60 Minutes' Failures, Michelle Obama's New Complaints, and Abrego Garcia Truth, with Glenn Greenwald and Will Chamberlain | Ep. 1056

As a small business owner, my favorite thing about posting a job on LinkedIn is that when I hit post, I clock out and LinkedIn clocks in.

LinkedIn makes it easy to post your job for free, get qualified candidates, and manage them all in one place.

Plus, LinkedIn extends the reach of your job post by allowing you to share it with your network.

And hiring managers that add a hiring frame to their LinkedIn profiles receive two times more qualified applicants.

Go to linkedin.com/slash acquire to post your job for free.

Terms and conditions apply.

1-800flowers.com knows that a gift is never just a gift.

A gift is an expression of everything you feel and helps build more meaningful relationships.

1-800 Flowers takes the pressure off by helping you navigate life's important moments by making it simple to find the perfect gift.

From flowers and cookies to cake and chocolate, 1-800 Flowers helps guide you in finding the right gift to say how you feel.

To learn more, visit 1-800-Flowers.com/slash SXM.

That's 1-800Flowers.com/slash slash sxm

welcome to the megan kelly show live on serious xm channel 111 every weekday at noon east

hey everyone i'm megan kelly welcome to the megan kelly show

60 minutes is in serious turmoil thanks to its executive producer bill owens quitting and publicly throwing a tempered tantrum what happened oh buckle up.

On Tuesday, the EP of six years, but only the third ever to hold that post in nearly six decades at 60, said he would be resigning from the Sunday News program, suggesting he felt the network was encroaching too much on his editorial calls.

This could not be tolerated at the vaunted 60 Minutes, you see, which is entirely unbiased and uninfluenced by anything other than the facts.

All right?

You may not know that, but it's true.

Just ask them.

Mr.

Owens and others argue that the show has had total independence from Network Brass for the show's 57 years on the air, and that suddenly that was changing.

Under Don Hewitt, the original EP,

they said, hey, we had independence and it worked out pretty well.

He was there for almost 60 years.

It's crazy the number of years he was there.

Under Jeff Fager, he was there for the next 14,

less so.

And under Mr.

Owens, 60 Minutes has all but lost its mind, shilling for progressives.

And I, for one, am thrilled to see him go.

Not that I think this broadcast with its current staff is salvageable.

I'm just in favor of dismantling this current version of the show, which would appropriately fit in any hour of MSNBC prime time.

The latest meltdown started when Donald Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS and its parent company, Paramount, accusing 60 Minutes of unlawful and illegal behavior in what he said was its deceptive editing of the Kamala Harris interview before this last election.

You remember they took her word-salad answer about Netanyahu and they siphoned it down to make her sound more cogent.

We caught it because they put out the wrong version of it when they were teasing the interview, and then they played a different version when she actually appeared.

Most legal analysts, including this one, do not see much of any merit in that lawsuit.

But Trump has used it as a cudgel over Paramount, whose owner, Sherry Redstone, is trying to sell the company right now to Skydance, and that sale is going to need government approval.

Trump has long complained about 60 Minutes being unfair to him and biased in favor of Democrats.

And on that, he is 100% correct.

Under Jeff Fager, yes, definitely, but especially under Bill Owens.

But before we get to Owens, let's take a quick look back at the Fager years and how 60 treated Barack Obama.

You don't have any doubts that you're ready.

No.

Where do you get all this confidence?

How are you finding the job?

What's the most frustrating part of the job?

Do you take a day off?

Have you gotten lost in here yet?

Do you see some hope?

Do you think that things are going to get better?

Do you think that you might have the unemployment rate down to 8%

by the time the election rolls around?

And this is the most aggressive speech I've seen you give in a while.

What changed?

Why do you think you'd be a good president?

Steve, asked and answered.

Let's move on.

Okay.

I mean, honestly,

we almost added the little hearts, the emojis coming out of Steve Croft in his head for that series of hard-hitting interviewers.

Interviews, not exactly murderers row, is it?

Like back in the Mike Wallace years.

Who could forget this absurdity?

This was under Bill Owens when Leslie Stahl interviewed Donald Trump in October 2020, just before his re-election battle against Joe Biden after the Hunter Biden laptop had come out.

It's one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen and you don't cover it.

Biggest.

You want to talk about it.

Well because it can't be verified.

You want to talk about insignificant things.

I'm telling you.

Of course it can be verified.

Excuse me.

They found the laptop.

Leslie.

Leslie.

What can't be verified?

The laptop.

Why do you say that?

Even the family hasn't.

The family on the laptop,

he's gone into hiding.

For five days, he's gone into hiding.

He's preparing for your debate.

Oh, it's taken him five days to prepare.

I doubt it.

We only know that that exchange took place because Trump taped it himself, not trusting 60 to air his full grievance.

And indeed, he was right, and he released it.

Same timeframe, October 2020, 60 took us inside the Lincoln Project's campaign against President Trump.

And did they do a hard-hitting expose on the rabidly anti-Trump grifters who are loathed by virtually all Republicans and accomplished little more than successfully lining their own pockets?

Let's see.

These buccaneers have made a name for themselves with malicious attack ads, churning out new ones almost daily.

Most released cost-free on social media.

John Weaver feels it's the party that's betrayed him.

I mean, look, Leslie, we've gone from caring about character, rule of law, defending the Constitution, a cogent national security policy, free trade.

Where are all those issues?

Imagine if you travel the country for 30 years fighting for Republican principles and you learned it was all a lie.

No one cares about all the issues that we fought for.

How painful is it for you

to turn against the Republican Party?

Do you ever sit around and talk about you're repudiating your life in a way?

How painful is it, John Weaver, my little buccaneer?

By the way, Google John Weaver Lincoln project and see what other questions Leslie Stahl could have asked if 60 had actually done some investigative reporting about that group.

After the 2020 election, the biggest story in the nation was, of course, Mr.

Trump's claims of voter fraud, especially in places like Pennsylvania, where Democrats Democrats made changes to voting laws late in the process, to voting procedures late in the process, not approved by the lawmakers, not approved by the state legislature.

And those changes allowed ballots to arrive after Election Day to count.

They allowed less secure ballot drop boxes and more.

Did 60 take an in-depth fair and balanced look at that?

As COVID spiked again, vote-by-mail ballots flooded tabulation centers.

Other ballots jammed streetside drop boxes or were hand-delivered to registrars and city clerks.

What could have been chaos instead became an exercise in democracy.

Yeah.

Okay.

Democracy in action.

That's all it was, folks.

That case went all the way up to the U.S.

Supreme Court, I mean, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

And fine, it was not resolved in President Trump's favor.

We know that, but it was just democracy.

That's all.

No more.

Not really a valid legal battle.

Joe Biden was, of course, sworn in as president, as you know, in 2020.

And did 60 spend the next four years digging into the president's mental acuity with in-depth 60-minute pieces?

Oh, they asked a question or two along the way, but no.

Or his opening of the southern border, allowing more than 10 million illegals to flood the country.

No.

Or how about the COVID overreaches under that president?

Absolutely not.

It appears they had a different focus.

We wanted to ask Governor DeSantis about the deal, but he declined our request for an interview.

We caught up with him south of Orlando.

Publix, as you know, donated $100,000 to your campaign, and then you rewarded them with the exclusive rights to distribute the vaccination in the city.

So first of all, what you're saying is wrong.

How is that not paid away?

That's a fake narrative.

I met with the county mayor.

I met with the administrator.

I met with all the folks at Palm Beach County, and I said, here's some of the options.

We can do more drive-through sites.

We can give more to hospitals, we can do the Publix.

And they said, We think that would be the easiest thing for our residents.

But Melissa McKinley, the county commissioner in the Glades, told us the governor never met with her about the Publix deal.

The criticism is that it's pay-to-play.

It's wrong, it's wrong, it's a fake narrative.

I just disabused you of the narrative, and you don't care about the facts because obviously I laid it out for you in a way that is irrefutable.

And so, it's clearly not.

Isn't there the near-no, no, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.

It's actually a fact.

Obviously, fearing that Ron DeSantis might become the eventual Republican nominee, in April 2021, 60 aired a disgustingly misleading report by Sharon Alphonse,

suggesting DeSantis was guilty of a pay-for-play campaign contribution scheme by which he offered the COVID vaccination shots at Publix supermarkets as some sort of payback to a grocery store chain that had donated to his campaign.

60 showed a bit of that brief exchange between Alfonse and Governor DeSantis, in which he offered what looked like a rather lame response to her tough questions and just happened to leave on the editing room floor the bulk of his extremely substantive answer to every point she raised, in which he utterly dismantled her accusations.

Even some Florida Democrats, after they saw the piece, lashed out, saying they had told 60 Minutes the public story was, quote, bullshit, but that the producers did not seem to care.

It wasn't just political hits on candidates either.

Take a look at the show's coverage of, say, climate change.

This one's from January 2023.

1970, the planet's 3.5 billion people were sustainable.

But on this New Year's Day, the population is 8 billion.

Today, wild plants and animals are running out of places to live.

The scientists you're about to meet say the Earth is suffering a crisis of mass extinction on a scale unseen since the dinosaurs.

A World Wildlife Fund study says that in the past 50 years, the abundance of global wildlife has collapsed 69%,

mostly for the same reason.

Too many people, too much consumption, and growth mania.

I would say it's too much to say that we're killing the planet because the planet's going to be fine.

What we're doing is we're killing our way of life.

Amazing.

No mention of the number of nearly identical warnings, just like this, that had rained down upon the populace for years, decades prior to this report, with not a scintilla of accuracy.

None of the climate change doomsday predictions has come true.

Somehow they forgot that in the piece.

Or, how about this one, more recently, on free speech in Germany, where people are literally being arrested for saying things deemed, quote, offensive online, a concept most normal Americans would detest.

Not back to Sharon Alfonse, not Sharon Alfonse, though.

She appears to love the idea.

How many cases are you working on at any time?

In our unit, we have about 3,500 cases per year.

Nine investigators work out of this office in a converted courthouse.

Lau says they get hundreds of tips a month from police, watchdog groups, and victims.

You must see a lot of crazy stuff.

Yes.

The worst of the internet is wrapped in red case folders, stuffed with printouts of online slurs, threats, and hate.

This is a criminal offense.

What does that say?

So they're suggesting that the refugee children play in the electrical wires.

Okay.

In this case, the accused had to pay 3,750 euros.

Wow.

It's not a parking ticket.

Yeah, not a parking ticket.

It's so fun to laugh about.

If you watch the whole piece, it gets even worse.

We played for you yesterday, Scott Pelley's attempted takedown of Moms for Liberty when they appeared on the show, who he said had no basis for their totally empty assertions that LGBTQ books and other inappropriate material is intentionally being put in K through five libraries.

So wrong were moms for liberty that all nine justices on the U.S.

Supreme Court just spent a day immersed in titles promoting LGBTQ material in K through five classrooms.

The very thing Scott Pelley says is not happening.

And the only question was not whether, in fact, it does occur and is occurring, but why schools are refusing to allow parents to opt out.

Looking forward to your follow-up, Scott Pelly, and your apology.

So, this, this is what Bill Owens's independence has gotten us.

Oh,

never before has anyone overseen me.

The absolute worst, most biased, hardest, leftist version of 60 Minutes that we have ever been subjected to.

And yet, to hear him and his supporters tell it, Sherry Redstone finally looking at the program and saying, you need to reel it in, people.

What she actually did was just appoint a producer to enforce the company's, quote, journalistic standards.

This was the breach.

This was the straw that broke the back of 60 Minutes at its core.

In a leaked goodbye memo to staff, Owens writes, quote, over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.

So, having defended this show and what we stand for from every angle over time with everything

I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.

And lest you think I am being overly dramatic, he indeed was reported to have said this and spoken to the newsroom in tears.

A gut punch, said a veteran 60 Minutes producer to the New York Times, which broke the story.

Profoundly disturbing, wrong.

And then this, as reported by Jake Tapper on CNN, who spoke with some 60 Minutes producers reeling from the news.

A second 60 Minutes source tells me, quote, Bill had widespread, has widespread support at 60.

He's dedicated his life to CBS and the broadcast.

And this was his last act of dedication to it.

It's like a guy who has been babbling for months against an attack, attack, unable to defend the broadcast from inappropriate corporate influence.

He pulls the pin from his last grenade.

He sacrificed himself, hoping it might make our corporate overlords wake up and realize they risked destroying what makes 60 Minutes great.

It seems clear now, in a quest to sell the company, Sherry Redstone and others will bow to presidential pressure.

60 Minutes is one of the crown jewels of American broadcast journalism, and they have no problem crushing it in their race to make a deal and make themselves richer.

He's like a Medal of Honor winner.

He's jumping on the grenade, sacrificing himself to save the totally independent and unbiased 60 from the evil Trump and his influence over Sherry Redstone.

Perhaps, friends at 60, the problem lies not with your corporate owner or your president, but with you.

Maybe, just maybe, you've lost your way.

Perhaps you've gone so far leftward in your programming that it's actually caused the corporate brass to finally notice, yes, it's happening in the context of a lawsuit and a merger.

But you've gone so far leftward, it's actually endangered the sale of your parent company.

Might this not be a time to reflect, revamp, recover some of that old magic that made the broadcast famous to begin with.

We'll believe it when you fire literally every correspondent.

You can start with Sharon, but Scott Pelly has to go, as do the others.

Every correspondent on staff, along with all producers, shred it down to the studs, and we will consider taking you seriously again.

Until then, goodbye, Bill.

You'll go the way of 60s ratings, out the door.

into retirement, never to be seen again.

Joining me now, our friend and first guest ever on the Megan Kelly show, Glenn Greenwald, host of Rumble's System Update.

Aren't you tired of the corporate media prioritizing certain narratives or the facts?

I mean, I, of course, have been too, and that's why we launched this show, to have real conversations full of tough questions and to get to the truth.

And it's also why I want to tell you about Ground News, an independent app and website not at the mercy of corporate control.

They prioritize transparency so you can compare coverage on any issue and think for yourself instead of letting someone else think for you or manipulate you.

They even show important stories that the other side is ignoring.

Go to groundnews.com/slash Megan, and you can see it in action for yourself.

With so many outlets suppressing conservative views in particular and ignoring facts, ground news is more important than ever.

Track all your most trusted, independent sources there so you never miss out on the story shaping our world.

Right now, you can get 40% off their vantage plan.

That's good, knocking the price down to just five bucks a month.

Go to groundnews.com slash Megan.

That's G-R-O-U-N-D-News.com slash Megan to invest a small amount in your ability to think critically about the news.

Glenn, welcome back.

Your thoughts on Bill Owens single tier, jumping on the grenade to save 60 minutes.

I'm going to try and maintain my composure emotionally over everything that just happened.

It's not going to be easy, but I'll do my best for your show.

You know, I think there's a lot going on here, And there's a few issues that I do want to talk about that are, I think, ancillary to what's taking place, but nonetheless important.

I think the primary issue, though, Megan, is that these people are living in a past that no longer exists.

There was one quote that said, 60 Minutes is the crowning jewel of broadcast journalism.

It was the crowning jewel of broadcast journalism.

I remember when I was growing up, you know, and became very interested in politics, even in like my early teens, I used to watch 60 Minutes and really, it was kind of what shaped shaped my admiration for journalism, my desire to be part of journalism.

I remember they would take the most powerful people in society, you know, corporate executives and tobacco executives and oil executives and some of the most powerful political officials in the country, regardless of ideology, and they would just grill them mercilessly about questions that they auto answered.

That's what made 60 Minutes so frightening to people, so alarming to people, to the people in power.

And they didn't really have a political agenda.

It was they really prided themselves on being pure, purely journalistic.

And this is what has happened writ large to our corporate media in general.

And they don't realize it or they don't want to accept it is that they have lost the faith and trust in everybody except for the part of the audience that agrees with them ideologically, which is basically meaningless.

I mean, the whole point of 60 Minutes was it gathered all Americans together as a news institution that we all trusted, regardless of party, regardless of ideology.

All of those days are gone for almost every single one of these institutions.

And the reason they squandered it is not because of the advent of the internet and independent voices.

They squandered it because they deservedly squandered it because they proved over and over that they have a prioritization of a political agenda over their journalistic agenda.

The only reason there's an independent media, the only reason you have this gigantic audience or people like Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or so many others, the reason we're able to attract a a big audience in terms of independent media is not because we manipulated the public into no longer trusting these big corporate media outlets that they used to get their news from and believe it was the truth.

It was because they themselves got caught lying so many times.

They so transparently renounced their journalistic mission and journalistic agenda in pursuit of a broader political ideology, which I really think began primarily as a reaction to Donald Trump.

I mean, the media has always been sort of vaguely liberal, especially on cultural issues.

They're based in New York and Washington and the coast.

But, you know, within that, they could still do a lot of nonpartisan trans-ideological journalism.

Once Donald Trump came, they all collectively began believing that their primary mission was no longer to report the news, to be even-handed in any way.

Their primary mission was to stop Donald Trump as a way of saving the Republic.

And the minute a journalist starts thinking that way, then essentially all of your journalistic neutrality and what gave you the credibility in the first place has evaporated.

And these people who are weeping in these newsrooms just keep, can't come to terms with that.

They think they've lost something in the last week that they, in fact, have lost many years ago and no longer have.

Yes, that they willing, willingly, voluntarily gave up in an effort to ruin Trump.

And we all watched it.

I couldn't agree more.

I loved 60 Minutes when I was younger.

I loved Mike Wallace.

And there's no question that Mike Wallace was a committed liberal Democrat.

But his reports on 60 Minutes were great and unsparing.

And that was still in the age of the Ed Bradleys of the world, where they did not really believe, or at least they were reined in from showing their hard left partisan nature every week when that broadcast began.

We put this together a while ago.

It bears showing again because it's great.

But here's a sample of how Mike Wallace used to do journalism while he was on 60.

What means dictatorship?

A dictator is somebody

who

forcibly,

whether it's free press

or free religion

or

free private enterprise, now you're beginning to come a little closer to that.

You, Father, knows best.

And

if you get in the way of father, father

will take care of you.

Imam President Sadat of Egypt, a devoutly religious man, a Muslim, says that what you are doing now is, quote, a disgrace to Islam.

And he calls you, Imam, forgive me, his words, not mine, a lunatic.

What they hear, what I heard, was overtones of absolute,

you were sticking it to the Jews once again.

That's what good journalism looks like.

He was unsparing.

You're sitting across in the Ayatollah, and you'd bust that out on him, you know, like right in people's faces.

And instead, what 60 Minutes does now is, yeah, if they've got Donald Trump there, they'll have some hard questions for him.

But if you've got Barack Obama, you talk about how amazing he is, how wonderful he is, what it's like to be president.

If you have Kamala Harris, you do clean up on her answers.

So she sounds more cogent and together.

One of her biggest weaknesses, by the way.

So the edit did matter.

You know, I think, I think we all have to begin with like humility, even as journalists, and recognize that we all are the byproduct of an endless number of subjective experiences, like where we're born, what our parents teach us, what community we grew up in, what religion we grew up in, how we see our country, how other countries see them.

These are all things that, of course, make us

imperfect in terms of vehicles for the truth.

None of us are infallible vessels of the truth.

We're human beings.

We see things erroneously all the time.

What used to be the high duty of journalism was to, number one, recognize that.

So there was no this fraudulent sense that, oh, yes, we reside above everybody else in our ability to free ourselves of political bias and political subjectivity, but that instead we're going to do the best job possible in our reporting to make sure it's divorced from our political agenda.

That has always been what has divided good journalism from bad journalism.

And I just, if you don't mind making, let me just address the point you brought up with the 60 Minutes on the Leslie Stahl and the Donald Trump interview, because this was a crucial moment for me.

professionally, because I have always been a media critic for a long time.

I thought the corporate media was losing its objectivity, was becoming an agenda pursuing entity above all else else long before Trump.

But that was really a defining moment for me because I used to think the goal is to criticize journalism with the goal of reforming it so that we could go back to a time when we had major journalistic institutions all of Americans could trust.

And that was one of the moments where I really lost that hope and said, no, actually, this is.

a hopeless project.

This is, these days are gone and they're not coming back because I was working very hard on that Hunter Biden story on that Hunter Biden laptop.

And, you you know, we all have talent as journalists.

We all have experience as journalists.

One of the things I've done most of my career is I work with very large archives of information.

You know, I got, I worked a lot with WikiLeaks on those kinds of archives, obviously the Snowden files.

I had several of those in Brazil.

And I know how to verify them.

I know the journalistic means that are used to verify them.

Well, before the election, I knew the Hunter Biden laptop was verifiable, was authentic, was genuine, that the information in there was reliable.

I had confirmed it in all the ways that we had confirmed these other laptops and these other archives.

And so to watch Leslie Stahl say, and she was just mouthing what everybody else in the media was saying, because it was weeks before the election.

They didn't want to do anything to jeopardize Biden's chances.

Oh, this laptop is not something we can talk about.

You know that it's something we can't verify.

They all spread the lie that it was Russian disinformation.

And I, of course, ended up leaving my own media outlet because they wouldn't let me report on this.

archive that I knew for certain was authentic.

That was really the moment that showed me that this was not just a kind of progressive incremental problem that one day could be reined in.

It was really a fundamental transformation of how these media institutions thought about what their primary mission was.

They were very willing, in fact, eager to find lies to justify burying that archive that told us a lot about what Joe Biden and his family did in pursuit of.

profit in China, profit in Ukraine, all sorts of

important questions about the credibility of Joe Biden, but they were so desperate to do anything to make sure that he did, that he won that election against Donald Trump that I watched them all collectively embrace a series of lies to justify burying it and suppressing it.

Of course, big tech then censored it too based on those same lies.

And that was when I left.

corporate media for good and said independent journalism is the only way to do real journalism because the pressures politically and culturally on these editors are too great to allow the journalistic mission to be fulfilled.

It's so true.

You go back to that period of time.

It was like they, oh, the Hunter Biden laptop is not verifiable, even though it's totally verifiable and was later verified even by CBS once everybody else had done it.

And at the same time, boosting the Lincoln project and playing their nasty ads without doing any investigation of the people that they were promoting.

Trump loses.

Biden takes over.

All that hard-hitting stuff goes by the wayside.

The focus turns to Ron DeSantis and, you know, boring in on him with a false story.

And then it would turn back to Trump.

And when Trump won in 2024, of course, we had more of the same.

Here's Scott Pelley.

This didn't make my little talking points memo.

But here he is starting his show in November of 2024, talking about the Trump cabinet picks.

Does this sound fair and balanced to you?

This past week, Republicans won the House majority, and President-elect Trump made nominations to his cabinet.

Some nominees appear to have no compelling qualifications other than loyalty to Trump.

The nominees are Senator Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, he's a combat veteran, most recently a morning show host on Fox News with no government experience, Hulsey Gabbard, for director of national intelligence.

She sought a pardon for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S.

secrets and now lives in Russia.

And Robert Kennedy Jr., a skeptic of vaccinations.

I know I've triggered you with this note in reference there, but it's all not only that.

Not only that, but like, but the idea was, if you notice how slimy that was, and begin with, these people have no qualifications, but then each one of them was smeared with some view that if you're a good liberal, you were supposed to hate.

Like Tulsi Gabbard has spent her entire career in the U.S.

military.

She worked her way up to lieutenant colonel.

She has every security clearance possible.

She was in the Congress for eight years.

She served on the intelligence and house armed services committee.

How is she not qualified for a position in the intelligence community?

And of course, you go on and on with RFK in his entire life, devoted as an environmental lawyer and as a health advocate.

So this is, you know, the sort of thing that I think is, has become so transparent, even to ordinary people who don't pay a lot of attention to this.

The one thing I do want to say, Megan, is I actually do think it's a reasonable concern when you have these media outlets who have been bought by massive corporate conglomerates who do depend upon the good graces of the federal government, either because they get big contracts from them or they need their regulatory approval.

That has always been a problem where major corporations that own media outlets want to keep good relations with the government and then therefore might restrict their media outlets from reporting adversarial on the government.

That only becomes a problem, though, when those media outlets, when those media programs lose credibility.

The reason they never used to do that is because they knew that the whistle would be blown on them and say, oh, these CBS executives are telling us what we can and can't say.

And people trusted 60 Minutes if they blew the whistle.

The problem is nobody trusts these outlets anymore.

So when they say corporate executives are interfering in our journalism, people say, well, you know what?

Your journalism doesn't really seem like journalism.

And so maybe you do actually need some interference from higher ups in order to make you start doing your job.

I do find corporate interference and journalism dangerous, but they, again, have made their own bed that they're now forced to lie in.

That's right.

I think what happened was they got so far leftward in their drift that it hampered Sherry Redstone's possible ability to sell the company to Skydance.

And she said, holy hell, somebody needs to rein these people in.

I gave you a very wide berth.

I didn't interfere for all this time, but you're so far gone, I might not be able to sell the company now.

So I'm going to bring in this person to sort of babysit you.

And it was a bridge too far for this guy, Bill Owens.

And I'm sure this person is just as leftward in her bias as Bill Owens is too, frankly.

But at least she's there ostensibly to try to manage what they've been doing wrong and they can't have it.

But it's like, as I said, there's no...

Bill Owens or no Bill Owens.

There's no reinventing 60 unless everybody goes.

I mean, you really think Sharon Alfonse can be reformed?

Scott Pelley can be reformed in a way that will allow him to report honestly and fairly.

Anderson Cooper.

Yeah, Anderson.

Megan, do you remember when CNN, you know, faced with their still declining ratings, started saying, oh, like, maybe if we move Don Lemon to the morning instead of at the night, and then we move this, like, I don't know what Poppy Harlow, whoever that is, from like eight o'clock to 11.

It's like the ultimate rearranging of the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

They don't understand that fundamentally they've become a non-journalistic organization that nobody will ever trust until they start making major revisions.

They have now added some true pro-Trump voices onto the show, including people like Scott Jennings, who are quite good.

But the news organization itself is inherently broken.

And until they fix it on a fundamental level, they can sort of, you know, put ornaments on it.

It's never really going to regain regain the trust of the people whose trust they lost but need.

Here's another CBS update for you.

I don't know if you happened to catch our latest astronauts, Glenn, take their trip to space, literally comparing themselves to Alan Shepard, who walked on the moon.

I mean, literally, like multiple of our newest astronauts compared themselves to Alan Shepard.

Well, it hasn't worked out so well for Gail King, who's at the opposite end of the time schedule on CBS.

She's in the mornings.

This news just posted via NewsNation.

The morning show over there is in third place.

It's doing terribly and it has been for some time.

They were averaging like mid to late February

2 million viewers in the overall and 357,000 in the 25 to 54 demo.

All right, so call it 2 million and 350,000 in the overall and in the key advertising demo.

Well, right before the flight, their numbers searched.

People wanted to see what was going to happen and they tuned in.

And that morning, they had 3.9 million viewers and almost 600,000 in the demo.

After the flight, viewers fled.

News Nation's reporting this.

Following three days, the numbers cratered to an average of 1.9 million people, a 51% loss.

The demo fell down to 339,000, a 43% loss, below where they had been even going into the event.

Then Monday, April 21st, just a week after the flight, the demo fell even further.

Now it's down to 311,000.

The total number stayed at the terrible 1.9 million.

An industry insider telling NewsNation.

This stunt should have never been greenlit by CBS News to begin with.

Gail tries to be this relatable morning show anchor who claims she's down to earth and then not only takes this gazillion dollar flight, but then attacks people for getting mad at her.

It's a complete crock.

And just in case people haven't seen this one, we didn't, this is one we did not play.

We played a lot of SOTS from these women, but we've got Gail

in a very short sound bite saying the following, SOT 28.

Two of the astronauts, I still have a hard time calling myself an astronaut.

She literally is calling herself an astronaut.

She doesn't understand why we don't celebrate her.

And she's probably really confused as to why her ratings are falling.

Yeah, it's like taking a flight from Detroit to, you know, San Jose and then being like, hey, I just rode on this aircraft.

Now I'm a pilot.

It's really hard to think of myself a pilot, but like, I am a pilot.

I actually did fly on this thing that flew through the air and landed safely.

And also, you know.

you i'm not saying like you're supposed to be the most serious news person if you're on a morning show like you know the idea is to kind of be like friendly and to wake up and have have people feel comfortable with you in the morning or as they get ready for work or whatever.

Still, it is a news show.

And she didn't just go on this thing.

She went on with like some of the, I mean, she sat next to Katie Perry, you know, like just the one of the most absurd pop stars who just made, I think, the, the worst joke of herself when she came down and like kissed the ground and talked about the spirituality of that seven second flight.

And all of this is just continuously eroding any credibility that they have to claim that they have any authority at all.

I mean, they're making themselves more and more ridiculous.

And also, as you say, it just kind of reeks of somebody who would, who wants to be a very wealthy celebrity and show off that opulence, as opposed to somebody who is in any way relatable.

You know, you're talking about like the people hand chosen by the second richest man on the planet who put his fiancé along with Katy Perry on this flight.

It was a cringe fest from start to finish.

And then she goes on and says, yeah, I'm still a little humble.

I don't really want to call myself an astronaut, even though I am.

What do they think people in this country are going to, how are they going to react to that sort of thing?

And this is what I'm saying, Megan, is that they live in this world that is so detached from anything other than themselves that they just have lost the ability to understand how they're perceived by other people.

And that is really one of the worst, worst attributes you can possibly have if you're in the public arena is to just completely lose the ability to understand how others are perceiving you.

She went out, Gail King, after she got blowback and among other things, said to her critics, have you been?

Have you been?

That's my question.

No, Gail, no one's been because it costs a million dollars to get on Jeff Bezos' spaceship.

And as some folks online, News Nation points out, responded, no, Gail.

I'm trying to buy eggs.

Gail, if I had that money, I'd be paying off the mortgage on my house, right?

Like so out of touch, Ms.

Oprah's best friend on David Geffen's yacht, always at Oprah's side doing all the billionaire excursions.

Have you been?

And then, as if that wasn't going to persuade people, she actually played the sexist card.

We played this before, but

it doesn't get old.

Here it is.

Please don't call it a ride.

That is not a friggin' ride.

Whenever a man goes up, you have never said to an astronaut, boy, what a ride.

You know, we duplicated the same trajectory that Alan Shepard did back in the day, pretty much.

No one called that a ride.

It was called a flight.

It was called a journey because

a ride implies that it's something frivolous or something that's lighthearted.

There was nothing frivolous about what we did

and the machine that we were on and what it took for the people to get that machine up and running to get us up and get us back down safely.

So, you know, I'm very disappointed and very saddened by it.

And I also say this,

what it's doing to inspire other women and young girls, girls, please don't ignore that.

I've had so many women and young girls reach out to me.

And men too, by the way, men too, that say, wow, I never thought I could do that.

But I see you doing it at this stage of my life.

Who would have thunk it?

Not me.

And how inspired they are.

Okay.

You better be inspired.

And if you call it a ride, you're a sexist pig.

It was a ride.

Megan, it was a kernel ride for rich people.

Of course, that's what it was.

And like the reason we distinguish what they did from actual astronauts, by the way, many of whom are women, we have real female astronauts who might inspire like young girls to think about a career in becoming astronauts is because they didn't do any of the training.

They just sat there.

Other people were responsible for the ride that they were on.

Like this is so basic and so obvious.

Who puts these things in these people's heads that, you know, that lets them get off of this ride and say, how dare you not take seriously our role as astronauts?

When you have people who train their whole lives, they go to, you know, engineering school and aeronautics school in order to study the art of being an astronaut, the science involved in going to space.

And they dressed up in a costume and went on a little ship ride for 11 minutes.

And some carnival rides actually take more than that.

And then it comes out and they're like, how dare you go out on a ride?

No wonder the ratings are plummeting.

It's actually very interesting to me that there's a real backlash.

I mean, if you Google, just Google Blue Origin Space Ride, every single thing that comes up is the backlash.

How angry people are about this, how absurd they thought it was, what a vanity play it was, obviously.

It had exactly the opposite of the one Gail and the others thought it would.

This also reported in that same report.

Katy Perry struggling to sell tickets for her lifetimes tour, despite promoting it during the 11-minute space tourism journey by holding up the set list printed on a butterfly to the camera camera as they write instead of, you know, looking outside the window at Earth.

So it's like, the reason it's so great is because people are on to it.

You know, they, they didn't get away with it, Glenn.

They've been called out at every turn to the point now that they're running from it.

No, they don't even want to talk about it now.

Yeah, you know, Megan, I'm sure you remember, you know, like in the 80s, they sent the first woman into space on the Columbia spaceship, which ended up being, you know, tragically destroyed.

And they picked a teacher from New Hampshire, Krista McCaula.

And

yeah, she wasn't spending

millions of dollars.

She wasn't like a pop star or a TV star.

She was chosen precisely because she represented the ordinary American.

And the idea was we want to open this

transformative experience to ordinary people.

This is exactly the opposite what they ended up doing.

And also for Gail King to talk about her like she's some sort of feminist pioneer, like she's the first person ever to go into space.

When, as I said, you had Christian McCaula, but also, like, a good number now of like actual trained female astronauts who go into space.

It, I mean, it's, is it really surprising that people reacted in the way that they're reacting?

I mean, not only that, but there was another woman on board.

I don't know who she is, but I watched some of the interview that they did when they got off of their spacecraft after their mission.

And the question was, like, what does this mean for you?

And she's like, you know, this is for all survivors.

I'm like, survivor?

It turns out this woman alleged that she had been the victim of a rape many years earlier when she was at Harvard and has become like a sexual assault activist now.

And she brought up with her some medical bracelet, I guess, from when she went to the hospital and made this claim.

And she made the thing, I'm like, must everything truly, this is the left's idea of like what it means to be a woman.

You are about the abuse that men have heaped upon you.

You are are about the sexist pigs who refer to your space mission as a ride.

Or you are Lauren Sanchez, where you are literally getting a suit that unzips so you can show off your tits while you're on your way to space.

And then cherry on top when they come back lecturing us on how there was nothing frivolous about what they did up there with the Kardashians and Oprah on the sidelines watching Glenn.

It's got everything that the left thinks it is to be a woman

yeah you know i think that the people who actually make the biggest differences in terms of you know we have a conception of what this particular kind of job entails even in politics or in industry or whatever you know a ceo is a man and then you have the first ceo as a woman The people who make the actual differences are the people who just go and do their jobs and aren't constantly banging on the table and demanding attention and saying, isn't it amazing that even though I'm a woman, I've I've been able to become the CEO?

You know, you have gay people in public life who just go into public life, are open about it, but don't call attention to it.

You have black people who do that.

What this was was, it was almost like a parody of a social justice crusade.

Like we're going to get these six women, none of whom have the slightest experience, whose only qualification is that they are women.

We're purposely going to make it an all-woman fight so we can celebrate feminism.

And it always ends up being so artificial and so contrived.

And of course, then to add, you know, like the ultimate victim of somebody who's a survivor of sexual assault, it, it just is the kind of thing that I think ends up being counterproductive because it creates this perception of women as people who can only make achievements if there's some special carve out for them, if they assume a victim role.

It's kind of a very regressive way, actually, of looking at the role of all sorts of people who didn't use to perform these kinds of jobs.

whereas the ones who i think actually make the biggest difference are the ones who just go and be astronauts and go into space and do their job without constantly calling question uh attention to what their demographic is those are the people who actually end up shaping society in a real way because they're being so genuine about it they they just couldn't get it they could not get it through their heads they they are all democrat leftists from the look of it i mean we know a few of them are and so they just don't think that way they think everyone's going to celebrate them bringing up their trauma um or their breasts or their heroics or lectures on how we need to refer to their flight because if you don't call them shiros you're a sexist pig this is leftist thought you know it's on display and that's why it kind of gets to a bigger point of

can the left get past this you know the democrat party's wrestling with this right now We over here are just looking at them, wondering what their next move is because this sort of woke, very progressive cancer that they're dealing with is eating away their own party.

And I've said from the beginning, I don't, I think they're stuck because they can't excise this thinking from their party.

It's too deeply ingrained.

It's been ingrained K through college.

They're true believers in it now.

Like if they, if they cut off that arm, they're not going to have a whole party.

Like they're not going to survive without it because it's just too infested.

I mean, they are losing, as you know, groups that they thought they had owned lock, stock, and barrel forever, no matter what it is that they did.

And if you, there's, there's a lot of complex reasons for that.

But if you look at the kind of the ethos and the sentiments being expressed by, say, black voters who would never in their entire lives have considered voting Republican before, whose families were members of the Democratic Party for generations, or Latinos or LGBTs or women, or any of those groups that have traditionally been more aligned with the Democratic Party.

I think one of the things you hear is this kind of like exhaustion about the Democratic Party, about American liberalism constantly imposing on them the burden to identify first and foremost, not as a member of society, not as an American, not as somebody trying to support their family, not as someone trying to get ahead, but based on these demographic groups, these insistence that you identify first and foremost, based on these demographic groups, that at the end of the day, don't really have much of an impact on

the way it is in which you live your life.

Maybe 100 years ago, it had a huge impact, but the progress that the United States has made is such that people don't want to be defined that way anymore.

And I think the more you define them that way, the more you're the one constraining them in the name of emancipating and liberating them.

And more and more people are catching on to that scam.

It happens no matter how rich, powerful,

successful.

these women on the left are.

And that is a tease for what we're going to discuss when we come back from this break.

And that person is Michelle Obama, who is off her rocker on her latest message.

It's unbelievable.

If you're a homeowner, listen up.

When's the last time you checked on your home title?

That's the legal proof that you own your house.

And the answer is probably never.

The problem is in today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing home titles and your equity is the target.

Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and boom, your home title has been transferred out of your name.

Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property.

So stop what you're doing and find out today if you are already a victim.

Use promo code Megan at hometitalock.com to make sure your title is still in your name.

You'll also get a free title history report plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple-lock protection.

That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud should happen, they will spend up to $1 million to fix it.

Go to hometitalock.com now.

Use promo code Megan.

That's hometitlelock.com.

Promo code M-E-G-Y-N.

The media is broken.

For decades, big cable and legacy media filtered information to hide the truth.

But thanks to podcasts like the one that you're listening to and new media around this country, the truth can break through, providing voices and views that legacy outlets we know well will not err.

But big cable still has a major way of controlling information, access.

They do this by limiting access to something called spectrum.

The invisible airwaves that power affordable wireless internet.

And by forcing you to keep their bundles, the old cable package bundle, keeping independent media out of reach.

Trump and Republicans in Congress have a huge chance right now to get this right.

By making more spectrum available and breaking the big cable's stranglehold on your information.

Tell your senator or representative to work with President Trump and sell more spectrum so everybody can keep listening to shows like this, the Megan Kelly Show.

Go to inthecableopoly.org to learn more.

Glenn Michelle Obama, still trying to make her struggling podcast a thing, went on a four and a half minute tear

about herself and how hard it is to be Michelle Obama.

We're going to go through quite a bit of it.

Here's the first one about how difficult it is for black women like Michelle to articulate their pain.

We grew up with women who weren't voicing the pain

and the burden.

They made it look easy.

And when you make stuff look easy, people assume that you must like this.

Yeah.

It's okay with you, right?

Right.

You know, we don't articulate as black women our pain because it's almost like nobody ever gave us permission to do that.

And does anyone care?

Yeah, there's

that.

If we knew, I think we would care.

If we knew,

if we knew.

Or, you know, yeah, and we have to ask ourselves, our, the men in our lives is,

uh,

you know, why wait to be asked?

What do you mean?

You know, it seems like what we go through is pretty obvious.

I mean, maybe we're not complaining, but we're actually living life out loud.

This is the perfect soundbite after the discussion we just had about how the left looks at everything through this identity.

You could say prism.

You could also say prison.

Where she's talking about how women aren't allowed to articulate their pain, about how they just suck it up.

You know, they don't show that as if men never do that, Glenn.

Like men are known, aren't they, for articulating their pain?

That's what you think of when you think of man traditionally.

Bill Burr has a new comedy special.

I don't know if you've seen it, where it's essentially all about that.

You know, men die of heart attacks and strokes and all sorts of coronary disease

and have a life expectancy lower than women in a similar socioeconomic position, according to him, because they're constantly forced to suck in their pain and kind of bury their suffering and their anxieties and their fear because that's what society teaches, whereas women are far freer to express emotion.

But you know, leave that aside for the second, Megan.

We all have in our childhood, every single last one of us, some kind of difficulty.

You could even call it trauma, if you want to use the new modern day jargon, because being a child is actually quite difficult because you're confronting a world that you don't actually have the mental capacity to interpret or understand.

You end up misinterpreting things all the time.

There are parts of us that society dislikes that we don't quite know how to express or that we feel judged by.

There's huge numbers of people who end up with all kinds of childhood difficulties and don't feel a need to start a podcast where they essentially spend all their time complaining about that.

And, you know, you and I, I don't know if you remember, but the last time I was on your show, we did talk about Michelle Obama's podcast because on the list of people to feel sorry for or to think are oppressed or to think are somehow people who deserve deserve our sympathetic attention.

If you were to list all 8 billion people in the world, Michelle Obama would be,

if not at the very bottom, like maybe six spots away from being at the bottom.

I just checked the list.

She's not on it.

It's official.

She's not on it.

Okay.

Yeah.

So she, she's, I'm thinking, if you list, if you listed all 8 billion people on the planet.

in order of who deserves sympathy, she would be like seven spots away from the bottom, if not right at the bottom.

Oh, no,

you're so wrong.

Listen, listen to this.

Okay.

I'll let you pick up your point in the back end of this, but listen to her talking about her eight years in the White House, SAT 27.

So I'm at this stage in life where I have to define my life on my terms for the first time.

So what are those terms?

And going to therapy.

just to work all that out.

Like, what happened that eight years that we were in the White House?

What did that do to me?

Yes.

Internally, my soul, we made it through.

We got out alive.

I hope we made the country proud.

Oh, my God.

My girls, thank God, are whole.

But what happened to me?

Oh, my God.

The utter privilege and how out of touch this person is.

She lived in a 55,000 square foot mansion on the taxpayer's dime with 18 acres of rose gardens and beautiful grounds all around her, flying on Air Force One, Marine One, and being the first lady of the United States lauded wherever she went with universally praising press coverage and covers of vogue like she was the greatest beauty who'd ever walked the face of the earth, then left to write her best-selling memoir for which she was paid millions, then signed a Netflix deal for which she was paid millions.

is giving speeches for which she's getting paid almost a million dollars per speech, has two daughters who went to Harvard and USC.

The two of them together, I haven't even counted her husband's riches.

They're definitely billionaires by now.

The house in Martha's Vineyard, which is, I think,

$20 million out on the yachts of David.

What happened to me?

Why doesn't anyone think about what happened to me during my...

I'm enraged.

I'm almost speechless at how ridiculously out of touch this person is, Glenn.

Well, because this is the thing, Megan, you know, I grew up like very ordinary.

My parents were like working class, middle class, whatever.

We didn't have, I'm not, you know, we weren't in in-depth poverty, but we weren't, you know, at all prosperous either.

And only later in life did I start to find a certain career success because of my work.

You know, you start to find financial stability and you start to find

notoriety for your work.

You know, this very well.

And it is possible that with all these things that you crave and that you always wanted once you get a hold of them,

it does bring a certain kind of problem that you didn't anticipate, maybe psychological problems, how do you deal with attention, negative feedback or whatever.

But,

and it's fine to go work on that, to go get that treated, to try and figure out a way to how, to how to deal with those things.

But if you have even the slightest amount of self-awareness, you understand

that the problems that 99% of the people face in terms of how they're even going to feed their family, the tragedies that people are going through, the losses that they suffer, the deprivations all around the world make it so pathetic for you to go and publicly say, hey, hey, gather around me and listen to me.

I want to tell you about all the difficulties that come from being wealthy or from being famous or from being, you know, one of the most celebrated women in the world.

It's like, I'm not saying there aren't odd things about being the first lady and having that level of fame.

There probably are.

Nobody wants to hear about her and her difficulties given the extraordinary blessings that she has.

And you have to be so narcissistic not to realize that.

You know, it would really be like if Marie Antoinette summoned everybody to Versailles and said, I want you to listen to this speech about how difficult and isolating it is to be a monarch and a queen and to be swimming in wealth while you people can't afford bread.

And everybody would be like, I I don't, why would I want to hear about your problems?

Right.

No, it's like Megan Markle bitching about how small her castle was.

I mean, it's like, how out of touch can you be?

The thing about Michelle Obama is she's always negative.

Everything she says has got a negative spin on it.

She's negative about the country.

She's negative about her time as first lady.

She's very negative about her husband.

She, I fully believe that they have a bad marriage.

She did not marry the right person.

It's not a good match.

She almost never says anything nice about him.

That, too, she's now trying to defend as somehow, I don't know, this is like a racial attack when people say this.

You tell me if you can figure it out.

By the way, she's speaking here to her brother and actress Taraji B.

Henson, Sat 25.

You know?

And also, as Black women,

we are so easily labeled as angry and bitter.

And let me tell you some of the most hurtful stuff that I experienced, you know, entering this life of public service at the heights that we entered into was during my husband's presidential campaign and just me telling the truth of who we were, you know,

just humanizing him as a man, saying he's, you know, he's a great man, but he's not perfect.

You know, he's got his foibles and his flaws, trying to humanize him.

The first thing that some female journalist said is that I was bitter.

I was emasculating him just by sort of trying to tell the truth about what life is, right?

And then you get labeled as angry,

you know, because you talk forcefully or passionately about something, even if it's in the context of great joy and pride that

the first label they put on us as Black women.

Oh my God, Glenn.

Okay, so first of all, the fact that this woman with all of her riches and celebrity trappings, friends, successes, et cetera, is upset and still bitching about what, quote, some female journalist said one time about her 18 years ago.

Like, there's something wrong with her.

Like,

I...

I guarantee you I've had far more negative press than Michelle Obama.

I guarantee you I have, because I have been hated by both the right and the left.

And

like, you let it go, you move on.

Sometimes you even befriend the people who said the nasty things about you because life is life.

It's short.

And the less grievances you can hold on to, the better.

That's not how she sees things.

And she wants to turn it all into a thing about skin color, about when people see her as, yes, bitter and yes, often angry.

But what I just said is kind of just depressed and dark about most subjects.

Whenever she's talking, there's just, she's down.

She's negative.

She does not see the half full glass.

It is quite the opposite.

There is no water in her glass.

You know, there's no, the glass is always empty for Michelle Obama.

You're so right.

Like, also, she's talking as though she's this unique victim in the sense that of all the people who have run for president, all their spouses, all their family members, she's the first person who ever was the target of some sort of vitriolic criticism.

You know, that sort of is the nature of running for political office.

You think there's a single person in the history of the United States who ran for president who wasn't the target of the most, I mean,

look at how every single one of them is treated.

I do, you know, I think that.

uh and also i think it's worth remembering that her husband ran for state senate at a time when he was extremely young and he won in a predominantly white neighborhood he then ran in a predominantly white state as an unknown and won a Senate seat for Illinois.

Then two years later, he began his presidential campaign and he was twice elected president of the United States by pretty significant margins over Mitch, John McCain and Mitt Romney, people who were considered to be quite competent candidates.

And to come out of all of that and still to focus not on the adulation and the historical achievements and the way in which the country has progressed to make that happen, but to remember with such bitterness and anger, some stray comment that some journalist made about you when you first started running, and to shape your entire worldview and the grievances that compose it based on that, it's like she's so addicted to being a victim, notwithstanding the fact that she's one of the most, one of the least convincing victims that you almost start to feel sorry for her.

It's like, what kind of darkness and misery must she live in?

Yeah, I mean, you know, that, that, uh,

because you're so like so much of what she, I mean, she, when she was describing the source of her problem, she was saying it was the eight years when she was first lady.

Like, how do I recover from that?

As though she was like kidnapped by ISIS for eight years and subject to the most unthinkable abuses, and now she has to recover.

She was the first lady.

But if you really think that, as she seems to think that the eight years that she spent in the White House were these devastating years, psychologically destructive, who's the person who was responsible for that?

As we reviewed in that last clip, it was her husband who she made very clear she never wanted to run for president and yet did so anyway against her wishes.

I mean, imagine the resentment she has, not for the world, but for him.

Every time she comments on him, it's negative.

Every time.

If it were just one like, oh, I'm going to try to humanize him so people can relate to him.

That actually wouldn't be a thing.

But it's every time.

she is on camera she has a negative word about her husband who happens to be one of the most famous people in the world.

I mean, I just, look, I'm, I'm not in the same situation as Michelle or Barack Obama, but I've never heard my husband say a negative word about me publicly.

He almost never says a negative word about me to my face.

I mean, like, we have a genuinely loving relationship.

He would never be out there and trying to make, like, humanize me.

He might tell like a funny story, but he wouldn't continuously barrage people with genuinely negative things about me.

Like, that's, she doesn't like him.

It's very clear.

And And then, when you point that out, it's, you know, you're trying to paint me as an angry black woman.

What, how did race get put into this?

What I see an unhappily married woman, but everything, everything is about race for her.

It's always been, you know, back to the college days.

And she got back to that topic in the same four-minute rant.

Watch this.

I am probably less light than many of my white female friends.

I see that.

Less.

Less light.

Light.

Light.

Light.

L-I-G-H-T.

Because I say this a lot.

I mean, I see the difference in some of my white female friends.

I see a lightness and ability to be in the world and see what's going on, but still be

not as burdened about it as I think I am.

You know, I think that

what I see happen in the news,

you know, the assault on immigration rights, the, you know, the challenges that face our community, the inequality,

I think it, it burns at me in a different way.

She hates her friends and her husband, especially the wife.

And it all, and it all, and it all comes down to her.

It's like she talks about what she perceives as these great injustices people are suffering.

And then she immediately, you you know, ignores any emotional effect it has on them and then goes right toward her.

Yes.

Great point.

Megan, this is like the thing that I think you were getting at, you know, like if you have any kind of public life, you know, like my husband was a member of the Brazilian.

uh congress he was you know a politician we'd be very very public at the same time i was doing a lot of public work with stone and five we you know we did all these public things together and in a course of a marriage of course you have like you know disagreements you have differences.

That's totally normal.

But every single time we were in public or giving interviews about the other person or whatever, the idea of love is you want to protect that person.

You want to uplift them.

You want to like, you know, do everything to fortify them, especially because there's so much in the world that, that is always trying to bring you down and attack you.

And to watch her do that, and also like she must, you know, even be teaching her kids these sorts of things.

You know, I mean, my husband was black.

Our kids are multiracial.

So I do think a lot about, you know, wanting to make sure they have an understanding of like their ancestry, their culture, like their tradition.

Like we all should have that understanding of our ancestry and our culture and our tradition, but at the same time, see themselves as liberated individuals that where the sky is the limit, that society isn't.

you know, trying to stop them and trap them.

And it seems like everything that comes out of her mouth is not just negative about her family and her internal life, but also the society in which she lives.

And there's no benefit and no blessing and no praise that you can heap on her that will get her to stop thinking about herself as this enraged victim that everyone in the world needs to constantly hear about her pain and trauma because there's nothing else like it.

It's so narcissistic above everything else.

Totally.

That's why she named her memoir Beloved.

I mean, honestly, it's her narcissism.

And any criticism about her for it results in, you just think I'm an angry black woman.

That's your racism coming out.

That's, I guess, what she thinks of her friends.

Last but not least, she finally spoke to sort of the reason she did not go to Trump's inauguration.

And man, this was, this one was important to her.

Take a listen.

But then this is what makes it hard because, you know, my decision to skip the inauguration, you know, what people don't realize, or my decision to make choices at the beginning of this year that suited me were met with such ridicule and criticism.

Like people couldn't believe that I was saying no for any other reason that they had to assume that my marriage was falling apart.

You know,

it's like while I'm here really trying to own my life and intentionally practice making the choice that was right for me.

And it took everything in my power to not do the thing that was right or that was was that per that was perceived as right, but do the thing that was right for me.

That was a hard thing for me to do.

I had to basically trick myself out of it.

And it started with not having anything to wear.

I mean, I had to affirmatively, because I'm always prepared for any funeral, anything.

I walk around with the right dress.

I travel with clothes just in case something pops off.

So I was like, if I'm not going to do this thing, I got to tell my team, I don't even want to have a dress ready.

Yeah.

Right.

Because it's so easy to just say,

let me do the right thing.

Again, we don't, we don't ask a lot of our former first ladies.

We really don't.

We kind of forget about them.

They can go off.

They can make their millions.

Whatever.

We don't bother them.

Was it really such a big sacrifice to ask her to go show up at the inauguration?

You know, do you think Jill Biden really wanted to be there or Laura Bush, for that matter?

You know, Hillary definitely wanted to be there for different reasons.

But like, you do it because the country likes these ceremonies.

I realize Trump did not go to the inauguration of Joe Biden.

That's a separate issue.

But she talks about it like,

I did what was right for me, something like I've never done before.

And for once, I chose me, Glenn.

Back the same theme runs throughout all of it.

Yeah, you know, I remember, Megan, when I first started getting public attention for my work, and I've heard this from many other people too, you know, you can have, you can write something or you can do an interview and there's like 300 comments underneath and, you know, they're all like very positive and praising of you.

Like, oh, great job and such good points.

But then there's that one that is like, he seems really stupid or he's so dishonest.

And that's the one that sticks in your head before you get accustomed to it until you realize like, why am I so fixated on like the negative comment when there's this, you know, mountain of praise that we also all get when our work is public?

She seems never to have learned that lesson.

It's like, I'm sure there was some commentary about the fact that she didn't show up there.

And I think you're right.

Like we all have obligations as adult members of society to do certain things that we don't want to do.

That's probably what distinguishes like being an adolescent from an adult.

It's what I'm trying to teach my kids right now as they sort of enter late adolescence, that that's what being an adult means.

And especially when you have all these benefits from having assumed a certain position but okay like let's say she just didn't really want to go was the commentary really so relentlessly negative that we have to hear about her whining and and also who listens to this show make and she's like i told my team don't have a dress ready and it like i don't think she even saying that sort of thing i don't think she realizes how like odd

and Out of touch it is it's like in the middle of your rant, you're talking about your team.

I don't pack my own bag.

Yeah, I don't have a team that that packs my bags and I'd say, get me ready for whatever can pop up.

Yeah.

And she has like every single designer in the world dying to provide her for free, like whatever their latest design is.

But she had to tell her team, oh, in this case, I want to make sure not to have a dress ready.

It's it's so, it's just so like uh obsessed with her own, the minutiae of her own life, but not even like in an interesting positive way, right?

Like, hey, I have this really extraordinary life.

I want to tell you about what it is.

It's like this constant grievance accompanied by this extraordinary life that she doesn't appreciate at all and wants everybody else to feel sorry for her because not everybody

universally reveres her.

It's just every time you show me these clips, I'm more and more amazed at what she's doing over there.

I mean,

it's kind of an interesting show because we're talking about these outsized personalities that in some cases love to victimize others and in some cases love to play the victim.

Like the first half hour was about the people at 60 Minutes, like Scott Pelley and Sharon Alfonse and Bill

Owens, who are, who love to criticize Republicans and victimize Republicans unfairly with their sound bites and so on.

And then we move on to those who love to be the victim.

Like that woman who came off the spacecraft and wanted to talk about being survivor.

And then Gail, who's a victim because we're not seeing her as a Shero.

And then here's Michelle Obama, first lady, one of the richest, most celebrated women in the world.

And that will lead me to the perfect way to cap out this hour of television.

And that is with Megan Markle.

Now, there is a reason I'm bringing her up, not just because she fits perfectly in the second half of our show, which does.

She does.

Because I might actually be having dinner with her tonight.

You mean just you and her, or as like at an event?

No, I just thought it was a good tease.

No, at the time 100.

So the time 100, I'll be honest, I have real reservations about the whole thing.

I like the, it's, they say it's the 100 most influential people in the world.

I think the fact that Megan Markle is going to be there is proof enough to everyone that it's not true, okay?

But it's never true.

So they just pick people who are in the news who they think they can have an event with.

And I

so-called made the list back in 2014 after we launched the Kelly File.

And I went, it was cool, and I saw a lot of interesting people.

And back then, I was still kind of starry-eyed about just news and the fact that I had a prime time show.

You know, it's exciting to rub some elbows and go to these black tie events.

Different story 11 years later.

So yes, I made the list this year, but honestly, I didn't make anything.

Like I, they put me on the list because they had to.

I just feel like they didn't give me anything.

They gave me nothing.

No one in the left wing press has given me anything.

So I've really been wrestling.

Do I go to this?

It's not important to me, but I do kind of want to have a photo on the red carpet just as like a, I'm back, you bitches on the left, you know, but that's not the right motivation to do something.

So anyway, I'm going to go because I'm told that both Megan Markle and Blake Lively will be there.

And if I can get even a moment photograph, like from far away with her in the background, I'm going to break the internet, Glenn.

I'm going to break the internet.

So, I only know about the Blake Lively story from you.

So, you have, even just for that reason, you have to go and

have some interaction with her after everything you've been saying and doing.

That's reason enough.

Blake Lively was also there the first time I went.

So, maybe I'll bring that up when I see her.

I'm sure she really is going to want to talk to me.

So Megan Markle sits down with the Time magazine.

Is it the CEO?

It's a woman

who does, yeah, the CEO who does an interview with her in advance of this event at which she's going to appear.

And I want to give you a sample.

of some of the questions and the audience will not be surprised one bit to hear how Ms.

Markle refers to herself in her answers.

Watch this.

I want to talk about you as a founder, as a CEO, as an innovator, as a creator, as an investor.

We have the CEO of Netflix here.

I did binge your show with love, Megan.

There's nothing you can't do.

Oh, gosh.

That's amazing.

But what I'd love to do was always make things in my kitchen, do small flower arrangements, make a lot of jam.

And when I was sending those as gifts, one day Bella said, there's a show here.

And I hadn't at the onset thought that that was something that I wanted to share in that way.

And creatively, we worked as partners to really find a way for it to land and for me to be able to share it and just have fun, which is really, I think, the goal in this chapter.

How do you care for yourself?

Oh, thank you for asking that.

Well, look, I think part of,

for me, part of what's really, really important is that love language of taking care of people also really feeds me and I think that is in many ways part of my self-care which it's my understanding the first drop was sold out in 20 minutes 45 minutes okay your third platform which I love

is your podcasts

confessions of a female founder and you've had some of the most incredible

women on your show.

You're really supporting women and I love that.

We need more of that.

You're a founder.

This is, she gets this from Megan Markle's bio.

They ask you for your bio and clearly she gave her the bio, listed herself as a founder, innovator, creator.

How are you with me?

Entrepreneur, investor, philanthropist.

Entrepreneur.

Sure.

Thank you.

right for asking about me because no one know that she did that when she was uh just married to harry remember on that on that african tour when she's in the midst of like all sorts of poverty and struggle.

And, you know, thank you for asking about me because no one really has.

No one really has.

So here she is again.

Thank you for asking about me.

That love language, that feeding of others is my self-care.

Oh my God, Glenn.

I don't know if you're mad at me

about something, but you have shown me some of the most excruciating and unbearable footage I've seen in quite a long time.

One after the next.

I really had to endure a lot.

I think that, I guess that's fair.

But from these like women astronauts complaining, astronauts complaining that they're not taken seriously to Michelle Obama now to this.

This whole thing, like, thank you for asking me how I engage in my own self-care, because as people know, I am one of the most exhausted, one of the most

people who have suffered.

I'm basically living in the jungle.

And so people are always wondering, but Megan, how about you?

You're taking care of so many other people tell us what is it that you're doing to take care of yourself

thank you for asking me that nobody ever asked me that let me tell you what i'm doing finally to take care of myself as well

i mean megan if i were you i would go just to be around these satirical idiots um and also as i said the blake lively uh opportunity and even the megan markle opportunity by itself makes it it worthwhile I think it'll be good fodder for the show, if nothing else.

I feel you, Glenn.

I feel you intensely, but it's not every guest who can both talk about the Megan Markles of the world with ease and go deep on Abrego, Garcia, Mahmoud, Khalil, Israel.

That's what makes you so special, Tulsi, all of it.

Love, love, love.

That's why you're the Megan Kelly Show godfather.

The godfather of the Megan Kelly Show.

Exactly.

That's one of my credentials of which I'm proudest.

Thank you so much for being here, Glenn C.

Always great to talk to you, Megan.

See you soon.

Bye-bye.

All right.

Coming up next, we have a legal expert.

He's been on the show before, but I love this guy's a follow on Twitter.

And he's been second to none when it comes to covering all the legal battles that Trump has found himself immersed in that they're throwing at him.

For some clear thought, we'll be joined by one of Mike Davis's guys, Will Chamberlain.

Next.

Are you a yo-yo dieter?

You diet, lose weight, and you gain it all back, plus a few, and then later you lose it again, and so on and so forth.

That can be dangerous.

Studies show this could actually increase health problems.

Breaking free of your yo-yo diet pattern is why doctors created lean.

Lean is a supplement and you don't need a prescription.

Lean includes natural ingredients targeting weight loss in three powerful ways, maintaining healthy blood sugar, controlling appetite and cravings, and it helps burn fat by converting fat into energy.

Listen, if you're tired of losing weight and gaining it back and you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace, lean could be something for you to consider.

Let me get you started with 20% off when when you enter MK20 at takelean.com.

That's mk20 at takelean.com.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.

It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr.

Laura, Blen Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.

No car required.

I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app.

It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.

Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.

Go to SiriusXM.com/slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com/slash mk show

and get three months free.

Offer details apply.

It has been the most intense legal news cycle, with Lawfair 2.0 doing everything they can to thwart the president's agenda.

You know, we had the resistance during Trump 1.0, and now we have the law fair in Trump 2.0.

Nowhere has that been more pronounced than with Trump's election promise of mass deportations, with left-wing lawyers trying to block Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove Trenda Aragua gang members and demanding the return of deported alleged MS-13 gang member, Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.

Here to help break this down in understandable language, is one of the strongest voices on this issue and a great follow on X.

It's Will Chamberlain.

He's senior counsel at the Article 3 project, which our viewers know because they know and love Mike Davis.

Will, great to see you again.

Great to be with you, Megan.

Okay, so let's just start with the Abrego-Garcia case.

This is the guy who was found by two courts to be MS-13.

And they said you're deported, but they said, all right, we'll suspend your removal because

we've been convinced you shouldn't be shipped back to El Salvador because there's this gang there that you say wants to kill you.

That could have been lifted immediately once that gang had been eliminated by the El Salvadoran president.

We didn't really do anything about it.

Instead, we just turned him out back in society.

He's been roaming for six years.

And then Tom Homan found him.

And now he's become the poster boy for for the left because we weren't technically supposed to send him to El Salvador.

We did, but he has absolutely no right to stay in the United States.

Something strange is happening.

Something strange is happening in the case

where

the last two days, the Trump administration has been filing things under seal so that we can't see what they are.

They filed their status report.

about him.

They're supposed to be telling everybody how he is under seal.

And

then they filed a different emotion to stay discovery in the case, stop like proceedings under seal.

And that was just granted.

The judge in this case, Paula Zinnis, an Obama appointee, agreed to stay discovery in this case until April 30th.

So she's put the whole thing on pause.

Now, Margot Cleveland, who also does a great job covering this for the Federalist, she had speculation, her guess was that possibly Trump's working with the El Salvadoran government to arrange for his release, not permanently, but possibly to come back here, step foot on U.S.

soil, and then immediately be deported to someplace other than El Salvador, which would completely erase the Dem's argument on him.

But what do you make of this weirdness around him?

For the recent weirdness, I agree.

Something, the government has somehow probably finagled his release from El Salvador in prison.

And the reason I say that is Judge Zenis had been very aggressive with the government about trying to locate this guy and very dismissive of the government's concerns.

So for her to suddenly stop being so aggressive on that front and agree to a week-long stay, I don't see happening on her own accord.

I don't see happening unless there is some sort of arrangement being made for this guy to,

who knows, maybe be at the El Salvadoran embassy, maybe just be released from custody in El Salvador proper, but

something that the plaintiffs would be okay with, because the other thing is that the plaintiffs agreed to this stay of discovery and they'd also been extremely aggressive in trying to get these things done.

All right.

So, the latest news on his case is not great for Trump.

And maybe this is playing a role here in what's happening behind the scenes.

Maybe it's not.

But there was an Economist YouGov poll released yesterday that showed 50% of Americans say Trump should bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Only 28% say he should not.

27% of Americans say Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Only 30% or 30%, I should say, believe he is not a member of the gang, 43% not sure.

This is obviously a result of the very biased media coverage on this issue where everybody's been telling them that he's just a Maryland dad.

But it's not a case that Trump wants to lose either the legal or the PR war on.

So what do you think he should do with this guy at this point?

Well, I mean, I think.

The reasonable course here is to either with him still in El Salvador or when he's here, you should go to court and get that withholding of removal lifted.

And you can do that honestly without him even being present because you don't even need new evidence.

It's the simplest way to get him removed is to say that because the immigration judge in the Board of Immigration Appeals found that he was a member of MS-13, that he's stopped from challenging that going forward.

And since the government declared MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization, it's just a straightforward legal conclusion that the guy is no longer eligible for withholding of removal.

And so he has to go back.

And that can be done if he needs to participate participate at all.

It can be done via Zoom.

He doesn't have to be on U.S.

soil.

Correct.

Yeah.

I mean, and if you needed another argument, I don't think you would, but it's the argument you just talked about, the one about the fact that the Barrio 18 gang that supposedly is extorting his mother's papoosa shop well after its closure.

That gang is no longer functional in El Salvador because Naya Bukele has transformed El Salvador into one of the safest countries in the Western hemisphere.

Wow.

So the shop is no longer there.

And the gang that was targeting the business is no longer longer there and the only thing that's really no longer there is Abrego Garcia and he needs to be there.

He's in El Salvador, but not yet free as far as we know.

You've been calling attention because a lot of people have been casting doubt now on these two immigration courts findings that he is MS-13.

It came up in the context of a should we give him bond while we're trying to decide what to do with him.

And two judges said, no, we should not.

This guy's MS-13.

People aren't buying it because they're not following people like you on X and following actual reporting.

One of the reasons they say he's probably not, his defenders, and even the district court judge in this case, said, well,

he

they said this, this informant said he was a member of the, quote, Westerns clique within MS-13, and that group only operates on Long Island in New York, and he's in Maryland.

So, aha!

The confidential informant was wrong, and he can't be MS-13.

Yeah, except that the Western Clique does actually operate in Maryland, and DOJ has routinely claimed that in any number of filings, plea agreements, indictments.

I am unclear that the plaintiffs, this claim came from the underlying complaint just filed by one plaintiff's lawyer, where he said that the DOJ has said that they operate in New York, a place where Abrego Garcia has never lived.

As far as I can tell,

he...

basically just invented this out of thin air based on doing one quick search on on the DOJ website for Western clique MS-13.

And there's only one result that pops up, which is this double murder, where a member of the Western clique was actually a victim of the double murder, but it has no analysis of where does the Western clique operate.

And MS-13 cliques operate all around the country.

I mean, they're generally, it's, you know, part of the history of MS-13, as I've recently learned, is, you know, it started when a bunch of El Salvadoran gangbangers were deported back to El Salvador, I think under the Reagan administration.

And then they took over El Salvador largely.

And then they started sending, you know, the cliques were actually named after streets in Los Angeles, but they ended up sending people all over the country.

So yeah, the Western clique operates in Maryland.

DOJ has said that repeatedly.

And it's honestly, if I were Judge Zinnis, I'd be really embarrassed and very angry at the plaintiff's lawyer because basically his complaint had to be put a blatant and obvious falsehood, in my opinion.

Right.

You point out that there's at least a November 1st, 2011 RICO indictment that's racketeering.

It's like gang.

They used it to go after the mob and sometimes gangs by the government against members of MS-13, not this guy.

But in that, they argued specifically that MS-13 affiliates, affiliates operate within the Washington, D.C.

metro area, including the Western clique.

So it's in, I didn't realize it's clique instead of clique.

In any event, it's in writing right there from the federal government, long predating Donald Trump.

This is 2011.

That would have have been Barack Obama's

DOJ saying that.

So the other thing is they say, well, you can't use the fact that he was wearing a hoodie, a Chicago Bulls hoodie

and cap against him.

But we've taken a look at the immigration judge who initially denied the bond to him.

And the truth is, well, she placed almost no importance on that.

And she wrote that she was placing almost no importance on that.

But the truth is also,

it is very relevant.

That is how they dress.

Correct.

And I think honestly, the most relevant piece of information, which again was omitted from all the public media reporting, was that the guy was arrested in the company of two other confirmed members of MS-13.

You don't hang out with those guys?

I mean, you know, when I go get coffee sometimes, I guess I get bored.

But the concept being that like.

that that you ask a normal person on the street well what would be the most relevant evidence of this person being an ms13 i don't know hanging out with ms13 members uh And as a result, you know, you see this poll and it's totally a product of the plaintiff's lawyer and the media working together to just put out falsehoods and otherwise mislead both judges and the public.

And it's pretty clear that the guy is MS-13.

And, you know, oddly enough, I think.

Ultimately, it really shouldn't matter that much because he is an illegal alien and he was, you know, he was crossed into the country in 2012, got detained in 2019, and somehow still is here in 2025.

I mean, it shouldn't matter, but in the sense that there's this massive PR campaign to try and get this guy back, well, yeah, he is actually an MS-13, and also he's a wife beater.

And I don't know why we are eager to return this guy to his family when, you know, he was beating his U.S.

citizen wife.

And people assume, well, the wife says she wants him back.

It's like, well, I mean, is she afraid of what his colleagues might do to her?

There's a whole bunch of interesting dynamics that aren't really being explored here.

That is a very good question.

She went on Good Morning America last week when this whole thing was like coming to a point.

And her attempted rehabilitation of him after it broke, that she had accused him of being a wife beater, was pathetic.

I mean, it was absolutely half-hearted.

And I hadn't even considered until you just said it that it was out of fear of what some of the other MS-13 gang members might do.

We're going to pull it over and I'll play it in one second as soon as we have it.

Before we get to that though,

you pointed out another great Twitter follow, which is a guy who goes by shipwrecked crew on Substack.

And this guy had some very interesting posts about ICE and how it operates.

And this was news too.

He was calling to our attention that the determination by ICE and Maryland police for that matter that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 was not made lightly.

And he points out because these determinations are absolutely critical in preventing violence inside either a jail or a detention center.

That while you and I are going about our lives wondering whether it's click or clique, the people who have to arrest these people and then put them in detention centers or jails actually must figure out whether they're gang members and which gang.

Correct.

Yeah.

I mean, I think Bill Shipley, who goes by Shipwreck Crew on Twitter, he had a number of really interesting points.

That was a key one.

Yeah.

Because they find

internally.

Right, exactly.

And I mean, you'd think, you realize immigration judges probably handle MS-13 issues and, you know, foreign gang issues far more often than a district court judge who, you know, is dealing with a wide sprawling variety of cases, as opposed to an immigration judge who's just seeing deportation and removal in front of them.

So I think one of, you know, there's a big meta issue with regard to the lack of respect being accorded to the immigration judge and the immigration courts here.

I mean, if you read that district court opinion, it just completely dismisses the findings of the original immigration judge as being based on nothing, based on sparse evidence.

And she's doing this on, you know, in the posture of reviewing an injunction where she hasn't gotten any real factual record developed in front of her.

She just is, I mean, she was just taking the word of the plaintiff's lawyer in the complaint, which was we discussed earlier, was really not a very credible person.

That's right.

Not worthy of trusting whatsoever.

And then another point, and I saw this too in Annie McCarthy's article article over at National Review, that Abrego Garcia's defenders are making

is that

I don't want to screw it up, is that there's been no evidence since 2019 and that immigration judge and then the appellate court above her that he's a member of MS-13.

Like maybe he's no longer a member of MS-13.

Maybe he's like a reformed member of MS-13.

But this guy, Bill Shipley, is pointing out that his own complaint reveals that after he was arrested in March by ICE, quote, he was shown several photos where he appeared in public and asked about other people in those photos, but was unable to provide any information on them as he did not know them or anything about them.

Now,

that

his defenders say

is proof he didn't know these gang members.

Like, he doesn't know.

He has no idea.

And shipwreck crew and you see it differently.

Yeah, it seems like.

If they're asking him these questions, they're kind of wondering, like, do you know this person?

Because they probably identified him as maybe an MS-13 gang member himself.

Maybe they know.

Maybe they don't.

But the fact that he would renounce knowing people in photos when being asked by police is not proof that that is true.

It's not proof that he doesn't know those people.

It's even more sketchy.

Yeah, I'm not one to believe that gang members are particularly fulsome with police, especially ones that have a low, you know, a gang motto of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Yes.

I think it actually might be see nothing, say nothing, hear nothing.

You know,

might not quite be that, but it's something along those lines.

They, yeah, he's pointing out here that

every ICE office would have prioritized their targets based on their own files.

The Prince George's County, Maryland

law enforcement, that they have an MS-13 gang unit.

And obviously, they have an MS-13 gang problem.

And so it's, you know, all these things sort of come together.

And then there was the wife and that exchange on GMA.

Here it is.

And I know this is a sensitive question, but I have to ask it.

You did take out a temporary order of protection against your husband in 2021.

Were you in fear of your husband?

Husband is alive.

That's all I can say.

What?

Okay.

You know, I'm not going to push on that, apparently.

I mean, Will.

It's not a great answer.

No, it's not.

And I think maybe, you know, this is where maybe you originally think, oh, she's covering for him.

But I think there's, you know, you can see her pause and think really hard for a second.

And I think that's, that's where, you know, my analysis or my theory is that's fear.

And that's fear of saying the wrong thing and what will happen to her if she does.

I mean, if he is indeed an MS-13, MS-13 still operates in Maryland.

And I'm sure they are not keen on people ratting out their members for even beating their wives.

I don't assume they have some internal HR processes in MS-13 to deal with domestic abuse.

So

the other thing is the smuggling, the alleged human smuggling or trafficking, because this came out, I think it was the Tennessee Star that first broke it, but he was pulled over in 2022 in a car.

And

the

evidence that just the news just came out with this report, which is interesting.

They say he was stopped by police in an SUV owned by a man who was himself deported after pleading guilty to smuggling illegal aliens in 2020 well that's not great that's that's his bud some guy who pleaded guilty already to smuggling illegal aliens into the country in 2020 citing homeland security uh intel

and on top of that they go on to say that

the El Salvadoran driving the car was driving a black 2001 Chevy Suburban, said he was transporting his passengers to Maryland from Texas for construction work, although the state trooper found no luggage in the SUV.

These are bad facts for Mr.

Abrego Garcia.

He's not the driver, but he's in the car.

Why?

Why?

What's the story with this guy?

Then they say the owner of the vehicle has been identified as Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes.

Abrego Garcia told the state trooper that the owner was his boss.

They say, let's see, Baltimore Field Office.

They said, believe this belonged to a target they suspected of human trafficking or smuggling.

And so all of this is circumstantial evidence, but it's powerful.

And these people who don't believe he's an MS-13 have heard none of it.

I mean, I think it's clear this Abrego Garcia is MS-13.

That's certainly my conclusion based on these facts.

It doesn't matter though, right?

Like that, the bottom line that people need to remember is we do not in any way need to show that in order to keep him out of this country.

Correct.

I mean, he's an illegal alien.

Everybody admits he's an illegal alien.

He shouldn't have been granted withholding and removal in the first place, you know, just the preposterousness of his story, the fact that he was originally found to be MS-13.

But he doesn't just have a right to be here because he hasn't been formally convicted of a crime or formally convicted of being an MS-13.

None of that matters.

The legal aliens don't have a right to be in the United States.

I feel like, you know, part of the red, big red herring that comes from the left on immigration is the idea that it's like, well, was he convicted of a crime?

Well, who cares?

Ultimately, who cares?

It's just that's,

yeah, just a question of of priority it's not a question of deportability yeah it's you you can be a perfectly nice person you actually can be really sweet and we can still kick your ass out of here if you're here illegally that's just the way it is it's it becomes relevant because Trump is using for example

the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of some of these people.

And under the Alien Enemies Act, he's declared an incursion by the Venezuelan Trend to Aragua members saying, you know, we're under a special kind of threat.

And he's saying that gang members are terrorists too, which allows him a more expedited removal pursuant to his proclamation.

So it gives him additional layers of authority to eject this guy, but he doesn't need them.

Those are all belts and suspenders and ways of getting him out faster, we hoped, and just more expeditiously.

But they've gummed it up, the ACLU, at every turn.

So

We think that probably we're going to be able to keep Abrego Garcia out.

It's just a question of whether we're going to give him some sort of a Zoom hearing or something.

But do you think he'll ever step foot on U.S.

soil with our consent anyway again?

I mean, only to immediately be whisked into a detention center so that further proceedings can be had on his removal.

I mean, it's quite possible that they'll decide to, you know, because obviously Judge Zenis wants him back and we've had all this, you know, shenanigans or secret events going on at the court

filings under seal.

So I think in that event, in the event that he, you know, they've actually found a way to get him released from El Salvador, he'll set foot on American soil only to be whisked into detention.

Okay.

Now,

what is your thought on how Trump is getting away with shipping all these people to El Salvador and imprisoning them indefinitely?

Because my understanding is Bukele said they're going to stay in that jail for a year and then we'll see.

So this is where, you know, even I have some problems because we can't just ship people off, you know, out of the country, put them in jail and throw away the key forever.

That's, we don't have that right.

We do have the right to deport them and we have the right to hold them for some period of time until we've determined that they're deportable.

But I'm not sure how we're getting to goodbye and you're in jail forever.

So I think the key distinction here is between the Venezuelan Trendar Aragua members and the Salvadorans like Abrego Garcia.

So for the Salvadorans like Abrego Garcia, my understanding, based on having read a lot of briefing, is

those individuals are simply deported nationals returned to El Salvadoran custody.

There's not a continuing arrangement for

our government to be paying for them to be held.

There are El Salvadoran nationals who are illegal aliens.

El Salvador has an obligation to take them in, and then what they do with them is

within the discretion of the Salvadoran government and the Salvadoran people.

As for Trenda Aragua, the problem there is that the Venezuelan government has refused repatriation flights.

They'd refused to take these people back.

And so

that creates a problem because then you have to find a third country to take them.

And it's pretty challenging to find a third country willing to tank hardened gangsters who, you know, took over an apartment complex in Colorado.

So

I see

the fact that they're in El Salvador and Seacot as sort of this temporary place where they're going to be until Venezuela agrees to own up to their responsibility and take back their nationals who are in our country illegally.

And there was news earlier this week of some sort of a prisoner swap between El Salvador and Venezuela.

I can't remember exactly what the details of it were, but it certainly suggested that that could be the end, you know, the end game here.

I don't know how, maybe Venezuela will take them back if,

I don't know, they want to get rid of their own El Salvadorans back to Bukele.

I have no idea what the Venezuelans get out of taking back Trenda Aragua gang members, but better that it's their problem than ours is the bottom line.

That thing about the MS-13 gang members is very interesting, though.

I didn't realize that, but it makes sense because what Bukele has done with that prison, and the reason he's made El Salvador so safe is because he's locked up all the gang members in El Salvador, of which we believe Abrego Garcia is one.

So if Bukele is convinced, and by the way, he is, that this guy is MS-13, he is going into that prison.

Yeah, and maybe not.

Maybe because there's so much American interest in this, he'll be held in a nicer prison because he wants to keep Chris Van Hollen and all the other goofballs in the Democrat House caucus

happy.

Okay.

But

I think it's just a different way to look at the problem.

Like, you know, there's just this default assumption that Abrego Garcia and other Salvadorans were sent there and are and are being held at the U.S.

government's request.

It's like, no, no, no, they're Salvadorans.

This is where they go.

And if you're upset with Bukele's policy, then take it up with the El Salvadorans.

Hire some El Salvadoran lawyers and try and get them off there.

Let's switch to Alien Enemies Act, which is the declaration that Trump made that we're suffering an incursion or an invasion.

And this does swoop up Trendo Aragua members.

And it's allowed him to deport a bunch of them.

And he wants to deport a whole lot more by saying, I'm going to use this extraordinary act that will very much limit the due process I have to afford any of these people.

And that's a plus because you don't want to give everybody lengthy due process or this will take forever.

And he's only on the criminals so far.

When he gets to the, you know, you're illegal, but you didn't break another law, it's going to get even more controversial, these deportations.

The Supreme Court stopped on Friday night his use of that act to deport anybody.

And Mike Davis with you at Article 3 was tweeting out yesterday, hello, you know, co-president John Roberts.

When are we going to be able to continue the important international policy work and military work of getting rid of these threats to the United States.

You know, let us know when we can resume.

And so far, the Supreme Court hasn't said anything.

We don't know when a decision is coming.

Or frankly, at this point, I don't even know if the decision is coming from the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or from the U.S.

Supreme Court.

Talk about what you think is happening here.

Well, I think what's going to happen is they're going to have to lift this administrative stay.

if they want to ever preserve any legitimacy they have.

And it's not even the substance aside, they didn't have jurisdiction because there was no lower court ruling to review the supreme court is a court of review not first view and the all writs act which is the basis on which they exercise they tried to give this injunction is only gives you juris it only allows you to issue writs in aid of your underlying jurisdiction if there was never a lower court opinion then what's going to the supreme court is so-called original jurisdiction

and we know if you know if you're a lawyer and you remember your con law that's for like when a state is litigating you know is litigating against another state the supreme court hears the the case in the first instance, but that's it.

So,

I mean, it's a brazen error procedurally.

And, you know, all this talk, I mean, my basic understanding of what actually happened here is that the ACLU spazzed out and then the Supreme Court took them at their word.

And the ACLU did all sorts of crazy litigation stuff.

Like they went to the district court, told them they had 42 minutes to get their opinion out before we go to the appellate court and treat it as a constructive denial.

They, you know, the district court didn't rule.

It only had 40 40 minutes.

They went to the

same thing and went to the Supreme Court.

Yeah.

I know.

It's just such a strange thing for the U.S.

Supreme Court to act that quickly.

The ACLU says it had to happen because they were loading these guys up on buses and they were told that they were going to El Salvador.

And when we got that ruling from the Supreme Court, or when we filed our motion, they turned those buses around, which they think is proof.

that Trump was, again, about to deport a bunch of people, even though he knew that there were motions trying to stop it.

Yeah, and I'm also at the point where I just simply don't believe what the lawyers for immigrants, you know, the plaintiffs in these cases say anymore.

Like,

I have a default skepticism of what they say.

So, you know, maybe they say, oh, this is why the bus has turned around.

I would point out that, well, you seem to know who your plaintiffs were and who got these notices, which means they got notice and had time to file the habeas petition, which is exactly what the Supreme Court demanded in the opinion that came out a couple of weeks ago.

Do you think that Trump will ultimately be upheld on his use of the Alien Enemies Act?

Because the high court hasn't yet adjudicated that.

It will eventually.

Yeah, I think so.

Because I don't think that

the judiciary is competent to determine whether, when there has been a predatory incursion or a military invasion, they have no intelligence services.

They have no military.

They don't know what the president knows.

So, you know, in every other context where that's the case, the amount of deference given to the executive is massive.

So, you know, there was like a district judge in Colorado who just enjoined this whole thing herself on the basis of saying, well, this doesn't seem like a predatory incursion to me.

It's like, well, who are you?

And what do you know?

I mean, this is not

your call.

Right.

I think you're right.

I've been saying that I've been arguing with a lot of people over this.

I just don't think.

How can the Supreme Court have the final say on what a predatory incursion is and whether this is one?

I just, by what standard will they adjudge that?

I just don't, I don't see it.

That's the commander-in-chief's call.

And I think, I believe Chief Justice John Roberts is going to know that.

I think they'll limit their review to whether these people have had adequate due process before they're

adjudicated.

terrorists or gang members under the Trump executive order that invokes the act.

And I think you and I are probably on the same page that that due process is going to be very limited.

It's even, I mean, it's just, there's no way it's going to be much more than you get a hearing.

You get a notice that you're going to be deported and you get a hearing at which they decide whether you are deportable.

Right.

I think the only hiccup here is that essentially, I think the Supreme Court will ultimately say that they need a chance to prove they're not Trender Ragua, right?

That's that they have a chance to prove that they're not in the class of alien enemies that are covered by the proclamation.

Yep.

And who knows what that looks like?

I think my guess is it'll be more efficient than normal, the normal process, which allows you to get access to, you know, argue for withholding of removal, argue that you shouldn't be sent to the country based on the Convention Against Torture.

But who knows?

It might actually be less efficient.

It's possible.

I think that that's what the ACLU is ultimately fighting for.

They're trying to,

I don't think they think they can stop the use of the Alien Enemies Act, but if they can gum it up enough to make it, you know, as slow or only slightly more efficient than normal immigration processes, then maybe the administration stopped trying to use the Alien Enemies Act.

Yes.

This just in.

Trump has just asked the U.S.

Supreme Court to allow him to enforce the transgender military ban.

That was another executive order where he said,

no more trans people in the military.

There's too many reasons not to allow them.

I mean, you can't, you're not supposed to be in if you have anxiety.

So it's like, if you've got the number of issues that come with being trans, it makes perfect sense.

But he's been stopped by a lower court judge who said, no, I don't think you're going to succeed in defending that executive order.

I think it's going to be thrown out as violative of the U.S.

Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

And therefore,

I'm banning you from enforcing it while this case plays out.

It was a Seattle-based judge, and now they are asking the U.S.

Supreme Court, Team Trump, to lift that ban on so that they can fire these trans.

people from the military and then let the case play out on the merits.

How do you like his chances in getting that ban lifted?

I like his chances.

I think there's been a cultural shift.

Also at the Supreme Court, you know, we had the hearings about the craziness going on in Montgomery County where, you know, they're trying to force kids to listen to, you know, discussions of bondage or something and telling them it's like, well, you can just unenroll in the school if you don't like it.

So, and I, you know, the questions from people like Gorsuch made clear they didn't think very much of those arguments.

I think in general, they're going to look at this and say, especially when it comes to military readiness, you know, I mean, I have ADD, for example.

And if I were young enough to join the military, that would be sufficient to block me from joining up.

If ADD is a sufficient disorder to constitute that, I don't know how believing that you were born into the wrong gender and that you need massive physical surgery to change yourself isn't also something that should bar you from military service.

So NetNet, your take on the lawfare against Trump.

I mean, the lawfare against Trump is...

remarkably aggressive.

There's a part of it that's a product of the fact that this Trump administration is much more aggressive than the first one.

They're trying to to push the limits a little more, see where their power lies.

So you'd expect a few more injunctions.

With that said, the judiciary has reacted in an unbelievably aggressive manner.

And the constitutional crisis is being created by the judiciary.

I mean, just, you know, again, look at that Supreme Court ruling that just came out where they literally took a case without jurisdiction and issued an injunction.

on Good Friday evening.

They have an unbelievably quick trigger finger with the Trump administration, both district judges and apparently now the Supreme Court.

And they got to get it together because, you know, they need to follow their own rules and their own laws

if they're going to start accusing the administration of wild law breaking.

Mm-hmm.

Oh, Will, so good to talk to you.

I love your clear-eyed analysis on all these like very murky issues.

Really appreciate it.

Please come back.

Absolutely.

Great to be with you, Megan.

All right, see you soon.

All right, before we go, I wanted to tell you that our first MK media show, The Nerve with Maureen Callahan, launched this week.

In the premiere episode, it's so good.

Maureen's, she tells a very funny story right off the top about what happened after she left this show for that Megan Markle parody episode we did.

You've got to, you'll laugh.

But in her premiere episode, she dives into the topic of mean girls and why they only get meaner as they get older.

And she exposes a terrible story about actor John Hamm.

My God, I didn't know anything about this.

but she took a deep dive into allegations from his past, which I think you'll find interesting.

Here is Maureen, just a clip on how she says John Hamm was able to avoid scrutiny for this alleged hazing incident from years ago by getting involved with the Hollywood inn crowd.

Watch.

My theory about them is that they were never the homecoming queens.

They were the comedy nerd girls who kind of didn't fit in.

And a guy like John Hamm comes along and pays them some attention and their knees buckle.

They can't believe it.

They can't believe a guy this hot would look twice at them.

And so they're doing dirty work for him.

In my opinion, you can't tell me they don't know about this.

If I know about it, they have to know about it.

And now we all know about it.

She's doing a great job already.

And she didn't seem nervous at all.

You got to watch or listen to the show to get Maureen's full reporting and analysis of the story.

John Hamm Hamm even responded to it after being pressed on it by the Daily Mail.

Go ahead and subscribe and follow Maureen at the Nerveshow.com.

The Nerve on all YouTube podcast platforms and social accounts.

Episode two is out tomorrow.

We are back tomorrow with another MK Media host, Mark Halfran, who joins us for the full show.

We'll see you then.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.