America Approves of Trump's Diverse Cabinet, and Jack Smith DROPS Charges, with Stu Buguiere and Stephen L. Miller | Ep. 953
01:41:00 Share

Oh my gosh, I'm adopting a puppy right now. But I realize what's at home. Oh no, I have nothing. Well, except unconditional love. But yeah, no crate, no pee-pee pads, no dental chews for his little puppy teeth. Before I doubt myself as a new parent, I just get Instacart to deliver everything from PetSmart. Easy. Just like raising a puppy is going to be, right? Get PetEssentials from PetSmart with Instacart. Visit Instacart.com to get free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time. $10 minimum per order. Additional terms apply.

Bye.

Visit HighFiveCasino.com. High Five Casino. No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited by law. Must be 21 years or older. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, and happy Monday. It's Thanksgiving week. Can I tell you, it's kind of weird for me because we already celebrated Thanksgiving. We do it every year. We call it Fakesgiving because...

it's much easier to get my whole family together on a day other than the day. And so we did it. And so I kind of feel like everybody's just playing catch up at this point. Um, come on, let's get going. And actually it had the added benefit of adding a bunch more days in between Thanksgiving and Christmas for me, which is kind of convenient shopping wise, et cetera. In any event, I look forward to having the day off and to hearing about how all of you celebrate this Thursday. What's it going to be football, um,

delicious snacks that you don't eat for the rest of the year. I mean, like I literally think it's the only day of the year I ever eat stuffing or cranberry sauce. What other day do you eat that? Do you guys eat that other than on Thanksgiving? Anyway, let me know. Megan at megankelly.com.

On this particular Monday before Thanksgiving, President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet is now complete. All that's left is the confirmation process. That ought to be fun. And even the Trump-hating media is admitting that this is the most ideologically diverse cabinet ever.

One nominee is even getting praise from Randy Weingarten, which is not not not good. It's not good. We'll get into it. And also the surgeon general is getting big praise from one of the covid Nazis who is in total lockstep with Anthony Fauci. Also not good.

Um, there is a new poll from CBS news showing massive support for president elect Trump from the American public right now. Wah, wah. That's going to upset the media. They're not going to like that. And they will do their level best to turn that around just as quickly as they can.

Joining me today for the full show, it's Stu and Steez. Stu Bergeer, he is the host of Stu Does America for Blaze TV. And Stephen L. Miller is a contributing editor at The Spectator and host of the Versus Media podcast. He is also known as at Red Steez on X. Looking for the perfect gift or maybe just a treat for yourself?

Firecracker Farm Hot Salt is an awesome gift. Beautifully packaged and unlike anything else out there. It's so unique, right? And it's tasty and handcrafted. This is perfect for anyone who loves...

bold flavors. It's not your typical salt. Each stainless steel push grinder is packed with amazing flavor. It's available in heat levels from mild, that would be me, to wow, that could be you. So there's something for everyone. Every sprinkle brings out incredible flavor without overpowering your dish. Firecracker Farm hot salt is made with love by a small family business. Plus a percentage of every sale goes to support charities, Operation 300, and the Pipe

Thanks, Megan. Good to see you. I have stuffing four days a week. Okay.

Seriously. I don't know why you guys don't. Do you ever like literally on any other day of the year? Do you have stuffing? Sure. It's great with chicken. Like you just get the stovetop stuff. I do this one from scratch. But yeah, why not? It's wonderful. You make it at home. Yeah. You're describing an American failure here, a cultural failure. We should be eating more stuffing, more cranberry sauce. Yeah, we should be having Thanksgiving like twice a week.

The Brits have Sunday night roast dinner. I mean, we can steal that tradition from them. Make America healthy again. A lot of green beans. I don't know. And pumpkin pie. That's another thing. It's a one time a year. Am I wrong? I don't eat pie.

Pumpkin pie has a season, I think you get to see it's Thanksgiving to Christmas. I feel like I have it at Christmas sometimes, too. But you're right. It's no, I'm not. You're doing it wrong. You're only allowed to have pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving and cranberry sauce. Wait a minute. Steez, you're not having cranberry sauce on any day other than Thanksgiving, are you? Sometimes. Yeah, it's great. Like turkey sandwiches and stuff like that. Yeah.

The kind, you know, there's only one kind. It's the kind you get out of the can and you slice it with a knife and they fall over.

Yeah, I mean, my culture is not your, you know, snack here. Okay, so no, you just get some cranberries, you throw some bourbon, some orange juice, some brown sugar into a thing and simmer it. And it's great. It lasts for like two weeks. Don't be the guy who's overstepping us and saying you make your own cranberry sauce. I do. Don't do that. Don't you dare. Just like the pilgrims did. Stop.

I don't know if you saw that on Twitter. I was researching cranberry sauce. I was just like looking at some stuff. And I came across a website that had a land acknowledgement in the blurb about cranberry sauce. It basically said, you know, the cranberries were here when the colonizers came. And they came from Europeans. And to give to the natives whose land we are on to this day. And I'm like, ma'am, I don't need a land acknowledgement for cranberry sauce. Yeah.

Imagine sitting there at the table and someone says, this is great cranberry sauce. Did you make this? Well, it's a long story. Please sit down because it goes back to our indigenous tribe.

And abuse. It's funny because I have tried, my audience has heard these stories, but many times over the years to cook a Thanksgiving dinner, even though I don't cook. And every single time it's been an utter disaster, including a fire when John O'Hurley of Seinfeld fame and his beautiful wife, Lisa, both of whom are dear friends of ours were over. And we almost set our house on fire, which is when John O'Hurley yelled out, I've got Sean George on speed dial, which is a fancy restaurant in New York.

Anyway, now that I'm hosting like an extended family, I mean, I don't even try. Everybody knows. No one would come if they found out I was doing the cooking. So I hire a caterer. And well, I've done it different ways. I've gotten the food, you know, at the grocery store in advance. But then I screwed that up. One year I left half of the groceries at the Whole Foods. So by the time we got to actual Thanksgiving dinner, I only had half of the stuff. It was very paltry. Yeah.

Okay. But anyway, now this year I hired a caterer second year in a row. And can I tell you what's great about it? If you get the caterer to do your Thanksgiving dinner, like three weeks before Thanksgiving, everyone's available. They're, they're cheap. Relatively speaking, everyone's ready to help because it's not Thanksgiving. It was so much easier.

You're going to you're going to have to start checking the immigration status of some of those caterers now because they're gone. According to the libs who think that we're just deporting housekeepers and crop pickers and food washers and everything like that. That's one of my favorite things that they just stumble into. So just make sure make sure, you know, you you you have one that's legal, you know, this year. I mean, I that's Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Trump isn't going to allow those next year. So just so we're all clear. Yeah.

Okay. So anyway, that's Thanksgiving. We've got that covered. Now let's, we might as well begin with the unfair attacks on our wonderful profession of journalism. Joe Scarborough this morning is outraged and I do mean outraged.

about people attacking the press as a factual and unimportant. He's, he's had about enough of this guys. Stu, take a listen to him. I'm speaking with Axios is Jim Vander high. Here's what happened. Vander high, um, made some remarks at the national press club. Yeah, I guess he got an award and then he got up there and, you know, performed, uh,

a nice act on the press that were there. Like, you matter. And then Joe Scarborough did his best imitation of J-Lo with her same messaging in advance of the election 2024. You matter. You matter. Here he is. Listen. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or X today saying like, we are the media. You are the media. My message to Elon Musk is bulls**t.

You're not the media. Like being a reporter is hard, really hard. No, it's not. You have to care. You have to do the hard work. You have to get up every single day and say, I want to get to the closest approximation of the truth without any fear, without any favoritism. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter. You don't do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work. Yeah, come on.

They're clapping. They're clapping on the set of Morning Joe. It's very hard, very hard, Stupor Gear, to sit there as Joe Scarborough does each morning and say, best Biden ever, ever, two months before we saw him implode on the debate stage.

He's sharp as a tack. And they nailed that coverage the entire time. In fact, they told us all the way up to the very end how sharp he was until the second they decided to turn on their journalism skills and create a new golden era of journalism that lasted approximately two weeks until Kamala Harris had the nomination. Because that's basically what happened. It's funny that for those two weeks, they really did do their jobs like that.

Like they actually were really impressed. They were able to to suss out every single backroom rumor about, you know, every single time Joe Biden had fallen down in the middle of some fundraiser. Every politician or celebrity that was there, they knew every little detail. They knew all of a sudden that he hadn't met with with his cabinet in over a year. All this stuff they were able to suss out in a couple of weeks.

the second they believed it would help them and that he was now hurting them. And of course, then they went right back to praising Kamala and acting like she was wonderful the entire time. It's pathetic. And, you know, it's funny because when he talks about

You know, journalism is not just popping off on Twitter. First of all, they're all there. They're all doing that. I see them. I'm on Twitter and I see all these journalists. They're popping off all the time with their non-journalistic opinions. This entire election to me, more than anything else, was an experiment to see if the mainstream media still had that power.

Could they convince Americans that actually, no, the last four years were great? Actually, Bidenomics was working. Actually, the border wasn't that big of a deal. Actually, the Afghanistan thing went well, exactly how they planned it to go. Actually, he was as sharp as a tack. And what we found out was it doesn't work anymore. Yes, the media still has influence. Yes, it can still do things.

But they are no longer capable of taking America by the collar and dragging it to the solution that they desire. That is something they're feeling real, real panic about. I mean, this has been their entire lives to grow up, to be a journalist, to be able to take American opinion and inform it to your every whim and desire. That is dead. And that's what Elon's talking about. And he's right.

It's no accident, Stephen, that you have Jen Psaki the night that Kamala lost saying we've got to take a real look at these social media influencers and that the digital lane and think about regulating them because they played a major role in this election and it's wrong. And now you're having all these articles done about alternative places for news like podcasts and how dangerous this is.

And then you have Van de Heij, who co-founded Axios and Scarborough, going off about how what MSNBC does matters. And here's a little bit more of Joe Scarborough doing that. Continues to need to be said when all of the garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters, lying about the hard work they do. Why this is so important right now more than ever is because

Critics of the press are feeling more empowered than ever to lie more than ever. What you do matters. What the New York Times does matters. What the Wall Street Journal does matters. What Jonathan Lemire does matters. What the Financial Times does matters. What NBC News and MSNBC reporters do matters. So you stir up shit and

And you, you, you, the more you can get people angry, the more followers you get. But also now it's monetized to help you like the more you show, the more you make. Yeah, there you go. I like that. Okay. Joy Reed was literally saying that if Trump won, they were going to start locking up brown people. So maybe spare me on the lectures of you stir people up.

and then make money. It's no accident that MSNBC's ratings are in the toilet. They're being spun off because reputationally, they're a nightmare for Comcast and NBC. These are the biggest losers at the party with their little pocket squares, and they've been spun off to go sit in the part with the non-alcohol punch. And they're still trying to tell us, Steve, that they're the main people at the party, and they matter. There's no prom king without me.

Yeah, I mean, Morning Joe is just basically performing the news and that's kind of their whole shtick. It's, you know, they believe they exist in some kind of Aaron Sorkinized universe where they are the most important character of the entire media ecosphere and they're just not anymore. And as someone who partakes in media criticism for a career for my podcast, I've said, you know, these people have the least amount of influence I've ever seen in my life. And that's something that I kind of

push out there to a lot of other influencers or on the right like that. It's okay to admit that, yeah, these people upset you and they are professional performers. They are professional liars. But this election, like Stu said, was really a referendum on all of that stuff. What they're doing isn't working. And

Jim Vandaheim is interesting. He was one of the guys who walked around post-election going to places like MSNBC, going to places like Politico and just saying, you know, it's really hard to find good journalists out there. It's a hard industry. And Jim Vandaheim Axios has not hired anybody from, say, the Free Beacon who broke the story of Claudine Gay's plagiarism. They should get a Pulitzer for that story and they won't.

So it's not that there aren't good reporters. It's that these guys are locked inside of their own – I hate to say the cliche, their own calcified bubble where we can't go hire a good reporter from, say, the Free Beacon. We can't go hire a good reporter from the Daily Caller who will report on pro-life issues. They froze out half of the country.

And now they're complaining that half the country is not listening to them. And as far as Twitter X is concerned, Harry Anton from CNN just had a poll where he showed that Twitter X and X is the platform as it exists now is as ideologically balanced as it ever has been. It's 48 percent left, 47 percent right leaning, and they can't take that.

They lost 20 percent of the conversation and they all packed their bags and then went and colonized another social media platform like they always do. And so that's really what this is about. And so, yeah, Morning Joe sitting there pounding his fist on the table, it just does not resonate like this would have two years ago because Joe Scarborough believed he had the ear of the White House. And he did. And this is what they have to show for it now.

Yeah, but he doesn't have the ear of anybody who is in the center or right of center. He's trying to worm his way back into Trump world. Everybody knows what that little play date at Mar-a-Lago was about. They see ratings with Trump. And so I predicted by the time this month is out or by December is out, he's going to have Donald Trump calling his show again. And to get all the people at CNN, the Brian Stelters and everyone talking about it and getting on their typewriters.

And that's that's going to be the business model. And that's why you're seeing some of these traditional outlets decide, oh, maybe we should talk to Hitler instead of just, you know, calling him Hitler. And so it was all the show him. Trump, Trump calling in. I would agree with that. Joe cannot save morning. They they've already exposed themselves to as just in the tank of.

for the other side and full of loathing for the other side. And there is no one who is center right who's going to say, oh, I'm going to give them a fresh look because Donald Trump sat down with them. Everyone in America, in the world, knows that Trump's oxygen

is news coverage. And we'll understand if he goes on that show, it's because he loves to see himself talked about in the news. And if he can get these worms into giving him good coverage by giving them an interview every once in a while, he'll do that. But no one's going to think, oh, I'll reevaluate them now that Trump sat with them for 15.

No, no, absolutely. In fact, I think if anything, it's it's the opposite. Like it's people will see through it and their own audience who is incentivized for them to be saying anything negative about Donald Trump will hate them for it. I mean, it's a really strange move, honestly, for them to go talk to Donald Trump because.

If anything, it provides their audience a reason to dislike them more, because if they see them as kissing up to Donald Trump, it's probably bad for them. Right. There's no one who's on MSNBC looking for actual coverage of the news. That's not why you go to that place. Maybe some people go to CNN for that still.

Nobody goes to MSNBC for that. And who's going to be incentivized by this? The person who says, you know what? Wow, we really blew this and we missed something serious with the American people. Their social media following isn't going to, you know, to praise them for that. You know, Joy Reid is the type of person who gets rewarded out of a situation like this because she will get more and more extreme. She'll double down. She'll say the reason we lost is because of racism. And

And sexism and transphobism or whatever other thing they're going to accuse people of and their followers will praise them for it. And you know what? If they did try to have a real reckoning, their audience would push back on them, I think, enough so that someone else would step into that role and take over the cheerleader for whatever left wing fantasy they want.

The nerve, the nerve that they would try to distinguish because you heard there at Jim, what Jim VandeHei saying, talking about the importance of a free press and slamming opinionated influencers who are popping off on Twitter. He's so angry about those who just pop off on Twitter. And then Scarborough too, looking at them saying, you know, like we here at MSNBC, we matter.

As if we should look at Russia, Russia, Russia, Rachel Maddow, Russia Maddow and Joy Reid, who all she does is spew racist tropes. That's it. That's all she does is spew racism about Donald Trump, not to mention the rest of their pathetic lineup.

We should be looking at them as the credible ones. It's very irritating to them that there are people on X who have a platform and people in the digital lane like us that have a platform that others are listening to because that's not factual, you see. And by the way, many of us are reporters, are journalists, and would put our credentials up against anyone up and down that lineup any day of the week.

Um, these same outlets, I'll just speak about the one Axios because it's Jim VandeHei up there, Steve. It was his outlet that was trying to say Kamala Harris was never the border czar. That is a title she never actually had quoting here from an article by Steph W. Knight and

July 24th, 2024. You go back to April 14th, 2021, Axios. Kamala Harris was appointed by Biden as border czar. Then June 23rd, 2021, Kamala Harris was put in charge by Joe Biden of solving the migrant surge at the southern border. But as soon as she declares for president, she was never the border czar. And then when she got slammed-

online for this ridiculousness. They added an editor's note. This article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a border czar. And these are the people who want to lecture the rest of us.

Yeah, that was a that was a pretty good example. And the other one, you know, Stu brought up is we were told for months and months, even by Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi, how sharp Joe Biden was. They smeared Robert Herr when Herr described him as he did in her report, which seemed to be more generous as more stuff comes out.

And even up to the fact where he has Joe Biden has to be pushed off the stage by Barack Obama and Obama's own advisors said, well, that's not really what happened. They're just really good friends. I had an eyewitness account on my podcast who saw Biden at Normandy and just said, this guy's gone. His brain is applesauce. An eyewitness person said this. We were all called conspiracy theorists. We were called chief fake artists right up until the moment when they couldn't hide him anymore on the debate stage.

And I thought what was interesting, Semaphore Media, run by Ben Smith, formerly BuzzFeed, they went and they talked to the Pod Save America bros about what happened with Joe Biden. And I thought, how come you guys aren't reaching out to the people who have been saying this for the last three years? Where is the apology from the Semaphores, from the Axios, from the MSNBCs? Like you said, Joe –

Joe Scarborough saying this is the best Biden we've ever seen. And then two weeks later, like it never happened. He's like, he needs to get out and they move on. And then they expect the rest of us to just not notice that.

And that was kind of how incensed I got with that whole thing. It's like there's some of us that Axios and the media might disagree with because we're on the political right. But we were right about Biden's condition, whatever it might be. It could be an affliction. It could just be old age, whatever it is. We were right about this. And they can't they will not reach out to anyone who is on the political right and say, hey, you know.

What do you think now that he's out and stuff like that? They still go and they talk to the pod bros who lie to their audience for a living on behalf of Joe Biden, the Democratic Party. And that has a lot to do with this. And like I said, you can have Vanderheef walking around going, where are all the good reporters? And it's simply because they have an ideological stance that they will not break under any circumstances, including this last election.

which was as much a referendum on their behavior and their industry than it was on anything else in this country. You're so right. I'm just thinking about the examples. We were right about Kamala Harris being unable to resonate at all with anybody in this country other than the far left. Everybody predicted this. I mean, we were on the air every day talking about how inept she was and how she was too stupid to become the first female president. Well,

We and I know you guys, too, raising questions all along about whether Tim Walls was the answer to her Midwestern man problem. I miss him as as people who actually do understand the center right. And men, I miss him, too. But like they should have listened. They should have said, you know, people who actually surround themselves with guys like that are telling us this ain't going to do it. Maybe we should listen. When we said the trans issue is getting very, very big and you ignore it at your peril.

Go ahead and ask. And they're still ignoring it. Ask Ben Smith. He doesn't have your answers. With all due respect, he doesn't have your answers. It's a very good point. Stu, your thoughts on it? Yeah, it's totally true. And I think if you are relegated to pounding on the desk and saying what we do matters, it doesn't.

I promise you it doesn't. I mean, I think back to the high school years and asking girls to prom and then just pounding my finger, my fist on the desk over and over again and saying, I am good looking and I am attractive and I am interesting and I do have abs. It doesn't work. People know it's not true. It doesn't work like that. People know if you're interesting, they know if what you're doing matters and what the American people said, right?

in November to this whole question was, no, we don't believe you anymore. We've seen you lie to us way too many times. All the things you just mentioned and so many more, Megan, people looked at with their own eyes, evaluated themselves as actually intelligent individuals and said, these people are lying to us. I don't trust them anymore. I'm looking to other sources. They found the truth in other places. And that's the that is the punishment.

for all of this bad behavior over multiple decades that has only been getting worse and worse and worse and worse. I don't think there's a way back for them.

Now, on this front, there's news today, courtesy of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I guess has been appointed to head the congressional subcommittee that's supposed to help Doge, Elon's and Vivek's, you know, government, Department of Government Efficiency. They're supposed to work from the congressional angle on helping suggest cuts for Doge. And she mentioned in an interview with Maria Bartiromo, NPR.

NPR gets almost $100 million of taxpayer money a year, 91 million. That's crazy. Um, Sir, uh, Armani Armani was out on, um, X yesterday calling attention to a segment he had just listened to where they were saying women are not the only ones who get periods. Women. I don't wish to fund that. I don't wish to fund that message. It is not objective and it is not truthful.

And our team put together some examples of our own on NPR's reporting that all of us are paying for. Watch. He also doubled down on those comments he made recently calling Democrats the enemy from within and suggested using the military against them. Latinos want to be white. They want to be with the cool kids. President Biden's classified document troubles our

piling up. His lawyers announced they had found more files at his home in Wilmington, Delaware, and congressional Republicans pounced. Well, it's not unusual for outgoing government officials to find classified documents laying around. I've known several people who have retired, and after they retire, they're going through their box, and it's like, whoa, how did that

get in here. Republican Glenn Youngkin is a former private equity CEO who picked up Republican criticism of schools, often criticizing them for things the schools don't teach. And it's worth noting here that critical race theory isn't actually in Virginia's K through 12 curriculum. Okay, so he's going to ban a thing that isn't happening. Is Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, even bothering to respond to that? Or do people in Virginia get it? Like, this is not real. Your taxpayer dollars. Hard at work, Stu.

Incredible. And, you know, as somebody who's done radio for a long time, you know, it's one of those things that people like doing radio. They actually like doing it. People like doing podcasts. People like doing shows on Sirius XM. It's something that people try to get into. We don't need to fund any radio station. People will go out and find their own information that they want. And the NPR is like,

Imagine, I can't even imagine going through that. It's coming up through commercial radio where you have to actually work hard to get people to listen to you. That's not what NPR is. They know that funding's there. They know that that is there. And if they walk that left wing line, the funding will continue and continue and continue. This is the exact thing. This is the thing I'm probably most optimistic about when it comes to an incoming Trump administration, looking for stuff like this. There's no reason we should be spending $100 million propping up a crappy radio station that's just going to

spout left-wing lies. Even if it was spouting conservative lies or conservative truths, it still would make no sense for the federal government to be involved in it. Get rid of this stuff. There's so much of this that we can get rid of. And if you read, you know, read, I read Elon Musk, the autobiography from last year,

This is what he does. I mean, the reason why we know who Elon Musk is, is because he's taken this approach to every company he's ever worked at to great success. And, you know, him, Vivek, working together with Trump being there with real force behind it. There's reasons for actual optimism for the first time, probably since Ronald Reagan, when it comes to this type of stuff. And it's going to be difficult, as Reagan found out. But I think there's real hope here.

I want to see Edward Scissorhands. That's who I want to see go in and take care of NPR and, and the likes. Stephen, let me give you a couple more examples of NPR. I know you don't really need them, but it's kind of fun to go down memory lane when we have discussions like this. Now that it actually could be on the chopping block, they're 91 million. It's fun to see exactly why it should happen. Okay. Um, headline in 2022, when Trump announced for president breaking, uh,

Donald Trump, who tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and inspired a deadly riot at the Capitol in a desperate attempt to keep himself in power, has filed to run for president again in 2024. Here's a 2022 tweet on emojis.

Some white people may choose, and then they've got like the white thumbs up sign emoji, but it's a little bit more yellow because it feels neutral. But some academics argue opting out of the white thumbs up emoji signals a lack of awareness about white privilege akin to society associating whiteness with being raceless. I don't understand any of that, but they're trying to shame us again. Um,

Nobody understands. She was of course murdered by an illegal from Venezuela. His name is Jose Abara and he was given life in prison without the possibility of parole last week. The NPR headline,

A man has been convicted of murder in the killing of Lake and Riley. Just a man. He's not an illegal, not from Venezuelan, not part of a Venezuela street gang. By the way, similar sins committed by WAPO, Associated Press, Reuters, NBC, CBS. Just a man. A man was convicted. Then NPR most recently slandered Rich Lowry, our friend, who was on this podcast late at night

I think it was after, what was it after? One of the breaking news events. It was one of the debates probably. Oh, it was an assassination attempt. Who can keep track? It was assassination attempt number two. Which one? I know, right? And he...

He merged his words. He was trying to say immigrants and migrants, and he made a sound that sounded like the N word. And anybody who's paid any attention to Rich Lowry in any of his 30 years in the public eye knows that it would literally be an impossibility for Rich Lowry to even think such a word, nevermind to utter it aloud on the airwaves. But NPR dispatched C, just the letter C, Mandler, no actual first name, to say that

His pronunciation sounded like the N-word to some and then used media matters as C's source. Having a hard time coming to any conclusion besides the obvious one about what Lowry catches himself blurting out here. C is like some trans justice advocate, as it turns out, and smeared Rich Lowry, which was then later admitted by NPR after it was publicly shamed by Rich Lowry himself, among others.

And then there's the Uri Berliner piece in the Free Press where he detailed how far they'd gone to the left and how there was really no saving it. And he ultimately got let go, right? Didn't he get fired from NPR after that whole thing? I think he resigned shortly after. He was separated from the company, I remember. Yeah. It's not just uncoupling. Yes.

So, I mean, you tell me whether we should be giving this company $100 million a year. I realize it's teaspoons in the ocean because we've got $30 trillion plus in debt, but this seems like a good teaspoon.

Yeah, you have to start somewhere with this stuff. I wrote in 2020 that NPR should finally be defunded when they wrote a piece. Hannah Allum, who's a reporter out of New York for them, wrote a piece saying right-wing extremists are turning their vehicles into weapons. And she cited Charlottesville. She cited an example of a car hitting someone and driving off in a protest and

That wasn't what happened. It was a black female driver who got stuck because of the protesters surrounding her car and she drove off.

And she and the NPR tried to make this sound like it was linked to Charlottesville when that guy hit his gas pedal, ended up killing one protester. And they used that one example to try and go and prove this narrative that there are right-wing yahoos all over the country speeding into protesters, and it wasn't the case. They flat out lied. They never corrected it. And again, we called it out. You're also overlooking when the Hunter Biden laptop story came out and –

Of course, we know what happened with the New York Post. The New York Post was frozen off of Twitter for that because of activists in Twitter and Facebook. Andy Slavitt from Facebook said, we're going to pause the story until we can confirm it. He was a comms director for Barbara Boxer in California.

And this happens and then NPR releases a statement saying some of you are wondering why we're not covering the Hunter Biden laptop story because we don't cover stories that are not interesting to our audience. And so this really is – I'm fine if NPR wants to exist. Let Alex Soros fund NPR or Pierre Audemars let him fund NPR. It will be a good day when the schools have all the money that they need and NPR has to hold a bake sale.

Yes. I forgot. How could I forget about that one? Here's what happened with Uri Berliner. He was given a five-day suspension without pay for failing to secure approval for his outside work, his piece on them. And then he resigned on April 17 saying, I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged and began working at the Free Press in June, which is where he belongs. But he was at NPR since 1999. It's a disgusting thing.

It's a disgusting journalistic outlet. I mean, it's just propaganda. And that's fine if you want to label yourself that and just come out openly as, you know, left wing like those pod guys. Great. Do it. There's there's a market for you. The left is begging for that kind of crap right now. They're pretending that they don't have any outlets, that they're all right wing podcasts that control the world. No, the left has some of the biggest. And we're all funded by mysterious billionaires.

Yeah, but they just pretend that they're neutral. So that's why they can sit over there being like, geez, if only we could break into the podcasting world. Like, hello, yours are the top two in virtually all polls or ratings listings of how podcasts are doing. You just won't admit that they're left wing. Okay, that's the media updates. When we come back, we're going to talk about the pickle the media's in because of the Trump picks. Because the latest poll shows that they have some 60%

of support from the American people right now. The people are loving this Trump cabinet. It's very diverse, as we discussed, ideologically, but also in the ways the left cares about. And so far, people are like, cool. So what does the media do with that? The desperate media that wants to be relevant, that wants to be told this by J-Lo.

You matter. Your voice and your vote matters. No, actually, no. What are they going to do? Are they going to just dump, dump, dump on all of the Trump picks or are they going to try to play it straight?

We'll ask Stu and Steez right after this. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community.

change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of June 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let's

Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private. Christian. Affordable.

Oh my gosh, I'm adopting a puppy right now. But I realize what's at home. Oh no, I have nothing. Well, except unconditional love. But yeah, no crate, no pee-pee pads, no dental chews for his little puppy teeth. Before I adopt myself as a new parent, I just get Instacart to deliver everything from PetSmart. Easy. Just like raising a puppy is going to be, right? Get PetEssentials from PetSmart with Instacart. Visit Instacart.com to get free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time. $10 minimum per order. Additional terms apply.

Before we get to the Trump cabinet, there is news just breaking on Politico as we came to air. Kamala Harris is telling her advisors and allies to keep her political options open, saying she's in the best position to run against Trump four years from now.

with some 40% of the Democrat Party behind her, which is the highest by far. Nobody else even has double digits. And she could be eyeing a run for California governor and has said repeatedly in phone calls, quote, I am staying in the fight.

you go, girl, you got this. Yeah. That's excellent. You can't do it. Right. I mean, that's like Christmas came early. How do you like that? Steve? Yeah. I think part of this comes from the fact that when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, she was rewarded, uh,

with book deals and it wasn't kind of, hey, how come you just lost to this orange goofy clown guy? It was stolen. It was Russia and Hillary Clinton remains in the good graces. And I think that that's what they're going to at least attempt to do with Kamala Harris. The problem is Harris has no apparatus whatsoever.

in the democratic party. She has no real base of support. I think this is mostly a fundraising scheme because her campaign is still $20 million in debt. So keep me out there. Keep me, keep me on the speaking circuit. Keep me going. She has a debt to pay off. Um, I thought it was one of the funniest things when Trump offered to pay off that debt. I think that would be absolutely hilarious. Take, you know, take the 20 million from NPR and give it to Kamala Harris, pay off the debt.

And off we go. But that's mainly what this is. This is a this is a finance ploy. This is a ploy to keep fundraising and keep, you know, keep the coffers open. I don't see I mean, maybe California governor because that's, you know, California is their own crazy island as it is anyway. But good luck. Have fun running in 2028.

I think she can do it. I think Steve is being too hard on her stupid gear. I think she can do this. She just we're going to get over racism. John Oliver, John Oliver, John Oliver told Donald Trump to do it, jump in the race and do it. So just be careful what you wish for here. Stephen L. Miller, I have zero concerns. I fine. Put it on the record. Do you have any idea the number of things I've said about Kamala Harris, all of which proved true?

So, Stu, do you think there's any actual possibility here? Because they said this snap poll of the 28 field, which, by the way, would not be against Trump. It would probably be against Vance or whoever the Republicans decide to run because Trump's term

term limited, finds Harris at 41%, 41, and all the rest, Newsom, Shapiro, Walls. He's back in the mix too. It's like an independent, like without her, he could run. Buttigieg, AOC, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker. He's too busy transing kids. I don't know how he's going to find the time. Andy Beshear and others, all in the single digits. She's it. Still, come on. She's got all the momentum behind her.

I love it. Do it, Kamala. Run, Kamala, run. This is a great example of bipartisanship in action. Democratic voters apparently want more Kamala, and so do we. Please, I beg of you, make Kamala Harris the nominee. Look, this wasn't the easiest thing in the world. She was dealing with a really terrible administration record, which, by the way, she was a big part of.

and was in the room for every important conversation and could not think of anything she wanted to go differently. So that made a little bit of sense that she would get punished for that as well. But I mean, honestly, can I see her going to California and winning? Probably. Probably she can become governor of California. Fine, I mean, who cares?

Truly, though, who gives two shits if she becomes governor of California? I don't care what happens to them. I love my friends in California. But you're already electing a bunch of nutcases. How much worse could it possibly get? She's their problem. You choose to live in the People's Republic of California. I get it. The weather's nice, but that's up to you. If she's my problem, it's a much bigger deal. If she's the country's problem, it's a much bigger deal. That's never going to happen. Clip it right.

run it and rerun it. Been there, done that. It was an utter and complete failure. Okay. The Trump cabinet though, not a failure, very well received so far. CBS poll,

59% of those polled approve of his choices so far. 59% this time in 17, when he was assembling his first cabinet, or at least as January 17, only 37% approve, which is so interesting, Stu, because that cabinet was much less loyal to Trump, much less MAGA-ish than this cabinet.

So what do you make of the way Trump has approached this and how well it's being received, especially, by the way, if you look inside the numbers, by young people? Yeah, it's really fascinating. I wouldn't have predicted that big of a split between the two. I mean, I guess Trump coming in the first time was seen. It was a real shock, I think, to the nation that he won that.

Here, it's a little bit different. In 2024, people are looking back at his term as president as positive, and they remember it well. They remember the economy doing well, and I think they see a candidate that won an election fair and square and should have the rights to get to the type of people that he wants in these positions. He was elected, and he, of course, has to go through the Senate. There's a process that goes on there that we should respect, but

When it comes down to it, it should be people that can execute the vision of Donald Trump. Right. But that's what these people are doing within the bounds of the Constitution and the law. And it's interesting to see that. I wonder, I mean, look, do I really think the American people have that well-developed of an opinion of Pam Bondi? I mean, probably not. Right. Like, I mean, I don't think that that's...

And what's happening there? I think they're looking at Donald Trump and saying, you know, we trust this guy's judgment. I know everyone says it's crazy. We heard all that. We heard the pitch from Joe Scarborough for all of these years that he was a Nazi, that he was going to put in all sorts of people that were going to be fascists. We've looked at that whole thing. We don't buy it. We didn't buy it. That's why he's going back in office and he was elected.

And we're going to trust his judgment here. I mean, I think it's more of a generally positive view toward Trump, with the exception of some of the names that are a little bit different. You know, I think people are seeing the fact that he's willing to maybe reach out across the aisle as a positive. I think that's helping him as well. So, I mean, he's in a good position. And so far, I think he's executed this one well. Under this is CBS News Bowl again under 30.

He has, this is among those who approve, which is, as I said, almost 60% of those polled. Among those, under 30-year-olds have a 65 percentage point approval rating of the choices Trump has made so far. 30 to 44-year-olds, 62%. Goes down a little with 45 to 64-year-olds, but not much. It's down to 57, still very high. 65 and up, 56%.

52%. So the greatest support is with the under 30 crowd, Steve. And I think in part, this is just my guess, but my guess in part is I think they like the RFKJ, Marty, McCary, Maha strain of this. I think they like Elon and Vivek. I think they like people who are going to go in there and bust it up. And I actually think they probably like

and J.D. and people who are pushing back on some of the forever wars, which are not popular with the young people. Yeah, that's that's sort of how I view this kind of in that generation as well. Not under 30, obviously, but in the Gen X generation, as I sit here and I kind of see how Trump has kind of been mainstreamed now. I mean, you have athletes doing his his goofy dance on on pitches and on fields.

And so there's part of that, that they don't feel like they're in the minority anymore. It's kind of like they can exhale and just, you know, say and believe what they want. And I'm kind of in this reserving judgment for Trump's cabinet because the last, I think what Trump's election was this time around was just stopping the insanity of Joe Biden's administration. The last four years, I don't think a lot of it is a hundred percent. We're voting for Trump because we like Trump. Biden came in, uh,

Right after kind of COVID had kind of passed, he was brought in to be the kind old man who isn't going to yell on social media. At three in the morning, he was going to calm the waters and he was just going to steer the ship and get everything back to normal. And there was nothing about the Biden administration that was normal, whether it's gender ideology infecting the Department of Defense or the State Department or Iranian spy rings in the State Department, the race equity platform, the DEI platform that they pushed.

And I really think everyone just said we're through with this, much like journalism. Expertise was a suicide. And so I think Trump's just bringing in these people and I think it's – let's just see. It may work. It may not. I have reservations about several of the cabinet officials. But Trump's election this time around is what happens when everything breaks, right?

And I mean, every institution is captured by progressive media, academia, Hollywood. It's all one sided view and people are tired of it. And they're not only just tired of that, they're tired of every time they speak out an objection to it. They might lose their job. They might lose friends. Right now, they're telling people to ignore your family if they voted a certain way.

And so that's how I kind of view the cabinet. Again, some of it may work, some of it may not. But I'm sitting here going like I don't really care if Pete Hegseth doesn't have any administrative experience at Raytheon. I don't care. I like that Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the national intelligence and she's now in charge of it.

Jay Bhattacharya, who was targeted by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci to be kicked off social media, is now going to be leading the NIH. That's what this election was about. It's – you guys have gotten this – It's not official, but we think so. Right. You guys have gotten this extraordinarily wrong for the past four years. So now we're going to bring in the people who –

who you not only disagreed with, you went after and targeted them either through censorship, through the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, or whatever. How many fun, fine degrees did the people have who put together that brilliant Afghanistan withdrawal plan? That's really what this is about. So I don't really have strong opinions on Trump's cabinet picks. Let's see how they do. Yeah, I love that summary. Meanwhile, and we're going to get into the specifics

We have to take a break a couple of minutes, but I love this Peter Baker of the New York Times reaction. I know you guys reacted to this, or at least I saw you did, Steve. He tweets out on Friday night because Trump made a bunch of announcements filling out the remaining holes in the cabinet. A new HUD secretary, labor secretary, FDA chief, CDC director, surgeon general, labor secretary, OMB director, deputy national security advisor, counterterrorism chief and treasury secretary. Oh,

all on a Friday night. It's going to be an exhausting four years, no sleep or rest. And one response was from Sean Agnew, who writes, I'm so sorry this is happening to you, Peter. Yeah, I responded to him and I asked, why weren't the last four years exhausting for you? While he's accepting awards from the White House Correspondents Association and Joe Biden. This is the kind of shit that we see and we talk about.

which is you took four years off. Why weren't the last four years exhausting for you? Do you know what you're even saying right now? Now I'm going to have to work, but it's so amazing how he's trying to play his little violin out there. Vacation's over. I'm so tired. No sleep and no rest. I'm trying to vet all these terrible people as opposed to maybe like finding out how many times a neurologist has visited the White House while Joe Biden was failing, which was like 16 or 17 in one year. That

that kind of work could have also kept you up. All right, let me pause it there. When we come back, I want to go through a couple of the more controversial picks. There's an update on Hegseth, who we've been covering in great detail. And then this Surgeon General, I want to talk about her because there's already a lot of blowback and what's going to happen with Pam Bondi, who we haven't yet discussed. Don't go away. Did you know that American homeowners nationwide have over $32 trillion in

in equity and cyber criminals are targeting it with a growing scam the FBI calls house stealing. House alarms, doorbell cameras, and deadbolts will not work against these thieves because they're not after your stuff. They're after your equity. If your title is not being monitored, scammers can transfer it into their name and then take out loans against it or even sell it behind your back.

The best way to protect your equity is with triple lock protection from home title lock. Triple lock protection is 24 seven monitoring and God forbid if the worst happens, restoration services at no out of pocket cost to you.

When was the last time you checked on your home title? Likely never. And that's exactly what these scammers are counting on. Make sure you're not already a victim. You can get a free title history report and a 30-day free trial of triple lock protection today by going to hometitlelock.com and using promo code Megan, or click on the link in the description. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code M-E-G-Y-N, hometitlelock.com.

Oh my gosh, I'm adopting a puppy right now. But I realize what's at home. Oh no, I have nothing. Well, except unconditional love. But yeah, no crate, no pee-pee pads, no dental chews for his little puppy teeth. Before I doubt myself as a new parent, I just get Instacart to deliver everything from PetSmart. Easy. Just like raising a puppy is going to be, right? Get PetEssentials from PetSmart with Instacart. Visit Instacart.com to get free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time. $10 minimum per order. Additional terms apply.

It's time to have your high five moment with High Five Casino, the top social casino where the action and real prizes never stop. Fun spins and big wins are right at your fingertips. With over a thousand games, including High Five Casino exclusives, High Five Casino is always free to play with free coins given out every four hours. Sign up today for a free welcome offer that can get you spinning and winning right away.

I'm Meg

I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave,

We'll be right back.

We're going to talk about Pete Hegseth. I asked the audience last week after we did two deep dives on the allegations against him, including going through the police report in great detail. This is my copy of it. Um,

for their thoughts. And I, we got hundreds of emails. I love the ones that are like, I know you never read these, even though I tell them I do read them. Yes, I do. Meg storm gets them together and she said, collates them and sends them to me. And I do read them. And I will tell you that the sum and substance of the opinions, if I had to characterize the overall response is that the audience is not impressed with Pete's moral character at all. Um,

And a lot of people were a lot harsher on the judgment of his marital infidelities than I was. And many male and female listeners thought it was a deal breaker for the particular position he's applying for as Department of Defense chief.

saying that's a position where you cannot be compromised. You got to be able to keep it in your pants. You can't be tempted. You got to have self-control. And this history of his with cheating on three wives does not suggest he's got it. And these are Pete fans like that wrote in. So just for what it's worth, this is my audience, which is not a far left audience saying we don't like it. And we do think it matters. Not everybody, but a large number, more than half felt that way. But literally nobody believes the rape allegations.

I mean, not, not one audience member believes is bullshit. What I call bullshit coming out of this woman who he met at this conference in Monterey, California in 17. And he says had consensual sex with, and she says turned into a rape before I get to all that. Um,

one of the things that we're seeing in the coverage here is USA Today did this whole back and forth on the intoxication level and how alcohol clouded Pete's, uh, clouded the allegations. And they're writing about how, um,

Pete's lawyer, Tim Parlatori, is telling media outlets that Hegseth was visibly intoxicated. But they have a former Utah sex crimes investigator on record saying, well, that's not true because...

He described himself as sober, carefully talking through a consensual encounter every step of the way. He was saying everything to make himself look at the best possible light with the police. So USA Today thinks they've got police in a gotcha moment because they say Pete told cops he was sober, whereas his lawyer is saying now he was visibly intoxicated. Here is what Pete said to the cops in the actual police report, which I will read from right now.

There was a party in the after an after party in the hotel suites. There was a birthday celebration. Alcohol was provided at the after party. Hegseth stated he did not drink hard alcohol, but consumed beer at the after party. No one at the bar was blacked out drunk. Hegseth stated he remembered being led from the bar by someone stated he was buzzed, but not intoxicated, buzzed, but not intoxicated, which does not

suggest sober. It's something in between really drunk and totally sober. He did not know who was leading him from the bar. He did not remember being chastised for being too loud. He did not remember an argument by the pool. He did not remember being belligerent with anyone, all of which had been told to the cops by others. So in any event, that's the big delta.

that USA Today thinks it's caught Pete in, that he said he was buzzed but not intoxicated. Now the lawyer says visibly intoxicated because that's what everybody else who looked at him said he was. Whatever USA Today. And before we get into this, speaking of being visibly intoxicated, I know what I'm talking about because here on this show on Friday, they served up martinis, and by they I mean my team, when the ladies from Red Scare came over and I'm not usually drinking martinis. Yeah, I was going to ask where our drinks are.

I was going to ask where our drinks are. You got to be here in the red studio. You got to be here. But I'm not used to drinking martinis. I'm certainly not used to drinking them in the middle of the day. And it was to the point like I had one and I did drink it over the course of an hour. And apparently I don't hold my liquor as well as I used to because after the show ended, I could barely spit out the ads, which is when we tape the ads when we're done. And I guess my team was rolling on it.

I may, I can't, anyway, they thought it was so worthwhile that they made a cut of it. And I am now going to show you what it's like to be visibly intoxicated. I've never done the ads after a martini. Maybe I have, but I just don't remember, but I'll do my best. Every day, the rhetoric gets more and more divisive. There's panic with some people willing to say or do anything if they think it will help their side win. There's so much uncertainty, which explains why so many people

Designed to be incredibly breathable, it keeps you several degrees cooler for a night of uninterrupted rest with a durable weave. Sorry for partying.

In my defense, Stu, durable weave. Every time I say it, it makes me laugh. Like, what is that? That seems like what I see on late night hosts' heads. Durable weave. I love that, the durable weave. I love that because every syllable was an adventure. Each one was a roller coaster. You'd get halfway through and it would slow down and go into slow motion and then speed up again. Oh.

And that's after one martini. That's that was incredible. I think I want a whole show of Megan like that. I want. Yeah, I feel like we have we plan a day out where we have we all we all come together again. And Megan's just doing shots throughout the show. And we see what it's like at the end, because that would be incredible.

It's not going to end well. But I am a happy drunk, I will say that. I don't usually transfer over into angry or bitter or depressed. It's fun. There's so much to laugh about. And the ad copy, with respect to our advertisers, apparently is hilarious when you've had a drink or two. And the ladies from Red Scare had a good time with it too. But back to Pete and the news of the day. Let me give you a little bit more from the absolutely dishonest media coverage around Pete Hegseth.

USA Today goes through, okay, it's a count of what allegedly happened. Around 4 a.m. Sunday, the alleged victim returned to her hotel room and attended activities for the women's group that morning. There is nothing in here, nor in virtually any report, about the fact that the alleged victim, when she returned home to her house or to her hotel room at 4 a.m.,

was sober, looked sober, according to her husband. The husband went on record with the cops saying she wasn't slurring, she was standing fine. Nothing in the USA Today report on that. And NBC News, we went through some of this on Friday. The vaunted organization, the Joe Scarboroughs, we report facts.

We matter. What we do is important. What did they do? Did they report that Jane Doe, the accuser, was seen by an eyewitness flirting with Pete Hegseth at the bar, including touching his leg or arm prior to the alleged rape? No, they did not report that. Did they report that cops say videotapes show her at 1.15 a.m. after the only drink she allegedly had, smiling while walking and locking arms with him on the way out of the bar? They say she was not stumbling or looking drunk

that the videotape show that they did not report a word about the smiling. They did report the arms locked. They only cited the hotel employee. But in fact, there were two videos and three eyewitnesses. NBC did they report that she refused the police's request to participate in a pretext call to try to get Hegseth on tape?

talking about the alleged crime after the fact, and she wouldn't do it. No, they did not report on that either. Did they report that, um,

Pete says it was consensual. And after the fact, she told him that she was going to tell her husband she fell asleep in somebody's room and that the husband told cops simultaneously that when she got home, she told the husband that she must have fallen asleep. They only report half the story that Hegseth

told that to the cops and did not provide what is verifying information from the husband in the police reports. That indeed, the very same thing Pete Hegseth says she promised him she would do is what the husband said she did when she got back to their hotel room 4 a.m. looking totally sober and not drugged. There is not a single publication, not one, that

that is reporting on the implausibility of this woman alleging she had one glass of champagne around midnight, leaving that bar around 1.15, being seen on videotape at 1.15 and 1.30 a.m., totally fine and not drunk, being seen by two eyewitnesses in the bar, totally fine and not drunk, being seen by a hotel front desk clerk at 1.30 a.m. when he chastised them at the pool for being too loud.

appearing totally fine and not drunk. So 1:30 AM, she is not drunk and no one has suggested otherwise. And then 4:00 AM, the husband is appearing, is describing somebody who looks totally fine and not drugged. When was she drugged? When was she drugged? When was she drugged? When was she drugged? Where is that?

in any of the media reports, nowhere. They're too focused on Pete's alleged inconsistency by saying allegedly that he was totally sober, whereas his lawyer says he was intoxicated. And then you look back at the police report and they got even that wrong, Stu.

Yeah, it seems like all of this is wrong. And of course, they're going after this for a reason, right? They want to sink this nomination and the media is reporting it this way for a reason. As you point out, it's not the best story in the world. And I'm sure Pete wishes it wasn't true. You know, the parts of it that he's acknowledged are not ideal, suboptimal, to say the least.

You know, that being said, of course, you know, criminal activity like this is way, way beyond what we're talking about. And, you know, honestly, you go to Washington, D.C., and it's going to be difficult to find people. It's seemingly it's very hard to find people who haven't gone down and had these personal issues. I mean, you know, I got news for you. If you have problems with Pete Hegseth, wait until you get a load of RFK's history going back with women. It's not pretty. Yikes. You have a point.

It's going to be true. And they're not alone. I do prefer the old school way, I think, where, you know, like we should be able to find people who can do these jobs, who can keep this stuff together, you know, for important gigs like, you know, running the Pentagon. You know, it's an important job. I wish we could find that. From what I know of Pete, I don't know him well, but people that I know have interacted with him had a really high praise for him, generally speaking. Yeah.

But it does feel like they're going down this road and it's going to be difficult to get through a confirmation because you have one side that says believe all women, of course, unless it's one of their own being accused, then they don't believe them at all. And the other side, you still have, I think, a bunch of old school Republicans who have

an attachment to the way things used to go and whether that's just morally or just more of a larger military, more aggressive military that are going to be looking at someone like Pete Hegseth and being and questioning whether he's going to execute their vision of things. So it's probably going to be difficult, but I still think he has a chance. I mean, you don't think he's disqualified from getting through confirmation because of this, do you, Megan?

I don't think so. I don't think he should be. This is totally unfair. If they're going to disqualify him over something, then okay, look at his marital history. And if you think that rises to the level, I mean, that's at least not in dispute. But this is a totally bullshit allegation in my view. I just think it's so readily apparent that it's made up.

And I think this would be very, very unfair to tank him over. If you want to say he's not qualified, you want to talk about stuff we know he did. That's all fair game. And I think even Pete would say that. But you know what the problem is here, Stephen, is that you could potentially get to a situation so far. This woman hasn't come forward. And I said I would interview her very fairly, notwithstanding my opinion of her.

of her story. I would interview her very fairly, but she is possibly going to come forward. I mean, they usually pop up in some way, shape or form, especially with the Democrats who are going to be salivating over this woman looking to give her a Christine Blasey Ford moment. And that the Trump campaign, well, team is not going to want to allow that this whole thing gets like

like goes off the rails into another Blasey Ford type inquisition. And it's like, is it worth it, right? Because there are a lot of qualified people you could put in this position.

Yeah, if they don't like Pete Hedges' marriage history, what do they hear about the guy who appointed him? I think a lot of this – and I haven't – in all honesty, and I'll tell you why, I haven't dug into the nitty-gritty details of this story because I think like a lot of other normies, this is why you don't smear a Supreme Court justice nominee with zero evidence that he had even met his accuser.

Because when you get real things that come out like this, people tune it out. They say you're just trying to Brett Kavanaugh this guy. No. And this is what I'm saying, though. Was he criminally charged for any of this behavior?

I don't think so. OK. And so, yeah, we decided not to. Exactly. No criminal charges on this. And so, yeah, you're right. It doesn't look good. It's Trump's giving himself a headache. But Trump's also the guy who basically when they were calling on him to pull the Kavanaugh nomination, he said no. He said, we're going to go forward with this and you're going to back up. And there are a lot of people who are Trump critics who are not on his side, myself included, who saw the Brett Kavanaugh moment as a kind of a radicalization moment that said it

Same.

and vote on it. But this is why you don't, the Me Too movement doesn't go after stand-up comedians over a bad date. You don't send a spreadsheet around called the Shitty Media Men's List with anonymous accusations to avoid lawsuits. They blew a lot of credibility with the Me Too movement, who Rose McGowan is still the only person to come out of that entire thing with her integrity intact, and

And then they also blew a lot of credibility over Brett Kavanaugh. And this is why you don't do that, because now you have a guy who made some questionable decisions in his personal life. He's going to have to answer for them. But when you say, well, they're going to pull the nomination. No, he's not. This is this is Trump's bread and butter. We're going to double down and we're going to defend him and we're not going to give them a scalp. If Pete Hegseth wants to withdraw, he can do that. Similar to Matt Gaetz. You can just withdraw and save everyone the headache.

But again, this is why you don't engage in the kind of scorched earth politics that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi did with Brett Kavanaugh and Dianne Feinstein who led that whole kind of thing because they were going to lose control of the Supreme Court.

And this is now the situation. This is very similar to what I said about how you get. We don't we don't know whether she's going to come forward. I mean, it appears that she may be under some sort of a nondisclosure agreement that was reported that Pete several years later, she came back to him. Yeah. And NBC or somebody can pay her lawyers. Yeah. Whoever she goes to 60 minutes, they can pay for her legal.

Yes, you're saying that they'll make it worth their while to come forward. But if she does, this is the thing. So if you come forward with your name, then the media starts digging on you, Stu. Do they? Well, here's what's so unfair. It is unfair that these women can hurl this accusation and it's out there. And we know Pete Hegseth has been accused of rape. They just keep putting that in every...

And we don't know anything about the accuser. I mean, this could be, I have no idea. I don't know who this is. It could be the least credible human being on earth. She could have a long list of lies in her past. She could have accused somebody else in her past falsely. That would be relevant to know, would it not? Like what? We don't get to know any of that because her anonymity is pervasive.

Now, I'll tell you something. We recently had an experience with this with Doug Emhoff being accused by somebody, not of rape, but of slapping her across the face. Completely blacked out.

And let me tell you something. We did a deep dive on her. We did figure out who it was. And we did a deep dive on this woman to see whether she had credibility problems. She was a nutcase. There was reason to be very suspect of her. And we did not find any of those things, but we did not rush to air with her name, nor were we given permission to. So I don't know what the media is going to do about this woman. And I don't know whether this woman's going to come forward, but

You know, there are risks. There are real risks because she comes forward and turns into a circus. Stu, I don't know that Team Trump is going to think Pete's worth it with all due respect to Pete. And if she does that, she's fair game and she's definitely going to take a lot of incoming. That's going to make her feel very uncomfortable.

Yeah, I mean, it can't be a positive thing to go through. Obviously, if it's a real accusation, it's obviously horrible. If it's not, you'd expect a carefully rolled out unveiling of who this person is with media pieces that are fawning over her that we will get right before the confirmation hearings begin. That's I would expect nothing less from the media and the left working together. I don't know, you know, who she is. I don't know what happened in that room. None of us do. But like, you know, part of this is like this isn't the...

I listened to your whole breakdown of this story, Megan, and it was by far the most detailed that I've heard anywhere in the media that went through all of this stuff.

And, you know, it takes somebody who actually knows the law and cares about the process to go through it with any accuracy. And it doesn't seem like the media has any interest in that. Just saying, hey, this person's accused of rape in most people's minds when they're not focused on this on a day-to-day basis is automatically disqualifying. It doesn't feel like you could ever go through that until it happens to you. It feels like this foreign thing where

I mean, how could they possibly, you know, be innocent of this? Why were they being accused? I heard someone on Fox News say almost exactly that, which was, you know, this is a woman. She said she had gone through a situation like this. She had gone, God forbid, had to go do a rape kit. She's like, no one would choose to do something like this. And like that, I think connects with a lot of people who would do that. On the other hand, what we're talking about here is a life destroying event.

If there is not another excuse for her behavior that night, her life is over. She's ruined her marriage. She's ruined her relationship with her children. She's probably, you know, ruined any reputation she has in town with her friends. Everything is destroyed. I'm not saying that that's what she, you know, she came up with an excuse. I don't know. But it's absolutely human in a moment like that to come up with some excuse that would explain away what you did. And...

And we we were requested for a while that we were just going to believe all women as if women never came up with a never made a bad life choice like they make bad life choices just like dudes do. And sometimes they do really devious things just like guys do. That is very, very normal. And I will say whenever we talk about these types of issues, the people who come to me and are very, very clear about that point are women.

I knew women like this. I went to college with women who manipulated their boyfriends, who said things like this all the time. It's women who are intricately involved and have been in those moments and have friends who have made terrible choices like that. So to act like this accusation proves that it's true is completely false. I don't think the American people are in the same position where they're going to just believe these things reflexively anymore, I think, because of the Kavanaugh thing and the Me Too generation sort of like fading out.

There is a little bit of skepticism here, but we should be fair here. These things should be proven at a court of law. They can't be just dragged out through the media like this. And in this case, obviously the cops did not think there was even probable cause to believe her, which is a much lower standard.

That that's the standard to bring a charge probable cause they, the prosecution did not believe it was there. They did not arrest him. They did not decide to prosecute him. And by the way, you know, the fact that she was married when this happened and that her husband and her two children were down the hall in the same hotel must be reported by the news media. Another failing in this, um, the associated press report just states that the husband was quote, the woman's partner, the woman's

partner. Well, what's that? I mean, that's being married is a much bigger commitment than than just being a partner. Associated Press, which you should know, just a couple more failings by them. Do USA Today and the Associated Press report that Jane Doe was seen by an eyewitness flirting with Pete, touching his leg around like we went through with NBC? No, neither one does. And

Does the AP report that two witnesses at the bar say she appeared fine and not drugged? And does the USA Today? USA Today cited one witness and the Associated Press doesn't mention it

at all. Do they point out that the videotapes show her at 1.15 a.m. smiling while walking and locking arms with him on the way out of the bar and say that she did not look drunk or stumble? USA Today, nothing on the smiling. AP, nothing. They state absolutely nothing about the videotapes, the smiling, or the locking arms. This is such bullshit. Do they report on how the front desk guy saw them at 1.30 and said she didn't look intoxicated at all? USA Today, no. Associated Press, no. I mean, I

I could go on. No, no, no. I'm just looking at all those same lists, refusing the cops request to participate in a pretext call. No, no, no. Did they point out that the timeline doesn't make sense for something being slipped into her drink? When could it possibly have happened? USA Today? No. Associated Press? No. I mean, it's just, it's too much.

I want to say one thing. The audience had, maybe Meg Storm, maybe we can post some of these comments because they were actually very interesting. If you want to email me, by the way, it's Megan at megankelly.com. A lot of law enforcement, nurses, and prosecutors emailed me who listened to the show with really interesting thoughts. And one, I believe this is a prosecutor who handled sex crimes or it was a nurse who does sexual assault exams, but it was somebody with standing to know.

said the reason she may have waited to go get the exam from the alleged day of the rape, which was the wee hours of Saturday into Sunday, and that she didn't actually get the exam until Thursday, is because she said by that point, Rohypnol would be out of your system. And so it would not appear suspicious if she had to give a blood test

that there was no date rape drug found if she, or maybe it was urine. I can't remember one or the other. She said by, by Thursday it would be out and no nurse or prosecutor would be expecting to find it. Whereas if she got the exam right after they would know definitively whether she'd been drugged. I thought that was very interesting. Many of the audience members thought this may have been a setup by her and or the husband.

that she'd been texting the husband about how Pete looked like a creep. And these ladies are making comments about Pete, but he reminded her of some guy where the husband said, oh, you mean the guy who tried to sleep with my wife, um, who they were calling TDB. And some of our audience was like, that stands for total douchebag, which maybe that's right. I don't know. Uh, either way.

That was interesting. And they think the whole thing was a setup that these two were creating a dialogue. I don't think it's a setup because I don't think the husband would have told the cops she looked fine at 4 a.m. if he was part of a setup. He would have said she came home looking out of it, you know, makeup smeared. She didn't know where she'd been. Like he would not inadvertently have thrown her under the bus like this. And then a lot of the audience pointed out that they thought it was weird the husband was there in the hotel to begin with.

And given his comment about somebody else having tried to sleep with his wife, they said, why was the husband there? Like what, what husband takes the kids and goes and stays at the hotel when the wife is just, you know, some low level handler at a Republican women's conference. Why did they do that? Why were they there? Did he have reason to suspect her from a prior incident, et cetera? That's all the audience is smart. They raised some good points. Okay. I'll say one other thing before I move on to other nominees. Um,

Pete, I know, has had a bit of a religious evolution over the past couple of years. He's definitely leaned a lot more into his faith, his Christian faith. And so...

The audience can decide for themselves whether they think that'll change his behavior when it comes to wives, et cetera, or whether they care. But I know that. I know that from his friends and our mutual friends. That's part of the reason they're going after his tattoos, by the way, because of that reformation that he's gone under. That's why they're going after the tattoos. So it's – I mean your best point is –

Yeah, your best point is how much they leave out press media bias and journalistic bias isn't about how they lean in a story. It's about the details that they feel like they have to omit to push the narrative they want to push, whether it's the immigration status of a brutal murderer who great we're financing his stay now for the rest of his life. If it's the details of somebody that they say is a victim of sexual assault, if you have to omit details from a story,

it proves like what you're doing is not journalism. And this is an exact kind of thing that you would say to somebody like Jim Vanderhey and say, if you're going to report on this, report the whole thing. And if you leave out stuff, there's a reason why you've decided to leave it out. And it's not just because of editorial length or time. We saw this for 60 minutes. If this kind of allegation were made against Barack Obama,

Do you think the media would have left on the editing room floor all of those exonerating facts? Well, yeah, of course. Of course not. They would go after the accuser, which is what we've seen that happen. You mentioned the Doug Emhoff thing. That's a perfect example of how that was completely blacked out during the course of the campaign. And people were shouting this from the rooftops. Okay, so...

Doug Emhoff was interviewed on several occasions and the only time he was asked about it, he said this is a distraction and the journalist moved on. And this is again part of it where we see how accusations are covered both against people on the political right and people on the political left. And they can argue that Doug Emhoff wasn't running for office all they want. He would have been first gentleman of the United States and had enormous influence over the sitting president.

And so again, people see this. They see what is covered. They see what is not. And like I said, when you blow so much credibility on something like Brett Kavanaugh, now here comes Pete Hegseth who again has to explain his behavior. I fully believe that. And the Senate is going to have to do their job, which they are granted to with the Constitution of the United States.

But normies see this and they go, well, you did this to Brett Kavanaugh. You've done this to whatever. You can argue about the – Played that card too many times. You can argue about the E. Jean Carroll stuff with Donald Trump.

And people, yeah, you not only played it, you overplayed it. And so again, whether it's true or not, people just tune this stuff out. They just say, yeah, you lied to me about this one. You lied to me about this one. You won't cover something like Doug Emhoff. And now you're trying to push this. Isn't it incredible how all of a sudden the media can rediscover accusations of assault and abuse after not talking about it for five months of a presidential campaign because they were afraid that if we're the one that writes the story about Doug Emhoff,

And it leads to Donald Trump walking back into the White House. Your happy hours are over. You don't get book party invites. You don't get invited on MSNBC. And that's really what the state of journalism is today. They care more about their social status than they do telling the truth. Here's what's so annoying, though, like that.

I don't need them to disbelieve this accuser. And I didn't need them to believe the Emhoff accuser. Right. You just need to report the facts. That's never been my position. They just need to report on it. They wouldn't report on Doug Emhoff. Would I normally be doing story after story on the first spouses, infidelities, and the

alleged assaults. That one would have made the news no matter what. Of prior women, not the current candidate, but prior women? No. The reason that was such a story is because the media made him our new face of non-toxic masculinity. That was the thing, Stu. They were shoving

him down our throat as like the new kinder, gentler sweater wearing antidote to these toxic Republican men. And then it was game on. He accepted it. He leaned into it. He paraded himself all

over the media as that guy. So it was game on in discovering who Doug Emhoff actually was. I mean, I'll say this for Pete. He's not, in my experience, been out there parading himself as some sort of paragon of virtue when it comes to his female history. So that's one point in his favor. I get it, ladies. I mean, I have a lot of women in the audience who are

not ready to forgive cheating on three wives. I get it, sisters. I get it. It's just, you know, to Steve's point, but we're explaining why it's tolerated that too. Let me finish. We have a president who did that too. And it may be Stu that that's it. Trump took up all the goodwill. There's no more goodwill to hang, hang, hand out to the cabinet members. And he gets hung up on that, but I'll give you the last word Stu on Pete and then we'll move on.

Yeah, I'll just say that, first of all, with Doug Emhoff, when it really is an incredibly low-key insult when you tell a man that he's redefining masculinity. I don't know. That's not a compliment. That's not how that works at all. You know, I feel like with Pete, you know, part of this, too, I think is, you know, he's not trying to redefine masculinity. People just look at him and know he's a dude. You know, he's a military guy. You know, they keep putting these pictures out of the air.

Out of him and like, you know, no shirt on and and they're like, oh, can you believe this guy is going to be secretary of defense? And I'm like, are you running his like promotional campaign? Like people are going to love this. They're going to love somebody who can just stand up and be a guy. And look, you know, the fact that, you know, his behavior has not aligned with what we would want out of out of as out of a husband in these particular situations is, I think,

part of the noise around him. You know, they're going to come after that. We all know they're going to bring these things up. I just think that they have just blown

burned themselves so many times over this and have taken what is a good instinct to try to make sure that terrible men are responsible for their behavior. Like the Me Too movement could have had real good that came out of it. You know, the message of not believe all women, but that all women should be taken seriously. They should be taken seriously, not just brushed off.

And they blew it. They took all that goodwill from people. And they had no interest in Joe Biden. None. Tara Reid, her story was buried. I know. No, I'm sick of it. I think most people are sick of it. I mean, if I were Pete, I'd go up there and I'd say, I am humiliated about what happened in my personal relationships. And since then, I've done a lot of work to regain the trust of my spouse and those I've hurt. And I'm just going to leave it at that. And I'm not going to go into detail on private relationships between me and other women. And I will say this in Pete's defense. Um,

You never know. I'm not suggesting his prior wives of doing anything. I have zero knowledge on this front. So please just know that, but you just never know what's happening in somebody's marriage. You don't know whether the other person, you know, and I get it. Like I'm, I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying if I were Pete, that's how I would handle that because I'm

They don't know. These senators don't know what, what was the status between Pete and his wives? Like what, what was deteriorating? Why did he make these choices? I don't really care. I don't think the American public cares. It's true. He knows it's true. He should admit it, apologize for it, express regret over his bad personal behavior and see if you can get them to move on. The potential criminal charges are much different matter that he's going to have to wrestle with. He's going to have to wrestle with it. And Trump has to decide whether he wants to watch that play out on the airwaves. Okay. Uh, let's move on. Cause there's a lot of

of other stuff we should get it to, including this just breaking special counsel. Jack Smith moves to dismiss election interference case against Trump. Oh wow. Six case, but it's time, time to assess the unprecedented circumstances of pending criminal cases against, uh, of a pending criminal case against the incoming president. Um, he wants the case dismissed.

without prejudice, because he's a douchebag, because he wants the ability to bring it again after Trump leaves office.

Um, and now they're pointing out the media, you know, that this, this actually leaves open the possibility that Trump could pardon himself to foreclose the possibility of legal jeopardy in the future. Please do it. Do it. Donald Trump, that the country does not want to see this nonsense go on. This is ridiculous. Jack Smith has made a fool out of himself.

If there's any way to prove that these cases seem to be politically motivated to stop Trump from becoming president again,

When he's elected and they all just go, ah, we tried, closed the case, that's a pretty good indicator that they didn't really mean what they said in all of this stuff. And I'm not a fan of what happened on January 6th, but the insurrection thing, the 14th Amendment, it was never charged with this. We can argue about the legality of the fake electors, but really, if he really did commit these crimes against the country and democracy –

And you just fold shop when he wins. It's kind of like the end of democracy Hitler talk. We called him Hitler. It was going to be the end of democracy. And then he wins. And now it's like, we'll work with him. Yeah, let's go have lunch with him. It's it was the way that the way this was another thing about talking about getting back to normal. Joe Biden's Justice Department, led by Merrick Garland, who was Obama's Supreme Court nominee, who never sat on the court because of Donald Trump.

Of course, these were weaponized investigations and it had never been done in the history of our country. And if you recall, you know, back when Obama was elected, they asked Obama, are you going to go after Cheney and Wolfowitz for Abu Ghraib and war crimes? And he just said, no, we're going to move forward because it's what's best for the country. When they asked Trump about Hillary Clinton in 2016, he kind of did that. I was just shit. Now I'm not going to try. I'm not going to lock her up, whatever. And then in 2020, here's Joe Biden going, we're going to investigate him and we're going to charge him with crimes.

And, again, this was one of these things that you... And not just J6. And you opened the door for this. Not just the J6, which really outraged them. Oh, yeah, Alvin Bragg. Stormy Daniels. Jenny Willis. Speaking of January 6th... Yeah, everything. This is in the news just this week, guys, that the cop who fatally shot Ashley Babbitt, 36 years old, at the J6 riot, who's been absolutely made a hero of by the left, instead of, like, asking serious questions about whether...

she was doing something that deserved her being shot on Capitol Hill. You know, did, did they see a weapon? Was there something I've granted? She was trying to break through a door. I get it. So were a lot of other people. What was she doing that suggested she was an imminent threat that she was out to do harm? Um, what we've learned now, thanks to

the House Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight, which is GOP-led. They released a letter last week showing that this cop, Captain Michael Byrd, 56,

has a long disciplinary record that includes leaving his loaded handgun in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center, improperly firing his gun at a car near his home while off duty, and abusing a Maryland cop who tried to stop him from entering a high school football field, again, while off duty.

Then they said that there are at least three entries in his internal affairs record that are missing, according to the chairman of the committee. Um,

This is disturbing and the media will never, never cover the shooting death of Ashley Babbitt fairly, Stu, because she was there on J6. She was inside the Capitol and she was trying to push her way in along with some other angry rioters. Um, however,

You don't get the death penalty for that. And that's what this cop unleashed on her. And it appears to have had some history of being negligent with respect to his duties and his firearm. It's kind of fascinating in that every other shooting by a police officer of someone that I can ever remember got the exact, excuse me, opposite reaction.

Treatment by the media. They always take the side of the person who was shot, whether it was legitimate or not. I mean, look, I don't think it was the right. You know, we don't want to be inside of a building like that and pushing for when you see an officer there, like probably not a good idea to do what she did. But as you point out, you know, that's we would hope that it could be handled in literally any other way.

And all of these prosecutions, all of these storytelling, all the storytelling by the media has gone for one purpose, which was to keep Donald Trump out of the job he's about to enter.

And they tried really hard on this, you know, coming out now and saying, well, we're going to drop these investigations. We're dropping these cases. It's like coming out after the Super Bowl and going to the press conference after and saying, well, you know what? Well, we forfeit. Sorry, you've already lost. Like their whole goal was to try to get a jury to look at these cases, take them seriously and punish Donald Trump.

And in a way, they got it. They got their case heard. They got a jury, not of 12 people, but of 150 million people who came out a few weeks ago and said, you know what? We saw all this evidence. We don't buy it. That's the end of the day. I mean, I think if people really believe that Donald Trump had tried to overthrow democracy and destroy the country and

And they believe that those charges he probably wouldn't have won even with the terrible record of Biden and Harris. At the end of the day, they didn't believe it. And this is infuriating to the left that put all their eggs in this basket and watched each one of them crack.

You know, you look back, Jonathan Turley, by the way, just the news broke the story that I just brought you about Ashley Babbitt and this cop who shot her. But you look at this story, Jonathan Turley actually did a good long piece on his blog, JonathanTurley.org about it, Steve. And he was saying that correctly, that liberal pundits often refer to the number of officers who died that day.

And the truth is not a single officer died that day on January, not one, not one. The only person to die that day was Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by what appears to have been a trigger happy cop.

with a long history of disciplinary action against him. I mean, why isn't this everywhere? This guy appears to have been a serious problem long before he ever saw Ashley Babbitt. And he points out how the media lionized him and portrayed the killing of Babbitt as clearly justified, which is in sharp contrast to the approach the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement.

An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press. And the truth is that president Trump had offered 10,000 national guards, uh, guardsmen, and it was rejected. Pelosi didn't want it. They didn't want to make it look worse than it was. And they were worried that somehow Trump might use these troops in some way that they might find objectionable. Um,

And Ashley Babbitt, who was wrong in her actions, but surely continues. But the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. They won't investigate this guy. They did already and cleared him of charges. It's just it's a different narrative about what happened that day that you won't hear on these so-called truth loving media outlets like MSNBC, Stephen.

Yeah, I do think that that it should be part of the story of this is if, you know, did you have a guy who was feeling a little bit more gung ho than he should have? I think I'm harder on Ashley Babbitt than a lot of people on the political right. I think that if you're somebody who breaks into the Capitol building or if you jump the White House fence, for example, at that point, you're playing with your life. And no, that doesn't mean that she deserved to die or anything like that. But many of these folks were let in. Yeah, I don't. And that's what I mean. And that's what I mean. There's a lot of this where, um,

This is one of the problems with, you know, the charges around January 6th is there was clearly people that should have been charged with crimes. And then you get kind of like the MAGA grandma going through thinking she's on a tour. And to Stu's point about – Getting weighed in by cops. Right. And to Stu's point about this, and this is the best thing about this, which is, right, they take the police officer's point of view no matter what, no matter what on this side. When we just spent an entire summer of riots over cops shooting people like Jacob Blake who had a knife.

And then, of course, we had George Floydism. And this is the problem. And this is what the media environment, the media fostered. When you basically say there's not going to be any penalty for burning down communities or we saw staging –

capital houses over things like abortion or Kavanaugh in places like Michigan and Wisconsin. Eventually, the other team thinks that they can get away with it. And I think that had a lot to do with the behavior on January 6th, which is, hey, these people are storming the Supreme Court building over Brett Kavanaugh. Nothing's being arrested on them. We've had a Charlottesville every week in this country since last October 7th. And these people aren't arrested. They break into buildings and they

set up encampments on the tents and they're just allowed to do this stuff.

And people on the political right see this and they go, how are these people allowed to do this? How are they allowed to block traffic? How are they allowed to burn down businesses? How are they allowed to storm Capitol houses with no repercussions whatsoever? And I think that that had a lot to do with, well, if they can do it, we're going to do it too. And that also explains a lot of Trumpism in a vacuum, which is you're going to get away with this. How come these people aren't getting away with it? And then they go and they vote.

Yeah, you're right. It explains some of his cabinet picks like Matt Gaetz, just the big middle finger. That did not work out. But let's spend the time we have left on this one cabinet pick in particular, because I love Marty McCary at FDA. That's awesome. Of course, I love RFKJ, who will be overseeing, if he gets confirmed, all of HHS, which is great. And then you've got the Surgeon General, about whom I have more questions still, Dr. Janet Neshawat.

for Surgeon General, Medical Director at CityMD, a network of urgent care centers in New York and New Jersey, a Fox News contributor. She's the sister-in-law of Representative Michael Walls, who's Trump's pick for NSA. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts this guy said,

Take her, take her because being the person who runs city MD is, and went to med school in the Caribbean. I know, I know elitist, whatever, but let's face it. That is not where our best doctors come from. Generally. It's just not, sorry. Those schools are a lot easier to get into and, and have generally different standards. Um, not that she's going to be operating on people. She's the chief spokesperson. So her time on Fox news may have convinced Trump. She can do it. She's very pro Trump. Um,

But I don't really care about that stuff so much as I care about the fact that she loves masking.

She loved the vaccine. She loved to mask the children long into the pandemic past the point where the rest of us were saying, stop that, right? Get your kid boosted and get your kid vaxxed. Oh yeah, your under 12 kid can get vaxxed. August of 2021 saying, wear a mask, wear a mask. Delta's different. June of 2021, uh,

downplaying the risk of myocarditis in kids who get the vax. October of 2021, talking about kids getting the COVID jab and how the risks are extremely low. January of 22, still promoting all the boosters and the vaccines and masks and how beneficial they are.

The point is, Stu, she didn't see through any of it. Unlike people like even McCary was pro some of this stuff in the beginning, but got there at the same time she was writing op-eds, you know, calling for more masking. He was writing them saying, saying, no, that was bullshit. Take the mask off right now.

Yeah. And, you know, of course, as we all remember, when the words 15 days to slow the spread were uttered, Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci were on the same stage uttering them. Right. Like so a lot of people early on in the pandemic said all sorts of things. And I think there's some grace that is appropriate for for a lot of them.

To be in 2021 and in 2022 saying those things you think would be basically just disqualifying for an incoming Trump administration. You know, Trump obviously was, you know, had some very early instincts to try to shut some things down and see what we could do to slow what was going on. He was off of that bandwagon pretty darn quickly.

I mean, I think there's a distinction for Trump in particular when it comes to just the vaccines and that I think Trump is in at odds with a lot of the people in his his base as to the success level of what occurred there. He doesn't talk about it all that much, but he's I think he's pretty proud of his record on that. And, you know, the fact that he is.

You know, appointing people like RFK Jr., who are very much on the opposite side of that, shows that he's willing to to take other viewpoints. This one, though, doesn't seem you know, you kind of understand RFK. RFK did something very important for Donald Trump during the campaign. There's no surprise that he would be rewarded. This one, though, just does seem weird. And maybe he didn't have all the information about where she stood on a lot of these issues.

I mean, I'm not in favor of this person at all based on what I've seen. I'm sorry. August of 21, she's interviewing with Pete Hegseth on Fox saying Delta's different. If you want to protect yourself, wear a mask. Here's Marty McCary, the same month, August 2021, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal making the case against masks for children. Very different. Like either you see the evidence and you can be a leader on it

or you don't and you can't. And people who got COVID that wrong should not be in charge of the next gen of our health officials or spokespeople. I'm against it. Sorry, but I am. Okay, guys, it's a pleasure. Thank you both so much for being here. And thank you all for joining me today. We're going to spend the rest of the week doing a deep dive into Trump's incoming cabinet. We've interviewed most of them, and we'll have that for you tomorrow.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

High Five Casino lets you play your favorite slot-and-live table games, like Blackjack, with the chance to redeem for real cash prizes. High Five Casino has a giant selection of over 1,200 games, including hundreds of exclusive games only found on High Five Casino. It's always free to play, and free coins are given out every four hours. Ready to have your own High Five moment? Visit HighFiveCasino.com. That's High, the number five, Casino.com. No purchase necessary. Voidware prohibited by law. Must be 21 years or older. Terms and conditions apply.

Nobody does selling better than Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet.

The Shop Pay feature even boosts conversions up to 50%. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout top brands like all birds use. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash podcast free, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash podcast free to upgrade your selling today.