The Megyn Kelly Show - 20220127_disturbing-leaked-illegal-immigration-video-and-ra

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Jan. 27, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:35:14

20220127_disturbing-leaked-illegal-immigration-video-and-ra

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Southern Border Debates 00:12:56
	Fiken are a super enkelt Renskauff program for bedrifter.
	Man wist to do also can start the neigen bedrift with Fiken.
	You are some thuis and registrates ais or enkelt person for a tag, trick to enkelt, who are fill the schema of Fiken and no.
	We help three hale weyen till fade registrates bedrift.
	To train your ickeware kunda Fiken prefer or welk your health cell, um the we brute Renskauff program worth etwa.
	Tensten kost a heller ingenting extra.
	Fiken start the neigen bedrift, super enkelt.
	Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show.
	We have a great program for you today.
	Later, we're going to speak about the latest on January 6th and the criminal cases brought and conspicuously not brought when Julie Kelly joins us.
	She has a new book on the events of last year.
	She has been following this case more closely than anyone.
	But first, A border crisis is made glaringly obvious in disturbing, shocking new videos.
	We'll show them to you and get into it.
	Plus, what happens next at the U.S. Supreme Court?
	Will Vice President Kamala Harris become Justice Harris?
	Joining me now to talk about it all, plus his recent dust up on the Dr. Phil show, is Matt Walsh, host of the Matt Walsh Show on the Daily Wire and general, you know what, stirrer, which is one of the things we love about you, Matt.
	Welcome back.
	Hey, thanks for having me again.
	I appreciate it.
	Okay, so let's just start with.
	I want to get to Kamala in one second, but can we just talk about this video that has now been released?
	It's been leaked.
	Okay, and it shows, it sort of shows what the Biden administration is doing when it comes to our southern border and illegal immigrants in this country.
	Two million came into the country last year under Biden's watch, and he's breaking records month after month in terms of our southern border.
	The mainstream press won't cover it.
	And it came out in October, thanks to the New York Post, that they were, the Biden administration, putting a bunch of illegal immigrants.
	On charter flights down from, I think it's Texas, Fort Bliss, Texas, if I'm not mistaken, and putting them all over the country in the dead of night, including practically my backyard here, Westchester County Airport.
	And they got caught.
	And now, what's happened just this week is 51 minutes of footage was obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino.
	This is a Republican who's running for governor.
	Governor in 2020.
	So he gets his hands on the footage.
	And I just want to play it because what you're going to hear is a conversation between Sergeant Michael Hamborski, who's expressing his frustration.
	Now I'm quoting from a Miranda Devine piece in the Post that local police have been giving no information about these flights arriving after curfew at the airport in breach of security protocols.
	And one in a federal contractor who's kind of saying, man, you know, I'm not in charge here.
	I'm just doing what I was told to do.
	So watch this and listen.
	I want to be somewhere where spotlights.
	Yeah.
	We want to try to keep it as down low as possible.
	A lot of this is just.
	No, I get it.
	I just like to say.
	A lot of stuff that we don't tell people.
	Because what we don't want to do is attract attention.
	We don't want the media.
	Yeah.
	Like, we don't even know where we're going when they tell us.
	I get the whole secrecy and all this, but this is even about my fing fing I get the fing fing You know why?
	You know why?
	Yeah, I know, but why?
	Because there's an office.
	Yeah.
	No, but what's the big secret?
	Everybody knows it's happening.
	You know why?
	Because if the government gets out, the government will train the American people.
	If this gets out, the government is betraying the American people, says the contractor to the police officer on there.
	They know.
	They know these flights were occurring nightly from August until they were busted by the post in October.
	And the guys on board are saying, we don't even know.
	The bus driver said to the cop, we don't even know where we're taking them.
	But they have these shepherds, these chaperones.
	They get on the bus and tell us when they're on.
	This is insane, Matt.
	Yeah, it is.
	It's also, on one hand, I want to say it's amazing.
	On the other hand, I'm not amazed at all because I know that our government has no respect for our national sovereignty at all.
	And there's a certain futility that I feel when I listen to footage like that because on one hand, they're caught red-handed.
	You have them saying on the footage, yeah, we're betraying the American people.
	But then I also know that nothing will come of it.
	No one's going to be held accountable.
	There's no accountability whatsoever.
	This is something that they can do.
	And just, it's like when virus labs leak viruses that kill 5 million people.
	And it's just, well, they did it and nothing happens.
	There's no accountability.
	And something similar here.
	So there's also a kind of futility to it.
	I don't know.
	We as the American people, what are we supposed to do now with this information?
	I suppose that's something to keep in mind when we get to the midterm elections.
	That's one thing that we can do, but there's still that kind of futility to it.
	But it's infuriating, isn't it?
	It's like Mr. Unity and transparency, who is going to have a different kind of Presidency, and you hear an exchange on the tape between these guys.
	The officer says, Well, the contractor says, 'We're not allowed to have our picture taken when we get on base.' The guy's sort of handling the immigrants.
	And the cop says, 'Uneffing believable.' Who's by that?
	DHS?' And the guy says, 'Yeah, and the U.S. Army.
	You're on a federal installation, but DHS wants everything on the down low.' And then the sergeant asks another contractor, 'Why do you come to a small airport?' Like this one, Westchester.
	And the response is, you don't want to be somewhere the spotlight is.
	You want to try and be as down low as possible.
	A lot of this is just down low stuff that we don't tell people because we don't, what we don't want to do is attract attention.
	We don't want the media, like, we don't even know where we're going when they tell us and goes on to.
	I mean, this is, they're so determined to get these illegal immigrants into American communities with impunity.
	It suggests they really are up.
	To something nefarious like trying to change the voter rolls or who knows what else.
	But there is absolutely zero chance any of these people is going to go back for an asylum hearing or any other sort of protocol at the southern border, which would be handling them.
	Right, right.
	And it is infuriating.
	I think it's important for us to still, you can kind of become numb to it after a while, which I guess is what I was saying before, that it's, you're so used to being betrayed by the government, by the Biden administration, that after a while you get kind of numb to it.
	But we will, this actually, we, We should be outraged by this.
	This is the kind of thing that should provoke outrage.
	And is it a coincidence that, well, let's just think about it.
	Let's try to connect the dots.
	You have the Biden administration literally flying illegal immigrants in the dead of night, under the cover of night and darkness, into American neighborhoods.
	And at the same time, they're launching this full on assault against voter ID and claiming that it's the worst assault on American democracy voter ID is in history.
	So the fact that these two things are happening at the same time.
	Bringing in the illegal immigrants, also coming out strong against voter ID.
	If you're in favor of voter ID, then you're as bad as the segregationists and all the rest of it.
	I don't think that's a coincidence at all.
	Call me a conspiracy theorist.
	And here in New York City, they're just pushing now so that.
	Unlawful immigrants can vote, that they can vote in the local elections.
	Great.
	I mean, they're literally flying them in and then busing them in.
	I mean, they're coming into New York State and New York City's changing the rules so that they can vote.
	I mean, this is look, I know people make fun of sort of the hard right when it comes to its immigration conspiracy theories.
	This is no conspiracy theory.
	You can look at it with your very eyes.
	And there's been no explanation and there's been no accountability.
	And all we continue to have is more and more open borders and complaints when they continue to lose court hearings trying to undo the.
	The Trump immigration protocols, like remain in Mexico.
	Like, okay, you want to come in here, you want asylum?
	You can wait in this Mexico city until that's resolved.
	You don't get to sit in the United States where we know you're going to roam and you're never going to show up for your hearings and de facto become a part of this country because nobody's going to pursue it after this point.
	So the only reason remain in Mexico has been put back in place is because Biden lost in the courts, but he wants to undo it.
	He wants to undo all these things.
	And Matt, this is what people care about.
	When you look at the polls, there was a recent poll saying they put the American people put immigration number one.
	Number one is their most important concern.
	It's always at least in the top three inflation, economy, this.
	COVID's moving down and down.
	This is the kind of thing that can drive elections.
	And I just wonder whether they're cognizant of that.
	Just the politicians in them should say, yo, this isn't a good idea.
	Well, they're cognizant enough to say they don't want the media to find out about it.
	Although, even there, it's like they don't actually, you don't need to worry about the media because most of the media isn't going to talk about this anyway.
	It's very particular.
	Media outlets and people in the media that would talk about it.
	But it is a conspiracy.
	It is a conspiracy, but it's not a theory.
	We know that it's happening.
	As you point out, there is an open effort to make it possible for illegal immigrants to vote.
	So it's really simple.
	It is a conspiracy, but it's very simple.
	You just bring them in, and then they can vote, and they're going to vote for you.
	It's a really simple kind of connection.
	And the American people do care about the sovereignty of their country.
	Imagine that, because we live here and we care about the United States continuing to exist in any kind of discernible way.
	Because if you open the borders and you get rid of them, then what even is the United States anymore?
	They care about that.
	And I would dare say that most Americans care much more about the sovereignty of their own country and the borders of their own country than the sovereignty and the borders of countries 6,000 miles away.
	So I can't help but compare this to, say, all the fretting over Ukraine.
	And we're being told by some people in the government that we need to be very concerned about this and we need to help Ukrainians protect their border and all that sort of thing.
	Well, what about ours?
	I mean, what about protecting the sovereignty of this country that we live in?
	I think that's what most people in this country care about.
	Yeah, there was actually being considered a plan that might see as many as 50,000 American troops go to Ukraine.
	Why don't we send some to the southern border and preserve our own country's borders and security down south?
	Because there's zero interest in doing that.
	You know, I heard a report recently about Australia.
	It was in the wake of the Novak Djokovic thing where they kicked him out and they wouldn't let him play in the U.S. Open because he hadn't been vaccinated.
	And he said he had a medical exemption because he'd had COVID.
	The month before.
	And he was indeed granted one by one of the sort of local communities.
	But then the border patrol at the sort of more federal level, when he got there, said, no, that's not going to fly.
	And they wound up kicking him out.
	He didn't play in the open.
	Australia's border policies, ours are a joke compared to theirs.
	You try to go into Australia and they catch you and they do catch you.
	And you go into basically jail and you stay in jail and good luck getting out.
	And the conditions are terrible.
	And why do they do that?
	To deter other people from trying it.
	And fewer and fewer people do try it because the word gets out that even if you're Novak Djokovic and you break their rules, they don't.
	Bend them.
	You know, like they're hardliners when it comes to immigration.
	And look at us.
	It's really like the door is open.
	They come here.
	And then before you know it, we're paying for their kids' education and we're paying for the health care.
	And then we're allowing them to vote.
	Because why?
	Why?
	Politics.
	That's why.
	Yeah.
	I mean, well, look at Australia.
	Look at Mexico's southern border.
	In fact, look at almost every country on earth, with the exception of the United States of America and, you know, Western European countries.
	Most countries actually care about their borders and they use very stringent methods to enforce their borders if they can, if they're able to.
	It's not a controversy.
	That's the interesting thing.
	I think if you go to most other countries on the globe, there isn't even really a discussion about whether or not they should protect the border.
Identity Politics and Nominees 00:11:59
	Oh, no.
	They would be very much in favor.
	Crazy.
	Right.
	If you even brought it up for debate, like, what do you think?
	Do we think we should protect?
	Our border.
	If you brought this up for debate in China, they look at you like, What are you talking about?
	Of course we do.
	It's just, it's only in America and some other European countries, predominantly white countries, where this is, where you're not allowed to protect your border.
	And now it becomes an actual subject of debate.
	It's absurd.
	Well, if the Democrats have their way, we'll see four more, and then who knows beyond that, years of these policies, because the White House is underscoring again, Jen Psaki, yesterday, that Joe Biden.
	Will be running for reelection and will, she said, be running with Kamala Harris as his number two.
	And this came up in the context of the announcement, forced, it would appear, that Justice Breyer is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I don't know what went down.
	It didn't come from him, it came from Pete Williams of NBC News that Breyer was going to retire at the end of this term, which would be June.
	And Shannon Bream of Fox News reported later that he was upset.
	Breyer was upset that this was handled in this way.
	And it's unclear whether he was planning to do it, but he wanted to announce it himself and they got ahead of him, or whether they just released that and sort of forcing him.
	Sounds like maybe he was going to retire, but wanted to handle it in his own way.
	And somebody decided they wanted to change the narrative this week.
	I don't know.
	In any event, he's going.
	And he's not the most liberal guy in the Supreme Court.
	He's one of them.
	And I don't think this is going to be a big shift in ideology on the court, though he's 83, and the new person will probably be in their 40s, early 50s at the latest, because that's what they do.
	But here's the interesting thing.
	Kamala Harris is a black woman.
	Now, I say it because Biden has promised and reiterated yesterday he's going to nominate a black woman.
	There's been speculation for months now that this will be a place to turf her, move her over to the Supreme Court seat, get her confirmed while Democrats still control the Senate.
	And that opens up the sort of VP slot under Biden for whoever could win 2024 because they don't think the Dems.
	Can do it with Biden on the ticket, you know, or that he's he can't, right?
	I mean, he's sort of becoming more enfeeble by the day.
	What do you make of it?
	Yeah, well, first of all, it tells you what you need to know about the Democrats and what they know is coming in the midterm elections.
	That they're when you start seeing the older liberal justices retiring ahead of time because they know that a new Congress is coming and it's not going to be predominantly Democratic.
	It is interesting to me, not to get into more conspiracy theories, but yeah, the fact that.
	They made this announcement, and as of yesterday, he had not said a word about it.
	It does feel a little bit like a very subtle hint.
	It's like if you show up to work and they're throwing a retirement party for you and you never said you were retiring, it's maybe them kind of very, in a not so subtle way, edging you out the door.
	So that's interesting.
	And also, this idea of, yeah, he could nominate Kamala Harris.
	I kind of think that's too smart for Joe Biden.
	That would be a very smart thing to do, a smart way to solve his problem, kind of kill two birds with one stone.
	He doesn't usually do the smart thing.
	So that's why I would think he probably won't do that.
	But this whole idea of announcing ahead of time that you're going to select a black woman for the role, it just, first of all, if you want to nominate a black woman, then you could just nominate a black woman.
	You don't have to say ahead of time that you're going to do it.
	And if you, if you, Do it without saying it ahead of time, then you can nominate the black woman.
	And you can always claim, whether it's true or not, that you nominated her because she was the best for the job and she earned the position.
	But in this case, we know ahead of time, you've already told us that the person you nominate did not earn that nomination on their merits, and they're not necessarily the best for the job.
	That you're looking first and foremost at their sex and their skin pigmentation.
	So, this is, there's a lot that could be said about it.
	But the first thing is that this is actually very degrading and dehumanizing.
	To whoever selected.
	Now, whoever selected, they might not be self aware enough to realize that they've been degraded and dehumanized, but you have been.
	Of course, whoever gets that accomplishment.
	Whoever's sitting there with these other justices is going, they're going to know that this person was effectively an affirmative action pick, that this person is there in large part because of her gender and her skin color.
	And even if she actually is the best person of the job, she'll always have questions about her intellectual gravitas because Biden's done it this way.
	I mean, to be honest, Trump did it too because he said he was going to nominate a woman.
	Now, I will say in his case, it was more defensible because a woman had just died.
	You know, it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died.
	And so people were like, oh no, you know, the gender balance on the court.
	But still, even in that case, he shouldn't have done it.
	You know, just nominate, like you said, just nominate the person.
	And you don't have to say that.
	I will say, as an addendum though, Matt, even if they didn't say it, we'd know it was true or we'd suspect it was true in today's day and age because we're so obsessed with identity politics.
	So it kind of undermines anybody.
	Who happens to be in one of those groups who winds up getting nominated for one of these big positions?
	Right.
	We wouldn't know it, but at least there's plausible deniability on his side.
	He can at least say, oh, that's ridiculous.
	And then turn it back around on us and say, oh, you're racist for even assuming that.
	But in this case, you've told us ahead of time.
	And I agree with you.
	What Trump did, you could argue it's a little bit more defensible, but still, it's actually not defensible.
	I don't think anyone should be doing it on the left or the right, especially on the right.
	You shouldn't be engaging in this kind of identity politics game because who exactly are you trying to appeal to doing that way?
	You're not going to appeal to the left, and the right doesn't need this and doesn't want it, so there's no reason to do it.
	It just is, it's degrading, but it's also, we also have to mention that the real sort of victims of any kind of policy like this are the people that you're excluding.
	So this is actually anti white racism because what the Biden administration is actually saying, they can phrase it however they want, but what they're really saying is, we don't want a white male.
	I mean, it was Kamala Harris, there was a clip of her a couple days ago.
	Kamala Harris talking about, she was listing, I don't even know the context, it doesn't matter, but She was listing all of the most vulnerable groups in America.
	Oh, we have this.
	Oh, we have it.
	Okay, wait.
	Let me, I'll play it.
	So I know where you're going.
	So I'll play it and then you can tell us.
	I saw your response on Twitter.
	It was great.
	Here it is.
	Play it, sound by four.
	We are focused on the most vulnerable.
	And based on my experience, the most vulnerable are women and girls, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI people, indigenous people, people with disabilities.
	Migrants, and children in the foster care system.
	People who are left handed.
	People whose last name starts with an O. People.
	Go ahead, Matt.
	Well, she didn't mention pansexuals there.
	So I thought that was quite offensive for them to be erased and invalidated that way.
	Yeah.
	So basically, it's everyone, right?
	She lists every group except white males.
	And so you could really condense this and make it a lot shorter and get to the point quicker by simply saying everyone but white males are who we like and they're the most vulnerable.
	And yet, really, the reverse.
	Is true because white males, that's the one group in America that you're allowed to openly discriminate against in a sort of unofficial capacity, but also legally, you're allowed to openly discriminate against them.
	And I guess when we talk legally, also Asians, we would throw in there, you're allowed to legally discriminate against them with affirmative action.
	So they're one of very few groups that you're allowed to openly discriminate against.
	And last time I checked, by the way, I'm pretty sure, and I'm not a lawyer myself, but I'm pretty sure it's not legal for a government official to.
	Declare ahead of time that certain races are excluded from a certain position in government.
	It's not legal to do that in the private sector either, but especially not in government.
	But it doesn't matter.
	They can do it.
	And of course, it's like this obsession, right, with certain races and with women.
	I don't want to misspeak because I haven't totally investigated the ethnicity of every Supreme Court justice, but I don't think we've had an Asian justice.
	I don't think we've had an Indian.
	Justice.
	So, why?
	What about that?
	We've had black justices.
	We have female justices.
	What, like, why are we obsessed with the black woman, right?
	Like, what is it, right?
	It's a pander.
	It's a pander to voting blocks that he needs to shore up because his support amongst black voters has fallen by about 20 points, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.
	Right.
	That's exactly what they mean.
	When you hear it's time for a black woman on the Supreme Court, Ayanna Pressley tweeted something.
	It's time for a black woman or it's a black woman's turn.
	Yeah, you think, well, what does that even mean?
	Is there some sort of waiting list ranked by identity?
	And, oh, it's a black woman's turn.
	Next, we're going to have a Pacific Islander.
	And no, what they really mean by that is exactly what you said, that this is, well, yeah, we haven't had a, as far as I know, we haven't had a Pacific Islander Supreme Court justice, but that's not a voting block that the Democrats are very worried about.
	Right.
	Whereas with black voters, they are.
	And there's a lot of reasons for that.
	One of them is that, you know, in a lot of predominantly black communities, you look at what's, you look at What's happening when you go to almost any city, especially Democrat run city in America, and these communities are collapsing, plagued by crime and all of that.
	And people in these communities are looking and they say, well, look, it just so happens, what a coincidence that Democrats are always running the show.
	And so what can they do?
	They're going to the identity politics and pandering.
	Well, and speaking of identity politics, apparently the squad is busy putting together a list of nominees they want to see him choose Ro Kim Kai.
	I mean, I will say Justice Breyer, he is a liberal, but he's a more moderate liberal.
	And they want to get a wokester on the U.S. Supreme Court who will throw out justice and be more focused on social justice.
	And that is something to be alarmed about.
	I mean, that is something that the Republicans on the Senate committee and in the Senate writ large are going to have to pay attention to.
	I'm going to tell you one other thing, then I'll squeeze in a break.
	I wanted to know this morning if they do do the Kamala Harris turf thing, what happens if it's a 50 50 vote in the Senate?
	Because she casts the deciding vote right now as the vice president when there's a split.
	You know, we got 50 Dems, 50 Republicans.
	So if she's the nominee and they go 50 50 on her, and the Republicans could fight, they could fight that if they want to keep her in the vice presidential role because they think it'll help with 2024, they could say no to her.
	What would happen?
	Would she still get to cast the deciding vote for herself?
	And did some looking online today, and some of the best legal minds in the country are saying, I think she can do it.
	I actually think there's no prohibition against a sitting vice president voting for herself to get on the Supreme Court.
	And this has never happened before.
	But so far, the people I respect online, legal minds, are saying there could be a scenario in which Vice President Kamala Harris casts the deciding vote that transforms her into.
	Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris, and then whoever Biden would want to be vice president would have to be confirmed by the House and the Senate.
	And so we'd have to do it all, chiefly quick, while they were still in control of those bodies.
	It's so confusing, but it could make for an amazing year of politics, Matt Walsh.
Gender Perception Confusion 00:15:11
	Stand by.
	More with Matt, including did you see his appearance on Dr. Phil?
	He is a blank stirrer and took a lot of fallout in the aftermath, but he's used to that.
	We'll show it to you.
	Don't go away.
	Electro-important.
	Accurate now for up to 30% for the terrace warm.
	And this is a little bit of warm.
	Matt, one of the things that you are known for is you believe that gender is not a social construct.
	You believe in biological sex.
	And you're not really willing to do the whole pronoun thing as dictated to you by the woke crowd that says you sort of have to speak about.
	Transgender people and issues in the way they want.
	So, you got asked to go on the Dr. Phil show for sort of a fair and balanced debate discussion of this.
	He had on two people who call themselves non binary.
	One is apparently a biological woman who appears as a man, and one is a biological man who appears as a woman.
	That's my own take on what I saw.
	And you had a back and forth with them about these issues.
	We have a little bit of a clip here, Soundbite One.
	Can you tell me what a woman is?
	No, I can't.
	Because it's not for me to say.
	Womanhood looks different for everybody.
	What do you define a woman as?
	An adult human female.
	And what does a female mean?
	How do you define a female?
	Someone with female reproductive organs.
	I have answered the question.
	You stood up here and said, trans women are women.
	Yes.
	Tell me what you mean.
	What is a woman?
	Womanhood is something that, just as Ethan explained, I cannot define because I am not myself.
	You used the word.
	So, what did you mean when you said trans women are women if you don't know what it means?
	Right.
	So, here's the thing.
	I do not define what a woman is because I do not identify as a woman.
	Womanhood is something that is an umbrella term.
	It includes people who.
	That describes what?
	People who identify as a woman.
	Identify as what?
	As a woman.
	What is that?
	Was to each their own.
	Each woman, each man, each person is going to have a different relation with their own gender identity and define it differently.
	That doesn't apply to them.
	And so trans women are women too.
	Okay.
	And you want to.
	Hold on.
	You want to reduce.
	You want to reduce what it means though?
	So, you want to reduce women, you want to reduce men down to maybe just their genetics, our genitals, our chromosomes, right?
	That's what you're saying.
	What you want to do is appropriate women.
	You want to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that could be worn.
	So fascinating.
	So, that was Addison.
	The other person was Ethan.
	Addison, as I understand it, is a biological male who now goes by they and doesn't choose a gender.
	And then Ethan is a biological female who.
	You know, it presents more like a male but goes by they.
	So forgive me, I don't totally, I didn't get it, I'm sure I didn't get it perfectly right.
	But they are now saying that they were traumatized by that exchange with you.
	And that they were set up by the Dr. Phil show.
	They're angry that they were sort of triggered and that they thought it was going to be a different kind of exchange.
	I thought it was actually very respectful back and forth.
	You have your positions, they have theirs.
	Fine.
	This is the kind of discussion and debate that's going on in America.
	What do you make of the blowback that you've gotten?
	And do you think it's fair to say that they were set up?
	Oh, absolutely not.
	I mean, that's completely absurd.
	They also said that they had nightmares because of that.
	Exchange and they're spiraling into depression and all this kind of stuff.
	What I can tell you is that, you know, going this, this is my first time appearing on any show like Dr. Phil before, and I didn't know exactly what to expect walking into it.
	But we all had the exact same information going in, which is just kind of like a rough outline of what the show will probably be like and just kind of who, a basic information about each person that's going to be on the panel.
	They had that information too.
	And then I, so I walked into it knowing that I was going to be outnumbered for at least a good Portion of the show on the stage, and I was.
	I came out.
	By the way, those two, the two quote unquote non binary people, they had one whole segment to themselves before I even took the stage.
	I was pacing around backstage listening to them drone on nonsensically for like 12 minutes before I even got out there.
	And then I came out, and it was me versus the two of them.
	And then they brought a woke professor in who's a communications professor, but somehow she's their gender expert.
	They brought her in, and so it was three against one.
	And I had the entire audience that was against me, which May seem like that doesn't matter, but actually, optically, like that's a challenge because, as we saw in the clip there, you heard in the clip, if someone says something and it's totally inane and ridiculous, but they get applause in the crowd, it makes it sound like they're right.
	And so that's another hurdle you have to get over in a debate.
	And so it's amazing to me that, in spite of all of that, they are the ones who go home claiming that they were set up and that they were bullied when it was like 70 against one.
	It's completely ridiculous.
	But here's, When they say that it's not what they expected, here's what they mean by that.
	They knew that someone like me would be out there.
	I don't know if they knew it was me, but they might have known it was me.
	They just didn't know who I was.
	So they knew that there'd be someone supposedly on the other side.
	And they've probably had discussions like this in the past with somebody, quote unquote, on the other side.
	But what they're used to and what they expect is that they're not actually going to be challenged.
	They thought that I would.
	Right.
	They thought I'd have a few basic talking points and that I wouldn't really challenge them.
	And what you know about most of the people that espouse gender ideology in general is that they just simply have never actually been challenged on any of this stuff.
	And all you have to do is pull one little thread and the entire thing comes unraveled.
	All you have to do is, you listen to all the stuff you heard there.
	All you have to do is ask, like, what do you even mean by what you're saying?
	And that is enough to make, not only make their argument fall apart, but they'll spiral into depression.
	So it's really quite amazing that it's.
	It was interesting where they took it, right?
	Like, a woman is whatever any individual wants to say it is.
	This is one of the frustrations of this whole thing.
	You know, it's like, I think a trans woman is a trans woman.
	I don't think a trans woman is a woman.
	A woman is something else.
	A woman is somebody who is born with certain gametes.
	This is how it was explained to me by Deborah Seau and so on.
	Like, it is determinable.
	And there's a clip of you as well talking about that, how it's in your DNA and you can tell from a skeleton that's 2,000 years old what its gender was.
	But it's also just growing up as a woman, having the experiences of a woman, and, you know, all the stuff that comes with the first of being a woman and so on.
	And I don't, I'm not in the same place as you are.
	I will absolutely use somebody's preferred pronouns.
	It doesn't bother me.
	I don't want my kid being asked for his pronouns, though.
	You know, I, and I don't want to be asked for my pronouns.
	So, I don't mind referring to them as whatever, she, he, whatever it is.
	But that doesn't, I don't have to give up what a woman is, which is special to me and to most women, in order to be inclusive of and respectful toward them.
	Yeah, you shouldn't have to give it up.
	I mean, that's who you are.
	To be asked to give up the definition of who you are as a person is much more than a bridge too far.
	You know, the other thing that they said there when they were dancing around it is, and I've heard this before, this, Response of, well, I can't define it because I'm not a woman.
	Well, first of all, how do you know you're not one if you don't know what it is?
	Second, I mean, you're not a table, but you could probably tell me what a table is.
	You could probably tell me what an apple and a bird are.
	I mean, you could tell me what a lot of things are, even though you're not those things.
	So again, just that doesn't make any sense at all.
	And, but they, people like this, they walk around their whole lives and say things that make no sense and no one ever calls them on it.
	And that's what's so frustrating for me.
	When it comes to the pronoun thing, by the way, You know, most of the time it really should be kind of a non issue because when you're talking to someone directly, you're not using their pronouns, you're using their name, or you're just not using anything, you're just speaking to them, right?
	The pronouns only come up when you're most of the time when they're not in the room with you and you're referring to them.
	And this idea that someone can tell you how to refer to them when they're not even in the room is narcissistic in the extreme.
	I use an example on Dr. Phil about it's like if I assigned you preferred adjectives.
	And you can only use those adjectives to describe me when you're talking about me.
	That's not up for me to decide because when someone uses an adjective about me, it's about their perception of who I am.
	That's what they're trying to convey.
	They're not trying to convey what I think I am.
	Okay, but let me ask you about that.
	So, I mean, there is a scenario in which you use somebody's pronouns.
	Like I'm sitting here with Abby, and I could say, well, Abby, you know, she's a mother of two, right?
	Like she's here, she's hearing me use the pronoun.
	So, yes, of course, there would be a scenario in which you say it and they're there.
	But what does it mean?
	Because I get this back from my own viewers all the time, and they say, like, you don't have to play that game.
	You know, that's a biological man.
	You know, you just call him a man if it's somebody who's a trans woman.
	And I just don't agree with that.
	I feel like, you know, life is short.
	Be more loving.
	This is how they want to be referred to.
	It doesn't hurt me.
	I don't think it really hurts anybody to go with it.
	I understand it's not, it doesn't make them an actual biological woman to call.
	Like, I just feel like to be loving and kind, why wouldn't I do that?
	What's the answer to that?
	Well, the answer is the first and most basic answer is that it's just not true.
	And they're trying to impose on you something that is not true.
	And they're trying to force you, compel you through emotional blackmail and sometimes through other means as well, to participate in untruth.
	And maybe if this was happening in a very isolated way, it's just one person that is confused and they try to tell you that they're trying to get you to play along.
	And so you do.
	And maybe in that isolated scenario, you could argue that it doesn't really hurt anything.
	I still wouldn't do it personally, but you could argue.
	But we're not in an isolated scenario.
	I mean, this is part of an overall campaign to change language, to change how reality is perceived.
	I mean, you can't separate the pronoun question from that overall bigger issue of are we going to retain a semblance of truth and reality in our culture or not?
	And the manipulation of language is a big part of that.
	So I don't think you could separate it.
	Let me stay on my devil's advocate lane here, right?
	Because I know you debate this stuff all the time, and I don't really give that much thought to it.
	How is it different from, let's say I dye my hair black tomorrow?
	And I want you, and you're referring to me, if you're going to talk about me, you're going to say she's got black hair from this point forward.
	You're going to, because it will be black, but it's not naturally black.
	And you know, it's not actually black, it's been dyed.
	So, how is it different from that?
	You know what the truth is, you know what it actually is, but I've changed it, and now you're just going to go with that.
	Well, first of all, I think hair color doesn't get down to a person's identity in nearly the same kind of way.
	But also, if you dye your hair black, Then, even if you dyed it, it is a factual statement to say your hair is black.
	I mean, we don't usually, when you're referring to someone's hair color, you're not getting into the particulars and how it ended up that color.
	It's just like that.
	You haven't spent enough time in circles of women because, yes, we do that all the time.
	And then we move on to the rest.
	I'll step back because I'm not a woman myself, right?
	So, because I know what that word means.
	But it is still a factual statement, right?
	To say if someone dyes their hair black, like it is factually true that right now their hair is black.
	Whereas if someone says, call me a woman and they're not, It's just not factually true.
	I think the better analogy here for using hair color would be if someone had blonde, actually had blonde hair and didn't dye it, but demanded that when you refer to their hair, you call it black.
	Now, you might, again, in an isolated environment, maybe just to kind of satiate this weird person, you might do it.
	But I still wouldn't because I would say, what do you, no, it's not black.
	And who are you to demand that I just say something that's not true?
	Well, you know, their responses, their attention, what she said to you, or what they said to you on the show is that, It basically comes down to this sex is what's between your legs, and gender is what you think between your ears.
	It's what you perceive of yourself.
	And so, whenever discussing someone's gender, what they think about where they fall on the spectrum is the only thing that matters.
	Well, there are a couple of problems with that.
	First of all, they draw this distinction between sex and gender, which is an entirely invented, artificial, incoherent distinction that was, you know, for most of human history, we just talked about males and females, men and women, and it was the exact same thing.
	And then, you know, in the 1950s and 60s, guys like John Money who came along and said, oh, you know what, actually humans have a gender also.
	When before that, language, words had gender.
	There's masculine and feminine words.
	And then people have a sex.
	And so someone like John Money said, oh, no, people have both a sex and a gender.
	And it never was quite clear, like, what exactly the distinction is supposed to accomplish.
	But then they made this distinction, but then they have also collapsed the distinction.
	They're the ones who conflate it.
	And in fact, in that same episode, the Dr. Philip episode, they brought a woman on who's raising a genderless baby, quote unquote, because the baby can choose.
	Right, can choose their own gender.
	But she said that, oh, on the baby's birth certificate, there's an X there, right?
	It doesn't list male or female, so he can choose it.
	Well, hold on a second.
	But the birth certificate lists sex, not gender.
	So I thought you just said they're two different things.
	So this is the game that they can play.
	It's a sleight of hand where they can kind of change it no matter just whatever they need to be in the moment.
	Well, to take it one step further, you'll have trans people, I've had trans people on the show who try to correct me and saying, like, you were born a male, you're a biological male who identifies now as female.
	And I got corrected on even that.
	You can't even say biological male or born a male because they're like, that's not true.
	You know, I was actually a female even in the womb.
	It's just my genitals didn't reflect it and my gametes and my chromosomes didn't reflect it.
	And it wasn't until I sort of came into my own that I could tell the world I was actually a woman.
	And I was always a woman and there's nothing about me that's not a woman.
	It's like, well, now you really are asking me to play make believe.
	Right, exactly.
	And that's what I'm talking about.
	They conflate the two.
	They say sex and gender are different, but then they say trans women are women.
	Well, hold on a second.
	But now you're saying that they're.
	You're saying that a trans woman, because that person identifies as a woman, is exactly the same as you, Megan, or a biological woman.
	So you're conflating it, but also, Even on this notion of gender is about their self perception, once again, that's your self perception.
Politeness vs. Self-Perception 00:04:26
	That's not my project.
	It's not society's project to affirm you in your self perception.
	That might be how you see yourself and how you see reality, but that's not how I see it.
	And so, this idea that I have to now affirm that your self perception is something that I have to validate, it's up to me to do it.
	I just absolutely reject that.
	And I would also say one other thing about this pronoun thing.
	Because you might, you know, and I've heard this from plenty of people who just want to be polite and say, well, I'll just use the pronouns.
	Okay, well, now these days, we're in a brave new world and things are changing very fast.
	Now they have things like neo pronouns.
	And they talked about that in the Dr. Phil episode, too, before I was up there.
	No, I'm not doing it.
	Right.
	Z, Zer, Zem.
	Well, that's, someone says, I identify as a Zem.
	You know, what does that mean?
	A tree.
	There's tree gender.
	There's tree gender.
	There's moon gender.
	You only know your gender when the moon comes out.
	So with that person, we're just going to be like, over there.
	That one.
	Well, I'll let you know at like midnight.
	No, it's absurd.
	Now you really do.
	And they're like, that it is morphing past the point of absurdity.
	And I don't, it's like, I want to be loving and I want to be accommodating.
	I don't want to be unnecessarily provocative or divisive, but I also want reality to be acknowledged.
	You know, there is biological sex, and some of us don't believe gender is a social construct.
	And if you want to live your life as the opposite sex and be referred to by certain pronouns, like the ones that we all know, I'm cool with that.
	But even I've got my limits.
	I don't know, Matt.
	All this sort of shows the sticky wicket that this issue is and the morass in which we find ourselves when something that we thought was settled just suddenly, in the course of a couple of years, becomes completely unsettled.
	And actually, they've flipped it so much now that even saying something like, like you were saying, you sent out, what was the tweet you sent out where you got, I think they took your tweet down?
	It was like, the best female swimmer in America is a man.
	The top public health official in the Biden administration, a female.
	Is a man or something like that, and it got taken down because you're referring to the biological sex, but even to say that, you know, taken down.
	So we're on shaky ground.
	Hey, yes, it was hate speech, I was told.
	And uh, and then how do they define hate speech?
	It's uh, if if you say something that harasses or threatens somebody else, well, hold a second, I by saying, of course, it's not a threat, and how is it even harassment?
	I didn't, I didn't, I wasn't speaking directly to the people, I didn't even say their names, um, I just referred to them, and that's that's really that's kind of what's at stake here because.
	We go along with it for a little bit and then they just keep going and give them an inch to take a mile kind of thing.
	And I kind of resent it because what they're doing is they're exploiting.
	Most people don't like confrontation.
	That's just most people.
	And most people want to be polite.
	And that's in a vacuum, it's good to kind of be that way.
	And I realized I kind of had to have an advantage because I like confrontation and I don't care what anyone thinks.
	And you're a lipster.
	Right.
	So it's like that comes in handy here, but normally it's good to be a polite person.
	And so they're kind of exploiting that.
	And they're saying, well, if you want to be polite, then just go along with it.
	And then you do, and then you go a little bit, and then they say, okay, well, you still want to be polite, right?
	Well, okay, now you got to go a little bit further and a little bit further.
	And before long, you've just plunged off the edge of the cliff into total incoherence and insanity.
	And that's kind of where we are now.
	Some of these demands butt up right against one's deeply held religious beliefs or one's deeply held scientific beliefs.
	And you can't just tell that person, you must abandon those.
	Otherwise, it's hate.
	And you're off YouTube or you're off Twitter or you're out of polite society, the whole world was in this other camp up until a couple of years ago.
	It's really not okay what they're doing.
	And I don't.
	Even see it necessarily as the gay marriage issue where I felt like I was in support of gay marriage before it was legal, and I thought I said to my gay friends, People will come along, they will just give society time, it's going to come along.
	I don't know about this one, I just I'm not sure that I'm not sure that I don't see us getting to a place where we're talking about people's moon gender like it's a normal thing.
	Those people are glommers anyway, I don't believe they have gender dysphoria, they're glomming on, they just want to sound special.
	So, Matt, um.
Pandemic Lessons Remain 00:10:07
	Biden just came out with Justice Breyer and made it official.
	Justice Breyer is going to retire.
	President Biden says he will shoot for the end of February, before the end of February, to nominate a replacement.
	He doesn't get to just appoint, he has to nominate, and they have to be confirmed by the Senate.
	It used to be that they would require over 60 votes, and now that's been, well, it was always a majority vote on the final vote, but the filibuster has been removed at the U.S. Supreme Court on all other judges as well.
	So Biden's 79 now.
	And Breyer's retiring because he's 83.
	And Nancy Pelosi, one of our other big leaders, is 81.
	So they're getting kind of long in the truth, Matt, to be running the country, but they're doing it.
	And Nancy Pelosi, who had promised she was going to retire after this term, has apparently done a 180.
	And you know why?
	It's for the children.
	Listen.
	When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing our children, our children, our children.
	That is my why.
	Why I am in Congress for the children.
	This is my story and this is my song.
	As you hear me say, when you're in the arena, you have to be able to take a punch or throw a punch for the children.
	Oh my God.
	It's a miracle she's been elected as many times as she has been.
	How cringy is that?
	It's a miracle.
	It's also another way to look at it it's a terrible indictment on at least her voters that keep putting her in office.
	I would like for her to, it tells you something that she can't.
	She can say for the children because she realizes that, generally speaking, as a politician, you're supposed to pretend to care about kids.
	But she can't say anything more than that because she doesn't know.
	It's like, well, what about children are you concerned about?
	Or what are the great threats facing children?
	Can you talk a little bit more about it?
	Because I actually, I really do believe that our most solemn responsibility in any civilization is to protect your children, right?
	But she can't talk more about it because all of the things that really threaten children, beginning in the womb and going up from there, Are all things that she supports, including, by the way, you know, I just saw a report, some local, I think it was an ABC affiliate, did a report about all the speech delays that children are suffering right now.
	I mean, there's been an exponential surge in speech delays because the kids are being forced to wear masks, which is something that Nancy Pelosi and pretty much the entire Democrat Party supports.
	You know, the psychological damage that's being done to kids and more than psychological damage.
	I mean, it's like the ability to speak, I would think, is pretty important.
	And that's one of the things.
	That we traded in favor of making them wear masks for no real good reason.
	Not to mention the crime in her home district, which is out of control thanks to their soft on crime DA, who she supports.
	We'll stand by there.
	We'll do a quick break and much more with Matt Walsh ahead.
	Electro impotent.
	Accurate now for up to 30% for the terrace.
	And this is a very good time.
	So, speaking of some of the COVID insanity and Nancy Pelosi again running for re election, even though she's 81 and said she wouldn't, the tide seems to me like it's starting to turn on the COVID insanity, Matt.
	I do think more and more people.
	Are joining the fight that people like you, that people like yours truly have been in for a while now, trying to get these ridiculous restrictions lifted, in particular off of our children.
	I know you've got four kids and I've got three.
	And it came out this week because Barry Weiss went on Bill Maher.
	Those are two liberals.
	They were both sort of done with COVID, according to their discussion.
	And then the ladies of the View took aim at them, saying that was selfish and how dare they.
	And I think this gal, Sarah Haynes, is supposed to be the conservative.
	On the view.
	And this was her message for America, which I had real problems with.
	And I know you did too.
	And I want to talk about why.
	Listen to Sarah Haines.
	The post mask part, because I think there's a prudence we've learned with the mask, kind of like 9 11 with flying, is always going to be here now.
	There's a new normal.
	I think some of the things we've learned in this pandemic are going to stay the same.
	I may never ride a subway again without a mask.
	I may never go indoors to big crowds and ever feel comfortable without a mask.
	And that's up to me to do that.
	What do you make of that?
	Well, I just love how, first of all, these people, they always use the word we.
	Talking about, oh, you know, we, this is what we're all going to do.
	That's, speak for yourself.
	That's, I have not been wearing a mask this entire time.
	Certainly not going to start now.
	What she's really talking about and kind of bragging about, she seems to be proud that she's been conditioned, you know, that her spirit and will and mind have been broken in a significant way.
	And she's been conditioned by the government to act this way.
	And she seems to be proud of that.
	Like she talks, I think she said in that clip there, or often you hear about how the things that we've learned in this pandemic, right?
	Yeah.
	Because of what we've learned.
	And that's why, yeah, she did say it there.
	We've learned certain things, and that's why I'm only going to wear a mask on the subway or when I'm in large crowds.
	Well, what do you think we've learned exactly?
	What have we learned during the pandemic related to masking that you didn't already know?
	I haven't learned anything.
	And it's not because I'm not listening or I'm not open to learning, but what have we learned?
	We knew that germs existed before this, we knew viruses existed.
	We knew that medical masks existed.
	You knew about all of that stuff.
	You knew what medical masks were supposed to do, what they're designed to do.
	And yet, before the pandemic, you would go out in public all the time without a mask.
	You would never even consider putting a mask on.
	It's not because you didn't know about any of this stuff.
	It's just because you had a different set of priorities back then.
	And you thought that it was worth it to be able to breathe fresh air and to show your face in public and to see other people's faces, that that is worth the minimal risk of catching a virus or coming in contact with germs.
	And so it's not that you've learned something new.
	It's just that your priorities have been completely flipped on their head because of this conditioning.
	She uses the example of the TSA, which I think proves my point, not hers, because she says, oh, we're all used to the TSA at the airport.
	Yeah, I'm used to it, but I'm not, I don't accept that any more than I accept the masking.
	In fact, every time I fly all the time, every time I go through TSA, every time I think about how utterly stupid all of this is, that it's a bunch of security theater and that's all it is.
	And I think about it every single time.
	But she doesn't think about it anymore because the government put it in place and it remained in place for more than five seconds.
	And so for her, that's enough to never question it again.
	That's how she operates.
	That's not how I operate.
	It's not how a lot of us operate.
	That's what I responded to her and to Whoopi in a monologue two days ago, I guess it was.
	It's on YouTube now if you want to see it.
	But it was basically that's fine.
	She can mask till the cows come home, she can mask all the way through to her dying day and may it be many, many, many, many years from now.
	I choose something else.
	That is not my new normal.
	It's not going to be my kid's new normal.
	No.
	And attitudes like that of like, oh, well, it's like this defeatist, like, okay, I guess this is like, what are you doing?
	The subway, by the way, it is dangerous these days because you've got lunatics pushing people onto the tracks because we haven't cracked down on homelessness or crime in the city.
	In fact, we're going a different direction.
	But people are coughing less, right?
	It's like people are, thanks to all the COVID precautions they're taking, it's probably the least germy place that you can go these days.
	And we used to go on it all the time when it was disgusting and covered in germs, right?
	It's not like you were making the point in one of your tweets, like, did she not know that the subway was a dirty place?
	Like, we all kind of knew that.
	And yet we, We lived at that risk.
	I mean, there was a picture online a couple years ago of a woman, a very large woman, wearing very, very tight leggings.
	And she was holding herself upright on the subway by putting her two cheeks on opposite sides of the pole that we all hang on to.
	Now, we knew the subway wasn't a clean place.
	Yeah.
	And that's why I, you know, I have always spent as little time on subways as I possibly can.
	I've never been too crazy about holding on to those bars for exactly that kind of reason.
	But those are all things that I knew before.
	Right.
	And you want to talk about, like, how about airplanes?
	Okay, subways are one thing, but airplanes, that's like the only place in my life anymore where I wear a mask.
	It's the only place I ever really wore a mask was on airplanes, only because I have to fly and you can't even pull your mask down below your nose without 50 flight attendants.
	You didn't even think there were 50 flight attendants on the flight, but they all come and descend on you.
	So that's the one place.
	But on airplanes, airplanes really are an airplane at 35,000 feet.
	It is in pretty much every sense.
	The safest place you could possibly be, including with germs, because it is, they filter the air so aggressively that there's no germ or virus that can remain lingering in the air for very long because it all gets filtered through and cleaned.
	So it's like the cleanest place you can be.
	And yet it's, for a lot of us, the one place where we still have to wear a mask.
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	Well, I'll tell you one blessing of where we are now that as they get super paranoid about Omicron and they say, oh my God, now everybody's got to wear a mask.
	all the time and like, no, we're not taking the mask off.
	We're going to triple down on the masks, N95s or KN95s.
	And no, no, no, I won't.
	However, very smart doctors are coming out all over the place now and saying, you know what?
	The N95 masks, the KN95 masks, they're actually amazingly effective at protecting you.
	So you wear one if you don't want to get COVID.
	The answer is not to then insist everybody else wear one.
	Your N95 mask is for you and it will do a really good job of Protecting you.
	So great.
	We have our solution.
	You want your kid masked?
	Give him an N95.
Joe Rogan Misinformation 00:04:48
	See if your kid likes that.
	That's up to you.
	I'm not doing that.
	I'm definitely not wearing one myself.
	And we need to be taking reality at its word, right?
	The virus is diminishing.
	The pandemic is over.
	We are in the endemic stage.
	And now you even have people like Scott Gottlieb, who came on the show, former FDA commissioner.
	And we had a big fight about masks.
	And I told him none of the studies holds up.
	And by the way, there's a piece in The Atlantic right now by three doctors that says exactly that.
	And he gave me a hard time.
	And even he now is saying, no more masks.
	Like, we're there.
	Okay, that's COVID.
	But I want to talk about something related.
	So, Joe Rogan's been having on heterodox thinkers when it comes to COVID.
	And that includes Dr. Robert Malone, who's one of the guys who invented the mRNA technology, and he's anti vax now.
	And that episode got pulled from YouTube.
	And 240 doctors, or allegedly, most of them were doctors.
	I'm not sure I've seen some questioning, wrote a letter to Spotify saying, you have to pull Joe Rogan's, like, please stop him from his misinformation, please.
	And Neil Young, out of left field comes Neil Young, the singer, who says, Spotify, you have to choose.
	You choose between me and Joe Rogan.
	If you're going to leave him on the air, you have to pull all my music.
	So, Spotify, of course, pulled Neil Young's music.
	And now there's some guy who's a producer for the Big Bang Theory who's trying to make this a bigger thing, tagging tons of artists, you know, Taylor Swift, you name it.
	It's like all the names in music saying, you should follow suit.
	Everyone should be cracking down on Spotify.
	You know, pull your music or make them pull Joe Rogan.
	What do you make of it?
	Yeah, well, first of all, I love that Neil Young story is one of my favorite stories of the new year.
	Just the one.
	Of all the guys to try to pull that move.
	I mean, I don't think anyone can really pull it because Joe Rogan is the most valuable asset that Spotify has.
	But for Neil Young to try, it's like, I said, it's like if I went, I'm at the Daily Wire.
	If I went into the offices here and said, hey, guess what, Daily Wire?
	It's either me or Ben Shapiro.
	Who are you going to choose?
	They're going to have to think very hard about it.
	They're going to say, oh, we'll take Ben then.
	Okay, well, never mind.
	Forget I said anything.
	I'll go back to work.
	But it is, it just blows my mind, really, that.
	We're doing this with Joe Rogan.
	I mean, when did Joe Rogan become this right wing extremist?
	He's not even, I'm not sure how he exactly would identify himself on the ideological spectrum, but I don't think he calls himself conservative.
	And I certainly wouldn't.
	No, he was a Bernie guy.
	Yeah.
	So he's basically on the left, but the only difference is that he's willing to talk about things.
	And very often it's interesting that the things that get him in trouble sometimes it's what he says, but a lot of times it's just.
	What other people say to him, it's the fact that he's allowing people onto his show and he's letting them speak and he's engaging with them.
	That is what has turned him into not the best platform.
	But he's successful, Matt.
	But he's got a big platform, but he's successful.
	That's when he became problematic to people like Neil Young.
	People are actually listening to Joe Rogan.
	He's got tens of millions of followers.
	Well, 10 million, I don't know what it is, but he's got millions.
	And yet, despite the fact that he comes out and says, Don't listen to me.
	I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.
	Like he says that.
	People do listen to his guests.
	They do listen to him.
	He has a huge platform.
	So, does he have a higher sense of responsibility?
	Well, I think it depends on what we mean by responsibility.
	I think your responsibility, if you're doing a show, depends on how your show is, but if you're doing an interview show, then your responsibility is to bring people on and interview them and let them speak.
	I think that's the best thing that you can do is to just expose people.
	To different kinds of interesting ideas.
	And that's what I like about Joe Rogan.
	It's not even really the political stuff necessarily, but he'll bring people on to talk about all kinds of different things.
	I think that's what's made Joe Rogan Joe Rogan.
	That's why people like him, is because they're going to be exposed to all kinds of different ideas.
	And so I think he's very much fulfilling his responsibility in that regard.
	He doesn't hold himself out as a journalist.
	Like if you're looking for journalism where you then confront the person with facts that contradict what they're saying, et cetera.
	You don't go to Joe Rogan.
	You shouldn't go to Joe Rogan, same as you shouldn't go to Jon Stewart, you know, who was a comedian and wasn't in the business of truth telling either.
	But unlike Joe Rogan, he wanted people to believe he was.
	Only when he got in trouble would he be like, I'm a comedian, I follow a clown.
	So it's kind of the opposite.
	Joe Rogan's out there saying, Don't listen to me.
Truth in Comedy Shows 00:05:15
	Do not listen to me.
	You know, I'm like a talk show host, I'm having fun, like I'm very popular, but I'm not a journalist.
	And yet the media continues to treat him as if he is.
	They want him to behave like Walter Cronkite.
	And he keeps saying, that's not my business.
	Anyway, we'll see whether any of these other musicians listens to the guy from the Big Bang Theory.
	All right, in other weird news that I. Have a need to talk about.
	Have you heard about this monkey story?
	I have, yeah.
	So these monkeys happened in Pennsylvania, happened last Friday for the audience that doesn't know.
	There was a driver who saw a pickup trailer that had crashed.
	So she stops to help.
	Good for her, first of all.
	And she looked inside of one of the crates because there are all these crates scattered and a monkey hissed at her.
	That's not good.
	That's when you're like, I'm just going to call the authorities.
	I'm just going to be back in my car on the phone with 911.
	And now the woman's being treated for rabies.
	They don't know what she has, but it's very sketchy because the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, is saying in an email number one, all 100 of the monkeys have been accounted for.
	Three had to be euthanized.
	And they are treating this woman like it's a scene straight out of what's the one with Dustin Hoffman?
	Outbreak, yeah.
	Outbreak.
	They're treating her like she contacted that monkey.
	They're like, okay.
	They sent her a letter saying, if you were within five feet of those crates that had those monkeys and not wearing personal protective equipment, and I'm sure they don't mean just a lame ass cloth mask, right?
	I'm sure they're like, if you didn't have a hazmat suit, she should be alert to any illnesses in the next month and requires a minimum quarantine of 31 days for the monkeys after they arrive in the United States.
	You tell me what the hell's going on.
	What's the CDC doing with 100 monkeys in the back of some tractor trailer and then telling people, quarantine?
	Who knows what happened to you?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	I think that one rule of thumb that maybe we never thought we'd really have to talk about is that, and I appreciate she's being a good Samaritan, but maybe just don't try to help clean up spilled monkeys on the highway.
	No, don't do it.
	If you see a tractor trailer flipped over and there are ominous cages with sounds coming out of them, just keep driving and let other people handle that.
	But it does, it's just amazing to me.
	I think, as I mentioned at the top of the show, that so we've got, we know what happened in Wuhan, even if they won't tell us.
	And then down in South Africa, With Omicron, there's really good indication that that might have come out of a lab as well.
	But of course, they'll never tell us the truth about any of these things.
	So all we can do is speculate.
	And now we've got infected monkeys, a whole truck full of virus infected monkeys just being driven down the highway.
	And I think about, you know, if I want to build a patio in my backyard, I got to get 13 different permits to do it.
	I tried at one of our older houses, we wanted to renovate the inside of the house.
	We were renovating the inside of the house, and someone from the county showed up in our driveway and said, So what are you guys doing around in here?
	What's going on?
	Look, it's the inside of my house, is what I'm doing.
	So get the hell off my property.
	But that's the kind of red tape that we have to navigate just to do things on our own property.
	And yet, apparently, these virus labs can deposit pathogens all over the globe and spill virus monkeys on the highway.
	And there's no accountability.
	There's no one is held accountable.
	There doesn't appear to be much regulation in place.
	It's kind of amazing to me.
	It is amazing to me.
	It's like, my God, like there's one transport.
	Going from the southern border, taking people who are in the country illegally into the dark of night cities across America, and who knows how many transports with animals that apparently are being used for experimentation on whom we have no idea what viruses have been released.
	Like, okay, because there was a while there where they hadn't all been caught, the 100 monkeys.
	So it was like, well, where are they?
	Pennsylvania is very close to New York.
	I got an interest in this.
	I just don't, it's like, don't trust the government, is really kind of what it boils down to.
	One of the lessons that I think a lot of people have been learning over the past couple of years.
	Yeah, it's incredible that you think about anytime something big happens in the news, usually there are.
	Legislators that are tripping over themselves to file some kind of bill related to it, and then, you know, because they're trying to capitalize on what just happened.
	And usually, if anything goes wrong, what is the Congress's first thought is we have to make a law addressing that.
	Even if there already were 15 laws that were supposed to prevent whatever it was, now we need another law.
	And yet, with this, there doesn't appear to have been any serious legislative effort to address these virus labs or anything.
	I mean, no, we're trying to give them more money.
	There isn't even a conversation about it.
	We're trying to give them more money.
	Not only have we not cracked down on research like the kind the CDC was funding in Wuhan, we're trying to create more of it, fund more of it.
	And now Fauci wants billions of dollars to come up with vaccines, new vaccines for viruses we don't even have yet.
Modern Dating Struggles 00:03:36
	I don't think Fauci should get more money.
	I don't think Fauci should be in charge of anything having to do with public health from this day forward.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see, because he's treated like a god by the left and by this administration as well.
	And it's disturbing.
	All right, let me end it on a happier note.
	It's controversial, apparently, but.
	I thought it was actually kind of provocative and interesting what you said.
	You're apparently, you said something to the effect of arranged marriages would probably do a damn sight better than the way we find one another in this country and sort of taking aim at the way people date these days and try to find love.
	Do I have it right?
	Like, what was your point and why did people not like it?
	They didn't like it because, you know, there are some people that don't like anything I say on any subject whatsoever.
	But yeah, we were talking about the modern dating scene.
	I don't think it's controversial to point out that the modern dating scene is kind of a toxic wasteland.
	And I am very grateful.
	I'm grateful for a lot of reasons to be married, but I do feel much like the guy who escapes a burning building and looks back and it collapses right as he comes out the door.
	That's kind of how I feel being married, having escaped much of the current modern dating scene.
	And so I think everyone, especially single people, agree that it's not an ideal scenario.
	And so I'm trying to sort through what's going wrong.
	And there are a lot of things, but I think one of them is that all of the dating has migrated online and not just online, because back when I was single, we had dating sites.
	Which you'd have a whole long profile and you get a subscription and it was a much more involved process.
	Now they have just the apps and really it's just a picture of someone.
	You're making decisions based on a profile picture and you're swiping, you know, and that's how you're engaging with people is by swiping them one way or another.
	And one of the issues with that is that there's just so many choices.
	It's almost like there are too many choices.
	And I think this is a defining feature of modern life.
	I'm certainly not the first person to notice it that we have too many choices everywhere.
	You go to Netflix and, you know, most of us have multiple streaming services.
	You can watch any movie that's ever been made, any TV show, and yet how many nights do you flip through kind of looking desperately for something and you can't find anything, even though you have everything?
	So oftentimes there can be too many choices.
	It has this paralysis kind of effect.
	And I think that's part of the deal with dating, where you have no limitation.
	It's not like in the old days where the dating pool was confined to your geographic location and that's what you had to choose from.
	And at least that kind of whittled things down.
	And now there are no limitations.
	On the extreme opposite end of that, Would be something like arranged marriage, where you have, where there are no choices.
	It's just your family's kind of set this up and say, here you go, here's who you're marrying.
	Now, I don't look at that as the ideal scenario.
	I don't think that's the best way to approach it, but I actually think that that's better than what we do right now.
	Don't they have a lower divorce rate?
	Don't arranged marriages have a lower divorce rate than our marriages?
	Much lower.
	I think it's like something like 3% or 4%.
	And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the cultures that have arranged marriages or used to have them, they also frown on divorce quite a bit more than we do.
	We used to, too.
	Yeah, we used to also.
	So it's interesting how cultural attitudes can affect that.
	But it's not the most ideal, but it's better than what we have.
	And that only speaks to how bad our current system is.
	I think the best kind of way of approaching it is more of we put dating to the side, forget about dating.
	We go back to what they used to call courtship, courting.
	And that's dating with a purpose, that's dating intentionally.
	And what you're doing there is you're just, you know, going in, both partners know that they're looking for the person they're going to marry.
	And so this is kind of an interview process.
	And that's the end point.
January 6th Conspiracy Links 00:15:53
	And you know that going in.
	And then that also tells you, If you get to a point in the relationship where you know you can't marry this person or you don't want to, then there's no reason to linger on for another five years.
	You just cut it off there and you go and you try to find someone else.
	I think that could solve many of the problems.
	That's so good.
	I don't disagree with any of that.
	I know that you and your wife have a great relationship, and I love watching some of your fun back and forth online.
	There was something that she tweeted out something to the effect of I brought Matt dinner when he came home from the Dr. Phil show, in response to which he said, When they bring me dinner at the Daily Wire, I usually get two sides and an appetizer or something like that.
	She was like, Does anyone have some arsenic or something I can sprinkle on the next serving?
	So it sounds like she has a healthy sense of humor, which I'm sure both of you need.
	I appreciate you coming on.
	I appreciate you talking about this stuff.
	I know you get a lot of incoming.
	We need voices like yours.
	We need people who aren't afraid to take incoming and who are willing to talk about hard issues, whether you agree with them or not.
	We're getting to a place where it's all about censorship and having the proper opinion, and that's bullshit.
	So love you, Matt.
	I'm a big fan.
	Thanks, Megan.
	Really appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	See you soon.
	Coming up, Julie Kelly is here to talk about January 6th and her new book.
	This is the woman who has been paying attention to every single case that's been brought.
	I mean, there are hundreds of them.
	What the government's doing, what it's not doing, who it's not going after, and what she's gleaned.
	And she's going to bring us up to date on the very latest next.
	Electro impotent.
	This is the first time to fix the ultra-romatism.
	It's the first time to listen to the ultra-warmer.
	Can you use the stick contact?
	For this, it is a lot of use.
	And this is a big deal for the house.
	We know that the oldest of the house is a big deal for the house.
	So, come in and see what you can do for the next one.
	Electro-important.
	Lies, warm, electoral, and smart use.
	Joining me now is a senior writer at American Greatness and author of the new book.
	January 6th, how Democrats used the Capitol protest to launch a war on terror against the political right.
	Julie Kelly.
	Welcome back, Julie.
	Good to have you.
	Hey, Megan.
	Thanks so much for having me on.
	Okay.
	So, more than anybody I know, you've been following these cases, individual cases, and there's upwards of 700 of them.
	So, it's a lot to keep track of.
	Give us an update.
	You last came out in June to tell us the number of people who had been held, who weren't given access to videotapes and other evidence, who basically were wasting away.
	You had predicted it would be about a year with no charges and no trial.
	And now we're at a year.
	So give us the landscape, you know, 30,000 foot now and where we are.
	So there are roughly 730 defendants in the Justice Department's unprecedented probe into the four hour disturbance at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
	And they are arresting new people every single week, mostly charging them with misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly conduct or parading in the Capitol.
	But to your point, Megan, what is most alarming is the existence of political prisoners in the United States.
	We now have more than 70 men who are being held, denied bail under pretrial detention orders that have been demanded by this Justice Department, signed off on by federal judges.
	Nearly probably 40 of them right now are in this DC, I call it the DC Gulag, that is part of the DC prison system that has been set aside specifically for January 6th defendants.
	There are a few dozen others in prisons across the country.
	To your point, now they've all been charged, but some of them face nonviolent charges and none of them have been convicted of any crime.
	Meanwhile, their trials keep getting delayed, and you will have some men who will be held behind bars for.
	18, 19 months at least until they even have a chance to go to trial and defend themselves.
	This is what's so nuts.
	You look at the soft on crime DAs that have been elected across our country.
	We just talked about one in Chicago who the sheriff now in Chicago is complaining because he says he's got a hundred murderers, people who have been charged with murder awaiting trial, accused murderers, who are on house arrest awaiting trial with a little anklet.
	Murderers, including one who's accused of shooting a little seven year old girl outside of the McDonald's there.
	They can sit at home.
	Watch TV, be with their families, no problem.
	Meanwhile, these guys who are looking at, for the most part, trespass charges, misdemeanor charges, are sitting in jail because they're treated like they're the worst of the worst because that's how Democrats see them, given the nature of their alleged crimes.
	Well, that's what I talk about in my book, Megan, about January 6th.
	This is the four hour disturbance at the Capitol, has been used as a pretext to launch a war on terror against the political right.
	Well, when we have a war on terror, what do you do?
	You go outside of your authority, government authority.
	You detain people without representation in a lot of cases.
	They can't even access their defense attorneys.
	Most of them have to rely on public defenders in Washington, D.C. You can only imagine the political views of those lawyers.
	And so they really are caught up in a rigged system from prosecutors to federal judges to public defenders, and of course, the media who are treating them as badly, maybe even worse than Al Qaeda terrorists.
	At least Guantanamo Bay detainees had some.
	People, you know, some like libertarian groups or civil rights groups who are demanding they were treated humanely.
	We've had none of that.
	These guys have 36 defendants.
	This is, they have you.
	No offense to you, but you're a one woman reporter.
	You know, it's like there's no like massive legal team trying to swoop in and just make sure that their rights are being protected.
	I thought about it the other day because when we had that terror attack down in Dallas with that guy who flew in from the UK and held the four people hostage at the synagogue, he wasn't on the no fly list.
	He wasn't red flagged, even though he had been under terror investigation in the UK.
	He had a long list of crimes on his record and shouldn't have been allowed into the United States.
	That guy's not on the no fly list, but half of these guys have been put on the no fly list because of their alleged trespass one day at the Capitol without any proof that most of these guys committed any violence while there.
	And they are on TSA list.
	Do you remember Brandon Strzok, who started the walk away movement?
	He was a progressive, and he started this movement to encourage people to get away from the Democratic.
	Party.
	He was charged, his life basically destroyed.
	He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct earlier this week.
	He has been put on a TSA fly list.
	You should see what he's had to go through anytime he needs to travel.
	But yet, we have refugees pouring in from the southern border.
	You have the FBI and DOJ, National Security Division officials say they have no idea how many people are flooding in from countries of special interest, meaning carvers of terrorists.
	But yet, Brandon Strzok, who's done nothing wrong, has no criminal record.
	Plead guilty to disorderly conduct, never even went into the building, is on a TSA fly list.
	This is crazy.
	And this is, you and I have talked about this before.
	No one, not you, not I, is excusing the truly bad actors who were there that day who hurt others, who hurt cops, who hurt others.
	They can go to jail and good, that's where they should go.
	But we are treating all 740 plus of these people like they're all the same, like they all committed violence and wanted to engage in a coup.
	And a lot of them just got swept in.
	They were kind of like, What are we doing?
	Okay, we're going in.
	Yeah, no one's stopping us.
	Okay, oh shit, wait, what?
	Right?
	I mean, not all of them, but a lot.
	So there's no distinction between the groups by those handling these cases, or for that matter, by the press that covers it.
	Let's talk about a couple of specific cases.
	Cases because there have been some updates.
	There's one, all right, Ray Epps.
	Just for the audience that's not familiar with that name, tell us why he's interesting.
	He's interesting because he was caught on video numerous times encouraging people to go into the Capitol that day.
	So he was basically the night before and the day of telling people go inside the Capitol building, directing people to the building.
	He was on an area that was allegedly restricted access, yet he has not been charged with any crime.
	And no one at DOJ or FBI can explain why.
	There are suspicions that he was working for the FBI or for some other government agency.
	The January 6th committee came out and said that they interviewed him.
	He's not with law enforcement, he was never an informant, and then came back two weeks later and said, oh, by the way, we're going to formally interview him.
	So it just supports suspicions that I believe are true that he has, that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of provocateurs or people acting on behalf of various government agencies.
	To provoke a lot of the confrontations and violence we saw that day.
	So there's no evidence of it yet.
	We're just curious.
	I'm looking at their statement.
	They say, okay, the House committee says, the select committee is aware of unsupported claims that Ray Epps was an FBI informant based on the fact that he was on the FBI wanted list and then he was removed from that list without being charged.
	Then it goes on to say, the select committee has interviewed Mr. Epps.
	Mr. Epps informed us that he was not employed by working with or acting at the direction of law enforcement.
	On January 5 or 6 or at any other time, and that he's never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agent.
	He informed us.
	Well, that doesn't really answer the question that Mr. Epps said that to the committee.
	Mr. Epps may have said a lot of things to the committee.
	I would really like to know.
	And didn't, was it Ted Cruz asked an FBI spokesperson about this and say, was Ray Epps working for the FBI?
	Now, she seemed to deny it, but we haven't closed this circle entirely.
	Well, two things.
	Representative Tom Massey confronted Attorney General Merrick Garland a few months ago in a hearing and played the recordings of Ray Epps, encouraging people to go on the Capitol.
	Merrick Garland had no idea who he was talking about or who Ray Epps was.
	But then, in a separate Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton confronted Jill Sanborn, who was a top counterterrorism official at the FBI.
	Ted Cruz asked her twice if there were any FBI agents or informants.
	Who either engaged in or incited violence on January 6th?
	Megan, she refused to answer the question.
	She said, I can't answer.
	We know there were hundreds.
	That's right.
	We know there were hundreds, if not thousands, of undercover FBI agents.
	We know this because DOJ officials, and now has been reported in Newsweek, a bombshell article earlier this month, that said hundreds of elite FBI forces agents were deployed to the Capitol that day and later that afternoon.
	Megan, I've watched as much video of January 6th as anyone, photographs.
	I've never seen anyone identified as an FBI officer walking around trying to do his job or prevent violence or move the crowd away.
	None of that.
	So, who were they?
	What were they doing?
	So, there's plenty of reason, justification to suspect.
	That the FBI and other government agencies were deeply involved, not just in what happened that day, but in planning for it ahead of time, which I do talk about in my book.
	Well, it's relevant.
	It's relevant.
	It's not to say that they caused everything that day, but if they had a hand in it, if they encouraged people, it'll certainly be relevant to the criminal defenses that these men assert while on trial.
	We're seeing that in the Governor Whitmer case right now, right?
	There was this plot to kidnap the governor, and it was horrible, and she came out and said it's horrible.
	Then it turns out that something like half of the guys involved were FBI agents.
	Who were stirring it up and encouraging it and saying, you know, like, is everybody on board?
	We're going to kidnap her.
	Okay, here we go.
	And the defense is going to be entrapment.
	We were entrapped by the FBI.
	They were the ringleaders.
	They lured us into it.
	That could work.
	Might not, but it could.
	Okay, let's talk about Stuart Rhodes, who's the leader of the Oath Keepers.
	Who is Stuart Rhodes?
	Who are the Oath Keepers?
	And why are they relevant?
	So, Stuart Rhodes is the founder of the Oath Keepers.
	He founded it in 2009.
	It is allegedly.
	A violent armed militia group filled with white supremacists.
	That's what we've been told.
	And so the oath keepers were involved in the Capitol protest.
	One group, Megan, walked into the Capitol building in a stack formation.
	They stayed inside for 20 minutes.
	They didn't break any windows, destroy any property.
	They brought no weapons, which is weird for a militia group, didn't attack anyone, walked out.
	Another group of two or three men walked into the Capitol, had a confrontation with police.
	I'm told a cop hit one of them, he punched back.
	They left five minutes later.
	No weapons.
	They had no orchestrated plan to overthrow the government, as we've been told.
	But they started rounding up and arresting people within two weeks of the January 6th protest, including elderly disabled veterans they were dragging off to secret prisons.
	But oddly, person one, Stuart Rhodes, who was person one in all of the conspiracy indictments, hadn't been charged.
	And so some of us started raising this issue.
	Darren Beatty at Revolver.News, who's done extensive detailed investigative.
	Work into January 6th really started saying, well, if he's person one, he's responsible for this conspiratorial attack on the Capitol.
	Why is he still a free man?
	So, lo and behold, January 12th, there is the grand jury indictment against Stuart Rhodes and 10 other oath keepers, many of whom had already been charged for seditious conspiracy.
	And this is the first time we saw, yes, because up till then we hadn't seen, well, we still haven't seen insurrection charged of anybody, right?
	And that's a crime you can charge.
	It hasn't happened.
	But this is the closest thing we've seen to sedition.
	Seditious conspiracy is something Andy McCarthy said he charged the blind shake with back when that guy orchestrated the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
	So, this is the first time we saw that appear in criminal charges against anybody connected with January 6th when they charged the 11 oathkeeper guys with that.
	That's right.
	That's the first.
	There are other conspiracy charges, including the oathkeepers.
	The original indictments were for conspiracy, but this is seditious conspiracy.
	They are accusing these men of using force to overthrow the government, which is just Preposterous, Megan.
	How do you overthrow the government with khaki pants and a military helmet and no weapons and go in and take selfies and leave?
	So, this is just more optics war, fabricated drama out of this Justice Department.
	And the trials are set.
	First trial is set for April.
	And then the next trial will be in July.
	So, they're also trying to get answers to this.
	Do we think it answers the question about Stuart Rhodes, right?
	It doesn't sound like he's an FBI informant if he's been charged with seditious.
	Conspiracy?
	It doesn't, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions about him.
	Now, he will be detained in Texas.
	So far, I don't know if he'll be moved to the DC jail as others have been.
	But look, No, he's not going to be convicted of seditious conspiracy, as you know.
	I mean, the last time anyone in government tried that was in 2010 in Michigan, and the judge threw out the case.
	It's very difficult to prove.
	And so, we'll see as they put the evidence together exactly what Stuart Rhodes did because he definitely was the ringleader.
Seditious Charges and Trials 00:10:06
	He was cultivating these people, visiting them at their places of business when they were holding anti lockdown rallies.
	And so, he definitely did cultivate a lot of these people.
	So, when you read the documents, you consider That someone who allegedly is so dangerous has been a free man for a year.
	There are just things that don't add up.
	And to your point, Megan, the backdrop of the Whitmer kidnapping case should raise a lot more suspicions about government involvement in January 6th, because those two events not only are tied together timeline wise, but also by the government themselves.
	They continue to show look at these dangerous militia people.
	They were the same ones who were involved in January 6th.
	And so those two events are tied together.
	It's almost impossible to think that there weren't operatives like Ray Epps.
	Possibly someone like Stuart Rhodes, considering what exactly he did.
	Why did the government wait so long to indict him?
	So, but there's so many games out of this DOJ and FBI.
	Your guess is as good as mine as to what Stuart Rhodes did or how.
	Yeah, well, Stuart Rhodes, I mean, you've pointed this out.
	Our audience should know you're not afraid of the facts that make these guys look bad.
	Stuart had bad, bad messages.
	They've managed to get, I think it's interesting, they apparently got his signal group chat.
	That's another one of those messaging apps that they tell you is totally stealthy and nobody could ever find your chat on it, that and WhatsApp, right?
	They could find your chats on all this stuff.
	So, this is from an article that you wrote in American Greatness.
	His communications, you read, were by far the most inflammatory on November 5, 2020.
	In a Signal group chat he initiated, Rhodes warned of a civil war and encouraged the participants to, quote, prepare mind, body, spirit.
	In a December 2020 interview, Rhodes declared, quote, we will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution.
	Against them, if Biden assumed the presidency.
	And then at 1 30 p.m. on January 6th, he predicted the day would lead to, quote, our Lexington and on and on from there.
	So, I mean, you would agree, though, if this guy's not an FBI agent, I would say it certainly looks like he's not now that he's been arrested.
	It's not so good for the oath keepers.
	They do look like they were organized in planning something quite nefarious.
	Well, they weren't.
	Here's the difference.
	But again, the question is they've had all those communications since the very beginning.
	And they have.
	Stuart Rhodes on numerous podcasts and interviews saying basically the same thing.
	They knew he was person one in every indictment.
	If they had all of that information, why did they wait over a year for perhaps, let's just say it's legit, the most dangerous man involved in the Oath Keepers, not a disabled veteran like Thomas Caldwell or not some of these other people who are charged with nonviolent crimes who've been riding in this DC jail for almost a year?
	Was there any question about whether he went into the Capitol?
	You know, like, was there a question about whether.
	They could actually place him at the Capitol on the day off.
	He was in the restricted area.
	He did not go inside the building, but neither did Thomas Caldwell, the disabled veteran who they claim was the ringleader originally.
	They had to backtrack.
	The government had to backtrack on that too.
	So it's not even that he didn't go into the building or that Ray Epps didn't go into the building.
	Brandon Strzok never went into the building either.
	But yet, his life has been destroyed.
	He has three months home detention, three years probation, $5,000 fine.
	I mean, these things just don't add up.
	Yeah.
	And speaking of things that are sort of Irritating, like you want to know more, you're just not sure you're getting everything.
	Tell us about the tapes because one of the things you were flagging for us back in June was.
	There are thousands and thousands of hours of tapes, and the defense haven't been provided with the tapes.
	You know, government tapes, like what it's a government building.
	They got a lot of tape.
	That's right.
	Not to mention just people's cell phone cameras and whatever.
	And there was a question about whether the government would provide all of it to the defense and to the public.
	What has happened since then?
	So, this is 14,000 hours of surveillance video that was captured by U.S. Capitol Police security cameras on January 6th.
	It has been designated by DOJ as highly sensitive.
	Government material, so basically classified material.
	Every clip is under a protective order.
	It's even difficult for defense attorneys to get it.
	A defendant can only watch any surveillance video evidence against them if they're with another person, either a paralegal or someone from their defense team, which is impossible for these detained incarcerated defendants.
	Many of them haven't even seen the video evidence against them almost a year later.
	So, why is the government concealing this video?
	If, as Liz Cheney in the January 6th committee says, the public should know the full truth about what happened, well, this would be the best way to do it, right, Megan?
	We could see what happened inside and outside that building from noon until 8 o'clock.
	Who was outside on the Capitol grounds putting up this light fencing?
	Who put up the gallows?
	Remember the news that they said people were going to hang Mike Pence on?
	Who constructed that?
	We still don't know.
	What type of informants or agents or government undercover or plainclothes officers were inside and outside the building?
	Before anyone arrived, why are they hiding this?
	Well, we know because some of it has been opened up and released to the public.
	We saw a 40 minute clip that clearly shows Capitol Police allowing hundreds of people into the building near the Senate side.
	We also saw, and I talk about this in my book, police officers beating, attacking, kicking, punching, dousing protesters with tear gas.
	These are people who are not doing anything wrong.
	This is a big reason why they want to keep this under wraps.
	They say the reason they're not producing the other half of the tapes is it's just irrelevant stuff.
	You know, I mean, like, it's thousands of stuff of hours to go through.
	And there's even in the discovery laws, if it's not responsive, right, you don't produce it.
	And they're basically saying it's not responsive.
	It's a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.
	That's right.
	So they have said of the 14,000 hours, only 7,000 hours are relevant to the investigations.
	Okay, well, let's see them.
	I mean, even if we just saw between, you know, one o'clock, noon and, say, four o'clock or five o'clock, That day on the Capitol.
	We don't have to see what's happening in all the other House and Senate buildings.
	I mean, certainly that's irrelevant to what was going on inside the U.S. Capitol.
	But why is the committee, why is the government covering this up?
	The J6 committee, to my knowledge, hasn't even admitted the existence of this trove of footage, which seems a little bit weird for these truth seekers who want to make sure we get to the bottom of January 6th.
	The truth seekers who want to put the hearings on in primetime because they're talking about what big ratings it would get.
	I mean, they want.
	To be admired.
	That's what they want.
	They want to be, you know, stars.
	They want to look like they're doing something that'll gin up Democrats' anger and outrage.
	It's just, it's so wrong.
	Can we talk for a minute about the bombs at the DNC and the RNC?
	So that story hasn't gotten much play at all in the mainstream media.
	Tell us what happened and why it remains controversial today insofar as what law enforcement has done.
	So allegedly, pipe bombs were set outside of the DNC and RNC headquarters.
	Headquarters on the evening of January 5th.
	Now, these headquarters are located to the east of the Capitol building.
	Just so happens a woman was walking near an alley by the RNC about 10 to 1 on January 6th.
	She saw what she thought was a pipe bomb.
	Kitchen timer, I think a piece of plastic, some wire.
	She alerted a security guard at the RNC who notified Capitol Police and that activated their bomb spot.
	This really started, I think, the whole kind of fear atmosphere that day as people were learning and congressmen were being alerted that there was an alleged bomb threat near the Capitol building.
	Police then discovered a similar device near the Democratic National Committee, just a few blocks away from the RNC.
	So they evacuated a few of the houses.
	Buildings, the DC bomb squad was there, U.S. Capitol Police.
	They took the devices, allegedly detonated them, and that was that.
	So, why now, more than a year later, when we're still tracking down trespassers, have we not found the suspect who allegedly set these explosive devices?
	Also, Megan, what was just revealed is that Kamala Harris was in the DNC headquarters when the pipe bombs outside of that building were located.
	Now, wouldn't you think that the FBI would put all sorts of manpower and resources into tracking down whoever set a bomb outside of a building where a sitting U.S. Senator was and incoming vice president?
	But to your point, it's been completely memory-holed.
	I mean, the FBI, to my knowledge, they said there's a $100,000 reward.
	They have some grainy video that we're not even sure if it's the person who actually set them, but there's no urgency in tracking down that suspect or suspects.
	We have no.
	Court from the FBI that explained what the device was.
	So it's just a little odd that something that was so momentous on that day has been completely a memory hold.
	No one even talks about it, and we have no suspect in custody.
	That's crazy.
	I mean, think if January 6th hadn't happened, they would have devoted the entire FBI to figuring out who tried to potentially bomb those two places, as you point out, especially with the vice president elect sitting in one of them and nothing.
	It happened.
	Julie Kelly, really, really appreciate you coming on and keeping track of all of this.
	It's not easy.
	So it's all in her book, January 6th.
	If you'd like to see it and read it, then get up to date for yourself.
	Fascinating stuff.
Book Recap and Guest News 00:00:50
	All the best to you.
	You too, Megan.
	Thanks.
	Very exciting news about tomorrow.
	Set your calendar, your alarm, all of it, because guess who our guest is?
	Dr. Laura, it's happening.
	This is going to be so fun.
	We're going to turn the tables on one of my favorite and your favorite radio hosts ever.
	That's tomorrow.
	See you then.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
	Electro Impotern.
	Accurate now for up to 30% for Terrassewärmer.
	And this is a very good way to get warm.

Chapters

00:00:01 Southern Border Debates
00:12:57 Identity Politics and Nominees
00:24:57 Gender Perception Confusion
00:40:09 Politeness vs. Self-Perception
00:44:35 Pandemic Lessons Remain
00:54:43 Joe Rogan Misinformation
00:59:31 Truth in Comedy Shows
01:04:47 Modern Dating Struggles
01:08:24 January 6th Conspiracy Links
01:24:18 Seditious Charges and Trials
01:34:24 Book Recap and Guest News