The Megyn Kelly Show - 20220613_medias-trump-obsession-and-amber-heard-blames-soci

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

June 13, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:36:20

20220613_medias-trump-obsession-and-amber-heard-blames-soci

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Trump Ratings Sideshow 00:14:51
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	I guess there's going to be eight.
	I thought there was going to be seven.
	There's going to be eight.
	We're on number two.
	It got underway about an hour ago, delayed after Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Bill Stepian, had to drop out at the last minute because he's having a baby.
	His wife has reportedly gone into labor.
	This plus Amber Heard breaks her relative silence.
	We listened to her a lot while she was on the stand.
	Now giving an interview to NBC claiming that the verdict was unfair and that it was the result of biased social media representation that sided with Johnny Depp.
	Chicken, egg.
	You know what I'm saying?
	And we've got a major breakthrough on Capitol Hill today on guns.
	There actually is some significant news there.
	We're covering all of that and much more today.
	First up, one of my favorites, my pal Dave Rubin, host of the Rubin Report, is here.
	Dave, great to see you again.
	Megan, it's always good to talk to you.
	I like Megan Kelly on a Monday.
	I feel that this is the best Megan Kelly, like fresh off the weekend.
	I heard a rumor that not too long ago you made my husband's famous chicken.
	And you're feeling good about life, I can tell.
	And we can go into the issues of the day, clear-minded.
	Thank you.
	I'm so glad.
	I feel the same about Monday, Dave Rubin.
	I don't know if you've been watching.
	I know you made a policy of not covering the January 6th hearing.
	I feel differently.
	I want to see what they're doing.
	And I'm glad I'm covering it because I tell you, the one that they did last week was an absolute misrepresentation of fact.
	And just as a lawyer and a journalist, that to me is interesting.
	You know, like there shouldn't be a need to manipulate the sound on the videos or to overlay President Trump's sound about the peaceful rally that took place beforehand on top of violent riot video, as though he was saying they were beautiful, they were full of love about the people who were smashing cops.
	That's not what he did, and that's not what he said.
	And they've just been lying throughout it.
	So, even though there's no defense, it's kind of nice as a lawyer to be on the outside saying, Well, I'm sure a good defense lawyer would have said this, would have objected to that, would have said this is misleading.
	It's just beneficial to the public.
	So, I did watch and I watched this morning.
	And let me start with this.
	I wondered what they were going to do with my old pal Chris Dyerwalt of Fox News.
	They called him to testify.
	And I know the diehard MAGA crowd does not like Chris because he wasn't a Trump fan.
	That was pretty clear in his public statements.
	He wasn't a Trump fan, even while I was at Fox.
	And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
	I think he's allowed to be anti-Trump.
	He's just not allowed to have his work product reflect that.
	And I believe and have said this right from the beginning: I do not believe he did allow that to affect his work product.
	I think the call in Arizona was from a bunch of earnest, smart brokers with whom I've worked for years, for years.
	So I didn't, I was kind of feeling uncomfortable watching him, you know, about watching him.
	Like, I don't, what are they going to do to him?
	And I hope he doesn't self-aggrandize and do anything to make the shitstorm that entered his life come back after Arizona.
	And he didn't.
	I thought he handled himself very well.
	He stuck up for the Fox decision desk on that call.
	And he's right.
	They are the best in the business.
	And he explained why they were able to call Arizona before anybody else was.
	And I completely believed what he said, as I said at the time.
	You know, my other friend, Stephen Crowder, came on the show shortly after the election and he went to town on Chris and the decision desk on Arizona.
	And I defended them then.
	And I've worked very closely with them, much closer than anybody who's talking about this issue in media has.
	Anyway, I thought he did fine.
	I don't know that it was necessary.
	Not exactly sure what he was doing there.
	Why are we relitigating Arizona and Fox News's call, right?
	He didn't speak to any pressures that Trump put on Fox or him.
	So I'm not exactly sure why that was there.
	Right now, today just seems to be an attempt to convince the American people that Trump did in fact lose, something I also believe.
	Is that worthwhile?
	And what do you make of this sort of phase two?
	Because phase one was like the riot was bad and Trump said incendiary things and there are white supremacists who showed up.
	This is more like he lost.
	Get over it.
	Right.
	So first, let me address something that you said right up top, which is that I'm not covering this on my show and sort of the difference and why I like that people watching this right now probably watch both of our shows or at least take in a little bit.
	My feeling about this generally speaking was there are so many crazy things happening in this country that of course you cover as well from inflation and supply chain and Russia, Ukraine and everything else that I was just like, you know what?
	This to me is just a sideshow right now.
	If some sort of bombshell was to appear, if there was some true smoking gun, if there was a memo that Trump wrote that said we are going to get the National Guard out and, you know, take out pence or like some crazy stuff that we have not seen any of it.
	A year and a half later, of course I would cover it.
	But my general feeling is like, as someone that tries to translate news to people, I wanted to keep it on the things that I think actually are affecting their lives on a day-to-day basis.
	But that being said, I think it's great that you, especially as a former lawyer, and in this case, specifically talking about what's going on right now, as someone that worked at Fox, and I remember about a year ago, I was on your show and we were talking about this and you were talking about the veracity of the Fox decision desk and how good they are.
	So I think it is worthy of talking about, but everyone just has their own little angles on this.
	Look, as far as the goal of this thing, to me, that's what, if there's something we should talk about, that's what it should be.
	Like, what is the actual purpose here?
	Is it to convince more people that Trump ginned up, you know, this alt-right white supremacist army to take over the Capitol, even though they had no weapons, there were no plans.
	It turns out that one guy had a Lego set of the Capitol or something like that.
	That is not to defend people that broke windows or did things they shouldn't do.
	But as you know, Megan, there's plenty of video of officers literally opening up doors for them, moving barricades and letting them in.
	So there's a lot of confusion there.
	So one of the things that, you know, what I have seen in the little bites that I'm seeing on Twitter, it's like, you're right.
	They are changing audio on things.
	They seemingly are selectively editing things or showing things out of context or out of order.
	And the real question to me is who, who is this going to?
	So I, look, we all live in our own little bubble in a way.
	I don't know anyone in my world that cares about this.
	I really don't.
	I don't think people are focused on this.
	I think they realize there are so many bigger problems.
	And it's like, yes, I get it.
	It's making people that watch MSNBC, you know, relive the experience, or it's giving AOC a moment to pretend she was hiding again or whatever.
	But I don't know exactly what this does really for like the full of the country.
	What is the resolution here?
	Like Trump's not going to, he's going to run for president again.
	This is not going to get Trump.
	We're a year and a half off this thing.
	So what really is the point, I suppose, would be my question back to you.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's clearly political.
	They had a bite at this apple.
	Remember the second impeachment attempt?
	It was about January 6th.
	It's like they failed and they were like, we have something really bad to tell you about Donald Trump.
	Let's impeach him.
	We're going to tell you all the bad things.
	And the public was like, eh, because their representatives did not vote to impeach.
	Well, he got impeached, but he didn't get convicted.
	That's how it works.
	And they're like, now they're like, no, no, it's really, really bad.
	Listen to us again.
	Let's give us a second chance to convince you about how bad it was.
	People already have formed their thoughts.
	You know, I mean, I've said to my audience, and my audience has a lot of Republicans in it, not all, but a lot, I don't believe Trump won this election.
	I believe Trump lost this election.
	And I was very open-minded to all of the claims of fraud.
	And I looked at them as a lawyer.
	It's not there.
	We can talk all day about how unfair the process was to him.
	Yes, agreed the mail-ins, all of it, all of the rules being changed ostensibly because of the pandemic and lack of trust in those who were overseeing it who openly admitted they would do anything to get rid of him.
	I get all of that, but there's no proof.
	And in this country, we need proof.
	The same way you can't boot Brett Kavanaugh from his seat on the Supreme Court because somebody from 30 years earlier comes forward saying, he did something to me.
	The reason he got that seat is because there was no proof.
	She had nothing.
	You cannot say that a vote tally as in favor of Joe Biden as this one was is going to be thrown out based on supposition and absence of proof.
	And I do think this committee is doing a good job today of showing that Trump's inner team was there telling him, you don't have it.
	From Bill Barr to his campaign manager, who clearly wanted him to win, saying, it ain't there.
	The claims are not there.
	It's going to be a difficult night and difficult transition, but you got to go out there and say, at best, we're still counting and Trump wouldn't do it.
	And people, you can, your own claims, not you, Dave, but like people's claims about how unfair the process was to Trump are getting undermined by the refusal to let go of this unsupported claim that vote tallies were changed on election night.
	I get you may have a supposition.
	You have no proof.
	So move on.
	Focus on the things that are provable and knowable and we can actually improve before the next time, as opposed to things like they stole Detroit, whereas that clip from Bill Barr this morning pointed out, Trump did better in Detroit in 2020 than he did in 2016.
	Well, you know what's interesting is I know you've talked to Dinesh D'Souza as well, but I went to the 2000 Mules premiere and I thought your interview with him, by the way, was excellent because you guys really dove into some of the skepticism about it and all that stuff.
	And I had him on a few days later.
	So I tried to follow up a little bit of what you did there.
	And, you know, it's like, there are legitimate things to talk about.
	There really are.
	Like, you know, just in what he does in the movie, which whether you like Trump or dislike Trump or whatever, I think the movie is worth watching because you see that these ballot stuffers showing up at odd times at night.
	And they don't look like sort of the most upstanding citizens.
	A lot of them look like sort of transients, almost homeless people.
	And they always are sort of hiding from the camera and they're doing it at 3 a.m.
	You'd think that if you were picking up ballots from say an old age home, you know, six ballots from people who couldn't get out, maybe you would do it at, I don't know, 1030 a.m., not at 4 in the morning.
	You know, there's things that we can talk about, but you're right.
	If we get lost in, oh, the tallies weren't right or everything else, then we're never going to get to anything more secure in terms of our all of our collective, I don't like the word collective, but our collective ability to believe that elections are legitimate.
	But I would say in some weird way, and I think a lot of people watching would agree with this, that, you know, we've watched the media lie about so many things, whether it was Trump verifying people on both sides or sort of Russia collusion from the beginning or Brett Kavanaugh's a serial rapist, as you alluded to, or Jesse Smollett was lynched, or the litany of things that they've lied about.
	And we've seen such big lies that have been blown apart in real time that this to me feels like another one of those things where the media just really, really wants us to believe something.
	In this case, they really want us to believe that Trump somehow sent those people there to overtake the Capitol, thus to overtake the government of the United States.
	And that is just complete fantasy.
	Even if Trump was not listening to his advisors, even if Trump did not believe that the election was legit, the idea that this gang of people, this disorganized, discombobulated group of, you know, it was a lot of old grandmas and people dressed up with paint on their face, that they were going to overtake the government and the military would fall to them and that we'd have an Egypt style coup.
	I mean, it's actually insane.
	Right.
	And what, so why are they doing this?
	They want to ding him up politically.
	And even, I mean, I heard a discussion, I think it was Andy McCarthy suggesting on his podcast that he thinks they may be trying to push toward a criminal indictment of Trump on all of this.
	So the impeachment thing didn't go through and they want a criminal, they can't stand this guy.
	It's like, move on.
	Trump behaved very badly after he lost the last election.
	This is my position.
	He did lose.
	He behaved terribly.
	He did not actually cause what happened on January 6th, though he certainly was very encouraging of the belief many of those people held that the election was being stolen from him.
	And he may or may not pay the price politically, right?
	I mean, we've already been through that, but to take up all this congressional hearing time for all the networks to give this one-sided presentation, you know, fawning coverage is too much for me.
	Like we heard this story.
	We watched this movie the first time and the American people weren't persuaded.
	So like I said before, here we are back having a second bite at the Apple.
	They're not going to be any more persuaded.
	The diehard MAGA people who think this is swollen, swollen, stolen, they're not going to go out there and say, you know what?
	I'm convinced.
	Chris Dyerwalt, he got me there.
	It's not happening.
	So what's this about, right?
	It's about improving their political chances in the midterm elections and beyond.
	You know, that's super interesting.
	It's like, if we really dialed this down to just the psychology of the people that are paying attention, what is the percentage?
	Like, what is the amount of people who might move because of this thing?
	And I bet you, I think this is basically what you're saying.
	I bet you it's pretty much nobody.
	There is virtually nobody that is watching this or ignoring it that because of what is going to transpire during this thing is going to be like, well, that was the moment I was waiting for.
	Now I believe the opposite thing.
	And that tells you that this is just sort of the show must go on, you know, and that's where we're at with this.
	Yeah.
	And now you've got the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself, touting the ratings from that Thursday night hearing.
Proving Mayor Giuliani Knew 00:10:38
	Like they got like 19 million people tuning in.
	My God.
	I thought Trump was the guy who touts the ratings.
	But can I, it's because every network covered it.
	Like, of course you're going to get good ratings when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox Business go wall to wall with something.
	Surprise when there's nothing else on all the major stations, people tend to tune in.
	They're basically hostages to their televisions.
	Megan, did you see that great compilation that somebody put on Twitter?
	It was all of the mainstream media boxes covering the exact same thing.
	And in the middle, they put Tucker because Fox News did not cover it.
	And their argument, the person who put it together, their argument was, oh, see, Fox is ignoring it because Fox is evil, but look at all of these good guys covering it.
	And it's like basic human psychology.
	What do you teach your kids, Megan?
	Do you teach them to be like everybody else or be different?
	They're be a lemming.
	Exactly.
	So they're trying to prove, oh, see, Fox is doing something different.
	They're anti-democracy.
	They're the bad guys.
	They're different.
	They're mean.
	And it's like, regardless of what you think of this, just because everyone's doing something, I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean you're supposed to do it.
	I'm not a parent yet, but I think that's one of the things you're supposed to teach your kids, right?
	Yeah, they, of course, they just tried to shame Fox into covering it.
	And Fox did cover it over on the business channel with Martha and Brett.
	And that's fine.
	You know, their primetime lineup wound up losing to MSNBC, which got 4 million, which is on, I mean, like, they, MSNBC would never get 4 million on a normal night.
	They only got it because their viewers wanted to watch this.
	Fox got 3 million, which is pretty standard for it.
	And MSNBC, I mean, and CNN, I think, got 2 million, which is huge for CNN these days.
	So they still beat one of their main competitors by not covering this.
	And I think it was the right move because why should everyone be forced to watch this, which is essentially a propaganda show?
	Again, there's no defense lawyer.
	There's no defense case.
	Yes, there are a couple of Republicans on this panel, but they're all Trump haters.
	So that's the relevant metric.
	You know, can you find a non-Trump hater to get up there?
	They kicked Jim Jordan off the panel, so he wasn't good enough.
	On and on it goes.
	Everyone knows that this is essentially a show trial.
	It is because there's only one result they're driving toward, and there's no representation of the other side.
	People know it.
	So anyway, it's just a turnoff.
	I do want to play this one soundbite, which I thought was kind of funny and kind of interesting.
	And it's about drunk Rudy Giuliani showing up at the White House on election night.
	Dave, you can't make the stuff up.
	This is soundbite four.
	Was there anyone in that conversation who, in your observation, had too much to drink?
	Mayor Giuliani.
	And the mayor was definitely intoxicated, but I do not know his level of talk intoxication when he spoke with the president, for example.
	Were you part of any discussions with the people I mentioned, Mr. Steffi and Mr. Meadows, or anyone else, about whether the president should make any sort of speech on election night?
	I mean, I spoke to the president.
	They may have been present, but I spoke to the president several times that night.
	My memory, and I was saying that we should not go declare victory until we had a better sense of the numbers.
	I think effectively, Mayor Giuliani was saying we won it.
	They're stealing it from us.
	Where'd all the votes come from?
	We need to go say that we won.
	And essentially, that anyone who didn't agree with that position was being weak.
	What was your view at the time as to what he should or shouldn't say?
	I don't know that I had a firm view as to what he should say in that circumstance.
	The results were still being counted.
	It was becoming clear that the race would not be called on election night.
	My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted.
	It's too early to tell, too early to call the race but um, you know, we uh proud of the race we've.
	We run, we ran.
	And did anybody who was a part of that conversation disagree with your message?
	Yes, who is that the president disagreed with that?
	I don't recall the particular words.
	He, he thought I was wrong.
	He told me so and uh, you know that they were gonna, you know, go in it in a.
	You know he was gonna go in a different direction.
	Wait, stand by, Dave.
	Hold your thoughts because there's a follow-up to that.
	Bill Steppian, the campaign manager versus Trump.
	This is the campaign manager testifying to what he said to Donald Trump.
	It's interesting on the night of the election about what the message should be versus what Trump said.
	Watch soundbite three.
	The early returns are going to be, you know, positive.
	I always told the president the truth.
	And, you know, I think he expected that from me.
	And I told him it was going to be a process.
	It was going to be, you know, we're going to have to wait and see how this turned out.
	And we'll voting to stop.
	We don't want them to find any ballots at four o'clock in the morning and add them to the list.
	And then they went on to play the soundbite from Trump a couple days later saying, we won.
	We won it.
	This is fraud.
	He went a different way.
	He went with Giuliani and not with Steppian.
	First off, I do not want to blame Rudy Giuliani for maybe being drunk for any of that because while I was watching, I actually poured a whole bunch of tequila in my coffee mug because it's the only way.
	It's the only way you can get through this insane.
	All the best of us are.
	Right.
	Everyone watching it should be drunk.
	That's number one.
	Number two, though, you know, nothing in those little soundbites, none of it is proof of anything other than on an election night, somebody wants to win and other people are a little more measured in their responses.
	Jason Miller, he's like, well, I wanted to wait to count the votes.
	Ivanka, I didn't really have an opinion on it because the election wasn't done.
	Even if Trump had called Ivanka or Jason Miller or somebody and said, I really want to win and we're not going to announce anything.
	And I'm like, well, that's not proof of a grand conspiracy to take over the government of the United States.
	If there was a phone call made to a general saying we are taking, the military is taking over the apparatus of the United States and we're going to the Capitol, then you've got some sort of conspiracy or something.
	But you're right.
	This is just, it's just a show.
	It's not a trial in essence.
	It's a one-sided show.
	It's a political hitchhiker.
	But again, this goes to why I keep thinking this is going to be a red pill moment for a certain set of people.
	While I don't think a lot of people will watch and change their mind, as I said earlier, I think enough people at the end, when nothing comes out of this, are going to be like, oh, another thing that the government did that nothing came out of it, like impeachment number one, like impeachment number two.
	Why didn't they look at the Hunter Biden's laptop and everything else?
	So maybe that's the silver lining here, that the more the government does these sort of nonsensical things that are wastes of our tax dollar, waste of our attention, when there's so many other things that they could be doing, maybe that is a good wake-up call to the average person to realize that it doesn't deserve, the government doesn't deserve so much of our resources, attention.
	Scale back.
	You know, they seem to me to be trying to prove that Trump knew.
	That's what they said they were going to prove with these testimonials.
	That's what they think they're proving.
	Trump knew he lost and knowingly misled the American people.
	An equally plausible, in fact, more plausible explanation is that Trump is Trump.
	He doesn't think the way most people think.
	He doesn't see victory and defeat the same way most people do.
	And he had convinced himself that it was impossible for him to lose this thing.
	He felt the system had been rigged against him going into it and had said that prior even to the November vote.
	And when things started to go south that night, he believed what he wanted to believe.
	You know, it's like we all do it, right?
	It's like rather than sort of readjusting to the actual reality, smacking you in the face, sometimes we default to our old ways of thinking because it feels better.
	And I just don't think Trump, you know, the biggest insult you could ever call somebody to Trump is a loser.
	That's his, it's the last thing he'd want to be.
	And I do think it's the only reason why he might not run this time because he doesn't, he definitely doesn't want to lose, you know, again.
	But anyway, do you think this helps or hurts him?
	If he's going to be able to do it, I don't think it hurts.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	I don't think it hurts him at all.
	And I think, I think once nothing comes of this, he's going to feel energized again.
	And enough people are going to be like, oh, they tried it again to him.
	And then they're going to look around and they're going to see what's going on with gas and inflation and everything else.
	And they're going to be like, oh, that guy who was president for four years when things were pretty good, why do they keep trying to destroy him?
	Maybe I'll jump in on what he's doing this time.
	All I know is that he's going to be able to say to be careful what they ask for.
	Yeah, that's what Jane and Joe are going to be thinking.
	Like, all I know is my life was better then than it is now.
	And if he's delusional or right or wrong about his election claims, that's for somebody else to worry about.
	You know, like what I want is my gas prices to go down, my grocery bill to go down.
	I would like us not to unnecessarily start foreign conflicts with loose lips and weak policy, you know, like things like that.
	This is all one big political hit job that we've already been through.
	We already went through it.
	So anyway, I don't think they're proving what they think they're proving.
	I don't think they're proving Trump, quote, new.
	And I don't think people are paying attention.
	And they're not going to get 19 million on at 10 a.m. on a Monday when it's not being force-fed to people who are home from work the way they were on Thursday night.
	And people are going to peter off and they're going to go back and live their summer lives.
	I mean, I'm going on vacation later this week.
	I'm going to, who's going to sit around and watch hearings three, four, five, six, seven?
	This isn't like no one wants to cover this and no one wants to watch this exception.
	Megan, Megan, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	You're going on vacation in the middle of this thing.
	You dare go with your husband and your kids to enjoy life, I'm guessing, to the beach somewhere.
	And you're going to just take in the sun and eat good food and relax and play on the beach instead of paying attention to it.
Pride Month Is Earned 00:11:37
	What kind of American are you?
	It's funny, Dave, because when I was looking at the calendar about like, can I go on vacation during this time in June?
	I'm like, well, we got Supreme Court and that actually does matter.
	Like the opinions that are coming down.
	What if Dobbs comes down while I'm gone?
	That I care about.
	This, that's my opinion on this.
	Somebody else can sit at the microphone and do that's that's how it's gonna go.
	I can do that.
	I can do that.
	You can do it for me.
	You can sit in for me if that, if this gets exciting and just give them my wrap up.
	All right, stand by because there's so much more to go over, including Putin's price hike.
	It's Putin's, just in case you didn't know, the White House quadrupling down on that in the wake of the disastrous new inflation numbers.
	And we'll get to that in much more with Dave.
	My guest today is Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report, who we have on, whether it's Pride Month or not, Dave Rubin.
	There's a lot of pride, And it's funny to me because, I mean, I feel like.
	I feel shame.
	You tell me because I feel like the gays and the lesbians, we're good.
	You know, we're there.
	So is it just Pride Month for the trans people?
	And what does it mean?
	And why is it everywhere?
	Your thoughts?
	It's so unbearable.
	Look, as, well, you certainly know because you've been to my house for dinner with my husband.
	Yes, I am gay.
	I have been married to my husband for like eight years.
	We've been together for 13 years.
	It's the least interesting thing about me.
	I end up having to talk about it occasionally because of cultural stuff like this.
	But the fight for equality was a just fight.
	The fight for marriage was a just fight.
	The fight for the ability to say, go to a bar and not be arrested, which is what used to happen.
	That's what Stonewall was all about.
	Those things were a just fight.
	And then once you get equality, the activists should go home and they should find something better to do.
	But as Chris Rock said in a stand-up special about 20 years ago, the cops need a certain amount of crime.
	And the activist class needs a certain amount of perceived victimhood.
	There's no one coming after you if you're gay or lesbian.
	Actually, you're probably getting a job easier or promoted easier than your straight counterpart.
	The T thing, the trans thing, which is very different.
	I mean, I, as a gay man, Megan, have no more insight into the trans psychology than you as a straight woman.
	This thing has gone completely off the rails.
	The fact that, you know, even Fox just a couple of days ago ran this piece about a five-year-old transitioning.
	And before the boy could even speak, he was already saying that he's a girl, which doesn't even make sense that you're saying something before you can speak.
	Look, the fact that this thing is a month and it's all corporate and, you know, Burger King, as you saw, Burger King is putting out buns with two bottoms.
	It's so ridiculous.
	It's so many levels.
	It's a little early in the day to be talking about any of this.
	So, yeah, I mean, it's just, see, and this is the problem.
	Time to be proud.
	And what they're saying there, it's a sexual connotation, obviously.
	But what are you proud?
	You know, pride is not just, oh, I happen to be straight or I happen to be gay.
	That's nothing to be proud of.
	Pride is, oh, I work hard.
	I'm proud of the work that I've done.
	Pride is, I'm a good husband.
	I'm a good wife.
	Pride is, I'm a good family member or community leader.
	Pride is something earned, not something that should be just celebrated by an extension of what they would say is an immutable characteristic.
	So the whole thing is sort of corporate nonsense.
	And I fear something, which is that there's going to be a backlash.
	I can, you can feel it already amongst regular, decent people who have fully moved on from the gay marriage thing and don't think about gay people.
	And Megan, you were with me in West Nyack on my tour.
	I mean, my audience is 95% conservative at this point.
	They have no problem with me being gay, right?
	Like you were there, you saw it.
	But that I could sense, I could see a certain set of people being like, man, they are never going to stop jamming this stuff down our throat, no pun intended, and getting sick of it.
	And I think that's where we are with this nonsense.
	It's really unfortunate.
	And by the way, that's why Douglas Murray, who's a brilliant conservative author, as you know, that's why he in his form, not his last book, his previous book, Madness of Crowds, when he wrote about LGB, that was one chapter.
	And then he separated his chapter on T because he said these things have nothing to do with each other.
	And this letter cornucopia is conflating issues that should not be conflated.
	Yeah.
	In the same way that like BLM is trying to like co-opt Hispanics and Asians and anybody who might identify as minority or non-white.
	And these groups are saying, no, we're not Marxist.
	We're pro-family.
	We're not joining you.
	We have different missions.
	It feels like the T is trying to co-op the LGB because LGB folks have attained equality in this country.
	They're good.
	There is, I mean, I'm sure there's exceptions to all of this, but like the vast, vast majority, which is always the goal in a diverse country of employers are not hiring you because you're gay or lesbian or bi, something people won't even ask and couldn't care less about.
	The trans thing is now it's no longer lawful not to hire somebody for that, but the trans community has an entirely different set of issues and agendas than the LGB community does.
	This is what Andrew Sullivan's been writing about, you know, and that he actually feels that the T movement, not T people, but the movement with its crazy representatives are anti-gay.
	You know, all these little boys who may be showing signs of being more effeminate or whatever are being told they're little, they're little girls.
	Whereas if you just left them alone, they'd be totally fine.
	They would have no gender confusion and most of them would wind up being gay.
	You know what's so interesting about this too?
	So first off, I do agree with that.
	We discussed it once.
	It's like I grew up, I was playing with G.I. Joes and Transformers.
	So I was stereotypically a boy.
	Now I happen to turn out to be a gay man.
	But if I had played with Barbie and my little pony or something, I suppose that if this was 2022, they would say paper dolls.
	I don't know.
	Paper dolls.
	Okay, fine.
	Or if I was having tea parties, then they would be like, oh, boy, we better give this, you know, some puberty blockers and everything else.
	Somebody made a point on Twitter.
	It was a random account, but I thought it was really brilliant what they said.
	I saw this a couple of days ago.
	It's like, man, if you think all of this stuff can be solved by just adjusting testosterone and puberty blockers and all of these things, it's like, well, if you had a little boy who was effeminate, how about we just give him more testosterone?
	I don't know the full science behind that.
	But if instead of saying, oh, let's transition you to the other gender, which is a pretty big lift, how about maybe we just give you a little more testosterone?
	I don't know the full science.
	It's kind of interesting.
	But the idea of it is sort of interesting, right?
	It is.
	I was just showing this morning, there was a picture of me.
	It's actually my very favorite picture of myself.
	And I was maybe five or six and I was on a tire swing with my Levi's jeans and my navy zip up hoodie sweatshirt.
	And I have my hair cut like a boy because my big sister got her haircut like a boy and I wanted it too.
	I didn't want to look like a boy.
	I just wanted the short hair.
	We thought it was the Dorothy Hamill.
	It wasn't.
	And I look 100% like a full tomboy.
	And we'll lay it in on the YouTube video later so people can see it.
	And 100% they'd be looking at that version of Megan Kelly in today's day and age saying she's actually a boy.
	She's a boy.
	She won't play with dolls, paper dolls or Barbies.
	She doesn't want to wear a dress.
	She only wants to play on the boys baseball team.
	You know, she loves Stretch Armstrong.
	She loves the incredible Hulk.
	We can't get her to watch any girly stuff.
	She won't take dance lessons.
	And seriously, there'd be a real conversation about whether this girl is actually a girl.
	And I was all girl and I remain all woman.
	And it like this knee jerk, oh, she thinks she's something else at age five or whatever, what have you is legitimately dangerous.
	Megan, real quick, can I just jump back to the starting point here about the month, the pride month, you know, because the thing about LGBT pride or something like that, as I said, pride is something to be earned.
	So what is actually bringing these people together?
	Okay, your sexuality or your sexual identity is different, is different than say what the Normans.
	Okay.
	So that's something, but that's not really something to build a community around, right?
	A community should be built around shared values.
	A community should be built around education or education or an ethnic background or a belief system, something like that.
	Just saying, oh, I'm the other sexuality or the other sexual identity, and that's what brings us all together.
	That sort of explains to you why this thing is devolving as crazily as it is, because that's not something that you can put in a bucket and say, oh, this is solid.
	This is something that we can build out of.
	It's just something that's sort of, okay, it is what it is.
	You like to sleep with dudes and you're a dude, and you like to sleep with chicks and you're a chick.
	But how long can that last over time, and I think in some ways this this might sound a little bizarre, but I think this is sort of a real world version of it.
	It's why gay communities like if you went to Chelsea in say, the 80s, it was a thriving gay community but it can only work for sort of one generation, because then it just kind of runs out of steam and especially if these people aren't having kids and building families and everything else, it doesn't work over time.
	And then the gays kind of move somewhere else.
	So in New York City they've moved to Hell's Kitchen.
	It's just sort of this amorphous thing and that's why I don't care.
	I have friends.
	I have some friends that are gay, I have some friends that are straight, but it's sort of absolutely irrelevant.
	It's like I like people based on their thoughts and their interests, not on oh, you check off this box on that little bingo card, not.
	Not that there's any shame at all around being lesbian, gay or what have you, but like as a straight person I don't.
	I don't want people spending any time at all thinking about what I like in the sack.
	You know, I I don't want anybody looking at me, just even having that moment of like, oh, this is how she likes to do it.
	Like what?
	Why are we drawing extra attention to that?
	Right, you do realize everyone listening to this now is thinking that, because you just said it, that's what everyone's thinking.
	We don't even have to do a show for the rest of this.
	We could just stop right here and people are just going to be picturing that.
	If you must know, go back and listen to my interview with Jason Whitlock uh, in which he actually got me to speak about that.
	Okay, so just gonna leave it at that.
	Dave yeah um, but yeah, I don't want it celebrated for a month-long period and I think a lot of you know my gay and lesbian friends are like what i'd be embarrassed to be like happy pride month if they'd be like shut up right, like.
	But meanwhile, there there are.
	There are crazy things happening along these lines.
	You talk about it's corporate.
	It's also a chance for like far leftists to push their weird agenda on people like the New York City public schools which spent New York City spent two hundred thousand dollars on drag queen story hour for kids as young as three to celebrate pride month.
	According to the NEW YORK POST, they did some events at libraries and festivals as well, but going into schools for children as young as three to celebrate the drag queen, which I don't even know if they're a tea, I I don't even know what we're calling like.
	They're not necessarily a tea.
Drag Queens and War 00:06:00
	You're not necessarily transgender just because you're a drag queen.
	No well technically no, a drag.
	I think the whole purpose of a drag queen.
	Rupaul is a man right uh, who dresses up as an over-the-top woman.
	By the way, a little funny story about Ru Paul.
	During the Trump, Hillary Clinton election, I had moved to the Valley in La, but I had.
	My old apartment was in West Hollywood, which is, you know, it's the gayest place on earth.
	They got rainbow crosswalks and everything.
	So I had to go vote in West Hollywood and I was standing online to vote and I didn't know who I was going to vote for, Trump or Hillary.
	I swear to god, as I was going into the booth, i'm standing online behind Ru Paul.
	Although it was manned Rupaul, I thought i'm never gonna forget this.
	Oh so wait, did you?
	And then I?
	I ended up voting for Gary Johnson.
	So there you go.
	Did you recognize Rupaul?
	As you know, without the drag yeah, you did.
	Yeah, because he's I don't i've i've literally never watched the drag show, but he's very tall and like bizarrely thin.
	And yeah, I did recognize him.
	Did you talk About the election?
	Who did RuPaul vote for?
	I'm guessing not Trump, but in retrospect, perhaps he and she should have.
	Who knows?
	Uh, yeah, exactly.
	You can't make any predictions.
	All right, so let's shift gears massively and talk about Putin's price hike because I don't know about you, but I'm really mad at Vladimir Putin over this price hike that he's forced on us.
	Weirdly, he managed to institute it months before he started the war in Ukraine.
	The fact that Joe Biden is like quadrupling down on this, here's just a little bit of the latest.
	This is just on Friday, Soundbite 11 is amazing.
	But we've never seen anything like Putin's tax on both food and gas.
	Putin's price hike is hitting America hard.
	Gas prices at the pump.
	Energy and food prices account for half of the monthly price increases since May.
	I'm doing everything in my power to blunt Putin's price hike and bring down the cost of gas and food.
	Who is going to believe that?
	Megan, I like this thing where you can just blame Putin for everything.
	Like I stub my toe on the way into the studio, blame Putin.
	My hair is a little flatter today than usual.
	Blame Putin.
	I saw Downton Abbey 2 this weekend, didn't love it.
	I blame Putin.
	It's so, it's so ridiculous because even if there's some degree of truth in it, meaning that because Russia controls a lot of oil and natural resources and a war can change the economics of the world, let's say that's roughly true to some degree.
	It obviously is, right?
	When there's a war somewhere, especially involving a big oil-producing country, it can affect things.
	If that's roughly true, Biden shouldn't be saying that's the problem.
	Biden should be saying, here are the things that we are doing to counter what he has done.
	And actually, virtually everything that Biden has done over the course of this long year and a half presidency has, in effect, been to make inflation worse and gas prices higher and not drill and exacerbate the war and give $40 billion more to Ukraine and not declare war, but we're in a war and the rest of it.
	So if you are a good president, it is irrelevant actually what the other guy is doing.
	You would be setting policies to counteract what he's doing.
	But instead, all he's got is this is Putin's fault.
	It's so empty, right?
	It reassures no one.
	Even if you give him, okay, the past couple of months, some percentage point inside that 8.6 is Putin, right?
	Like the prices and gas and so on.
	Right, sure.
	There's some level of reality to some extent.
	Just over the past couple of months, though.
	It doesn't touch anything before the invasion of Ukraine.
	But even if you were to give him that, you know, the people sitting at home understand full well that the vast majority of that 8.6 is on Biden.
	You know, some and you could farm out some of it too to COVID, you know, the supply chain that got screwed up.
	I think people would be generous in saying, we get that.
	It's not 100% on him.
	That 5 million that was pumped into the trillion that was pumped into, I wish, million, 5 trillion that was pumped into the economy by Biden, a little bit from Trump.
	Trump's was mid-pandemic, worst of the worst.
	Biden wanted more.
	He wanted an extra $3 trillion on top of that for other spending wishes of his, but wasn't able to get it.
	That's on him.
	That is 100% on him.
	The message that he was going to kill coal and kill oil coming in, discouraging these guys from actually getting aggressive about continuing our energy independence, that's on him.
	And his unwillingness to open it up now is on him, right?
	He is as sort of strong as his rhetoric is about like they're 9,000 leases and why aren't they taking them?
	They're 9,000 leases, right?
	That's all on him.
	They're not taking them for a variety of reasons, most of which originate with you.
	So people know it, Dave.
	You know, it's like so frustrating to hear him not.
	The bottom line is he has no plan.
	Right.
	Look, at the end of the day, the buck has to stop with someone.
	And I think when we vote for people, the hope is that the president is the guy that the buck stops with.
	So even if, I mean, we're both being pretty generous here.
	We're both acknowledging that there is some stuff out of his control, right?
	So the president doesn't control everything, thankfully.
	And, but that doesn't mean there's nothing he can do.
	So if in effect he has done all of the wrong things, you just laid out a whole bunch of them.
	I mean, they stopped Keystone and XL.
	They refused to drill.
	They've printed all of this money, et cetera, et cetera.
	It's like, no, this really isn't just because of Putin.
	And then, by the way, in that same press conference from the one that you guys just played, he went on to go to talk about Exxon's record profits.
	And it's like, all right, we can have some discussion, perhaps, about what oil companies could be doing in times of war or whatever this is related to their profits.
	But their record profits have very little to do with what they're doing, actually, and everything to do with the conditions that Biden is either creating or being or allowing to be created.
	He's floundering.
	He doesn't have a plan.
Deception in the Party 00:04:14
	It's very clear.
	He's trying to distance himself from the Fed because the Fed's raising interest rates, which actually may affect the inflationary rate.
	And he doesn't want the political hit of that, but it really is part of the solution.
	And nobody is backing him.
	He has no constituency.
	You know, he really doesn't.
	He doesn't have like the crazies who back the squad or like the diehard Bernie fans.
	There's no diehard Biden fan.
	And speaking of those two worlds, I think that's why in part, AOC, when asked by Dana Bash of CNN this weekend whether she's going to endorse Biden for president for his reelection, said the following.
	Listen to Soundbite 13.
	I hate to run AOC bites, but you got to hear this one.
	You know, if the president chooses to run again in 2024, I mean, first of all, I'm focused on winning this majority right now and preserving a majority this year in 2022.
	So we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
	But I think if the president has a vision, then that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes.
	That's not a yes.
	Yeah, you know, I think we should endorse when we get to it.
	But I believe that the president has been doing a very good job so far.
	And, you know, should he run again, I think that I, you know, I think it's, it's, we'll take a look at it.
	But right now we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election.
	So no.
	Megan, you remember when Bill O'Reilly, when he was on Fox, used to bring on the body language expert every week?
	It's like, man, she said a lot with that body language.
	When she laughed, she was nodding her head no as she was saying something affirmative.
	True.
	You know, the lean ins to the camera, all of that stuff.
	But what's interesting about this.
	Oh, wait, can I tell you, can I add to that?
	One of the other signs of deception, and she does it there at the end for the listening audience, she raises her hands and they're sort of motioning around her shoulders.
	Hands above the midline, when coupled with other signs, is another indicator of deception.
	Oh, I love that.
	That's like that line in Seinfeld.
	Remember Jerry's telling George, the higher when you're lying, the higher up on your face that you touch, the bigger the lie.
	So if you touch your nose, it's kind of like an average lie, but if you scratch the top of your head, it's a big lie.
	Scratching and touching in general are also indicators, but hands above the midline in general is you're lying, but it has to be coupled with a few other signs.
	Anyway, she's lying.
	She doesn't want to endorse Biden, but neither does anybody in her party.
	Yeah, you're right.
	He has no constituency.
	This was a Frankenstein monster when they decided to give him the nomination, which is what they decided, you know, right before Super Tuesday.
	They cut all the deals.
	Everyone dropped out.
	They gave it to Biden.
	There was no real support there, but it was just this anti-Trump thing.
	And let's make it so it's not, he's not one of the crazy socialists.
	He's just the average old Joe who's been around for 47 years and it'll kind of remind us of Obama or something like that.
	But there's no support for him.
	And also what I think now has happened, which is going to be much scarier, is that AOC knows that regardless of whether Biden steps down or loses re-election or whatever, whatever, there's no chance in hell.
	I mean, there is simply no chance in hell that Biden's running for re-election.
	I don't know that he'll be even functional at that point.
	But they will get rid of him one way or another.
	And what comes behind him in the Democrat Party, unfortunately, is something much worse.
	That's what we really should be thinking about now.
	There's basically going to be one party, the Republicans, that'll be some semblance of America's pretty decent, capitalism's all right.
	And then they'll be bad at executing those things because they're not very good at stuff.
	And then there's going to be one rapidly far-left anti-American party.
	And that's the thing that AOC wants to usher in.
	That's why she's laughing because she knows that Biden was just, Biden was just like the temporary firewall until they get exactly what they want.
	Well, they have no DeSantis.
	You know, forget Trump.
	He's got all sorts of positives and minuses associated with him, but they don't have a rising star in their party who's beloved by the vast majority of the party.
	And so there's no clear air apparent.
Jury Credibility Tanking 00:15:56
	And on that note, before I let you go, I want to tell the audience, you just had a great interview with him.
	I love you.
	You moved to Florida.
	Now you get all these DeSantis exclusives.
	It's amazing.
	Do I have to move to Florida to interview him?
	I don't, because it's hot.
	I was an enemy state in California and now I'm hanging out with the guy in the world.
	I know, I love it.
	So you dropped it yesterday, right?
	People can listen to it on your feed now.
	Awesome.
	Awesome.
	Well, you've been doing great work.
	Almost as good as DeSantis.
	It's a pleasure, Dave Rubin.
	Always a friend.
	Always great with the recipes too.
	Follow his Twitter if you want to know what I'm talking about.
	Although I think it's the other David who's the secret behind the magic in the kitchen.
	Megan, Megan, listen, I know you're going on vacation.
	Don't worry.
	Keep your phone on you.
	And if anything happens related to January 6th, if the Lego asset got assembled or just even something worse than that, I will text you.
	You have nothing to worry about.
	That's a true friend.
	Thank you, Dave Rubin.
	Amber Heard is speaking out with an NBC interview.
	They're going to air it on Dateline later this week, but they're releasing clips now.
	She says she does not blame people for their opinions about her private life, but she does maintain in the wake of the verdict against her that social media in particular was extremely unfair to her.
	Listen.
	I don't care what one thinks about me or what judgments you want to make about what happened in the privacy of my own home in my marriage behind closed stores.
	I don't presume the average person should know those things.
	And so I don't take it personally.
	But even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate in Vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation.
	You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair.
	Joining me now to discuss it?
	My guest today, Emily Jashinsky, culture editor at the Federalist and host of the Federalist Radio Hour, which is amazing.
	And Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon.
	Now she's becoming a very important person in all, well, media and also conservative media as well.
	She's co-host of Ink Stained Wretches as well, which happens to star not just Eliana, but Chris Direwell, who we talked about at the top of the show.
	So busy day here.
	Welcome back, Emily and Eliana.
	have you hey megan thanks for having us um all right so you know she's she's like first of all i don't care what anybody thinks of me yeah she she clearly does because it came out of the trial over and over the number of media attempts she made the number of media manipulations she attempted right from making sure that tmz 100 they proved this at trial making sure tmz was there when she walked out of her filing her request for a restraining order with the bruise on her face real or fake she made sure they were there.
	I mean, I was amazed at how great the defense did at proving at least that point that she did manipulate TMZ when the TMZ guy took the stand and testified to it over TMZ's objection.
	That was a very important moment of the trial.
	You know, she, of course, worked with the ACLU to publish the op-ed, which got her in trouble and the defamation.
	The point is, she cares.
	She's only saying she doesn't care because she just lost.
	And for her to say that the social media against her was unfair, to me, it's like, as I said in the intro to the whole show, chicken or egg, right?
	Like she was unbelievable and social media turned against her or social media turned against her and then the jurors found her unbelievable.
	She thinks it's the latter.
	I think it's the former.
	What do you guys think?
	Yeah, I think there's no question that there was a tilt, but I think the chicken and egg dynamic is the right way to put it because it did seem as though people were, and this is like absolutely one of the most fascinating things about the case.
	People were watching the raw, like live footage of the trial.
	It wasn't that people were just getting information from the clips.
	The internet feed of the video was like setting records for some websites.
	It was so popular.
	People just clinging to the live feed.
	So I think it tilted when the case against Amber Heard tilted.
	There's no question that Johnny Depp has an army of online fans, but this culture is not one that is predisposed, despite what the feminist left might want to believe, is not predisposed to take the case of somebody with Me Too allegations against them as though it's credible and certainly just fact.
	And that's proven actually by the case study of this Washington Post op-ed.
	Our culture, if anything, is predisposed against the men, which is why the Post was comfortable publishing that in the first place in so many of these case studies.
	So I think the chicken and egg question is the right one.
	But I do think when you really drill down, it started to tilt as the case against Heard tilted and played out live on everybody's feeds.
	You know, Eliana, she went on, Savannah Guthrie pressed her on whether she holds it against the jury.
	And no sane public figure is going to be like, yes, I blame the damn jury.
	The jury sucked.
	Like, you know, you're not supposed to do that.
	So, but she landed the exchange in an interesting place that I want to ask you about.
	Listen to this.
	This is SOP 15.
	There's no polite way to say it.
	The jury looked at the evidence you presented.
	They listened to your testimony and they did not believe you.
	They thought you were lying.
	How could I put it this way?
	How could they make a judgment?
	How could they not come to that conclusion?
	They had sat in those seats and heard over three weeks of nonstop, relentless testimony from paid employees.
	And towards the end of the trial, Rando's, as I say.
	So you don't blame the jury?
	I don't blame them.
	It wasn't, I don't blame them.
	I actually understand he's a beloved character and people feel they know him.
	He's a fantastic actor.
	Their job is to not be dazzled by that.
	Their job is to look at the facts and the evidence.
	And they did not believe your testimony or your evidence.
	Again, how could they, after listening to three and a half weeks of testimony about how I was a non-credible person, not to believe a word that came out of my mouth?
	I mean, what she's basically saying, Eliana, is the other lawyers did a better job than my lawyers, and Johnny did a better job than I did.
	And that's why it was unfair, this verdict against me.
	Yeah, she's calling the jurors gullible morons by saying that you know, Johnny's a beloved character and a wonderful actor and omitting the fact that she also had equal time to present her evidence and her defense in this trial.
	And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the jurors were scrolling social media coverage of the trial.
	No, they were ordered not to touch it, not to go anywhere near it.
	As to her point about social media, other than to say that it hurts her feelings that she's getting critical coverage on social media, because there's no way that the coverage on social media reached the jurors in that box.
	And given that, it's entirely irrelevant other than she doesn't like the critical coverage.
	She's like, how could they think anything other than I'm a liar when they listen to Johnny's paid staffers and Rando's?
	You know, she tried to claim the one guy whose trailer got damaged by Johnny to some small extent was somebody who wasn't there and really didn't have a connection.
	Your lawyer had the chance to point all of this out on cross-examination and did.
	And you, Amber Heard, pointed it out when you were on the witness stand as well.
	The jury heard all of your defenses, all of your attempts to poke holes in the credibility of these people, and they rejected them.
	That doesn't make the jury this helpless group of vulnerable people who would just be swayed by the Randos and the paid employees.
	They factored all of that in and they still did not believe you.
	Like that's how bad your case was, your testimonial was.
	They saw all of that and heard all those arguments.
	They rejected them.
	I think the interview itself with Savannah Guthrie is representative of why people were skeptical of her when she was on the stand, because it's so contrived.
	It doesn't feel natural.
	It feels like she's acting and doing a very good job at that, but she's still doing it in this conversation with Savannah Guthrie.
	And that's where when she was caught in missteps or, you know, she was caught in some cases outright saying something that turned out not to be true.
	And you also are putting on this sort of act, it just is going to tank your credibility, not just with the jury, people who were listening and hanging on every single word for the entire trial, but also with people who are just seeing it in the public.
	It's just, it feels so contrived and it feels so unnatural.
	I don't think she did herself any favors at all.
	Yeah, she's on a, she's on a rehab tour here, Eliana, because she wants to remain employable.
	And she lost on every front in this trial, PR, legal, and so on.
	Now, Johnny Depp's suggesting he may not make her pay that 8 million effectively that she owes him if you subtract the 2 million she won.
	He may not make her pay.
	I mean, like, he's already won no matter what happens.
	And she's already lost, no matter how many Today Show or Good Morning America interviews she does.
	Yeah, I'm with Emily.
	She doesn't come across as an appealing or particularly credible person.
	And I did not follow this super closely.
	So I think I'm probably close to the average person who was like watching it out of the corner of my eye and catching it in the background.
	My favorite piece of journalistic coverage of this was a fantastic Wall Street Journal piece.
	They didn't draw the comparison, but it was obvious to me to the OJ trial where they talked about Amber Heard and the way she tried the braids that she put her hair in to create a kind of homespun, wholesome image.
	And I thought it was like a really wonderful way of piercing the whole charade that we saw on her part in the courtroom of trying to present as somebody very different from the person that she actually is.
	She did.
	She looked all but Amish as she took the stand a couple of different times.
	Like the two braids, you know, tort, like tied together in the back.
	And she had the same kind of look in this interview with Savannah Guthrie.
	It was not the supermodel who we got to know, you know, 15 years ago.
	Yeah.
	Meanwhile, there's all this testimony about her taking mushrooms and, you know, pooping in the bed.
	This is not that Amish.
	So, you know, what do I know?
	Okay.
	So another woman in the news today that I wanted to ask you about is Felicia Sonmez fired from the Washington Post after taking out her flamethrower and trying to light it up over there at WAPO.
	Finally, somebody in charge said, holy shit, we've got to fire Felicia.
	She's burning us down from the inside.
	And she was terminated for insubordination.
	And I'll tell you, I have a theory.
	I mean, Eliana, I'll start with you on this since you, you know, you have the job you have in a different paper.
	I think Felicia Sanmez knew her time at WAPO was short before she lit her flamethrower.
	I think she, her tweets, her nonstop attacks on her colleagues, her bosses, her paper, to me sounded like they were born of somebody who was already disgruntled, who knew like her time there was short and felt the freedom, I guess, to light it up.
	That's, it's not supported by anything.
	It's just my, it's my guess, because otherwise her behavior seems truly insane.
	Either way, she's gone.
	And the question a lot of people are asking is, what took them so long?
	That is my question.
	I'm not sure, Megan, because she has been doing this, not at the same clip, but basically for the past year.
	I mean, she sued the newspaper for discrimination.
	And I think she went ape and, you know, nuts when her lawsuit was tossed out.
	And I think the paper's hands were tied while she was tweeting until the lawsuit was thrown out.
	But then she basically got laughed out of court and was and continued tweeting at all of her colleagues.
	I think what became untenable for the paper was that there was there were real complaints from lots of her colleagues inside and pressure on management to do something about it because you know hundreds of people inside that paper were pressuring management to do something.
	Now the question to me, Megan, is there are lots of people criticizing each other inside the Washington Post.
	Taylor Lorenz just threw her editor under the bus.
	You know, there were others who were criticizing Felicia Sanmez on Twitter and violating their clearly articulated standard by the new editor over there, Sally Busby.
	She said, do not snipe at your colleagues.
	Well, Felicia wasn't the only one doing that.
	So is she going to discipline the other people?
	Or do you only have to do it 400 times before they throw you out the door over there?
	Good question.
	Eliana runs much tighter ship over at the Washington Free Beacon.
	You try this nonsense over there, you're going to have a very different result.
	Yeah, we, you know, Josh Barrow, the columnist, he wrote a wonderful column about this where he said if he was running the post, he'd be handing out suspensions like candy and that while conservative organizations have a lot of problems, this is not one of them.
	Right, right.
	And you get a suspension and you get a suspension.
	Should have been an Oprah Car situation.
	I don't know, Emily.
	I'm going to miss her.
	I personally am going to miss her.
	I was enjoying the song.
	She's been silent for like three days.
	I'm missing it.
	She's going to go somewhere actually where she's probably going to be even more vocal, somewhere that's like has dropped the pretense that it's not ideological.
	And like she, she's going to go to like Slate, you know, somewhere where she can say all of the stuff on Twitter.
	So it's going to be exciting for those of us who have enjoyed the show.
	But this is the reason it doesn't happen at conservative publications is because at these other publications that claim they're not, you know, progressive or ideological, they're merely neutral.
	They actually have allowed people to weaponize these charges of identity politics in these HR disputes, in these personnel disputes, to the point where they had people on both sides.
	I mean, there were people literally counting how many of their colleagues, how many of their white colleagues were liking like tweets that were in support of Dave Weigel.
	And so there was pressure on both sides in the Post newsroom.
	There are people who thought what Salmaz was doing was absurd and people who thought what she was doing was brave and necessary.
	And that's what's truly insane.
	The Post and institutions like it have enabled this kind of weaponization of identity politics charges beyond the realm of absurdity.
	I mean, we are like just her entire argument in this case is beyond ridiculous.
	And yet the post still has to treat it clearly, still has to treat it seriously.
	And so they've let these things metastasize under their noses and it has completely turned their newsrooms and actually other workplaces as well.
	This isn't just in media.
	It's on campaigns, Democratic campaigns and other spaces.
	It's turned them into unmanageable places.
	And so they have so much more work to do than just firing Felicia Salmaz.
	This is like their entire newsroom.
Attempted Assassination Ignored 00:03:48
	And Taylor Lorenz has committed a string of her one second.
	Wait, stand by and Taylor.
	I should have begun with this.
	Felicia Salmaz is a Washington Post reporter or was until she just got booted last Friday or whenever it was.
	She got in trouble because a colleague of hers at the Washington Post, Dave Weigel, had retweeted, just retweeted a Twitter joke about how all women are bi, either sexual or what was the other?
	I keep forgetting polar or polar, right?
	So whatever, silly joke.
	He retweeted it.
	She was like, see how nice it is to work with Dave and at the Washington Post and, you know, litter flamethrower and just attacked everybody.
	And when everybody defended, when anyone defended Dave, she attacked them too, to the point where this other guy who was like, hey, you're kind of mean.
	You're so nasty to the colleagues, she was like, screw you, you're next.
	And the guy was like, gay, Hispanic.
	And she was like, I don't care.
	Everyone, everyone's going down.
	Anyway, so she got fired finally after just lighting the place up.
	But to your point, Emily, follow up.
	It's the veil is coming down voluntarily or involuntarily on so many of these networks that used to at least pursue the pretense of fairness, of objectivity, you know, of doing both sides.
	And this is the eye-catching headline that I saw on Sunday.
	How, this is a tweet from Steve Guest, who actually is special advisor for Cruz, Ted Cruz.
	And he's citing TVIs, which watches all the Sunday shows.
	Number of mentions of Kavanaugh, who there, there was an attempted assassination.
	Why is the left keep they were like, there wasn't an attempted assassination?
	Well, the guy got a gun and a rope and a knife and showed up at his house with the intent on killing him.
	And then the only reason he wasn't is because he saw two federal marshals and called in and said, I, you know, help me.
	I'm about to kill him.
	So I'm going to say, yes, attempted assassination.
	Number of mentions of Kavanaugh on the Sunday shows.
	ABC, zero.
	NBC's Meet the Press, zero.
	CBS's Face the Nation, zero.
	CNN State of the Union, Zero.
	Fox News Sunday did mention it.
	Unbelievable that the Sunday political shows don't think what happened to Brett Kavanaugh this week is worthy of even one line.
	Yeah, and it's because they have this pretense.
	And it's like the media has fragmented in a way that, like, if you are the example I always use is Johnny Carson.
	Johnny Carson had to appeal basically to the entire country because there were three channels.
	And so his writers would sit down every day and say, what is going to make America laugh tonight?
	Stephen Colbert can be the number one host in late night, but also be extremely polarizing and extremely unfunny because his writers only have to sit down every night and think, what is going to make resistance boomers laugh tonight?
	And it's the same dynamic at play in the Sunday shows when you have three channels and you have to like say, what is going to make everybody, what is everybody who's interested in politics, what do they want to hear the experts sort of weighing in on this weekend?
	And now Fox News Sunday will mention it, but you'll get no coverage of it.
	And the problem is, if you're pretending just to be a show for liberals, fine.
	Or if you're openly just a show for liberals, fine.
	But if you're pretending to be a neutral show for the entire country, you are failing utterly at the job.
	But it's because people like Felicia Salmez and Taylor Lorenz or whoever else, they're the ones writing and producing these segments.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that is so out of touch.
	I cannot imagine sitting in a newsroom, even a far-left newsroom like an NBC, and not have somebody say, does anyone think we should mention that there was an attempted assassination on a sitting Supreme Court justice as we await a critical decision on whether Roe versus Wade is going to get overturned?
Reporting For Adults Only 00:09:40
	A decision that's been leaked.
	So we kind of have an idea of how it's going to go.
	Anyone?
	Anyone think it's?
	And no person there said, yeah, we should actually put that.
	I mean, that's, it's really ultimately on Chuck Todd and all the other anchors who sit in those chairs because, you know, ultimately the talent gets to say, no, that needs to be in there.
	It's my reputation.
	That needs to be in there.
	And no one did.
	Just rounding back, I'm sorry, because I said we get to Taylor Lorenz and it worth it's worth just to mention because you say this is who's running these newsrooms.
	This is who's making these editorial decisions, right?
	These Taylor Lorenz has got the pen for the Washington Post.
	So did Felicia Sadmez.
	And Taylor Lorenz tweeted out on Friday as if she doesn't have enough trouble because she threw her editor under the bus and she said she contacted people and she didn't in a piece and so on.
	She tweets out the following.
	This is listening to lunacy.
	At this point during COVID, COVID's over.
	I have to fly soon for work.
	And as someone who is medically vulnerable, I'm so scared.
	She's, as I understand her medical vulnerability, it's the thing she's already talked about where she pulls out her own hair and she picks at her own skin.
	It's like some nervous disorder.
	All COVID precautions that keep high-risk people safe have been dropped.
	I plan to keep an N95 on my face for all seven hours with zero water breaks, but I'm scared it may not seal perfectly.
	Any tips?
	I mean, like, would you calm down?
	Would you just take a seat?
	Like, don't get on the airplane.
	Don't go outside.
	Stay in your apartment.
	Continue doxing people from the privacy of your master bedroom.
	I mean, primary.
	She doesn't need to leave.
	She can do her full job without leaving.
	It's true.
	Scrolls through kids' Instagram feeds.
	It's true.
	Where is it?
	I honestly wasn't sure when I first saw it in my MITLING.
	But it's amazing.
	Like if you scroll back through her tweets, these are the people who like berate the rest of us to follow the science and pay attention to the experts.
	And I'm pretty sure this is not what there's a reason that, you know, the so-called experts tell us we don't need to wear the masks anymore.
	But, you know, they're, they won't give it up.
	Can you imagine being that scared to take to take down your N95 to have a sip of water on an airplane?
	Which, I mean, we've talked about this before, but there's been absolutely not even one documented case of somebody contracting COVID on an airplane where they do a great job of the air circulation.
	It's insane, right?
	This person's not tethered to reality and yet has got a pretty well-read position at one of the nation's most premier newspapers.
	And she's not fired.
	No problem.
	In fact, she's probably going to take over the COVID beat soon.
	Well, and she was a huge part of the internal discord over at the New York Times as well.
	And so she's gone from the Daily Beast, The Atlantic, to the New York Times to now the Washington Post.
	And she's causing some of the same internal discord that she did at the New York Times because a lot of the older journalists absolutely hate this kind of behavior.
	And anybody should be embarrassed to tweet something like that.
	I mean, it's obviously just on a personal level, the revelation of that level of like personal weakness, even talking about your personal life like that has been so normalized because of Twitter or your personal problems.
	You're a reporter.
	I mean, she's not a pundit.
	She's not a commentary person.
	She's a reporter.
	And conducting herself that way on the internet is just like so humiliating.
	But she also seems to be genuinely unwell.
	And it's amazing the platform that she has while seeming to be someone who needs help more than anything.
	And Eric Wempel absolutely wiped the floor with his own colleagues at the Washington Post in a fact check, basically of the many fact checks in that Taylor Lorenz piece in question, just saying there's still no good explanation, no good journalistic explanation for what happened in this story.
	And he's completely right.
	What would you say, Eliana, if one of your reporters came to you and said, The people are writing the mean things.
	I've been doxed.
	And when you look at it, it's actually not that they're revealing this person's home address or home phone number.
	They're just saying Taylor Lorenz did this bad thing.
	You know, like, oh, this is the piece.
	She's dishonest.
	Like they're criticizing her the way we all get.
	I mean, we're all women in media.
	What would you say to a reporter who's like, It has to stop harassment?
	It's driving me, you know, to terrible places.
	Like, honestly, as a boss, what would you say?
	We have had that happen a couple of times.
	The most recent instance I can think of, and that wasn't the reaction of the reporter.
	But, you know, it's jarring for in my case, these are, you know, they're not kids, but they're in their early 20s.
	We had Asha Ringapa, the CNN contributor, dox one of our reporters and publish her email address.
	And she was rattled, the reporter.
	And I just told her, you know, like, it's time to put on your big boy pants.
	Like, reporting is for adults and stuff like this happens.
	And you just got to keep your head about you.
	And I also tell them to stay off Twitter.
	They all know it's kind of a joke in the office that I hate Twitter.
	And I've told them, like, you tweet something that causes me a problem and you're gone.
	Like, because they don't listen to me.
	I tell them, stop tweeting.
	They all keep tweeting.
	So I was like, I see you don't follow my advice.
	You cause your tweet causes me a problem.
	You know, I'm not going to like, that's, that'll be the end.
	Yeah, proceed at your own risk.
	You, you assume the risk.
	I think that's good.
	I mean, big boy pants is exactly right.
	That's what it has to be.
	Like, grow a pair, ovaries, testes, whatever it is, but grow a pair, like lean into the adult you.
	All right, on this front, I've been wanting to ask you a question, Emily.
	You did a pod recently about Cheryl Samberg stepping down as COO of Facebook, like one of the most powerful positions, certainly for a woman executive in the world.
	And, you know, she's got billions in stock and so on.
	She's a very rich woman as a result of cashing this in now and was beforehand as well.
	But it was basically, I think the title was something like Death of a Girl Boss.
	So what does that mean?
	What did you make of her stepping down?
	And what do you think is happening here?
	Yeah.
	So my colleague Madeline Osborne crunched some numbers.
	And there are two really interesting trends that happened over COVID that put us in a very different world than we were in when Lean In 2013, I think, came out and was this massive bestseller.
	Her book.
	And that's the birth rate ticked up for the first time in like 13 years, some like very long period over the course of COVID, which is really, really interesting.
	And then secondly, women dropped out of the workforce at a record number.
	I think there's like something like 2 million or 3 million women have dropped out of the workforce over the course of COVID.
	That may seem like a really negative development to a lot of people, especially in the Beltway.
	But Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies was like crunching all the variables and trying to put two and two together.
	And he's like, actually, this is kind of in line with women's preferences.
	Most women with children in the home under the age of 18 say they prefer part-time work.
	And so remote work has given women that opportunity.
	If you go all the way back to 10 years ago when Lean In came out, it was, you know, the way to fulfill yourself as a woman was to be, you know, prioritizing work and motherhood equally to figure out how you can do both and not sacrifice one with the implication that like fulfillment as a woman was being equal to a man in the workforce.
	And it is just not the case for most women.
	And I think COVID really like rattled or it just shook women out of that, I don't know, the trance that the media had tried to put a lot of people in saying that the only way that you can be a successful woman is to be a COO and also a mother of three children.
	When in fact, a lot of women say it's most fulfilling for them to have part-time work or to be at home with their children, to homeschool, whatever it is.
	And so it just feels like we entered a new chapter.
	This is like kind of part of the vibe shift, I think, with Cheryl Sandberg stepping down and getting a much, much less warm send off than she did a welcome when Lean In was published.
	It's so interesting.
	And it gives me hope in a way, Eliana, that, you know, the society comes full circle, like we get back to the place that makes sense, you know, where if you want to be a girl boss and you want to devote your life to your career and put family second or, you know, eliminate it, you know, you just want to make your job your life, you can do that.
	But that we're no longer shaming or just pushing, pushing, pushing girls toward that as much as we used to, because we're recognizing that this other option, which used to, I grant you, used to be the only option, but not for that long, is still viable and is meaningful and is available to you and a legitimate choice too.
	Gives me hope on all the social battles that we're fighting right now that perhaps we could land in a more reasonable place on all of them.
	But am I too optimistic based on this one thing?
	I hope you're right, Megan.
	I will say, Emily, I was part of that increase in the birth rate during COVID.
	I have a five-month-old.
	And, you know, having gone through that experience and being back in the office now, I can say like it is much harder work to be home with your kids than it is to be in the office and around adults all day.
	And so I have a whole lot of respect for the women who choose to be at home with their kids and give up, you know, the privilege of being in an office and around adults and then being able to go home and be with your kids for a couple hours at the end of the day.
	So I do hope that we're getting to a place where we applaud women for whatever choice that they make.
Targeting Women's Safety 00:15:00
	Yeah.
	Although I have to say, like, I look at my three kids now and I'm like, please, please don't become an investment banker.
	Please don't work on Wall Street.
	Don't go to a law firm.
	Don't like, there's certain law jobs that are okay, but I just feel like the last thing I want is for them to have this like huge, corporate, boring, money-pushing career.
	I just, I, that's sort of what I thought made somebody important when I was young.
	You know, I didn't grow up with money and I wanted some, but I hate to see my kids make that choice.
	I don't know what I want them to do.
	I don't want to be like drunk and on drugs all the time in a band.
	I don't know.
	Thankfully, it's really not my decision.
	It's theirs.
	But in any event, Death of the Girl boss was a good episode and you guys should check it out.
	All right.
	Standby, so much more to do with Emily and Eliana, including what just happened on guns.
	We may be getting new gun legislation for the first time in a couple decades.
	We'll tell you what's in there.
	So guns.
	We now have 10 Republican senators and 10 Democrat senators who say they've reached a deal in principle on gun reform of some type.
	It sounds like they may be conditioning certain additional monies to states who have more robust red flag laws and some things around the edges that, you know, could potentially help.
	I don't know that these are going to be huge, you know, flamethrowing deal breakers for the hardcore Second Amendment people.
	They won't like it.
	I don't, to me, it sounds like this has got enough moderation in it that it'll go through.
	But what do you gals think?
	Yeah, I think you're right, Megan.
	It seems pretty small ball to me.
	Anything that about 10 Republicans can agree on Democrats with in the course of a week, it's pretty penny anti and small.
	Did you see anything in there, Emily, that you think like federalist listeners and readers are going to want to throw down over?
	They may not like it, but want to throw down over.
	Yeah, I think the grants for states to enforce and create red flag laws is going to be a sticking point just because they depend from state to state.
	They differ in terms of their constitutionality and in terms of their practicality even.
	So like California has a very stringent and extreme red flag law compared to what might actually be better targeted or a smarter version or even a more constitutional version in different states.
	And so I think people like Senator Cornyn are going to have to answer to conservatives when they say, is this money going to unconstitutional, the enforcement of unconstitutional red flag laws that aren't effective and only punish law-abiding gun owners.
	So I think we don't have the text of the bill yet.
	They're working on that.
	This is the framework, like you said, Megan.
	So I don't know exactly what it is, but I think that's going to be a sticking point no matter what for the Republicans who sign on to this bill.
	But that said, it is pretty, I think I agree with both of you.
	Anything that they're all coming together on on something like this is going to be pretty innocuous, honestly.
	And it might make us feel good and it might do incrementally some good.
	I don't know if it's a huge step towards really, you know, ridding us of the scourge of these pattern mass shootings.
	No, the package is said to focus on extra security for gun buyers under the age of 21, grants to states to implement these so-called red flag logs and laws, and some new spending on mental health treatment and school security.
	Also, they want to close the so-called boyfriend loophole by broadening gun restrictions on those who have abused their romantic partners.
	Amen to that.
	I mean, like a lot of this stuff is like, hello, we should have been doing that a while ago.
	There's a big push to lower the age at which you can buy a gun from 21 to, I mean, to raise it from 18 to 21.
	I'll tell you, like, I don't know why more people aren't talking about the fact that like that's already been tried and ruled unconstitutional by the very left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Like, I'm not sure that one's going to be upheld.
	May make you feel better, but 18 is 18.
	And in the eyes of the law, you're an adult.
	All for extra scrutiny because the school shooters do tend to be right in that 18 to 21-year-old spot too often, or even just mass shooters.
	But we'll see.
	It definitely would be a significant development because we've had no motion on gun laws in decades.
	I wonder how big a win this will be for the Biden administration.
	You know, the New York Times had an article this week about how they want him gone.
	The Democrats want him gone.
	The Democrats smell blood in the water and they are scared that Biden's too unpopular, wrong direction of the country, something like 73% now, higher than it ever was under Trump or just about.
	And they recognize Biden, he's going down unless something changes, Eliana.
	So is this the thing that helps them in the midterms or helps him hold on to power?
	Is this it?
	No.
	My favorite quote in that New York Times article was, I think the reporter said they talked to 50 Democrats and Democratic consultants.
	And Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, was among those quoted who called his generation of Democrats a trash heap and implored Biden to step aside and cede the presidency, the candidacy to somebody in the younger generation.
	But I don't know who it was who said when the economy is the issue, it's the only issue.
	I'm sorry, but the January 6th hearings, a small piece of gun legislation, nothing that a new Iran deal, nothing is going to push the highest inflation in four decades off the minds of voters ahead of November until the Biden administration is able to address that.
	Not to mention shortage of baby formula, tampons, you know, who knows what's next.
	The tampons are gone?
	What?
	Oh, yeah.
	That's that's coming next.
	Tampon shortage.
	That's a problem.
	That's a real problem as somebody who's had blood coming out of her wherever, I can tell you.
	You need to stay on that.
	You need them for your eyes, Megan.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Out of my eyes.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	How about a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe versus Wade?
	Because we expect that that will come.
	You know, there was the leak and then there was follow-up reporting by CNN, I think, saying nothing had changed in terms of the vote count and so on, notwithstanding the attempt by Democrats to keep these judges vulnerable.
	I know Nancy Pelosi says they weren't unprotected.
	They had U.S. Marshals there.
	But there's a reason that this guy only faced two U.S. Marshals in trying to get Brett Kavanaugh because the Senate unanimously passed this agreement to give the Supreme Court justices and their kids 24-7 security when necessary.
	The House is sitting on it.
	They won't pass it.
	So that security would have been a lot more beefed up and more intense had they passed this.
	They won't do it because of people like AOC, who's bragging that she won't sign on.
	She says, if we're not going to make our kids safe in school, those justices can sit in a vulnerable state in their houses.
	Oh, that makes a lot of sense because it's exactly the same issue.
	And meanwhile, Emily, we find out that this group Ruth sent us, which has been targeting the justices, conservative justices at their homes, this weekend tweeted out Justice Amy Coney Barrett's church, I guess.
	No, it was her children's school, her church and her children's school, encouraging protesters to, quote, voice their anger by demonstrating there.
	This is beyond.
	It is.
	And the left loves to play this game with Republicans.
	Anytime some fringe leftist activist or fringe conservative activist does something silly, you know, every anchor that talks to any Republican, CNN, they always have to do that question where they, you know, they get it out of the way.
	They say, well, do you condemn this?
	It's like, well, of course, but there's zero of that happening now.
	You'll notice, I think it's only like Chuck Schumer has come out and said, you know, we condemn any non-peaceful protests, something to that effect.
	Nobody's asking them any questions about whether they can tone down their rhetoric.
	The reason people like AOC don't want to vote for that is because it's going to be an admission or a concession that the leak was in and of itself wrong and that the leaker should be punished, which of course they don't want to believe because the leaker is the only chance that this decision was going to be changed.
	And so their motives are so in the wrong direction.
	And they talk constantly about the undermining of our norms as a country.
	Well, not coming out and condemning all of this, not coming out.
	We still don't know who the leaker is.
	I interviewed Senator Mike Lee on the podcast last week.
	He said he thinks they do know who the leaker is, and it's not public yet because they're waiting until the decision is announced to say what punishments this person has had.
	But again, we don't know.
	We truly don't know.
	And so it's the most insane thing ever.
	I live not.
	too far from the Supreme Court.
	It's pretty tense and there is a lot of security.
	It's crazy to me that when that guy got there, there were only two security guards, at least that he saw outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house.
	Just insane.
	And I think actually we're probably in for a summer of unrest, of people targeting especially Catholic parishes, targeting mass.
	We saw a little bit of it after the leak came out, but it's just going to amplify a whole lot more, I think, in the next few weeks.
	Even the mention of her children, Eliana, gives me a shiver down my spine.
	That is a line you do not cross.
	You do not cross.
	And that's one of the reasons why allowing the protests at the homes is so dangerous too.
	Brett Kavanaugh has two teenage girls.
	Amy Coney Barrett has got several children, one of whom is a 10-year-old with Down syndrome.
	What kind of a sick effort encourages people to go to the school of those children or go to the home of those children and quote, voice your anger, which could mean anything in this kind of a charged political environment in which the justice's vulnerability is in the news because of people like AOC?
	It's totally sick.
	And Megan, we haven't even talked about the targeting of pro-life clinics.
	One was firebombed in Oregon this weekend.
	Talk about things that Democrats won't be asked about or domestic terrorism that won't be paraded across our television screens as the January 6th hearings take place.
	But I do think it would behoove members of the Ginsburg family.
	You know, she has children and grandchildren to come out and say that this group that's appropriating her name, calling us Ruth Sent us, that what they are doing and the appropriation of her name is inappropriate and that they don't stand for this.
	I don't think it's anything that the late justice would have approved of.
	That's a good point.
	But there really is a question about whether there's a reason, like these Democrats want this to go on.
	They want the pressure to stay on these justices.
	They want them to feel unsafe in their homes and be afraid for their children because that's how desperate they are to see them reverse themselves on the positions expressed in that draft opinion.
	That's exactly that was the purpose of the leaking was to unleash hell on these people and to give them the impression that should they overturn the decision, should our democratic processes work the way they're intended, that a wave of violence would overtake the country.
	And this was an act of political pressure and political terrorism intended to target them personally to land at their doorsteps.
	And it's totally sick.
	And I think everybody should remember that as we're watching the January 6th hearings.
	We're seeing other acts of domestic terrorism across the country, targeting our political institutions and our democratic processes.
	And the Democratic outrage is entirely selective.
	Who talks about pro-life?
	Reporting on all of these attacks to someone else.
	It's been fantastic.
	All these attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers on all those other places.
	It's getting no play in the mainstream media at all, but it's a hugely consequential story because it's only going to get worse.
	And that's the important thing for people to remember with this story is that they leaked to change the decision.
	And so all of this time and all of this pressure only benefits the leak campaign.
	And that's why we're seeing Democrats react the way that we are because their motivation is to preserve Roe, to protect legalized abortion.
	And that's what is most important to them over everything else.
	It's so sick.
	Like who targets a pro-life clinic?
	You know what they do at the pro-life clinic?
	Is they help moms who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, who are wrestling with abortion, understand what the options are and how they can actually still have a full life as a present mother or as somebody who gave up the baby for adoption if they go through the pregnancy.
	And then they help.
	Like a lot of people say, I can't afford it.
	And my mom has been volunteering at these clinics for my whole life.
	We're Catholic.
	And, you know, they help get like baby formula, especially in today's day and age and baby bottles and baby clothing and like a car seat.
	And like who in what kind of a sick effort targets a clinic that's helping women like that?
	It's like, you will get the abortion and only the abortion.
	And if you go over to this other clinic where they're going to try to help you have your baby or give your baby to a couple that really wants it, you're going to get bombed.
	What?
	The thinking.
	It's anti-woman because we know a lot of women actually struggle with mental health issues after they get abortions.
	And what the pregnancy centers do is give you the information that you don't get from the other side because they're so committed to legalized abortion that they're afraid to talk about the negative consequences that some women face when they do get an abortion, which is just fact and it's reality.
	And the safe, legal, and rare framework is so completely out the window now that there's no, the left now wants it to be abortion without shame, without any, without any regret, without, it's just, it's just a medical procedure.
	It's just a clump of cells.
	And that's all you have to worry about.
	But these pregnancy centers actually help women say, you might not be super happy with this decision down the road.
	This might cause you pain that you're not expecting.
	So it's, you're right, Megan.
	It's completely sick and beyond the pale.
	And nothing's letting up.
	I mean, the Supreme Court issued five decisions today.
	Dobbs, which is the abortion case, was not one of them.
	They've added another day of this Wednesday of decisions.
	But if they follow suit to the way they've done it in the past, they'll save this decision for probably the last day of the term, which is early next month, because for good reason, they want to get out of Dodge.
	They don't want to issue this opinion and then be sitting in those houses.
	And once the decision's actually out, if it goes this way, the protests are going to be out of control.
	And there's been absolutely no appetite to control them.
Nine Justices Under Pressure 00:03:09
	We have an attorney general who will not protect the sitting justices.
	His arm was twisted just to pay lip service to it.
	The president still hasn't condemned the assassination attempt.
	So they're sitting ducks.
	They know what's going to happen if they issue this thing while they're still in town deciding other cases.
	I had to say the last word on that.
	There was a bill.
	There was a bill moving through the house.
	I think you mentioned that it passed the Senate, Megan, and then it was moving through the House.
	And Democrats tried to append security for all of the clerks as well.
	So they threw sand in the gears of this bill.
	Of course, each justice has four clerks.
	There are nine justices.
	That's security on the taxpayer dime for all of the clerks.
	That was never going to happen.
	You know, nobody knows who they are.
	Nobody knows what they look like.
	Nobody knows where they live.
	It's ridiculous.
	And so that's what we're waiting on to get the nine justices the protection that they need.
	Oh, wow.
	All right.
	Before I let you go, can I ask you, Eliana, about Chris Direwald?
	I started the show.
	You were probably busy, but I started the show by saying I very much hope that he would keep it brief, that it wouldn't in any way be, you know, to self-aggrandize him.
	Chris is never that way.
	He wasn't.
	I thought he did very well.
	I thought he was gentlemanly.
	He was fact-based.
	And I hate the vitriol that's come his way as a result of that Arizona call because I respect and know and love that decision desk and know that their hearts are in the right place and they're not partisans at all.
	Not at all.
	When he was talking about how we sat and we put it to a vote when they were going to call Arizona, it took me back to 2012.
	Remember that moment when we called Ohio?
	Foxy was about to call Ohio for Barack Obama.
	And Karl Rove on our decision desk was like, you did it too soon.
	And then I did the walk down the hall.
	And Chris Steyerwalt and Arnon, Michigan, who he mentioned, those are the guys I cross-examined.
	Like, hey, Rove says this is bullshit.
	He said you're out ahead of your skis.
	And Steierwalt and Arnon totally explained it.
	I know those guys.
	They're in earnest.
	They are not partisan hacks who just wanted to. accelerate the defeat of Donald Trump.
	He called it like he saw it.
	So did those other guys.
	To me, it was like, I hope it finally closes that chapter in his life.
	What do you make of it?
	Because you're his partner on the pod.
	Oh, I thought he did a fantastic job.
	I texted him saying so.
	We will talk about it this week on Ink Stained Wretches.
	So for anybody who's interested, tune in.
	And, you know, I tell him he's a big lib.
	I beat him up on the podcast every week, but we all know that's true.
	That's not true.
	That's why we can joke about it.
	He's center right and I'm the right wing crazy.
	So he did his job that day and he did a great job this morning.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And by the way, Chris Steyerwalt was on the decision desk when they called it for Trump in 2016, too.
	You know, he called that like he saw it as well.
	This is an honest man who I hope people will take a second look at because he led the Kelly file for years calling out bullshit, left-wing media bias.
	This is not an enemy to, you know, the MAGA crew's values.
	He wasn't a particular fan of Trump.
	A lot of people aren't.
	That's fine.
	We have to come back together and focus on what matters, which is like the insanity that's trying to break our country apart.
True Crime Series Returns 00:00:51
	All right.
	What a pleasure.
	Emily, Eliana, love talking to you gals.
	Thanks so much for all of it.
	And check out Inkstained Wretches, as well as the Federalists, which I love and listen to all the time.
	Coming up later this week, we are bringing back our true crime series.
	This one we're calling Hot Crime Summer right here at the Megan Kelly Show.
	It went over so big when we did it over Christmas.
	So we're going to do it now as well.
	Some incredible cases that we take a deep dive into, like the Zodiac killer, the Golden State Killer, and more.
	So don't miss that.
	In the meantime, download the Megan Kelly Show on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher, wherever you get your podcast for free.
	Go ahead and follow us on youtube.com slash MeganKelly where you can see the little tomboy me on the tire swing.
	All girl.
	Good times.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:30 Trump Ratings Sideshow
00:15:22 Proving Mayor Giuliani Knew
00:26:01 Pride Month Is Earned
00:37:38 Drag Queens and War
00:43:39 Deception in the Party
00:47:53 Jury Credibility Tanking
01:03:49 Attempted Assassination Ignored
01:07:38 Reporting For Adults Only
01:17:18 Targeting Women's Safety
01:32:19 Nine Justices Under Pressure
01:35:28 True Crime Series Returns