Biden's Lies Exposed as He Pardons Hunter, and Media Smears of Pete Hegseth, with Charles C.W. Cooke, Rich Lowry, and Marcia Clark | Ep. 954
01:50:06 Share

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.

Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Megyn Kelly, welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show and happy Monday. I hope you had a couple of days off thanks to the Thanksgiving holiday. I did. We took some time off with the fam and went to warmer climates where

where, you know, it's okay. Like I don't take in the sun. That's so it's constantly like a battle to avoid the sun when we go someplace nice. And I'm not going to lie. It was very buggy. It was very, very buggy. And I'm not a big, but however, I love my time with my family. That was awesome. And, um, you know, I just, a couple of days off was nice too. So, um,

I missed all of you. I missed the news and we have a lot, a lot to go over. Hope you guys had a wonderful holiday. Okay. Late yesterday, president Biden did something he and his media allies have promised over and over and over again that he would not do. This guy is an abject liar. He might, and he has the nerve to while he's, he's telling yet another lie, which is that he doesn't lie.

to keep lying. At every turn, he just lies. Everyone knew he was going to pardon Hunter. We all knew that. At least that's my perspective. But you see the left absolutely

Absolutely shocked. They're shocked. Like they actually believe this guy when he was like, I know I'm not going to pardon him. And we're all like, you know, he's totally going to pardon him. He's a liar. That's all he does is lie. And he was in on his son's crimes. So yes, of course he'll help be pardoning him. But the left is like, Oh, that half of them are like, and then the other half are like, Oh, he's a good father. He loves his son.

it's like a good microcosm of the divide in this country on this man, this whole problem with the Biden crime family, as it's called. Um,

And really kind of, I hope, yet another wake-up call to our friends on the left that they are consuming their news from the wrong places. You've been misled again. All right, let's go through the timeline. The dates actually are important. It starts back in January of 14, January of

Just before Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, this Ukrainian energy company, and Hunter had no expertise in energy whatsoever. His dad was the sitting vice president of the United States, and he's been pardoned through that date, from that date through yesterday, the day of the pardon.

Now, why would you have to go back to all that stuff? I mean, we all know why. Because Joe Biden is pardoning himself and not just his son. He wants to make sure that all of those alleged crimes for which his DOJ already gave Hunter a pass remain untouched.

Um, the president, after lighting this match, promptly jetted out of town to Africa. I mean, good on him, right? A couple of middle fingers for everyone right before he leaves office. Of course, many, as I said, knew that this promise that he's been making over and over was empty. We've all been saying it and it's...

I don't know. Does it change anybody's view of what's going to happen? And most importantly, I guess the question is, does it change what President Trump is likely to do once he is sworn in again with respect to the J6 defendants? Because that's what the left is really worried about. Joining me now, it's National Review Day here at the MK Show. Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry and senior writer Charles C.W. Cook, host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast. Rich and Charlie, welcome back.

Four years of crushing interest rates, runaway inflation, and reckless government spending, and who's paying the price now? You are. You might have bills stacking up, debt collectors on your back. You might barely be able to keep food on the table.

Done With Debt can be a way out. They have developed new aggressive strategies designed to get you out of debt permanently without bankruptcy or loans. Done With Debt stands between you and your bill collectors. They can go head-to-head with creditors, getting balances reduced, interest rates slashed, and penalties stopped. They create a plan to end your debt fast and to put more cash in your pocket every month. And right now, Done With Debt is accepting new clients, but you need to act fast because some credit relief programs expire.

Before you even consider making another payment, consider a visit to donewithdebt.com or just call 1-888-322-1054 right now. Speak with one of their debt relief strategists for free. Go to donewithdebt.com. That's donewithdebt.com. Am I wrong? We all knew this was coming. Everyone who consumes media that is not far left, 100% knew this was coming. We didn't like it. We didn't support it, but nobody believed his lies, Rich, that he wasn't going to do it.

Yeah, so some lies that politicians tell are irritating because you believe them, right? And then you're really disappointed when they turned out they were lying to you. This is irritating because it was so blatantly obvious, right? And the honorable thing to do would have been said, say, no comment when asked about this, or I'm not going to address hypotheticals or whatever. Instead, they blatantly lied. It was part of the scheme as soon as he considered it. What –

Back in June, he started lying about it. So this – but it's typical Biden. This great predictor of our norms and small-D democratic politics has been a dishonest hack his entire life. So this is a proper and fitting coda to his sordid career.

Yeah, they're here is just a little of for those of you who forgot it of Joe Biden. Here's one example of him making that promise. What's the date of this first one? Debbie sought one. We'll find it. Listen here.

Will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? Yes. And have you ruled out a pardon for your son? Yes. I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter. He has overcome an addiction. He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know. And I am satisfied that I'm not going to do anything. I said I'd abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.

Those are all from June. I mean, he went back, Charles, we know that, but those are just, that's just June. It's not like a lifetime ago. And he issues this infuriating statement. I mean, infuriating, acting like a bunch of stuff has happened, you know, between then and now that really changes his whole perspective on everything. It's really not true. He says the following, this is crazy. People are almost ever brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form.

As if this is really all just about the gun, right? That is the trial that he had, but there's a reason he was only tried at that trial on the gun form thing. He goes on to say that those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but then paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear the hunter was treated differently. This is so galling, Charlie, so galling.

It's hard to know where to start with this. It's so galling. The backdrop to this, of course, is that prior to becoming vice president, then retiring and then becoming president, Joe Biden's main contribution to the canon of American law was to increase the penalties for gun crimes and drug crimes, and often to increase the penalties where those two things intersected.

He spent years, decades railing against people who had addiction and saying that it didn't matter. There's a speech he gave in the Senate where he says it doesn't matter. That's not what's important, whether people are addicted or not. So the history here is interesting in and of itself. But the hood's part of this statement, NBC News published a piece, a reported piece this afternoon

in which it suggests that Joe Biden had decided in June that he was going to say that he would not pardon his son, even though the plan was to pardon his son.

But it wasn't just that he lied about it and then changed his mind. The plan was to lie about it and then change his mind. You can look it up. Go read the NBC News story. That was part of the whole approach. And then he has the temerity in the statement that you just quoted from to finish it by saying...

Throughout my entire career, I've had one principle to which I have hewed, and that's to tell the American people the truth. So he says that in the statement in which he is announcing a pardon that he had said for six months, having planned to do so.

that he was not going to pardon his son. I mean, you just could not write it. It's extraordinary. The whole thing is such a great example of corruption and what makes it more annoying

than most of Biden's annoying habits is that this has been used over and over and over again to demonstrate Biden's supposed moral superiority, his integrity, his honesty, his willingness to stick to the rules, what separates him from others, why one has to vote for him or his vice president, because he's the sort of man you see

who understands the rule of law, respects the rule of law, even when his own son is involved. And of course, it just turns out that it was an election year ploy and the whole thing was a massive lie. And that's before we get, as I'm sure we will, to what you were adumbrating earlier, which is this bizarre super pardon that covers activity for 10 years, much of which hasn't yet been prosecuted.

Mm hmm. You know, the thing about this, as you say, multilayered here, but but one of the things about this that really gets me is he's trying to make a victor out of hunting is clear. Hunter Hunter was treated differently. He's trying to make a victim out of him. And as opposed to like, you know, if you guys lied and said that your payments on strippers were

and hookers were tax write-offs, like you wouldn't be prosecuted. You know, it was just poor Hunter who had to deal with that. And it was really just his addiction. Like if usually addicts just get a pass, it's only poor Hunter who didn't. And the audience has heard me talk about this in bits and pieces over the years. And I'll, I'll just offer this. My own sister got swept up

into the opioid crisis. And truly, it was truly not through fault of her own. She was, she, she needed a pain medication after this incident she suffered. And they gave her this drug and specifically told her, like we saw in Dope Sick with respect to OxyContin, though her drug was not OxyContin, that it wasn't addictive. So she started taking this drug and sure enough, she got addicted and then she got really addicted and her life went to hell. I mean, just

And we'd never had, you know, an alcoholic or drug addict. You know, that wasn't a thing that was really in our family. And my poor sister's life got completely blown up by this thing, by this addiction to the point where she ultimately, once the family sort of tried to let her have a hard love, a tough love period where we weren't helping her out of the jams that she was creating, found herself in the in the throes of the criminal law. I mean, it was petty any stuff, but she she did wind up on the wrong side.

And you know what she did? She had to handle it. She had to get a public defender. She had to handle the penalty. She didn't go to jail or anything like that, but she, it remained a mark on her record forever. And you know what that does to a person? You can't get a job. You cannot get a damn job.

because it's on there and no one gives a damn that you were addicted. No one cares about that backstory I just gave to you. So fuck you, Joe Biden, and your sob story about your rich, spoiled presidential kid, Hunter Biden, and how he's been singled out. Because I know I speak for millions of people who have an addict in their family who did something they're not proud of, who could never get

out from under it. We have no sympathy for you, Hunter Biden, and even less for you, Joe Biden, because you enabled all of it. You were using him to line your own pocket. That is what the emails suggest, 10% for the big guy and Tony Bobulinski and others. And Rich, this is why, just one of the many pieces, why this whole thing is so irritating. Yeah. So-

I think everyone has sympathy for his addiction, right? I go on this New York radio show, Sid Rosenberg. He was one of the warm-up acts at MSG, and he had terrible addiction problems, blew up his whole radio career. He says, you know, you hate yourself every single time.

You do it. Right. And I'm sure Hunter was there with that self-loathing as well. No one criticized him for that, except maybe some dumb things Matt Gaetz said along the line. The problem was the crimes. Right. And the idea that he was a victim of Joe Biden's own Justice Department, when clearly the original plan was to have the holdover, a DA up there, just slow walk this and do nothing about it.

Right. That was the first idea. And then when there was public pressure about it and accountability about it, then they came up with this this plea deal. Right. That that the president refers to as a carefully negotiated plea deal, which might be the truest phrase in the entire statement. Yes, it was carefully negotiated to give Hunter every possible break and to make this thing basically legal.

go away. And then he complains in the statement that there was outside pressure about the plea deal. Yeah, people pointed out it was a travesty and that it couldn't survive first contact with an independent judge. That's when it blew up. So the idea that it was Joe Biden's haters who were responsible for the plea deal going away or the plea deal was straight up at the beginning, this

It was crazy. He was afforded every possible consideration by Biden's Justice Department until it became unsustainable. And then he was treated more or less like anyone else in one of these cases. And look, most fathers-

Yeah, when they're forced. And most fathers, yeah, they would do this, right? They would pardon him. They wouldn't see him go to jail if they had the power to do that, which everyone knew, right? Which is why one of the reasons we knew it was a lie. And then finally, it doesn't mention at all, even though the dates, as you point out, encompass this conduct, the self-dealing and

the Biden lobbying and influence peddling business, which is what everyone was after, right? The gun charges, penny ante compared to that stuff. And because the prosecutor up there let the statute of limitations kind of roll on and most of this stuff get past it, that'll never be prosecuted. And that was the real abuse of public trust.

I'm just now realizing the saying is petty auntie. That makes more sense. Or penny, penny auntie, not petty auntie. That makes so much more sense because if you auntie only a penny, it's nothing. Okay. Things you learn on, on camera. Um,

Yeah. My note next to this statement that, you know, that we're going through, here's my note, especially that part I just read about serious addictions. F you, F you, F you, F you. It just feels personal to me for anybody who's got an addict in the family who had to actually live up to the consequences of their bad choices. You should, uh, you should auction off your, you should auction off your unexpurgated, uh, show notes at some point for charity. Yeah. Yeah.

I'll do it. I mean, it'd have to be a charity that has a tolerance for body. Um, here is the part in that rich was referring to Charles, uh, just to fill out what this statement by Biden says, how it reads the charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then a carefully negotiated plea deal agreed to by the department of justice and

unraveled in the courtroom with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son and that

is wrong. Like the miscast of what actually happened here, that the charges only came about after several of my political opponents instigated them to attack me. No, he was shielded from those charges, which were serious felonies as outlined by those two IRS whistleblowers who

who since came forward, he was shielded by you because of his name and by others because of his name. And only when the whistleblowers came forward and it became very clear what had happened within the DOJ and the IRS was the DOJ forced to bring what was left of the charges because the vast majority of them had been intentionally allowed to expire.

Yeah, so however you look at this, there's a hole in the logic from Biden. So the first thing is Biden's the president. He's in charge of the executive branch, Article 2.

So are we saying that he instructed the DOJ to do this erroneously? Well, if not, then he's outsourced it. And then we have to believe that Merrick Garland is some rogue within the DOJ, which he seems not to be. I doubt Biden would agree with that.

And then you get to the second option, which is that the DOJ is part of the deep state, which is something that the Bidens of the world say doesn't exist. And if this is what the DOJ does because of political pressure from television and Congress and the dust of the Republican Party, then surely Donald Trump has a point about the nature of the bureaucracy. But I don't think that they would concede that. Then you've got

The question that arises, if neither of those is true, then ought we to have the laws under which Biden rules

uh hunter biden that is was prosecuted and one thing i keep hearing today from anyone who is defending this or half defending this is well we don't prosecute people who lie on form 4473 which is a form that was created subsequent to the gun control act of 1968 that asks various questions are you a felon are you a citizen are you addicted to illegal substances and so forth

Well, if the case is that it's outrageous to prosecute someone for lying on that form, could we get rid of it?

Can we perhaps pardon everyone else who has been sent to prison or convicted of a felony based on their lies on that form? If we don't prosecute people for being under the influence while in possession of a firearm, maybe we have a lot of work to do as a country in getting those people out of prison and getting their records expunged as well. Yes, right now.

Right. But what I hear from Joe Biden is actually the opposite rhetoric. So what you will hear now is on the one hand, that the biggest problem that the United States faces in its tax system is people who cheat, people who don't pay the taxes they're on, wealthy people who, instead of putting money into the Treasury, go out and spend it frivolously. For example, let's just say...

sports cars and strippers, which Hunter seems to have done, which is why I'm told we need 87,000 new IRS agents. We need to beef up audits and so on and so forth. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, we've got guns too. The problem with the United States at the moment in that realm is that we don't have enough gun laws and we don't enforce them properly. We have an under-regulation issue in America, and this is a huge problem, right?

on this piece of paper that Joe Biden put out yesterday, though, it says that no one would have gone after anyone for these sorts of crimes unless they were called Hunter Biden. So, which is it? Do we have a problem with rich tax cheats who are not caught by the system and

a total lack of enforcement of those who are not supposed to own guns, owning guns? Or is it the case that the only people who would ever be prosecuted for this stuff, even when the evidence is overwhelming as it was in this case, are Hunter Biden because of his political connections? You've got to pick one. And it's another aspect of this that I just find so irritating is that basically Joe Biden's position is we need to go after people who illegally purchase firearms, who are not allowed to own firearms, and we need to go after wealthy tax chiefs

unless they're called Hunter Biden. I mean, it's just, there's no way of getting around it. Yeah, no, you think about all the people who are being prosecuted right now for being tax cheats and how they're feeling today. That I

I guess if I stole more, if I cheated even worse, maybe I could get the Hunter Biden exception because, you know, I'm told by the president of the United States that those who are late paying our taxes because of serious addictions, but then pay them back subsequently with interest in penalties are typically given non-criminal resolutions. Well, what if you're one of the ones who wasn't given that and you're looking at this statement today? Or what if you're one of the ones who was prosecuted under this gun form and you have a very different result than Hunter Biden? And of course, you know, Rich, now what we're hearing is

well, Trump pardoned Jared Kushner's dad and just made him ambassador to France.

And Bill Clinton pardoned his half brother, stepbrother over drug charge. But both those guys had served their sentence. They had paid the penalty that a jury had inflicted on them and had lived up to what the DOJ required of them, which was sit for a trial, listen to what a jury finds and then serve the sentence. That's not what's happened here.

Yeah, so it's not just that he's not going to serve the sentence. As NR's Andy McCarthy has pointed out, the timing here, which is a little weird, Sunday and a holiday weekend, okay, maybe that makes sense. You want to bury the news. But you would have thought he waited right to the end of his administration and said, why is he doing it now? Because he doesn't want sentencing to happen, which is when you know this better than I do, but that's when the felony is actually required.

courted, right, when you technically become a convicted felon. So this stops him from being a convicted felon. So not just not getting sentenced or going to jail, but he won't actually be a felon for these crimes. And it wasn't just that on the gun charge, right, that he lied on the form and then he safely put the gun in his safe and that was it.

there is this turmoil in his life and I guess what his girlfriend or his wife at the time has to, is where he's going to do harm to himself with a gun and dumps it in a trash can on the school grounds or near school grounds. So there's a major aggravating factor there and

You also hit on a key point just a moment ago. It's not just that Biden's political opponents were on this. James Comer was a political opponent. I think he did great work. And just because he's a political opponent doesn't mean he wasn't on to something or it wasn't legitimate. But there are whistleblowers. They really forced this. And if there's anything we've known from the media and from Hollywood, whistleblowers are good, right?

They uncover wrongdoing. They should be honored for their bravery. But in this case, they've been disappeared. But they were a key aspect to getting this case moving because they were so appalled by what they were seeing because they knew it was special treatment of someone who had a political connection.

Yes. If it hadn't been for those guys, who knows what would have happened. But they came out and said this was there were so many felonies that this guy committed. And they said to me on this show and to many others and before Congress as well, we absolutely would normally go after a person who had done what Hunter Biden did. Absolutely. In no way would that have been because he was the president at the time he committed the crimes, the vice president's son. If anything, that was an impediment.

Just even on paper, never mind when the DOJ actively started to slow roll it. You know, they're careful about going after somebody who's a public figure. But absolutely, Joe Schmo would have been charged on all of these crimes. And let's not forget, there's the whole matter of, you know, acting as a foreign agent with respect to Burisma and the Chinese. And there's this other sea of potential criminality dating back to 2014, all of which was allowed to expire in

Thanks to the Biden Justice Department. And all you need to do is listen to Andy's weekly podcast with Rich, the Andy McCarthy podcast, because they've gone over this in great detail for years now. And, you know, if you listen to it and if you watch this show, too, because we talk about it as well.

then you know this is a long, long list of crimes that Hunter Biden is accused of having committed, almost all of which were whitewashed away thanks to statutes of limitation being allowed to expire by Democratic-controlled DOJs. However, today I think it's an issue because the left that's mad thinks Trump will use it as an excuse to...

pardon the J6 defendants. He doesn't need an excuse. He's been saying running for office, he was going to do it. Like, I guess this makes it a little bit softer when he does it, but okay. That's what they're going to say. And, but I think the other problem with it for the left is that they're embarrassed because they actually did like,

either actually believe him or just openly pretended to believe him. And now they look like fools. Here are three examples together. Stephanie rule, uh, from June Mika Brzezinski from June and a former deputy us attorney, Andrew Weissman, who's an MSNBC fixture. Um, it's a montage of him. Take a listen.

Their latest attack has been that Joe Biden has politicized and weaponized the DOJ, right? That was the whole argument around Donald Trump's conviction. And this week, of course, Hunter Biden was found guilty. And Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son. He would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference? I mean, how can Republicans keep making this argument now that Joe Biden has really put it out there? Where's Hunter?

And he stood there in a courtroom, flanked by his family, and he's accepted his sentence. The current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son. I mean, what, you know, again, it's all about the contrast. President Biden saying, I will respect whatever this jury decides versus Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 counts, saying the entire system is rigged against him. He's not pardoning.

his son, which he could do. These are federal charges. He is not doing that. He's not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country. He did not pardon his son. He did not order the Department of Justice to say, don't prosecute my son. So impressive contrast between

is so clear in terms of decency and principle and transactional guidances in terms of how you view the world. What is before us is a president who is living the rule of law. He is living it in the most...

in the most personal way. What he is actually living by is his own son is being prosecuted and he is allowing the norms that are required to live in a democracy to go forward. Getting a little misty-eyed, Rich. That was really quite moving.

Oh, man. They've humiliated themselves. Oh, totally. And it also goes to, it's easier to lie when you're a Democrat because you have all these people with major media platforms just willing to swallow it. And what contempt does Joe Biden have for his media allies, right? If you're a man of decency and you've lied and you have other people making idiots of themselves by believing their lies, you might feel a little guilty about that. Apparently, none of

whatsoever. They're played like fools. And look, some of these people might be sincere about protecting democratic norms, but Joe Biden was always a horrible vessel for it. And it's just a symptom of our time that people can't say, you know what, I don't like Trump, but Biden is a dishonest hack who's been peddling, you know, his family has been benefiting, you

Off his name forever, right? Both those things can be true, but they won't. They needed to put him on a pedestal that was made out like it was this steadfast marble that could never be toppled. And the thing was styrofoam all along. It was a complete lie from the beginning to the end.

And here's the thing, just to put the lie to the lie, back to that portion of the statement that you referenced, Charlotte, I didn't yet read. For my entire career, I have followed a simple principle. Just tell the American people the truth. They'll be fair-minded. Well, here's the truth.

I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infested this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. And once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying further. Okay. Nothing has happened between his June statements that he would not pardon Hunter and now to change justice.

any of the facts that he's relying on in his statement for why he's doing the pardon. Like everything that he's pointing to happened before Hunter was found guilty in June, which is the case only came about after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me. We've shown the audience that that's not true, but that even if that is true, that all happened well before June where he said he was not going to pardon them. Then a carefully negotiated plea deal fell apart and

That, again, happened long before June. Hunter was singled out only because he's my son, blah, blah, blah. This is all before June. So then he finishes it with, I've always followed a simple principle. Just tell the American people the truth. Here's the truth. The raw politics has infested this process, blah, blah, blah. So.

I mean, there's absolutely no question that it's all a lie and he doesn't really care whether people know it or not. And I actually wondered whether, you know, you're right. He didn't want sentencing to happen, but I actually wondered because he could have done it on like Thursday night. If you really want to bury something over Thanksgiving holiday, you release it Wednesday night or Thursday night. People are with their families. I actually wondered whether

This is a middle finger to the media because you know it's going to get coverage if you do it the Sunday before the Monday that all the press returns to the news cycle, most of whom are too lazy to go back and figure out what happened over the past six days and would much prefer to focus on new red meat. That is pretty easy to understand. I almost think he wanted to rub their noses in it, Charles. He may have.

I think this is such a great example of how the Democrats have used Trump as an excuse for their own desires. I won't defend Trump on this. Trump will definitely abuse the pardon power. Most presidents abuse the pardon power. I actually think the anti-federalists were right about the pardon power on balance. I think probably it needs some sort of congressional review, but it doesn't have it. The president has plenary power here. It's non-justiciable. No one can...

Alter it, oversee it, reverse it. So I fully expect Trump to abuse it as he did last time. I think what you have seen here is the knowledge, perhaps from the Andrew Weissman's of the world, that whatever happens, he will be able to wiggle out of it by just saying, but Trump.

The Joe Biden presidency was the butt Trump presidency. People found it hard to make affirmative case for Joe Biden. So they would just say, but Trump. So if Biden ends up winning or if Harris, when she had taken over, wins, then maybe she pardons him. And you can say you were right that Biden didn't do it.

If Biden and then Harris lose the election, then you can say, well, we had to pardon him because of Trump. And this is the emerging line now, is that we had to give Hunter Biden a 10-year untrammeled pardon that applies to absolutely everything. Actually, if you look at the way it was written, it gave Hunter Biden sort of four hours to

at the end of the day yesterday where he could have gone out and committed all manner of crimes because the pardon lasted until midnight. It's a 10-year untrammeled pardon. And the line I've started to see from those who are defending it is, well, we didn't want to do that, but we had to do this because Trump is so vindictive. He's so out of control. He's such a dictator. But he was going to come in and then order his Department of Justice to go after Hunter Biden on a frivolous pretext. So it was absolutely necessary.

for Joe Biden to inoculate his son against the ravages of Trump-Hitler. And when you do that, Megan, what you've done is you've given yourself permission to essentially do whatever you want on the grounds that the other person made you do it. And we've seen this with, say, the Supreme Court, where

the worst idea in all of American history, which is, I mean, structurally, not slavery, obviously, is number one, but structurally, it was to pack the Supreme Court. Back in the 1930s, President Roosevelt's own party said, don't do this. This is a tyrannical move. And it became, over the years, this sort of barrenness

for hubris and corruption. Joe Biden himself talked about it in a famous speech in 2006, where he hearkened back to the dark days of FDR trying to pack the court. But now the Democrats have to pack the court because of Donald Trump. They have to abolish the filibuster

because of Donald Trump. They have to undermine the electoral college in the Senate because of Donald Trump. And once again, this is the argument that we're seeing, that yes, it is awful to abuse the pardon power in this way, except Trump made them do it. And so I just wonder if you're Andrew Weissman sitting there at MSNBC or you're Mika Brzezinski or you're Stephanie Ruhl or anyone else

who made that case, you sort of know at the back of your head that you have a get out of jail free card because if Biden does do it, you will be able to say in the same studios to the same people in front of the same audience, well, of course, Biden didn't want to do it, but he had to because of Trump and all of the people who applauded you the first time around and said, yeah, this is an indication of the integrity of Joe Biden. We'll just sit there and clap as if that is some sort of meaningful excuse.

It's so true here. You don't actually have to wonder. Here's actually a very fun example that we found of MSNBC commentator Molly Jong fast. Now, here is what she originally said. You're not going to do this to her. You're not going to do this to her. Praise yourself. Here she is in June when he said he was not going to pardon.

I think Joe Biden has a chance here to stand up for the rule of law, to say the law is the law no matter who it is, no matter if it's Trump or Biden. And remember, part of Trumpism's dangerousness is that it tears down institutions, important institutions of our democracy. So there is an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, the jury found him guilty. This is how it's supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

norms and institutions. And here she was this morning. Molly, fast and furious, what do you make of this new news? I just heard it. I have to process it. I don't have a take. I'm sorry. She just heard it. She went on, that was this morning, was it? So she went on a cable news show. That was last night. Oh, it was last night? Yeah.

She just had it. But she had no idea it was coming, Charles. She was just not like, who knew? Who could have foreseen? And then had a thought that the pardon would come. And here's this on her Blue Sky account. That's the left-wing Twitter that everybody's now running to because they're afraid of Elon.

She tweeted this morning and now we're thinking, okay, we're onto something. She tweeted protect norms and institutions, protect norms and institutions. I'm like, okay, she's going to let them have it. Protect norms and institutions, protect norms and institutions. And guess what she was tweeting about this article from Washington post amid worry about Trump.

Calls for career justice department staff to stay. She's saying don't change the staff at the DOJ. That's what she's tweeted. Norms and institutions. Nothing about the pardon that I I have no take. I don't. This reflects poorly on Joe Biden. So I really can't think of anything to say. Yeah, it's a mystery. Here is I'll give you another example.

Another pivot point, Rich, if you don't want to talk about Molly, because I know you love her and you should get the Jen Rubin. You should give a Jen Rubin award every week. Molly is an early contender. She is actually she could be the same exact MVP. Here is another spin that's coming. Charles is right. The one is but Trump. And here's the other in SOT eight from Biden's former White House director of message planning, Megan Hayes.

I do think with some of the nominations that Trump has put up, I think it probably caused a little bit of worry for him. But also, I think people have to remember, the president has lost two children already. And he does not need to lose another one to more political, you know,

witch hunts that the president's calling them. He worries about Hunter going to jail. And there's a lot of things wrapped up in this. But I think at the end of the day, the president made a decision as a father to keep his son out of jail and out of harm's way moving forward. He, again, does not want to lose another son. He has lost two children already, and he does not want this to go on any further once he leaves office. Didn't want to lose another son.

Oh, that's a medic. That's disgraceful to compare Hunter going to jail for crimes he committed to the tragic deaths of other children. It's just crazy, right? Why can't you just say he's a father, he doesn't want to see his son go to jail? End of story. And he doesn't care, he's not going to let any considerations about norms or institutions or anything else trump that personal commitment. That

That's that's right. That's that's something that's true. It's something kind of people would understand. It's not necessarily very praiseworthy, but it's very human. But they build up this whole edifice where he was something special and had this commitment to democratic norms above everything else. And it was demonstrated by letting this case go forward when it was very easy to let it go forward when it was when it was happening, when the convictions happened.

right? There's no way he's going to pardon him right then. These things always happen at the end. And maybe if he'd won again or Kamala had won again, he wouldn't even have to do it at the end of this term, but he would have done it pretty quickly before he went to jail, right? That was always obvious. And they were willfully blind to it to create this story. And Charlie's correct about just the Hitler construct is such a permission slip for them. The bulwark, the never Trump

publication, had a podcast at the election. And one of these guys on the podcast was basically saying, because Trump's Hitler, the Democrats need their own Hitler, right? We need a strong man. And we should have changed, you know, we should have jammed through two new states, D.C. and Puerto Rico, to get more senators. We should have packed the court already, you know, on and on. So they become what they think they're opposing.

And they they can't see it because they're so blinded by hatred to Trump for Trump. Well, I don't think there's an accident, Charlie, that this is the former White House director of messaging raising. He doesn't want to lose another son. This is what Joe Biden's favorite trick has been. Yeah. Well, leave aside the mawkishness of it. And I've written a great deal about that. Joe Biden uses Trump.

His son Bo's death is a weapon in a way that he should not. He brings it up in almost every circumstance, many of which are inappropriate. We've heard from the parents of deceased children

military members who have asked him not to do it. But leave aside the mawkishness of that statement for a moment, which is supposed to tug on your heartstrings and make you ignore the question at hand. And suppose that that is true. That was true in June. So if it is the case that Biden is so upset at the prospect of Hunter going to jail, having lost two children, which he did do, and that was horrendous,

that he simply cannot allow this to happen, then he should not have spent nearly six months promising the American public that he was not going to pardon Hunter Biden. The clips you played were not ambiguous. Sometimes you can wiggle out of language. But the last clip you played at the beginning of this episode, he literally says, I am not going to pardon him. Now, that is...

emphatic and it's absolute. So if it is the case that what she is saying is correct, then that should have been the line from June. It should have been the line whenever Karine Junepierre was asked about it. It should have been the line whenever Biden was asked about it. It should have been the line whenever anyone was asked about it by the New York Times or the Washington Post writing stories on it.

You can't, after six months of absolutely unqualified promises, then turn around and say, "Well, I've just remembered that I'm his dad." That's just not how this works. Oh, and I should add, having done so in an election year, because the margins, that line,

that Joe Biden epitomized everything that was important about the rule of law was an election year ploy. That was used as a contrast point with Donald Trump.

You can't then turn around after the election and say, well, I'm his dad. Of course, of course a dad feels like that. I would feel like that too. But that wouldn't change the fact that I was on the record over and over and over again, not only saying what it was that I wasn't going to do, but setting myself up as a result of it as an unimpeachable figure. It's another example of fraud. That's what we were witnessing there. We were almost defrauded.

about him and his mental health.

by the same media now trying to celebrate this, trying to find a way. Joe and Mika spent the first 40 minutes of their show talking about Kash Patel and P-Tag Seth. And when they finally got to the pardon, those two didn't even offer their opinion. They said nothing. Mika, who was out there saying he's the rule of law, he's the one who believes in the rule of law. And it's a stark contrast. So much respect for the rule of law that he won't pardon his son. Today, she had nothing to say about it. Okay, so they-

They almost defrauded us into electing a mentally enfeebled man. Then they tried to defraud us rich into believing Kamala Harris was a smart person who could handle the obligations of the presidency. She was inspirational. She was joyful. She was she was brat. She was all the things.

And then and then we get this, that he's not going to pardon his son. And the fact that he said it in June when Hunter was convicted and then all the media allies ran out there saying, see, see, he respects institutions, norms and the rule of law. Unlike that other guy, unlike evil Hitler. You see, that's why we have to stick with the Democrats in this presidential election, only to immediately turn around and

and say, F all that. Nothing's changed. I just am not going to do it. It's all part of a big fraud, which is why you've got some Democrats sounding like Joe Walsh today. We have his soundbite here, I think somewhere. Let's see. My team will find it and play it. Yeah. Former Illinois representative Joe Walsh.

This pardon is just deflating. For those of us who have been out there for a few years now yelling about what a unique threat Donald Trump is, for Joe Biden to do something like this, Trump, nobody's above the law, we've been screaming. Well, Joe Biden just made clear his son Hunter is above the law. Donald Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, we've been screaming.

Joe Biden repeatedly lied about this. This is a father who saw his first wife killed, his daughter killed in a car crash, his two young sons survived. One goes on to have real difficulties with addiction. Another dies because of cancer. This is a family that's really troubling. Yes, he said he wasn't going to do this, but did anyone ever believe that that was the case? But

But this just furthers the cynicism that people have about politics. And that cynicism strengthens Trump because Trump can just say, I'm not a unique threat. Everybody does this. The anchor was Melissa Murray on MSNBC last night. Yeah. So, I mean, he seems genuinely aghast at this result.

Well, yeah, there's another category here of people who apparently believe this lie, like our friend there and Tom Nichols, Johnson Shates and some others who are consistent, who thought it was Biden being upstanding about the rule of law and now are appropriately outraged about it. So they're being consistent. I think they're incredibly naive at that.

at the outset to believe this lie, but they did. I would just throw into your catalog. The irony, Rich, sorry, the irony of him saying it on MSNBC, which has been peddling. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Like I said, get your news source someplace else, sir. Go ahead. I would just throw into the scams, the whole Hunter Biden scandal.

laptop, which we're made to believe was an act of Russian disinformation. We had these former national security officials lying in this letter. Another case where Biden unashamedly had people lie on his behalf. They put that letter out there pretty much only so he'd have something to say in the debate in 2020 when this came up with Trump. And he just cited the letter, right?

It's been established as Russian disinformation as these several dozen national security officials say so. This just all plays into a really corrosive sense that things aren't on the up and up and they're puppet masters behind all these things

facades we're seeing in public, whether it's the supposedly young and vigorous Joe Biden or the joyful and totally impressive Kamala Harris. And it's why a lot of Republicans have time for appointments like Kash Patel, who are out there to kind of burn the place down. I think the place needs major reform. I'm not sure how well- No, I'm saying institutions, Rich.

Yeah, I'm not sure how well trying to burn it down is going to work out, but people have a lot of time for that, right? And this does play, as Joe Walsh was saying, does play into Trump's hands in that respect. And the worst of it was the lawfare against Trump, I would say.

We got to do a cash Patel and we'll talk about Pete and we've got to talk about Kamala Harris's Thanksgiving message, but we have to take a break first before we go to break. I'll just do this one for you. A Korean Jean Pierre who repeatedly said he would not pardon Hunter. I mean, repeatedly, I'm not going to play you the soundbite cause it's long, but just trust me, it's more explicit even than Joe Biden was asked on air force one about the pardon. She

She said the president took an action because of how politically infected these cases were. A reporter pressed the system doesn't get corrupted by politics for people whose name is not Joe Biden. You're twisting and misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm talking about a particular issue right now. That's saying nothing. At one point, another journalist asked, does the president believe now and agree with Trump that the justice system has been weaponized for political purposes and that it needs root and branch reform? Karine Jean-Pierre, no.

Read the president's statement. Seriously, read the president's statement. He said he believes in the DOJ. He does. He says it in his statement. He says it in his statement, so it must be true.

He also believes that war politics infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. We don't know what war politics are, but we know she is lying. Yet again, we'll be right back. Is the education system the cause and solution to the biggest problems facing America? Check out a fantastic podcast from PragerU that is tackling difficult topics and conversations through the lens of education. It's called Real Talk with Marissa Street. As

As a mother, former educator, and the CEO of PragerU, Marissa believes that education got America into the mess we're in and education will get us out. That's why she built the pro-American nonprofit PragerU into a disruptor in education with videos that reach millions of young people every day. During her show, Marissa interviews leaders in business, education, mental and physical health, and world affairs. Her guests have included Tulsi Gabbard, Douglas Murray, Michael Knowles, and many more. Together,

Together, they cut through the noise and get to the heart of complex issues, all from the perspective of an educator and a parent. Join PragerU's fastest-growing podcast. Subscribe to Real Talk with Marissa Street on your favorite podcast platform or just watch at PragerU.com slash Real Talk. 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.

Okay, so we've been following the whole Pete Hegseth nomination to defense secretary very closely here on the show. And there was news on that over the break and then today as well. Pete's mom was very, very mad at him in 2018. And the New York Times got its hands on the email.

I got to tell you, like this whole thing is ridiculous to me. Now, the mom does not spare Pete at all in this email. She gives it to him like nice and straight and she doesn't mince words. But...

There are a lot of people who wouldn't want their moms chastising, winding up in the New York Times, especially men who find themselves in the midst of a divorce caused by their own infidelity. I think most moms would have a word with their sons about that when they've cheated on the wife. They have children. So in effect, you've cheated on the children, too.

And they're involved in a custody battle in which Pete was attacking the soon-to-be ex-wife, verbally, that is. And his mom didn't like it. Okay, so that's the one. And I'll just give you a flavor for what's in the report. It's very nasty. And she is... It's very nasty of the New York Times, in my view, to report this. I just think publishing a mom's email, I don't know how they got it. They say it was a source close to the Hegseth family. I guarantee you it was the ex-wife or somebody close to her. I mean, there's just no way it's not. But anyway...

She writes as follows in 2018. Um, I've tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent. I feel I must speak out. You are an abuser of women. That's the ugly truth. And I have no respect for any man that belittles lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man and have been for years. And as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad truth.

I'm not a saint far from it. So don't throw that in my face, but your abuse over the years to women, dishonesty, sleeping around betrayal, debasing, belittling needs to be called out. Sam is a good mother and a good person under the circumstances that you created. And I know deep down, you know that, but for you to try and label her as unstable for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there some, is there any sense of decency left in you? We still love you, but we're broken by your behavior and lack of character.

Those are the highlights or lowlights. She's obviously mad because he was calling the ex-wife names in the context of their custody dispute. And the mother didn't like that and let him have it. She told the New York Times that she thought it was despicable they were printing this and that she sent him an email immediately after taking it back and saying she was wrong and she was sorry that she was just angry. But

This is the way it goes. You know, you get personally destroyed if you throw your hat in the ring, you know, especially to be as part of Trump's cabinet. For what it's worth, the reporter Sharon Lafreniere, who wrote the New York Times piece on Hegseth that I just referenced, she also wrote the story about the alleged 2017 rape incident.

that she says he was accused of. In her reporting, she missed, among other details, the following. The fact that his accuser was seen smiling with him on videotaped a half hour before he allegedly raped her after having given her some drug that

some date rape drug, did not report that she was back at her own hotel room by 4 a.m. where her husband says she was not slurring or stumbling and was apologetic. She didn't think that was relevant, even though the woman claimed she'd been drugged and was seen on camera fine, not drunk, not stumbling at 1.30 a.m., smiling and locking arms with him. And then at 4 a.m. was back with her husband and the husband said she looked fine. That wasn't relevant to the New York Times, that her own husband said at 4 a.m. she was totally fine, did not report

report that this woman refused the police request that she participate in what's called a pretext call to Hegseth after the fact saying, you know, Hey Pete, why'd you do that to me? Trying to get him on camera, confessing to a crime. She declined to participate in that thing and did not report that while Pete was telling the cops that she said to him before she left the room, I'm going to tell my husband, I fell asleep. They reported that piece of it.

but did not then report that her husband simultaneously told cops that when his wife got home, she told him she had fallen asleep. A story that matches up perfectly with the one Pete gave the police. That's the same reporter now reporting on the mom's email. I'm just saying the media has no interest in being fair or balanced in reporting these facts, and therefore skepticism is warranted.

And now they have a report, separate publication in The New Yorker, separate reporter, Jane Mayer, today on his secret history. Okay, I'm open-minded. What is it? What did he do?

Well, when he ran two different veterans organizations, Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, he was forced to step down, she reports, because of allegedly being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization's events. Well, the one that I can find, she says plural, is he went to...

a strip club in February of 2015 with, I guess, concerned veterans for America employees. And according to this whistleblower or according to a memo filled out by some employees and sent to the organization's senior management, he had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club where he had brought his team. So that's okay. I like it.

I can't. All right. So that's one. Then there was another one where he went to an event in October of 14. And let's see. He had been out with three young female staffers, was so inebriated by 1 a.m. that a staffer who had driven him to his hotel in a van full of other drunken staffers asked for assistance to get him to his room. He was passed out and they did. Two male staffers got him into his hotel.

So I think that's what they're talking about. Then they alleged some financial impropriety, like spending that left the organization with less than a thousand dollars in the bank. Here is what I can tell you based on my discussions with someone close to the case. And that is that

he was not at a strip club. So I expect that when Pete gets to respond to this, he's going to deny that he was at a strip club. And I would assume then deny that he's tried to storm the stage while the strippers were dancing that, um, this alleged whistleblower on whom most of these allegations depend is a bitter. In fact, I'm told like there are multiple and they have all been fired. They were fired by his organization, but the main is a very bitter person who's jealous of Pete and who was fired. Um,

Um, and that he did not yell as they allege in this kill all Muslims while drunk at a bar, uh, openly where everyone could hear. He said that that never happened, did not happen that, um, Donald Trump is still standing by him. And that while Pete admits to having gone drinking a lot, he did a lot of drinking when he came back from his three tours of duty, Gitmo, Afghanistan and Iraq, uh,

he's gotten it under control. And while he's not proud of some of his drunken behavior, there is nothing in here that reflects on the character who he is today. So that's where we stand on Pete Hegseth today. Rich, your thoughts on whether we should be putting stock into these reports and whether it's going to tank his nomination.

So what we know clearly by his admission and by the general sense of these reports, even if you don't credit every single detail, is that he drank a lot and was tomcatting around.

Clearly. Right. And I don't think that should be disqualifying for a secretary of defense. The problem he has is it'd be one thing, you know, if we learn that Dwight Eisenhower, you know, as a young man had tried to storm the stage at a strip club, if we're assuming this is true about Pete and you're saying that there's good reason not to.

You know, he's responsible for D-Day, right? He is a world historical figure. And the problem Pete is going to have is the combination of these reports,

And the fact that he's a risk, not a security risk, but he's a leap to assume that he's going to be capable of running this complex organization. So that's why I think he's in some jeopardy. If he goes down, it's going to be a Matt Gaetz thing. I don't think there's going to be a floor vote against him. I think there'll be a subtle call made to him by the –

President-elect Trump or someone around him saying, you know, it's gotten to be a little too much. But look, the whole thing is, it's sorted. You wish, you know, you don't want to know this about the guy. You don't want to know this about a potential secretary of defense. But because of the messiness of the way he's lived his personal life and the divorces, it's all coming out or a version, maybe an unfair and stilted version of it's coming out. And that's, it's just for him, for his nomination is problematic.

Yeah, it's embarrassing to pee for sure, but it's just frustrating how you don't get the other side of like, before we went and repeated the allegations against Doug Emhoff, trust me, my team and I did a lot of behind the scenes research on who this person is. Is this a credible person? Is there a history of accusations?

Is there any red flag on her that we need to alert the audience to? Or that so great that we don't even think this story is reportable. And we found all the opposite. And then we told the audience what we found that there's, we don't get to know the New Yorker doesn't tell us anything. We don't, right. It's not even in there that these people were fired and disgruntled. So like where, where, I wouldn't credit anything that Jane. Yeah. I wouldn't credit anything that Jane Mayer writes. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's the problem, by the way.

petty auntie is also a thing. It's just picking up on our own. There's both penny auntie and petty auntie. They mean the same thing. So Charles, I mean, part of what makes me uncomfortable is, and I've, I told my audience this last week, the audience is uncomfortable.

largely kind of on a different page than I am. I've been defensive of Pete. I definitely do not think he raped that woman at all, but he's certainly been a dog in his personal life, in his, what did Rich just call him? What did you call him? Tom Cat. Tom Cat. Tom Cat. Tom Catting around. Tom Cat, dog, what have you. But my audience is less forgiving and they have been writing in saying, not for this position. You need somebody who can, who has self-control,

who is dignified, who can't be compromised by like a Chinese spy. We've seen that happen with a Washington Post reporter. You know, like, you know, they don't want somebody who's too susceptible to the lures of the female persuasion. Anyway, what's your take on it? Well, I have many takes. I've been broadly defensive of Pete Hegseth because these allegations aside, I've thought most of the criticisms that were leveled at him were silly.

Stipulating that journalists covering this sort of thing are often disasters. Jane Mayo is a disaster. She's unhinged, in fact, and she should probably have been disqualified from ever writing about politics again after her behavior during the Kavanaugh scandal. But stipulating now, some of this is obviously true. That email is real. The mother confirmed that. She said she regretted it.

She probably doesn't regret everything she wrote. Some of it is probably accurate. My question is always, to what extent does this intersect with the position for which they have been nominated? So I think that email, while obviously real and probably describing some behavior that was real, is not that informative because people do go through ugly divorces and families do get upset with each other. So even if a lot of that is correct,

I can't quite see where that would intersect. Jane Mayer's reporting, of which I'm always skeptical, is more so in that a question, not the question, but a question that the Senate ought to answer. And I'll take this opportunity to say once again, it is imperative that Donald Trump not be allowed to circumvent the Senate, which has a constitutional role, in my view, a mandatory constitutional role in advising and consenting and ultimately acquiescing to nominations.

The Senate, which must do that, ought to look into whether or not he does have a pattern of drunkenness on the job, because that would matter. Somebody who at various points has got very drunk, including at office events, is not a risk. We've all done that.

Somebody who has a history of being unable to remain professional while at work or who has a problem with alcohol, which is the implication there, it might be absolutely scurrilous and untrue, I hope it is, would be a problem. So I would like to see these allegations heard.

investigated by the Senate. They have a big staff over there that are going to make an ad to it as they see fit. They have the FBI as well, which by that point, I assume, will be in transition mode. We should look into them. I mean, this is exactly why you want to vet your nominees. The way that you just put it, I think skepticism is warranted. And I think that

the problems seem relatively minimal. I do, as an analytical matter, step aside from what I personally think, as an analytical matter, I think Rich is right. I do think that the risk here is that when you combine

that sort of baggage, even if we assume that only one quarter of it is true, with the fact that Hegseth is already a controversial pick purely because he is so young, inexperienced, is outside of the system, which is also, in my view, one of the advantages of the pick. It may make it more difficult for him to get through.

I have to say, Megan, that Charlie has demonstrated his suitability for any cabinet office because he proved on the election night podcast that he can drink an inordinate amount of alcohol and still maintain professional behavior. It was impressive. Unlike yours truly, who just last week I had one martini on the show and people were calling me a cheap date because I couldn't get the ads out.

I still think Pete will get it. I still have my money on him. I think the rank and file matters to Trump, what they think. And I don't think any of those guys are really going to be looking at Pete saying, oh, he got drunk a lot. Yeah, yeah, that's true. You know, I mean, he served

a couple of combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was very honorable. You go back, listen to that New York Times podcast on Pete Hegseth, and you will be cheering for him about how he, when he knew there was danger, volunteered to be the first in the room. He, when there was somebody in his unit who did the wrong thing with the opposing side,

was the first to say it isn't right. That person needs to be held to account. And it wasn't until he'd been in the services for a long time, actively fighting these battles where he got a little jaded about who was leading the troops and like what the mission had been about and why he and his buddies had gone over there and why so many of his friends had died. And I think so many of our servicemen have had that same evolution and would forgive Pete being publicly drunk and

and dealing with the adjustment back to civilian life and then back to Fox News and city life in New York. And then straining his life out, finding, you know, leaning into Christianity, finding a third wife, yes, but whom by all accounts, you know, he now is happy with and who is happy with him. I don't know. We'll see. But I think he'll be the first first major cabinet official with a tattoo since maybe George Shultz, secretary of state. Really? Yeah.

He was a Princeton guy and supposedly had a tiger tattoo on his rear end. This was never confirmed. No. No way. I didn't know this was a potential deal breaker for cabinet nominees. My mom's out. No, I think it would be a good thing, right, for the rank and file to have a two tattooed guy as secretary of defense. But you make a good point about how the rank and file is not going to be put off by the fact that he was drinking too much.

And even if it did rush the stage at a strip club, which I understand. Yeah, exactly. My mom worked her life at the Albany Veterans Hospital. So she spent her life taking care of veterans. Maybe she could be considered if the Veterans Affairs secretary thing falls. So she could be considered. But she does, I'll disclose right now, have a tattoo. She got it when she turned 70. It's of a rosary and it's on her foot. Wow. Dirty laundry. Yes.

How many people get tattoos at age 70? That's an uncontroversial tattoo. I don't think that would hurt her. Yeah. I don't know. It seems kind of a Christian nationalist tattoo. It might upset. If Dianne Feinstein was still with us, maybe she would be very upset by your mom's living the dogma loudly. But otherwise, I think it would help. Living the dogma. That's right. OK, how about Kash Patel, Charles? Because the left...

are not fans. He, I mean, you, it'd be hard pressed to find somebody more loyal to Donald Trump than cash Patel, who really had a major hand in seeing through the Russia, Russia, Russia lies and calling them out and calling out the personalities who pushed the lies. Um, and he does have relevant experience to become head of the FBI.

but the left is pushing the claim by Bill Barr when Trump allegedly proposed him at the end of his first term saying, over my dead body, I think it was over my dead body, would I allow Kash Patel to take over the FBI? And he was the head of the DOJ at the time. So what do you make of Kash Patel as FBI director? All right, let me preface this. I am not a burn it down guy. I'm a conservative in a non-burn it down sense. A literal conservative, a small C conservative, I suppose. I don't want to burn things down. I think we need a lot of reform

in Washington. But by and large, burning things down is a bad idea. You don't know why the fence is standing, and so on and so forth. Second, preface point, I have criticized a lot of Donald Trump's nominees, some of whom I hope go down. Matt Gaetz, who won't be the nominee anymore. RFK Jr. ought to be voted down. I think probably Tulsi Gabbard, although I don't know enough about it. And definitely the Department of Labor nominee, who is a disaster on policy. Yeah.

I don't have a problem with this nomination. You know why? Because I think we need to abolish the FBI. I've done three podcasts on this with Andy McCarthy, and I've slowly convinced him more each time. I've written a piece, Abolish the FBI, about this. I think from its founding, it has been a big problem. It doesn't fit properly into our constitutional system of government. And I think culturally, it is probably irredeemable. That is not to say every FBI agent is bad news. Far from it. But it is just a disaster. And I can't think

of an organization that needs a wrecking ball, if that's what Kashmir Child turns out to be, more than that one. The encomia

to the FBI that I've heard over the last two days, coupled with the pretense that it's some independent organization that exists in the ether, that it's not responsible to the executive branch, a grotesque. All that professionalism, the lifelong bureaucrats in the FBI weren't like this. Good. I mean, you started off with J. Edgar Hoover, and the most recent disaster was James Comey.

This is not an institution that is fit for purpose. This is to extend or perhaps torture my Chesterton's fence analogy with which I started. This is a fence that is covered in spikes and mold and it's half fallen down and nobody knows what to do with it. And all the kids,

are trying to avoid it because they're worried of getting sick. It's a disaster. I'm fine with Kash Patel. Put him in there and let him do what he wants. This is the soundbite that must have reeled him in, Rich. Sat 11, Kash Patel and the Sean Ryan Show in September.

And the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its Intel shops. I'd break that component out of it. I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You're cops. Go be cops. Go chase down murderers.

and drug dealers and violent offenders. What do you need 7,000 people there for? Same thing with DOJ. What are all these people doing here? Looking for their next government promotion, looking for their next fancy government title, looking for their parachute out of government. So while you're bringing in the right people, you also have to shrink government. That's when Charlie's heart started to go a little flutter. I love it. I love it. I do. So I'm not a big counselor of historic figures, but

I don't get how that building is still named after J. Edgar Hoover, who in many ways is a symbol of FBI abuses rather than someone to be held up. I mean, if you just take the wiretapping of Martin Luther King alone and then the suicide package they sent to Martin Luther King showing everything they knew about his tomcatting.

around in the hopes that he killed himself. It's just, it's unbelievable that that building still named Hoover. So my point would just be, and this goes to a number of these cabinet picks, the lion's share of whom I think are great and I wholly endorse, is that even if you're going to wreck the place, even if you want a wrecking ball, the wrecker, to adopt that term,

has to really know what he's doing and really be an effective manager and be politically shrewd. And you're not going to be able to wreck the FBI without getting congressional buy-in. And Donald Trump did run his campaign against these institutions, but not with any specific vision to what he was going to do. If he just reformed the FBI in a radical way, that would be like a top five accomplishment in his second term. But what is it? Obviously, Cash has some ideas there.

But I tend to think they'll get confirmed because I think anyone who doesn't is not totally crazy the way I fear RFK might be or doesn't have ethical problems the way Matt Gaetz did and the way some of the reporting portrays Pete Hegseth is going to get through. Hegseth. Sorry, I always mess it up. I know, I hear that on the editors. That's why I tend to say Pete.

So I tend to think he'll get through. It's just with him and even Pam Bondi, you know, has a lot of law enforcement experience, right? Her resume is pretty good, but doesn't have a lot of federal experience. They're going to be resisted at every turn. And do they really, do they know what they're doing enough to defeat those people? That would be my concern. Do we have time for you to slightly disagree with Rich? Yeah, go for it. Okay.

I think that that is exactly correct with the vast majority of the bureaucracies in D.C. I certainly think it's true of the Department of Justice. I think it's probably true of the Department of Education. And if we wanted to go through labor, energy, commerce, transportation, they have so many moving parts and there's a certain policy expertise that is necessary to

for a reformer. I'm just not sure that one needs more insight into the FBI than we heard Kash Patel give in that clip. To me, those are the three problems. One is the intelligence gathering part of it. I think I'm right in saying Andy McCarthy agrees with me on that. I don't want to put words in his mouth. Another is that it just does not spend enough time, as Patel puts it, being caught.

and enforcing federal law in a really obvious way. And the third is that by having all of those people in that building rather than spreading them out, you are creating this bureaucratic climaculture that leads to people wanting to get into politics and their propinquity to...

Washington, D.C. and its institutions makes us a problem even more so. So I think that's enough. You know, when I listen to the vast majority of the people who want to smash things up talk, I think you'll fail for exactly the reasons that Rich outlines. It really does matter to have knowledge if you're a reformer. But with that one,

He's running essentially a very large police station. And I think that sending him in there would probably be refreshing. I have a thought.

Cash could do it for two years and see what he could get done. Or maybe this is the kind of job that wears people out. Maybe he won't do the full 10, which you're supposed to get. But then I do see as a potential number two, like a backup option if Cash wants out or if Pam Bondi decides to leave because these are very stressful jobs. I see your governor, Charlie Ron DeSantis, after he finishes his term as governor, as a great candidate.

who could step into either one of those roles who is totally on board with Trump's agenda, especially on the FBI. I've talked to him about it myself and would know how to get it done. I like cash. I hope he gets through. I'm just saying that like...

He's somebody who's in the wings because he's going to be term limited from running again and he could be of great help. What were you going to say? But that's a great example of someone who is exactly suited to some sort of task like that. He's been in Washington, right? He was a congressman. But he's been in Florida and run administrative agencies and brought bureaucracies to heel and used them to implement his vision

and his agenda. So you could slip them in there and whatever it is you want to do, there's a strong chance he'd make it happen. The worry I have with some of these people who are less experienced is they'll show up in the building and they'll never really even know enough to know what's going on. That's my fear. And experience is not, you know, experience can be a symptom of being overly complacent and too establishment and not creative or imaginative enough. Yes, but it can also be huge.

hugely important to getting the job done. And people accuse me of being, you know, a overly romantic Reaganite, but the greatest example of this at the Department of Justice was Ed Meese, who by the time he was working for Reagan in the California governor's office in the mid-60s had a

more experience in legal affairs than Matt Gaetz will ever have. You know, he was a prosecutor. I think he was teaching law. He was in private practice. And then he worked for Reagan. And what does he do? His whole task there is defeating the left's lawfare against Reagan and his agenda. Took a different form there, but then, but it still existed. And bringing the bureaucracies to heel. Then he's in the White House for the first term. What does he do? He's the White House counselor. It's all about bringing the democracy to heel.

the democracy is to heal. Then he shows up as a G and he transforms the place, transforms the place, historic attorney general. And he wouldn't have been able to do it without the, the experience. And, and someone like DeSantis, the experience would be a key thing too. I got to ask you about this, uh, soundbite, which is driving our friends on the left crazy today. This is cash Patel, uh, with Steve Bannon on the war room, sat 35.

Cash, I know you're probably going to be head of the CIA, but do you believe that you can deliver the goods on this in a pretty short order in the first couple of months so we can get rolling on prosecutions? Yes, we got the bench for it, Bannon, and you know those guys. I'm not going to go out there and say their names right now so the radical left-wing media can terrorize them.

Excuse me. The one thing we learned in the Trump administration the first go around is we got to put in all America patriots top to bottom. And we got them for law enforcement. We got them for intel collection. We got them for offensive operations. We got them for DOD, CIA, everywhere. We will.

go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. That they're going to come after people in the media who lied.

uh, to help Joe Biden rig the election in 2020, et cetera. I don't know what that means, Charlie. Uh, I'd love to ask him. We'll probably have mine and I'll get the chance at some point, but I don't know what that means exactly. But my, my overall thought when I heard it was you just like, you can't like, there's some things you can do, but what, what would be the specific cause of action? Like you even like tough talk on Bannon's war room is fine. It's one thing, but it's

you actually have, you cannot file a complaint that will survive one round of motion practice unless you have a colorable legal claim, criminal or civil, or it will be thrown out on the four corners of the document. So I need to know more before I can say whether that's bullshit or what it is. I don't know what he's talking about. Well, he's trying to impress Steve Bannon, which is his first mistake. He also repeated the lie that the 2020 election was rigged or stolen, which it wasn't.

The guy's a wrecking ball. I just want to wreck the FBI, so I'm happy to put him in there. But he's talking nonsense, and it's a good thing that he's talking nonsense. And in most circumstances, saying that sort of thing would be disqualifying in and of itself because he's effectively promising that the Trump administration will undermine the First Amendment. I mean, there's just no excuse in that. That is...

This is also a problem that that movement on the right has, Megan, which is that there are a bunch of podcasts. That's one of them. The incentive structure of which is essentially a killer for anyone who succumbs to it because they go on, they know what they're supposed to say, they know who's listening, and they push it too far. Mm-hmm.

And he did it there. This is the most foreseeable pitfall, I think, for Trump coming in. If he tries to do something like this, one, it will be an all-consuming controversy. Two, it will be unpopular. And three, as you point out, it will fail. So this is a totally foreseeable thing.

blind alley that he desperately needs to avoid. But there are things he's said that suggest he's interested in doing it and things that are being said on shows like that that suggest he should do it. And it's terrible advice.

Yeah, I don't see. I mean, like if you can show me the cause of action against a media person, there are certain things like defamation law you can use potentially. OK, let's see it. But short of that, there is no cause of action. What you can do is defund places like NPR and you should do that. That's not the FBI's job, but we should like Doge should be putting them at the top of the list. Only a hundred million dollars a year, but it's a hundred million dollars we shouldn't be spending.

You guys are the best. We did it sober. Thank you. We got some grammar lessons and learned a lot, as always. And I'm trying to learn how to say egg-seth. Egg-seth. Yeah, we will get Kamal Harris' little nieces out there. They're great at explaining pronunciations. Great to see you. Thank you.

All right. Coming up, our friend Marsha Clark, famous prosecutor, is here. And we're going to ask her about this Joe Biden pardon, as well as something happened in her neck of the woods. You know, she's obviously the OJ prosecutor in California. And there is a real question now about whether the Menendez brothers are about to get let out of jail. The prosecutor who was interested in it lost.

So what's going to happen now? That's next. There is an epidemic affecting two out of every three Americans, poor gut health, processed foods, stress at work, fluoride in the water, and even toxins in the air you breathe can overwhelm your digestive system. You might expect to feel the bloating and the heartburn, but the sleepless nights, afternoon crashes, even mood swings, these are all signs your gut may need some attention. While

While most probiotics get torn apart in your stomach acid, the spore-based strains in Just Thrive probiotic are clinically proven to arrive in your gut 100% alive, creating a fortress of good bacteria that can support digestion, immune system, and mental clarity.

Just Thrive probiotic is a non-GMO and gluten-free product, and you can choose between berry-flavored gummies or easy-to-swallow capsules. You can even open the capsule and mix the contents into your morning coffee or sprinkle it over your food. For over a decade, Just Thrive has been fighting to make Americans healthy again with science-backed solutions you can trust.

To join the gut health revolution, visit justthrivehealth.com and save 20% site-wide with promo code Megan. That's justthrivehealth.com, promo code Megan. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. The app shows whether you're burning fat or carbs and provides tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and stress management. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach.

All you have to do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning to understand your metabolism. Based on your measurements, lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals to get real-time insights with lumen providing tips to keep you on top of your health game.

Lumen can also track your cycle, adjusting its recommendations to maintain a healthy metabolism through hormonal shifts, helping you keep your energy levels up and stave off cravings. So if you want to stay on track with your health this holiday season, go to lumen.me and you will get

15% off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-N dot me slash Megan for 15% off your purchase. Lumen makes a great gift too. That's a thoughtful one that not everybody will be anticipating. I like it. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.

Life's chaotic. Cleaning shouldn't be. As America's trusted cleaning partner for over 100 years, Eureka has you covered with vacuums designed for every mess. Wet, dry, big or small. Check out Eureka vacuums on Walmart.com or visit your local Walmart store for great deals. Eureka. We work hard to make cleaning easy. 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.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan 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 Megan 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.

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply.

Some incredible legal news out of California recently. The Menendez brothers, who were convicted of murdering both of their parents some 30 plus years ago, may be getting out of jail. And of course, one of Hunter Biden's guilty verdicts he was pardoned for took place in California as well. Who better to talk to about all of this than the one and only Marsha Clark?

Marsha has a new book out as well. It's called Trial by Ambush, Murder, Injustice, and the Truth about the case of Barbara Graham. It was just released. This thing is amazing. It's a page turner. She goes deep into the sensational trial of Barbara Graham, who was the third woman executed at San Quentin in 1955. But she has found

a lot of facts about this case that will give you serious pause about whether this was a proper trial conviction, nevermind execution. Marsha, great to see you again. How are you? I'm Megan. I'm good. How are you doing? I'm awesome. All right, let's do some news of the day and then we'll talk about the book, which I really am fascinated by. Great job on this. Thank you. Menendez. So they, there's a bunch of new found sympathy for them based on this, you know, docudrama that was released, uh,

about them. And Gascon, who was the outgoing DA, decided to throw a Hail Mary pass to Los Angeles voters not to vote him out by saying, I'm going to let them out, or I'm now in favor of resentencing, basically letting him out. They're supposed to be serving life in prison, but he lost. So now there's a new DA, Nathan, is it Hochman? Hochman?

I think it's Hockman Hockman. Well, whatever he's coming in. Yeah. I don't know how Nathan feels about the Menendez brothers, but I know the judge has moved this resentencing hearing, which is basically should they get out of jail to January 30th. So what do we think is likely to happen?

It's a good guess. I mean, it's only a guess. I don't have any inside knowledge. I should just start by saying that. I was in the office when the first trial happened, but I had nothing to do with it. We all had our own cases, so I can't say I know more than the average person. My guess is it will...

I can't make a guess. I don't know. You know, we have what they would do. I don't hold it against you. Yeah. I don't hate predicting. I don't think they're going to get out. I don't think this is going to happen. I don't think anybody was that impressed with Gascon's position. As you know, he lost.

Hockman actually kind of chided him for making this Hail Mary play in the midst of the election when he was like double digits down and very suspiciously comes up with this big, you know, big parade about, oh, the poor Menendez brothers. I wonder if people are thinking at all about the fact that there are others in prison serving a sentence of life without, which is what they're serving. That means life without the possibility of parole. Who are

who are much less culpable. I have clients that are serving life without parole right now who never killed anyone. So it does make me think...

Now, wait a minute. You know, I know that their defense was and everybody should know this. I know, you know, Megan, but just to underline it for the audience, the defense is not, oh, daddy boink me and mommy wouldn't stop him. So I get to kill him. It wasn't that the defense was, you know, daddy threatened to kill me. I believe he was going to kill me, even if you think I'm unreasonable in thinking that I genuinely believe it because of things he said and did toward the end.

That was their defense. It sold very well in the first trial, well enough to hang the jury pretty solidly. In the second trial, not so much because there was much less of the defense evidence of abuse. Make of it what you will, the second jury... And the second jury was already comprised of some people who were probably a little pissed off that the first jury didn't convict. So I think that tells you something about the climate even back then. And today...

You know, today, now you have balancing forces. You have a greater awareness of abuse, child abuse and the kind of trauma it inflicts. And we are, I think, are more sensitive to that. And that's a good thing. But you have to remember that that's not a license to kill. So.

And when you think about are they just getting this because they're celebrities, because they were rich kids, because, you know, Kim Kardashian was there. He was their champion to some extent. Yeah. I don't know that people love that. So I think all of that, unfortunately, is going to come into play, which it shouldn't. It should be a straight up call for the judge in terms of balancing all of the equities. But, you know, I guess we'll see what happens.

It's so good to talk to you because I talked to your partner in crime. He's not really, you just come on together sometimes. Mark Garagos, I know he's a friend and you guys grew up in the California legal system together. And of course he's representing them and is 100% on the other side and came on and totally convinced me that they should be let out. Now I hear you talk. I'm like, ah, no, these are good points.

Well, we'll wait and see what the judge does. But you heard it here. Marsha Clark, one of the best, says don't bet on it. And then getting out. Garagos said they'd be home with him for Thanksgiving dinner. Now, that didn't happen. It's not going to be Christmas dinner.

Oh boy. Now we're shooting for like Valentine's day or Easter. Okay. Let's talk about this book. Um, cause this is a great idea. First of all, how did you even think to write this book? Again, it's called trial by ambush, murder, injustice, and the truth about the case of Barbara Graham. I never heard of Barbara Graham. Um, so how did you even think to write about her?

Good question. So I was actually thinking about writing about someone else. And I had been thinking about writing a true crime book for a long time. I've been handling appellate cases for the defense court appointed cases for 15 years, 16 years now. And I kind of thought I handle true crime every day. Really? I'm going to write a book.

But then it kind of, I warmed to the idea as I thought, well, it would be nice to take a deep dive and tell the story and look back at, you know, what they did and how they did it and why they did it. And was the verdict correct? You know, it would be so interesting to look at it from a different point of view. And I was investigating a totally different case. And that case I was looking at initially turned out to be just another monster in the closet, kind of a, you know, another bizarro freakish person, a woman, right?

But, you know, that's not enough. If I'm going to go and do a true crime story, I want it to be about something. I want it to be about some principles and something that resonates in today's world. And I just happened to see a footnote that mentioned Barbara Graham. I thought, let's look. She was executed as well. Let's look and see what happened to her.

So when I first saw it and I saw that it was kind of its own trial of the century back in 1953, there was a book written about it. Actually, another book, the one I recommend, Proof of Guilt by Kathleen Cairns, which does mention the Barbara Graham case, doesn't go into it a lot because it's a book about the death penalty, but it didn't go into the trial. And I thought, well, there's probably been a ton written about it. I'm not going to bother. You know, I don't want to go on that tread ground that's already been trodden to death. But then.

As I looked into it, I discovered, well, people hadn't really written about it. There was a lot of press coverage back in the day. I mean, a ton, a ton. But the coverage was this breathless media kind of tabloid coverage that spared no word in the thesaurus for the way she looked, her hair, her makeup, her clothes. And it was ridiculous.

And I thought, wait a minute, maybe there's something here. And then I start to read all of the articles that were there and they're short. There's a one here and one there. And then there's a book that, okay, that's it. That probably did it for me. I won't write about it. Turns out to be a book written by one of the tabloid reporters that was out after Barbara on the war path from day one. And he collaborated with the prosecutor. I thought, okay,

I don't know that this is going to be so unbiased. And as I read the book, I realized it's got a lot of stuff in there that can't be true. So I thought, okay, maybe- When I'm looking at her, as you're talking and we're showing the pictures of Barbara, and you point this out, obviously this is the main theme of the book, but you look at Barbara Graham and the first thing you notice is she's stunningly attractive. And what I am thinking about is, I've told the audience this before, but when the Anna Nicole Smith case went up to the US Supreme Court, it was on-

it was on bankruptcy. It was on, um, uh,

uh, probate law, Marsha. It was on probate law and whether she should get, you know, the, the money from her dead, very elderly husband. And no one gives a damn about probate law. I had been at the U S Supreme court covering a lot of very, very boring cases and nobody flooded the courtroom, no media, but in Nicole Smith showed up that day and she looked amazing. She lost all this weight. She had this great black outfit on. It was like, she came in and everybody was like, and suddenly everybody want to know about probate law and Barbara Graham. Yeah.

had a similar star factor, even though she wasn't a star, but they'd never seen the likes of this kind of a person at a murder trial.

Right. It was especially back in the 50s, the juxtaposition of this beautiful woman charged with this really heinous crime. And the crime is heinous because it was a home invasion, robbery, murder of this elderly woman, totally innocent and was only even targeted because they believed that her son in law, who was a big casino entrepreneur, tutor sharer, would come and visit her from Las Vegas and leave money with her in a safe. So they targeted her.

thinking that they were going to find a bonanza in her house. But they also knew she was very security conscious. She was a vaudeville trooper who traveled the world and was not used to having a house, and she kept it locked down all the time. And they knew that there's no way she would open the door to a man, so they needed a lure, and that was Barbara. She was petite. She was beautiful. She knew how to say, I'm sorry, my car broke down. Can I use your phone, please? And, of course,

Mabel Monaghan, the innocent victim, let her in. And then the men followed Barbara into the house. And that was that. And so this juxtaposition of the beauty and then the two beasts that were flanking her, which were the masterminds, the actual masterminds of this case, were thugs and mass murderers. And none of it fit together. None of it made any sense. And

And I realized that, you know, the only way to get the truth of this, because the press was not reliable, the book that I found was not reliable, I have to get the trial transcripts. That's the only way to know the truth about this. And that was its own journey, hunting down, you know, a case where it was over 70 years old, wound up getting lucky with people who were willing to help and advise me that death penalty cases, you should, I should know this, having handled them, transcripts for a death case are never destroyed. They are kept forever.

And so we went to the archives and sure enough, it took months, but I got them all 4,000 plus pages of them. So, yeah. But then you, you were horrified by a couple of things you found. And one that will be interesting to the audience is you and she had similar experiences with the media and the way you were being portrayed in the way they were portraying her. Can you explain that? Yeah. I mean, no. And yes. Yeah.

Yes, because it's again, it's almost like a man bites dog situation. When you see a woman doing something you're not accustomed to seeing a woman do, whether it's violent murder or being a prosecutor in a high profile case, which seems ridiculous to me, which is why I'm laughing, because there were so many female prosecutors at that time that were handling high profile cases. And yet the world was not aware of that. They were not aware that this is a pretty common thing, even in the 90s, as of the 90s. That's not what you saw on the TV shows.

Yes, exactly right. You saw Law and Order, you know, it's always a man, a white man. This time it wasn't. And it was really all those crime shows, every crime show, you know, growing up in the 70s and 80s, it was always a male prosecutor.

Absolutely right. Absolutely. So that was something unusual. But if anything, really, Megan, I've got to say, reading Barbara's coverage made me feel like, boy, and people thought I had it bad. That was nothing compared to what Barbara's put through. And it was it was wildly inaccurate as well. I mean, in my case, it was, too. But I remember specifically seeing a picture of her when her ex-husband walked in the courtroom and it was it was expected that he was going to back her alibi.

And then it was expected that he would, he might not. So he came into the courtroom. It was a bombshell. And she was looking over her shoulder. They described it in the press, her malevolent glare, her eyes, two pools of gleaming, vicious hatred. She was looking over her shoulder. That's all she was doing. There was absolutely nothing about her expression that said anything like that.

She was set up to fail very clearly by a media that was selling a bunch of copy based on these descriptions of her. And, but the most, this isn't just Marsha Clark, who's sympathetic, empathetic to her, a female victim or not a victim, but in a way she was a victim. This is, you actually found

testimonials, well, one in particular, a letter by the key, one of the key perpetrators that did not match up with his trial testimony at all. And it wasn't turned over to the defense. It's exculpatory evidence not turned over to the defense. And

Okay, wait, you got to hear more on this. Again, it's called Trial by Ambush, Murder, Injustice, and the Truth About the Case of Barbara Graham, out now on Amazon and other booksellers. The good thing about this book,

is it's not everywhere. It's not being pushed everywhere. So if you have a family member who's into true crime, knows Marsha maybe, is a fan, watched the OJ trial, whatever, this is a great gift because people won't see it coming. You know, they'll be like, oh, this is such, and I'm telling you, this is a riveting story. Like who's ever heard of this woman? She meets a very dark ending, which is, you know, we've kind of shown you, but how she got there and Marsha's deconstruction of the case is a page turner. So Marsha, tell us about this testimony that you found.

So this was amazing. When the case was first being investigated, they wound up having to arrest Barbara and Jack Santos and Emmett Perkins before they really could make a case against them because no one was talking. And without some, they had no physical evidence. They had no eyewitness. They had no outside person. Someone on the inside had to break.

Eventually, they wound up breaking John True, who was a member of this team that went in to the home invasion robbery and committed this heinous crime. John True had no record. He was a deep sea diver, but he was no cherry. And they found him and they sweated him for, I think, almost three days in jail and eventually even brought in some friends to try and beat him down and talk to them. You've got to give us a statement because they can't make a case without him. And they did.

Ultimately, he said, I will not talk unless you give me full immunity for all charges. I walk out the door. And he even got the DA himself to get on the phone to promise it. And the DA did. They then went up, they flew up to take his statement with a stenographer. This is an official statement, 42 pages long, where they questioned him about the crime. He gives a halting version of it where they have to pry it out of him, like with pliers. But they get it. He makes a statement. And that statement,

should have been turned over to the defense immediately. That is one of those things that just even back then, even in the 50s, you must turn over the statement of a key witness who is also an accomplice of, for God's sake, you couldn't get more important than that. They never did. They

They hit it. They pretended it was just a hi, how are you, meet and greet kind of thing. And you know that they never turned it over because the defense talked about it in their closing argument. You know, I don't know what they said. I don't know why they said it. But, you know, we're not going to we don't have to worry about that because there was nothing to it. And the prosecution went along with that.

and deliberately hid that statement. And it was key because that accomplices credibility was everything to the case, everything. If you can't make the jury believe him, you have absolutely nothing. So it was a real horrible thing, even though there were some respects, in some respects it was consistent, but in many it was inconsistent. It was enough, I think, for a jury to say, I'm not sure I believe this guy.

They hid that. But that's not all they did. I mean, there were all kinds of shenanigans, some of which were legal back then, but they were pushing the envelope. And I think that was part of my issue with this, which is a shocker to me. I went into this thinking very excited because the lead prosecutor was a

an icon in the DA's office, somebody I revered. We all did. We all did. It was a joke in the DA's office. Oh, if we lost a case, oh, Jay Miller Levy could have won it. Oh, you know, he would have won it. He was an amazing, he, he tried Carol Chessman, uh, the red light bandit. Um,

rapist, all these famous cases. And so he was the lead prosecutor in this case. And I was expecting, anticipating the excitement of watching the icon in action. And what I found was a cheap shot artist. What I found was somebody who pushed the envelope in ways that was even a federal judge said was unseemly and horrifyingly personal in his attack.

misogynistic. Yeah, I guess you could call it that too, but it was much worse than just that. He went after her in a personal way that unfairly maligned her. And prosecutors, you know, have a duty that goes above and beyond the client. A defense attorney owes only his client, a prosecutor owes a fair trial and owes it to the jury to present a case in a fair way.

in an even-handed way. That is the gig. And so you have to be careful of stepping over the line. It's one thing that you can say, well, I can, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. And you have to always think about what's right and what's fair. And I don't think they were thinking about that at all in this case.

She was double-crossed by a couple of people during the course of the trial, including a jailhouse informant. This guy, John True, was treated like his word was inviolate without knowing that he had said a very different story that would have been much more helpful to her had her defense lawyer known of it. And in the end, she was convicted of murdering this poor woman. Meanwhile, you don't deny that she took

place, took part in the crime, that she was the person to get her to open the door, but that she, there was absolutely no reason to believe that she could have beaten her to death. I mean, basically that's what happened. And she was this petite, tiny little woman. And you point out that she was accused of pistol whipping her, but even the main witness said she had left the gun in the car. So it does seem like

They were frothing at the mouth to get this beautiful woman. It was just too good a story, no matter how not credible the main witness was. So then it takes an even darker turn. She gets sentenced to death. I mean, it's like one thing to get the verdict wrong. It's bad enough to be, you know, to get that wrong. But then she gets sentenced to death.

And they put her in the gas chamber. So much so, like so horrifying that they made a movie out of this. You point this out called I Want to Live. And this is from 1958. It featured actress Susan Hayward playing Barbara. And here, viewer warning, it's disturbing. It's the execution scene. But here's a bit of that. Barbara, I'm very sorry. Goodbye and God bless you. I don't want a mask.

A mask? I don't want to look at people. I want to see them staring at me. I have one. When you hear the pellets drop, count 10. Take a deep breath. It's easier that way. How do you know? It's crazy. It's pretty bold to have a film like that in 1958. You know what's interesting about it, Megan? What?

People who saw the film back then and even now are aware that it was a thing. The film was largely fiction. They really whitewashed Barbara to an extent that was a little absurd. She was not an angel, but she certainly wasn't a demon. She was a misdemeanor kind of person.

Check Heider, you know, Dice Girl. She was never violent in her life. But the one thing about that film that was acknowledged by all sides, including police, to be absolutely accurate, was that execution scene. They did it down to the letter. And in the book, I actually...

liberally quote from the testimony of the nurse who spent the night with her before she was executed and talked about everything that happened up to the execution. And the reason that we got into that is even after her death, the prosecutors still were going after her to try and claim that she had

done a last minute confession, which wasn't true. So there was no end. They, I mean, they chased her into the gas chamber and then continued to go after her. It was pretty horrifying. It was like the, they had to have a notch in the belt. It went beyond seeking justice. That's, that's something else.

So she didn't, there was no last minute confession, but there was a very interesting statement to one of the priests who was with her. And for that, you will have to read Marsha's book and you will be glad you did. It's called Trial by Ambush, Murder, Injustice, and the Truth about the Case of Barbara Graham. Marsha, great to see you. I guess before you go, parting words, do you support the sweeping pardon of Hunter Biden? What?

He said he wasn't going to do that. Didn't he say he wasn't going to pardon him? What he did. I have nothing. I have nothing. You know, I mean, do we need this? Really? Do we need this? I mean, now there's been so much criticism of Trump's pardons for so many for others. You know, how can we say that either side is blameless now? Who do we look at? I don't get it. And after you said you wouldn't, I don't.

Yeah. No, I don't think he should. That's what needs to happen. You need to run for governor and set things right in California. And then maybe after that, you can take on the national problem many years from now. We'd love to see it. You know how short my campaign would be, Megan? Five seconds. Five seconds. Yeah, I hate it. That's it. OK, bye.

Great to see you. Thank you for being here. Thanks for having me. Don't forget, check it out. Trial by Ambush by Marsha Clark. Thanks to all of you for listening. Coming up tomorrow, the guys from the fifth column return. That's always fun. Don't miss it. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.