so on.
But it doesn't necessarily mean the department itself is racist.
He said, well, the tickets, the traffic tickets in Ferguson, which, you know, the city of Ferguson, he said, is, I think, 65% black, but 80% of the people who got the traffic tickets are black.
And therefore, that shows systemic racism in the police department.
And Shelby was pointing out, if you look at the greater Ferguson area, because not only the proper citizen, the citizens of Ferguson proper drive through Ferguson but like the greater area, is over 90 black right.
So, like Eric Holder didn't want to see that what he wanted to see was systemic racism and to come up with a reason to basically take control of policing, as you point out, he tried to do time and time again.
He called himself president Obama's wingman.
So I'm I'm so tired of Democrats lecturing us about how Trump has, you know, for the first time, made the DOJ this partisan organization.
They just weren't paying attention or they didn't care during the Obama administration, because those of us covering it, especially as a recovering lawyer, I thought it was just egregious what Holder was doing.
It was egregious.
So if you don't like what Bill Barr is doing, you take a listen to what Andy's saying about what actually happened while he was at the helm.
And even under the least generous interpretation of Bill Barr, you can't get away with that without acknowledging the reality of the Obama years.
All right, I'm stealing the last word on that because I know we're short on time and I have to ask you.
You've been very, very careful looking at the lawsuits, looking at the actual pleadings, watching what Giuliani, as you point out, your old boss and others have been saying in court.
And now it's done.
It's over.
The legal challenges are done.
There's a few sort of like embers on a fire that are still there.
There's no chance of undoing the vote.
That's my take.
A, do you agree with that?
And B, can you just tell us, because I thought your write-up of what happened when Trump's lawyers finally got into the Wisconsin court, the Supreme Court tossed his last case there in a four to three decision.
And you took a hard look at it and said, what happened there was really kind of stunning.
And I just want people who love President Trump and think, you know, if he'd only been given a chance and court after court, he could have made this case to hear from you what happened.
Yeah, and look, I supported President Trump.
So, you know, you're not ruling against him.
I wanted, right.
But, you know, the fact is they've run around, they've lost.
Now, you know, look, when the New York Times says they're like one in 50 or one in 49, they're counting a bunch of stuff, like they're counting every little motion that got made that got ruled against them as if it were a separate case.
But they haven't done well.
I mean, they've been every time, every place they've been able to plant and try to make a big.
Case they've failed, uh, and I think it's very interesting that, um, when leading up to this case that you're just asking me about, uh, in Michigan, they with great fanfare talking about fraud, fraud, fraud filed a federal lawsuit.
Uh, and after a week, the federal judge threatened to throw the lawsuit out because they didn't prosecute it, they never even served the secretary of state, and then they just dismissed it without taking any further action on it.
Fraud Allegations in Michigan Case 00:05:44
When they got into court, federal court in Pennsylvania.
Fraud, fraud, fraud.
And then when the judge scheduled a hearing, they dismissed the fraud counts and told the judge the case wasn't about fraud and ultimately lost that one.
What happens in Wisconsin is after the president, especially the night before the Supreme Court had dinged them on the Texas case, which was a preposterous case.
Yeah.
Talk about Hail Mary.
The president and a lot of his supporters were out there saying, we just never get our day in court.
They keep us out.
They have all these little technicalities like standing.
They won't let us present our case.
So they go into Wisconsin in front of a Trump appointed judge.
And the Wisconsin state officials all say, Standing, standing, standing, you shouldn't hear this case.
And he's like, No, I'm going to hear it.
No, don't want to hear about standing.
No, not stopping them.
We're scheduling a hearing.
You know, fraud, irregularity, impropriety, what you got?
They are.
All your witnesses, great.
And they show up the day of the hearing and they said, you know, I don't think we need a hearing.
And it turned out that they stipulated with the government of Wisconsin about what the underlying facts were.
And they just wanted to argue basically the legality of three administrative.
Election procedures.
I'm not trying to belittle that that's the importance of it, but when you're telling everyone fraud, fraud, fraud, rigged, the biggest theft in history, what people need to know, you know, we lapse into, or at least I do.
You've recovered more than I have.
But we say things like stipulation, and nobody knows what that means.
But stipulation is when lawyers in a case agree that something is a fact or that a witness would testify to X, so that because it's not a disputed issue and no one wants to waste time bringing witnesses in and presenting a bunch of evidence on it because it's not worth the time.
So you might get a little stipulation in a trial, like in a drug case, you might.
Get a stipulation that says an expert would come in and say this substance is heroin, but you're still going to have a full blown trial on everything else, like identification and conspiracy and all the other jazz, right?
So, where you don't have stipulated facts is when one side is saying this is the biggest fraud in the history of fraud, and the other side is saying fraud didn't happen.
You know, that's the case that goes to trial with witnesses and evidence.
It's not stipulated facts.
They came in on the morning of the trial, basically, and said, We don't need a trial.
We're just going to argue the law.
We stipulate it to the facts.
And the facts, of course, they stipulate are not fraud.
So it seems to me that every place they've gone where a judge said, All right, big guy, have at it, show us your stuff, they've told it.
So if I were more cynical, Megan, I might even say they'd rather have the narrative.
Than their day in court.
But that's just me.
No Kraken.
There was no Kraken when it was all said and done.
And people do need to know that because I've been very open minded to watching the cases and seeing how they play out.
But I have not seen the evidence at all.
I realize there have been allegations and there's been anecdotal things here and there.
And I get all that.
But when given the chance to actually present their evidence in court, they haven't done it, they haven't even tried.
In court after court, and you do have to contrast what they did in court versus what they've been doing in the media and via twitter.
Andy Mccarthy one of the few honest brokers left out there, and i'm so grateful you're there.
Thank you so much for your expertise.
Oh Megan, thank you so much.
Been a pleasure to talk to you.
Our thanks again to Andy and Selena.
Today's episode was brought to you in part by Blinds Galore.
Get the custom blinds and shades you've always wanted.
Visit blindsgalore.com today and choose the Megan Kelly show at checkout to learn more.
You know you want them.
Just go check them out See, do it now, or else you forget, but they're great.
Before we go, I want to tell you to go subscribe to the show so you can be sure to hear our interview this Friday with Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron.
This guy's a rising star in the Republican Party.
He is the first black attorney general in the state of Kentucky and is a little bit at war with their Democratic governor there.
We'll talk to him about why and about the crazy racist backlash he received after he did not encourage the grand jury to indict.
those officers in the case of Breonna Taylor.
Remember, there were three cops who were looking at potential charges.
This young woman was tragically killed when the police executed what was a no-knock warrant, but the police said it was not served as a no-knock.
They did knock.
They did identify themselves.
They went into the apartment and Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot one of the police officers.
They returned fire and she was killed.
It was just an unfortunate situation all around.
And he had a tough, tough job.
He did it with dignity, with intelligence, with class, with integrity.
And in response, he was called every name in the book by, you know, the usual cast of characters over at MSNBC, Hollywood, and so on.
Breonna Taylor No-Knock Warrant 00:01:49
So we're going to get into it.
And I think you're going to enjoy Daniel Cameron on Friday.
So subscribe, download, rate, review.
I'm starting to get it.
Rate and review.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
The Megyn Kelly Show is a devil-may-care media production in collaboration with Red Seat Ventures.
What is the value of the money?
This is the value of the money.
This is the value of the money.
Market is the best spare rent and a good service to the fact that you can help.
Beside folio.nu and see the video that you can help us with the story.
Folio, smart and banking.
You can see the talent.
Okay, this is fantastic, but let's say that you can help us with the idea of the future.
Now, you can see the idea of the future, and you can see the future, and you can see the future.
And good serial.
This is a tip to stream Flex 2.
For the newer months, for this toll TV channel, there will be two play bases for reclam, via play film and series, and two extra streaming tenants for the world.
HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
This is for the whole family and the funk over all.
For the mobile, not for the mobile, there will be a Chromecast hotel in the world.
The lente is a very good thing.
It
Export Selection