All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 1, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:36:03
20230501_dylan-mulvaneys-latest-pivot-and-leaks-against-tuc
|

Time Text
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show 00:06:37
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
We got a lot to get to today.
We've got Matt Taibi.
We've got Libs of TikTok.
The creator is here, and I'm looking forward to meeting her for the first time.
But we begin with just this.
I just wanted to tell you when we signed off on Friday, I told you I was going down to Miami, which I did for one of my best friends' 50th birthday parties.
You met her, Yael Dembo.
She was on the show with, along with Joelle Cosentino, when I was out in Vegas in March.
Remember, I put them both on.
So, Yael turned 50 and had such a fun birthday party, and we all went.
She's got tons of friends who I had never met before, who I really loved.
And Miami is fun for a birthday party, FYI.
It is fun.
Like every place you go, people are dancing on the tables and they got like fire and you just a riot and a lot of fun if you ever want to have a party.
But I made a little news while there, apparently, because I was by the pool with Joelle, one of my friends, and posted a picture of the two of us.
She was wearing her happy birthday, Yael black baseball cap, and I was wearing my cap, which I bought off of Kelly J. Keene's website, also known to you as Posey Parker.
She came on the show, she's a women's rights advocate.
And my hat is in the style of the MAGA hat, but it does not read Make America Great Again.
It reads make women female again.
And it's awesome.
I love my hat.
Well, everyone went nuts for this hat.
90% lovers, 10% deep haters.
And it was fascinating to watch.
You got sites like Mediaite, that's the media website.
They're like, oh, so much support for the hat.
But there were haters and made a point of saying, oh, misogynistic comments about Megan and her friend Joelle.
Oh, people bringing up blackface.
This is the reporter at Mediight trying to work out his issues.
Let me remind you of the things that make her look bad.
Okay, that's fun.
Because 90% of the comments were pro the hat.
But this is what happens, right?
People need in the media to tear you down if you take a stand.
It's not dissimilar from what Tucker was saying the other day about how if you buck the party rule, if you speak the truth, it's liberating, but of course you will be attacked.
I don't care.
I couldn't care less.
Go ahead and attack me.
Call me whatever you want.
He also pointed out that Kelly J. Keen has embraced the term TERF, trans exclusionary, radical feminist.
Though the truth is she doesn't really consider herself a feminist for the same reason many of us don't.
You can call me that too.
I don't care.
I don't care.
We talked about trans exclusionary.
I am trans-exclusionary when it comes to women's bathrooms and women's lockers and women's swimming lanes and sports and places that are supposed to belong to women because trans women are not women.
They're men.
Okay.
So I am trans-exclusionary to that extent.
I have empathy in my heart for the difficult situation that the people who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria are going through, but not for these glomers like Dylan Mulvaney, who I believe is faking it to get attention.
No, zero empathy for somebody like that.
That's where I am.
I'm going to wear the hat.
I got a great shirt I'm going to bring to you later this week.
I love Kelly J. Keene's website.
We've been in touch.
I paid.
I paid for all my gear.
I didn't ask her for free stuff just because she came on my show, but I think I might be getting some because we basically crashed her website with all of the signups.
My point is, look, I wore the hat down there because I'm sick of all the bullshit.
I'm sick of denying women's rights in the name of sparing people's feelings.
Women are getting raped in prisons, all right?
We had four teenage girls in ninth grade out in Wisconsin who had a guy whip out his penis in the women's locker room, the girls' locker room.
It is embarrassing enough to have to swim when you're in your teenage years as a woman, as a girl, during school.
The last thing you need to see is a penis coming at you in the showers after the pool.
Okay, so I'm done.
I don't care about the feelings anymore.
I care about women, care about girls.
I care about their feelings.
That's who I'm fighting for.
And when I wore the hat down there, a lot of liberals in our group, a lot of, well, maybe not a lot, but a couple of conservatives.
One woman from Canada was unbelievable.
She, her 92-year-old mother, I can't remember how old she said she was, who had been more conservative in Canada, had been saying all along, this is bullshit.
The women are women.
And the younger daughter, closer to my age, had been saying, Mom, be nice, be kind.
Well, she's turned now because of all this nonsense.
So while I thought maybe some of the group would be like, a hat, no, you know what happened?
Virtually all the women in the group were like, I need that hat.
And that was the reaction online.
Virtually everyone who saw that picture said, I need that hat.
So much so that the comments below the posts on Instagram and Twitter, you know how like these merchandise makers, they can quickly make a hat because if they think they're going to make a dollar, they'll be like, come here and buy the hat that says this.
Don't do it there.
Go to Kelly J. Keene's website, which I'll mention.
I don't, I can't remember off the top of my head.
Steve, get it to me because I can say it in this segment.
So much so that some of these merch makers started making the happy birthday Yael hat because it was just like people were going so nuts over the hats.
So these opportunistic merch makers were like, maybe they really love the black hat.
I don't, it's unclear.
The point is, say it loud.
Say it proud.
You might think that you're in the minority, but you're not, especially on this issue, which has crossed party lines.
Women are still women.
Women are female.
We're the only ones who are female.
And while you can be empathetic toward the social difficulties of somebody who says they're gender dysphoric or who says they don't think they were wrong and born in the wrong body, we can all draw a hard line on them coming into our spaces.
We're not going to be threatened by some lunatic who wants to blow us up with his gun like we saw last week.
We're not going to have some allegedly trans person whipping out his penis in front of our 14-year-old daughters post-swimming.
We're not going to continue to sit by and let female prisoners get raped where they're literally unable to escape their circumstances.
And we are going to speak out no matter what you call us.
Turf, transphobe, bring up, you know, things that allegedly make us look bad.
Female Prisoners and Rape Scandals 00:07:35
Do it.
Do it.
I'm not afraid of you.
And millions of people feel exactly the same way I do.
So tune in later this week for my next Kelly J. Keene piece of clothing, which I think you might like even more than the hat.
Okay.
Hey, I also, oh, here's the website, adulthumanfemale.us, adulthumanfemale.us.
You have to do a .us if you're in the US.
If you're in the UK, it's .uk.
So you figure it out.
Go to the website.
Okay, let's move on.
President Joe Biden openly mocking members of the White House press corps.
Good for him.
Good for him.
Team Biden.
And the stupid reporters don't even realize that they're, yes, right on.
We suck.
We're sick of fans.
It's amazing.
It was a, what is a cell phone?
Self-goal.
Own goal.
Plus, new evidence that the corporate media will not be happy about the firing of Tucker Carlson until the whole channel's off the air.
Okay, whatever.
We'll get to the latest on that.
My first guest today is a so-called journalist, so-called journalist doing so much solid journalism that Democratic lawmakers are now threatening to put him in prison, in prison, using the IRS to intimidate him as well into silence.
It's unbelievable what has happened to Matt Taibbi.
He's editor of Racket News on Substack.
Matt, welcome back.
How are you doing?
I'm great, Megan.
Thanks for having me.
Good.
Nice hat.
Yeah, this is Japanese baseball.
I'm more going that direction.
Very cool.
Yeah, no, we talked about that the first time you came on.
So, yeah, a lot's happened to you since you were last on.
The IRS is coming for you.
And this moronic Democratic lawmaker wants you in jail now, alleging that you lied before Congress in your sworn testimony, which itself is a lie.
But can we just spend one minute on what happened with the IRS?
Because it happened right after your Twitter files expose.
And look, it's not conspiratorial to say these two events are so linked in time.
It's deeply disturbing and feels a little like you're being targeted.
That plus the then jail threat make it seem even more plausible.
But what happened with the IRS?
Did they actually come to your house?
Like what happened?
Yes.
So Michael Schellenberger and I, you know, we're both Twitter files reporters.
We testified before the House weaponization of government subcommittee early in March.
And as I was testifying, an IRS agent came to my house and left a note at my door telling me to call in four days.
So when I got home from Washington, my wife showed me the note.
And apparently the IRS wanted me to sit and stew about it for the weekend.
So they didn't answer my calls for a couple of days.
And then when I finally did call and find out what was going on, the complaints were very strange.
And I initially thought it had to be a coincidence.
It's just too silly for somebody to send an IRS agent to your door while you're testifying.
But it actually happened.
And now I'm much more leaning in the direction of this can't possibly have been a coincidence.
No, it couldn't have.
It's just too, the timing of it is just, it's too much.
So now you had the IRS sicked on you because what, you had the temerity to report that there was government coordination with big tech and pressure by the government on big tech, though not a lot was needed, to report things the way the government wanted them reported.
And there's been so much evidence of that on COVID, on Hunter Biden.
We could go down the list.
So you and Schellenberger and Barry Weiss and others have been doing a great job on this.
Then you made the very foolish decision for a very smart man of going on MSNBC with Mehdi Hassan.
I know you see that now.
When you did it the day, I was like, what's he doing?
What?
Yeah, no, of course it was an idiotic decision.
It was such, it was like kind of sweet because it was, you were in good faith and you were like, I'll go and speak with somebody who I know disagrees with me and is going to be a critic of me.
And I, and I think that, you know, I can stand by.
It was sweet.
It was like born of your good faith in our profession.
Silly, silly man.
And now that last sliver of good faith and humanity you had is gone because Mehdi Hassan was the most dishonest, disgusting person to you in the exchange and tried to make it look like you were a liar.
And then we found out after the fact that he was the one lying about your reporting kind of caught you off guard on a couple things.
You were sort of being nice, giving him a point because he was like, this is a proof positive you misstated this and proof positive.
And you were like, okay, if I did, I'll correct it.
Turned out he was wrong on the things.
And now this moron, as if I'm not mistaken, is the U.S. representative for the Virgin Islands, is threatening to throw you in jail saying you perjured yourself.
So when you heard that, what was your reaction?
Yeah, I was horrified.
You know, first of all, the decision to go on with Medi, you know, I was being cocky.
I was trying to make a point.
I've been upset with MSNBC for some time because I think the station doesn't answer its critics.
I think that's part of the responsibility of journalism is that if you have people who disagree with you, who think you've made errors or you think that there are or think that there are flaws in your reporting, that you have to face them.
And that's how the public ultimately benefits.
So it would be hypocritical of me to not go on the air and face their hostile questioning when I've been very critical of them.
So I went on.
And to be fair, you know, in the interview, his questions were, they were hostile, but they were more or less in bounds.
I mean, I think he caught me on a couple of things.
I did make a few mistakes in some tweets.
They were, I would say, not substantive mistakes.
They were the kind of mistakes you make after that happen in any kind of reporting, whether you have fact checkers looking at it or not.
But it turned into a big thing because he thought that I had made a major error in confusing two organizations, one of which is an intelligence agency and one of which is not.
In fact, both the intelligence agency and the civil society organization that we were talking about, they're both partners with the same Stanford group that was doing content moderation for Twitter.
So actually they made an error in not seeing that.
And he later tweeted out that I had lied to Congress because I had confused these two organizations.
And that was when the letter was written by Representative Stacey Plasquette of the Virgin Islands, who's threatening me now with five years imprisonment for having intentionally lied to Congress when actually hilariously, they're making an error in the letter.
We could get into the weeds about that, but that's where we are.
No, she's too stupid to be in Congress, truly.
I mean, like, she's too dumb.
I'm sorry, she needs to go.
Like, there's dumb and then there's just dumb as a box of rocks.
Boxy, the representative from Virgin Islands, Boxy slash Roxy, needs to go.
It was deeply offensive.
We covered it on the air when it happened.
And I know we're laughing at it because it's not going to happen.
But on some level, I mean, sadly, this moron has some power and a field of Democrats that has been demonizing you for months now.
Julian Assange and Espionage Act Threats 00:03:06
So there's got to be some element of it that is a little frightening.
Yeah, I wouldn't be so quick to laugh at it and say that's never going to happen because, look, the history of our country shows that when people least expect it, figures like this will take it the extra step.
And you never know.
It could end up being a situation like the House on American Affairs Committee, where you have a bunch of people who are invited in to give testimony and then they're held in contempt of Congress because they refuse to answer questions.
Right now, that can't happen because Stacey Pliskette is in the minority.
She can't compel me to come in and she can't send me a subpoena.
But who knows what can happen in the future?
And this threat of sending somebody to jail, sending a journalist to jail is an extraordinary escalation of the kind of hostility against the media that, again, if you can, can you imagine what would have happened if this had happened, if a Republican had done this under in the Donald Trump years to, you know, somebody like Jim Acosta, you know, or Ben Collins of NBC or Ken Delanian,
we would never hear the end of it.
But, you know, the press does not see the danger in this, and they really should.
You know, the White House correspondents dinner was this past weekend.
It actually used to be a thing.
It used to be an event that like, you know, you wanted to get into.
When I went one year very young in my career, George Clooney was there.
Obama was president.
That's why he went.
He wanted to rub elbows with Obama.
But it's now since she's become one of those sad little events that like the people don't realize the cool kids aren't going to that anymore.
And it's just sort of the leftovers.
And they get up there and just want to talk about press freedoms.
I didn't hear your name mentioned, Matt.
I didn't hear with Joe Biden in the room anybody look at him and say, that was outrageous, what a member of your party did.
And we call on you to condemn it, sir.
Where is that?
That would have happened even 10 years ago.
The mainstream press would have stood up for you, but they won't.
And they've been utterly silent about this whole thing.
Or they would have stood up for Julian Assange or Edward Snowden.
I mean, remember, Glenn Greenwald won an Oscar and a Pulitzer for doing Snowden reporting.
And it was sort of considered normal in the mainstream press to be supportive of a whistleblower and be contemptuous of the person who lies about the same revelations in Congress.
Julian Assange is facing basically life in prison for showing a video that most of the country was anxious to look at.
The idea of using these draconian punishments to threaten reporters, it's an unreported story or an underreported story that began to take place in the Obama years when they began threatening reporters and their sources with the Espionage Act more than presidents ever had before.
Professional Spinners Behind the Mic 00:05:44
And this is a continuation of the same thing.
I don't like you, I don't think it's going to happen in this case, but the fact that they would even think in that direction tells you what their attitude is toward the media.
And what you were talking about with the White House dinner, there's just no differentiation anymore between reporters and people in power and, you know, for instance, like members of the Pentagon.
It's all one team.
There's no adversarial relationship where there used to be one.
Absolutely not.
And one of the best examples of that, I'm going to play some sound bites from the White House correspondence dinner, which is just absurd, absolutely like stunning what they were saying about themselves.
But there's no better example of that than Jen Saki, who was literally working for this president before she jumped to go work on MSNBC in a Sunday show.
I think it's Sundays, it's weekends, which is absolutely failing.
Oh my God, we looked up the ratings.
I actually had to say to Canadian Debbie, who produced my number one show, all of them while I was at Fox, did you get, was this a typo?
I think you've screwed something up, Canadian Debbie.
There's no way she has 29,000 in the key advertising demo of 25 to 54.
And Debbie corrected me and said, MK, I don't screw things up.
It's 29,000.
29,000.
That's her average viewers in the 25 to 54 year olds, which is all they look at.
She's, I mean, it's just, yes, that's the only appropriate response is to laugh.
I mean, that, I don't, you, as soon as you get your station on the air, you have 29,000 viewers.
Like, it'd be really hard to go below that.
I don't even know how you do it.
So, but she's on the air.
MSNBC is celebrating this person.
And she, of course, was thrilled to see a dissenting voice, a heterodox voice like your own, Tucker Carlson, to be pulled, to lose his job, to lose his platform.
And not only does she want like that, she wants Fox to lose his platform too.
And I realize a lot of people are mad at Fox.
I'm one of them.
shouldn't be deplatformed, shouldn't be pulled off of the cable stations.
But that's how the left sees.
Here's just a little bit of Jensaki this weekend.
But if you think Tucker's firing means Fox has seen the light, don't hold your breath.
Don't judge them on why they fired Carlson.
Judge them for all the times they didn't.
And judge them for what they're still putting on the air this week.
Fox News may have had a problem with Tucker himself, but his ideas, the conspiracies, the lies, his explicit white nationalist views were never the total problem for the network.
They endorse all of that and continue to do so.
This is simply who they are.
You tell it to your 29,000 demo viewers, Jen.
Tell them.
Tell them all.
Your thoughts on it.
It's incredible.
You know, the thing that's been kind of remarkable to watch, especially in the last six or seven years, is the lack of understanding by stations like CNN and MSNBC.
The press derives all of its institutional power from the perception of separateness from government.
All right.
So if the audience believes that it's acting as a check on presidents, whether on the left or the right, it has to believe that the press is independent.
Well, you puncture that suspension of disbelief if you have one government official after the other on the air and in many cases acting like acting as newsreaders, whether it's Jensaki or Nicole Wallace and you have guests like Andrew Weissman and Frank Frigliussi and John Brennan.
I mean, you're practically watching Langley TV.
Yes.
You're giving up your independence entirely, which strips the press of any power that it ever had because now the audience views you as an extension of the government.
And what's the point of that?
You're not going to get ratings out of that and you're not going to get influence out of that.
So all you're doing is surrendering any advantage that you ever had and any role that you had as the fourth estate.
And audiences see that.
And that's why the numbers are so low.
Who would watch that?
And for what reason?
Yeah.
Her guest this weekend was Ron Clain, former chief of staff for President Biden.
I mean, it's just, and we looked up just the trajectory to see maybe she's just started and she's building, you know, give her some time.
Literally, it's like a downward escalator.
I mean, both numbers, the overall and the demo off a cliff.
No one wants to watch Gensaki.
I mean, no one.
She decided, I mean, this is so true of all these people.
They work at the White House press office.
What they really want is to be a cable news star.
And so they lay the foundation while they're over there trying to make themselves into a national personality.
And what they really want is the job of the people they watch on primetime every night.
They're just, they're envious.
It's true of half of Congress too.
It's pathetic.
Would you just fucking legislate or work with the executive office to come up with better messaging and better policy instead of be a star effer?
That's what these people turn into.
And so she now is trying to make herself into a star and she's failing because she has no actual talent in this field.
She had more talent being a spinner, a professional spinner behind the lectern than she does being a different kind of professional spinner behind the MSNBC mic.
All right, that's my tarot on Gensaki.
AOC, meanwhile, is actually fundraising.
She's fundraising off of Tucker's firing.
AOC Fundraising Off Tucker's Firing 00:16:09
So let's celebrate the deplatforming.
She said it last week.
Deplatforming works.
And now you have a member of Congress fundraising off of the fact that he was pulled off the air, but there are still others like him.
So she needs money, you see.
And she's not making any bones about it, Matt, because she went out there last week and said the reason he needs to be deplatformed and that he's so dangerous and others like him is because of incitement.
He's guilty of incitement, which is a legal term that what it means is, not just I say incendiary things, but like if they're so incendiary, I make people go out instantaneously and commit an act of violence.
I don't know if we have that side.
Do we have her original thought saying it?
Yeah, we do.
Let's listen to it.
Saudi.
Do you think media organizations or social media platforms should be accountable for the role for being platforms for incitement?
I believe that when it comes to broadcast television like Fox News, these are subject to federal law, federal regulation in terms of what's allowed on air and what isn't.
And when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence.
Very clearly incitement of violence.
And that is the line that I think we have to be willing to contend with.
She has misled 29,000 people between the ages of 25 and 54.
It's unforgivable, Matt.
Yeah, I mean, she's confused, obviously.
You know, anybody in journalism, you know, we're acquainted with the basic legal precedents of our profession.
When she talks about incitement to violence, the case there that we all have to learn is Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the standard is incitement to imminent lawless action, which is an incredibly high bar.
And the judges in that court, who incidentally were all liberal heroes, right?
Like, you know, that was the age, you know, of the Supreme Court that gave us, you know, things like Miranda rights and, you know, all these things that are celebrated, or at least once were by due process living liberals.
They intentionally made the bar very high to outlaw speech because they wanted us to talk about things as much as we could.
And the thing that's striking to me as a lifetime sort of ACLU liberal is that people like AOC are the exact opposite of what we claim to be in the 70s, 80s, and 90s when every single controversy, whether you're talking about, you know, Jerry Falwell versus Hustler or the PMRC or the, you know,
the NWA being banned from radio stations or Maplethorpe photos, we were never the people who wanted to ban people from talking or being artists or doing anything.
But now, you know, that script has flipped and now they want to use the state to get people to stop talking, which is an anathema, I think, to the classical definition.
Meanwhile, it's so dishonest and it's, of course, one-sided, hypocritical.
We just pulled, just for kicks, some of her incendiary comments and those from her side, which, you know, if we're going to cast the incitement, the fake incitement net, she should take a look right there at home.
Watch.
Once someone doesn't have access to clean water, they have no choice but to riot.
I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country and maybe there will be.
When they go low, we kick.
That's what this new Democratic Party is about.
I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you.
You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets.
You see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.
Illegitimate!
This is Susan!
Illegitimate!
This is Susan!
Illegitimate!
I never heard Tucker Carlson even approach the line of that kind of talk.
Yeah, and again, these people have no conception of what the whole principle of freedom of speech is all about.
I actually, even though I don't agree in those specific instances, I do agree that the people have a right to, you know, when they feel upset with the government, that's one of the things that's outlined in the First Amendment is our right to petition for redress of grievances.
If we think that it's time to maybe overthrow the government or to kick people out of office, we have a right to talk about that.
We have a right to say those things.
What we don't have a right to do is what Maxine Woodards was talking about in that clip.
This whole idea of a heckler's veto of shouting people down, of not letting them speak, of bothering them when they're eating or something like that.
There's a confusion that that's an exercise of free speech.
Judges have been very had very different feelings about that over the course of the years, but that's not in the principle of free expression.
This kind of attitude towards speech is basically hypocritical and it lacks any kind of principle behind it, which is what drives me crazy.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, it's just like the fact that you've got actual politicians celebrating the deplatforming of a major news anchor is troubling.
I mean, there's something very off about it.
She should be celebrating free speech and the diversity of opinions, but he was her critic.
So she likes it.
You know, she wants him gone.
And she'd like, you know, just like Jensaki, the entire conservative ecosphere gone.
They don't want it to hear any dissent.
And yet, and yet, Matt, if you listened to the messaging at the White House Correspondence Center, I'm not going to call it NerdProm anymore.
Michael Knowles had a good tweet about this.
He was like, it's just the name NerdProm.
It's their own name for themselves as though they're the smart ones.
And they're not.
They are not the smart ones.
Only nerds get to call themselves smart.
Out there talking in the most sanctimonious terms about their mission and how they fulfill it.
It's just like they toil away.
You were actually the first person I thought of when I heard NPR's Tamara Keith, who's the president of the White House Correspondents Association, speaking about the press and what it does.
Because I read your sub stack and I know what your feelings on this, but listen to her describe how they operate in Washington under this president.
This is also a challenging time for our country.
People are choosing their news in part based on what they want to hear.
And this makes us all vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
There is something uniquely American about the fact that we can all be here together.
And then these reporters can go out on Monday and do stories about these very same politicians that pull no punches.
We represent the American people.
Sure, Jan.
I added that last part.
I could tell.
No, obviously it's ridiculous.
I mean, the idea that they're pulling no punches and that they aren't a big insiders club that all, you know, loves being behind the rope line together and is protective of one another.
It's preposterous.
And this is symbolized by this news story, by a couple of recent news stories, but one by the prepared questions that we see, you know, Joe Biden reportedly having in, you know, the LA Times has denied that they gave the question in advance.
Wait, let me just interrupt you one second because we have to get, I love your reporting on both of these stories, that the LA Times allegedly giving Biden the question in advance.
And then the second one is what's happening with that disinformation letter from the so-called intelligence experts, which we've learned a lot on, which I did not manage to get to last week given all the media news, but I want you to talk about both of them.
Let me squeeze in a quick break.
We'll do that.
And I also want to get to Chrissy Teigen treating this like it was the Oscars and the Emmys all wrapped up into one with her servants carrying her trailing dress behind her.
So much to do.
Quick break, right back with Matt.
Okay, so this independent press, which is committed to holding, speaking truth to power and holding the powerful to account, has utterly ignored the one story about this, these Intel experts and how they exactly got together to write that letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, they believed.
They've utterly ignored that.
And they've been caught in the act coordinating the White House with the White House.
In fact, both of these stories are about them getting caught in the act coordinating with the White House.
Let's start with the smaller one that's easy to understand first.
The LA Times very much looks like it submitted the question it wanted to ask President Biden directly to President Biden prior to his presser with the South Korean president.
And we know that because we saw a picture of the president holding a memo, a piece of paper with the reporter's picture and the question written out.
When she was called on by same president, she asked a question very similar to the one that was written down.
It was not verbatim the same, but how did he know that specific angle would be the one she'd take on that specific subject?
How did his press corps figure it out?
His press people.
The LA Times says, we don't know.
We didn't submit the question in advance.
What did you submit?
Did you submit the topic?
Did you give an idea of the angle?
Because miraculously, Corrine Jean-Pierre, who is nobody's idea of a Mensa member, somehow figured it out.
Your thoughts, I'm at.
Well, this just speaks to the overall problem of media titles not treating each other as competitors anymore and acting more like a cartel.
The reason you wouldn't have gotten away with this in the past is that if the White House tried to ask all of the members of the White House press corps to submit their questions in advance, at least one of them would have finked on the rest of them and said, you know, all these newspapers are submitting their questions in advance and that's why they're getting called on.
What this shows, I think, is that there's solidarity inside the White House press room.
And look, I've been in that press room and I don't remember them ever asking me for questions in advance.
So this must be a relatively new phenomenon.
But for nobody to tell on the other members of the press corps that they're doing this is a total violation of the relationship with audiences.
Because again, these reporters want to be stars.
They're not looking to be star reporters.
They want to be called on so they can see their face on camera.
And by the way, the reason you've never been approached, I'm sure, is because they didn't think you'd be a lap dog.
This reporter should be so insulted that they looked at her and said, she'll she'll lap dog.
Dog it.
She'll let's go to her.
And by the way, the fact that she didn't deny it and she just denied it through the LA Times' PR hack is an embarrassment to her.
If that had been me, you, we would have been out there saying, hell no, how they figured it out, that's their business, but nothing.
I gave them not the topic, not a hint, not the question, absolutely nothing.
She hasn't said that.
And there's a reason I would submit to our audience.
All right, let's talk about this other story now, because what happened was these House Republicans who have been just on it and doing really interesting things over there decided to call in Mike Morrell, who formerly was high up in the CIA and question him.
And he is the one, as I understand it, who revealed that it was Anthony Blinken, who was then at the top of the Biden campaign that contacted him and said, hey, wouldn't it be great if you and a bunch of other former CIA and Intel types got a letter together saying the Hunter Biden laptop is bullshit?
It's on the record.
And Morell testified to Congress, and I did it because I wanted Joe Biden to win.
This is a former Bush guy.
He's one of those more establishment Republicans.
He didn't want Trump.
And Morell testified to that in front of Congress saying it was Joe Biden's top campaign guy, Blinken, who asked me to do it.
I was only too happy to coordinate with him.
And that's how that letter came about directly from Team Biden, orchestrated by the guy who's now Secretary of State.
The media has done a total blackout of the story.
It's kind of an amazing story.
Michael Morell is, as you mentioned, he's the former acting head of the CIA.
He would have been Hillary Clinton's CIA chief almost certainly.
He played a very important role in Russia Gate, which is another kettle of fish we could get into some other time.
But in this instance, what he was asked by Jim Jordan and the Weaponization of Government Committee essentially is, would you have organized this group letter calling the Hunter Biden story and saying that it has the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation?
Would you have done that absent a phone call from Anthony Blinken?
And Morell says no.
And when Jordan said, so that triggered it, he said yes.
So that's a very, very important piece of information.
We don't have the whole transcript, but that tells you that this wouldn't have happened without the call from Blinken.
Then he says, well, why did you do it?
Because I wanted him to win.
So here you have the Secretary of State who's involved basically in a massive disinformation operation.
Because remember, this was a lie.
This is five former heads of the CIA and 45 other former intelligence officials saying that this thing that came from a computer repair store owner was a Russian information operation.
They foisted that on the public at a key point of an election campaign.
And I think it's a major conspiracy.
And it's the total blackout in the media about this.
They're not interested at all.
These same people who really, they can party with the president on Saturday and then speak truth to power on Monday.
Well, there's absolutely no evidence of that.
You know, this woman who we played, Tamara Keith, president of the White House Correspondents Association of NPR, actually said, you know, we are the representatives of the people.
And all I could think was, which people?
You're certainly not representatives of the right half of the country, the people in the center of the country, or even the people usually on the center left.
You know, you describe yourself as somebody who's a lifelong liberal.
The reason they're losing people like you is because they're totally abandoning liberal principles.
RFK Jr. Still says he's a liberal, but he doesn't identify with these people at all.
Alan Dershowitz still says he's a liberal, but he doesn't understand or identify with his party.
So this person does not represent the people.
She represents the far left of one party, and that's the problem.
Yeah, I mean, I don't even know if I would necessarily call it left because they're pretty quiet about things that happen to the actual left, too.
Journalists Hobnobbing at Luxury Parties 00:09:33
We reported in the Twitter files about, you know, people like Jill Stein and WikiLeaks and the suppression of their speech, and nobody seems particularly interested in those cases either.
I think these are, this is a new sort of just proto-authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party.
Their ideology is basically just that they want to stay in power by any means necessary.
They've completely abandoned civil liberties and due process and all the things that we used to take such pride in on that side of the aisle.
And I just don't recognize it.
It's completely different from my vision of what the Democratic Party and liberalism used to be.
Well, meanwhile, the president gets up there and openly mocks them because he never takes their questions.
Yes, he had a brief presser last week under enormous pressure from everybody to actually speak, but he never does it.
He's at a record low in terms of his questions with reporters versus all other presidents.
In fact, it's to the point where Corrine Jean-Pierre was actually bragging recently that he takes a lot of shouted questions.
We got to play this.
I've been meaning to get to it, SOT7, quickly.
So I'll say this.
It is also unprecedented that a president takes as many shouted questions as this president has.
And he has.
Okay, well, we'll get, we'll certainly get the data and share that with all of you.
Oh my God.
Even they had to openly mock it.
He takes more shouted questions.
Okay.
So what does Biden do?
He gets up there and he openly mocked them.
This is SOT 5.
In a lot of ways, this dinner sums up my first two years in office.
I'll talk for 10 minutes, take zero questions, and cheerfully walk away.
They're all cheering that.
How embarrassing.
This is why we can't call them nerd prom because they're not smart.
It's incredible.
I mean, this started back in the Trump years.
You remember when Jim Acosta was gesticulating and raising such alarm about potentially losing White House privileges?
And then, you know, my reaction to that was: who cares if you lose your White House privileges?
You're outside the gates anyway.
Just do the reporting.
You know, without the privileges, you can do the same job.
But to these people, that's not the important thing.
The important thing is being inside the rope line, being able to put on that tuxedo for that dinner and being able to hang out after work with all these people you're reporting on because culturally they're the same people.
That was not always the case with reporters.
There was an adversarial relationship at one time and it's gone now.
Oh my God.
So that leads me to some of the parties around the White House correspondence dinner and how gross those are.
That's another opportunity to get these muckety muck politicians to come to your pre-party or your post-party as a news organization.
One of them, CBS's Robert Costa, came out and went to this woman, Tammy Haddad, has a garden brunch every year around the White House correspondence dinner.
And guess who was there?
Anthony Fauci, of course, written up as I can't remember who wrote this.
I was from Vanity Fair wrote this.
She writes, I went over to this party and there was Dr. Anthony Fauci making do in the low 60s weather with the turtleneck under his Oxford shirt.
CBS's Robert Costa says, as long as the dinner and the festivities have a focus on journalism and on the First Amendment, I'm comfortable attending.
I'm comfortable going as long as the focus is on the big J, Matt.
Okay, sure.
And then you go over just describing Politico says its party featured cypress trees and a stone fountain.
They do an exclamation point behind their own stone fountain shipped in from Italy, limoncello and apparol spritz bars and a politico branded Vespa.
So exciting, Politico, how you spent all of your subscribers' money so you could feel self-important.
They go on to say that at the vanity or at the Crooked Media Party, this is the former Obama guys who do that Pod Saves America podcast.
They write that it was so popular, not everyone could get in.
This did not go over well with Susan Rice, the president's outgoing top domestic policy advisor, who, when politely turned away, politely replied, no.
It wasn't long before someone came and got Rice and then explained to the guy who was working the door, we've got some VIPs.
Love it, one of the three guys who I just mentioned, said to the reporter, there's capacity and then there's DC capacity.
Among those who made it inside were MSNBC's Mehdi Hassan, who was earning praise for his Matt Taibbi interview.
Matt, I can't.
I would like to hate these people.
I can't stand them.
I can't go to these parties.
I can't stomach dealing with them one day longer.
Well, and again, it's reflected in the audiences that they're garnering.
Look, you have that reaction.
It's a natural sort of physical revulsion that you feel at the idea of journalists hobnobbing with the people they're supposed to be covering and hanging out at luxury parties after hours and bragging about their, you know, their luxury items and that sort of thing.
The public is disgusted by behavior like this.
They do not want journalists acting like they want to be friends with the people they're covering.
They want journalists to see themselves as being on the side of the audience and looking at people in power as potential adversaries.
And when they do this stuff, when they advertise this behavior, when they give each other essentially bear hugs on the air, when it's Jen Saki interviewing AOC, you can't tell who's the government official in the picture.
It's repulsive.
That's why nobody's watching it.
And then they have the temerity to complain about somebody like Tucker Carlson, who is organically getting five times their audience.
And why?
Because mainly because of the orientation of his show.
His audience has no mistake that whose side he's on.
They at least believe that Tucker's on their side as opposed to being on the politician's side.
And that's the difference.
It was funny.
My old pal, an old producing friend of mine forwarded me some podcast.
I never heard of these people, but they were ripping on me and some others who left Fox as like irrelevant, that they were saying I'm irrelevant.
I'm like, literally, I never heard of you.
I never heard of your podcast.
Last week, not for nothing, we had the number five podcast in the nation among everything.
And the number two news show, second only to the New York Times, is The Daily, which has something like 10 million subscribers.
So like, that's what they'll do.
They'll try to say Tucker's irrelevant now that he's not on Fox.
I'm irrelevant despite the fact that we're crushing it in the digital space.
I guess Ben Shapiro is irrelevant too.
Joe Rogan, is he irrelevant with his 10 million?
Okay, all right, if you say so.
You know who they think is relevant?
Chrissy Teigen.
That's who they invited as their big star.
We've gone from George Clooney to Chrissy Teigen, who showed up there like she was literally going to the coronation.
Here she is with John Ledge and her husband.
She has, by my count, three minions following her.
That's minions in her view.
Following her holding the dress or the train of her non-existent dress, I can see underwear.
Okay.
I can see London.
I see France.
I see Chrissy's underpants, which nobody shows underpants at the White House correspondence dinner.
Okay, Chrissy, they just don't do it.
And nobody shows up with serfs to carry their train, which there shouldn't be on your White House correspondence dinner dress anyway, because it's barely a formal event.
The absurdity of this, Matt, it's just in a picture.
It's everything wrong.
The elitism, the surfs behind her, the self-importance, the aggrandizement of this fake, stupid event.
It just tells you everything you need to know.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, I was trained by reporters who wouldn't have peed on a politician if they were on fire, you know?
And the idea of dressing up and having people carry your skirts behind you as you go to a fancy dress party with the people you're covering.
You'd have to drag a really good reporter.
And can you imagine Seymour Hirsch doing that?
I mean, it's ridiculous to even consider the possibility.
But this is the new press that we're looking at.
And then they wonder why they're not popular.
Yeah.
It's an absolute humiliation that she tried that hard for the White House correspondence dinner.
She should be embarrassed.
Isn't she a model?
You're supposed to be the effortless, you know, here I am just looking amazing.
I didn't really have to try.
You don't show up with three people holding your train, madam.
A lesson, a lesson to those who are going to the Met Gala tonight.
You also look like an elitist nob when you show up there with the three people, the servants who are masked and you're not or carrying your train.
In any event, we'll have plenty to say about that tomorrow.
Matt Taibbi, always a pleasure.
Please come back soon.
Brian Stelter and Met Gala Humiliation 00:15:38
We are going to be back with the founder of Libs of TikTok and more on Tucker.
Breaking news there.
Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.
It seems like everywhere you turn these days, you cannot escape the indoctrination of our children, particularly when it comes to gender and sex.
From drag queen story hour at the children's library event to sports to young women being forced to share spaces with biological men in schools and school locker rooms.
My guest now is the creator of one of the most recognizable social media accounts in the world and has been shining a light on these issues for years.
Whether you know it or not, she is the reason you know about a lot of these stories, which previously went unreported on.
She did it anonymously until she was infamously doxed by the Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz, who herself complains about being doxed repeatedly and how upsetting it is.
Meanwhile, it's literally her bread and butter.
Literally, it's her bread and butter at her professional post.
You made her know her best as the creator of Libs of TikTok.
Haya Rychick is here and welcome to the show.
Hi, Haya.
Great to have you.
Hi, Megan.
So great to meet her.
Oh, so great to have you.
So I know the first time I saw you was on Tucker's show on Fox.
It was the first time you showed your face willingly after you'd been outed by Taylor Lorenz.
And who could blame you, especially back then for wanting to report on this stuff anonymously, because you're a private citizen at the time and you get a lot of shit.
But you decided ultimately to come out and own it.
Good for you.
And so I'm going to begin with Tucker because there's breaking news on him right now.
Couple of things.
Want to tell the audience that we've been updating them on how the backlash against Fox is playing out and the ratings that we now have for Thursday show the, I don't know if you want to call it a boycott of his 8 p.m. hour continues.
They continue to have record low numbers in his spot where Thursday previously, Tucker had pulled in 3 million the previous Thursday.
The APM hour got half that, 1.5 million.
The week before on Thursday, Tucker had gotten 334,000.
This week, this past Thursday, they got 136,000.
The only reason they didn't lose to CNN in the demo that night is because Anderson Cooper got a 108,000, which is just, these numbers are basement toilet numbers, however you want to look at it.
They did lose to MSNBC and they lost to MSNBC the previous nights in the demo as well.
So it's not going well for Fox News at 8 p.m. at all, which is the understatement of the year.
Meanwhile, Media Matters for America, which I'm sure you know, Haya, is its whole existence is to hate on Fox News.
And now more broadly conservative media, now that Fox doesn't have the monopoly it once did.
Media Matters for America releases another mysterious outtake of Tucker on set, speaking frankly.
This happened last week.
Two videos were released by whomever could it be, Irina, to the New York Times saying one, in one, he called a woman yummy.
We have zero idea the context.
It could have been his wife for all I know.
Zero idea.
And one, he said something like, will my post-menopausal audience still find me attractive in this outfit?
Meanwhile, when I reported this last week, all of my post-menopausal viewers, because I have a lot of them, wrote in like, yes.
And none of us is offended by that, even in the least.
Like, so nice try, Fox, but you tried and failed.
So they first leaked to the New York Times.
This is my supposition for the, for the record.
It hasn't been yet confirmed, but I know it's them.
And I know it's Irina Briganti, who runs comms and fucking hates Tucker.
Sorry.
She hates his guts.
And it's mutual.
He doesn't like her either.
None of us do.
Nobody likes Irina.
Now, another, I mean, if you want to go farther left from the New York Times, you'd have to go Media Matters for America.
And they, without comment, post the following bit of Tucker complaining about what a hot mess Fox Nation is on his set.
He's not on the air.
And they're trying to get him to like dress differently for this interview.
And he doesn't want to do it.
He's kind of asking why we should be prioritizing his dress and his interview for the Fox Nation situation as opposed to his primetime show, which he wants to dress for.
Here's part of the exchange.
I don't want to be a slave to Fox Nation, which I don't think that many people watch anyway.
But nobody's going to watch it on Fox Nation.
Nobody watches Fox Nation because the site sucks.
So I'd really like to just put the dump the whole thing on YouTube.
But anyway, that's just my view.
I'm just frustrated with the, it's hard to use that site.
I don't know why they're not fixing it.
It's driving me insane.
We're like working like animals to produce all this content.
And the people in charge of it, whoever that guy's, whatever his name is, like they're ignoring the fact that the site doesn't work.
And it's, I think it's like a betrayal of our efforts.
That's how I feel.
So I, of course, I resent it.
All right.
So let me tell you what this is about.
I was talking with Melissa Francis, who came on this show last week and a long time Fox bet too.
We talked about how the mission now has to be Tucker's audience can't go with him.
These numbers at 8 p.m. are a disaster for Fox.
And Tucker cannot go to Newsmax, which has offered him big numbers, according to reports.
Newsmax would love to have Tucker just slide on over to 8 p.m.
And unlike digital media, it would allow him to remain live, which I know Tucker really likes.
And there would be some reasons to do that.
I could see why Tucker would say yes to that.
I'm sure they're finding ways to open the bank account in new ways for Tucker.
But you see, that's a threat to Fox.
That actually is a real threat to Fox.
So what we have to telegraph to Chris Ruddy, who owns Newsmax and any other potential employer, is Tucker's, he's difficult.
He's not a team player.
He rips on you from the inside, you see.
He calls women allegedly the C-word in his private messages, which were never meant to see the light of day.
We need to police the way you think now, you see, even on your private time.
He says bad things about the company's digital offerings.
And by the way, at Newsmax, their digital offering is their strongest brand.
That's where they make their money, their digital brand.
So you see, he's a hassle.
He's a difficult employee.
He's not a team player.
He rips on you from the inside.
This is all an orchestrated hit job, in my opinion.
And it's not a subtle one.
It's not enough to fire you, Haya.
You must be destroyed.
And it doesn't matter how nice a guy you were, how many points you put on the board for the channel, that you brought us through the Trump years, that you were number one in your time slot, that you haven't said one negative word about us.
You will be destroyed to settle some angry, bitter, internal PR hacks, personal vendetta against you.
And if she managed to convince the bosses, the Murdochs, that he's not good for them either, that he may have called them a name or two, so much the better because they're the ones who make the final decisions.
That's what I think is going on here.
Your thoughts on all of it.
Yeah, I mean, I think it definitely feels like a very coordinated effort to silence him and to take him down.
And the reason is simply because he tells the truth, right?
That he says the things that no one else in the media will say.
He asks the questions and no one else will ask.
And I think that's why they're all coordinating to take him down.
All of a sudden, we have his private text messages.
We have these secret new, you know, unearthed video footage of him saying these things.
It does feel like a lot of people are conspiring together to silence him.
And now you get ridiculous pieces like the one from Brian Stelter, who, you know, was formerly on CNN and lost his job because it was a terrible, terrible show that he was running at CNN that literally nobody watched.
He writes a piece saying Tucker and Don Lemon are texting one another.
Now, let me tell you how I'm just going to guess this happened with no actual firsthand knowledge of it.
They're both being represented by my lawyer, Brian Friedman, because he's a pit bull and he's awesome.
And because they're media personalities and dogfights with their companies who have all the power.
And so they're trying to find a power broker to represent them.
And I guarantee you, Don Lemon said to Brian Friedman, do you have Tucker's number?
I'm going to shoot him a text.
You know, solidarity.
They both got, there's zero chance Tucker ever asked Brian Friedman for Don Lemon's number zero.
And Tucker, being the gentleman he is, I'm sure, received the text and they had a word or two about both getting fired and how disgusting our industry is.
That's fine.
But Brian Stelter actually reports this like they're now doing each other's hair in braids and having sleepovers and, you know, doing seances together.
Light as a feather, stiff as a board.
And actually goes on to speculate that they may actually star.
This is his speculation.
He owns it, but he says, it may sound crazy, but I'm going to write it anyway.
Could the two men team up?
I can imagine some hotshot producer selling a new crossfire like it's for the good of the republic that these two.
I mean, you've got, why don't we just get speaking of George Clean?
Why don't we get George Clooney and some community theater loser to pair up?
Because that's the imbalance of power between those two.
He's insane.
Tucker would destroy him.
Can you imagine?
And then for good measure, he goes on, Brian Stelter, to talk about how for Lemon, Hollywood may be calling.
Actually, there's no need to couch that.
Multiple producers and development execs have put in feelers to Lemon's agent, Jay Suarez of the United Talent Agency.
Okay, that's a lie.
Let me tell you something, Brian Stelter.
You've been lied to by Jay Suras.
Jay Surrez is an agent who wants to create a false buzz about his fired no one wants him client.
So he lied to you.
And your job as a member of the media, even if it's a press repress cover media, a media reporter, is to see through the bullshit and know when you are being spun by an agent who are the most dishonest, disreputable people anywhere near our industry.
But he printed that Hollywood is calling with multiple producers and development execs putting in feel.
And here's, I gotta forgive me, add this.
He goes on to say, Lemon's friends have pointed to his all too brief talk show on CNN Plus as a path forward.
Only two episodes of the Don Lemon show were produced before the streaming service was discontinued.
But he was visibly energized and in his element with a studio audience.
Okay, but so many things wrong with your analysis there, Brian.
There's a reason CNN Plus had no one subscribed.
And it wasn't that they were flocking to Don Lemon's new talk show.
This is what passes for analysis because Don's on the left.
So Hollywood, he rocked his two episodes, build him up.
And then Tucker, who is evil, must be destroyed.
And his comments about Tucker, by the way, is covering Carlson's rise in radicalization at Fox, sometimes for Lemon's CNN show, convinced me that he is a Father Coughlins-like figure who will always find a pulpit to preach from.
So just for good measure, Lemon's going to Hollywood.
Everybody wants him, even though everything he's touched has turned to shit.
And Tucker is a white racist anti-Semite whose show makes very clear he's a demon.
And thank God he's off.
I think Brian Selter is living in an alternate reality.
I mean, just the fact that it's Brian Selter who says that, obviously, you have to take it with a grain of salt because his track record shows that he also would, you know, he started CNN Plus, which lasted just a couple of weeks.
And I don't think he's always truthful.
So I would not take anything Brian Selter says seriously.
I think Tucker knows that as well.
But yeah, I mean, that's definitely not happening.
Tucker is not even comparable to Don Lemon.
I mean, it would obviously bring him down to work with Don Lemon.
And I think you're right.
I don't think Hollywood is calling on Don Lemon.
I think he's done.
I mean, nobody wants him.
He's not talented.
His CNN Plus thing was a disaster.
And I don't think he's, I don't think he's going to Hollywood.
No, no, Hollywood mocked him at the Oscars.
He was openly mocked by the best actress winner at the Oscars during her acceptance speech for his you're past your prime when you when you pass 40.
Not to mention people like Anna Quinlan, who ripped on his ridiculous comments on women.
All the people at CNN who he insulted are lefties.
The people who wanted him kicked out of CNN are lefties.
He has no purchase on the left or the right.
Hollywood's not calling.
It was a lie.
Jay Sures, I see what you're doing.
It's not going to work.
Let's show me the talk show, buddy.
Let's see the talk show.
Okay.
We'll see.
I'll wait.
I won't hold my breath.
On the flip side, there is going to be, I think, probably a really big announcement regarding Tucker soon because Tucker is obviously very talented, very beloved, and he's going to obviously go very far.
And it's just a matter of time till there's some kind of announcement, I think.
I mean, what do you think?
I absolutely think you're right.
And, but, you know, right now he's still under contract to Fox.
This is what they do.
They didn't fire him.
They just canceled his show and canceled all of his access to internal email, et cetera.
And now you see they've got him on the line.
Now he still has to abide by his contract.
And if he breaches it, they don't have to pay him out his deal, which the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the same parent company as Fox, reports was near $20 million.
So, yes, Tucker's independently wealthy, but $20 million is $20 million.
And reportedly had a year and a half left on his deal.
So that's $30 million.
So they're going to try to bait him into breaching, bait him into responding.
He's not allowed to speak out against Fox News right now.
I'm sure there's a non-disparagement in his agreement.
So if they can just get him to disparage, they don't have to pay him the $30 million and they can fire him officially for free.
They don't have to put you on the air, but they do have to pay you your money when you sign these deals.
And so they've got him right where they want him right now.
That's why Brian Friedman is trying to negotiate the exit and the terms and the, you know, whatever.
I'm sure they're going to want a non-disparagement post-employment.
So Tucker will likely be limited in what he can say publicly if he wants that 30 million bucks, but he will wrap it up and he will get another job.
And we will certainly find ways of figuring out what exactly happened, what his experience was, whether they want us to or not.
I just have to say this too.
Meanwhile, the Murdochs need to be honest with the audience about why they canned their number one star.
They're so disrespectful to their own audience.
Tell them why you pulled the rug out from under him.
Stop letting your PR jackal ruin the guy who served you honorably for several years.
Don't be a bunch of sissies who don't have the balls to just say why you got rid of him.
Stand by your reasoning and let us know one way or the other.
Why they're not doing that, why they're letting him twist in the wind, why they're doing the death by a thousand cuts.
I don't know, but it's really gross.
It's dishonorable.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
And there's so many, they're letting these conspiracies brew on social media about Tucker and about the reason.
And I mean, I personally haven't shared any of these conspiracies just because I don't know what's true and what's not.
Murdochs Owing an Explanation to Audience 00:05:44
And everyone is just waiting for answers and they have to provide that.
Maybe there's a great reason.
Maybe they have one.
Maybe it'll be such a good reason.
Even you and I will say, all right, we get it.
You know, we like Tucker, but yeah, an employer will probably get rid of you, you know, under those circumstances.
They haven't had the courtesy to say.
And this is well beyond what we don't want to say because if we get sued, we want to maintain our options.
Bullshit.
We are well past that.
Tucker doesn't have the right to sue for anything more than what's in his contract.
And, you know, if they keep going with the defamation, he might.
He actually might.
That's something they should consider.
But the point is, this isn't about, oh, we shouldn't say the reason.
They owe it to their audience to say the reason.
They owe it to Tucker to say the reason.
And they think that.
I think it just shows that there is no reason.
Because if there was a real reason, I think a lot of us are very honest.
And we would, like you said, we would say, okay, that makes sense.
But the fact that they're not giving a reason tells me that there's no reason.
Or it's a reason that's going to upset their base.
Right.
Right.
I'm saying there's no valid, legit real reason.
Yeah.
I mean, if it's, we were sick of him, you know, saying the things we didn't like that got us in trouble with the left press and got ad boycotts, the Fox audience is going to revolt even more.
They're not going to like.
That's what they're suspecting right now.
So if it was, you know, he called Rupert a prick, I don't know what he said in those texts.
Just tell us that.
People, look, it does, it would make them look thin-skinned, but whatever.
People say, I don't like it.
You should have been thicker skinned than that, but I get it.
It's your lemonade stand and you didn't like somebody fronting it who couldn't stand you.
We would understand that they haven't done that.
We don't know that that's what it is.
And it's annoying how they just try.
Now they're just trying to ruin him.
All right, let's turn the page.
And I do think it's great.
Like I think the problem with losing Tucker is he was one of the first people who started to front your material and put you on and didn't care about blowback.
I mean, he's a one-man show and how not to care about blowback.
And we need more.
We need more like him and like you, like you, because you've really found you're, you're courageous.
found a way to go from like private citizen to this culture warrior who's become critical to the national discussion on these issues.
So how can you just give a give the audience that doesn't know a little background on how that happened?
Well, first of all, thank you.
It's very humbling that I'm able to be in this position now to help so many people and to help our country.
So I started out, I mean, I never had any job or background in politics or in media or in journalism.
I was just working a regular job.
And then COVID hit and obviously, you know, the world was turned upside down.
So I'm sitting locked in my home.
And that's when I started paying attention to the national conversation.
And that's also when I stumbled on TikTok.
So at first, I started just posting all of this content about COVID, about Lord Fauci and vaccines, you know, people singing about getting vaccinated.
I just saw it on TikTok and I was like, this is really funny, really cringy, pretty entertaining.
Let me just share it to Twitter.
And then the account just started growing a lot.
It just started blowing up.
People thought it was really funny.
So I would go back to TikTok to find more content.
And I really spent a lot of time on TikTok.
And I discovered this entire section of it, which was basically just dedicated to grooming kids.
There's a lot of LGBTQ activists on TikTok in various industries, particularly teachers, but there's doctors too, there's activists in general.
And I saw this whole cultural issue that wasn't really being discussed a lot in depth.
And I was like, this is absolutely horrific.
And I just knew that I had to start sharing this.
I had to educate people.
I had to raise awareness because I think that a lot of Americans had no idea what was going on in regard to this whole sexual agenda, but also specifically in regard to their kids' classrooms.
I think the average parent didn't know.
So I jumped in and I just started sharing all of these videos and it's first had evidence.
So they can't deny it.
And that combined with parents starting to feel like something was off in school just because during COVID, their kids' classroom all of a sudden was in their living room and they saw what their kids were learning.
They saw their kids' teachers and they were like, wait, something doesn't add up here.
And then that's when I came in.
I'm showing these teachers.
And then I think those two factors combined really just woke up America to the reality of what was going on in our kids' schools.
You know, what was amazing is the initial blowback against you was, look at you, like, you're endangering these teachers.
You're violating their privacy rights.
It's like they posted it on TikTok.
They just didn't think someone like me was going to see them.
That was the position you were in.
Exactly.
I actually have very strict standards for what I post and I don't post things from private accounts.
If I do, very rarely, not TikToks.
If I post something from a private account, it's usually like Instagram.
I'll block off the username because they're private.
So they want their privacy.
And this would just be to show just more evidence of what's going on in schools or something.
But I actually don't share stuff from private accounts.
So these teachers are so proud of what they're doing in the classroom.
They're going on TikTok on a public account.
And the only reason they're doing it on TikTok is because they want views.
They want people to see it.
Teachers Sharing Private TikTok Content 00:02:49
They're really proud of it.
And I'm simply sharing it to an audience that they don't want to see it.
But, you know, that's not, they can't be upset about it.
That's not how social media works.
If you put it out on social media, then anyone can see it.
So they want to live in their little bubble where only people who agree with them see their content.
And, you know, then I come and share it and then they get mad at me.
Right.
No, but you're exactly right.
They only want to share it with the audience that they think is going to love it.
This is actually, I started the show by talking about this hat I wore that that reads, make women female again.
And I posted on Instagram.
And those are people, Instagram is nicer than Twitter.
And those are people who I have a relationship with who, you know, they like the show.
They like me.
I like them.
We correspond in the comments.
I just, you know, it's a good, it's a nice place.
And I did say to myself, I post on Twitter.
I'm sure I'm going to get blowback because Twitter's left.
And I have a lot of lefties who follow me just because a lot of lefties actually watch me and listen to me, believe it or not.
And some are hungover from the NBC and the early Fox days and some are legit and there because they want to be now.
But I don't care.
I would love to reach a left-leaning audience with my message.
What you find, you know, in my experiences, a lot of them are actually with you.
A lot of them are with me, at least with my messaging and your messaging and are inspired to hear truth spoken to them by somebody who they know might get hit.
But then they see, you know what?
It's okay.
And if you look at the number of likes and the number of lovers versus the number of haters, the haters are far outnumbered.
And then it just empowers you to say more.
So if these people really believe their message and if they believe it had widespread appeal, they'd be thanking you.
Yeah, I think actually, I believe a large portion of my audience is actually centered, center right, Democrats, liberals.
So I get messages all the time from these people and they're like, I love what you're doing.
Some of them tell me, I can't follow you because I could get fired from my job or I'll lose a friend.
But some of them say, you know, I'm a Democrat, but I believe that, you know, they agree with a lot of what I'm saying.
And it's just scary because you have the far left, which I think is a fringe group, but they're so loud, they're violent, and they demand complete and total obedience to their entire agenda.
And the second anyone goes out of line, they get called out, they could get canceled, and even people from their own party.
So there's a lot of people in the center who actually agree that the way this is, the way that the world's our country is going right now, in terms of this cultural situation, which is targeting kids, they agree that it's really awful, but they're just too scared to speak out about it.
Yes, we interviewed a woman who was a marketing executive for a gamer company, a gaming company, and she got the boot in part because she followed libs of TikTok.
Mocking Women and Transgender Issues 00:08:01
Yes, I remember that.
Remember this?
It was her private time.
She was your, well, I don't even know.
How did they know she was your fan or not?
Or whether she was just saying, let me hear what one side is saying and then I'll check out what the other side is saying.
This person seemed pretty down the middle ideologically and she got fired just for the follow.
They have so many rules in place that, you know, these are the people who claim to be tolerant and accepting and loving.
And then the second you do anything that they don't like or they don't approve of, you get totally canceled.
So, I mean, I follow people who I disagree with politically.
You know, that's, I'm not getting called out for that.
It's fine.
You're allowed to follow whoever you want.
But I think that I do think that this group is a fringe.
I mean, I like to believe it's a fringe.
And I think that we're seeing more and more evidence that it is.
And I also think that we are going to win.
Yeah, I think we're winning right now.
By the way, it was called, I think it was the company was called Limited Run Games.
Anyway, I spoke to her at one point and she told me this.
So let me talk to you about some of the stuff that's in the news on Libs of TikTok and elsewhere.
And I begin with someone you've called attention to, and that's Dylan Mulvaney, who has now, Dylan went silent on Dylan's TikTok and social media for some three weeks and has now resurfaced.
I mean, the chutzpah is the word, the chutzpah of this person who tried to become famous as a man and failed, but tried in multiple different ways, then decided to cross over into our lane, declare himself a girl, walk us through his 365 days of girlhood.
Actually did public appearances talking about what it's like to be a girl and have a period made a platform of bringing back the bulge in a girl's bikini.
Girls don't have bulges in their bikini anywhere below the navel, sir.
They have bulges above above the midline.
This is this person now is lamenting that people only want to talk about the trans thing with Dylan and really just wants to be famous for being Dylan and like not have to talk about gender all the time.
Here's a little bit of Dylan resurfacing on that.
It's day 9,610 of being a human.
I've been offline for a few weeks and a lot has been said about me, some of which is so far from my truth that I was like hearing my name and I didn't even know who they were talking about sometimes.
What I'm struggling with most is that I grew up in a conservative family and I'm extremely privileged because they still love me very much.
And I grew up in the church and I still have my faith, which I am really trying to hold on to right now.
But I've always tried to love everyone, you know, even the people that make it really, really hard.
And going forward, I want to share parts of myself on here that have nothing to do with my identity.
And I don't know if reincarnation is a thing, but in my next life, I would love to be someone non-confrontational and uncontroversial.
God, that sounds nice.
There's just no accountability.
It's as if Dylan just surfaced and said, I want to be a woman.
Please respect my privacy.
And the internet piled on Dylan.
That's not how this went down.
That's not how Dylan got in the public eye.
This is a provocateur who intentionally offends and provokes and then sits back and says, my message is all about love.
I first came across Dylan a couple months ago, actually.
I might have been one of the first people to post about him.
Obviously, he was not as big yet then.
But I think there'd been a lot of footage that was unearthed about Dylan.
And there was some footage from years ago when he was just a gay man.
And I think that society failed him because I think that he probably is just a gay man.
But what they're doing to kids is basically, and to young people, is they're basically erasing gay people because it's not, you can't just be gay anymore, right?
You have to be transgender.
And I think that I really just think it's really, really sad.
And I think that there are probably a lot of outside forces that did this to him.
At the same time, he is an adult now.
And what he's doing now is just absolutely disgusting.
There was also a video last week where he called for the arrests of people who misgender him.
I mean, he is, he, what he's doing is he's mocking women.
As a woman, it's pretty offensive.
It's absolutely disgusting.
And it's, I'm actually really just sick of him.
I'm so sick of him.
I try not to give him any attention anymore because I think it's just speeding him at this point.
So I, I mean, I called out the Bud Light thing.
Bud Light wasn't even the worst of it, though.
He was sponsored by Tampa.
So he's getting sponsored.
Is it Maybelline?
Maybelline too.
And Ulta and Ulta.
The Ulta Beauty thing is too much.
What happened on Elta Beauty?
I will never go into again.
I am not, there's Sephora's better than you anyway.
So it's not a big sacrifice, but it's absolutely disgusting when they had these two men talking about, weren't they talking about their periods?
I mean, it was just absolute absurdity.
You didn't, you don't have a period, you have a penis.
The two things ne'er shall meet.
Sorry that, but that's ulta beauty.
And then they didn't back down when their customers said, What are you doing?
Why are you having two dudes, one of whom had a beard with his long blonde hair and his long fingernails, lecturing women on beauty products in periods?
What's happening?
It's like, it feels like parody, but it's not.
This is the, this is the way that our country is going right now.
Yeah, they were talking all about their girlhoods.
That's what it was.
And Heiser, meanwhile, he calls their what?
He calls, he calls his, he calls his, um, what whatever's in his underwear, I don't know, his Barbie pouch.
It's just like, he just keeps mocking women.
It's, it's just so, I like, I was thinking about it, you know, now because they're like, I mean, a woman, as Kelly J. Keene would say, a woman is an adult human female.
And these women who decide they're going to transition to man, which is not a thing, who go so far as to actually try to get a phallus built by one of these Frankenstein doctors who's willing to do this to a woman and cut up her vagina and try and cut up her arm and try to make a fake penis.
Then they say, well, she has a penis.
So if this person has a penis, it's a man, right?
If that's how you do it, if you define a man as somebody with a penis and a woman with somebody with a vagina, then a woman can become a man.
No, we have to be clear when we're talking about these things.
A fake vagina is not a vagina.
A fake penis is not a penis.
They are extremely different things.
Let's just take a little wander past the fake hole that a surgeon creates for a woman, one of these fake women.
You know what happens?
Nothing.
You will not bump into a real vulva.
You will not bump into ovaries.
You will not bump into fallopian tubes.
You will not bump into a uterus.
They don't exist.
And they can't be transplanted in.
And they can't give birth.
They can't carry children.
They can't do any of those things.
Same thing over in the man department.
All right.
So, like, none of the things, you will not have testicular cancer if you have a fake penis built for you or have any of the concerns that men have to deal with when it comes to their sexual health as well.
So I do think we need to start getting more precise in our language.
This is why I've been having the debate openly on the show about the pronouns and so on.
Dylan, at best, will get a fake vagina if Dylan decides to go that route.
But Dylan, in the meantime, has to deal with the consequences of Dylan's own behavior.
Book Banning and Self-Inflicted Wounds 00:13:52
And one of those things is the partnership with certain brands.
The Bud Light one has had massive backlash.
Bud Light is in a downward spiral like the Fox News APM.
They're in the same predicament right now.
And now the human rights campaign, which is this far-left organization, is calling on Anheuser-Busch to publicly reaffirm its support for the transgender community.
Remember, they never apologized for this ad campaign.
They just said, oh, we never meant to sort of be divisive.
That's it.
And then they placed on leave of absence the woman who ran the campaign and her boss.
They're still employed, as far as we know.
So they sent a letter to the head of the company's human resources saying it's absolutely critical for Anheuser-Busch to stand in solidarity with Dylan and the trans community.
Went on to say, when faced with anti-LGBTQ plus and transphobic criticism, Anheuser-Busch's actions demonstrate a profound lack of fortitude in upholding its values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And now they warn Anheuser-Busch, we are preparing to lower your long-standing 100% corporate equality index score.
This national benchmarking tool, so reported the New York Post not long ago on corporate policies, practices, and benefits relevant to the LGBTQ employees.
This is the real threat.
We're going to make you uninvestable by other companies.
We're going to give you a low CEI score, and we're going to punish you for just saying we didn't mean to be divisive and placing the lady on leave.
If they cow to this group, it's over.
It's over.
They can kiss their relationship with all the brands.
Goodbye.
It's so, it's mind-boggling that these brands keep falling into the same trap because every time they get so involved in politics like this, they it always ends up not working out for them.
You know, I miss the days and we could just drink a beer or go to the makeup store without having to think if these if these companies are promoting this pseudoscience that's destroying kids.
It's like, just why can't they just make their beer and sell it?
And we'll drink the beer and everyone's happy.
But no, because they have to show this far, the far left that they are in line with their agenda because they're scared of what the consequences will be.
They, meanwhile, according to the Daily Mail, Bud Light, once again, like produced this country-themed commercial like America, you know, America.
We get it.
I mean, they're probably calling Tucker right now to get him to star in their next ad.
Not going to happen.
So they post this video on YouTube where they are currently preventing viewers from offering any feedback by disabling the comments.
So they don't want to hear it.
Who the guy who runs this company, the American CEO, is saying, I served in the military.
Where are your balls?
If you served in the U.S. military, you have them.
So why don't you show it?
Like get out there and own it.
Say you made a mistake.
You misjudged your customer base, not you, but your VP of marketing.
You fired her.
You've heard from the audience.
Fall on your sword.
You're running around with a former military guy disabling comments.
Now I really do believe somebody needs to get fired and it's you, sir.
It's you.
This has been a disaster from start to finish and it's ongoing.
The wounds continue to be self-inflicted.
So I don't know.
You've watched a lot of these controversies, Haya.
Do you think there's a way back for Bud Light?
I do, actually.
I think that we've seen so many people, companies get canceled.
And most of the time, they do it to themselves.
So you can't be canceled unless you let yourself be canceled.
And what Bud Light's doing now, the way they're handling this, is they're letting themselves get canceled.
They're digging their own grave.
They just have to, I mean, I'm not their, I'm not, you know, their advisor on PR or anything, but if I were them, I would just shut up and be like, we're not working with Dylan Mulvaney anymore and just continue making beer and selling it.
And just what I always found is when you're in the middle of getting canceled, you just shut up.
You don't say anything.
You don't try to address it.
You don't try to put out statements because it always just backfires.
Interesting.
It kind of went that way, but not exactly.
I don't know.
On this one, I have to say, I disagree.
I think they need to come out, figure out who the audience is.
And it's not this trans community and it's not their supporters.
It's like, what if they just said, like, hey, we're not working with Dylan anymore.
Goodbye.
We're going to sell beer.
You know, like, I think, I think they need to use the words, we're sorry.
I really do.
I think they need to understand that they've offended their customer base because it wasn't just Dylan.
It was that snotty, bratty VP of marketing who herself was drinking beer at a condoms in college.
Sorry, I was never, you know, a goodie two-shoes, but never, never, never happened.
Not going to see a picture of yours truly doing that.
I think I can speak for you too.
Well, out there calling the customer base too fratty.
Because they already dug their own graves.
But if they would have just right at the beginning been like, okay, we're not working with Dylan anymore.
This is a mistake.
Goodbye.
Then they would have been fine right now.
Now, after they kept putting out these statements and then we kept finding more stuff on that because they weren't really addressing our concerns, then now they, I mean, now they have to do, yeah, I agree with you.
They have to do a lot more than just cut off the relationship with Dylan and just stay quiet.
Now I think you're right that they do have to apologize.
But right away, I don't think that they necessarily would have had to specifically apologize and say, I'm sorry.
I think this is an opportunity for them.
This letter from Human Rights Campaign, if I were advising the CEO, I would say, you need to issue a statement saying we will not say anything more in support of Dylan.
We will not say anything more to appease you.
You can go ahead and lower our corporate equality index score.
We understand.
We hurt our customer base and we stand by them.
That's this is an opportunity.
He should take it because Dylan Mulvaney does not drink enough beer to save Bud Light.
Okay.
Haya stays with us.
We're going to squeeze in a break and come back on the opposite side.
A lot more to discuss, including President Biden claiming at the White House correspondence dinner that these crazy righties are getting books banned.
They're lunatic, the lunatic right that he's fighting needs to get books banned.
She's done a lot of reporting on this.
We'll talk about the books that he's so protective of in two seconds.
Don't go away.
My guest today is Haya Rychik.
You may know her as the creator of Libs of TikTok.
And she's also the author of the children's book, No More Secrets, which you can find at lottbook.com, L-O-T-TBOK.com.
So on the subject of books and children's books, alleged children's books, unlike yours.
And the president.
So he was out there at the White House correspondence dinner this weekend.
And once again, he loves to bring up banning of books.
By the way, this just happened in my child's school, which I'm going to take up.
This, oh, you know, these terrible people who are banning LGBTQ books, banning, banning.
By banning, what they won't tell you is they mean pulling it out of a K through 12 library.
That's it.
Go get it at the public library.
Get it at Amazon.
Get your porn wherever you want to get it.
And if you want to give it to your five-year-old, that's your business.
Eventually, Division of Child and Family Services will catch up with you.
But I don't need it in my child's library.
It should not be in an elementary school library or middle school library.
And most of the stuff shouldn't be in a high school library either.
But that's what they're talking about when they say banning, banning.
Here's the president and his messaging.
Lies told for profit and power.
Lies of conspiracy and malice repeated over and over again.
Designed to generate a cycle of anger, hate, and even violence.
A cycle that emboldens history to be buried.
Books to be banned.
Children and families be attacked by the state.
Yeah.
Okay.
So there's he's saying it.
Chelsea Clinton.
I'm sorry.
I mean, I try never to quote this person, but she's been out there over the past couple of days, once again, saying over 50% of the attempted book bans last year involved books with LGBTQ plus characters and themes.
Books are a vital way that children, adolescents, and adults learn about themselves and so on.
She's in favor of basically child porn.
I mean, that's what we're seeing in these books.
They won't tell you that, child.
No, they never tell you that.
And they also never show you pages from the books that they're claiming were banning.
So, you know, every time I see one of these tweets, I always post a picture of pages from these books, which are which clearly show porn.
And I'm just like, you know, they're not going to show the pages, so I will.
But these are the books that they're referring to that, you know, we're banning from schools.
And they do explain to you, explain to the audience, like, it's fine.
It's okay to be graphic, but like, what exactly is it that they're showing?
When you say porn, like, what are we seeing?
So there's a book called Gender Queer, which has an illustration of what appears to be actually children.
So one of them is giving the other one a blowjob.
There's a book called This Book is Gay, which basically has two chapters about gay sex and tells you different positions and how you can do it and how it can be more enjoyable.
And then it also encourages using gay sex apps to go hook up with other gay people.
So they're giving this to kids in school.
There's a book, there's a book called Flamer, which I talk about a lot.
There's just so many of these books.
And the far left, they will never show you the contents of the books.
All they'll do is just call us book banners.
So then I always post pictures of the book and I know it's graphic.
And honestly, if you post it on Instagram, Instagram will remove it.
So Instagram says it's too graphic.
Every single time you post it on Instagram, they'll remove it.
But these books are allowed in schools.
They're just not allowed on Instagram.
But I'll post it to Twitter.
And it really just, these people basically are coming out in support of porn in school.
And they can't deny it.
It's unjustifiable.
And I think that the way to really counter this porn in school issue is to just keep showing the images.
So I know I always get comments like, oh, why are you posting this?
It's too graphic.
Or why are you showing me porn?
And I'm like, this is literally in your kids' schools.
Like, that's the point.
It's, it's, your kids are allowed to see it in school, but we're not allowed to post it on Instagram.
We're not allowed to show adults what's in these books.
That's how graphic it is.
I've got to hit on the dust up you had with AOC in the time we have left.
You, she smeared you by saying you said something you never said.
You then filed a complaint, right?
You can correct me, but then you filed a complaint with Congress that she smeared you.
And it led to this exchange, which we have a bit of SOT 22.
I just delivered an ethics complaint to your office because you lied about the committee hearing.
Oh, yeah, no, I actually never actually shared a bomb information.
You're actually super transponding and I never speak to these.
Thank you.
This was so annoying.
So what happened?
So AOC in a committee hearing, she claimed that I posted false information about Boston Children's Hospital and she claimed that I inspired a bomb threat.
So these are very serious allegations.
I went to confront her.
She wasn't in her office.
And then thankfully I met her as I was leaving the Capitol in that exchange we just saw.
So yeah, I filed an ethics complaint because of these comments that she said, but Congress people are actually protected by legislative privilege when they're in these committee hearings.
So they're allowed to say anything and they can't be held accountable.
So I can't file a defamation suit.
You know, I can't do anything besides file an ethics complaint.
So that's exactly what I did.
We didn't hear back yet.
I don't think we will.
But I'm just happy that I held her accountable and I stood up for myself.
And as for your reporting on hospitals offering these quote sex change or gender affirming procedures to minors, we have learned that this is happening at more than just one hospital.
This is happening at hospitals across the country.
Before 2015, there were zero pediatric gender clinics in America, and now there are over 100.
I have reported a lot on it.
I got a recording of DC Children's National Hospital telling me in a recording that they do hysterectomies on 16 year olds and quote younger kids.
So these surgeries are definitely happening.
Boston Children's Hospital's own website advertised surgeries for minors, but they know that they can't defend it.
They know it's horrific and egregious what they're doing.
So they just have to lie about it.
You are so important to the national conversation to changing our children's lives for the better and for the safer.
Pediatric Hysterectomies on Young Kids 00:00:50
Big admirer, huge fan.
So great to meet you in person.
Haya, please come back.
Please come anytime.
Thank you so much.
It was great chatting with you, Megan.
Likewise.
And don't forget her children's book.
This is about like if there's a, there's a lesson in here for children about like following around this wolf and what does the wolf actually mean for you and is it safe?
It's called No More Secrets.
You can find it at lottbook.com and buy it just to support her and her mission.
I want to say thank you to join for to all of you for joining us today.
And listen, we are now right now, as of this moment, it's 1.51 Eastern Time, within 7,000 subscribers on YouTube of hitting a million.
Yay!
We would love, love, love to have you be the millionth subscriber.
Please go over there and help us get over the million mark.
Would be very appreciative.
We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Export Selection