The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230317_jussie-smollett-attack-reenactment-how-stanford-em

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

March 17, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:35:49

20230317_jussie-smollett-attack-reenactment-how-stanford-em

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show 00:02:03
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	It may be a Friday, but boy, do we have a ton of news to cover.
	We're going to go in depth on the incredible story of how two alleged rapes at Stanford University turned out to be nothing but lies, absolute hoaxes.
	Why haven't you heard this in every corner of the media?
	Why aren't you hearing more about it, right?
	Why isn't the group at Stanford that's been protesting that Stanford supports rapists saying it's sorry for maligning its university and the administrators?
	We'll get to it.
	And some top anti-racism activists openly admitting businesses don't want them and that they are growing more and more uncomfortable, corporations are, with the messages the Robin D'Angelos of the world are selling.
	We have it on tape, on camera, and we'll show it to you.
	Joining me now, two of our three friends from the Fifth Column podcast, which is available at wethefth.substack.com.
	Michael Moynihan and Matt Welch are here.
	Guys, welcome back to the show.
	Thanks for having us.
	Hi, Megan.
	I'm very intrigued by your background in the filing cabinet closet.
	Yes, I'm live from Montana for the fifth day.
	This is our, my kids have spring break, so I decided to work for the first week and then I'll be off next week for four of the days anyway.
	But anyway, yeah, this is, I'm, I'm in my bedroom.
	I'm in my bedroom and we just shoved some bookcases back here with some books and it looks pretty decent.
	It's not bad.
	It makes you look very learned, I have to say, rather than just having the closet there.
	Yeah.
	It was funny because I wanted it to be like kind of pretty.
	So I only pulled the white books, but we tried it with like a blue and a red, but it was too distracting.
	So we went to the bottom of the box.
	It plays off the hair.
	Yeah, yeah.
	By the way, the books are over my shoulder.
	I haven't read a single one of them.
	I confess I have read a lot of these, but so has my husband, Doug.
	It wasn't all me.
Stanford Rape Hoaxes Exposed 00:15:23
	Now, what happened to Camille?
	Where is he?
	He missed a couple of fifth column podcasts.
	He missed one with stuff.
	What's he doing?
	He's got better things to do.
	He tells us he's in Chile.
	I don't know.
	He's fomenting a revolution or something.
	Who knows?
	Every time you turn around, the guy's at a conference.
	He looks at his Instagram feed and there's like these really elaborate mountaintop telescopes and camera crews.
	So we're in the don't ask, don't tell.
	We literally have it.
	We'll find out when we get the call asking for like a bailout once the Chileans get their hands on him.
	Okay, so let's talk about campus craziness because this really is insane.
	This story out of Stanford is, I've been dying to get to it.
	And you guys are the ones to talk to you about it.
	I know, exactly.
	Stanford's had a rough month.
	So let me take you back.
	Okay.
	This totally reminds me of the Duke case.
	August 2022.
	So last August, right?
	Alleged rape on the campus of Stanford University.
	The Stanford Daily, their student newspaper, reports that an unknown male perpetrator raped an adult female at a parking lot near Wilbur Hall on Tuesday evening, according to a report made to the Stanford University Department of Public Safety.
	The victim does not know the perpetrator, but did report this to a mandatory reporter that she, and she told that she'd previously seen this guy on campus.
	The victim describes the perpetrator as a six foot tall black man with a thin build, brown eyes, and a faded beard.
	The victim says she was physically restrained, taken to a restroom where she was raped, according again to this mandatory reporter.
	I think she told a nurse who then contacted campus security.
	That's how it went.
	And the woman knew that she would contact campus security and also knew that the police would have to be called.
	But the woman said she did not want to speak personally with law enforcement at this time.
	All right.
	Horrible.
	She's been raped.
	She was taken into a grabbed out of parking lot and taken to a restroom.
	Sounds terrible.
	Already the students are outraged on the campus of Stanford.
	They blame the university.
	You're not protecting us.
	Stanford's not safe.
	How dare you allow this to happen to this woman?
	But it's all very sketchy.
	Flash forward just a couple of months, August to September to October.
	So it's two months later of 2022.
	Another sexual assault.
	A male perpetrator sexually assaulted an adult woman in the basement of a university building on Friday afternoon.
	I'm back from the Stanford Daily quoting.
	According to a report made by a mandatory reporter, meaning I think a nurse again, who brought the allegation to the Department of Public Safety on campus, the adult victim told this mandatory reporter she was in her office when an adult male grabbed and forced her to a basement where he raped her.
	The victim does not want to provide a statement to law enforcement.
	Now, as far as we can tell, guys, said victim, well, let me put it this way: the reports on said victim did not make clear to the public that it was the same woman.
	It's the same woman.
	Now, you tell me what the odds are that the same woman within the course of two months gets randomly grabbed, dragged to a second location, and raped on campus, okay?
	And also doesn't want to talk to cops.
	This thing smelled from the very start.
	So either people fell down in their reporting obligations and covering it, or the people giving the disclosures failed to provide necessary information because the fact that it was the same accuser matters, definitely matters.
	Enter the outraged students.
	They're protesting all over the campus.
	They're outraged.
	Campus, Stanford loves rape.
	Stanford University is an accomplice to rape.
	We deserve to feel safe.
	So what does Stanford do?
	They temporarily expand the presence of security on campus.
	Are the students happy with that?
	No, no, because cops hate people of color and cops make people feel unsafe.
	So now they're pissed off that Stanford started flooding the field with more security presence.
	And Stanford tries to appease the lunatics by saying, don't worry, the security staff have an understanding of anti-bias protocols and procedures.
	So now you got to worry that your woke students who are very worried about rape are also worried about whether the cops are racist and they don't want to deal with it.
	Who the hell is going to protect you from the rapists if it's not going to be the security?
	All right.
	Like we can't get enough don't rape people training out into the campus ether in time to save everybody.
	We might need some cops to stop the actual crimes.
	So that's where things stood until here we go.
	Flash forwarding to this week, March 15th.
	Santa Clara district attorney.
	We just did a long story about Santa Clara with David Zweig and how this lunatic place was spying on churchgoers, infiltrating their prayer groups, reporting on how they were not wearing masks and they were having too many people at their church, even when they shouldn't have during COVID.
	This place is a lunatic fringe place.
	And it's where Stanford is a sort of Palo Alto, that area of California.
	DA announces charges against Jennifer Grease, G-R-I-E-S.
	No pictures available of this woman, but I have to ask, I do wonder.
	She's 25 years old.
	She worked for the university and she has accused a black man of raping her twice.
	I can't help but wonder if this woman were white, whether they would have found a way of releasing her photograph to everybody.
	A white woman accusing a black man with unfounded allegations of double rape.
	So where's the picture of Jennifer Grease?
	I'd love to see it because they make all this stuff about race, but not this one.
	Why?
	Let's find out.
	Let's know everything there is to know about Jennifer Grease, who ought to be thrown in prison for years for doing this.
	She's being charged with two felony counts of perjury, two misdemeanor counts of knowingly inducing another person to give false testimony.
	She is a Stanford Housing Services employee.
	She's an employee of the building.
	And let me go on.
	This is not her first time making up lies about what appears to be her male coworker who she was out to get.
	Last March, she made a sexual harassment complaint against this guy.
	They were found to be unsubstantiated, and she was moved to a different work location, but not fired.
	She has a history of lying separate and apart from that allegation about her relationship with this man who was unnamed in the documents.
	She told one coworker she was in a relationship with him, but that he had sexually assaulted her.
	This is another time.
	All right.
	Now, an alleged allegation of sexual harassment, which wasn't substantiated.
	Two allegations of rape, which are false.
	An allegation of sexual assault separate from those that left her pregnant with his twins before she suffered a miscarriage.
	Another lie disproved, according to the authorities by medical records.
	Then they find her text to a friend, quote, Can't I just make his life a living hell myself?
	She texted her coworker about the alleged assault.
	I need to start standing up for myself.
	I'm so annoyed.
	I'm coming up with a plan.
	That way, he's shitting in his pants for multiple days.
	Eventually, prosecutors got their hands on her in January.
	She admitted it was all a lie after Stanford had spent $300,000 investigating her case.
	Even though she never named the coworker as her false attacker, she refused to rule him out when asked point blank.
	And it was clear, given her history, who she was talking about.
	By the way, she also was awarded public money through the California Victim of Crimes Board, according to the filing.
	They say she may have received up to $70,000 for these false claims.
	And now she has been placed on a leave of absence, but not yet fired, though her employment is under review.
	The activists, not satisfied.
	What they have done is taken to the public square to say, this is from the Sexual Violence Free Stanford Group.
	We unequivocally reaffirm that Stanford neglects survivors.
	40% of women identified undergraduate students at Stanford will be sexually violated during their term on campus.
	It's not true.
	No, they won't, right?
	This protest was not for one survivor, but for all survivors.
	Sexual Violence Free Stanford reaffirms our opposition to increased security as well, which does nothing but put gender and racially marginalized students at risk for harmful interactions.
	These people are insane.
	I'll let you guys take the cult.
	Yeah.
	God, I mean, where does one begin?
	I mean, you just told me something I didn't know.
	I've been reading about this a little bit.
	I didn't know the accuser wasn't white because that actually.
	I don't know that.
	It's my speculation.
	I don't know that either.
	I believe we're white.
	We'd be seeing her picture.
	Right.
	I mean, there'd be a lot of Emmett-Till comparisons.
	We would have, I mean, the fact that I know the name Mike Nyfong tells you a little something about what happens when the racial dynamics are that kind of polarizing and that sharp, because that was, of course, the Duke La Crosse case.
	You know, you see these kids that go out there and they're kind of desperate.
	They actually, unlike me, I don't want these things to be true.
	I don't want these things to happen.
	But the second there's a idea of it, it's you're out on the campus saying Stanford protects rapists.
	Well, let's not protect them.
	Let's have some police come in here.
	Well, we don't want the police.
	Now, what do you want at this point?
	What is the actual solution?
	And of course, there's a farago of bullshit statistics, too.
	And if you look at, you know, there's a number of great books about this going all the way back to the 90s that have been going on about these numbers that are just false that 40%, 50% of kids on campus will get raped.
	And by the way, how this happens is they allow people to themselves identify what is uncomfortable and then they recategorize it as sexual assault.
	You know, It is really strange because if you had, there was a documentary that I think CNN Films, I shouldn't say, don't quote me because I'm on the radio now, but I think it was CNN Films.
	It came with a film called The Hunting Ground.
	Do you remember this?
	And it was about on campus.
	It was about rapes on campus.
	Now, imagine just the very premise of this.
	You're starting with kids, people sending their kids to school, and they're saying they're going to a hunting ground.
	That's what it's like there.
	And there was a woman named Emily Yoffey, fantastic journalist at Slate, who actually looked at all the cases here and said almost everyone was either not clear or might have been BS.
	And the one thing that I notice about all of these stories about it, there's one in NBC that in the first two or three paragraphs, they do the throat clearing and say this almost never happens.
	False claims almost never happen.
	Well, that's the numbers on this are also incredible too.
	But let me give you one little data point about this.
	Just a personal data point from the past couple of days.
	Within the past two days, I have seen three stories, three stories in the media about people being arrested for making false claims of rape.
	One very, very big case in England.
	And the guy, one of the guys that was accused, said the activists refused to believe that I'm innocent.
	They're still harassing me, despite the fact that police have said this.
	A woman in Tampa who said she was tied up.
	And then, of course, they found a video of her buying the rope at Walgreen, at Walmart.
	And this was just yesterday.
	She's being prosecuted.
	Then this woman in Stanford, to say that this stuff never happens, well, is it rare?
	Who knows?
	Probably.
	But when you empower people and say that if you don't talk to the police, we understand why.
	If you don't want to report this to the police, we understand the trauma.
	We understand why.
	And if you empower people, that all of the belief will be on your side.
	And the ultimate result is that the person that you don't like or the person that you're trying to persecute will just be ruined, you know, out of the gate.
	You don't have to prove anything.
	We have to disprove it.
	And then when the damage is done, you know, sorry.
	And, you know, the administration won't even fire her.
	The kids won't who went out there and protested won't say, yeah, maybe, maybe a little more skepticism next time.
	No, no, no.
	It's the narrative that demands the response.
	It's not the truth.
	The narrative is what people are interested in.
	One of the lessons.
	Well, just to give you one other detail, the university, rather than saying some caution may be in order, you know, we're still investigating.
	Instead of doing that, they put out a statement to explain why these reports were so vague and she wasn't talking to the cops.
	And their statement notably did not list she might be a liar.
	I did notice my edit there, Lent.
	I edited out my F bomb mom.
	Here's what they said: There are a variety of reasons why a victim may not disclose information about a crime.
	Many victims need time to process what occurred.
	For some, the trauma of a crime impacts their ability to recall information.
	Currently, the victim, okay, alleged?
	How about alleged?
	The victim who reported being assaulted yesterday has chosen not to share information about the crime with the police at this time.
	This also remains the case for the August report, which remains under investigation.
	Again, not disclosing it's the same woman, right?
	Like, no one's flagging this woman, maybe a damn liar.
	Go ahead, Matt.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if they're, if there's a victim here, it's whoever's accused of being of being a rapist.
	Um, who this poor guy had like a stalker, he had like a Glenn Close situation going on in his life, and his life could have been ruined.
	Minus the awesome like 80s sex, too.
	Perhaps the most tragic thing.
	Um, no, a thing that uh that the field of the academic field of economics, which Stanford used to be really good at, as well as a bunch of other things, who was once great university there in California.
	But what economics teaches us is not just about like fiscal policy.
	It teaches us that everywhere in life, people respond to incentives.
	And also they respond to the removal of incentives, the removal of certain guardrails on the way that we behave and walk through life.
	And so what has happened serially on college campuses, especially since the Obama administration, well, they made it easier.
	They changed the incentive structure for people to make accusations about sexual assault, where, and they also removed the ability back then of people who were accused in these cases to be able to face their accuser or even the evidence to refute the evidence that was subjected to them.
	So they rewrote Title IX basically back then to do that.
	That was then reversed under Trump and Betsy DeVos.
	And now the Bayh administration is going the other way.
	But if you remove the incentive of that there might be punishment to lying, and you also simultaneously, and not all incentives are like laws and punishments.
	Some incentives are given socially.
	If you increase the incentive, you increase the reward structure for declaring yourself a victim, then what are people going to do?
	You're going to see more of this.
	Yes, it is rare for this to be prosecuted, for people to be prosecuted for perjury.
	And when you first sent us the story, I was like, okay, that is, this is strange.
	Is the tide turning on these types of things?
	But no, because you look at the history, she lied so much.
	There has to be such a track record of crazy lying to get to the point where this stuff is prosecuted.
Campus Kangaroo Courts Fail Due Process 00:14:45
	That's why she finds herself in the crosshairs.
	But we haven't changed, we have changed the incentive structure in such a way where this is inevitable to have more of these things.
	And I wasn't kidding, being flip about the victim thing.
	Talking about Emily Off and other people who've reported on campus sexual assault, Kathy Young as well.
	There's been a lot of people, predominantly immigrant men of color, who have suffered horrible consequences for things that they likely didn't do, at least not as described.
	They got kicked out of their schools because of these kind of kangaroo courts that were allowed to be convened after these rules were changed.
	That's a problem if we care about individual due process and rights.
	And that includes, of course, people who are sexually assaulted themselves and who do might have a lot of reticence to report it and they're suffering from trauma, but all of that requires due process.
	It doesn't require, and it should not tolerate and it should not be excused by activists or anybody else or the campus itself, people who are being so flippant with the accusations.
	Those people are the ones who are cheapening everything and making it more possible for malfeasance to happen.
	The bloodthirsty mob doesn't care about facts.
	You guys are right.
	They care about the narrative.
	And what's especially galling is that on a lot of these campuses, this involved a university employee, but usually it's a student making an allegation against a fellow student.
	What's really galling is that on a lot of these campuses, they choose your kangaroo court judges for, you know, to litigate your allegation of sexual assault from the victim representative groups, like from this sexual violence-free Stanford that happens on campus after campus where they find the judge, jury, and executioners from a group like that.
	So how's a young man going to fare in front of these lunatics who don't care?
	They're still outraged that anything has ever happened on a campus like Stanford, not about what this woman did, how she almost ruined a man's life, but how she undermined legitimate claims of rape.
	And so the whole system is set up to evade due process and just to get scalps.
	That's what they want.
	I mean, to complain about this too, is typically to get to get the response, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
	It's that, you know, so what?
	There's going to be some people that are going to be unfairly treated.
	But keep in mind in these tribunals, typically you're not allowed to confront your accuser.
	It's a, you know, it's about a 50, it's a 51%, you know, 51% of people say, you know, it's not 100%.
	You need to have a full jury that agrees on this.
	And what happens to your life then is anybody's guess.
	Usually it's totally ruined.
	And, you know, the problem is that you labeled a sex offender and you almost never prevail on appeal.
	You can bring it into court, but they don't.
	Universities don't reverse themselves.
	Sorry, keep it.
	Yeah, there's in the Kangaroo court, there's no appeal, too.
	I mean, you're on the universities.
	These are not being adjudicated by actual courts.
	But they interject.
	Sometimes in these cases, which have been documented very well, these cases have been cleared by cops.
	They've been found not just like, oh, there's not enough evidence.
	Like, no, this didn't happen.
	And yet they were still adjudicated in such a way on campus, regardless of those findings.
	And that's that's the phrase that I was looking for, preponderance of evidence, which is, you know, 51%.
	But, you know, the problem with this is that from people in our perspective and people in our business of journalism, is that this is a binary thing to people.
	You either, you know, believe the victim or you're some sort of hate-filled monster who wants to question their story.
	But the issue is that, you know, a long time ago, 2014, I think, I wrote a piece for the Daily Beast and I went and I did a, I think, Jake Tapper show about this.
	And I might have mentioned this on here before, about the Sabrina Erdley story in Rolling Stone about the UVA rape case, which was, you know, really just overwhelmed the media.
	And I was the person at the very beginning who said, I don't believe this.
	And that was a very uncomfortable position to be in.
	And what you do as a journalist is you look at the evidence, how it's presented to you in a story, and you say, like, I can't tell, I don't know, but I have to go on a sort of smell test.
	If someone brings me a piece as an editor, I have to say, like, I don't know if this is true.
	You need to back this up a little more.
	To say this in a case like this is considered sort of a hate crime, because in the Rolling Stone case, there was one little detail that somebody threw a bottle at her.
	They were harassing her outside of a bar.
	And it sort of windmilled across the street and shattered on her head.
	And I said, that doesn't happen.
	That's not how this works.
	I'm not a physicist, but this does not happen.
	First thing, but to say that at this point, and to your point, Megan, when you find out, that's why they don't tell you.
	When they find out the person is saying, I've been dragged into various closets over two weeks and the same things happen to me, that's when the smell test is like, oh, but even if that were public, I would caution people.
	I mean, you have to do it as a journalist, but I would prepare people for the backlash of saying, well, I don't know.
	You can say that about murderers, people accused of murder.
	You can say that about people accused or presenting some other crime.
	When it comes to sexual assault, we are supposed to, as journalists, just say we believe.
	And remember, the Washington Post had this headline about believing women.
	And they ultimately changed it.
	They said, one must believe them.
	And that is a very, very odd formulation, isn't it?
	One must believe 50% of the population.
	In particular, we get that.
	It's absolute madness.
	And your job as a journalist is to be skeptical all the time.
	Yes.
	I'm not saying that this is happening all the time, but I'm just saying that skepticism is what we do as journalists.
	And the crime itself is a real crime.
	It's a horrible crime.
	And one has to do throat clearing about that because you always get accused of just minimizing it when you're doing basic journalism and basic skepticism.
	I'll bet you it's happening more now post the Me Too movement where women think this is this is an arrow in my quiver.
	You know, I can use this.
	The culture has corrected in some good ways, you know, in some good ways.
	It used to be back when I was in school, the pendulum was too far the other way, where it was basically you couldn't prove anything and you'd probably never get any remedy if you'd been attacked.
	It was very, very hard.
	So they overcorrected.
	And now we're still in the overcorrection phase to where we're ruining men's lives with no evidence.
	There was a case, I think it was Amherst, where the guy didn't even get access to his accuser's text messages and they were full of revelations that she was lying.
	She was owning that she was lying and she was setting him up and the guy never had access to them because of the kangaroo court system.
	But in this case, they did a rape test on her, you know, the kit.
	But I guess from what I'm reading after both of the allegations, you know, the one in August and the one in October, and they said neither one came back consistent with a rape.
	So it sounds like without knowing all the details, they didn't find semen, or they certainly didn't see anything that was suggestive of a rape.
	Why wasn't that disclosed?
	Why wasn't like, or even if you don't want to disclose that, put something into your public messaging that gives the mob some reason or even just reasonable-minded people reading about it, some reason to understand this may be a hoax.
	You've got to understand that is a possibility.
	And to me, just the biggest takeaway is these poor, poor guys on these campuses who, can you imagine being in college today, you guys, and having to deal with this climate?
	I mean, not being in college is also terrifying.
	Just for the record.
	I go everywhere with forms, you know, with fingerprinting devices.
	I just make sure, like, are we good?
	My life is.
	I'm just a flower pen recording everything.
	I like the idea that Moynihan obviously doesn't know anything about physics, but he does know how bottles of beer went thrown on people's craniums.
	Trust me, it was like the Zapruder film.
	We went and we shot a watermelon in the backyard to see if we could recreate the gunshots at Dealey Plaza.
	I was throwing those things for weeks.
	I said, this can't be true.
	Come on.
	We've got to go.
	We've got to stay on stamp for permit.
	Oh, by the way, I wanted to add this.
	Heather McDonald, she's brilliant.
	She's done great reporting on this alleged, you know, rampant sexual assault on campuses issue.
	Just Google Heather McDonald's and sexual assault on campus.
	You come up and she has a great book on it and so on.
	But she did point out in one of her pieces that the vast majority of those in that alleged 40% who will experience sexual violence on campus never report it.
	Why is that?
	Because there's a culture against women?
	No, it's because she says the overwhelming reason why the alleged victims do not report is that when you ask them, they do not think it was that serious.
	It was like some guy tried to kiss me and I didn't want it.
	You know, some guy grabbed my ass and I didn't want it.
	These are not, you know, the activists want you to believe 40% of the women on college campuses are going to get raped.
	That's a lie.
	You got to look deeper.
	And actually, I did a long report for this for special report back when Britt Hume was at the helm years and years ago.
	And some of the ways that sexual violence or violence against women is defined on campus can include something like just any unwanted touching at all.
	Like somebody grabs your arm and you're in the 40%.
	So all those stats need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
	All right.
	So while we're on the topic of Stanford, let's go up a couple of years to the law school.
	We had the head of the Federalist Society, which is the more conservative leaning group within the law school student body.
	They invited this Fifth Circuit judge to come, Judge Duncan, speak to the students on campus, the Federalist Society.
	Great.
	Fine.
	Happens all the time.
	He's more right-leaning.
	So is the Federalist Society.
	Works out fine.
	Plenty of left-leaning speakers on Stanford too.
	Nope, the law students couldn't take it, shouted him down.
	Now David Latt, I believe, started above the law.
	Now he's got a stub stack.
	And he's a lawyer and slash reporter.
	And he's gotten his hands on the full audio talking about how Judge Duncan takes the lectern.
	Students start making gagging noises, keep screaming out, heckling, boring.
	We took Conlaw and so on, continuing to disrupt him.
	And then it goes downhill from there.
	The guy was not able to give his remarks.
	Then that weird DEI lady took the mic with her prepared marks she had written down, hijacked the whole event, lectured him.
	It was so offensive.
	Well, then the law school dean, Jenny Martinez, apologized to the judge, saying, you were treated disrespectfully, and that behavior is not consistent with our approach, our policy here on Stanford when it comes to allowing speech.
	So she apologized to him and she suggested that this DEI gal is under review too, because instead of allowing the guy to speak and preventing the disruptions, she was disruptor in chief.
	So this dean, Martinez, arrives to, I think she also was teaching Conlet.
	She shows up to her classroom after her apology and she finds a whiteboard covered inch to inch in flyers attacking the judge and defending those who disrupted him.
	We, the students in your con law class, are sorry for exercising our First Amendment rights.
	The protests, the protesters, who are apparently in and outside of her classroom, this is just this past Monday.
	They were dressed in all black, ready for the drama.
	Like these young people, they love drama.
	They dressed in black.
	They wore face masks that read, counter speech is free speech.
	They stared silently at Martinez as she exited her class at 11 a.m.
	Oh, burn, burned.
	Or as the kids would say today, roasted.
	She got roasted.
	They stared.
	They stared at her while wearing their masks.
	The student protesters formed a human corridor from Martinez's classroom to the building's exit, comprising nearly a third of the law school who were very angry with her.
	The few who did not join the protesters, Evergreen, this is just like Evergreen, Brett Weinstein, received the same stare down as the professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame.
	One of the students who did not agree and did not wear black was quoted as saying, they are creating a hostile work environment, hostile environment here for anyone who thinks an Article III judge should be able to speak without heckling.
	This also is an annoying story.
	By the way, that whole thing was quoted from the Washington Free Beacon.
	Can you go to college anymore?
	Can you send your kid to Stanford Law School?
	Like, all of this is about extremism on campus when it comes to woke ideologies.
	And again, we're talking about Stanford Law School.
	Stanford is not really known historically as the place where you're, it's not Evergreen, right?
	It's not Reed College.
	It's Stanford.
	This is the West Coast prestigious school.
	This is the only non-Ivy League school that ever sends, you know, judges to the Supreme Court.
	It's Stanford.
	It has the Hoover Institution.
	The Hoover Institution is not an Evergreen university institution.
	It is center-right think tank talking about important things.
	Leland Stanford, look him up, wasn't woke.
	That's not where this comes from.
	I can't believe that this is happening in a law school, any law school, let alone Stanford, right?
	This is undergraduate stuff.
	This is what you do in the seven years that it takes you to not graduate from a four-year university is that you engage in all kinds of different protests.
	At my school at UC Santa Barbara, it is all about protesting apartheid and having shanty towns and blocking the oil platform project.
	It's great, right?
	It's fun stuff that you do when you're an undergrad.
	When you're in a law school, you're preventing people from talking who are a judge.
	What are you doing?
	I don't understand the process.
	Granted, Megan, I'm not a lawyer like you, but what I what I understand from the law is that it's an adversarial process in which people make competing claims and arguments pinned on basic sort of documents and truths under oath.
	That seems like a process where you would need to be able to engage with people with whom you have a disagreement and try to convince a neutral arbiter of the righteousness of your interpretation of the truth.
	I don't know what making people not talk teaches you in that process.
	It's really embarrassing.
	And to answer your question, I have a daughter who's 14.
	Gosh, I hope she goes to college in Europe.
	It hasn't happened any better.
	I don't know if it's any better over there.
Kids Protesting Free Speech 00:04:00
	Yeah.
	But I will say how do you practice it?
	You stand up, you hate your adversary.
	I've been there.
	You don't get to grunt.
	You don't get to interrupt his presentation to the judge with, you know, fascists, I took con law.
	You suck.
	Like, boo on MAGA and Trump, whatever they said.
	You're not going to last.
	You could try it.
	Yeah, you'd be in contempt of court.
	You would be sanctioned by the judge and you would be humiliated in front of your client.
	Like this behavior, counter speech is free speech.
	Sure.
	Shut the F up, let him give his presentation and then pepper him with tough questions when he's done.
	How did you back this ruling?
	How did you dehumanize?
	Whatever they want to say.
	It's absolute nonsense.
	They do this all the time.
	It's the same thing when people get canceled and they say it's accountability.
	This is just counter speech.
	It's like, no, no, you're Mao Mauing someone.
	You're not allowing them to speak.
	It's not counterspeech to prevent somebody's speech.
	That's thuggery.
	And what Matt said, which is funny about the 1980s, it was always the protests on campus with the shantytowns.
	They built these.
	This is very famous.
	You can look it up.
	And it was protesting something that deserved to be protested.
	The racist regime of the South African apartheid government that was a hideous blot on the world at that point.
	Right now, kids are protesting, and I do refer to them as kids, even if they're in their 40s, they're acting like kids.
	They're protesting the exchange of ideas.
	This is where we've gone horribly off the rails.
	Matt also made the point that this is undergraduate stuff.
	Yes.
	And guess what?
	The undergraduates who've been pointing this stuff out for five, six, seven, eight, nine years are now graduate students.
	They haven't gotten over it.
	It's part of who they are at this point.
	It's part of how they view debate, which I find so hideous.
	It is Maoist.
	And I'm sorry to say that this is not the exact same thing or any way of the Cultural Revolution.
	But the first death in the Cultural Revolution, by the way, was a teacher that was killed by students.
	This is actually true.
	And I was just thinking of this now.
	It's like, I don't want to make that comparison, but it has all the instincts of it to shut down debate and say that you are on the wrong side of history.
	And you should know that.
	De facto, you should know that.
	I don't have to prove my case.
	You just should know that you are on the wrong side of history and you're a horrible person.
	So when they, this is the problem, when they get out into the world, it becomes a really difficult thing.
	This is what you see in jobs these days.
	When people go to HR for the most bizarre things, the most benign things.
	I have seen this myself, recently seen this myself, of people that just, you know, weird, odd interactions become HR nightmares because they come out of this crucible of nonsense in universities in which people are not taught how to think.
	They're taught how to be upset and how to be angry and how to be offended, which is fine.
	You want to be those things?
	Absolutely.
	I was about to swear, fine, but be able to make the argument as to why.
	And then I will crush you like a bug because you're a silly nonsense person.
	But as opposed to just letting this happen, this is the feeling is itself justified by what you do.
	All that is justified by your own feelings.
	Nonsense.
	These people who are so indignant, as I point out from David Levin, like me, were gagging.
	Sorry, I'm getting bigger.
	The judge got up there and they were like, this is them.
	Okay, they want that's the speech they're so proud of.
	And they were holding up a sign.
	We have a picture of it that reads, um, this judge, Judge Duncan, can't find the clitoris, only the shorter form of that, which sounds more vulgar.
	Um, I mean, it's disgusting.
	So, like, what is that?
	I'm bad at sex.
	What is wrong with me?
	How come I don't understand this?
	What is the insane sign?
	No, I don't, but no one has a sign in front of me.
	They just didn't know.
	I said, Yeah, no, I don't get it.
	I've been looking for years.
	It's like the arc of the covenant.
	I don't know.
	But why does it have what does it have to do with law?
	Good God.
	I'm going to give you the directions on that right after this question.
	Can we get out in the break, please?
	Yeah.
Timmons Claims Sexual Incompetence 00:08:49
	I've been trying to find someone.
	Chatbot AI is like, no, we can't help you.
	All right, more with the two of the three of our fifth column friends right after this quick break.
	So, before we leave the campus insanity, I would be remiss if I did not bring up what's happening up in Canada.
	And this, Matt, goes to your point: people respond to these incentives.
	Okay, so let's journey north.
	And I want to introduce you to a woman named Vianne Timmons, who's been president of the Memorial University of Newfoundland since 2020.
	No, she's president of the university.
	That's pretty, pretty prestigious.
	She, too, just like the accuser at Stanford, is taking six weeks of voluntary leave.
	Hers is paid.
	I don't know whether the accuser in Stanford is getting paid while she's on leave, but this woman's taking six weeks of voluntary paid leave.
	Now, why?
	What did Vianne Timmons do?
	Well, she, as it turns out, has been, I've got to credit National Post in Canada for this term.
	She's a pretendian.
	She's a pretendy.
	A pretendian might be another way.
	She's a pretend Indian is what they're trying to say.
	She's been claiming fake Native American or Native status.
	She's Canadian.
	And she isn't one.
	They entered the, I guess there was some sort of deep look into these claims that she'd been making that she had Indigenous ancestry by the CBC.
	And the probe found no proof that she has this ancestry whatsoever, despite her claiming First Nation heritage.
	Timmins explained that she became a member.
	Now, forgive me, I'm going to butcher this, but I'll get I'm going to give it a try.
	She became a member of the Brazier Mi'kmaq First Nation in Cape Breton after her brother researched their family's genealogy around 2009.
	She became a member of the First Nation tribe.
	Timmons said her father had told her when she was in her 30s that she had a Mi'kmaq great-great-great-grandmother, great-great-great-grandmother, but that he was ashamed of it.
	However, CBC News could not find any Mi'kmaq relative closer than Reddy.
	10 generations removed.
	They went back some 400 years.
	I love these stories.
	She claimed, however, not to be deterred.
	I have documentation that will prove a closer link than that.
	And they said, well, could we have that documentation?
	She said, well, it's likely in my mom's house that I can't find it.
	Okay.
	Stephen White, who's a genealogist consulted by the CBC, told the broadcaster that Timmons' most likely claim to Indigenous heritage was via her great-great-great-grandmother, Marie Benoit, who was herself just 1/16th Mi'kmaq.
	116.
	Now Timmins on her heels claims, well, I've never benefited from this claim.
	All right, just so you know, like it was just like sort of a fun family thing, but I never used it.
	But the CBC News investigation found that the membership in the tribe was listed on her resume.
	Last updated when?
	30 years ago?
	No, 2016.
	That it was also referenced in her biographies for her professional dealings, including a national advisory board.
	Listen to this.
	They also found that the tribe membership, and she's saying she's a member of the tribe, was listed in multiple professional biographies between 2011 and 2018.
	And then, just in case you had any doubt about the veracity of her claim, she's never used it.
	She was the 2019 recipient of an IND Spire, I-N-D, IND Spire Award for Education, an award openly touted as, quote, the highest honor the Indigenous community bestows upon, wait for it, its own people.
	Bel Welsh, your point has been made very clear.
	This, by the way, this is the second time this has happened recently in Canada.
	There is a woman who is the top Indigenous health expert.
	And I think for the Canadian government, it turned out she was a pretendium too.
	And there's a woman who actually, very funny, keeps a list of these people.
	And you look into it and they always do the same thing.
	It's Elizabeth Warren thing.
	You know, I've been told in my family, it's just in my family too.
	Everybody I know has had that and you just don't believe it at some point.
	But if there was some kind of racial hierarchy that we just looked down upon all these people, why would everybody be claiming to be partially this, that, or the other?
	You'd imagine they'd be running away from it.
	But the incredible thing about it is this is race science.
	This is blood science because this woman says, oh, I discovered it, which means you've never been discriminated against.
	You've never been held back because of it.
	So now you're saying that you have some sort of blood quotient that is a little bit in there.
	So therefore give me things.
	Come on now.
	The same thing, Elizabeth Warren, by the way.
	And this is the kind of rock, paper, scissors when it comes to the people on the progressive left about this stuff.
	They like her too much.
	So they won't actually complain about the fact that she used it in her job application at Harvard Law School.
	She ticked it off and she was, you know, kind of ushered in and counted as a minority on staff.
	If you are somebody who believes in this kind of, you know, voodoo, you should say, didn't she actually take that away from somebody who was actually native and not somebody whose mother told them that 18 generations ago, somebody watched an episode of F-Troop and now all of a sudden they're part of Trump.
	Come on now.
	It's all nonsense and we should humiliate these people as much as possible.
	And thank God Camille's not here because he'd say it's all fake.
	And I agree with him.
	It is all fake.
	But, you know, lying about it's bad.
	And it's also that, you know, there are people who live on Indian reservations and American reservations in the United States, some of the poorest people in this country.
	Like there is a, if you want to have some solidarity for people and also think about the economic structures, the governance, the way the United States federal government has absolutely screwed these people over in a systematic way, please, by all means, go for it.
	And also don't try to do a stolen valor thing with them.
	I've been watching, God help me, the world baseball classic a lot.
	I love baseball.
	I love nationalism.
	So it's all great.
	Go after the commies in Venezuela and Cuba next.
	It's awesome.
	But one of the things that you realize in watching this is that it's wonderful to see sort of expressions of different types of culture within the baseball arena.
	Japanese culture has this kind of flair.
	Sometimes Puerto Ricans are like this.
	It's fun.
	It's really, really fun.
	And also it reminds you that one of the reasons why we focus so much on Jackie Robinson and the breaking of the color barrier in 1947, and this is true in Jackie Robinson's writings, which I highly recommend anyone to delve into.
	He was just righteously pissed that you're not letting me onto your playing field because I am going to kick your ass.
	And in fact, he did.
	He kicked the living crap out of everybody physically after the first year or two of turning the other cheek.
	We want the level playing field.
	You don't get an extra seat at the table.
	You don't get an extra cookie by checking off the one drop box on your application to be a major league baseball player.
	The question is, can you play?
	Okay.
	Come on in.
	No one cares.
	Like absolutely no one cares.
	And you start to think, like, why don't we have more of that in the world?
	I'm sure there are places and times to think about people's background, especially again, on a more of a class disadvantage level.
	You overcame some disadvantages, particularly as immigrants, people who have been poor.
	Like you keep that into consideration.
	But for a basic job, why are we awarding extra cookies to someone who ticked that box of their 10th great grandparents maybe had a little bit of this?
	Right.
	That's basically the connection now.
	We should be looking at this from a completely different point of view, which, you know, just to echo Camille, is more and more to stop doing it from that point of view.
	You know, look at people who are actually suffering, have sympathy, figure out what best to do.
	And beyond that, it's just a weird, weird tick.
	It's you know what's happening.
	So it's no accident, you guys.
	This is happening at a college, right?
	Although it's not always a college.
	We just did a story about a woman out of Philly.
Rachel Saraswati Race Hoax Scandal 00:02:52
	Her name is, she said her name is Rachel Saraswati from Philly.
	Her real name, Raquel, Raquel Saraswati, but her real name was Rachel Seidel, who actually had absolutely no minority affiliations whatsoever.
	Her family says she's white as the driven snow, but she claimed she was Muslim and let tinks and all the other things.
	And she's been outed as having faked it too.
	But what's happening now on a wider level is all these colleges are expecting the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the use of race in the admissions.
	And so they're throwing out at the SATs, the ACTs, GPAs, because there is no way they're going to abandon their fealty to race.
	So they understand if they actually are just stuck with grades as a metric of, you know, whether you get in or not, that they're probably going to see a decrease in enrollment of their target groups.
	And they're so obsessed with identity, they're not having it.
	So they're, you know, preemptively starting to change the whole college admission system such that they can make it even more racialized, not less.
	The racialization of everything drives me absolutely insane.
	I sent Matt and Camille a text the other day that for reasons that I cannot explain, and I apologize for this, I was reading an article in the New York Times about the show Girls by Lena Dunham.
	And in the lead of this, it said it followed four white women.
	I'm sorry, what now?
	Why are you identifying them racially?
	The thing had nothing to do with race.
	You're just now identifying people's races when it's completely unnecessary.
	And one final thing about how old this is, the fake Indian thing, fake native thing.
	Remember, we just found out that Sachin Littlefeather, who accepted the Academy Award for Marlon Brando and went up there in, I think, 1972, I think it was with her godfather, 1973, and went up there.
	We found out right after she died, her sister was like, oh, yeah, by the way, she's not Native American.
	We always knew this.
	And yeah, we just didn't say anything about it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Sachine Littlefeather.
	She was a pretty, she's like Jill Smith or something.
	She's completely not.
	Oh my God.
	She had some plausible claim, but it wasn't what she was doing.
	I think she was Mexican-American.
	But it's not true.
	But anyway.
	Sorry to ruin that for you, Megan.
	Not the same at all.
	Oh my God, that's unbelievable.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, like, more and more, we're going to see this as, you know, this kind of thing can get you a promotion.
	It can get you into college and so on.
	And if we don't stand up and try to wipe this out the way Camille wants, we're going to get a whole lot more of it because people respond to incentives in the great words of Matt Welsh.
	All right, Matt and Michael, stay with us for the rest of the show.
	There's so much more to get to, including the reenactment by the two guys who helped Jussie Smollett in his fake hate crime hoax.
	They went back and redid it for Fox Nation.
	We'll show you what they did.
	Speaking of race hoaxes, Jussie Smollett, Jesse Smollett is back in the news.
	We talked about this actually about a week ago.
Jesse Smollett Fake Crime Image 00:15:17
	He's filed an appeal on his criminal conviction for the race hoax that he perpetrated in Chicago during the Polar Vortex, where he had two of his buddies attack him, two black guys.
	I mean, it's like, if you're going to try to pretend that you're the victim of a race hoax, at least hire white guys to do it.
	Hire two black guys to attack him, pour bleach on him.
	They just so happen to have a rope on them that they now claim they put on his face, not around his neck, as he was later found wearing because he really wanted the police to see where it was around his neck.
	So he just like, you know, years of go, of old.
	So he's filed an appeal.
	He's claiming everything but the kitchen sick.
	He thinks he's claiming double jeopardy because he had originally struck a deal that with a prosecutor who was biased.
	And instead, they brought in a special prosecutor to go after him and all sorts of things that are not going anywhere.
	But he doesn't want to have to serve that jail time.
	And Fox Nation, meantime, is taking another close look at the case.
	And they have gotten the two brothers who he hired to do the fake attack, which again, Jesse claimed a trial.
	They were real and that they were lying when they said it was a fake attack to go on the record.
	And Mbibola, they call him Bola.
	And Ola Binjo, they call him Ola Osunderio.
	The thing happened in January 2019.
	They helped this empire actor stage his hate crime and they testified against him ultimately.
	They got two years probation and a small fine because they turned state's evidence on him and he was sentenced to jail.
	Now, they give this interview to Fox Nation in which they go back to the crime scene, the alleged scene of the crime, 2 a.m. by a subway station, subway, the sandwich, in the middle of the night in Chicago, freezing cold winter, and show us how it went down.
	Look at this.
	He was not there.
	So we were like, damn, what do we do?
	We didn't have no way of contacting him.
	He had no way of contacting us.
	So we waited here for about, what, four minutes?
	It was about four minutes.
	But it felt like forever because it was cold as balls.
	He turned around, looked at us, and that's when we started yelling the famous slurs he wanted us to yell.
	It's MAGA country.
	And then he said, what did you say to me?
	And then that's when I threw the first punch at him.
	I held the blow because I didn't want to hurt him, of course.
	So I made it look real, but I held it.
	Then we started tussling, moving around, and then I threw him to the ground.
	He wanted it to look like he fought back.
	I used my knuckle and gave him a noogie.
	So I went like this.
	Why did I do that?
	To give him a scar, to give him a mark, to make it look real.
	Like he really did get his ass beat.
	After I did that, I fake kicked him.
	I don't know what he was doing.
	I wasn't paying attention.
	That's where I came around with the bleach, the infamous bleach in the hot sauce bottle, poured it on his shirt.
	Then I finally put the rope around his face.
	I did not put it around his neck.
	I just placed it on his face.
	And that's when we took off.
	Is that not the greatest thing you've ever seen?
	That's the best recreation in the history of television.
	Whoever the producer of that is, I want you to email me because I want to nominate you for an Emmy because getting them to do that was the best idea I've ever seen.
	No, there's nobody there.
	Just go and do the fight scene by yourselves across the street.
	We'll shoot it from across the street, which is an amazing thing.
	And then the best quote, and he keeps on saying the famous bleach, the famous things we said.
	The new famous line is, it was cold as balls.
	Holy cow.
	Good lord.
	Better actors than Jesse Smollett, by the way.
	Yes.
	Jesse Smollett, who was the actor who wanted attention on Empire.
	And what they said was he wanted to make it look like they go on to say, he wanted to make it look like he fought back.
	That was very important for him.
	This whole thing was about his image.
	Here he was.
	I don't know which sound bite this is that we have, but here he was not long ago talking about him being innocent.
	Oh, and he's not suicidal either.
	I am not suicidal.
	I am innocent.
	And I am not suicidal.
	If I did this, then it means that I stuck my fist in the fears of Black Americans in this country for over 400 years and the fears of the LGBTQ community.
	Your Honor, I respect you and I respect the jury, but I did not do this.
	And I am not suicidal.
	And if anything happens to me when I go in there, I did not do it to myself.
	And you must all know that.
	I respect you, Your Honor.
	I respect your decision.
	Jail time.
	I am not suicidal.
	I am not suicidal.
	Stop talking about that.
	I am not suicidal.
	And I am innocent.
	I could have said that I was guilty a long time ago.
	What's got the Black Power?
	I've never seen that.
	Isn't it a birth case?
	He's such a liar.
	He's literally doing a Black Power salute on the way out, screaming, I'm not suicidal.
	Not I'm innocent, by the way.
	I'm not.
	He did say that at one point, but the thing he's repeating over and over is, I'm not suicidal, because he's also a crazy conspiracy theorist that he might get killed in jail, but it's going to make me look like a Jeffrey Epstein suicide.
	It's like, dude, no one cares about you.
	No one knew about you before.
	And no one knew what Empire was.
	Sorry.
	Maybe other people did, but I don't know.
	I think it's a bit of an own goal, as they say, to compare yourself to Jeffrey Epstein.
	Just the whole public sympathy kind of thing.
	It's not.
	Well, he got off for a little bit.
	So, you know, so he was sentenced to 150 days, 150 days in prison and still hasn't had to serve them.
	He filed it.
	He wanted to be out on appeal and so on.
	But I don't know whether he's ever actually going to have to serve this, but it's so funny to see, you know, you remember we deconstructed the Robin Roberts interview of Jesse.
	She was totally sympathetic, not even a hint of skepticism.
	I mean, I like Robin Roberts, but that was an embarrassment of an interview and just wasn't doing her job at all.
	And it's a continuation, frankly, of our first hour theme, which is where is the skepticism amongst the media, amongst the general public, when allegations are made that tap into certain narratives, right?
	Women are oftentimes the victims of sexual assaults on college campuses and elsewhere.
	It's an epidemic that we're having to deal with.
	Black people in modern day America do randomly get attacked with nooses and bleach and people shouting, this is MAGA country in deep Chicago during the polar vortex.
	And those stories too should be covered without doubt.
	Otherwise, you're showing your bigotry.
	And even now, we're trying to pretend that we have to cover his appeal like it's a real thing.
	Like he's got a real, when you've got these two brothers, who could you find a more credible witness telling you what actually went down?
	Two muscle-bound Nigerian guys.
	If they say go get a reverse mortgage, I'm in it.
	Oh my God.
	Whatever pills they want to sell me, I'm buying.
	But I love it.
	The first bit of skepticism should have been like, this is MAGA country.
	No, it's not.
	It's downtown Chicago, you gummies.
	But the greatest thing about this is go and find, I saw this the other day, the original tweet from the New York Times that was no skepticism.
	There was no alleged, it was like Jesse Smollett, actor from Empire, attacked by MAGA lunatics.
	And it reminded me that right after Donald Trump was elected, this was a supply and demand problem, of course.
	The demand for stories about a rise in hate greatly outstripped the supply.
	So there was a whole bunch of these attacks that were fake.
	And there were other ones that were not proven to be fake, but were clearly fake.
	And one of the things I thought was funny, right down the street from where I was in Brooklyn at the time, there was a park that I think was named after Adam Yauk, one of the beastie boys who passed away.
	And there were swastikas drowned on it, like the day after.
	And it was really interesting because these Nazis didn't know which way the swastikas went.
	They had them backwards.
	And I was like, that's the first bit of skepticism.
	And it reminded me of Dave Chappelle's bit about this, which is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
	When he's like, we knew he was lying immediately.
	Immediately.
	And I watched for days, weeks of people reporting credulously.
	I once sent Matt and Camille this thing from NPR that was a half an hour in which no skepticism was ever evinced on this case at all.
	And people just saying that this happens all the time and this is just life in Trump's in America.
	Again, it's the narrative.
	They wanted to prove it.
	And so therefore, you have to suspend all disbelief, all these things that are clearly fake about it.
	You have to push to the side because the narrative is more important.
	We have an ongoing.
	That was pre-George Floyd.
	Pre-George Floyd's God.
	Even worse in this direction, post-George Floyd.
	Go ahead, Matt.
	Yeah.
	We have an ongoing text thread between the three of us on the fifth column podcast.
	And as we did at the time with this specific case, I think for us, the equivalent to the Moynihan understanding that the bottle of beer doesn't break on the person's forehead.
	We had a pretty good indication, just intuition, that famous-ish actor is not going to go foraging for subway sandwiches at two o'clock in the morning during a polar vortex in Chicago.
	That didn't seem like a likely thing that was going to be happening anytime soon.
	What I think this demonstrates is that the people who claim to believe, and maybe they do believe to some degree, that we live amidst systemic racism.
	People who use the word white supremacy, not to talk about people in hoods, but to talk about the overall structure that is like fundamentally unfair.
	People who say that somehow in their hearts, or at least many of the people who will nod their heads at that time, don't believe it because it's not enough, right?
	That's an argument.
	It's an argument that I disagree with.
	And I think, or it's certainly a line of analysis that therefore, if you're going to take it to its logical extreme, you're going to say, okay, so minimum wage is systematically racist, for example.
	There's a lot of different gun control is systematically racist.
	They don't tend to go full hog with that kind of thing.
	But the reason why you have so many hoaxes is exactly because that supply and demand problem.
	You need to have splashy indication, splashy news events to show that, see, this is just simmering right there below the surface, ready to be activated at any given time.
	Part of that shows you or allegedly shows you that we haven't made progress over the last 50 years, 10 years, whatever the number is, that it's just always, it's, in fact, maybe getting worse.
	After all, we did elect Donald Trump.
	And I have some sympathy with that line of argument, to be clear, but I don't have sympathy with the argument that America is just a seething hotbed of racism at given times.
	You can make that structural argument and you're going to find a lot of people raising their eyebrows because it doesn't make intuitive sense.
	Because when they hear a phrase like white supremacy, they're like, huh, that's weird.
	I've never really met a white supremacist.
	And that lies in the face of everything that I've heard.
	But the reason why we have so many of these swastikas here and this and that.
	And, you know, I probably there's been at least 25 of these that we've texted each other.
	Nope, this one's not going to pan out.
	And they never do.
	They never do.
	Particularly when there's a noose involved.
	That's always the one.
	That's always the giveaway.
	Is the tell, but to we had a new sent Gilroy, California, didn't we?
	Yeah, like turned out this week.
	This week turned out to be a guy who was using, I think who was an immigrant using the rope to cut down a branch of a tree, but it was left there.
	And they're like, oh, this is clearly racist.
	And they looked at the footage and it was just a guy cutting off a branch of a tree.
	But, you know, I mean, you have to make everybody white supremacist when people understand white supremacy to meet David Duke.
	Because if you don't interact with them, people start not trusting you.
	When you only thing you come across is, you know, the new Jurassic Park movie is racist.
	People are like, you know what?
	Seriously?
	So then you need these things that are manifestations of violence, particularly racially based.
	I mean, even the George Floyd thing, which I think is a pretty interesting thing when you look back on it, out of the heat of that moment, was that the prosecution never brought up race during the prosecution of Derek Chauvin.
	It did not come up.
	It was a successful project.
	You didn't need it.
	And it's not they were saying, like, oh, this is too explosive.
	They didn't have evidence of it.
	It was presumed.
	And they, obviously, in a court of law, understand that they would leave something like this out because there's no way to prove something like that.
	But in the discourse, it changed life, right?
	Same thing with Kyle Rittenhouse, right?
	Where you had the Joe Biden calling him a white supremacist, none of which was ever proved or introduced.
	There is absolutely no evidence of that.
	And there was no apology to Kyle Rittenhouse.
	And by the way, the two men, I'm trying to remember all the facts, but you had all the media claiming that he shot black men, right?
	And it was like, yeah, a bunch of people say that.
	Right.
	And anyway, and they weren't.
	But to two, two points.
	One point that I wanted to make and then to advance it.
	Phil Houston, human lie detector, CIA, would say that Jesse Smollett's resort to, if I did that, if I'm not innocent, it would mean I'm offending the black community and the LGBTQ community.
	That's what we call convincing behavior.
	And remember, OJ's book was called If I Did It.
	But a truth teller, if you were wrongly accused of perpetuating some sort of a race hoax, you would stand up and be like, this is bullshit.
	I did not do it.
	You know, I've been wrongly convicted.
	You would not be like, and if I did it, it would be so offensive to the following groups that I've spent my life representing and trying to help it.
	And I would never, and I, you know, like, anyway, it's just an interesting thing to watch a liar in action because it gives us new things to think about when we are subjected to somebody else's lies.
	Okay.
	So what you're saying about how, you know, the whole narrative, it's, it is the hammer looking for the nail, right?
	And there aren't that many nails.
	And so they've got to invent white supremacy here, there, and everywhere ties in nicely what we've seen happening in the world of DEI.
	Robin DiAngelo and her friends in this community are getting depressed.
	They're getting downtrodden and they're losing hope that their weird racist messaging is somehow not catching on.
	The explosion of her book, White Fragility, after George Floyd, it had been written before George Floyd, but it exploded after, and all of the money she made doing Zoom calls during the pandemic about how white people are too fragile to understand the truth, which is we're all racist and so on.
	Apparently, corporations are not responding well to it.
	Now, she, this, this, um, this is from FAIR, Foundation Against Intelligence Intolerance and Racism.
	They produced this in a Substack article by Joseph Klein.
	And they noticed that there was this, I don't know, a webinar, I guess, called Racial Justice, The Next Frontier.
	And it included Robin DiAngelo and DEI consultants Marisha and Reese and Mary Frances Winters.
	And it's amazing because they are upset about how no one wants them anymore.
	Listen to this.
Robin DiAngelo DEI Consultants Boomerang 00:11:30
	So we thought, maybe in 2020 we had a movement um, and then we said well, let's hope it's not just a moment.
	And now we're saying, perhaps it's a memory because um, the system is just so entrenched and it's so difficult to to even move just a little bit.
	And here's what i'm hearing a lot.
	We hear this a lot.
	Our leaders are too uncomfortable with this.
	We've actually lost contracts, and people have said, we want to do anti-racism work.
	And we go in and they say oh, this is what you mean by anti-racism work.
	Oh we we, we didn't, that's not what we signed up for um, so yeah, so you see, that um, that fragility, um centering white comfort, um is so alive um, and well, just last week, I heard something like, um, we're not ready for justice in our, in our work, even though that's what we, that's what they signed up for, our board members are just not, are just not ready for that.
	And so white people have to build their stamina and it and i'm thinking for now if, if an organization is saying we're not ready I, I think they should be really honest about that and they should be explicit about that, and then people can make conscious decisions about whether they want to support that organization.
	But right now we have this, you know, proclaimed uh investment with absolutely no true investment.
	Hallelujah, they're failing and they're being rejected.
	Yeah yeah, and they're claiming the old uh, Friedrich Engels uh, expression of false consciousness.
	The reason why the working class is not with the Communist Party movement is that they don't understand it, and it's not because they disagree with us.
	It's because they've been convinced by the capitalist press that this is what was said, you know, in the late 19th and 20th century, why they couldn't get people in the working class on board.
	It's the exact same thing that is being said.
	It's not.
	No one is considering at some point that people in a work context are perfectly happy and you know, as a work, i'm perfectly happy if at some point the hr person says, you know, you can't racially discriminate, because it's against federal law, it's immoral and it's wrong and it creates a terrible work environment.
	All of which is true, but that's what people sign up for and they're saying they can't for one second imagine that they are extremists and they are.
	Read the stuff.
	It's extreme, it.
	Nobody agrees with this stuff.
	If you were to actually put Robin D'Angelo's quotes in front of random people and pull them, you'd get 90.
	I am guessing that would say this stuff is absolutely bonkers.
	So when they say, in the grace never, ever confront, it's racist too.
	Never, they can never confront that they might be wrong or they might, you know, be processing this stuff in a totally bizarro radical, extreme way.
	They say, oh, you know, there's some white.
	And again, this is the racist thing, because you're actually saying an entire race has this immutable characteristic.
	It's, it's white fragility, that's white discomfort.
	We have to destroy white discomfort.
	It's like no no no, they just think you're crazy.
	I'm sorry, I just swore no, it's okay, it's only me and my mom lent, is it you're going?
	Oh, is your mom sorry?
	Megan Kelly's mom.
	My mom said you know you swear a lot and she said if you could just get rid of the f-bomb, she doesn't care about you doing it, it's me.
	Oh okay, and so I agreed to try for lent.
	So you're good, you're fine.
	Shouldn't you have a little Irish solidarity here in one hand?
	You know what i'm saying.
	I'm saving that for the last block.
	If you must know, there's going to be a little exciting exciting, St Patrick's The.
	Uh, I i've had the misfortune both to live in a universe where these concepts are constantly thrumming around in the New York City school system in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, where there's like an entire section of the local bookstore that's just like Robin Dinlo AND Abraham X Kendy and on and on and on.
	Kids books um, i've i've seen this stuff for a while and written about it.
	Um, and Michael's absolutely right in that when normal people see this, they're like what?
	Um, it's not just the vocabulary that is kind of crazy and the um and the actually kind of racist or um, you know, just making spectacular generalizations on people based on their immutable uh, characteristics.
	That strikes people as strange, but also like there is no joy at the end of the rainbow.
	Usually in a self-help book, you're going to get to a place that's good, the Robin D'Angelo thing.
	The only place that you get to is more DEI training.
	You got to do more work, more work, spend more money on the work.
	I love the fact that they're saying that.
	You know, these organizations said that they are just not frankly ready to support justice.
	They didn't say that.
	That's not what they said.
	What they probably said was, wow, this is costing a lot of money.
	This is a pyramid scheme crazy.
	We've gotten.
	We started.
	We started the fifth column in 2016 and we talked a lot about this stuff at the beginning because it was really starting to take off, and Camille has a special allergy towards this.
	Um, and Michael and I have uh, honed ours over the years too.
	I would say uh Mike, what would you say?
	At least 250 detailed emails, and it might be 2500, way more than that yeah, from people who you know.
	One guy who's an entrepreneur at his own company, his own small company um, was called on the carpet and like forced to do some dei training people.
	You know people who work in the military and all these places.
	They never expected to be sat down.
	They talk about these things and occasionally they tell happy stories where they had an actual conversations where they registered individualistic kind of complaints about it.
	Um, uh and you know, prompted discussions, but for the most part, they just kind of sit on their hands, shake their heads and every normal person in the room is just checking their watch and ready for it to go.
	So of course, you're going to lose support for that in any kind of moment of economic belt tightening, because you're bumming people out, you're not really teaching them.
	And it's here's the fun fact of it is that if you happen to be from a?
	Uh, a recognized minority of any sort, chances are you are then going to be like the uh, the Asian person who has to now organize a celebration for the Lunar new year which you didn't care about.
	Like what, what am I doing?
	Uh, like a couple of gay dad friends of mine like were like okay, you're gonna do the day workshop.
	They're like, no I, this is like a software company, i'm gonna do work.
	No, leave my daughter's school is like, It's always like celebrating Kazakh New Year.
	And I'm like, are there any Kazakh people there?
	It's like, no, we just, we just do everything.
	My daughter said the same.
	She's like hanging there with her friends of color.
	And then the school separates them because they want to shepherd off the girls of color to go be in their own quote affinity group.
	Meanwhile, they were all together the way we've always envisioned, the way MLK envisioned, right?
	Like no one's paying attention to skin color until the school is like, you will pay attention to it right now.
	And that leads me to the second soundbite I wanted to run for you guys from this meeting, where Robin DiAngelo, you tell me, to me, she sounds an awful lot like Scott Adams in his statement that got him canceled.
	Okay.
	There was international outreach over what Scott Adams said.
	This is not that far afield.
	Here's Robin DiAngelo on in SOT 3 soundbite 3.
	I'm a big believer in affinity space and affinity work.
	And I think people of color need to get away from white people and have some community with each other.
	Yeah.
	Can you imagine like saying that about white people?
	Oh, I really think white people need to get away from black people.
	I mean, that's basically what Scott Adams said.
	And now he lost his cartoon and he was condemned by everybody.
	But you can say it if you're Robin D'Angelo the other way around.
	Two things about that is that he shouldn't have lost his cartoon.
	You should let the market decide that.
	And the second thing is what he said was stupid.
	And I think everyone should acknowledge that because it is a mirror image of what Robin D'Angelo says, because black people should get away from white people.
	White people, it's this collectivization of who people are is the thing that we hopefully have been fighting against unsuccessfully, apparently, for a number of years.
	But, you know, to Matt's point, it is like, you know, we owe Robin D'Angelo, Matt and I, and Camille in particular, a thank you because the number of emails that we get that always start with this preamble.
	Matt, tell me if I'm wrong about this.
	60, 70%, they say, Hey, I'm like a liberal.
	You know, I live in a city too.
	I'm a Democrat, but like, what is going on?
	And I found your podcast and I'm like, thank you, Robin D'Angelo.
	You've taken another person and converted them to sense and brought them to us.
	So that's been the only positive thing about it.
	But people don't tend to like, particularly of a generational thing, because Megan, Matt, all of us have come from a generation that, whether it was effective or not, it was the narrative, which was that collectivization of group characteristics is wrong.
	And why do we know that's wrong?
	Not because it's some philosophical thing that we read in a book, but observationally, we know it's stupid and wrong.
	Because you can't say, I mean, the number of people that have said to Camille, and I wish he was here to talk about this and not in bloody Peru.
	Is he trying to get away from us right now?
	Is that what's happening?
	Yes.
	Robin D'Angelo texted him and she was like, You need to get far away from these people.
	And he was like, non-black fragility.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Yeah, he has Baltimore fragility.
	He's not from Baltimore.
	He's from Maryland though.
	But that kind of thing, though, is like, you know, crazy that Camille and I, the people who say to him, Oh, you're not authentically Black.
	And then, of course, there are 150 million ways of being Black.
	And another way of saying that there's a lot of ways of being human.
	I mean, the Black thing is irrelevant.
	But yeah, I mean, questioning somebody's racial affinity and their racial commitment is one of the most offensive things that I can imagine.
	And it's also something that's never passed towards us.
	We're not like, oh, you're not being authentically white.
	I mean, that is where privilege comes from.
	We are the norm because we are the norm.
	We're expected to have a diversity of approaches towards our lives and our relationship with whether we even self-identify as white or not, which I increasingly don't check those boxes whenever asked.
	And like, imagine thinking, like, I'm waking up and thinking like I'm a white person and I have to like defend whiteness.
	Like, what the hell are you people talking about?
	And yet we impose this on basically every other group.
	But look, well, look what she's doing there.
	I mean, what, what, the, the, what's baked into what she's saying is, you know, the, the, uh, black people really need to get away from white people.
	It's baked in.
	White people are, they're annoying.
	They're awful.
	Of course you'd need a break from them.
	My God, they're terrible.
	And that's her whole thing.
	I'm terrible.
	She actually recommends in this book that a white person, whenever she or he walks into a room with a black person, start off by apologizing.
	Just, hi.
	I'm sorry I'm white and for all the sins of the white people.
	I mean, like, this is just so incredibly.
	But don't do it extravagantly, Megan.
	That's also, because that is also assuming your privilege.
	No, really.
	I've read down to the kernels of her book and it's so terrifyingly bleak and unpleasant.
	You can't imagine her cracking a smile, except a rueful smile on like, it just sucks to be so rich, peddling white guilt to people, which she absolutely does very successfully.
San Francisco Reparations Scam Debunked 00:10:18
	One quick point.
	My eight-year-old just had a DEI type of seminar yesterday at her private school in New York.
	And they read a book about or read a story about a kid from China, I think, who transfers to America at a school and is treated really mean at her school.
	And that's bad.
	And we shouldn't treat people mean.
	And I asked her, and I wasn't being leading in any way.
	I was just kind of curious how the whole thing went.
	I'm like, imagine that happened at your school.
	Like, like you got a girl from China tomorrow.
	What would happen?
	And she's like, we would be totally happy to talk to the kid from China.
	That sounds fascinating.
	Like she was happy for the lesson.
	She thought it was interesting and, you know, liked the reinforcement that you shouldn't be mean.
	But also her world is not to be mean.
	It isn't to like single people out for these, this characteristic or that.
	And the friend group, and I know the same is true with Michael's daughter as well.
	Like their lived in reality compared to what they're taught about the horror of the world just to have nothing in common.
	It's true.
	And I'll squeeze this in before we take a quick break.
	I mean, look at what's happening in San Francisco, right?
	Where most of the families who live out there are pretty far left.
	I'm sure it's not stock full of a bunch of white supremacists looking to ruin the lives of their black neighbors and colleagues and students in the schools.
	And yet that city is now well on its way toward these $5 million payments in reparations toward its black citizens.
	I mean, this is absolute madness.
	They've now, the advisory, the reparations advisory committee has now unanimously voted and it's been accepted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously that they should give a one-time $5 million payment to the black people of San Francisco who meet just a couple of easy criteria, along with these other proposals.
	That doesn't make it law yet.
	At some point, lawmakers are going to have to draft and pass legislation, but they're well on their way.
	And the other things that they're getting ready to give black citizens of San Francisco include, there's 100 recommendations, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens.
	How does that work?
	Okay, so they don't have to pay taxes ever again.
	Guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years.
	That's, I think, on top of your 5 million.
	And homes in San Francisco for just $1.
	How is this going to work?
	Oh, my God.
	It's like a banner ad.
	Like, you too can get a home for a dollar and a, you know, it's like $100,000 for 200 years.
	It's like, there's a scam here.
	It's like, no, no, no, no, it's actually San Francisco.
	It is a scam, but it's kind of an official.
	I don't see how you can get it.
	It's so easy.
	I mean, it's, so you, you, um, hold on.
	You have to be 18 years or older.
	You have to have been, you don't actually have to be black.
	You just have to be identifying as black or African American on a public document for at least 10 years.
	So any of these race hustlers we've been talking about, you know, it's like you're pretending for 10 years, you're good.
	Yeah.
	Then you have to meet two additional criteria, including you have to have been born or have migrated to the city between 1940 and 1996.
	Pretty easy.
	That's just an age thing.
	You have to have been incarcerated by the failed war on drugs or be the direct descendant of someone who was.
	They're incentivizing drug deals or like trying to reward people who've been selling drugs.
	That's a criterion that you must meet.
	It's unbelievable.
	God, that shows the wrong thing.
	You have to be the descendant of someone who was enslaved.
	Okay, that we get.
	Displaced between 54 and 73 or be a descendant of someone who was.
	I don't even, okay, all right, what?
	Part of a marginalized group who experienced lending discrimination between 37 and 68 or in formerly red line communities.
	Okay.
	So honestly, you can just have said that you were black for 10 years and immigrated to the city or been born in the city between 40 and 96 and have been arrested or incarcerated, haven't been incarcerated by the war on drugs, like you sold drugs.
	And you, according to these geniuses, are going to get all of these perks.
	Yes.
	And this is going to create an amazing amount of bureaucracy of just determining who meets all these criteria.
	By the way, I understand when somebody says you have to be a direct descendant of somebody oppressed or a slave or something like this, because we've done this in the past.
	And there's times that it makes sense.
	And at times that it makes sense with people who actually were themselves harmed.
	So the government of Germany paying Holocaust survivors, the government of the United States paying people who were Japanese Americans who were interned all makes sense.
	You were harmed.
	It's like going to court and getting a judgment.
	This is interesting because they're telling you who qualifies to get the money.
	It doesn't tell you who qualifies to pay for it.
	So if you are Matt Welch's wife, who is, I think, maybe an American citizen now, but she's French.
	Absolutely right.
	Yes.
	But she's been an American citizen for how long?
	Does she have to not pay if she was in California?
	You guys were California residents.
	Does that, you know, do you get to take it off your taxes?
	Because you came here in a time of like, well, no, no, for those 12 years you've been here, you've benefited from slavery or the results of slavery.
	So how is that prorated?
	I mean, do you get a discount?
	It is so, it's such lunacy to actually try to determine that there is a historical debt.
	The thing that everybody has to remember about this, you know, 77% of Americans when pulled think reparations, not 5 million, not in perpetuity payments, just reparations in general, 70% think are a bad idea.
	The thing that people don't really realize, and it's the fact that Americans believe, and particularly in the kind of grievance world of Americans, Americans believe that they are central to everything in the world, right?
	That used to be a complaint that came from the left.
	Now it's a complaint about the left, that in the sense that every place on earth has benefited from slavery.
	There's no culture in which there was no slavery.
	And if you can find it, it's very, very difficult to find Native Americans slavery, taking possession of people's land, taking prisoners from a tribe, enslaving them, et cetera.
	This is throughout history.
	So what do you pay for in historical grievance?
	Because historical grievance means that borders shift, people are oppressed, people are displaced.
	And that ultimately affects long down the line, the way people live, the way people earn their prospects.
	So imagine if something like this went global.
	I mean, I suppose we'd all know a lot more about history.
	It'd be a good way of creating a history program for the world to understand everybody's grievance.
	But paying people money, something that happened, you know, 150 years ago, strikes most people as lunacy.
	And it's because it is.
	And also, It's not needs-based at all.
	Like if Oprah lived in San Francisco, she could, she could get it, I guess.
	I don't like, yes, really.
	Okay.
	And then we did a story recently on Angela Davis, who did the find your roots thing with Henry Louis Gates.
	And it turned out she's the descendant of Mayflower people and her white ancestors owned slaves.
	So does she pay the money or does she get the money?
	I like, how are they going to do that?
	He sent her a bill, but she only has to pay half.
	And let's not forget, just to stick up for California yet again on this podcast.
	The word reparations is commonly understood to refer to slavery.
	This is breaking news.
	San Francisco was not the capital of the Confederacy.
	California wasn't a slave state.
	California wasn't a slave state historically.
	And also, if you wanted to look at the culpability of the state of California, the city of San Francisco towards targeted, unfavored, disfavored minorities, pretty sure the Chinese are going to get first in line, probably in that case, Chinese and Japanese who have been compensated.
	But there have been a history of exclusion acts, overt discrimination, Jews as well, all over Southern California, including where I grew up.
	Jews were not allowed to live in my neighborhood in the 50s.
	It sounds crazy.
	So are we going to have reparations for Jews in the 50s in Southern California?
	No, we are not.
	Let's just be honest about how that's going to work out.
	So they're doing reparations for redlining.
	They're doing the reparations for stuff that FDR did or that happened under FDR.
	Good luck with that and convincing people of it.
	I'm all in favor, really, of governments saying, look, we did specific harms to specific communities.
	We took land, especially, because that's really easy to prove in some cases.
	You've got to give that land back.
	Or specifically to what we were talking about before, the way that Native American tribes were screwed over systematically over and over again.
	This is where I believe our sense of restorative justice, to use a terrible phrase, should be used.
	Government committed a harm.
	Go find the harm, measure it.
	Think about it.
	There's someone to pay back.
	But a free-floating, like there was harm done to communities, including by the drug war.
	Drug war sucks.
	I've been fighting against it for as long as I've been smoking drugs at age three or whatever it was in California.
	I think it's awful.
	I explained so much.
	But for crying out loud, you can't do this.
	You have to be very specific with it.
	These harms do exist.
	Go find those.
	Don't like read a Tanahisi Coates article from 15 years ago and say, how can we get in on the virtue signaling that we have a more virtuous city than all the actual cities in the Confederacy, which, by the way, tend to do better right now in terms of race relations than San Francisco or various elite progressive places?
	Putting aside Matt Welsh's cry for help in that the Hoover Institution, which we've mentioned a couple of times on the show at Stanford, means conservative, has said it would cost each non-black family in the city at least $600,000.
	So I hope all the families out there who don't qualify understand that it's going to be well over half a million dollars at least to you, not to mention maybe you have to give up your home because I don't know where they're going to find a free home for a dollar for everybody.
	This will never work, but I'm not going to lie.
	I'm kind of hoping it happens.
	I just kind of want to say, like, I'm not going to have to pay for it.
Smart Team Plays Baylor Tournament 00:04:18
	Can't wait to see how this works out for everybody.
	I think it's going to be a social experiment they'll regret that will not spread, but why not, Sam Fran?
	Let's start there.
	Okay, stand by.
	Quick break.
	More with the fifth column right after this quick break.
	I've got my St. Patrick's Day gear on, and I'm back with Michael Moynihan and Matt Welsh of the fifth column.
	Did I tell you?
	I'm ready to represent.
	I have got my little necklaces.
	Yes, it's pretty.
	You like it?
	Ireland are very excited about this.
	Yeah.
	You should see my kids right now.
	They're skiing.
	I got them like the wraps that go on your helmet, which has got like the shamrocks all over them.
	And they too are wearing their gear because, hey, it's St. Patrick's Day and we got to let loose.
	All right.
	Now, one of the things that's also happening this week, you may be aware, is the March Madness tournament.
	Are you guys in a bracket?
	Are you, did you do your brackets for somebody?
	Absolutely.
	I did because about one year out of five, UC Santa Barbara, my support of Alma Marta modder before I got kicked out of school, makes the tournament.
	So I just join whatever work thing there is and I pick them to win it all.
	So today they're going to start the march.
	You're like I am.
	So I, my, my system is very random and I lose pretty much every year.
	But when I nail it, I win the whole thing.
	Happened in 2018.
	You could Google it.
	I won the media tournament.
	Technically, Willie Geist won because he actually entered and I didn't.
	But there was proof online that I had picked the best bracket of anybody in the media tournament.
	Because I only pick schools that I have like an emotional affiliation with.
	Like, unfortunately, I picked Virginia because I used to live there and they got crushed in the first round.
	That was disappointing.
	Everyone got that wrong.
	But I have Baylor going all the way.
	I think I have them winning because I had a really sweet dog named Bailey, who we called Baylor.
	So if I nail it, you know, I'm, I'm there.
	My bracket is very upsetty.
	Well, apparently, Kamala Harris is following the March Madness because Howard University was playing.
	Who are they playing?
	Who did they lose to?
	Kansas.
	And they got crushed by Kansas.
	It was quite the beatdown.
	I think it was like 29 points, 28 points.
	And she decided to go offer the Huffington Post write-up was like her inspirational speech to the Howard team.
	You tell me.
	Here's a sample.
	Oh, no.
	You played hard.
	You played to the very last second.
	You made all us bisons so, so proud.
	No.
	You hustled out there.
	You are smart.
	You are disciplined.
	You put everything you had into the game.
	And you know, that's what it's about, right?
	This team, this team, you make us so proud.
	Oh, my God.
	Viva was a documentary.
	Viva documentary.
	She is incapable of not being entirely embarrassing.
	She's like, you guys, you had the ball.
	You dribbled it.
	You put it in the hoop sometimes.
	Sometimes you didn't, but you tried.
	And that made me so proud.
	You lost by 30 points.
	Even each morning.
	You were terrible.
	You were really terrible today.
	She should have gone in and just been like, yeah.
	Oh, my goodness.
	You're smart.
	Small people like you.
	Yeah.
	You're the basketball team at a university.
	It's what her husband says to her.
	She's just repeating her husband's comments to her at night.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	Well, her husband's comments, you're like, you guys, it's like the Holocaust because that's what he was talking about this week.
	No, she, I have to say the thing about Kamala Harris is that it is something that is indescribable.
	And I think everyone will know what this is.
	When somebody says, do you want Kamala Harris to run for president, for instance?
	And if I said no, I couldn't really put it in words.
	Why?
	Because she's just so atrocious.
	And it's just a feeling that you get when you watch her because she says nothing so wonderfully fluently.
	She just says nothing for minutes at a time.
	It's really like ASMR.
	I should tell the audience about what happened with the husband.
	It's too long a soundbite to play, but basically he was making remarks and he literally did compare the hate that led to the Holocaust to Americans at school board meetings.
	He said, you can see it here too.
Mike Pence Pete Buttigieg Accountability 00:06:27
	This hate is interconnected.
	You see it in the discourse in the country right now.
	You see it in the divide we have just going to school meetings.
	You see that hate is out there.
	We've got to step up and speak.
	No, you don't.
	And by the way, don't confuse people's righteous anger over what was done to their children with hate.
	That's not the same thing.
	And it's certainly not the same thing.
	It's like a Holocaust hate.
	Matt Welch was very angry about the school stuff.
	And I have been for a long time calling him the Heinrich Himmler of Brooklyn.
	And I'm glad that I have backup from the first, second gentleman or whoever.
	Like, good Lord.
	I tried this with Glenn Youngkin, remember, when he won an upset victory in Virginia for the governorship against Terry McAuliffe, I believe, you know, someone who had a history and was better known before that election, which was largely fought on the issue of schools, whether they've been open, whether they during COVID, whether they've been responsive to parents in certain high-profile cases and other things, what they've done to their gifted and talented programs.
	A lot of stuff associated with that.
	MSNBC, institution you might be familiar with, Megan, and other people were going on about how we're just seeing open like Confederacy white supremacy.
	This is racism flowering in Virginia, which voted for Joe Biden, which has voted Democrat for basically everything the last 10, 12 years, suddenly turned on a dime and became super racist.
	And the voters of Virginia are like, I don't know, that's not what we did.
	We're mad about the schools in Fairfax, where it's not notoriously a breeding ground for racists.
	And Glenn Young is one of the more popular governors in the country as a result.
	And it was widely, widely characterized as this is the awful bared fangs of white supremacy coming out to get us again.
	Well, the second gentleman got the memo and decided to repeat it on the world stage.
	Nicely done.
	As we're on the topic of second, Mike Pence is fighting with Pete and Chason Buttigeg.
	Mike Pence went to the Gridiron, I think it was, which is like this muckety-muckety thing with journalists and politicians where you get up there and you do a roast.
	And he referred to Mike Pence or to Pete Buttigieg's quote maternity leave and said while he was on this quote maternity leave, the country was falling apart.
	We had a supply chain crisis and this is the only person who's ever taken leave.
	And the rest of the country, the rest of the country got postpartum depression.
	It was a joke.
	Well, Pete Buttigieg's husband goes out in the view.
	He's indignant.
	He wants an apology.
	Again, he calls, he says that, all right, let's listen.
	Here it is.
	And the White House has slammed the comments as homophobic, which they were, in my view, and inappropriate.
	But Mike Pence's former chief of staff called the response from the White House faux outrage.
	You know, I think it's not woke, you know, to say that something is homophobic or misogynistic.
	It doesn't make it woke.
	You know, it doesn't make you a snowflake.
	We all have an obligation to hold people accountable for when they say something wrong, especially when it's misogynistic, especially when it's homophobic.
	And I just don't take that when it's directed at my family.
	And I don't think anybody else would, especially when you bring a very small, medically fragile child into it.
	Okay.
	Guess what?
	Mike Pence responded.
	Mike Pence.
	I mean, it's kind of interesting to see Mike Pence like defend himself.
	He comes out to say, I had a lot of jokes directed at me at this thing.
	It was a roast.
	And I directed a lot of jokes to Republicans and Democrats.
	The only thing I can figure is Pete Buttigieg not only can't do his job, he can't take a joke.
	So what do you make of the dust up?
	I'm still trying to figure out the role of misogyny in this particular story.
	Oh, by the way, he wants us to speak out whenever we see misogyny, you know, Chasing Buttigeg.
	I don't remember him saying anything about Don Lemon in the prime remarks.
	Nothing.
	Boo.
	Why don't you hold yourself to your own standards, sir?
	Sorry, keep going.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Sorry, Tom.
	I just, I tend to forget about Don Lemon things.
	I just flush them out and then it's brought up by the Oscar.
	He was made fun of in the Oscars, by the way.
	From the woman who won, did you won Best Actress or something?
	I didn't watch.
	Yes.
	And if that woman had made fun of Tucker Carlson, it would have been on every newspaper and every news feed.
	But since she was making fun of Don Lemon, very little was said about it.
	So who won in this debate between Chasin Buttigej and Mike Pence?
	And is he right?
	Can you, I mean, take a freaking joke.
	America lost.
	That's what I know.
	Nobody won, but America lost.
	Look, it's a bad joke, and that's irrelevant, but you can call out the joke, but never tell people to apologize for jokes.
	Honestly, I mean, it is obviously different if Gilbert Gottfried says it than Mike Pence.
	And it would be funnier if Gilbert Gottfried says it, but you can be offended by the joke.
	Absolutely fine.
	I have no problem with that.
	But demanding apologies is not something that I'm in the business of.
	It's like, I missed George W. Bush.
	He could take a joke.
	Good God, was he beaten up by everybody?
	And he always laughed, you know, like to show some glass, like take a, whatever.
	What was W's nickname for you, Megan?
	Because he has a nickname for everybody.
	I try to remember.
	I think he called me Meg.
	He called me Meg, which nobody calls me other than my husband, Doug, which I like.
	That's kind of cute.
	It made me feel closer to him.
	Weird Nugget on, Megan.
	I will say this.
	I think the reason he gets mocked for the, you know, leave is I realize he had two ends in the whole bit, but he took the same time on his child that I took for mine.
	And I actually grew a human being in my body and birthed it and had a surgery.
	And Pete Buttigieg and I had the same maternity leave, paternity leave, however you want to say it.
	And there are a lot of people who kind of looked at it like, really?
	Okay.
	Anyway, so the last word.
	Love talking to you guys.
	We'll get Camille in on the act the next time.
	Thanks for being here.
	Thanks, Megan.
	Thank you, Megan.
	All right, guys.
	Monday on the show, we're going to have a close look at all the new developments in the Idaho College Murders Case.
	And then I'm going to take a little vacation.
	All right, before we go, have a happy St. Patrick's Day and a happy weekend.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:00 Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show
00:02:04 Stanford Rape Hoaxes Exposed
00:17:27 Campus Kangaroo Courts Fail Due Process
00:32:13 Kids Protesting Free Speech
00:36:14 Timmons Claims Sexual Incompetence
00:45:04 Rachel Saraswati Race Hoax Scandal
00:47:57 Jesse Smollett Fake Crime Image
01:03:14 Robin DiAngelo DEI Consultants Boomerang
01:14:44 San Francisco Reparations Scam Debunked
01:25:03 Smart Team Plays Baylor Tournament
01:29:22 Mike Pence Pete Buttigieg Accountability