Matt Walsh and Victor Davis Hanson dissect Zohran Mamdani's mayoral prospects, citing his Ugandan heritage and alleged radical ties as threats to American identity. They defend Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro against internal right-wing squabbles while prioritizing domestic culture wars over foreign distractions like Israel. The discussion shifts to California's gender mandates, the Angel City FC intersex controversy, and a damning indictment of James Comey for allegedly lying about Hillary Clinton's Russia connections. Hanson exposes John Brennan's defense of the Steele dossier as disinformation, arguing that intelligence officials orchestrated narratives to suppress genuine threats. Ultimately, the episode asserts that radical left agendas and bureaucratic dishonesty pose far greater dangers than international conflicts. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at New East.
Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show and for the first time ever, welcome to the Megan Kelly channel on SiriusXM.
Yes, the Triumph channel, which we know and love, where you could hear the Megan Kelly show for our first four years at SiriusXM, is now just a few clicks away over at channel 123, easy to remember.
And here at channel 111, it's now the Megan Kelly channel.
Bold no BS news.
Besides this show, you're going to hear our friends from Real Clear Politics every morning live at 11 a.m. Eastern.
You will hear Jesse Kelly at 6 p.m. Eastern.
And you will hear all of your MK Media favorites throughout the morning on my podcast playlist, which airs at 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.
Mark Halpern, Maureen Callahan, Link Lauren, Emily Jashinsky, and MK True Crime.
But we do have more, Emily Jashinsky, for you too, because we are announcing today that starting next week, Emily will be the host of the Megan Kelly Wrap-up Show live every weekday right after our show airs.
Our show, of course, is on SiriusXM Triumph Channel live every day, Monday through Friday, from 12 to 2.
And then Emily will be taking over live from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern, recapping the show, talking to our favorite regulars and taking your calls.
And I'll be stopping by many times as well.
So we can all sort of debrief on the news one-on-one.
That's one of the beauties of SiriusXM is it allows that sort of back and forth with the audience.
And that is just the beginning.
We're going to have more announcements for you about what's coming to the Megan Kelly channel in the weeks and months ahead.
We have a great lineup to launch, but it's going to look even better and bolder and fuller in about two months.
So stay tuned for those announcements.
And for now, thank you for listening and keep the feedback coming.
Megan at megankelly.com, M-E-G-Y-N.
Okay, let's get to the news.
We are seeing pictures for the first time now of the man who was reportedly in the Gold's Gym women's locker room in Los Angeles per state law.
It's the law that he must be allowed in there.
We'll get to that.
And as we told you yesterday, the female who complained got kicked out of the gym.
She's the one who got booted, lost her membership, not the man.
We begin today with Matt Walsh.
He's host of the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh Show.
We talk a lot about personal responsibility on this show.
Is America a Christian Country00:11:48
Well, here's one aspect that's really important, your health.
And I'm not talking about following whatever the experts recommend.
I'm talking about real data-driven decisions based on your body's actual numbers.
We demand transparency in government, but most of us have no idea what's happening inside of our own bodies.
Disease can develop silently for years before symptoms appear.
By then, you're playing catch up with expensive treatments instead of preventing problems when they are cheap and easy to fix.
Well, I want to tell you about Jevity.
They are revolutionizing preventative care with something radically different.
100 plus blood markers tested at your home.
Personalized supplement packs shipped directly to you based on your deficiencies.
Biannual retesting to track progress.
Plus ongoing virtual consultations on your schedule.
This is Healthcare Independence.
And you get 20% off at gogevity.com slash Megan with code Megan.
That's gogevity.
G-E-V-I-T-I dot com slash Megan because nobody should control your health decisions but you.
Matt, welcome back.
Great to have you.
We'll get to gold and all that, but we got to start with Mamdani.
And this guy who's closely linked with radical Islamists, like this Imam who testified for the blind sheikh, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Mom Dami with his arms literally around that guy, calling him a pillar of the community, about to, as of the vote today, we believe, become the mayor of New York City.
What do you make of it?
Well, I think it's a disgrace.
I think it's a shame.
It shows us that, you know, on the right, we were obviously celebrating after Donald Trump's victory as well.
We should have.
And it was a huge victory.
And I think without Trump winning, we'd be in a much worse spot today.
But it certainly shows that the fight is not over, that there was a lot of talk, I think, among conservatives.
And maybe I even used the phrase of like the golden age.
We're entering the golden age.
And it's okay to be happy and celebrate.
And sometimes you take it a little too far and you say things like that.
But this is not quite the golden age yet, because we've got a foreign communist from Uganda who doesn't even pretend to like this country, much less love it, who's about to take over the largest and most important city in the country.
And on top of that, I mean, this is, you know, if you were to go back, as many people have pointed out, if you were to go back to like 2002, let's say, and tell, stop anybody in New York City and tell them that in a couple of decades, the mayor would be an Islamist from Uganda who holds, tries to hold, tries to hold other candidates to account for not being able to name a mosque,
that like not being able to name a mosque and not visiting a mosque is an attack line in a mayoral campaign in New York City.
You know, if you were to tell someone that in New York in 2002, they would not have been able to believe it.
And yet, here we are.
It's going to happen.
I mean, the latest poll from Atlas Intel showed Cuomo within four, but that poll received some criticism for having too much, heavily weighted Republicans and independents, which of course are not the dominant voting bloc in New York.
And it's amazing to me that this city, this great city, I mean, honestly, it's America's crown jewel.
It's the greatest city in the world, in my opinion, Bar None, is about to be taken over by this, yes, communist, potentially radical Islamist.
I mean, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, Matt, because he's smiley.
He's very, very good at social media.
He knows how to talk a good game.
We aired a Sod on our morning AM update show today of him being asked about the fact that Hakeem Jeffries, moments after he endorsed him, said, but is he the future of the Democratic Party?
No.
And the reporter asked, hey, what do you think of that?
And he said, oh, you know, I'm just focused on campaigning right now, working out my anxiety before Tuesday's vote by doing last-minute canvassing.
That's all.
Very good answer, very smooth, smiley, focused relentlessly on affordability, which is an issue in New York, like in all major cities.
And the people, especially the young people, are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
They are.
And this is, and what it shows, of course, is that the Democrat Party has not moderated at all.
They haven't backed down from any of their craziest positions in the slightest bit.
They're more radical than they've ever been.
They're more violent than they've ever been on top of it.
But I think Mamdani represents that.
And you mentioned he's potentially radical Islamist.
And this is one thing that's confusing for a lot of people because you see that he's Islamic, you know, from Islamic is from Uganda.
And you hear conservatives worry about the importation of Sharia law into America.
But then you see, well, he's a far left radical.
I think he showed up at a gay club in New York City a couple of days ago.
And so you see that as, oh, he's not, this is not a guy who represents Sharia law.
Well, he might not himself personally because he is a far-left communist, but he's going to open the floodgates even more to immigrants from that part of the world.
And that's how you end up kind of with both.
And I mean, already in New York City, I think it's 40% of the city was not born in this country.
Not even that they're immigrants, second generation immigrants, but 40% of the country was not, of the city was not born in the country.
20% are not proficient in the English language.
And that's going to get that situation is going to get much worse under Momdani and intentionally so.
And then at what point, like at what point does, does, do you get to a point where it just doesn't work anymore?
Where like, how can you function as a community, as a city at all, if you can't do basic things like communicate with each other?
And, you know, I've raised this point.
A lot of people have raised this point because it's very relevant to this.
I mean, this is how Mamdani is going to win.
He's going to win primarily because of all the foreign-born left-wingers who are in this.
And the response has been, well, New York City has always been that way.
Go back 100 years and you'll find that 20% or more struggled with the English language.
And even if I were to accept that that's true for a second, this is a very, it's a very different kind of thing.
Yeah, you go back 100 years, 150 years, and there were a lot of immigrants, but the immigrants now are different in two ways.
I mean, number one, these are third world immigrants from, you know, largely from the Muslim world.
That was not the case.
That was not the case 100 years ago.
No.
And also, this is the most important part.
You're bringing in this foreign invasion of people who are not even interested in assimilating into American culture at all.
I mean, they actively hate America, and yet they come here.
Look at Momdani.
I mean, he can't bring himself to say anything positive about America.
All he does is complain about it.
He has the gall.
He has the gumption to complain about Islamophobia.
That was his closing argument, basically.
That's what he spent the last week of his campaign doing was complaining about Islamophobia, making up the story about an aunt who never existed and felt uncomfortable wearing a hijab on the subway, even though nothing happened to her, by the way, even in his fake story.
She just felt uncomfortable wearing it.
And somehow that's an example of Islamophobia.
And so it's just like total lack of gratitude for the country.
When in reality, you know, there was no wide-scale persecution of Muslims after 9-11 at all.
I mean, Muslims are safer in this country than they are in most Muslim-majority countries.
And there's no gratitude for that, no attempt to assimilate.
And that's a big difference between the kind of immigration we have today in the year 2025 and the kind that we had in like 1905 or 1805.
We talked earlier this week about his father who teaches at Columbia, who wrote a book in which he argues that we need to destigmatize the suicide bomber.
That he has to be understood in a new light in modern day America, that he feels they've been wrongfully demonized.
The suicide bombers.
That's the man who raised the obvious next mayor of New York, unless something dramatic happens today at the polls.
It's really outrageous.
And to think that apple fell far from the tree is to delude yourself because the mother too has been on record saying there's nothing American about Zoran.
She's very proud.
He's not American at all.
He was raised in Uganda.
He's a Muslim.
He's not American.
You talk about how a lot of these Muslims, I don't know if they're radical or they're just Muslims, but either way, it's a problem because the tenets of Islam are not consistent with Western civilization.
And I'm sorry, but they should not be ascending to our mayors and our governors and so on because Islam is not consistent with the premises of the West, the basic premises that led to the Bill of Rights here in America.
And what you have is this argument about, oh, we're based or nation based on immigrants.
Yeah, like immigrants like my grandfather from Italy and then my grandfather on the other side from Ireland, who desperately wanted to assimilate.
But if they didn't, you know, then you'd have some guy with an Irish brogue eating a lot of meat and potatoes and drinking a lot.
Like that was the most significant downside to the Irish not potentially assimilating.
It's a very different story when you're talking about immigrants from Uganda who are Muslim at a minimum and potentially radicalized Muslims.
Right.
And look, you know, America is a Christian country.
America was a Christian country at its foundation.
It was founded on Christian principles.
That's not up for debate.
It's just a historical reality.
It's historical fact.
And one thing that you can't, I know some people try to argue that and say, well, some of the founding fathers were deists or whatever.
And fine, some of them were.
But the vast majority of the people who founded this country, you know, the early settlers, the founders of this country, the pilgrims going all the way to the pilgrims, were Christians.
And that's just, that's not up for debate at all.
But what you certainly can't argue is that they were Muslim.
I mean, that certainly is not the case.
Okay.
So this is not a foundationally Muslim country.
And that's why, like, there's, you go to Dearborn, Michigan, which has basically become an Islamic capital right in the middle of the American heartland.
And now if you're in Dearborn, you know, at 5:30 in the morning, you might hear the Islamic call to prayer being blasted by the loudspeakers at the local mosque.
And, you know, Mehdi Hassan, I got into an argument with him recently because he said, he said, well, what's the difference?
What's the difference between that and church bells?
It's no different.
Well, there's a couple of differences, Mehdi.
One is that they don't, the church bells don't chime at 5.30 in the morning.
That's one thing.
But the other thing is that America is a Christian country.
That's always been a part of our culture.
Going back to its earliest days, you'd be, if you were, you know, in your town, in your village, you would hear church bells ringing.
It's part of our culture.
And the Islamic call to prayer is not.
And, you know, we shouldn't be shy about saying that.
Not to mention when the prayers begin, all you hear is Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, which is exactly what the terrorists were screaming as they flew those planes into the buildings on 9-11.
That phrase is chilling for many of us who live through 9-11.
Does Immigration Benefit America00:14:01
But Mamdani is most popular with young people under the age of 34, which is, I think he's 33, who really have no active memory of 9-11 whatsoever, and with foreign-born New Yorkers.
So that's who's going to put this guy over the top, unless Andrew Cuomo manages to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Matt, have you seen the ballot that New York City is providing voters?
It's insane.
I think we made a full screen of it, but if you put it on the board, it shows Mamdani.
Okay, we're showing it.
So for listening audience, it shows like the first box there, Zorhan Mamdani.
And then you've got a second box.
I can't quite read it actually.
Oh, there's Curtis Leeuwa in the second box.
And then somebody else in the third box.
And then a fourth box, back to Zorhan Mamdani, and then back to Curtis.
And then Eric Adams is there in the top row.
You have to go down to the second row where the first three boxes are blank.
And then you get to another box, Jim Walden.
And then there's Andrew Cuomo finally in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seventh, eighth slot on there, second row, and then Joseph Hernandez.
Just the way this is set up, two opportunities to vote for Mamdani, two for Curtis Liwa, one for Andrew Cuomo on the second row over far to the right.
Yeah, and that really matters.
I mean, it's easy to say that that's nitpicky or whatever.
Will that really make a difference, you know, where the names show up on the ballot?
But it does matter.
And it especially matters in New York City, whereas we just established, like a huge number of the voters are foreigners or weren't born in this country.
A lot of them don't even really speak English.
A large number of them probably have never voted in an American election before.
And so they're going to go in there and it's very confusing to sort your way through it.
And it's like the deck is stacked in his favor.
Although I will say that I think no matter how the ballot is presented, I think that Zorah Mamdani will still probably win for all the reasons that we talked about.
By the way, I also just want to say that because I've thought a lot about this.
I think we all have about this kind of weird alliance that there is between the far left and Islam.
How does this work?
Why do you have the far left trying to import the Islamic world into this country, considering that they ideologically would not seem to have a whole lot in common?
But the answer to that, you know, this, it's kind of a common enemy thing, enemy of my enemy.
The answer is that the people that bring it in, like Zorah Mamdani, the one thing they have in common is that they hate white Americans.
They hate America generally, and they're anti-Christian, right?
And so that's what the left has in common with them.
And, you know, I think that's- That's so true, Matt.
It's a very good observation.
You mentioned how he raised at the debate, Mamdani did, the fact, what mosques have you been to to Andrew Cuomo?
And then, of course, Andrew Cuomo on brand blew it and didn't turn to him and say, what are you talking?
None.
None.
That's not a priority for me.
I'll be a mayor for everyone, but I don't need in New York City to visit a mosque to know how to run this city well.
By the way, the biggest issue that most New Yorkers have after affordability is the fact that there's garbage everywhere all over the streets.
And the sanitation is a mess, both in the summer and the winter.
You got rats running up and down the streets.
And you can't get any streets plowed during the winter because they don't know how to manage their budgets.
So no one gives a shit what mosques the future mayor has visited.
But that's Mamdani's push.
And in the days, you mentioned on his closing messages about Islamophobia.
And then he drops this ad in Arabic.
Watch.
My Arabic needs some milk.
Still, I want your support.
My lord, he's petting a cat.
Early voting's open.
Election day is November 4th.
That was a good one.
There he goes.
That was a good one.
Yes.
This is unbelievable.
This is for mayor of New York City, Matt.
We're not talking about he's not in Uganda anymore.
And that he's leaning in.
You know, it's not like he's trying to hide his plans.
Linda Sarsour is his big like mentor who's she got kicked out of the women's march organization because they found her to be like far anti-Semitic.
And she's like, we're going to be keeping an eye on him and he better do what he said.
She doesn't, she wants him to disband this special police group that breaks up these over-the-top leftist marches.
She's like, he better do it.
And this, he is leaning in.
And I mean, you mentioned the guy in, you mentioned Dearborn, Michigan.
Now we've got Omar Fateh in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who's also potentially going to win.
And this is the beginning of a trend.
I mean, it's one thing to go socialist.
To me, it's a very different thing to go Islamist.
Yeah.
You know, Omar Fateh is probably going to become the next mayor of Minneapolis from Somalia.
And it's a similar situation in that he has campaigned in a foreign language, basically.
You look at some of these, you look at the footage from Omar Fateh's rallies, and you honestly, if you didn't have any context, you would have no clue that this was happening in America.
You would absolutely know if somebody woke up from a coma and they've been in a coma for the last 15 years and you showed them an Omar Fateh rally, they would be shocked if you told them that this was happening.
If you just showed it to them and say, well, where do you think this happened?
They would say, oh, well, Mogadishu, obviously.
And then if you said, this is Minneapolis, they would be shocked.
And this is why, by the way, I think, you know, I'm a believer that laws sometimes can help.
You know, we should pass laws sometimes, not to solve every problem, but some problems.
And here's one where maybe we should have a law which says that if you are a political candidate, if a politician or a candidate in this country, you must campaign in English.
Like it's actually, in my mind, should not be legal for a political candidate in America to release an ad or to do a campaign event in another language because we speak English in this country and every voter in your district or in your city or in your state should be in America.
We should all be able to understand what you're saying.
There should never be an occasion where I, as a voter, if I'm in one of these cities and I speak English because this is America where I can't understand what you're saying in an ad.
Yeah, you might put subtitles up, but I don't actually know what you're saying.
And this is America.
I should be able to understand you.
And I think that's really basic.
And this is the kind of law that, you know, 20 years ago, it's like you never thought it would even be necessary, but I think it is now.
And this is just like really basic stuff.
This Omar Fateh, the guy running for mayor against Jacob Fry, who's also terrible in Minneapolis, you mentioned, you know, if you wake up at a time capsule and see this, you'd think you were in Somalia.
And here is a bit of that.
I mean, it's really kind of remarkable, waving a Somali flag.
Watch, we pulled a sound bite of it.
Somalia.
Hiran State.
Mawisle.
Mawisle.
Early morning wai.
Hada ila November 4.
I need your vote.
What is this?
Is this America or is this Somalia?
You love Somalia so much.
Go home.
It's just like Ilan Omar.
They're coming over here.
And as Trump would say, they're not bringing their best.
I saw you propose on your show recently that there should be a rule that if we look past 10 years or so, go look back and there's some country that's sending a bunch of their citizens over here.
And more than 10% of those folks are on the public dole.
No more immigrants from those countries.
Like stay home.
Yeah, I call that, you could kind of set the threshold wherever you want.
It's a little bit arbitrary, but let's just call it the 1010 rule.
And if 10% of the immigrants from a certain country, first or second generation, are on the public dole or on food stamps or on a welfare program, then we cut off immigration from that country for 10 years.
And I think it's actually pretty generous.
It's a high threshold.
I mean, you could certainly argue for setting it at 5% or even 1% and then making the, you know, and then the time when we shut off immigration could be 50 years rather than 10.
But so I'm being very reasonable, very generous, setting it there.
I think, hey, we do, we do currently, and for a little bit longer, we have this window now where we actually do as conservatives, as Republicans, we control Congress and the White House.
And so, hey, I mean, like maybe someone could pick up this mantle and run with it.
And when it comes to Somalis in particular, you know, and I don't know what the exact numbers are, how many Somali immigrants are on welfare.
I'm sure that it's much higher than 10%.
It's but someone could look up the numbers.
And it raises this question about, and I, and I've been asking this, because I'm a simple man.
I ask simple questions.
It's kind of my thing.
So I would really like someone to explain, why are we importing Somalis into this country at all?
Like, why are we doing that?
What's that good for us?
We've imported a lot of them to the point where now they're basically taking over a once great American city right in our heartland, you know, Minneapolis.
And why are we doing that?
How does that benefit America?
I would just like someone, I'd like someone who agrees with this to explain to me how it benefits America to import Somalis, because when you look at Somalia, and this is why it's so funny that the Somalis come here, like Ilhan Omar, like you say, and then express all this pride in their country.
Well, their country is a hellhole.
I mean, it's a failed state.
It is an absolute disaster zone.
That's why they come here in the first place.
And then what do you find?
Well, when you take people from a failed state, a total catastrophe, totally dysfunctional, you take people from an absolutely dysfunctional region of the world and you bring them here.
What do you find?
Well, you find dysfunction here.
You've imported the dysfunction here.
And so why are we doing that?
How does that benefit us?
And whenever I ask this question, mostly it's ignored.
But if anyone attempts to answer it, they always give answers about how it benefits Somalia.
They always tell me that, well, it's nice for Somalis that they're able to come here.
Do you really want to tell them that they can't come here?
Wouldn't that be mean?
Isn't that cruel?
Well, that's not what I asked, though.
I said, how does it benefit us?
What does it do for me?
What does it do for you?
What does it do for your family sitting around the dinner table wherever you live to import Somalis into this country?
And if the answer is it doesn't benefit us at all, well, then I think that we shouldn't need the 1010 rule.
That's enough reason right there to just cut off that spigot entirely because we should be having policies in this country that benefit our country first and foremost.
If we don't do that, we're going to be London.
We're going to wind up like Germany.
We're going to have the same problems that they're having now with their cities, their most beloved cities being overrun by Islamists whose values are completely antithetical to those of the West.
I mean, that's, you tell me, Matt, what is the solution to preventing our great American cities from falling in the way we've seen London fall, where there are calls to take down the British flag now because it's triggering to all the Islamists?
Well, the only solution is what we've talked about is you have to cut it off.
You have to cut off the spigot.
You have to just turn it off.
And we have to greatly raise the bar for who we allow to come into this country.
We have to have some real pride in our country.
The way that these immigrants have apparently have pride in their homeland and they wave the flag and they talk about how great their country is.
And in a certain way, I want to say, like, in a certain way, I admire that part.
Like, I admire if you're a patriot for your home country and if you can love your country, even if it's a total cesspool, even if it's just an absolute hellhole, you still love it.
I admire that.
Like, that's loyalty to your country.
I admire it.
Now, so I think you should go home and have that kind of loyalty for your country.
In fact, if you love it so much, then go home and try to fix it.
And that's the other thing, too.
I know this is a little bit sidetracked, but if we're being told that, oh, well, you know, we're importing Somalis, but we're importing the best ones.
We're importing the best Somalis.
Well, I don't know that there's any evidence of that.
And I don't know what qualifies as the best Somali.
But if we are, then that's, then if you really care about Somalia, I mean, I don't, but if you do, then that's all the more reason to not bring them here.
Send them back.
Why are we importing the best ones?
Let the best ones go back to their country and fix their country if they're so great.
I mean, if they can contribute to our country, if that's your claim, they can help build our country.
I don't really see that they are, but if they can, well, then what could they do?
They could work wonders in their own home country.
So for their own country's sake, you should send them back.
But anyway, you know, having patriotism for your homeland, I support that.
I think every person, every person should love their country.
And so we should love ours and we should have pride in it.
And we should have an attitude that says, look, coming here is a privilege.
You don't have any right.
You have no right to come here.
It's like the entire, there's 8 billion people in the world.
Do they all have a right to come here?
It's impossible.
We can't have them all.
So you don't.
Focusing Fire on the Left00:16:27
You don't have a right to it.
It's a privilege.
And so if we're going to let you come here, you got to prove to us that you have something to offer us.
Yes, as Americans, right, we should have the attitude of be a little bit selfish as Americans, selfish for our country, and say, what's in it for us?
You know, when we bring in someone from Somalia or anywhere else or Uganda, what's in it for me?
What's in it for my family?
My American family.
We've lived here our entire lives.
My children were born here.
What's in it for them to bring you in here?
That's my question.
And that's the question we should all be asking.
And when we have that attitude, then it becomes obvious.
Okay, we just have to, it doesn't mean that we can never have another immigrant into this country ever again.
Now, I tend to think that there should be an immigration moratorium, that we should just shut it off for a period of time.
We're at our limit.
Right, we're at our limit, but eventually you're going to open it up again.
And when you do that, I think we need to greatly raise the bar for who we allow in.
Yeah.
And I think the other part to this is we have to get honest again about what Islam is and what its tenets are and whether this is actually the profile of the future leaders we want in our American cities.
I mean, just take an honest look at it and not be shamed by the made-up term Islamophobia.
That is not a thing.
You are allowed to criticize Islam.
There's absolutely no problem with it.
It's a political doctrine as much as it is a quote religion.
And it's absolutely subject to being criticized.
And who cares if you get called an Islamophobe?
I mean, that's whatever.
We've all been called worse.
Okay, let's keep going.
So unfortunately, there's a war unfolding on the right amongst people you and I both love.
And our pal Ben and our pal Tucker are not getting along.
They haven't been getting along a long time.
I saw a very interesting discussion you guys on the Daily Wire did about it with the whole crew there kind of talking about what was happening on the right and whether people needed to be excommunicated from the right.
Well, this all exploded into the public forum even more over the past few days because last week Tucker hosted Nick Fuentes, who is, I mean, an open white nationalist.
He said extremely racist things.
It's kind of his bread and butter and anti-Semitic things.
And not like the kind that's now the flavor for some, where it's like, if you say anything about Israel, you're considered an anti-Semite.
Genuinely anti-Semitic thing.
So he's questioned whether 6 million Jews actually died in the Holocaust.
He's praised Hitler.
He called this is an anti-Semitic, but he called JD Vance's wife, Usha, a jeet, which I didn't even know what that was, but I know enough to know it's not a compliment.
Sounds like a racial slur.
We could be here all day.
Tucker put him on, I think because Tucker puts on a lot of provocative people.
He interviewed the president of Iran.
He interviewed Vladimir Putin.
He interviewed Andrew Tate.
Not afraid of like, quote, platforming people who are controversial.
And also, Tucker and Nick Fuentes have been going at it themselves for quite some time.
And I think he thought it might be interesting to just have them on and have it out, which he did.
But then he came under fire by a lot of people for quote platforming, right?
Which you're not allegedly allowed to do.
And one of the reasons I don't like Nick Fuentes is because years ago, I saw him play a little video game in a clip that was circulating on XMAP in which a young man was running wearing a yarmulke and he was shooting this man in his video game, calling him Ben Shapiro.
And it was really vile stuff.
So Tucker came under criticism because it wasn't a confrontational interview.
It was more like a Joe Rogan approach, you know, where you just kind of ask the guy how he feels, what he stands for, what he doesn't.
Here's a little bit of how it went.
I mean, as far as the Jews are concerned, I think that, like I said, you cannot actually divorce Israel and the neocons and all those things that you talk about from Jewishness.
There's a deep religious affection for the state.
It's bound up in their identity, the story of the exodus from Egypt, the promise of the land, all these things.
So let's say in the United States, for example, somebody like Sheldon Adelson, he's not Israeli.
Is he an ideological neocon?
Does he believe in the promise of democratic globalism?
I don't think necessarily.
His heart is in Israel.
And it's because he is a proud Jewish person.
And I guess what I'm saying is that if you are a Jewish person in America, you're sort of, and again, it's not because they're born, but it's sort of a rational self-interest politically to say, I'm a minority.
I'm a religious ethnic minority.
This is not really my home.
My ancestral home is in Israel.
There's like a natural affinity that Jews have for Israel.
And I would say on top of that, for the international Jewish community.
Sheldon Adelson, by the way, is dead.
He died in 2021, but was a big donor.
And his wife Miriam is now a big donor.
Okay, so cue the internet pile on Tucker.
Like he's got to be, he's got to be excommunicated from the right because he hosted Nick Fuentes, which was a sin in the eyes of many.
Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation weighed in backing Tucker, saying we don't cancel people for platforming others.
And then a lot of people said it doesn't matter.
Like it's it's not about canceling Tucker.
It's about ostracizing him, you know, sort of cutting him out of polite conversation.
And then yesterday, Ben, and Ben's been attacked by Tucker.
Tucker's attacked Ben.
It's gone back and forth, back and forth.
Ben did a whole show on this issue.
And here's a little bit of how that sounded.
Americans hate Nick Fuentes' philosophy.
They think it's trash.
Republicans by the polling think it's trash.
Independents think it's trash.
Democrats think it's trash.
And here's the other thing.
Americans hate Tucker Carlson's laundered anti-Americanism.
If they get their way, they will hollow out the Republican Party, lead it to electoral catastrophe, and empty it and the country of any semblance of decency in the process.
My answer is no.
No to the Groypers.
No to their publicists like Tucker Carlson.
No to those who champion them.
No to demoralization.
No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horseshit.
No to anti-Americanism.
No.
This is our country.
This is our party.
And this is our conservative movement.
And I will not stand by while it is handed over to those who betray the most fundamental principles I've spent my entire life defending and advocating.
That is a path to defeat and a path to moral oblivion.
I reject it because if we lose the right, we will lose to the left.
And either way, we'll lose the country.
Okay, just quick programming note.
Tomorrow, we have Tucker Carlson on our next leg of my tour.
And the night after that, we have Ben Shapiro, which is something I pride myself on being a show where both of those guys could come and trying to do as little as possible to divide the right, which I think is a force for good in this world, unlike the left.
However, this controversy is front and center and virtually every right-wing website there is, Matt.
And you're right in the middle of it, as am I in a way, both of us.
So how are you looking at this?
Yeah, look, there's a few things here.
And I do find myself, and I know that you've caught plenty of flack also in a similar way, being sort of in the middle of this.
And it's, you know, look, both of those guys, Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson, they're both friends of mine, as I know they are you, Megan.
And so when I, and I get this, this, people on both sides that are constantly screaming in my ear, and it's been this way for a long time, but in particular over the last couple of weeks, and in particular over the last like 24 hours, demanding that I disavow, you know, disavow, denounce one or the other of those guys.
And I'm just not going to do that.
It's just not ever going to happen.
I mean, not ever.
It's not ever going to happen.
And is that because I agree with everything that either one of them say?
No.
I mean, we don't have to agree on everything at all.
We can have disagreements.
We should have disagreements.
As you pointed out, Megan, we've talked about some of this stuff at the Daily Wire.
I've talked about it with Ben.
We've had these debates in the open.
So yeah, we can have disagreements.
But when it comes to disavow, condemn, denounce, that's an entirely different thing.
And I'm not going to do that because I don't do that to my friends.
And I mean, it really is that simple.
And you can either respect that or not.
I don't really care.
But loyalty is a principle that is incredibly deeply important to me.
And so when I hear the response, oh, but you need to stand on principle.
Well, loyalty is a principle.
And to me, it's as a man, it's one of the most important principles that you can hold.
As a human being, it's one of the most important principles.
And so if there's someone who I know in person, like this is not all just on Twitter.
This is not, we're not just talking heads, you know, talking to cameras.
We're also like people and we have actually have lives outside of all of this stuff.
And so if there's someone who I actually know and I've sat down and had dinner with them, I've sat at their dinner table, I have their phone number, I can call them.
You know, if I have a disagreement, I can, I can call them privately and I can tell them and we can hash it out.
Someone like, someone who's supported me, someone who, you know, someone like that, the idea that I would stand in public and condemn and denounce and disavow is just totally anathema to me.
I can't, I cannot do it.
I won't ever do it.
Not to someone who's who's a friend.
I just, I won't.
And when someone does that to me, as has happened, I consider it to be just unforgivable treachery that you, and I've had this happen to me where I say something and, you know, sure, people can disagree with it.
I say a lot of things people can disagree with, but I'll have someone who I know personally and they have my phone number and they could just call me, but instead I go on Twitter and I see that they've issued this like denunciation and it's like, dude, I just saw you a week ago.
What's going on here?
I consider that to be just treacherous and I'm not going to do that to anybody else.
I will just never.
Yeah.
That's the first thing.
And the second thing also, and one of the reasons why I'm catching a lot of shit is that my stance has been that I want to focus our fire metaphorically on the left, that we are dealing with people who truly, truly want us dead.
And they just killed my friend, your friend, Megan, and Charlie.
And they spent a month, they spent two months.
They're still.
celebrating it, like dancing on his grave.
And so that's what we're dealing with.
And that's where I want to focus.
I mean, I think about, I think it was a day after Charlie was killed, I put out a tweet where I said this, where I said, you know, that, look, I'm not focused.
I know there are a lot of disputes and debates on the right, and I'm not saying that they're totally unimportant, but I want to put that all off to a different day.
And right now, it's very clear who the enemies are, and they are the people who are trying to kill us and want us dead.
And I want to focus on that.
And I said that a day after Charlie was killed.
And the response I got was wide agreements.
I mean, there were a few people that were upset about it, you know, conservatives, but it was almost like 98% approval to that sentiment a day after Charlie was killed.
The tweet got like 150,000 likes or something like that.
Well, I said the exact same thing only a month later, just the exact same sentiment, almost verbatim, certainly the same idea.
And the reaction was 180 degrees the opposite, where rather than wide agreement, it was everybody screaming at me on both sides.
Well, how dare you say that?
How could you, assuming that I'm taking someone's side or the other side by saying that?
And it's like, it's only a month later.
I mean, have we already, this time of unity lasted for four weeks, really?
And we just can't afford this right now.
I mean, they just killed Charlie Kirk, one of our most important leaders on the right, and he's gone now.
And do we really want to let them win?
Do we really want to tell the left that, hey, it worked because you took out one of our most important leaders and now we're going to spend the next however many months or years eating each other alive?
No, we can't do that.
We can't afford that.
And so that's where I want our energy to be focused on these people who, again, like really, truly want us dead.
Here's what I know.
Here's what I know for sure.
There are plenty of conservatives who don't like me.
They've made that clear.
And that's fine.
And there are a lot of people on the left who don't like me.
None of them do.
But what I know for sure, and this is what makes it really clear for me, this is the clarifying thing for me.
What I know is that if I walk outside of my house tomorrow and I get shot and killed, which I'm not saying is likely to happen, it could happen.
I mean, but it could happen anyway.
If that were to happen, I don't think any conservative would be celebrating that.
I don't think any of them would.
I think even the ones who have an issue with me would not be celebrating it.
They would be mourning.
But what I know for sure is that 99.9% of the left would not be able to contain their glee.
Okay.
They would piss on my grave and laugh in the faces of my grieving wife and my six children.
That's what they would do.
And we all know it.
Okay.
So it's really easy for me to look at that dynamic and look at those people over there who are just waiting for an opportunity to laugh at my children who just lost their father.
It's easy for me to look at them and say, okay, well, that's the enemy.
And those are the people that I'm going to oppose with every breath in my body while I still have breath.
Okay.
That's it.
That's the fight.
And that's where I am just going to stay focused.
And I don't care.
People can be mad about it all they want, but that's where my focus is going to stay.
I think it's where all of our focus should be.
I love everything you said.
I totally endorse and agree with all of it, Matt.
It's been so frustrating.
And I've been thinking about, there's this young podcaster who's just starting out, female, and she got attacked recently.
And I sent her a text saying, here's what you need to know.
The right will attack you, but it'll be temporary and fleeting and they'll move on.
And when the chips are down, they'll have your back.
They will have your back.
The left will attack you and will actually want you dead.
They will want you destroyed and or dead.
So it's like we have intra, you know, squabbles over on the right, but when push comes to shove, we tend to back each other.
You know, and I was talking about this, I think, recently with Ben even.
You know, you and I, we've had dust ups around like women, that kind of thing.
But you've always had my back on the big picture and I have yours too.
And same with Tucker and Ben with respect to you and with respect to me.
Those two really don't like each other for other reasons.
But it's to me, it's so sad to see like the right on right violence, you know, rhetorical violence, because we need each other.
Those two are both huge powerhouses.
And, you know, we don't want a house divided when we're fighting the true enemy, which is these radical leftists.
And I think what they're really fighting over is Israel.
When you boil it down, they're fighting over Israel.
I know people call Tucker an anti-Semite.
Evolving Views on Foreign Policy00:03:45
I genuinely don't believe that.
He's gotten very critical of Israel and he's allowed to have those views.
And Ben is very defensive of Israel.
He'll criticize Israel too.
But as a general matter, he's defensive of Israel.
And I just feel like, how are we letting that issue?
Yes, it does relate to America.
Yes, right now it's very much in the news.
But it's like such a small percentage of what we need to be worrying about.
Like when you look back, you zoom out at America and its problems.
This is not, this is not even in the top three.
And yet we're spending so much energy on it, more than I think is warranted.
And I think you and I in particular may be feeling that because your show, like mine, does not really focus that much on foreign policy.
We're worried mostly about America, about politics in America, about culture wars in America.
We don't get neck deep into like exactly how the IDF is fighting its foreign wars, you know?
And so it's extremely frustrating for people like you and me to when people try to drag us kicking and screaming into some very complex, long-standing battle about a foreign country that we're really not covering day to day.
Yeah.
And I look, I have been, there are things I've changed my mind about, and that's part of being a person, part of being a human being and having a brain is to change your mind on stuff.
And my views have evolved on certain things over the years.
But I think for the most part, I have been, you know, very consistent on most things.
And if anything, if you want to criticize me, you should criticize me on that end.
Like if anything, I'm too stubborn and unwilling to change my views on things.
And the more that you scream at me to change my view, then the more likely I am to just hold on to that view, sometimes out of spite.
I'll admit that I do that sometimes.
That's just how I'm wired.
All that to say, when it comes to Israel, my position on this has been always been the same.
I mean, you could go back, you could go back to the days when I had a blog that hardly anyone read back in like 2013.
And you'll find the same sentiment.
And the sentiment is this.
I don't care.
Like, I just don't care about this foreign country.
I really don't.
And that's why the other thing, if you go back and you like, go check my record, what have I said about Israel?
Well, you'll find is that I've said very little about it.
That's the other thing.
I very rarely talk about it.
You know, I had a blog that I ran independently for two years.
I didn't work for anybody.
And I had, I think, one post about it, just one of hundreds, just one time, one time.
And it's always been that.
No matter where I've worked, no matter if I worked for myself or anyone else, I rarely have ever talked about it.
And the reason is that I just don't care.
And it's not, it doesn't mean that you can't care, right?
It doesn't mean that other people can't care.
It doesn't even mean that it's not important, you know, sort of objectively.
It's just not important to me.
It's not what I focus on.
I don't focus on foreign countries.
It's not what I'm worried about.
I'm worried about America and American culture.
And that is really, truly my view.
And it always has been.
And I agree that for this to be like the central issue that's ripping us apart, that just makes the whole thing even harder to swallow because I don't want us to be ripped apart over anything for the reasons I just stated, but especially over this of all things.
Because look, no matter what's going on with Israel, most of the problems that we have in our country and in our communities, the problems that like really affect you and affect your family and your children, those would all be the same regardless.
And so that's why I'm focused on that.
Personal Responsibility and Gold00:03:02
And, you know, and that's, that's it.
I mean, that's, that, that is really just the truth.
And the other thing that's frustrating is that, um, because every time I say that, it's like, well, you're just saying that because, and I get it from both sides.
It's a, well, you're just saying that because you work for Ben Shapiro or you're, or from the other side, you're just saying that because you're trying to appease the anti-Semites.
It's like, have you ever considered that I might be saying it just because it's what I think?
I mean, I might just actually be what I think.
And I'd love to be to get to a point in this country where we can have conversations where you just like you take someone's argument and you engage with it rather than trying to read their mind and figure out what really motivates it.
Because to me, that's like 90% now of political debate.
This is why debates are totally fruitless.
Is that 90% of it is this, where someone doesn't respond to the argument.
Instead, they say, well, you're really saying that because, no, okay, you can't read my mind.
Okay.
And why don't you just take what I said?
Take the argument itself.
Let's talk about that.
Let's engage with that.
Not everything is like a conspiracy.
Sometimes people really just give their opinion about something.
And that is my opinion.
And it has been my opinion literally for as long as I've had any kind of platform at all.
Yes.
And the other point is, we have to take a break, but we're coming back with Matt.
But the other point is you, Matt Walsh, are responsible for what you, Matt Walsh, say.
I am responsible for what I say.
Neither one of us is responsible for Ben or Tucker.
And I think I speak for us both when I say, and we will not let you shame us into adopting, defending, or whatever anyone else's words.
We're responsible for our shows and the content they're on.
We'll be right back with more content right here.
Let's be blunt.
Gold is up around 40% this year.
That's not speculation.
That's reality.
And if a portion of your savings is not diversified into gold, you could be missing the boat.
Here are the facts.
The US dollar is still too weak and the government debt is insurmountable.
This is why central banks are flocking to gold.
They're the ones driving prices up to record highs.
But it's not too late to buy gold from Birch Gold Group and get in the door right now.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
You can do it in whole or in part.
You don't pay one dime out of pocket.
Just text MK to the number 989898 and claim your free info kit.
There's no obligation, just useful information.
The best indicator of the future is the past, and gold has historically been a safe haven.
Text MK to 989898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold.
Protect your future today with Birch Gold.
Drawing Lines in Locker Rooms00:15:05
It's finally here.
All right, let's get this party started.
Megan Kelly Live on tour across America.
I was like, we have to go.
And then after what happened to Charlie, I'm like, we definitely have to go.
The best way to honor Charlie's legacy is to be out here, to be unafraid, to not back down.
Stand firmly.
Do not waver on the truth.
Next stop, White Plains, Jacksonville, Miami, and Atlanta.
So go get your tickets right now before they sell out.
MeganKelly.com.
Presented by YReFi and SiriusXM.
Here with me today, Matt Walsh.
He's host of the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh show and really probably the best person in the United States when it comes to the trans issue and has made the biggest difference in the United States.
He's our JK Rowley in many ways, who was calling out this bullshit ahead of its time.
Matt, there's more in the news on this front.
And it was a great, it was a great post by this woman who was going to the Gold's Gym in California.
Her name is Tish Hyman.
She says she's a lesbian.
She, you know, so she's not anti-LGBTQ.
That's her point.
But she went to the Gold's Gym in Los Angeles over the weekend, I think this was, the video posted yesterday.
And she got kicked out because she objected to a man, I would say posing as a woman, but I mean just barely.
He's making very little effort at the gym using the women's locker room and bathroom.
And she was naked and he was in there staring at her.
And they asked her to leave when she complained.
Here's first, here she is in the Gold's Gym getting kicked out and complaining.
I think that's that one, Tish Hyman.
Grown men with big dicks in the women's locker room.
And that's why I'm getting kicked out.
And I want to make sure the girls know.
What the fuck?
See here.
Everybody saw that man in the fucking locker room.
No one's saying shit.
And I'm fucking done with it.
It's fucking stupid.
It's dangerous.
Me naked in front of a man without my permission.
And I ain't the one who gets kicked out the gym now.
I'm terminated for not running men in the locker room.
She was understandably upset.
And then I don't know if it was Tish or somebody else, but somebody filmed Tish confronting the man right outside of the women's room moments later.
Watch.
I think it was moments later or moments before.
But right now.
Did you tell me or not that women like to see this?
Asking your fucking question.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Stay out of it right now.
No.
Now he knows how to be a man, right?
Now he knows how to be a man.
Stay out of the women's locker room.
We don't want it.
He needs to have his gym membership evoked with that shit.
And the one that told you.
He assaulted me.
The girl told already.
We have a five points.
No.
No.
That's fine.
The video.
You can't get rid of me for this.
I'm a woman and I have every right to not want a man in the restroom when I'm naked.
Now the man's walking into the women's locker.
I understand.
Matt, the reason this is happening is because the state law requires it.
Much as I'd love to blame Gold's Gym, Gavin Newsome and his pals have made it state law that every facility, public or private, has to allow this.
It's insane.
It's deeply wrong.
And the voters of California don't seem to give a damn.
Your thoughts.
Yeah, I do blame Gold's gym also, though, because, yeah, we blame the law, blame Gavin Newsom, certainly.
But also, I mean, you're a business owner in that state, you're a business in that state.
You just, you can't allow this.
You cannot allow, you cannot put women in this position, children in this position.
You just, you can't allow it.
And so, you know, if I'm a business in that state, I'm just not going to allow it.
And then you kind of dare the state to, what are they going to do?
You're going to shut me down?
Well, go ahead.
Let's have that fight.
I know kind of easier said than not.
But there are times in life where you have to draw a line.
And this is like clearly, clearly one of them.
I'll also say, though, that the reaction from that woman is exactly correct.
And this is how everybody should react.
And I think that I think if everyone had reacted that way from the very beginning when this madness first sort of started in earnest, like 10 years ago, then it would have been shut down very quickly.
Because like usually, I'm not, I don't agree with like making scenes in public, but there are times when that's called for.
And you go into a locker room and there's a man in there.
It's a women's locker room.
That should be a scene.
I mean, you should be, that's how a normal person reacts.
This is totally unacceptable.
That's completely wrong.
And I'm not going to take, I'm not going to go along with it to be polite or whatever.
And that's too many people who are willing to do that for too long.
That's how we ended up in this position to begin with.
So I think she deserves a lot of credit for that.
Somebody posted it online yesterday.
Not all heroes wear capes.
That's how I felt too when I watched Tish come out there.
She posted a follow-up, just her on cam after it all went down.
And you could feel that she, it was somewhat traumatic.
The whole thing was traumatic for her.
Here's a bit of that in Sat too.
I just had the worst experience ever at the gym at Gold's Gym.
Today I was naked in the locker room.
I turn around and there's a man there in boys, like boy clothes, lip gloss, standing there looking at me.
I'm butt naked.
So the first thing I think is maybe there's a workdoor in here.
Maybe I missed the sign.
I say the word sir to say, sir, what are you doing in here?
He goes, don't fucking talk to me.
I'm a woman.
I have a right to be in here.
Immediately, I'm fucking pissed because I'm butt naked.
I feel violated.
And then I talk to the people that work at Gold's Gym and they don't really have anything to do.
They just like, oh, we can file a report about an incident report.
What the fuck is going on?
I'm a lesbian.
I've been a lesbian my whole life.
I treat people I want to be treated regardless of whatever their sexual orientation is or whatever they decide.
So I'm not transphobic and I'm not homophobic.
I'm not stratiphobic.
I'm not racist.
None of these things.
Why do you guys think it's okay for men to be in the women's restroom?
You know, Matt, Gavin Newsom follows me on X and I tweeted that out and I tagged him saying, help her.
Help her.
He won't.
He has absolutely no courage on this front.
And while he talked a good game with our pal Charlie when he had him on about how it's unfair to have men in women's sports, he later just said, oh, it's just such a complicated issue, so confusing, and threw up his hands.
He's not going to help Tish.
He's not going to help girls dealing with boys in his sport.
And it's really going to come down to President Trump and just how intrusive he can be on these states that insist on fostering this harassment.
Right.
And it should be, I mean, this is a place for federal law.
There should be, there can be laws passed on the federal level because this is a state's rights thing.
This is a human rights thing.
This is a human right.
This is an infringement on your rights as a human being, as a woman, you know, to just like a basic level of privacy and safety and security when you're in your most vulnerable state in the locker room.
Yeah, you do have a right to that and that is being infringed upon.
And so it is a federal issue.
And, you know, I will say that Tish, she asked him that question.
Well, she says, well, how could anyone think that this is right?
And the answer to the question is that no one thinks it's right.
I mean, no human, almost none.
But aside from the actual trans activists themselves, and even some of them, I don't even think it's right, but everybody else, like no one else thinks it's right.
Gavin Newsom does not think that that's right.
There's no way that Gavin Newsom could look at that situation and come to the conclusion that the woman who is objecting to the man in the locker room is in the wrong.
He doesn't actually think that.
He knows that that's totally crazy.
And that is why Democrats have, especially over the last couple of years, for the most part, have run as far as they can, as fast as they can from this issue.
I mean, Kamala Harris went through her entire abbreviated campaign and barely ever talked about it.
She only talked about the trans issue when she was absolutely forced to, and then she jumped off of it as fast as she could.
It wasn't like that five years ago.
Now, five years ago, Democrat politicians, you couldn't stop them from running out in front of any camera they could find and talking about trans rights and trans women are women and all this kind of stuff.
Because for a very brief moment of time, for a very brief moment in time, it seemed like that.
It seemed like that was the popular position, although it never was.
But now, you know, the culture is just entirely against them and they know it.
And so What is a woman by Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire, which really was a game changer.
It just completely changed the conversation by calling out the insanity and questioning the proponents of it in a very fair, matter-of-fact way.
They were humiliated, but there are still hangers on.
Okay, last but not least on this same front, in California, there is a women's soccer team.
It's part of the National Women's Soccer League.
It's Angel City, and it has at least one obvious man who, I guess, says he's intersex.
It's another one of those like boxing situations like we had with that boxer.
This is him.
He, quote, identifies as female and is reportedly intersex, meaning may have female genitalia on the outside, but has XY chromosomes and is developing as a male post-puberty.
And this is, I haven't obviously seen any direct tests, but this is what's been reported about this person.
And a woman on the team named Elizabeth Eddy wrote a very thoughtful op-ed in the New York Post saying, look, our league has gotten very big, but there's a real question, how do we preserve women's rights and competitive fairness when we're fostering, while still fostering meaningful inclusion?
And she said, what we really need in our sport is clear eligibility processes and policies.
The uncertainty is serving no one.
And in particular, we've got questions and controversy over intersex and transgender athletes saying our league has to adopt a clear standard.
One is that all players have to be born with ovaries.
Another is that there should be a gene test like those that the World Athletics and World Boxing have now implemented, where when you go for your annual physical and you get a blood test looking at cholesterol, they would include a test checking your chromosomes or a non-invasive cheek swab, which is how they do it in a lot of other sports to make sure that, in fact, you have XX chromosomes playing in the Women's League.
And then she finishes it by saying, look, I don't have all the answers, but I do know we're all in this together.
It'll take time, space, and creativity to cooperate as we move forward.
The New York Post ran the piece with a picture of one player who's been questioned over whether this person is trans or intersex, and I guess won't publicly say and wouldn't publicly test.
And that person happens to be black.
So that's relevant because now the blowback that this one writer, Elizabeth Eddy, got for writing her op-ed includes that she's somehow racist.
She didn't pick the photo, but this is one of the players whose, she plays, this player plays for the Orlando Pride.
And this player, according to the Zambia Football Association, quote, did not meet the criteria for gender verification, which seems to be a nice way of saying this person did not test female.
In any event, here are fellow players from Elizabeth Eddy's Angel Cities League piling on her.
This is Angel City Sarah Gordon response to the Eddy article, SOT3B.
That article does not speak for this team in this locker room.
I've had a lot of combos with my teammates in the past few days, and they are hurt and they are harmed by the article.
And also, they are disgusted by some of the things that were said in the article.
Mostly the undertones come across as transphobic and racist as well.
The article calls for genetic testing on certain players and it has a photo of an African player as a headline.
And that's very harmful.
And to me, it's inherently racist because to single out this community based on them looking or being different is absolutely a problem.
And as a mixed woman with a Belak family, I'm devastated by the undertones of this article.
Amazing.
Your thoughts, Matt?
I think where do you even start?
Look, I'll tell you one thought that comes immediately to mind is kind of bringing this all full circle to something we talked about earlier in the hour, the conservative Civil War.
Well, this again kind of shows, it's another example that shows who the real enemies are and what we're actually fighting.
Because this is pure madness, just total, absolute lunacy using charges of racism and quote unquote transphobia, which is not a thing at all, to try to get people to ignore like biological reality, just what is actually real.
A total rejection.
It's a total rejection of reality itself and using this emotional blackmail to get people to go along with it, very much to their own detriment, the detriment of their families and their children.
That's what the left is doing.
And there really is no analog to that on the right.
There is no analogous position to like, you know, men are women.
That is a total rejection, as I said, of reality itself.
It is unique to the left.
And this is what we're fighting.
I mean, that's my first thought.
It's genuinely dangerous, both to those women and to young girls coming up the ranks in soccer.
Hello, like my daughter behind them.
Matt Walsh, great conversation.
Thanks so much for being here.
Thanks, Megan.
Appreciate it.
See you soon.
Wow.
Covered it all there.
Love to know your thoughts on it.
What a great, thoughtful guy.
You can email me, Megan at MeganKelly.com.
Coming up next, another great thoughtful guy, and that is Victor Davis Hansen.
VDH is next.
Don't miss that.
Who doesn't want energy, metabolic, immune, and skin support?
Unlock Your Healthiest Glow00:02:22
Meet Peak, a luxury brand transforming wellness.
Their science-backed botanicals, minerals, and supplements support sustained energy, metabolic function, and more.
Peak is proud to introduce Sun Goddess Matcha, an organic, ceremonial, superfood blend that can redefine your daily ritual.
Crafted from the purest tea leaves, it provides a smooth, sustained energy for a calm mind and a radiant glow.
The nutrients in their matcha can help curb sugar and hunger cravings, making it easier to stick to your wellness goals.
This ceremonial-grade matcha is 100% organic and grown in a pristine valley, ensuring you get a clean, pure cup every time.
Unlock your healthiest glow and feel the difference.
Get up to 20% off for a life, 20% off for life, a complimentary gift, and explore Peak's clean, pure, intelligent wellness rituals at peaklife.com/slash Megan.
That's p-i-q-u-e-life.com/slash Megan.
Try it and glow from the inside out.
Ever notice those creepy ads that pop up on your phone and seem to know exactly where you've been, what you've bought, even what you've been talking about?
You've probably asked yourself, is my phone spying on me?
Well, the truth is, your smartphone is constantly collecting and leaking data without your knowledge or consent.
Every day, it builds a detailed profile of your life, your location, your habits, your interests, even the people with whom you communicate.
That info is tracked, analyzed, and sold to the highest bidder.
It's not just annoying, it's invasive, and it's happening all the time.
But the up phone by Unplugged is really different.
This thing's very cool.
It's designed to protect your privacy from the ground up.
No hidden trackers, no data mining, just a secure, streamlined smartphone experience that puts you back in control.
It's the phone for people who are sick and tired of being watched against their will.
Ready to take back your digital privacy?
Visit unplugged.com/slash MK and get 25 bucks off a phone case with a purchase of a phone.
Learn more and order your up phone today.
That's unplugged.com/slash MK because your life should be yours, not theirs.
Unplugged: Protecting Your Privacy00:16:01
We are going on the road.
Join me live.
Megan Kelly Live, 10 stops across the country.
Join me for No BS, No Agenda, and No Fear live.
I'll be joined by Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck, Adam Harola, Charlie Sheen, Piers Morgan, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Erica Kirk.
Send a message that we will not be silenced.
It's Megan Kelly Live, presented by YReFi and SiriusXM.
Go to MeganKelly.com to get your tickets now.
You can stream the Megan Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
Go to SiriusXM.com/slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.
That's SiriusXM.com/slash MK Show and get three months free.
Offer details apply.
Here with me now, Victor Davis Hansen, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation.
VDH will be joining me on the Megan Kelly Live Tour in just a couple of weeks.
You don't want to miss him.
Go to MeganKelly.com to get tickets to our remaining tour stops.
We have seven to go, seven to go.
You could still get there.
Many are selling out, so go check it out now.
Victor, thank you for being here.
All right, we've got something very interesting to start with today.
The case against James Comey just got a lot hotter.
So he's moved to have it dismissed just to set the scene for our audience.
Okay, there's a two-page indictment against him.
It's pretty straightforward.
And they allege in the Eastern District of Virginia that on or about September 30th, 2020, James Comey willfully and knowingly lied, lied to Congress, telling a U.S. Senator that he, James Comey, had not authorized someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation.
Okay, so that's basically what the whole thing is based on.
And there's really not much more to the indictment than that.
Two counts that we think are based on just that one allegation that he lied to Congress in September of 2020.
Now, in September 2020, what they're really what what happened was in an exchange with Ted Cruz, Jim Comey reaffirmed testimony he gave to Chuck Grassley three years earlier in 2017 and doubled down on those assertions that he had not leaked to the media about an FBI investigation.
And he had not authorized a person at the FBI to leak to the media about any investigation into Trump or Hillary.
And I'm just going to play you those testimonials just so we're really clear.
All right.
First, we're going to go in chronological order because they're both at issue very much in this case against him.
Here he is in 17, 2017.
The date was May 3rd, speaking under oath to Senator Chuck Grassley.
Listen.
Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
Never.
Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
No.
Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his associates been declassified and shared with the media?
Not to my knowledge.
Okay, so it's that middle question that is at issue.
He very clearly testified.
The question was, have you ever been an anonymous?
Sorry, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Hillary investigation?
Answer, no.
Now that was May 3rd, 2017, which was just a couple months after the period of June 2015 through February 2017, where his good friend Daniel Richmond, who is a Columbia law professor,
had been deputized by Comey to act as a special governmental employee at the FBI on Comey's behalf, who he used to both advise him, James Comey, and now we do know to leak to the media.
Okay, so this testimonial to Grassley was post that, you know, year and a half period where he had been using Daniel Richmond to leak to the media.
So it would appear to be a very clear lie.
He had been using him.
He'd been using him for a year and a half.
And the guy had been an employee at the FBI, special governmental employee.
And that's what Grassley asked, ever authorize someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about Trump investigation or Hillary.
So he said that.
He said in May of 17, no, never did.
Then Ted Cruz, it's a little convoluted, hold on to your armrests there, gets them to double down on it three years later in 2020, September 2020.
And the only reason they used the September 2020 exchange with Cruz as the basis for the indictment is because the 17 exchange is barred as time limited.
The five-year statute limitations on that lie ran out.
But he renewed his lie to Ted Cruz.
It's more convoluted, but it's there.
I urge you to listen to this exchange, but pay attention most importantly to the last part of it.
Listen on May 3rd, 2017.
In this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
You responded under oath, quote, never.
He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
You responded again under oath, no.
Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.
Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true.
One or the other is false.
Who's telling the truth?
I can only speak to my testimony.
I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth.
Is that correct?
I guess I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
Mine is the same today, which is a very good hook for prosecutors to say not only did he reaffirm the testimony as of 2017, but he expanded it from 2017 forward to 2020.
So both time periods would be covered where James Comey is on the record saying he never authorized someone to leak on his behalf while at the FBI.
Okay, that's clearly his testimony.
In any event, there's no doubt he stood by that Grassley testimony, at least through his testimony on May 3rd, 2017.
So if he did authorize somebody to leak for him at the FBI prior to May 3rd, 2017, they've got him.
They've got him.
And we were speculating when the indictment first came out, who's the indictment even talking about?
You heard, you know, Ted Cruz there was talking about Andy McCabe, who worked for him.
Was that who it was?
Or was it somebody else?
Was it the Trump investigation?
Was it the Hillary?
Who knows?
And now it appears, I mean, I don't want to limit them, but it appears that at least we have clear evidence that Comey did use Daniel Richmond, who was an employee of the FBI again from June 2015 through February 2017 to leak to the media about the Hillary Clinton email investigation prior to the time he denied it under oath to Chuck Grassley.
The reason I say that is today in the news is an explosive report from John Solomon based on documents provided by Kash Patel at the FBI that they found at the FBI that show correspondence between James Comey and Daniel Richmond,
his BFF and employee for that year and a half, making clear Comey wanted Richmond to leak and that Richmond did then act as an anonymous source to the New York Times and possibly others.
All right.
And we'll just go through a couple of them.
First, he points out, this is Mike Davis summarizing some of it.
Comey had a Berner Gmail, which he named himself Reinhold Niebuhr.
I don't know who that is, Victor.
You're a historian.
Does that name ring a bell to you?
Yes, it does.
He was a very famous Protestant clergyman, public intellectual in the United States.
He was the father of Elizabeth Sipton, the head editor for a while at Alfred Knapp, and at one time my book editor.
So it's kind of a coincidence you asked that.
But he was very well known as a voice of morality in America.
Oh, you're so smart.
I love that image.
Yeah, sanctimonious Comey would always try to identify with a higher moral authority.
Okay, so there that he, that's his alias.
And he's corresponding with his BFF, Daniel Richman.
And okay, I'm going to try to make this clear.
It's not that easy.
Hold on.
First, just to set the scene for the audience again, it was October 28th, 2016 that Comey wrote a letter saying that the FBI had discovered new emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton use of private email servers.
That was just like a few days before the election.
That was the final, like in July of 2016, Comey came out and he was like, Hillary sucks.
She has a private homebrew server.
It's very problematic, but we're not going to indict her because we can't meet certain elements of a crime.
And Republicans were pissed, like she should be indicted.
Then October comes around and we're just like a week before the vote now.
And he says, ah, we found more emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, who's married to Huma Ahmad Abedin, who was Hillary's right-hand person.
And then the Democrats lost their mind saying, this is election interference by the FBI, which works for the DOJ, days before an election.
And Comey's like, I had to tell people.
I kind of exonerated her in July.
And then just before the election, now I find all these other emails.
And look, I felt a moral obligation to tell America, we did find other stuff.
And you can hear him.
He's upset because then the left-wing press went nuts on him.
And the left-wing press was important to James Comey, who wanted them to love him.
And what he's doing is using Daniel Richman to massage the press into thinking Comey was moral, like you point out, like this Reinhold Niebuhr, that he was, he did the right thing.
And he's writing to his BFF here about how, look, you know, I did something noble saying, first his friend says, do you want me to respond, basically?
And then Comey responds from his burner account, no need.
At this point, it would be shouting into the wind.
Someday they'll figure it out.
And as Jack and Ben point out, I don't know who that is, my decision will be one a president-elect Clinton will be very grateful for, though that wasn't why I did it.
So he's anticipating Hillary's going to win and that ultimately after she wins, she'll forgive him for doing the October thing.
The next day, Daniel Richmond sent Comey an email regarding an op-ed he'd been asked to write for the New York Times about the Comey letter regarding Hillary's emails.
Richman stated he was not inclined to write something, but that he would if Comey thought it would help things to explain that the defendant owed Congress absolute candor and that Comey's credibility with Congress could be, would be particularly important in the coming years of threatened congressional investigations.
That's when Comey wrote back, no need.
It would be shouting into the wind.
Someday they'll figure it out.
And Hillary Clinton president-elect will be very grateful for me having done this.
Then Comey appears to have reconsidered that view very shortly thereafter, alleges the government.
On November 1st, 2016, he emailed Daniel Richmond again, saying, when I read the Times coverage involving reporter one, I'm left with a sense that they don't understand the significance of my having spoken about this case in July.
It changes the entire analysis.
Meaning, he's like, his point is, having said something in July about how she should be, she can't be charged, I owed it to the public to update my statements in October when I found the Anthony Wiener laptop.
And then he says to Daniel Richmond, perhaps you can make him smarter.
And Comey goes on about why he's so knowable and this needs to be explained to the press.
My inactivity was not an option here.
The choices were act to reveal or act to conceal.
Richmond responds the next day, stating, this is precisely the case I made to them and thought they understood.
I was quite wrong.
Indeed, I went further and said mindless allegiance to the policy and recognition that more evidence could come in would have counseled silence in July to have let Hillary twist in the wind.
Richmond emailed Comey shortly thereafter writing, I just got the point home to reporter one, who we think was Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, probably was rougher than you would have been.
Then Comey emails Richmond shortly thereafter, entitling the message, Pretty Good, sending a link to the New York Times piece regarding the defendants, Comey's purported options in late October 2016 about the Clinton email investigation.
Comey wrote, someone showed some logic.
I would paint the cons that I was facing in not disclosing more darkly, but not bad.
So this clearly he says to Richmond here, Victor, perhaps you can make him smarter in writing this piece.
Then he writes the piece, and we have the piece, by the way, from the New York Times where they weigh exactly what Comey had to do and the pros and the cons.
And Richmond says, okay, I just got the point home.
I was rougher than you would have been.
And then Comey forwards him the piece saying someone shows some logic, forwarding the piece to him, with which Richmond participated at Comey's behest.
And that is just one example.
There are other examples as well between Comey and Richmond that predate his testimony to Grassley, denying he had ever done it.
It's very clear, according to these filings, Victor, he did.
And so just like the Tish James case that we talked about at length yesterday, check our YouTube feed if you missed it.
If you missed it, you shouldn't.
This case against James Comey looks a lot stronger than the media would have us believe.
Well, I think it's very strong, but I'm not as optimistic that because this is going to be tried in the New York-Washington corridor.
The Comey Indictment Details00:15:09
And I remember in the Letita James case, there were experts who testified that the Deutsche Bank had no complaint.
The loan was paid on time with interest in full, and they would loan to him again.
And they said it was not relevant to the case.
The Eugene Carroll case, they brought in all sorts of testimony that proved that she was, and they said it's not irrelevant.
They're going to say, and I hope they don't, but they're going to say, we're talking about a particular authorization to McCabe.
Just take one example.
This is irrelevant.
Or they're going to say, well, James Comey never authorized it.
It was brought to his attention that people were freelancing and leaking, and he didn't authorize it, but he was under no compulsion to stop it.
He just thought, wow, I don't know what they're, I'm aware of it.
That's what they're going to do.
And it's going to depend on that, you know, if it's in Washington, a Washington grand jury indicted him, apparently.
And then it's going to depend on the judge and the prosecutor.
But there is a common denominator, two of them, with all of this, Megan, and that is he had no business doing any of this.
He is a FBI director.
His job is to investigate and present evidence to a prosecutor.
The prosecutor was Loretta Lynch, and she was conflicted, and Obama knew it.
So she bowed out.
Remember, she had met with Clinton on the tarmac and theme.
Tarmac.
Yes.
And so James Comey, who had been a prosecutor, he was the one, remember, a long time ago that went after Martha Stewart.
He was a glory hound, and he really trumped up that thing.
And they said, you know what?
James Comey is such an egomaniac that we'll bow out.
And then he took on the role.
They didn't have a subordinate in the DOJ.
He took on the role as the investigator and the de facto attorney general to determine whether these charges would go.
And that's not right.
He should have said, here's the evidence.
On the one hand, she's obviously guilty on the case of Hillary.
On the other hand, maybe it would be hard to prove to a jury.
You make the decision.
But he was getting the evidence and then making the decision in public to himself.
And that was the problem.
And then the other thing is he's a narcissist and egomaniac, and he's always too smart by half.
He always tries to outthink and manipulate.
So he's thinking, Hillary's going to be president, but I'll get a lot of criticism if I don't bring this up like I was one of her toadies.
So I'm going to kind of sort of bring it up and then kind of sort of bring it down.
And then when she's elected, I can kind of say, you know, I have a disinterested reputation.
And that's the same thing he did all the time.
He told Donald Trump, you're kind of sort of not the object of an investigation.
And then you're kind of, then he would go out and memorialize it, put it in his safe, and then leak it through a third party.
So it's really disturbing because he's always trying to, if he had just told the truth, if he had just told the truth, he might be okay.
But he tries to manipulate and go into all of these self-righteous, narcissistic, egocentric conspiracies.
And he, you know, if you start lying, oh, what a terrible web we weave when we try to deceive.
And that's what he does.
And I hope that he gets, they have a good prosecutor, and I hope they have a good judge, because he's obviously culpable.
But given what we've seen with Alvin Bragg and Letita James and Jack Smith and Fannie Willis, the judges and the prosecutors have been.
It's a very high bar.
If you're not going to be able to do that.
I'll tell you something, though.
I'll tell you something.
They may get this dismissed as vindictive prosecution, though I don't know that they will.
I actually don't think that's got high hopes.
It's a very tough claim to prove.
They may get it booted because they're arguing that Lindsey Halligan, the acting or the U.S. attorney, wasn't properly appointed.
And that's being handled by another judge.
That could be a way out for them.
We'll see.
But I no longer believe they have a shot of getting it dismissed on the four corners of the pleading, saying that they did not plead a viable criminal complaint against him.
That we are going to have to get into this because they do have very clear evidence that James Comey lied.
I actually wasn't as sure about it before because the indictment was so vague.
But now that I see the case coming together and this supplemental filing, they've got it.
Like, we'll see whether the jury finds it material and relevant, all that stuff.
But if they get to a jury, but I don't think the judge can dismiss this on the paper, on the four corners of the document, or throw it out for failure to state a claim because they did plead a very obvious criminal complaint here of him misleading Congress.
They've got the evidence.
It's going to be very interesting what Andrew McCabe, because he had been found culpable guilty to lying on four occasions to federal investigators.
I think two of them were under oath.
So his credibility was not very good if he was going to testify that he had been authorized by James Comey to leak.
And he said he wasn't, that he leaked spontaneously.
He did not leak spontaneously.
He had leaked with the nod of James Comey.
And people, I think.
But that's not even the case.
People were mistaken into thinking that this case brought against Comey was about McCabe.
It's not.
It's about Richmond.
Yes, I know it.
But my point is that if you can show that Comey was using other people to leak and lying about it, and then when Ted Cruz says McCabe said this, you said this, and that's going to come up, then McCabe, in a weird way, his credibility is enhanced and Comey is diminished.
Well, there's more.
Yeah.
There's more.
So there's another soundbite I want to play for you because this is also undermined by the documents just released.
It's James Comey testifying at that same hearing where Ted Cruz cross-examined him, September 30th, 2020, in response to Senator Lindsey Graham asking him about whether he received intel,
which we know he did thanks to the documents that have been declassified through Kash Patel, whether he remembers receiving intelligence about Hillary Clinton's plans to try to connect Donald Trump to Russia.
This came out over the summer where we saw that they had received intelligence showing that Hillary had this plan.
And then lo and behold, what did she try to do?
She tried to connect Trump to Russia.
So this is Senator Graham in September of 2020, long after it's all happened, asking James Comey whether he remembers being told that by the Intel agents.
Watch this.
Slide eight.
September, the 7th, 2016, the U.S. Intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral of FBI to FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzzok, regarding U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S.
Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email Server.
You don't remember getting that or being taught bells with me.
Okay.
Well, that's a pretty stunning thing.
It didn't ring a bell, but it did come to you.
Didn't ring a bell, James Comey wanted Congress to believe.
And yet now they've produced the actual handwritten note showing it right here on screen.
James Comey's own handwritten note, which I'll read to you.
It's dated September 26th, 2016.
And there's a line item that reads, HRC plan to tie Trump.
HRC plan to try to tie Trump.
And then there's a note or a couple lines down saying, Carrie, Trump, finance, debts, I think it says for Moscow.
I mentioned New York Times and Russia.
It's very clearly in the context of Russia.
He's saying Hillary Clinton planned to tie Trump.
And we know, we know that she had that plan because we've now seen all the intel that was circulating at the FBI and CIA, who had unearthed, thanks to the Russians who had been, it's a long story, but basically somebody had been spying.
I think it was the Australians had been spying on the Russians and found talk of this plan.
And they brought it to our intel agents saying, hey, FYI, Hillary Clinton's up to some dirty business, in case you're interested.
And our intelligence agencies discussed it.
We learned that over the summer.
And now you see the James Comey note saying it.
And then you see the testimony.
He didn't remember, Victor.
This isn't like, hey, do you know what salad you had four years ago on a Friday?
This is, did the Democrat candidate for president have a plan to try the Republican candidate for president to Russia, which is an investigation you then pursued for months and tried to ruin his first term with?
Yeah, but remember that he testified, I think it was to the House Oversight Committee, and that doesn't ring a bell.
Not aware of that, couldn't quite remember that.
People had maybe said that, but I never heard it.
That's what he said 245 times under oath.
And they went through all of these questions and there was no perjury referrals or anything.
So I agree 110% with everything your analysis, but given that he, what he's done and what McCabe did and what Brennan did and what Clapper did, all of them.
And yet all we hear is retribution, revenge, turret, revenge for when the real issue is not that Donald Trump in a revenge fashion, although maybe he had vengeance on his mind and that weighed into it, but that doesn't really matter.
The matter is whether they're culpable or not.
And for the entire Biden administration, they were given exemptions.
And the whole purpose was so that the statute limitation they thought would run out in the small chance that Donald Trump would ever be elected again, they thought.
But they're all culpable.
And they're so James Comey is so, he's the most grading because he is the most sanctimonious.
You know, he's always saying, I'm wandering on the beach reading Nietzsche and I'm reading Kielgaard and I'm reading all of these philosophers.
Oh, by the way, I just saw this 8647 on the beach.
I don't, I have no idea what it means.
My wife is my he's a pathological liar.
He really is.
And is a narcissist.
Wait, let me.
We only have a few minutes left, but I want to get to this because you mentioned Brennan.
There was news about him.
So Brennan went to some, it was like some conference over the weekend, and he was confronted in a great exchange about him joining with the 51 intelligence analysts to try to dismiss the Hunter Biden laptop as possible Russian disinformation.
And he got very angry.
Here's SOT 10.
I would like to hear what your justification was for supporting the dossier that was known to be false being used as source material in the second ICA.
I don't know who put you up to this.
Nobody put me up to this, sir.
I'm here on my own.
What role you played or who you are.
But it's a bunch of bullshit that you just passed on.
Absolutely.
The emails are clear, sir.
Bullshit.
The emails are clear.
Perfect.
The emails are clear.
The second question.
I think we're going to answer.
You can say we can talk about it otherwise.
Talk about it on the reception.
It was Russian disinformation.
No, we didn't say that.
No one did you factory.
You said it was likely Russian disinformation.
No, we did not.
We said you did.
No, that doesn't.
And I just want to get uninvited.
Yeah.
No, no, we don't.
You're done.
Come on.
All right, we're going to go over here.
Let's go over here for a question.
Okay, that was Thomas Spessiale, conservative national security consultant, putting him to it.
And then just another quick one.
Then John Brennan was confronted outside the conference on the same subject, SOT-11.
Why did he do that?
Oh, you're not survived.
Why did he do that?
Because I didn't.
And you misrepresented that.
We never said it was disinformation.
We said it was Russian influence operations, which is what they do.
There's a big difference between influence operations.
No, you don't know that.
Yes, Komi knew.
Komi knew.
Finger in the chest.
Oh, all my...
Oh.
You see how he walks away?
Yeah, that was...
Yeah.
Yeah, he walked away.
He was very angry.
Keep going.
Yeah, when Mike, when Anthony Blinken, on somebody's prompt, we probably know who that is, cooked up this idea that it was going to be very embarrassing in the last debate in 2020.
And Joe Biden was going to be asked about this laptop, which the New York Post had pretty much shown it was genuine.
And I think the FBI, who'd had it almost a year, was leaking that it was genuine.
They sprung into action.
So Blinken called Mike Morrow, the former interim director of the CIA, and said, get the gang out.
And they got Hayden and they got Leon Panetta, but especially Clapper and Brennan.
And then they had a problem because they knew that it was genuine and it would hurt Biden because, you know, what was in it, the big guy, Mr. 10%, besides all the pornography and the drugs.
So they came up with this word game, this gymnastics.
It has all the hallmarks of a Russian information campaign.
And of course, the synonym for all that was disinformation.
So when Brennan is confronted with that, he says, well, I didn't say it was disinformation.
I didn't say that it was disinformation.
I said that it was just Russians were trying to pass something off.
It may or may not have been.
An influence operation.
That's all.
So how are they trying to influence?
But you saw him blow up about the dossier, which he was told was bogus.
And Obama, he said to Obama, and so did Clapper, and so did Comey and to others, our subordinates, know that it's bogus.
Disinformation vs Influence Operations00:02:10
And they were told to go back and get back and that it was not and to run with it, i.e., to the press.
And then the laptop and the disinformation laptop thing and the dossier are really going to hurt him.
So if he can't even answer that and he blows up and he gets angry and he uses all of you bull crap and he storms off, and he did the same thing when he was caught lying to the Senate about the Senate computer staffers.
They said, you've been, the CIA director Brennan, you've been tapping into these.
He blew up.
No, we would never do that.
Same thing about targeted assassinations about collateral.
He lied twice.
But I hope that he does that if he gets indicted because I don't think a good prosecutor will allow that blow up and those psychodramatics to work.
And it's so visionist because he knows.
Every headline, every headline at the time.
I just pulled one, Politico.
Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinfo.
Dozens of former Intel officials say.
That was the headline everywhere.
Did John Brennan run around trying to correct it saying, no, not disinformation.
It's just an influence operation.
And let me explain to you the difference.
The guy is a liar.
He's caught.
And I agree with you.
I hope he gets accomplished.
The FBI knew that.
Remember, Christopher Wray, they had the FBI.
They had the laptop.
They had already done authentic, to see if it was authentic.
They had done forensic on it.
They knew that it was Hunter's.
The laptop owner knew.
He had the receipt that Hunter had left it there.
So it wasn't even a question of doubt at all.
It's just he's been humiliated now, so he wants to revise history.
Victor Davis Hansen, he tells us real history every time he comes on, and for that, we are always grateful.
Thank you, VDH.
See you soon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll see Victor live out in California, and you can come watch that too.
Go to MeganKelly.com tomorrow.
Our friends from Real Clear Politics and all the big election results.