B (5:42)

Great to be back with you, Megan. Thanks for having me.

A (5:44)

Great to see you. So Tucker's documentary on this shooter, Thomas Crooks, was must see TV. It's only 34 minutes. People can watch it very quickly. He dropped it Thursday. I encourage everybody to go and watch it. And what happened was somebody, according to Tucker, leaked him some leads on this shooter that had never before been unearthed. And we don't know whether they'd been unearthed even by the FBI. And that's a big question. Does the FBI have this stuff and just didn't tell us or did the FBI not have any of it? Tucker has outlined this guy's social media use, which was deeply disturbing and pointed to this guy being very right wing. Up until January 2020, he was defending Trump. He was very pro Trump. He also, this is not the right wing part, happened to be racist. It sounded, he was making some, you know, very racially charged posts. And then in January of 2020 it was like a 180 and he started to sound much more like a far left progressive activist. And, and it escalated more and more and more over time. And I'm going to read you some of these. Okay, so it started with him with posts such as blah, blah, blah. Okay, science, this is July 2019 in response to an MSNBC video. Science wins. Signs wins. You can't. Not only I'm trying to, this doesn't make sense, but it says not only was he born here, he also belongs here. Ilhan Omar and others are invaders he wrote and should honestly be killed and their dead bodies sent back then Tucker highlights a series of increasingly violent rhetoric used in these texts. July 20, 2019 said Donald Trump was the literal definition of patriotism. Seven hours later says I hope a quick painful death to all the deplorable immigrants and anti Trump congresswoman who don't deserve anything this country has given them. That evening a separate post. Every one of the Trump hating Democrats deserve to have their heads chopped off. Put on stakes for the world to see what happens when you fuck with America. This continued for months and became increasingly violent in tone. There was one about the squad saying this will be blatantly racist, but I hope Trump has these people murdered. I think Tucker's showing us not only that he used to be pro Trump, as he explicitly said, but very, very violent rhetoric that would generally get you on the radar of the FBI, given the officials that he was threatening. In one comment, he notes 50 million Americans with AR15s will make quick work of any blockades the government can put to protect the White house. September of 19 Most rioters don't bring assault rifles and body armor like we would. And we wouldn't be going to the streets, we'd be going to Washington. I mean it's getting more and more violent. So again you're thinking the FBI keeps tabs on some of these things, but maybe, maybe not. Crooks responds in another text saying cops can't arrest me if they're all dead. Adding even an untrained man with an AR15 is dangerous. You think the Newtown school shooter or any school shooter trained? Nope. And by the way, Tucker reports that that last exchange is still on the Internet available. But the FBI didn't see that, he argues. He's. He asks. That's hard to believe that they didn't see it. He starts attacking Robert Mueller in July of 2019. He should be hanged with the rest of the Democrats. This is a witch hunt and so on. Then okay, there's a shot at Jews. And then as of 01-23-2020 he seems to change radically, reports Tucker. Having seen the social media he refers to quote Trump's stupidity, he began to mock the concept of the deep state. It's simply made up to on anyone who disagrees with the right wing conversation over he in February 2020 called out Trump supporters as quote too brainwashed to realize how dumb they are. Same day he called them racist. People are just racist and Trump is one of them. In April of 2020, peak phase of the Corona virus lockdown. Sometimes public safety comes before your personal rights. Crook became very critical of conservative media. Viruses don't spread through race. Just like Tucker Carlson probably told you four months later August of 2020 writes in my opinion the only way to fight the government is with terrorism style attacks. Sneak a bomb into an essential building, set it off before anyone sees you, track down any important people or politicians, military leaders and try to assassinate them. Any sort of head to head fight is suicidal. Even ambush or surprise attacks likely aren't going to end well. That was prophetic. And then Tucker introduces this at this point after around August of 2020 someone who goes by Willie Tepes T E P E S online introduces himself into the crooks conversation. He started pressuring crooks to commit violence. For example quote if a gun and a badge is all that's needed then then authority obviously comes from that barrel of the gun. We have more guns than they do. There is no way we can avoid a war at this point, so you better just get used to it. We have nothing to lose and everything to win. In another post, the alternative. A global police state is unacceptable. Nothing in life is simple. But that is no argument against doing it. Here's a bit from the Tucker documentary on Willie Tepes.

B (11:16)

At that point, a new character emerged into the conversation, a user named Willie Tepes, who started pressuring crooks to commit violence. For example, quote, if a gun and a badge is all that is needed, then authority obviously comes from the barrel of a gun. We have more guns than they do. There is no way we can avoid a war at this point. So you better just get used to the idea we have nothing to lose and everything to win. And the alternative, A global police state is unacceptable. Nothing in life is simple, but that is no argument against doing it. We do know, however, that Crooks online footprint abruptly ends after his encounter with this mysterious figure, Willie Tepes. Regardless, whoever Willie Tepes is or was and what his motives may have been, who he may have been working for, there is no doubt that Crooks was ripe for recruitment by someone.

A (12:09)

Okay, Glenn, after that long intro, forgive me for taking so long on it. What do you make of it? Because the FBI is now on defense, trying to defend the breadth of its investigation, trying to suggest they've done everything one would want them to do, and disputing that Thomas Crooks had much of an online footprint, though they're not specifically denying that these are his.

B (12:33)

I think that's the main question. Right? I mean, we spent many years very critical of the deep state of the FBI, of the CIA, for their secrecy, for the refusal to inform the American people what we have a right to know of their propagandistic deceit of everybody for political ends. And there was a promise that when, you know, the Trump administration got elected and Dan Bongino and Cash Patel were in the FBI, everything was going to change. And now we're left about one of the most consequential news events that we have, which is this, you know, attempted assassination on President Trump's life that almost succeeded. We have to be. We're relying on Tucker Carlson or Miranda Devine and the New York Post to piece together little bits and pieces about what they've been able to determine. We don't know how much else there is in the FBI's possession that might affect the picture or change the picture. And yet we learned more about Thomas Crooks in the last week from Tucker and then from the New York Post than we have in the last 10 months since the Trump administration was inaugurated. Why is that? Why? Why haven't they told us about Thomas Crooks? There's no trial. He's dead. They've denied that there's any conspiracy, that he worked with anybody, so there's no legal proceeding to impede. Why are they keeping all that a secret? Why won't they even say if they have this or what else they have? I think that's what we ought to be demanding.

A (13:50)

Totally agree. This is very odd that just now Tucker comes out with this information. Miranda Devine, I don't know. I have no idea, Glenn. My suspicion is that Tucker dropped this bomb on Thursday. The FBI was defending itself, you know, over the weekend, since Thursday, and then Miranda Devine gets a big scoop on Monday. Do not have anything to back this up other than my suspicion that the FBI probably provided this data to Miranda. That's my guess, because she just has excellent sources inside the government. And to me, this almost seems like a head fake, almost like look over here instead of at what Tucker did. Because it's just too coincidental that, as you point out, we've had nothing on this guy. Nothing. And now suddenly two big information dumps. Tucker's. He's being honest about exactly where he got it. Then comes this stuff about he's a furry. You tell me, why would the government not have shared that? Like, truly, why wouldn't the FBI have been sharing that, the furry thing with us? Because this FBI did share that around the Nashville shooter, you know, the young woman who is identifying as male, whereas Biden's FBI wouldn't. But this FBI did share those facts about that shooter. This FBI did share those facts about the Charlie shooter. So I'm a little confused as to what may be going on behind the scenes.

B (15:16)

Why? And also in terms of the political trajectory that Tucker outlined, and that was great reporting because it took you along the way on this political path that this shooter seemed to have traversed by virtue of analyzing his online footprint from going from somebody on the far right, you know, ranting a raving against Halil and Omar and Rashida Tlaib and the squad need to be murdered and immigrants need to be murdered, you know, to something that resembles some. Someone more on the left, very critical of Trump for his handling of COVID by not taking seriously enough and other kinds of progressive rhetoric. I mean, it could be that at the end of the day, this is just a very confused person, could be a nihilist. But why. Why don't we have this information in our possession? This is also something you would think Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi and the Trump administration would want the public to know. In other words, you could accuse them of acting politically. If the person were a conservative or on the right just thought President Trump wasn't conservative enough, maybe you could say, well, they're on the right. They didn't wanna have somebody on the right be blamed. But what about all the reporting that undercuts that and that suggests that he had a different ideology? What possible motive do they have for hiding that? And you know, I do think that we have to be careful about embracing conspiracy theories. But the reason people do so is because of behavior like this. You know, Tucker's asking the question, did he go and get trained at the gun range by anybody who was this person online who seemed to be targeting him? How is it possible the FBI didn't know about him beforehand given how explicit these violent threats were? And when you have the FBI hiding information and refusing to answer those basic questions, of course conspiracy theories are going to emerge in that because that's how trust and faith by the American public is lost in these institutions.

A (17:03)

The clear implication in my view of Tucker's piece is that the guy was recruited by somebody to conduct this horrific act. And maybe it began with this character who goes by Willie Tepes. Maybe it was, maybe somebody else. Tucker goes on to report that the FBI has made no, no mention of this Tepes guy in public, though they certainly know he exists. He reports. He goes on to say, just days after the shooting, Somebody screenshotted Tepes's YouTube page despite the fact that he had very few followers. And they said you can now find this guy's username being used on a foreign antifa website. He also reports that Thomas Crooks online footprint abruptly ends after his encounter with this mysterious figure, Willie Tepes. So he seems to me to be clearly implying that perhaps Willie Tepes recruited crooks for someone, alerted someone that this is a hothead who's got, you know, some mental problems and is prone to violence. And where did it go for there? One of the things Tucker pointed out in this documentary is they cremated his body and it was done, I think 10 days after he died, thus getting rid of any chance to do any follow up testing on drugs in the system, etc. And he's suggesting that seems awfully quick on a guy you knew was attempting to assassinate the likely next President of the United States. I don't know, Glenn. This whole thing stinks. I mean, Susan Crabtree, who I really trust. She reports for Real Clear Politics and she covers the Secret Service for them. She's totally above board reporter. And she responded as follows. Crooks was on YouTube threatening to kill government officials and he was called out for it by another user. Which is true, she says why didn't the FBI find these posts? Why hasn't this ever been released? Why don't we know who that user is who called him out? That person should at least be considered a hero, she says. And then she writes, the FBI was stonewalling Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Rand Paul's staff as of the one year anniversary of Butler. This is her story. Like she's the one who broke all the big news on the Secret Service around Butler. And she says the FBI was stonewalling two Senate offices as of the one year anniversary of Butler. Both Senate offices stated one of those offices said the Trump FBI was at first cooperating this spring and even had a briefing with Senate staffers on Crooks and on Butler, et cetera, but then abruptly stopped doing so, which earned a triple exclamation point for me in my notes. Glenn, that something's hap. Something's going on here. It's not that I don't trust Cash and Dan, it's that I think they have something that for whatever reason they feel strongly they cannot tell us.

B (20:06)

Right. But that is sort of a metric of trust. Whether the people in government do what people in government have long done, which is hide information from the American public and feed us a story that's untrue because they somehow think it's for the greater good that we be deceived or kept in the dark, when in a democracy we're actually supposed to know that these things and be treated like adults and we're not supposed to have information kept from us or they're protecting something that doesn't deserve protection. And let's just be very explicit about this. The last time there was a president who was murdered and Trump came extremely close, it's not like this was a fake assassination attempt or one. Right. It was like a millimeter away from blowing his head off. The last time that happened to a president, a president who has his head blown off was John F. Kennedy. And because of the secrecy around that, because of the lack of, of candor in our institutions, because of the bizarre way that the Warren Commission was constituted, where they had the head of the CIA and others who were the suspects and the minds of a lot of people on that commission decreeing the truth. Seventy years later, people still suspect that our government might have had some role in that. And when someone like President Trump, who was so hated by many factions inside the government, particularly the deep state, as he himself and his movement has long maintained, and I certainly have as well, comes very close to having their head blown off in a way that suggests at least malfeasance on the part of those who are supposed to be protecting him, if not worse. Then people do start wondering, was there the involvement of government agencies or foreign or domestic ones? And that's a natural curiosity to have. The problem is that gets exacerbated when the FBI does what it's doing in this case, which is not just stonewalling us, but even the elected members of our Congress, ones from the Republican Party, who can't be accused of acting politically or with a motive to get Trump. So to the extent their behavior is now under suspicion, they really have no one but themselves to blame. And we need an explanation, like, why is this information being hidden? What are the answers to these questions?

A (22:06)

Yes, why? Like, why can't they come out and say, we knew about these accounts. We haven't released everything. You know, it's an ongoing investigation, whatever they want to say. But, like, yes, we knew about the accounts, or no, we didn't know about the accounts. This is all new and interesting information that seems like a basic. Like, that doesn't seem like too big a risk because the investigation, of course, as you point out, it should be over. It really should be over. The guy's dead. There's no trial that's happening here. But Cash Patel put out the following. Just want to clarify. I said Tucker's podcast hit Thursday. It was teased on Thursday. It hit Friday. Just for those who want to go back and watch it. And then on November 14th. So wait, what was Friday? And I pull up my dates. Friday was the 14th. And later that night on the 14th, Kash Patel tweeted. It's long, but I'll give you the highlights. There were over 480 FBI employees involved in this investigation. They conducted over 1,000 interviews, addressed over 2,000 public tips, analyzed data from 13 seized digital devices, reviewed nearly 50. No, 500,000 digital files collected, process synchronized hundreds of hours of video footage, analyzed financial activity from 10 different accounts, examined data associated with 25 social media or online forum accounts, examined over 20 online accounts around the possibility of Thomas Crooks. He's not necessarily saying that it was his. Data extracted from over a dozen electronic devices. Examination of numerous financial accounts, over 1,000 interviews for him, around him. I mean, the investigation and then he goes on to repeat himself and finally says, all this revealed, crooks had limited online and in person interactions, planned and conducted the attack alone, and did not leak or share his intent to engage in the attack with anyone. And then, interestingly, Eric Trump, who in his book Under Siege and separately has been publicly casting doubt on this investigation, so saying, I don't know why we know so little about this guy. Crooks. I know it's suspicious to me, responded to Kash Patel same night saying, thank you, Cash Patel and Dan Bongino. This is good to see. That's weird too. Like, I don't know, it sounds a little perfunctory. It sounds like there was a coordination. This is just my complete speculation, unsupported, for the record, that they've reached a determination on why it's not in anybody's interest to say more. And, and they've convinced Eric Trump of that fact. And then your mind goes to, well, what, what could that be like? Who could possibly have been behind it? Right. A foreign government with whom we don't want a war. Someone who, it's better like, let's just totally speculation, not, not supported. Let's say it's China, you know, and even President Trump, he's trying to have a good relationship with China. It doesn't make anybody's life better. Life better for us to declare war with China and go into some sort of extended foreign policy, you know, stiff arm of China, China. This is completely speculative. There is no evidence it was China. But I'm just saying there could be a situation like that where they know something that they think net Net justifies not sharing any of this. Hugo.

B (25:16)

I don't think there is such a. I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong in your speculation that they're thinking that way. I don't think there is, however, a justification, no matter what. So let's just remember two things. First of all, the only conceivable justification for not releasing information to the public that they have in their possession about who this person was and what motiv to them was is whether there's an ongoing investigation, meaning they're still trying to figure out whether he worked with anyone else, individuals, groups, organizations, foreign countries. In other words, a conspiracy. But they're affirmatively stating that's not the case. They're saying that nobody recruited him, nobody trained him, nobody worked with him. He was a lone wolf. He was a lone actor. They're not being silent about that. They're affirmatively saying that. So once they say that there is no more excuse to withhold information that they have about the shooter from the public, because there's no investigation to jeopardize. The other thing that I find very disturbing, Megan and Tucker alluded to this in his report, is that throughout 2024, we were constantly hearing leaks at the same time that there were a lot of people trying to agitate for a war with Iran, that the Iranian government was behind these assassination. APPLAUSE that the Iranian government was trying to assassinate Trump. And anybody who knows President Trump knows that if you want to provoke him into a military conflict with the country, all you have to do is tell him that that country is behind an effort to try and kill you. And that's even more so once a bullet whizzes past your head and comes very close to ending your life. Were those claims true? Were they fabricated to try and lure him and our country into another war? We know that he did bomb Iran, but not nearly as much as people would have liked. But he still did bomb it. That's why there's a lot of important questions surrounding this. And while it may be true that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and others in the government think it's somehow best that, like children, we just not be exposed to unpleasant facts, that's not how our country is supposed to work. Absent some extremely compelling reason, namely protecting the innocent or exposing sources or impeding an investigation, none of what they're saying is true. We have an absolute right to these answers.

A (27:20)

Yeah, we do. We have a right to them. That's. That's the galling part. We do have a right to them. This is our country. Like anybody who's running the country or, you know, whether it's at the Congressional level or even in the White House is temporary. They're there temporarily, and we're grateful for their service. But it's our country and we have a right to know. We have future generations who are going to run for these offices who should know what the risks are, who should know who our enemies are. You know, it's. There's all sorts of reasons why these things are in the public eye and in the public interest, and we deserve disclosure on them. As you point out, the JFK assassination happened before we were either one of us was born. And still. Still, you can't go 12 months without having big breaking news on that assassination. I do want to spend a minute on the Miranda Devine reporting from the New York Post. She writes as follows. Thomas Crooks appears to have been interested in, quote, furries for the listening audience. I think we know what this is now, but just in case, you know, we have new people. A furry is like a person who identifies as some sort of animal and they wear animal costumes. They're like half human, half animals and it's a sexual fetish. For most, I suppose there's some small contingent for whom it does not have a sexual element. But the overall overwhelming number of people who consider themselves a furry have this link to like kink and fetish websites and it is an offshoot of the trans movement. They're very closely linked and it happens to have been the main thing of the boyfriend of Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter. His alleged shooter was a guy named Tyler Robinson and he was living with and dating a trans identified furry. And now we find out. Thomas Crooks, the Trump attempted assassin, appears to have been interested in furries and was exploring gender identity. Per the New York Post, he described himself with the pronouns they, them on the platform DeviantArt, which is one of the biggest online hubs for furry art and the furry community. Two accounts linked to the Crooks primary email were found on DeviantArt under usernames EPIC, Microwave and the Pick Microwave. The account suggests he had an obsession with scantily clad cartoon characters sporting muscle bound male bodies and female heads. This is sick. But if true, part of a pattern. Now Glenn, I mean I talked about the Nashville school shooter and then we saw it wasn't a furry, but it was a trans with the Minneapolis school shooter, the Charlie Cook shooter and his lover into the transferry culture. And now Thomas Crooks, the guy accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump into furry culture. And the trans thing. I'm sorry, look, I know a lot of the audience is going to be saying that's, that's a cover, right? Like they're dangling the shiny thing over here. And I'm open minded to that totally, but I'm really open minded to it being totally true as well because we've seen it time and time again. And why are we only learning about that right now?

B (30:34)

Well, I mean, I think that's a question for the FBI. And this is the thing, you know, I think we have to be a little bit careful just because I, I don't know if you saw, but it was like a week ago, Bill Maher had on his show a couple of guests who are more or less his generation and they were trying to talk about Nick Fuentes and they were talking about Grapers and they were like, what is it? They could, they barely knew what it was they like trying to explain it. Their explanation was it just sounded like an old person trying to describe young Internet culture in a way that was very embarrassing. These, this, like, online ethos and culture, it's. It's almost like a chicken and egg question. Like, does it take mentally ill people and attract them to it, or does once people experience it, does it turn them mentally ill? And I think there's a lot. I mean, I. In general, I think that when you have these kind of shooters, people who go to schools and shoot up school, or people who attack government institutions, or people who try and blow the head off of a former president, somebody who's leading the polls to be president, mental illness has to be part of it. And yes, again, if this is part of how the mental illness manifested, and I do think it's something that we ought to think about and look at because there is some indicia that these two things are correlated. I want to know that from the government. Like, I want to see the full picture. You know, I do. I think Miranda Devine is a great reporter. I'm not at all suggesting that she's done anything at all. But I'm just saying when you're a reporter and you know this well, you have a source or, you know, maybe the source is feeding you stuff that they want you to know, even though it's true, but it's somehow selected or handpicked, maybe it's not entirely true. You know, this is why the government, which is the one that has the power to get all this information as subpoena power, surveillance equipment, everything, they're the ones with the information. I want the answers from them. Like, is this true? Was this an interest of his? Did it. Was it formative in his life? What was his politics? What was his motive? Who did he talk to? All of these. What did the key question? Did the FBI know about him beforehand? Was he known to the government or to local authorities? These are questions we can only get from the government. Great. Huge credit to Tucker and Miranda for telling us things that we didn't know, that we should know. But these answers have to come from the FBI.

A (32:48)

Yes, but don't you find it suspicious? And I second, everything is. I love Miranda Devine. She's a national treasure. But don't you find it suspicious that this drops the Monday after the Friday that Tucker's report drops?

B (33:02)

Yes. Yes. Well, and also, you know, again, if we're looking at things politically, when the Charlie Kirk shooter was apprehended, the alleged Charlie Kirk shooter, the FBI ran rushed Kash Patel himself did to make clear the link between the alleged shooter and his partner who was trans or undergoing some sort of transition in their immersion in trans culture. That was something that the government, you know, ideologically would want known. Why wasn't that true here? If they suspect that the person who tried to murder Donald Trump became very close to has some kind of connection to the trans community or gender identity ideology or whatever. Why did we learn about this only a year later after Tucker raised a whole set of other questions that were unrelated? All of them could be true, Most of them could be true. But I agree with you completely. Like did Miranda Devine get that information from the government because they want to redirect our attention over to there something that's more politically palatable to distract questions attention from the questions Tucker raised. That's why I'm just hesitant to jump to these conclusions and start analyzing the phenomenon in the context of the shooter until we have reliable information.

A (34:11)

Here's a tears and an even scarier thought then it's the FBI trying to distract us from the Tucker report. Again, that's we're speculating here. The audience is with us by that, by this point, they know this, that the FBI didn't find either one of these. Like to me, that's even scarier that they didn't find this because Miranda describes her reporting as based on, quote, an enterprising source who uncovered crooks's hidden digital footprint. Now Tucker did not have any of this in his Friday report. There was nothing about transferry culture. So his information uncovered by a pretty comprehensive search of the guy's digital footprint that we don't know whether the FBI had that or not, but didn't have this. And Tucker would have told us if this were in there. I feel certain, I don't think he would have hidden this.

B (35:06)

No.

A (35:07)

And then she comes out with this. So who is the enterprising source? I mean normally, normally you might say a source close to the investigation, a government source, a source in a position to know, you know, if you're dealing with somebody right on the investigation who doesn't want to be identified. But this actually doesn't read to me like, like an FBI person, an enterprising source who uncovered crooks hidden digital footprint. That to me sounds odd. I don't know what to believe. I don't like any of this. I really want to know what's happening. Like who's shooting our presidential candidates, who's shooting our conservative pundits and exactly why. Right. I do believe that it was the shooter, Tyler Robinson, who killed Charlie Kirk. But there's too many questions unanswered there, too. Like, what about the trans TIFA connection in that case? What about all those trans accounts who are like, something big is going to be happening on September 10th, and then when Charlie was killed, retweeting their old warning, saying, I told you. And there were multiple of them predicting this would happen, some of whom appear to have had some link to Tyler Robinson's boyfriend, the transferry. Where's that update? You know, like, no one's been charged, so if we're not going to be charging them, but at least they're making you be able to.

B (36:24)

Yeah, if I could just interject quickly. Sorry. Because I think that's the key point. At least in that case, the FBI has the excuse, which is actually a plausible and valid one. Look, there's an ongoing criminal trial. There's an ongoing criminal investigation. We can't just be disclosing the results of our investigations to the public because that might jeopardize the case that we have against him or other people whom we're investigating. I think most people understand that in general, in a case of this magnitude, I still think we should have more answers. But at least they have that excuse there. They don't have that excuse in the case of Thomas Crooks. They themselves say there's no ongoing investigation. They know that he acted alone. That's what's so bizarre. Like, I agree with you. There's a lot of unanswered questions in the case of Tyler Robinson. Even if you believe, as I think I do, that he was probably the person, at least one of the people involved in the shooting, maybe the only one. There's a lot of unanswered questions. At least they have that excuse. What's their excuse here?

A (37:12)

Well, here's what I can say. If the FBI is not giving us the full scoop on the Thomas Crooks case and for that matter, on the Charlie Kirk case, it's not Cash Patel's decision. There's no way this is Cash's doing. That would have to come. That would have to come from somebody higher or.

B (37:34)

There's only two people higher, Pam. And Donald Trump himself.

A (37:39)

And Donald Trump. And I don't know, it could be a cross agency thing, too. Maybe there's something the CIA knows and there's been something, some sort of plea. But I don't believe for one second that Cash Patel knows all and he's just decided not to tell us because he doesn't think we're smart enough or sophisticated enough to handle the info. I believe if he's not telling us the truth is it's on orders from somebody who actually does control what he says. I mean, and as you point out, there is a short list. And I also believe Pam Bondi wouldn't make that call. Right. Like this would have to come from Trump, would it not? Like it would have to.

B (38:13)

Let me just say one thing. And this I, you know, I don't know Cash Patel. Well, I know Dan Bungie. No little. I do have a positive impression of the integrity of each. I supported their nominations to those positions and I'm not saying I've even changed my view on that. But what I have seen many times is that when you're on the outside of government power or government institutions and then suddenly you're on the inside, not just on the inside, but running them, there can be this kind of institutional capture that happens even for the most well intentioned and honest person where suddenly you're surrounded by all these people on whom you depend to do your job. You can't just fire everybody and bring everybody in new who's never worked at the FBI before. You have to have an institutional memory of how the, the agency works and then suddenly the advisor, you know, it's very similar to how the Epstein files, you know, they were bang on the table, Epstein didn't kill himself and there's an Epstein list and there's blackmail. And then suddenly four months in office they go on Fox News and they're like, yeah, none of that's true. Just trust us. None of that's true. It's very odd. Like that seems like a radical transformation in a very short period of time. And I think that can happen. You know, people get into office and then they're suddenly listening to people who have been at the FBI for a long time and being told the FBI's, you know, institutional trust depends upon doing things this way. And then suddenly they're doing things that aren't really aligned with how they said they would do them previously. And it's not really because they're dishonest. It's like they're, they're, they're captured or commandeered.

A (39:36)

Well, it could also very much be right that they got into office. And I'm sure both of them would have been very interested in the Thomas Thomas Crooks case, you know, the guy who almost took out Donald Trump. I'm sure they both would have been very anxious to take a look at that file and the UFO File, obviously, that's the first place anybody would go. And it is. It is also possible that they did see this guy's name, you know, who Tucker's talking about, this Willie Tepes, that there was a big file on it, that he'd been tracked down, that there was absolutely nothing to support a real connection, you know, anything more fleeting than what Tucker found between him and crooks, that he'd been interviewed. Like, it is possible that they did all of this. And that's what Cash Patel is telegraphing in his statement and, you know, kind of letting us know. Just because you hear it on a podcast doesn't mean it's this international conspiracy where somebody was controlling the shooter. Maybe it was just the shooter who is a nut.

B (40:37)

I totally agree with you, except that would be a good answer if Tucker and Miranda Devine had just gone on and, like, kind of muse with speculation about potential conspiracy theories. You don't expect the FBI to go jump and debunk in great detail every single conspiracy theory that someone might create about the FBI or an investigation.

A (40:55)

Right.

B (40:56)

Neither of them did that, though. This was hardcore reporting. These were documents that you can look at and see. And just as one example, I go back to it. You know, the question of, were we being told the truth, that the Iranian government was behind it, or did the FBI have pre knowledge of Thomas Crooks, given how, you know, loud and explicit his violent threats were? These are questions that that can and should be answered. And if it's true that none of these theories are true, I think they should come forth and say them. Especially since there are senators demanding this information, too. And as you said, they cut off cooperation with them. You know, it's hard to come up with a reason that that is a valid or a trustworthy one as to why that would happen. Mm.

A (41:38)

I mean, I say Trump would have to be calling the shots because he's really the only one with any power over them, you know? Yes, Pam Bondi, but she's not gonna tell them not to report on the Butler case, or for that matter, the Kirk case. Well, maybe the Kirk case, but not the Butler case. Without Trump's okay. Or without a reason from on high. But my team just reminded me that Lara Trump offered some insights on Trump and Butler not long ago. This was an interview she gave to Benny Johnson in early November. And she said, Trump doesn't want to think or know any more about it. He boxes it away so he can focus on taking this country back. You know what? That actually makes a lot of sense. She Also said the following Crooks, his motivation for the assassination attempt remains unknown. She said no one in her family has been briefed about what happened or what investigators think could have triggered it. None of us have been briefed, quote, unquote. And then of course, her husband wrote this book saying he's got questions too. I actually can believe as somebody. Let me, let me tell you something, Glenn. When something horrific happens to me that I think is grossly unfair, unfounded and potentially dangerous, I also will totally ignore it. You know, it's like a self protection mechanism against a dirty, dishonest group and it tends to be much better than wallowing in the toxicity. And I'm only talking about like media attacks here. We're talking about an actual attack on his life in which a man died and two others were shot. So it could very well be that Trump, who is still in the public eye, still appearing in public, still going out there, really doesn't want daily briefings on this guy Thomas Crooks. But that still leaves unquestioned, if there's more to the story, who's deciding not to tell. I don't know. I wish I did. I'll give you the last word on it.

B (43:25)

Yeah, I mean, look, what you just described is totally human. We all do that, right? We all avoid wallowing in ideas or thoughts or traumas that are painful. This is basic to how human beings cope with the world. I don't blame Trump if he doesn't want like constant briefings on who put a bullet like a millimeter away from his brain. But as you were saying, it's not just that he has a lack of interest. The only person with the real power, and I agree with you totally, is not Pam Bondi, but would be Trump to say keep all this information hidden. And that is different than, oh, I just kind of want to avoid that. But again, even if it is that we're at least owed that explanation. And I do think now with this reporting, it's going to be almost impossible for Cash Patel or Pam Bondi or even Trump to simply ignore these questions and not provide some explanation. Either yes, this information is forthcoming or here's why it isn't.

A (44:15)

Okay, here's, this is also unsupportive. But here's a, here's a wacky theory. Wouldn't it make sense that the person behind it is Maduro, given what we're seeing happen with Venezuela right now? Maybe the decision is, I'm not going to come out with it. I'm not going to talk about what they did.

B (44:31)

I.

A (44:32)

He's just going to quietly become a target of mine and life is going to change significantly for him in Venezuela. Just throwing that out there, Glenn.

B (44:42)

Okay. But again, all these things are possible, but I mean, if we're going to go to war or, like, do a regime change operation in a major country, and the reason is, at least in part, that isn't that we should know. We have a right to know. Yeah. I mean, that's. If that's factoring into why we're going to go to war or remove yet another government, another foreign country, and create huge amounts of instability and possibly put our troops in harm's way. We ought to know that, if that's part of the calculus.

A (45:08)

Yeah. And zero support for that. I'm just. Now I'm in Hollywood screenwriting mode at the moment that. Zero. I'm in the news, so I'm watching what's happened with Venezuela. Okay, let's. Let's keep going. While we're on the subject of Tucker Carlson, he is under just an insane amount of pressure right now over his Fuentes interview, over his podcast, and it's getting, like, truly crazy. It's really getting crazy. And you pointed out this article in the New York Times, which hit Saturday, entitled JD Vance Is Idling at the Edges of American Politics. And you wrote this. Very shortly, you're going to hear this from Democrats in the media. Look, I had disagreements with Trump, but he kept the crazies on the fringes. The really dangerous extremist is J.D. vance. Trump, by comparison, is a responsible patriot. That's the Bush Cheney trajectory. And you tweeted out this article to me. I think 95% of the pressure that's raining down on Tucker right now is as a result of his close friendship with J.D. vance. Because they fear and loathe him in a particularly pointed way. And they think if they can, like, stank up Tucker enough, they can then transfer it onto JD thus improving their electoral chances in 2028. Your thoughts on it?

B (46:38)

No question, Democrats hate JD Vance. Fear JD Vance, as I would, too, if I were a partisan Democrat. But I think it's important to note that most of the attacks on Tucker are not coming from liberals or Democrats. They are coming from who also hate J.D. yeah, the neocon.

A (46:55)

Right?

B (46:55)

Exactly. Exactly. And that, I mean, if it were just the liberals and Democrats, it wouldn't matter. Tucker wouldn't even bat an eye. It's when it comes from your own movement inside your own faction and your own party, when it really becomes something quite Notable and difficult to navigate. And here's the thing, Macon. You know, when Tucker was on Fox and had the highest rated show on Fox up until the day that he was fired, I don't think I ever heard a prominent conservative criticize Tucker. Probably not because they didn't disagree with him. I'm sure they did, but because he was so popular that nobody would. In fact, when Tucker was fired, I think people have forgotten this. There were a bunch of members of the Senate, Republicans in the Senate, who ran to Politico and, and said how happy they were that Tucker was gone because now they could more easily fund the war in Ukraine, which Tucker was a major voice in opposing. And they all did it, though anonymously. These are members of the Senate who wanted to criticize Tucker and say how happy they were gone, but only did so anonymously. So that shows his power within the conservative movement. The only thing that has changed is that since October 7, like a lot of people, he's begun to focus on the relationship with the United States and Israel, questioning why we give them so much money, why we pay for their wars, why we deploy our military to protect Israel in their wars, why are politicians constantly going there, why we're introducing censorship regimes and laws inside the United States to protect this foreign country. That's the only thing that's different between the Tucker of now and the Tucker of then. And so this concern and intense campaign to destroy Tucker and I agree absolutely by proxy, to try and either get JD Vance to renounce Tucker or present him with a choice. Renounce Tucker or be destroyed with him, is all about demanding that J.D. vance embrace the neocon ideology in general and their love and support and loyalty to Israel in particular. Because there's no other way to isolate or understand these attacks on Tucker except without. Except by reference to that.

A (48:53)

Now, you are as good a witness as I could find on this issue. I have explained to I have many Jewish friends who have questions about Tucker's coverage and whether, you know, he sort of turned into an anti Semite. And I tell them all, absolutely not. I know Tucker very well and he is not an anti Semite and he is not pro Israel. He's not a big fan of Israel. He's definitely not a fan of Netanyahu. But some of them say, well, I think it's beyond that. And I asked them all the same thing. Glenn, if you go back pre 107, do you remember Tucker being a leading Israel critic like I remember you being an Israel critic? You're not anti Semitic, but that was an issue that you definitely talked a lot about. Did Tucker. No, he didn't. Tucker was never. I don't know if he likes the word isolationist or not, but he was definitely sort of becoming the face of the isolationist. Right. And he had interviews. I remember the one he did with Viktor Orban in Hungary. And like, they talked all about it. And then he. He was constantly saying like, why, why would our kids have to go and fight this battle? Why are we being so bellicose about this particular issue? He's very hot against the Ukraine thing. He didn't want us to get into. Dragged into that. That was long before 10 7. And then when 107 ha happened, he was like, I, I don't want to be involved in that one either. And that happened to be a very close ally that we felt was like getting us closer and closer to conflict and then indeed actually in conflict with Iran, which Tucker was against openly. Like, if. If Tucker really just had this thing where like he can't stand Jews or he's long hated Israel, we would know Glenn. He would have been out there saying the stuff before 10 7. The fact that it happened after that shows you it really is about Israel for him and dovetails perfectly with his more isolationist worldview and what he wants for America first.

B (50:38)

You know, Megan, I am Jewish. My whole family's Jewish. I grew up Jewish. I'm steeped in Jewish culture and always have been my entire life. And you know, Tucker and I have a very close friendship. I mean, we used to hate each other, and then our politics started aligning and then we got to know each other as people. And, you know, I consider him a very close friend. And I'm not here as a witness to say, oh, I'm Jewish and he's not an anti Semite. But what I am here to say is that for me, the animating experience in Tucker's life in terms of his politics and journalism was the fact that he feels like he failed in his obligations and was betrayed when he constantly went on television and advocated for the war in Iraq and for broader neoconservative war making policy that he believe is so destructive to the United States. He believed he helped spread lies about it. He led to the deaths of many people and he feels determined never to make that mistake again, to kind of repent for the policies that he advocated that he believes were so destructive by sharing with everybody why he came to believe that they are so destructive. Now. I used to kind of needle Tucker about the fact that, oh, look you're, you go on Fox every night and you talk about how wrong it is that the United States spends billions of dollars to send to Ukraine. And I totally agreed with that. I was on his show all the time talking about that. But we do the same to Israel. Yet you never mentioned that. You never once mentioned Israel. Why is that? And he would just sort of say like, oh, that's, I don't think it's as important we don't say. So he was actively moving away from that.

A (52:06)

Hold that thought. We're going to hit a hard Sirius XM break in five seconds and we'll definitely continue this on the opposite side. Don't go away. You know what's right around the corner that time of year to start thinking about gifts. Want to give something everyone will love? How about Firecracker Farm? It's Firecracker Farm. Hot Salt. And I met the owner on the tour. He was amazing. He's so fun, just like you. Think about Firecracker Farm. Hot Salt. This is the perfect guy. It's Hot Salt. You've heard the buzz because this incredible small batch product is genuinely special. It has the perfect amount of heat and flavor and elevates everything you put it on eggs, steak, chicken, pasta. Plus it comes in these sleek little stainless steel push grinders. The presentation alone tells you someone cares about what they're doing here. Listen, Alex and his family make this in small batches. So when it's gone, it's gone. And it goes quickly. Every Christmas season, with Christmas right around the corner, they're going to sell out. This is not some generic last minute gift you can pick up on Amazon. It's thoughtful, it's high quality, it's genuinely special and whoever you give it to will be truly grateful. Like I said, it's small batch. They have limited quantities. Make your move now. Do yourself a favor, get your gift shopping today. Get it done today. Head on over to Firecracker farm. Use code MK at checkout for 10 off your order. That's Firecracker dot Farm. There's something special about American manufacturing. Whether you're running a small machine shop or building military aircraft components, you're creating the products that keep America Strong. For over 50 years, Chubb has stood with manufacturers across this great nation. From traditional fabrication to advanced technologies, we protect the companies that make America great. Chubb Insurance built to protect what you build. If you're ever worried about the safety of your home, you need to hear about Simplisafe's early access Black Friday sale. Already having Black Friday sales. This is great. Traditional security systems respond after somebody has broken into your house. It's a little late. Simply Safe is different. It can stop crimes before they happen. It's like Minority Report, only in real life with active guard outdoor protection, AI powered cameras detect threats while they're still outside of your home. And then they alert real security agents. The agents take action while the intruder is still outside. They confront the intruder. They let them know they're on cam. Can you imagine this? Don't you want to see this happen? They alert cops and it even triggers a loud siren and spotlight if needed. Busted. Simplisafe's agents have your back even if you are not there. There are no long term contracts. Those are annoying. No hidden fees. Even more annoying. And you can cancel at any time. Simply Safe has been named best home security system by U.S. news and World Report five years in a row now. And they offer a 60 day money back guarantee. Don't miss out. Simplisafe's biggest sale of the year. 60% off a SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com Megan 6 0% off 60@simplisafe.com Megan there's no safe like Simplisafe. All right, let's go. Isn't it great to be together? It's so great to see you. You're not alone. It's only the l liberal media and the haters who want you to think that we're in the majority right now. We're from Chicago.

B (55:32)

We flew in just for this.

A (55:34)

It's like, we have to go. And then after what happened to Charlie, I'm like, we definitely have to go. Don't miss your last chance to be part of the Megyn Kelly Live tour.

B (55:42)

It's a very important time in our country. Megan. Stand firmly. Do not waver on the truth.

A (55:49)

Next stops, Bakersfield, Anaheim, and the grand finale in Glendale, Arizona, featuring special guest Erica Kirk. I really genuinely feel like it's more important right now than ever, you know, for all the reasons and it took courage for all of you to come.

B (56:06)

The biggest thing we can do is be unafraid.

A (56:11)

So go get your tickets right now before they sell out. Megan Kelly.com presented by Y Refi and SiriusXM. Back with me now, Glenn Greenwald. So we were in the Midst of discussing J.D. vance, Tucker Carlson and the attempt to take them both out one via the other. Or they'd settle for just getting rid of Tucker or just rid of JD but if they can do it all in one fell Swoop. So much the better. Glenn.

B (56:41)

Yeah, you know what's so interesting, Megan? We were talking about Tucker and how he never talked about Israel until October 7th. Kind of a weird anti Semitic obsessive somebody who never talked about Israel until it was basically required when it was front and center in our politics. And I joked with him many times that whenever he does talk about Israel, he constantly, even in private, will say, I have nothing against Israel. I visit Israel many times. I have a lot of friends who love Israel, who are Jewish. I mean, he's worked around with Jews. He's had friends who are Jews his whole life. What's going on here is that the tactic that every conservative I know abhorred when it was used by liberals in the lab for so many years, namely screaming racist and bigot or homophobe or transphobe or misogynist or whatever, as a way of destroying somebody's reputation who disagrees with you. And shutting down debate is exactly the tactic that is used when it comes to what ought to be our very rational and open conversation about our foreign policy with any country in the world, including this one, Israel. But instead, it's always supplanted with screaming anti Semite and bigot at people and demanding they be destroyed and deplatformed, and you have to disassociate yourself with them as though they're racist. I thought that's what the conservative movement was against. And yet you see within the conservative.

A (57:57)

Movement doing it now, they're saying, no, no one's asking for Tucker to be canceled. It's like, okay, you're not asking for him to be canceled because he cannot be. Okay, he cannot be. He's independent, and he's going to be out there on these podcast feeds whether you like it or not. His subscriber numbers have only gone up reports to the New York Times since the whole Fuentes controversy. So this isn't hurting him as badly as they'd like it to be. But they do want him kicked out of polite circles. They do want him delegitimized. That's the new thing, Glenn. Right? Like, that's why there's all this pressure on me and others to, like, say he's terrible or not platform him or, you know, join on board as one of his bullies or we'll bully you too. The answer's no. I don't care what you do. I don't care what kind of non controversies you try to blow into something that's a death knell to me in my career. It's not gonna happen. And they're starting to realize that because those of us who are independent are just gonna keep being independent and plugging in our microphones and people will have access to us whether they like it or not. So it's no defense to say we're not trying to have them canceled. We're not anti free speech. Yes, they are. They're trying to make him untouchable.

B (59:14)

And Megan, you're the best proof of that. And I don't mean to hold you up as the example, but you know, I've talked with foreign policy about foreign policy with you many times. Including Israel. Including Israel adjacent issues. And as you said, I'm a longtime critic of Israel. And you and I see most of those issues differently. You've been a longtime supporter of Israel. You still are. You oftentimes, not always, but oftentimes find yourself on the side of the pro Israel faction when it comes to these debates. You've started questioning a little bit more, but in general, that is where you're situated. So then why is it that you're now grouped in as one of their enemies who they're trying to destroy? They can say all they want. They don't want Tucker canceled. But the only reason they're angry at you is because you refuse to disassociate yourself with Tucker and to renounce Tucker and to ban Tucker from your circle or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Candace Owens or anyone else who that's the only reason you become in their crosshairs. And I always want to remind people, if you haven't seen this, I'm sure you have, but go back and watch it. Just two weeks before Charlie Kirk was killed, he was on your show and this is what Charlie Kirk was saying. And you were too, like, I've become the enemy. I'm getting denounced as an anti Semite even though I always have been pro Israel and I still am. Said the reason they're angry at me is because I allow Tucker to speak like, how are you going to be in conservative media? How are you going to be in conservative politics and disassociate yourself with everybody who has questions about the US Relationship with Israel or criticize Israel when, especially for Charlie, who represented young people, but conservatives in general, polls show there's a huge opening now where conservatives are opposed to Israel or questioning the US you cannot cut off everybody who has that view or you'll only be talking to Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro every day.

A (60:57)

Nor do I want to. Nor do I want to.

B (60:59)

Right.

A (61:00)

While I don't really share that worldview. As you know, as you pointed out, I have different feelings about Israel, and in general, I'm very supportive of, of it and I do see it as an important ally. And I realize a lot of people disagree with me on this, but, but I am not dismissive of or somebody who doesn't want to make room in conservative circles for the debate about this topic. I think it's actually a really important debate. And, you know, especially given everything that's happened over the past couple of years, why can't there be room in the Conservative Party for people to disagree on this and to make the case that, no, we are too close with Israel and it's dangerous for us and our kids. That is a totally legitimate worldview. You may totally disagree with it, and that's great. We. I'm, you know, I'm kind of more on that side. Right. But I'm, I am listening. It's, it's not true that I haven't had any doubts about Israel, but I'm allowed to have my doubts. It's just like, it's been so crazy, you know, Crazy. Mark Levin, he was out there. I can't find it. I put it on my phone, but now I can't find it. But he was literally out there. Glenn Tucker ran this sound bite on his show, calling me, among others, calling me an anti Semite, a Nazi, a neo Nazi, and saying, I want Jews killed. I really, like, I don't really respond to him. He's really, truly, he's gone crazy. But what I really wanted to say if I were gonna engage with Mark Levin was, please list all of my anti Israel comments. I'll wait. Like, please list them all. Like, honestly, there was this thing that happened online this weekend, and Mehdi Hassan, who's a very, very pointed Israel critic, was trying to compare himself to me. And I was like, no, no, no, no. There's no comparison between the two of us. One is criticizing Israel every day. Like, including 10, eight. And one has been a staunch defender of Israel, not to mention American Jews. Like, I will wait for all of my anti Israel comments. And then if you want to switch to anti Jew comments, anti Jewish, Jewish Americans, anybody, you won't find a single one with Israel. You're going to find two. Me saying, maybe it's time to wrap it up. And they're losing the support of young Americans, including conservatives now. That's literally it, Glenn. It's the platforming of and refusal to denounce Tucker. And just to another extent, Candace it's insane. It's truly insane. And this is fracturing the conservative movement in two in a way that is going to play out at the presidential level, too. When it comes to J.D. vance, I don't know what Marco Rubio's position will be. He's been very, very pro Israel. He sounds much more like America first now, you know, so I'm sure most American Jewish people who are pro neocon, like, or more neocon, would prefer Marco Rubio to J.D. vance or somebody else entirely who's totally neo Connie, like Ted Cruz. But this is about to play out right now. It's at the podcaster level, but it's about to explode into the actual principal level because, you know, within the next year, we're going to be looking for 2028 talk more than midterms.

B (64:06)

Well, you have politicians like Ted Cruz currently positioning themselves for 2028 by just going all in on anybody who support Israel is an anti Semite. We have to remove them from the political movement. You know, it's so interesting, Megan, I feel like this extreme cognitive dissonance because you and I have debated these issues before. You know, we debated whether or not people should be deported who are students in the United States who protested Israel. And you were saying, get them out of here. The harassing, get out. And I have the opposite view. And we argued about it. And to this day, like, whenever I say anything good about you or I go on your show or I promote something of yours, you know, people who are in my audience say, why would you feel good about Megyn Kelly? She's a Zionist. She's an Israel supporter.

A (64:46)

And so, and Candace and I had a very public battle about whether these kids on college campuses who are pulling down the hostage posters should have consequences in terms of their hiring, too. She. She was like, they're, you know, they're moronic college kids. Why should we hold? And I was much more like, oh, no. You know, there are people hurting and in captivity right now. You pull down their hostage posters, you're my enemy. Like, there's been such a long history of it. It's. I, whatever, I don't care. I don't need to defend myself on these controversies.

B (65:15)

Panic. And I think that's it. I think it's important to realize this panic that is emerging from what is, whether you like it or not, a very significant sea change in conservative opinion. Netanyahu came to United States, wrote off the left. You know, Israel has always been bipartisan. There's still a lot of very hardcore Israel Defenders and AIPAC influence within the Democratic Party too. But for the most part, they understood the left was headed toward this position of abandoning Israel. And they assume that the right wing and conservatives would always be their dependable kind of tools. And you look at public opinion and you see, not just anecdotally, this meant space opening where conservative leaders like Tucker and Candace, with two of the biggest podcasts in the world, are constantly questioning Israel and criticizing Israel. But also polls show that young conservatives in particular are starting to wonder, wait, we were told America first, that we have to concentrate on our own country, so why are we sending billions over there? Why are politicians constantly focused? That is of course, the question that is going to arise. And, and you can try and deal with it in two ways. You can try and scream racist and bigoted everybody in the hope that they're going to fear career destruction if they ask it, or you can try and engage it like a rational person and have this discussion about what is nothing really at the end of the day more than an American foreign policy like anything else, but it's so sacrosanct to them and they feel it slipping away that they're kind of lashing out with this irrationality that's making things worse for them.

A (66:36)

I heard from many of these aren't like Jewish friends, but Jewish pundits who I know and like, who come on the show and whatever. When this first happened, after I aired that discussion that Charlie and I had, I re aired after he died because the question of how where did Charlie stand on Israel? Came up and I re aired a portion of it. And what these people said to me is, everyone's terrified you're going to start agreeing with Tucker, like you have been such an ally and, and they're worried that they're losing you. And Glenn. All I could say was, okay, that only makes me want to listen to Tucker more that only like I don't owe anybody my never ending support. I will be open minded to the facts as they develop. A lot has happened with Israel since 10, 7, 23. A lot. And a lot of people's feelings about Israel have changed and I am entitled to have a change of opinion. And by the way, my life and my opinions don't rise or fall based on what Tucker Carlson says. I love the guy, but he's not my main source of news. You know, I'm all over the news. I read every single paper, I'm online every day. I read the right and the left and I it's on. Israel's been Very hard to find true facts. Right. Because we do get manipulated by propaganda, but they're out there anyway. It's insane how it's like you're. But you're not allowed. Since you're an Israel supporter, you're not allowed to drift. Well, yes, I am. I am. And I actually want to check myself and saying to you, I've been very supportive and I still am supportive, just to make sure. Like, am I saying that to appease somebody? I don't want to be that. I don't want to do that. I want to just go where the facts lead me. And if Israel was good two years ago, but behaved very badly for the last two years and it's changed my opinion of them, I'm entitled to that opinion. Doesn't change my opinion of American Jews at all. At all. Right. Like, that's such an unfair leap to make when it comes to you, when it comes to Tucker, when it comes to any of us. And that's where we really have to draw the line.

B (68:41)

It's so manipulative. I mean, obviously there are a lot of Jews here. I am, but I'm far from alone or even a trivial number who are more critical of Israel and Zionism than even Tucker, you know, in his latest expression of his views to conflate Israel and Jews is. I don't want to raise this, but it is kind of anti Semitic, like to assume that every Jew is, is, has loyalty to Israel. Like, we don't. I was born in the United States. I'm a citizen of only one country. I see Israel as a foreign country the way, the way a lot of Jews do. And there are a lot of people who are not Jewish who are fervently in favor of Israel. So to even make that conflation is so unfair. And I do think that it's very much the left wing tactic. Like you people will say, oh no, you can criticize Israel and still not be an anti Semite. I don't know of a single person in public life with any kind of platform who has ever vocally criticized Israel, who hasn't stood accused of anti Semitism. You're seeing that now.

A (69:33)

It starts immediately.

B (69:34)

It's automatically automatic.

A (69:36)

And can I tell you something? I hate, I really do hate the. My best friend is Jewish, but like, my best friend actually is Jewish. And she, she's saying, like, I can't believe this is happening. Like, I can't believe that this is being done to you. And even she is like, God, I really wish people would say Stop. Right. Because I think there are a lot of normal Jewish Americans who are like, could people stop doing that? Because that doesn't speak for us. Like, you're kind of lumping us all in. People are sort of trying to lump us in. Like, the American Jewish community. Community stands against Tucker. Or like, wants these conversations shut down in some way. And like, I think there are mostly normal Jewish Americans are like, you can criticize Israel. We don't care. We may disagree.

B (70:17)

We'll.

A (70:17)

We'll debate you happily, but we don't care. So it's just spun. Anyway, I want to move on to the presidential politics of it because it's getting very interesting. So JD Vance is definitely going to come under withering scrutiny. Yes. For his friendship with Tucker. And already I mentioned the New York Times piece that you tweeted out that is quite interesting by this nutcase Jamal Bowie, who came out and wrote this long piece about JD which is just crazy. Here's an excerpt from it. Again, the title is J.D. vance's Idling at the Edges of American Politics. He doesn't mean edgy in a nice way. He means Fringy. Enter J.D. vance, who, as my colleague Ezra Klein observed this week in an interview with my friend John Gantz, is functionally groiper adjacent. The gripers are Nick Fuentes followers. As the controversy around Fuentes, Carlson and Heritage grew into a firestorm, Vance stayed quiet. At most, he decried the infighting. Fuentes considers the vice President's triangulation a victory of sorts. It is a sign, in other words, that Vance fears the political consequences of an open disavowal, so much so that he won't act on the pleas of some of his closest associates to challenge the gripers. But while the vice President won't say where he stands, it is not hard to sense where his sympathies lie. This week, Vance sat for an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. Here he is discussing the housing crisis, quoting Vance. A lot of people, this is a quote, quote, a lot of people, a lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens. End quote. Back to Jamelle Bowie. Here's my question for you. You can parse all the rhetoric you'd like, but what is the actual practical difference between Vance's call for the removal and potential expedition? Expropriation of illegal immigrants defined in terms of ethnic and racial difference, and Fuentes, his vision of A white ethno state in what is now the United States. They look about the same to me. So here, here it is. You want the illegals who came in and under Biden out. You are a Nick Fuentes white supremacist, neo Nazi griper. And that's mana from heaven as far as the New York Times sees, J.D. vance's presidential prospects.

B (72:37)

You know, so much of this is out of ignorance. Nick Fuentes absolutely despises J.D. vance. And one of the reasons why is that he's married to a woman who's Indian and has Indian children, half Indian descent.

A (72:49)

He said that he would rather support Gavin Newsom because he married a white woman and has white kids than J.D. vance because he married an Indian woman, an Indian American, and has a son named Vivek.

B (73:04)

Is it an odd form of white nationalism, which is what they want to accuse JD Vance of, to decide that the person with whom you're going to build your entire life, who you're going to live next to side by side, with whom you're going to have your children, is not actually white, but of India's descent of Indian American, and your own children, as you knew what happened and love them more than anything, are happening. That's a very odd white nationalist, isn't it?

A (73:29)

So weird he's doing it all wrong.

B (73:31)

I think, yeah, that's a very poor choice that he made for a white nationalist. But the thing is, I think that this is one of the things that people have to realize. And I know you saw this article in Axios about Ezra Klein, who Jamelle Bowie referenced, and it's basically about how even for an opinion columnist, he's kind of blurring the line between being an opinion columnist for the New York Times and being an activist and organizer for the Democratic Party. A lot of people in media, in these newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, all these networks, have this view that it is their primary mission not to do journalism, but to organize foreign win elections for the Democratic Party. And one of the ways you do that, there's no real benefit in demonizing Trump anymore as Hitler. He already ran twice. He's not running again. The person that they're looking @ next is JD Vance. It's just like there's no more reason to say Dick Cheney and George Bush are Hitler the way they used to because they're out of office. In the case of Cheney, he's dead. They're not a threat anymore. So they moved to Trump. Trump was Hitler. Trump was worse than Hitler. Now Trump's Going out. And so now it's just the next time is to do it is to J.D. vance. And that's what this column is all about is you might have thought Trump was bad, but Trump really, he wasn't a racist. At the end of the day, the way J.D. vance is the newest iteration of Republican is always the real Hitler.

A (74:46)

Yes. And then you have, speaking of potential fractions amongst the right wing, you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is definitely pro Israel and Neo Ghani. There's an article about him in Axios saying he's going to challenge, he's potentially going to challenge J.D. vance. And we know this from how outspoken he's been about Tucker. And like he calls Tucker an anti Semite. It's definitely Tucker and Ted Cruz are not fans of one another. Ted Cruz went on there and within, you know, the first four minutes basically accused Tucker of anti Semitism. And then it didn't go well, not surprisingly. So they don't like each other. So Axios writes that. And then do we have the moment when Cruz went on Fox, Cruz went on Fox News Today and it was very clear he knew they were going to ask him about the Axios piece, pitching him as like the guy who is going to take on J.D. vance. And he demurred, you know, like, oh, you know, focus on the people of Texas or whatever. But Ted Cruz has run for president many, many times. There's no reason not to believe he will do it again, especially if he thinks the main competition is going to be a JD Marco ticket, which he'll be able to spin Marco Rubio as more America First JD Vance ish than he is. JD Marco is definitely not a neocon anymore. So it does make you wonder what's going to happen when we gear up towards 2028 and whether that dream ticket of JD Marco that Trump has talked about is going to have smooth sailing getting the go ahead or whether you're going to have other contenders who say, not so fast. We want a primary and we want to be heard.

B (76:28)

I think it's really worth Remembering that in 2016, Trump ran against the Republican establishment. They were all aligned behind Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio and then Ted Cruz. At the end of the day, anyone to stop Trump. And it was Trump's singular kind of charisma and political force that enabled him to win, despite being completely opposed in every way by the Republican establishment, which to this day actually continues to hate him, even if they're more muted about it now. But they haven't gone away. And I think Ted Cruz senses that the Republican establishment will be important in 2028. They have immense amounts of money and institutional support and they're more on his side of this argument. The problem though, Megan, is like one of the things Ted Cruz said in that interview with Tucker, which I to this day can't believe. He said, he said, when I ran for Congress, I was determined to wake up every day and be Israel's leading supporter in the Congress. And every single day I woken up to do exactly that. Now, good luck reconciling that with the America first politics and ideology that this entire new generation and the one before that has fed on in Republican politics for the last 10 to 15 years. I don't think those things are reconcilable, but this is a different Republican Party post. Trump politics is different and maybe that's his only lane and he's comfortable in it, but I don't think that's going to get someone very far.

A (77:45)

You know, you know as well as I do, Ted Cruz is definitely taking a lot of money from Israel backed and Jewish backed donors. So. Millions. Yeah, millions. But, but you know as well as I do that that used to be a safe thing for a Republican. That used to be an unassailable statement no matter where you were in the party on other issues like uniform backing of Israel was required of you. So it used to be a very safe thing to say. It's only more recent, you know, and because Israel's in a war and this behavior has been controversial and all that, that has become even close to controversial. But Ted Cruz is still there. I mean, he's definitely still there. And it is one of those things. I'm not suggesting he doesn't believe it. I think he does believe that. But it is one of those things that makes it complicated when you depending on who your donors are because you know, they, they need money to get reelected and they don't want to off the donors. And it's like, so is there room to change your opinion or isn't there? I don't know. It really like the people who get you elected with their money do have some control over you. Okay, let's keep going there. We began the show by marking on remarking on the breakup between Marjorie Taylor Greene and President Trump. And I have to say I, I don't like this at all. Just as we fell in love with mtg, she broke up with Trump. She, we did not fall in love with MTG because she started saying anti Trump things. We just thought she was Interesting. But she at the same time was getting interesting to, like, the ladies of the View and now cnn. And now I'm like, I don't, I don't know exactly what's happening here. She and Trump are fighting ugly. He calls her Marjorie Trader Greene. Now she's saying that these comments are endangering her life. And she did a thing that no conservative should do. I mean, truly just it shouldn't be done. She went on CNN to rip on Trump. Slash, you know, not other Republicans, but Trump. Ben Shapiro did it the other day, too, and got all sorts of blowback for it. Like, Republicans don't want to see their people on cnn. You know, it's one thing if you're Scott Jennings and you're taking on a table of Democrats fighting for Trump, but it's another to see, like, you go into the den of the enemy and start bashing your own team. So. And MTG is not dumb. So she did that for a reason. I don't totally understand it yet, but maybe it'll become clear. Here she is on CNN talking about, like, her new View on, like, her role. This is on their Sunday show with Dana Bash yesterday Sat six. But we have seen these kinds of attacks or criticism from the president at other people. It's not new. And with respect, I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you, Dan. I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's. It's very bad for our country to put a button on this. You regret the things that you have said and posted in the past. The Facebook post that was taken down of you in 2020, holding a gun alongside the squad, encouraging people to go on the offense against the socialists, liking a tweet of somebody calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi and former President Obama. Just examples.

B (81:05)

Well, Dana, as you know and many.

A (81:07)

People know, I addressed that back in 2021. And of course, I never want to cause any harm or anything bad for anyone. So that, that was addressed back then. And I. Okay. And just FYI, Brian Stelter tweets out, Marjorie Taylor Greene did something politicians almost never do. She said she was sorry. Well, it's true. They almost never do it. And Republicans really never do it because we all hate the apology now. We hate it. I hate it. Over my dead body when I run out there and apologize. But Marjorie is definitely up to something. I just haven't totally figured out what because she is Clever. So what do you think is happening here?

B (81:53)

So I've liked her for a long time. I've had her on my show before. I've talked to her, met her, and the reason I've always liked her is because I agree with everything she believes or says. But it's because I personally believe she's unusually authentic for somebody who's in Congress. By which I mean, like, what's so interesting to me about her, Megan, is you go to Washington, most of these people have, like, been trained to get to Congress. You know, they like, ran for a lower level office, state legislature, worked for, you know, members of Congress, like, kind of just training their whole lives to get to Congress. She was just a totally normal person, apolitical in the private sector in her district, in, in Georgia, and really got inspired by Trump's America first message and got into politics solely for that reason and ran for Congress. She kind of got there like, Almost like a Mr. Smith goes to Washington story. And to this day, she tries not to stay in Washington. She goes back to her constituency more than, than, than most people in Congress. I'll just quickly say, like, when, when Trump started bombing Yemen, one of the things she said that I like so much was she was like, why are we bombing the Houthis? People in my district don't even know what a Houthi is. They never talk about Houthis. They're not a threat to people in my district. Why are we bombing the Houthis? And she's speaking for the people in her district as they think what she tries to remain in contact with. I think part of what this is is a genuine kind of reflection on the role she's played. But I. What I. I don't like the fact. I do think we want politicians to, like, reflect on things they've done in the past. Like we talked about Tucker doing and saying, yeah, I really got that wrong. I want to make sure. But you don't go on CNN to do it and get, like, manipulated and exploited by Dana Bash and CNN because they're not interested in the authenticity of what you're doing. They're just exploiting you for political partisan gain.

A (83:35)

Oh, absolutely. I mean, they've been running dishonest sound bites of yours truly and many others for weeks now. I mean, you cannot trust them for anything. So I don't know. I mean, the reports are that AOC said that Marjorie asked Trump for, like, permission or his blessing endorsement to run for Senate in Georgia and that Trump said no, and that that's why she's mad. I asked Marjorie about that when she came on tour with me the other weekend. She denied that, but now there's definitely a rift where she's one of the four Republicans signing on for the release of more Epstein files, which has Trump attacking her. And she's out there saying, you know, the two that he's attacking most are people who are. Me and Massie are really pushing him on Epstein, asking if that's a coincidence. He's calling her a traitor now. He withdrew his endorsement of her just as a congresswoman. She's on CNN and the View. You know, I. I'm not sure what's happening here, but I feel like she does know her district, and I don't think she's in any danger there. You know, I think they love her. So this is one we just have to continue to watch and see how it plays out. But I have to say, I don't like it. I don't. I think she's great. I really like her a lot, and I. I know Trump could use her support. The Epstein thing has. Is dividing Republicans too much and too long. It's like there was one very good point raised by Speaker Johnson in response to this vote that's gonna happen, demanding that the DOJ release its files on Epstein, which, I mean, they did vote, and they are gonna get. They voted yes, but there's a question about whether they're gonna get that vote in the Senate. Well, first they're gonna be a vote in the House on whether, you know, the full House supports it. Then it's gonna go to the Senate, where it doesn't have majority support, as far as we know. And now, then it would go to Trump's desk. And while Trump did some saber rattling last night about how now he supports it, real questions about whether he does. So anyway, my point is simply, I think Speaker Mike Johnson made a good point when he said the juiciest stuff we just got, it's from Epstein's own files. The Epstein estate just released 30,000 emails from him. That's very good stuff. Why would we believe that whatever's sitting in the DOJ files is juicier? Now, that could have victim testimonials, but they're saying they're not going to release anything that identify a victim. Well, I don't know how valuable it is. If you don't release the identity of the victims, how are we supposed to figure out whether they're credible? Then you're back in the Democrat territory last week where they released the Virginia Giuffre correspondence. I mean, it was Epstein talking about Virginia's alleged time alone with Trump, and the Democrats redacted her name. Meanwhile, the Republicans are like, why would you redact her name? She's already given testimony under oath that she's not. She's not a victim of Trump's. She's never slept with Trump. There's. She has nothing on Trump. And by the way, she's outed herself as an Epstein victim, so there's no reason to protect her identity. So there's this whole shell game happening now. And you tell me whether you think something meaningful will come out, A, that it'll get voted for by the full House, the Senate, and signed into law by Trump demanding that the DOJ release more files, and B, whether there's something in there that's going to be a game changer on Epstein.

B (86:42)

I think it's mostly a political problem, because the way in which the Epstein files became this huge issue in the imagination of Americans was not because the left made it that. It was because people on the right did during the Biden presidency, and not like random people on the right. I mean, like J.D. vance and Donald Trump Jr. And Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and Pam Bondi. They were accusing the Biden administration of concealing predators and the predatory ring because they wanted to protect people who are their allies, like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates. That's what put it into the public discourse. And that's why I think it's become a huge liability politically for the Trump administration when they were the ones saying, this has to be released, and then suddenly get in office and be like, hey, we checked. There's no he killed himself. There's no blackmail list. There's no client list. There's none of that. You don't need to see any of this. I think it was that turnaround that became untenable, and I'm not convinced there's anything all that devastating. Obviously, Jeffrey Epstein had some bizarre ability to get people to be extremely close to him personally, notwithstanding his press conviction, notwithstanding his politics. I mean, Noam Chomsky, who's like a personal and political hero of mine, had a very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which makes no sense, but a lot of people, like huge elites, very rich people did. It could be embarrassing for them. I do think the Goj probably has information about Epstein that might not be in his emails, including maybe his relationship with foreign countries, including Israel. There is reporting on that, that, you know, he was best friends with the former Prime Minister Abu Barak. So there still are open questions. I just think it's not tenable for the DOJ to conceal those documents even if there's not an earthquake in there, given where the demands originally came from.

A (88:23)

When you are buried in credit card and loan debt, it's human nature to put it off and say I'll deal with it later. If that's you, here's something you need to know. Done With Debt discovered a little known strategy that works in your favor to dramatically reduce or even erase your debt altogether. They can aggressively engage everyone you owe money to this fall and here's why. They know which lenders and credit card companies are doing year end accounting and need to cut deals. They even know which ones have year end audits and need to get your debt off of their books. So consider getting started with Done With Debt now this fall. Done With Debt accomplishes this without bankruptcy or new loans. In fact, most clients end up with more money in their pocket the first month. Get started now while you still have time. Go to donewithdebt.com and speak with one of their specialists for free. Visit donewithdebt.com the tax extension deadline may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the October 15th deadline or owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. And here's the harsh reality. The IRS can charge a penalty of 5.5percent per month, up to 25% of your total tax bill just for not filing. They they're mean over there. That's in addition to what you already owe. The good news though, is that there's still time for Tax Network USA to help you self employed or a business owner. Even if your books are a mess, they've got you covered. With tools like property seizures, bank levies and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at many levels. It's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is 100% free. In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA can determine how much you can save. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com Megan Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move, there's something special about American manufacturing. Whether you're running a small machine shop or building military aircraft components, you're creating the products that keep America Strong. For over 50 years, Chubb has stood with manufacturers across this great nation. From traditional fabrication to advanced technologies, we protect the companies that make America great. Chubb Insurance built to protect what you build. If you're ever worried about the safety of your home, you need to hear about Simplisafe's early access Black Friday sale. Already having Black Friday sales. This is great. Traditional security systems respond after somebody has broken into your house. It's a little late. Simplisafe is different. It can stop crimes before they happen. It's like Minority Report, only in real life with active guard outdoor protection. AI powered cameras detect threats while they're still outside of your home. And then they alert real security agents. The agents take action while the intruder is still outside. They confront the intruder. They let them know they're on cam. Can you imagine this? Don't you want to see this happen? They alert cops and it even triggers a loud siren and spotlight if needed. Busted. Simplisafe's agents have your back even if you are not there. There are no long term contracts. Those are annoying. No hidden fees. Even more annoying. And you can cancel at any time. Simply Safe has been named best home security system by U.S. news & World Report five years in a row now and they offer a 60 day money back guarantee. Don't miss out. Simplisafe's biggest sale of the year. 60% off a SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com Megan 6 0% off 60@simplisafe.com Megan there's no safe like Simplisafe. We are going on the road. Join me live Megyn Kelly Live. 10 stops across the country. Join me for no BS, no agenda and no fear Live. I'll be joined by Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck, Adam Perola, Charlie Sheen, Piers Morgan, Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump and Erica Kirk. Send a message that we will not be silenced. It's Megyn Kelly Live, presented by Y refi and Sirius XM. Go to MeganKelly.com to get your tickets now. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad free music coverage of every major sport, comedy talk, podcast and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.

B (92:51)

Go to SiriusXM.com show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com MK show and get three months free. Free offer details apply.

A (93:08)

Here's what I want to know. Why was Katie Couric why was George Stephanopoulos at Epstein's home in 2010 chumming it up? Having dinner with him after after he pleaded guilty to Solicitation of sex with a minor, which, as I've said countless times, is not a thing. There's no such thing as a minor prostitute. That's rape. That's what that is. But they allowed him to plead guilty to that. It was on the record. And by the way, Katie Couric knows full well that you cannot solicit a minor prostitute. That's rape. So does George Stephanopoulos. He's really big on cross examining Nancy Mace on how Trump raped, raped, raped E. Jean Carroll, which is a lie that cost ABC News $16 million. So George Stephanopoulos knows full well the definition of that word. And yet he went anyway. Those two journalists, NBC and abc respectively, went and sat with Jeffrey Epstein at his home where these alleged crimes occurred for dinner. Knowing all of that and these holier than thou media outlets like cnn, the Daily Beast and so on, where is their outrage about that, truly? Why aren't they asking questions about people like that who openly fraternized with him? You know, I will give a shout out to Tina Brown of the Daily Beast on one thing. She wrote some interesting profile on why all these celebs had zero problem fraternizing with Jeffrey Epstein, even after we knew he was a pervert and a rapist. And it was basically, they don't care. The only thing they don't want to be seen around, she wrote, is people who are poor. They were more interested in rubbing elbows with the rich guy, notwithstanding his love of raping young people.

B (95:01)

Yeah. First of all, I mean, I've heard you say this many times before, and it's kind of amazing how your words have been completely distorted over the last 72 hours to make you seem like you believe the opposite. But that's for another day. But nonetheless, I do think that is the most interesting part of all these releases. The fact that he pled guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution, which, as you say, is rape. And obviously, when someone pleads guilty, they're pleading guilty because there's evidence of a lot more crimes. There were a lot more girls, including much younger than the one to which he pled guilty. But even that alone. The thing is, Megan, it didn't affect his standing among the mega elite of our country at all. The financial elite, the political elite, the media elite continue to not just accept him into their circle, but treat him with extreme amounts of deference. And they were so solicitous around him, like they wanted him close by. They were chasing after him. He wasn't chasing after them. And you know, throughout History. There is this kind of tendency of elite cultures to get so decadent that they build a wall like the wall of Versailles, and they just live behind the wall and they impose rules on the peasants, but they are completely immune and they live in the most decadent and degraded ways. And I think that's the only thing that can explain this. I'm sure he had some immense personal skills. Let's remember he was also pretty close to Steve Bannon talking all. So it's like it's not really even part.

A (96:23)

We also broke that story on Thursday. We did in depth reporting on Steve Bannon's counseling of Jeffrey Epstein. We outed the tapes that we heard. I mean that we all broke that news on Thursday and we have yet, not yet had a chance to talk to Steve. But yes, I mean, the number of Democrats, and yes, I'm on the right too, who got in bed with Jeffrey Epstein, figuratively post the expose of his disgusting crimes is really shocking. And not just that, Glenn, I'm sure you saw what happened, what broke as a result of those emails that were released of his last week. But this Democrat congresswoman who was actively texting with Epstein. Hold on, I think it's in the main packet.

B (97:02)

I'm trying to find Stacey Plaskett of Virgin Islands.

A (97:05)

Yes. Actively texting with Jeffrey Epstein while she's conducting a congressional hearing, cross examining Michael Cohen. And Epstein's texting her. Oh, ask about Rona, Trump's longtime secretary who became famous on the Apprentice. And she was too dumb to know who Rona was. She thought it was an acronym and. But she got it by the time her questioning time came around and she cross examined Michael Cohen on Rona at the behest of Jeffrey Epstein. This was in what year? 2019, right? Wasn't it 2019? It was after he was arrested again. Blew the lid off everything in the Miami Herald. She's still this Democrat representative from the Virgin Islands, chummy with Epstein, sending the text, give me the ammo. Because the biggest thing is to get Trump. That's the biggest thing you can get in bed, figuratively, with the child molester. Whatever you want, go for it.

B (97:59)

Yeah. And I mean, first of all, you know, being in the Virgin island, she helped him a lot to be able to get permits, to be able to get tax exemption. She helped and he donated to her. And then she continued to use him as a political advisor. You can see the video in real time when she's crossing examining witnesses, simultaneously emailing with Jeffrey Epstein. And we now can read the emails that correspond to the time when she's looking down at her phone getting instructions from him about the questions to answer. This is the party that claims to believe women to love women, to want to defend victims of women. Why isn't she being expelled from the party for that? And the other thing I do think for all the talk about Trump's relationship with Epstein, one of the things that got revealed is that Epstein hated Trump. Whatever happened between them, it completely broke their. Their relationship. He absolutely loathed Trump. He was working to plot against Trump. Michael Wolf, this journalist who wrote a book about Trump was encouraging Jeffrey Epstein on how he could blackmail Trump using information.

A (98:55)

We outed that too.

B (98:56)

From the time they were in the.

A (98:57)

Outed Michael, Michael Wolf's close ties and what he was doing to help rehabilitate Epstein. Last Thursday in an in depth report. Yes, I mean like the coziness is deeply disturbing. And honestly the this woman, Stacy Plaskett of the US Virgin Islands is out there now trying to tout the fact that she's always stood up for women and girls and let me see exactly how she put it. She's a former prosecutor. She welcomes information that helps her get at the truth. But she's previously made clear her long record of combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein's deviant behavior and her support for his victims. His deviant behavior was outed and in the fall of eighteen by Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald. This questioning, she did her texting with Jeffrey Epstein where he's saying, you look good, you look great. Thanks with an exclamation. She rep. She replies and then he texts he's opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at the Trump Organization? She responds, yep, very aware and waiting my turn. Epstein asks, how much longer for you? She writes, hours. Go to other meetings. Then when she finally gets in there and he has told her it's about Rona, ask about Rona. Here's what she does. Watch Mr. Weisenberg and other individuals. Ms. Rona, who are those individuals? Are they with the Trump Organization? There are other people that we should be meeting with.

B (100:20)

So Allen Weisselberg is the chief financial officer.

A (100:23)

Uh huh. You got to quickly give us as many names as you can so we can get to them.

B (100:28)

Yes, ma'. Am.

A (100:29)

As Ms. Rona, what is Ms. Rona's position?

B (100:31)

Rona Graff is the Mr. Trump's executive assistant.

A (100:34)

And would she be able to corroborate many of the statements that you've made here?

B (100:37)

Yes, she was. Her office is directly next to his. And she's involved in a lot that went on.

A (100:47)

That was February of 2019. The Miami Herald did its expose on Epstein in November of 2018. That's what, 1, 2, 3. Three months after this has hit all the. And she's still texting with her. You look great. Thanks. Who should I ask about? This woman doesn't give a shit about the victims she now purports to care so deeply about.

B (101:11)

It's like what Tina Brown said. Exactly. The only thing that gets you expelled from these people's interest level is poverty. And it is such an indictment. Not a little Trump, but on our global elite class. It's not even in the United States only. And I've seen some people saying, you know, once somebody's convicted of a crime and they serve their time, they're entitled to a fresh start, like, legally. That's true, although not always. I mean, Jeffrey Epstein was a sex offender. He had ongoing responsibilities. But I think that becomes plausible only if the person's, like, repenting. You know, I can't believe what I did. I was sick. I'm going to devote all my money to advocating for sex against sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein didn't do any of that. There was no repentance to him at all. He was joking. In fact, in some of these emails, somebody would mention girls. He would be like, whoa, girls, be careful. I don't want to restart an old habit. This was somebody who was completely broken, an absolute pig of a person. And yet the doors flew open to him. And so many of our most prominent people, rich, powerful people who you wouldn't think need him, saw a kind of connection to him. And I identified with him and embraced him on. On every level, if not literally or physically. And that's what these emails really demonstrate.

A (102:19)

Yeah, it's an indictment of all of them and their crew who ran cover for him even when they knew. They knew he had raped underage children. This is a sick crew. Disgusting. Okay, I've got it. You know how you said in your highlight reel that we played before your. Your appearance at the tour that I. The only time I talk about Michelle Obama is when you make me watch these clips. So we knew you were coming and we baked a cake. Michelle Obama, still on her media tour for her book about fashion, and she's got a lot of thoughts about whites. She really doesn't seem to like them. It's, like, evident in every interview she gets. And she's saying more outrageous things like this one in SOT15. I remember when I realized that clothing, my hair and how I spoke could actually protect me from the microaggressions of racism. I was in my early teens. Do you remember when you realized that clothing could be a tool? Or when you began to understand the power of how to present yourself within the context of protection or armor? The magnet high school that I went to was on the west side. And to get to it, we had to cut through downtown. So there was a level of exposure to the high end of Chicago. And to access those places and not be accused of stealing, you realize very early on that you better let them hear you talk or, you know, come in with the right lack case or else you would be watched. And, you know, so I, I think I learned then that how you show up, especially when it comes to white folks looking at young black kids, that how you present can sometimes save your life. Okay? So, yes, if, if a black girl walks into the wrong store without a lasac purse, her life could be in danger. She's obsessed with this, Glenn. She's obsessed with this and the hair itch issue, which she also raised in this same interview. Once again, she's back on the hair. Why do we need an act of law to tell white folks to get out of our hair? I'm going to give you one more Sat 17b. Do you think that that impacts the room that we've made for a woman to be president? Well, as we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at me about running because you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman. You are not. So don't waste my time. You know, we got a lot of growing up to do. And there's still, I'm sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman. And we saw it. Go ahead, Glenn.

B (105:10)

I'm at the point now where if I came on your show and you didn't make me talk about Michelle Obama, I would actually be upset and disappointed because it really, there's so much here. You know, there was this, like, what I had always thought was a caricature right wing character when she was first lady, that she was deeply harboring these animosities toward white people, that she was hiding into the country. And now that she's speaking freely, I mean, it is so true. There was another clip where she was like, listen up, white people stay out of our hair and stop making us straighten our hair because that's how your beauty standards are. And it's like you're a multi, multi millionaire. No one's forcing you to straighten your hair, and yet you're doing it and then blaming it on white people. It's this constant. I don't know anybody who has been more blessed and privileged by the United States than Michelle Obama. And yet the anger and rage that she has for pretty much everyone, including her own husband, but evidently not just the country, but toward white people in particular, is really quite striking. It was pervasive throughout all of these statements that she's making. It's like listening to the most extremist wokest, like anti white ideologue from the peak of the 2020 woke movement.

A (106:18)

Yeah. Whenever I hear her talk, I think of the expression familiarity breeds contempt. She was much better off when she just stayed quiet and let us imagine a statuesque, stoic, strong woman. Now that we see how hateful she is. She's right. She could never run for president. It's over. So is our time together. Glenn Greenwald, love talking to you. Thank you so much for being here.

B (106:43)

I always love seeing Megan. Thanks for having me.

A (106:46)

All right, we are back tomorrow with Emily Jashinski. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show. No bs, no agenda and no fear.