Newly Declassified Appendix CONFIRMS Hillary Clinton's Plan to RUIN Trump's Candidacy, Martha Stewart Burns Meghan Markle, with Greenwald & Mate | Ep. 1120

Coach, the energy out there felt different.

What changed for the team today?

It was the new game day scratchers from the California Lottery.

Play is everything.

Those games sent the team's energy through the roof.

Are you saying it was the off-field play that made the difference on the field?

Hey, a little play makes your day, and today it made the game.

That's all for now.

Coach, one more question.

Play the new Los Angeles Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, and Los Angeles Rams Scratchers from the California Lottery.

A little play can make your day.

Please play responsibly, must be 18 years or older to purchase, play, or claim.

With networks like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and more, Sling is the best way to get the news you care about, which is great for everyone.

Well,

almost everyone.

Where's that dang paper boy?

I need my news outdated and rolled up like a burrito.

Finally, now I can read all about what happened forever ago.

Get the most important news delivered reliably at the best price.

Sling lets you do that.

Visit sling.com slash news to see your offer.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.

Senator Chuck Grassley just released the declassified appendix to the Durham Report.

We told you about this earlier this week.

There had been a report on Fox News Digital that this was going to drop and that it was expected to show a link

between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the FBI, some sort of tacit or explicit cooperation on Hillary's plan to ruin the Trump presidency or Trump candidacy with these Russia gate allegations, right?

That we know, you know, can I just stop for a second?

This woman should be in jail.

Literally, Hillary Clinton should be behind bars.

And so should the people who worked for her who did this.

This is so blatantly corrupt.

She wanted to distract from her email scandal.

She cooked up a plan to accuse Trump of being a Russian agent in order to distract from her own legitimate scandal.

She made up a scandal about Trump being a Russian Russian

asset.

And they banked on the Intel agencies working with her to perpetuate this lie.

And it appears they were only too happy to assist.

That's what this scandal is about.

Pieces of it we knew.

New pieces are coming in by the day thanks to these declassifications.

And it's

downright shocking.

Do not believe that there's no there there.

The people who are saying that are wrong.

They're wrong.

What just broke today, like moments before it came to air, we're still getting our arms around it, was obviously provided to Michael Schellenberger before

two minutes ago.

And his Substack page, Public,

that's the name of it, has a fantastic breakdown of what's in this new piece of information, the annex to the Durham report.

You remember John Durham was the special counsel appointed under Trump to go through what had been done to him and try to figure out who did it, who helped, and whether anyone should be prosecuted.

Well, even his information was not made entirely public.

All right, now we reported that the Durham report, again, which investigated how the FBI's cross-fire hurricane and 2016 investigation into Trump, allegedly being a Russian agent and or members of his team allegedly being Russian agents, got started.

How did this massive fraud get perpetrated on Team Trump and on the American people?

That was Durham's charge.

And they already made clear that

the Clinton campaign had a mission of trying to push this lie.

And now we're learning, I mean, it's incredible what I'm seeing here going through there.

Like, it is so clear.

Now we know.

That what happened was remember we've been talking this week about how we talked about it with Aaron Mate

about how it now looks like the russians didn't hack the dnc

that that they were not the ones who hacked the dnc but they were hacking other people and what appears to have happened is they they hacked a couple of high-level operatives who were connected with the clinton campaign or who like were friendly with it and they caught on to this plot.

The Russians did.

The Russians caught on to her plot to try to paint Trump as an agent of Russia.

And the Dutch were spying on the Russians.

The Dutch got their spies got their hands on the Russian intel that the Russians had stolen from its hacks of people around Team Clinton.

And then the Dutch told us, the Dutch said, yo, hey, this is bad.

It came to the Americans with whom they're friends and said, you should read this.

Hillary Clinton's about to do something bad.

And instead of then,

you know, Jim Comey saying, oh, when he saw

like the Steele dossier saying, well, this is obviously bullshit.

Who's Fusion GPS?

Who hired them?

Oh, Hillary Clinton.

Oh, okay.

I know exactly what's happening here.

This is bullshit, guys.

This is the Hillary Clinton ruse.

Instead of doing that, not only did they not dismiss the bullshit coming into them from Hillary's operatives, but they doubled down and they opened up an investigation into Trump and his campaign and started arresting people and using the Hillary generated information like the Steele dossier and more.

You know, you heard Aaron Mate explain she had this crowd strike group that suggested it was the Russians who had hacked the DNC.

They took that hook line and sinker and so on.

So this is

this shit's crazy what she did.

She

like, I don't even have the words.

She's still walking around acting like she won and he stole this election and it was the one back in 2016 and that it was not legitimate.

She's not delusional.

She's a liar to her core, to her core.

And she's been supported by everyone around her and by the Intel apparatus that was in place under Obama and frankly, thereafter.

There are so many officials who are fine doing this.

All right, what the new appendix to the the Durham report reveals is that the CIA

had the intel to show the goal of Clinton's plot was to distract from that email scandal.

We had heard Durham make reference to this.

It's right there, black and white, in the appendix.

But then the FBI,

when notified of this, rejected the intel about Clinton's plot.

They said, oh, it looks like hearsay.

They reject it.

Like, oh, no, we don't believe it.

Okay, you don't believe it?

Because there are are other pieces in here

and

they believe those, but they don't believe the stuff about Hillary.

Schellenberger writes it up this way.

There are strong suggestions in the Durham appendix of the Clinton campaign working hand in glove with the intelligence community.

She had

a receptive audience at FBI instead of a skeptical one.

for her lies.

And that's really how this whole thing got started.

And they actually named some names that I've never heard of before and their attempts to get these people to admit what's in the documents that the Russians got their hands on that we found out about thanks to the Dutch.

I mean,

like, we'll name the names.

I'll go through this with you.

But, like, why haven't these people been arrested?

Why was Michael Flynn prosecuted, but not these people?

Why did Carter Page get spied on, but not these people?

All right, joining me now to help go through some of it.

We have the perfect guest.

We didn't know this was coming out today.

Sometimes you get lucky.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and host of Rumble's System Update, Glenn Greenwald.

Let's be honest, America can still be a dangerous place, and you cannot afford to wait for help.

Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force could have legal consequences.

According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force.

And that's exactly why so many are turning to Burna.

Burna is proudly American, hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

These less lethal self-defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies.

Over 600,000 Burna pistols have been sold already, most to private citizens who just refuse to be victims.

Burna launchers fire rock-hard kinetic rounds and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away.

No background checks, no waiting periods, and Burna can ship straight to your door.

Take responsibility.

Protect your future.

Visit Burna.com right now or your local sportsman's warehouse.

That's BYRNA.com or your local sportsman's warehouse.

Visit now and be prepared to defend.

Glenn, thanks for being here.

I know you're still getting your arms around this too, because it just dropped this morning, but you've been following the scandal.

Put it in perspective for us.

I'm so glad you asked me to do that because I think that's the critical point here.

You know, I want to start by saying that there's probably no story that I've worked on longer and for more time than the hoax and fraud of the Russiagate story from the very beginning.

My first article was on this about how journalistically dubious it was and how there was no evidence for it, despite the media's treatment of it as gospel, came exactly in mid-2016, the first time the Hillary Clinton campaign, and this was how the public was introduced to it, published this ad with this very sinister music and this baritone voice, essentially saying what is it that the russians have on donald trump and my first reaction was you know this sounds like recycled mccarthyite scripts from the 1950s that had been discredited you're going to say that donald trump is a kremlin agent

and at the time there were a handful a very small handful of reporters some on the right you know people like molly hemingway and chuck ross and jerry dunlevy who were doing really forensic reporting about the utter lack of evidence and there were a few of us very few who weren't associated with the riot at the time, that also were saying from the very beginning,

this is a fraud.

You know, you mentioned Aaron Mate, you had Matt Taibian, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracy, and myself.

Very, very lonely.

And we were all expelled from not just liberal circles, but mainstream media circles because the mainstream media took this and treated it as a national religion.

This wasn't some scandal that lasted a few weeks, Megan.

This was the number one story in the United States extending beyond beyond politics and news.

You know, Saturday Night Live used to do those homages to Robert Mueller.

The fact that Trump was a Russian agent, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to hack into these emails to manipulate the election, this was a fact that was treated as such by almost every major corporate media outlet.

And if you were someone questioning it, you would be excluded.

You wouldn't even be heard.

They didn't hear any dissent or debate on it.

And I just, let me just make two points.

Because I have so much to say on this, but I'm trying to figure out like exactly which ones for context make the most

are most important number one is you know I've spent most of my journalism career now 20 years focused on what I considered to be the sinister and evil aspects of the US intelligence community the CIA the FBI the national security state and of course there's a lot of documented evil they've done in the Cold War coups and supporting human rights abusers but the idea always was that we were going to have this part of our government you know the CIA Intel FBI that would be especially the Intel community, that would do some rough things in secret.

But the number one role, the taboo, was it would never be turned against the domestic population.

It would never interfere in our politics.

And after 9-11, that taboo was destroyed.

My big story that the first one I ever did was the NSA spying on American citizens, even though it was supposed to be aimed at foreign intelligence.

But what we saw in 2016 and in 2020, let's remember, was the CIA working with the FBI and other parts of the U.S.

government to disseminate absolute lies with no purpose other than to help the Democratic Party candidate win first Hillary Clinton and then Joe Biden and to defeat Donald Trump.

The Rushgate Fraud of 2016 and in 2020, the same people disseminating the absolute lie that all that reporting about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Ukraine and China, they claimed that was Russian disinformation to discredit the evidence got it censored from big tech.

Direct interference in our politics from these agencies that are supposed to have no role in our domestic affairs based on absolute fabricated lies coordinated with the Democratic Party.

That's the big first scandal.

And then I think the other important part of this, the other crucial part of it is, is that, Megan, for so long, even though I'm so glad we're getting more and more evidence, this was obviously, flagrantly fraudulent from the start.

I will just give you one

example.

John Brennan and James Claffer had this New York Times article op-ed yesterday trying to defend themselves and they were trying to pretend that like collusion was never really a big part of the story.

It was, I mean, you could go through every paragraph as a lie or some kind of very like tentious claim, but their main thing was like, oh, collusion, that was never.

The idea of collusion was central to the entire scandal.

It drowned our politics through 2018.

The reason they appointed a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was only because of the claim that Trump and Russia were colluding and that Putin was controlling the United States through blackmail leverage over Trump, one of the most deranged conspiracy theories to which we've ever been subjected.

And the reason you could tell this was a complete fraud from the beginning, though the media wouldn't hear it, was that two of the things that Trump did in terms of his Russia policy in his first term were aimed directly at undermining and even subverting and destroying the two most important vital interests of Russia.

He flooded Ukraine with offensive arms.

You can say that may not have been good.

That may not have been bad, but he did that.

Obama wouldn't give Ukraine offensive arms.

Trump did.

That's like the most threatening thing you could do to Russia.

And more importantly, Trump was obsessed with destroying Nord Stream 2, which was the key to Russian future economic prosperity to sell cheap natural gas to Russia.

He was trying to force the Russians, the Europeans, to buy natural gas from the United States.

How could you look and be the minimally rational person or minimally honest in the media and continue with this

smear campaign, this lie that putin has blackmail leverage over trump because he has him on video uh urinating on prostitutes when the two key trump policies were direct aimed at destroying the two most important vital interests the whole thing was a scam and a fraud from the beginning but the media was so obsessed with destroying trump they were willing to lie they joined with the intelligence communities which was in turn directed by the hillary clinton campaign it is a massive scandal that we've never really come to terms with

and and have just denied we're like we're not even not coming to terms with it.

We've just, the media and these top Democrats just continue to act like anybody who has these questions or is actually just acknowledging these facts is a nut case.

It's infuriating.

That op-ed that Brennan dropped yesterday in the New York Times was outrageous.

And I'll tell you, I don't know this case nearly as well as you do, but as a lawyer, I was offended by the number of holes through which a semi-truck could drive in their argument and just offered up like we're supposed to swallow at hook, line, and sinker, like just these declarations that Tulsi is a nutcase and this is all made up and it's Tulsi politicizing intelligence as opposed to the other way around, you know, calling them out on their politicization, which is all over these documents.

So we'll talk about that in one second.

I want to go through Schellenberger's piece because it does lay it out.

It's an assumption.

There's no way Schellenberger just popped this up without having had had advance notice of the Durham annex, which is fine.

That's great.

We're the beneficiaries of it.

All right.

So he says, it was published today.

Okay, a newly declassified appendix to Durham's report from May of 2023.

Let's see.

Reveals strong evidence that the FBI covered up a plot by the Hillary Clinton campaign to amplify ties between Trump and Russia.

That the FBI covered up the plot.

This is the new piece of it that's being dropped today, because we knew Hillary did it.

And Fox Digital had reported earlier this week that we were going to see this annex and it was going to suggest the FBI knew that she was going to do it and then covered it up.

And that's where we're going now with this, that Cash Patel said he found the Durham appendix and thousands of other documents inside a burn bag in a secret room at FBI headquarters.

Now, we knew that Hillary sought to link Trump to Russia.

That piece is not new.

But the declassified appendix adds considerable new details, reports Schellenberger, which suggest that the Clinton plan was real and the FBI helped to cover it up.

The CIA believed Russian intelligence memos, which analyzed hacked emails and alleged a Clinton plan to vilify Trump by linking him to Russia, were credible.

So the CIA believed that those Russian intel memos we got from the Dutch were real and were credible.

In September of 2016, September 7th of 2016, the CIA sent an investigative referral over to the FBI that referenced the Clinton pan, saying, this looks legit.

The FBI rejected the intelligence.

The deputy director Andrew McCabe said, oh, there's multiple layers of hearsay in here.

Some of the hacked emails, writes Schellenberger, had been obtained from American think tanks.

Again, we believe the Russians hacked them.

The Dutch saw the hacking materials.

American think tanks,

none could be substantiated.

One author of the emails, for instance, was Leonard Bernardo, the regional director for Eurasia at Open Society Foundation.

And this guy would wind up kind of denying that this sounded like him, but the best assessments, writes Schellenberger,

were that they were likely authentic, that these were Bernardo emails, and that the Russians had gotten their hands on them.

And then he writes that multiple analysts did know the Russians had, in fact, hacked Bernardo's emails.

So he's just setting up the foundation for the information that's in here.

So the CIA believes all this Russian hacked material, and the FBI says no because of hearsay.

But analysts believe at least this one guy, Bernardo, really was hacked.

This really is him writing in these memos

and including an email describing the Clinton campaign plan to frame Trump

for

Russia's hacking of the DNC emails.

Okay, plan to frame Trump for Russia's hacking of the DNC emails.

In other words, Russia, they claim, did it, and they had a plan to blame it on Trump.

Okay, going on.

The FBI general counsel, unlike the deputy director, McCabe, the general counsel, James Baker, according to the Durham Appendix, did not dismiss the credibility of the Russian reports and believed the reports should not have been dismissed out of hand by

McCabe and others at the FBI.

So you have an internal disagreement at FBI, and you have agreement over at the CIA that these Russian hacked materials are real and that Hillary Clinton has a plan to try to undermine Trump by claiming he's a Russian stooge to distract from her email scandal.

Everyone, Schellenberger writes, involved, including the FBI, acknowledged the credibility of the source of the Russian intel reports and the hacked emails referred to as T1.

This is the Dutch guy.

It appears to have been the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service, which hacked into the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear.

We've heard about them before, gaining access to their computers and monitoring them through a security camera in their facility.

Okay, well, that's out.

Dutch intelligence tracked Cozy Bear's operations for months and provided this information to U.S.

agents.

Okay, now I'm just going to read this paragraph and then I'll give it to you, Glenn.

He writes, indeed, while the FBI was happy to use the Dutch agency's Cozy Bear Intel to allege Russian election interference.

In other words, they saw enough in those documents to say, oh, the Russians are messing with our election and they loved it.

Yes, the Russians, they're involved, they're evil.

It appears to have rejected intel from the same Dutch source when it came to the information about Hillary.

It's unbelievable.

Despite, I'm quoting here from Schellenberger, despite credible evidence of a Clinton plan to fabricate a scandal accusing Trump of working with Russia to interfere in the election, the FBI appears to have done exactly what Clinton wanted.

It opened its crossfire hurricane investigation into alleged coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, and it relied heavily on the Clinton-funded steel dossier for investigative and surveillance purposes.

My head is going to explode.

This is, I don't know the scandal as well as you do, Glenn.

Like, what is new?

Because what I'm being told is new is the FBI's willingness to help her, to help her do this.

And now we're seeing the behind-the-scenes machinations of them, like, rejecting the Dutch intel stolen from the Russian intel about all the bad shit she did, but leaning into anything bad that Russia did.

All right, so let me just step back for a second.

I know people know this, but I think it's important to really emphasize.

At the time all of this was happening, the 2016 election, the

person in charge of the entire executive branch, which means the FBI and the CIA and the rest of it, was Barack Obama.

Barack Obama had named and had as crucial part of his administration Hillary Clinton.

She served as his Secretary of State from

2008 to 2012 when John Kerry took over.

She was integrally

integrated into the Obama administration.

We know that Joe Biden wanted to run for president in 2016 and Obama told him, I'm not going to support you.

I'm going to support Hillary.

So the entire executive branch is led by Barack Obama and then people like James Clapper and John Brennan and Jim Comey were close associates and colleagues of Hillary Clinton.

And they were doing everything possible, abusing the intelligence community in order to help her win, regardless of what they needed to say, no matter how untrue that it was.

I think it's just really important to remember that.

And then, also, although at the time, all of these FBI and CIA people pretended to be apolitical, you know, Jim Comey with that smug, sanctimonious sense of how dare you question my integrity.

I'm the highest and most noble public figure ever to exist.

They all came out as MSNBC analysts.

They all despised Donald Trump.

Andrew McCabe got fired for lying.

He then turned into an MSNBC.

They all turned into like hardcore anti-Trump commentators.

8647

just just happened to walk across those shells on the beach i mean 8647 just recently that's how he feels about trump

and we have those lisa page and and peter strzok emails where they're just openly talking about how much they hate trump and how they're going to use the fbi investigation to so the the broad outlines have been known forever and the idea that the fbi politicized their investigation working with the cia and hand-picked intelligence in order to help the hillary clinton campaign's main theme i i could list to you a thousand different pieces of evidence that have been known for a long time.

But this is, I do think that, and I want to go back just a second, when Donald Trump named Tulsi Gabbard, DNI, it was amazing to watch the Democratic Party freak out because the Democrats were voting for a lot of Trump nominees unanimously, like Marco Rubio and others like that.

They were totally fine with them, even though they were a long-term Republican Party conservative, you know, on the conservative wing.

They had no problem with them.

The person they had the biggest problem with, one of the people, was Tulsi Gabbard, even though she spent eight years as a Democratic member of Congress.

She had supported Bernie Sanders.

She endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.

Why?

Because they knew that she was an outsider and that her intention was to go into the CIA and go into the national intelligence state and expose the corruption that was oozing all through it.

Whereas, you know, even more reliable career people who come from there aren't willing to walk rock the boat that way.

Even if they're more loyal to Trump, they're still institutionalists.

That's why

her doing this is why they were petrified remember hillary clinton called hillary tulsi gabbard a russian agent they were calling everybody a russian agent they still are calling her a russian agent and what she did was bring a absolutely why should any of this have ever been hidden she brought absolutely critical transparency and now what we're seeing are new pieces of information specifically you know a lot of people in 2003 thought that dick cheney and and the neocons were manipulating the intelligence about iraqi mwmd because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and they ignored the ones who were saying they didn't have MWMD and elevated the ones that said they did.

We all know that happened.

I heard Matt talking about it on your show.

This is exactly what happened.

The thing is, you need the documents and the transparency and the facts to really make the historical case in a totally definitive way.

And that's what's new.

That's what we're now getting.

These kind of details showing exactly which actors in these agencies deliberately disregarded the intelligence that undermined their case and highlighted the intelligence that they wanted to promote as a political narrative often as you just got done saying from the Michael Schellenberg article in the same intelligence report they're like yeah this helps let's use this but let's consider this unreliable because this undercuts it this is Megan the kind of extreme abuse of power that

is as threatening to American democracy as anything they've accused Donald Trump of doing.

This is deliberate interference in our elections, using the secret parts of our agency, disseminating lies.

And here's the problem.

And this happens, this happens all the time: is when these intelligence agencies do bad things and people at the time stand up and say it, most of the evidence is hidden.

So you get called a conspiracy theorist, or there's no evidence.

The evidence only comes out years later.

And by which point it comes out like now, and you want to say, hey, let's...

Here's the proof.

Let's look at that.

People are like, why are you talking about 2016?

That was eight years ago.

We have so many other things.

This is irrelevant.

The media will not cover this, I promise you.

And you know why?

Because I consider, although the FBI and the CIA took leading roles in the Obama administration, the media to be the primary culprits without them abdicating their role of

oversight of these intelligence agencies, of being journalistically skeptical of what they were being told, they were more eager than anybody to close ranks with Hillary's campaign and the intelligence agencies.

They gave themselves bullets for this totally fraudulent reporting.

To this day, they're proud of the role they played, even though, other than I'm sure Russia did do some interference.

We all, big countries, interfere in each other's desk politics all the time.

That was never the scandal.

The scandal was the collusion between Trump and Russia.

And even the extent of the Russian involvement was completely exaggerated to the point where we now question whether they really did do the hacking.

The problem is it's going to be confined to shows like this, to people like you and me.

Fortunately, we have a lot more influence than we did eight years ago.

Independent media does, and so we can break through.

Don't expect the New York Times and NBC News and the rest of them to take any of this seriously.

They're going to run cover for it, which is why the New York Times published that Brennan clapper op-ed because they are as guilty as anybody.

Well, that's true.

I agree with everything you just said.

However, if somebody gets indicted, the media is going to have to cover it.

And they'll run cover for it, but at least they'll have to cover it.

They will have to put this in the page of the New York Times if somebody gets indicted.

And somebody really might, and it might happen soon because today's July 31st.

And when we heard Ratcliffe, head of CIA, talk about how, oh, no, no, no, we're not out of time on all of the criminal claims we could bring here.

And he started citing the Durham investigation and putting various people's testimony, including Comey's, I think it was August of 2020.

And there's a five-year statute of limitations on perjury under the federal

and Brennan, too.

Yeah, and Brennan.

Yeah.

So that would be, we could see an indictment within the next 30 days if that's what they're actually looking at.

I just want to make one other point.

I'll give it back to you.

Sure, go ahead.

So our Media Research Center has been looking at the media coverage of the news scandal.

And in a post put out by Nick Kayal, who is, I think, referencing it, he writes as follows.

He summarizes it as follows.

CBS, ABC, and NBC News spent 2,300 minutes.

2,300 minutes.

Think about that.

Because like in the Kelly file, when we were on the air for an hour, we only really had...

depending on the night, 38 to 42 minutes of content.

That's all you have.

So if a story gets, you know, five or six minutes on the show, that's good.

If it has like nine or 10 minutes, then it's probably the lead, and we really leaned in.

But we're talking about 2,300 minutes by the three major nets on Trump and Russia in 16, 17.

Fast forward to 2025, the same three nets have spent under

three minutes discussing this latest update.

Under three.

And of course, it would only be, because he puts it as discussing Obama/slash Russia.

I'm sure it was, Obama has denied the latest crazy allegations coming out of Russian agent Tulsi Gabbard's office.

Exactly.

Well, not only that, I mean, of course,

like I said, how can you, you know, it would be like if you were to say, hey, Jim Comey, we think that there was a lot of FBI wrongdoing under your leadership.

We would like you to go and investigate whether

that really happened.

Everybody, why would you ask Jim Comey?

He's the accused perpetrator.

To me, this is the same thing when it comes to expectations of whether the media is going to report this.

And of course, they're not.

And you are right that if there are indictments, which there ought to be, the media will be forced to cover that.

But I promise you, I promise you, the way they're going to cover it is by blaming Trump again, by claiming that this is exactly the fear that people had that he was going to abuse the legal system and the power of the intelligence communities to persecute and

imprison his political opponents when that is exactly what they are so guilty of.

Trump really hasn't done that.

The ones who have done that are these people who spend eight years abusing the power of these agencies for no reason other than to undermine Trump because they viewed him as a threat to their power.

And this is how

the mainstream media is going to depict this.

But this is, you know, in so many ways, of course, they have made, they've dug their own grave.

That's the reason why you have a gigantic audience, even though you have no major media corporation behind you.

It's the reason why so many people in independent media are more trusted precisely because of this behavior.

So they can do that.

They will do that.

They have to do that.

It's not just protecting their political allies like Hillary and Jim Comey and John Brennan.

It's protecting themselves.

But their ability to do that is significantly weakened, which is why I have been such a loud and persistent defender of independent media.

That's right.

No, exactly right.

It's a very different ballgame today than it was even four years ago, never mind, eight or 10 years ago, when she was doing all this.

And back to Hillary, Hillary, you know, the whole, oh, she has a hat she's tweeted herself out wearing, but her emails.

She's tried to turn it into this ridiculous joke, like, oh, but the moon landing, like you nutcases who are still railing about this made-up scandal,

this thing that, you know, you've, you've used to try to unfairly tar me.

And you go on and you read about some of the, like you, like you point out, like the backstory and the evidence on what she was doing and the motivation to, because she didn't think Trump was going to win.

And the intel agencies didn't think Trump was going to win.

No one thought Trump was going to win, including in the fall of 16.

But she did need to distract from that email scandal, which was around her neck like an albatross.

Trust me, we were covering it every night on the Kelly file at Fox News.

And it was getting heated and heated.

And the FBI was looking into, you know, her behavior.

And we didn't know how it was going to come down.

It was bad.

She had clearly violated the law with that homebrew server that had been accessed by foreign agents.

She compromised national intelligence information.

She did things she would never have allowed anybody at the State Department to do under her.

And that leaves me back to Schellenberger here.

This is page four of his report.

He says, he writes as follows: The Russian reports, again, that the Dutch spied on, that we got our hands on, also claimed, and listen to this.

I mean, you probably already know this stuff, Glenn, but

claimed that Attorney General Loretta Lynch, okay, this is back in 16, people.

Remember, Obama's president, Loretta Lynch, is his attorney general.

And her

DOJ/slash FBI are investigating the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

And also, now we learn simultaneously working with the Hillary Clinton campaign to bury that scandal in favor of calling Trump a Russian agent.

Okay, so the Russian reports also claimed that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had privately told a Clinton campaign official, and they name her Amanda

Rentaria,

Rentaria, R-E-N-T-E-R-I-A,

that she, Lynch, would make sure the FBI's server investigation did not, quote, go too far.

So this is the sitting Attorney General reassuring the group that's representing one of her targets, an FBI target.

of an investigation.

Don't worry, I got this.

We got to do something because it looks bad, but it's not going to go too far.

Wink, wink.

This is so fucked up.

Goes on as follows.

After receiving the Russian reports, the FBI, which is under DOJ, so technically Loretta Lynch is their boss, they went to Loretta Lynch and gave her what's described here as a defensive briefing.

Like, yo, boss, the Russians have documents proving you had a meeting with the Clinton campaign and you told them you're not going to let our investigation into her go too far.

Andrew McCabe told investigators that Loretta Lynch's reaction was, quote, odd.

And James Baker, the general counsel, noted Loretta Lynch's reaction upon learning of these allegations, quote, smelled bad.

Baker stated, quote, how bothered he personally was when Lynch simply responded, thank you.

after the briefing.

And let me go on because there's a little bit more.

The same report, okay, quotes McCabe at length.

This is actually jumping ahead to the 2018 Office of Inspector General report into the FBI's investigation of Hillary and the email.

That report quoted McCabe at length about Loretta Lynch's reaction when she was told, hey, we know what you've been doing and the Russians know it too,

alleging that she pressured Comey.

This is another piece that she also then pressured Comey to drop the Clinton email server investigation.

And he said, Andrew McCabe, she read the allegations and I will probably never forget she just finished reading them and said,

okay.

I mean, like, I expected more of a reaction than that.

Like, I expected, like, this is crazy.

I never talked to that person, but she was absolutely stone-faced and said nothing about the content of the memos, which I don't know how to interpret that.

So that's her being accused in the latter instance of actually telling Comey, you will drop this investigation now, and in the former, of telling the Clinton campaign, don't worry, I got this.

It will not go, quote, too far.

And in both instances, the FBI recoiling at her reaction, which when told, we've got you, we know you did this shit, with simply, thank you or okay.

It's so infuriating.

It's so infuriating because part of me knows that there's not really going to be accountability for most of the people who deserve it.

Maybe they'll be like a sort of sacrificial lamb that they give up and plead guilty.

But the magnitude of this scandal and i just want to underscore one more time they did the same thing in 2020 the exact same people when there was very incriminating reporting about joe biden weeks before the election that could have jeopardized his chances to uh beat donald trump and the same exact people the john brennans the james clappers all of these scumbags who have proven over and over that they're willing to lie put out that letter saying, oh, this Hunter Biden laptop information should be ignored because it looks like Russian disinformation.

And the Natasha Bertrand and Politico took that and said it is Russian disinformation.

And from there, the whole, all those stories got discredited and ignored.

They have been, it's not like it's a single scandal.

They have in their minds, and this is, I think, has been the biggest story of the Trump era from my perspective.

I have a lot of criticism of Donald Trump's policies, as you know, but my biggest criticism of and my biggest concern, I think the story of the last eight years has been that they viewed Donald Trump as such a grave threat to all the things that they thought were sacred.

You know, way worse than say, like a Jeb Bush or a Mitt Romney who they could live with.

He wasn't just an ordinary conservative.

He was coming in to like shake up the entire system that they decided.

And when I mean they, I mean the Attorney General, the FBI, the CIA, and the mainstream media, especially, that There can't be any limits.

There can't be any rules.

There can't be any other considerations other than the single-minded goal of defeating Donald Trump.

And whatever they have to do to make sure that happens and when he wants to destroy his presidency, whether it be lying, whether it be abusing these agencies, whether it be disseminating falsehoods, whether it be inventing scandals, whether it be ignoring the orders that he gave to people who are supposed to be his underlings carrying out his democratic will, they would celebrate when his orders got ignored or subverted.

This was a profound attack on democracy by almost every major leading American institution that abdicated what was supposed to be their principal role in every case for the single-minded partisan goal of destroying the Trump movement, even though he had massive popular support.

This is the threat to democracy over the last decade.

And it comes from the very people who have paraded around and gotten very rich, depicting themselves as the sole guardians of democracy.

And that's why I have such indignation over this.

I'm glad this is being

there's more evidence now in the public domain, but it's been clear for a long time, very clear.

I'm glad Tulsi Gabbard gave more fuel to the fire for historians to understand it, for people like you and me to talk about and tell the public how bad it it was.

But so much accountability is due because it corrupted all of our major institutions and still is corrupting these institutions.

And

on the Hillary point, she got away with murder.

She

lock her up was right and righteous.

And Trump actually should have.

gone after her when he took office back in 17, January of 17.

The only reason it appears that the FBI didn't go after her is because the fix was in.

And Loretta Lynch was really clear she wasn't going to do that to Hillary and was telling the Hillary campaign, look, you know, we kind of have to do this for window dressing, but don't worry, I've got you.

That's what's alleged in these documents.

And Hillary has been acting like she's the one who's been wronged.

This is all a made-up scandal.

And the evil Trump who said she ought to be behind bars is so out of line.

Meanwhile, Trump didn't do it.

Everybody knows Trump didn't go after her criminally with his DOJ when he took office.

And yet as soon as he was out of office, they did it to him.

So now he's back.

And look, the statute of limitations on the Hillary stuff, on that stuff has run, though she too testified in the Durham investigation, Glenn.

And Ratcliffe mentioned her and the date of her testimony with Maria Bartaromo this past Sunday.

We actually could see Hillary Clinton back in the criminal hot seat, which she totally deserves.

And

not, I mean, at the time she was out of government, technically she was a candidate.

The people who really were the ones who broke the law most are the head of these agencies, the Loretta Lynches, the Jim Comeys, the James Clappers, all of those people, the John Brennan's at the CIA, the people in the Obama White House.

But

and this is what I think is also crucial to note: is it wasn't just during the campaign.

There are times in the second Trump term when I do feel like the Trump White House goes a little too far in trying to like

expunge anybody with the slightest dissent or this most like minimal suspicion of disloyalty to Trump's agenda.

Because you kind of want some dissent in the executive branch.

But I totally understand it because the whole first term was driven by the fact that although Trump won and his mandate democratically was overwhelmingly clear, they had all sorts of people in every part of the government who were there for no reason other than to undermine and prevent his agenda from being implemented, that they were working against him, even to destroy his presidency hand in hand with the media and these same agencies.

And so this is,

that's why I mean, this is not just like one of these isolated scandals where maybe the Attorney General covered up criminal wrongdoing because it was a political ally.

This has been an ongoing attack on American democracy and the will of the voters using the most powerful institutions in our government, working hand in hand with the corporate media to undermine the will of the people.

They never accepted that Donald Trump won the presidency because most Americans who voted voted for him.

They never accepted the democratic outcome.

They believed their judgment was superior and they were determined to destroy his presidency and make sure he lost, notwithstanding what people wanted.

And they abused and lied and contrived and fabricated, again, in a way that I thought was extremely clear at the time.

But the more evidence, the better.

And maybe there's so much evidence that's going to come out again, Hulsey Gabbard and people like that, that the issue has to be forced.

And even though the corporate media will cover it up, they don't have anywhere near the stranglehold on the discourse as they previously did.

And Americans will start to fully understand just how deep this rot went and continues to go.

Let's talk for a minute about the Clapper Brennan op-ed in the New York Times, because this is the most pathetic fig leaf of a cover.

And they did it because they knew knew everyone would take it and run with it that all they have to do is throw out just a few kibbles of the dog food and all the media lap dogs will eat it willingly run with it and repeat it regurgitate it more accurately on every single newspaper and television show

they've decided to like kind of the way Obama did like just kind of brush it off she's obviously a dual pigeon and you know we're not going to pay much attention to this Russian tool.

This is what they say.

Tulsi Gabbard

and John Ratcliffe have over the past month claimed senior officials in the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence, that they silenced intel professionals and engaged in a broad treasonous conspiracy to undermine the presidency of Trump.

That is patently false.

In making those allegations, they seek to rewrite history.

We want to set the record straight and in doing so, sound a warning.

By the way, they never sounded a warning.

We don't know what the warning is, having read the piece thoroughly.

They just wanted to say scary things at the top, like, be afraid, be very afraid.

They then cite the multiple reports that did conclude Russia interfered in the election, including, of course, emphasizing the 2020 Senate Intel report, which we've talked about quite a bit on this show over the past two weeks with Matt Taibbi and Aaron Mate.

And really, that Senate Intel committee that investigated all of this appears to have just rubber-stamped what had been given to them by the Intel services, that they didn't have subpoena power or their own really investigative, real investigative tools, and that, not surprisingly, they rubber stamped what had been handed to them.

The main thing they seemed to want to prove was that there was no collusion.

So they said that there was no collusion.

But on the generic allegations that came after that, they seemed to have just said, okay, yeah, they interfered.

Fine, fine.

But honestly, that's all falling apart.

Whether the Senate found that or not, I don't really care.

I can see that the intelligence, the underlying intelligence, was based on nothing.

It was based on a feather of intelligence that really wasn't worth anything.

So they write the most noteworthy was the Senate Intel Committee report, whose Republican members at the time included Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State, and Senator Tom Cotton, now the committee chairman.

Then they go on to say,

no, and then

they make no comment in here, Glenn, on all of the new revelations that we've seen over the past couple of weeks.

Like they make no mention of the December 9th, 2016

new Russia interference assessment per the president's request.

The thing that we found out Obama insisted on after he found out that the Intel agencies were about to write, eh, you know, the Russian interference, it wasn't that dramatic.

Like, they definitely did not hack our voting machines, and that's what you need to know.

And he put a hold on it and said, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Then they had an Intel meeting with his chief of staff and all the heads of the agencies, the three-letter spy agencies.

And the next thing we knew, the report that was getting filed with Obama was, oh, they interfered.

They interfered all day long.

Up and down the river, they interfered.

And then we get the intelligence community assessment in January of 17, which doubles down on all of that based on absolutely nothing, based on the steel dossier.

And then we find out this week, based on three other pieces of so-called evidence, which aren't worth the paper that they are printed on.

So they made up,

it appears at the president's request, the data they needed in order to say Russians interfered.

But they don't address any of that.

The reversal by President Obama, the new intelligence assessment.

They don't address the September 2016 FBI and NSA assessment of low confidence that it was

that Russia who did the DNC hack.

None of that.

They just gloss all over it and

want us to believe that this is yet another Tulsi Gabbard hit piece on them.

I don't know what jumped out at you when you read this.

To me, it was more the omissions than it was the affirmative statements of fact.

Well, first of all, I just want to say a word about the Senate Intelligence Committee Committee, the House Intelligence Committee.

These grew out of the only real investigation that Congress ever did about the abuses of the CIA, which was part of the mid-1970s Church Commission report.

One of the reforms was, okay, we're going to have a Senate Select Intelligence Committee that oversees the CIA.

And in reality, they've completely co-opted it.

They only put people on there who are loyal to the intelligence communities.

For years, Diane Feinstein was the ranking Democrat or the chair, and she was a huge admirer of the CIA, did all their bidding.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is basically an arm of the intelligence community.

So the fact that they endorsed it, even if it's Mark Arubio, Tom Cotton, whomever, is completely unsurprising.

But here's the thing that I think is most important, Megan,

is

what Brennan and Clapper are trying to do is emphasize the claim that Russia interfered in our elections.

And as I said,

I don't doubt that to some extent Russia did because every single major government, including, I hope it doesn't shock people the united states interferes to a far greater extent in the internal affairs of every country including in russian elections we do that all the time so had it just been that what they're now trying to say oh the evidence is clear russia had some interference like a few facebook pages or twitter bots

no one this would have never been anything The only reason why it turned into anything was number one, because they severely exaggerated the extent to which Russia was doing it and claimed that it came directly from Vladimir Putin, who had a strong preference to elect Donald Trump, for which there's basically no evidence.

And that's where a lot of the manipulation happened.

But also, number two,

the thing that enraged me about the Brennan Clapper thing was when they said, oh, we, collusion wasn't really part of anything we did.

If it hadn't been for this collusion claim, there never would have been a Mueller investigation.

There never would have been a political scandal.

It would have had nothing.

They needed this fake collusion claim because that was the only way to rope in Trump.

If Russia's interfering, how does that reflect poorly on Trump?

And it's also Russia interfering because they know Hillary will win and they want to weaken her and sow confusion.

Nobody thought Trump would win, including Putin.

So this whole thing is an effort to rewrite history and to pretend all we ever said was Russia interfered.

And there is some evidence that Russia interfered and everything else that's being said about it is a lie when the entire thing was a political operation to smear Donald Trump, both as collaborating with the Russians to turn the election in his favor and Vladimir Putin, but also to claim that the Russians wanted Trump in office because they knew they could control him through blackmail leverages as set forth in the Steele dossier that never existed.

So you're exactly right.

The only reason the New York Times printed this was for liberals and media people who want to demean and disparage what we're talking about to say, oh, look, and just grab some stuff from Brendan and Clapper, some phrases that they're allowed to use, say they denied it and rely on their reliability.

But the whole thing is a complete revision of history about what the claims actually were, and they're pretending that all they ever claimed was that Russia did some interference.

This is an absolute lie, and I think everybody remembers this.

Yeah.

All right, there's more.

I want to go over a couple of other pieces on the Hillary front.

We'll do that next standby.

What will the effect of the sparring between President Trump and the Federal Reserve be?

Can the Fed take the right action at the right time, or are we going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown?

And what does this mean for your savings?

Consider diversifying with gold through Birch Gold Group.

For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, global uncertainty, and high inflation.

And Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold.

If you have an IRA or old 401k, you can convert that into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold, or just buy some gold to keep it in your safe.

First, get educated.

Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.

Just text MK to the number 989898.

Again, text MK to 989898 and consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold.

So if the Fed cannot stay ahead of the curve for the country, at least you can stay ahead for yourself.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.

By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and community.

Change the world for good by putting others before yourself.

Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online on-campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.

With over 340 academic programs as of September, 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.

The pursuit to serve others is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.

Private, Christian, affordable.

Visit gcu.edu.

Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, The Three Questions with Andy Richter.

Each week, I invite friends, comedians, actors, and musicians to discuss these three questions.

Where do you come from?

Where are you going?

And what have you learned?

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowen, Ted Danson, Tig Nataro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more.

You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter call-in show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.

Listen to the three questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.

If you're looking to help your child catch up, stay sharp, or get a head start this school year without the stress, IXL is the answer.

Its interactive lessons keep kids engaged with content tailored to their level, pace, and learning style.

IXL is the award-winning platform proven to boost grades in math, science, social studies, and more.

One subscription works for all your kids, saving your family time and money.

Visit ixl.com slash 20 to get the most effective learning program out there with an exclusive 20% off.

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 SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr.

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

You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriXM 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 seriousxm.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.

That's seriousxm.com slash MK Show and get three months free.

Offer details apply.

Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.

Glenn Greenwald is here with us still, but also joining us now on this breaking news about the declassified annex to the John Durham Special Counsel report.

Remember, Trump had him investigate how

this happened to him.

And now we're finally getting a look at the appendix to his report, which has all sorts of information in it that really is quite damning for then Obama Intel officials, many of whom went on to serve under President Biden as well.

So joining us now with his take on what we're seeing is Aaron Mate.

He was just here the other day.

He's an independent journalist.

He covers the Trump-Russia story for real clear investigations and sometimes subs for Glenn on System Update over on Rumble.

So these guys are friends and colleagues as well.

Aaron, welcome back to the show.

Glenn, thank you for sticking around.

So, Aaron, one of the pieces that Glenn and I were getting close to in the discussion was the Hillary piece of this and the evidence, because that is, they do name a couple of names in this appendix on

who came up with this scam.

And the name that we keep seeing over and over,

as one of them, at least, was Julianne Smith.

Schellemberger writes, Julianne.

It's J-U-L-I-A-A-A-N-N-E.

He writes, the alleged creator of the plan was Julianne Smith, a Clinton policy advisor

that the unclassified Durham report refers to as foreign policy advisor one.

And this woman, look how happy she is.

She's like, I got away with everything.

I nailed it.

And then Obama made me the liaison to NATO.

I I mean, not Obama, Biden.

Like, I continue to get employed by these people because all I do is sit around and do the illicit bidding of my Democrat power boss.

In any event, they appear to have gotten emails about her plan

from Leonard Bernardo.

Okay, and just to set it up again, I mentioned this in the first hour, but it's confusing.

So we're just going to do baby steps here because I know everybody's holding on by their fingertips here.

Leonard Bernardo worked for the Open Society Foundation, which is the George Soros organization.

Very, very, very linked to the Democrat elite, which would include Hillary.

And Leonard wasn't very careful with his emails.

So the Russians were able to hack Leonard, and that's where they saw the plan.

And we now have in the Durham Annex, like full screen grabs of the Russian memos that the Dutch got their hands on and leaked to to us, where the Russians are recounting exactly what they saw Leonard discussing about this Hillary Clinton fan and emissary, Julianne Smith, and how they were going to stop Trump, undermine Trump, and but most importantly, distract from Hillary's email scandal.

Do I have it right so far?

Yes, you do.

Okay, you take it from there.

Well, you know, the first thing I have to say here, just to be careful, is that Durham, when he weighed in on whether or not these emails from this fellow with open society, Leonard Bernardo, he says that he believes they are likely authentic.

But he also said that he thinks some of this was a composite.

So basically the Russians who presumably took, stole these emails, put different emails together.

And it's possible in the process that Russia may have fabricated something.

We just have to be open to that possibility that in the process of putting this together, there was some Russian fabrication.

But at the same time, everything that is laid out in these emails from Leonard Bernardo is exactly what happened afterwards.

There was a Clinton campaign plot to frame Trump as a Russian agent, and not just through Christopher Steele, but also through the Alphabank scam, which someone like Jake Sullivan, who was then a top aide to Hillary Clinton, was pushing to the FBI.

And that was this conspiracy theory that Trump and Russia were secretly communicating through the servers of Alphabank.

And there was all this unusual computer traffic, which by all accounts was fabricated.

And then you have also these emails talking about CrowdStrike, which is the private cyber firm that we talked about in my last appearance with you that launched RussiaGate by publicly accusing Russia of hacking the DNC.

And then they came up in June 2016.

And who was CrowdStrike working for?

The Hillary Clinton campaign.

And who did the FBI rely on just as they relied on Christopher Steele?

CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike submitted redacted reports to the FBI.

CrowdStrike never let the FBI conduct its own examination of the DNC servers.

And CrowdStrike repeatedly stonewalled the FBI's request to access the DNC servers.

And that actually turned out to be a very important thing.

So just let me just interject because I like to keep it really simple for people.

So just so where we are now is the FBI has been told via these leaks, our Dutch friends came to our Intel services and said, yo, Hillary's got a plan.

It was all laid out by Leonard Bernardo.

He's talked to Hillary's people.

And look, this is what they're going to do.

They're going to try to smear Trump as a Russian agent.

So the FBI knows all this.

And then we start to get the smearing.

Then it starts.

Like they say, here's the steel dossier.

Trump got peed on or watched Russian prostitutes pee on each other and all this stuff.

And crowd strike.

Look at this crowd strike document that says the Russians hacked the DNC.

And rather than saying,

this is part of the plan, like this is,

we just got a warning this is going to happen, they swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.

That piece of it, they ran with.

Meanwhile, they were looking at these same reports being like,

Hillary's not really behind this.

Exactly right.

And it's really important that you stress the role of the FBI here and the fact that they received this warning before the FBI officially launched the Trump-Russia investigation, because another line from one of these emails is that they're relying on the FBI to, quote, put more oil into the fire that they've started by linking falsely Trump to Russia.

So there was an awareness, according to these emails, that the FBI was going to do exactly what the FBI did, which is launch a baseless investigation based on a ridiculous predicate about George Papadopoulos, which makes no sense.

And we all know wasn't the actual basis for this, and use the steel dossier funded directly by the Clinton campaign, a collection of conspiracy theories for investigative leads and for surveillance warrant applications on Carter Page.

So I don't know for sure if every single word in these emails is authentic.

I want to be careful here because it just seems so perfect.

And also the fact.

And those of you on the right will love this.

This comes from someone working for George Soros.

I mean,

it feels so on the nose to me, but if it truly is authentic, which Durham says it likely is, it's just more evidence of what a complete fraud this was.

So here's a quote from the Russian memo, one of them that we're now seeing.

This is in the annex to the Durham report, and this is, I'm quoting here from the Russian Intel document that the Dutch stole.

Hopefully everybody's with us.

Okay, it reads, according to data from the election campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton, obtained via the U.S.

Soros Foundation, on 26 July 2016, Clinton approved a plan of her policy advisor, they call her Juliana Smith,

to smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal tied to the intrusion by the Russian special services in the pre-election process to benefit the Republican candidate.

As envisioned by Smith, raising the theme of Putin's support for Trump to the level of the Olympics scandal, which appears to be a reference to Hillary's email scandal, would divert the constituents' attention from the investigation of Clinton's compromised electronic correspondence.

And they go on from there.

There's another one.

They write,

this is a July 25th, 2016 email from Leonard Bernardo.

It doesn't say to whom, but that's where they say the thing about the FBI will put more oil into the fire of the plan to tie Trump to Putin.

Bernardo later said something like, I don't know if that sounds like me, but didn't deny it explicitly.

And it seems pretty clear he was hacked by the Russians.

Well, he definitely was hacked by the Russians because Durham confirmed some of the emails as being authentic.

He just left open the possibility that, you know, he couldn't confirm everything, but he did find identical language.

Let me guess, the most damaging ones to Hillary, like, he's not sure.

Those might not be real.

It's like Joy Reed and her blog bashing the gays.

Like,

the most incendiary, those don't look like me.

That's where the hacker got in.

The rest is fine.

You've got it.

Fair enough.

And Julian Smith, the aforementioned foreign policy advisor who's said to be the originator of this idea of the smear campaign, she also said that she couldn't rule out that maybe somebody else had proposed it, that someone else had discussed something along those lines.

And again, it's exactly what they did.

I mean, Michael Sussman, who is Hillary Clinton's attorney for Perkins Coy, he hired CrowdStrike.

He encouraged CrowdStrike to go.

He connected basically CrowdStrike with Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post, got that story published.

He then went to the FBI with the fake data about Trump and Russia communicating through a bank server.

So this is like the these memos detail exactly what happened afterwards.

So that's another reason to believe that they are, that they are authentic.

But the fact that it was put in writing, if this is indeed the case, it's just extraordinary.

It speaks to, I think,

it speaks to the confidence that they had that they could get away with this.

I think everyone assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to win.

And so this was just, you know, part of the job.

I mean, James Clapper had a a line where he talked about we were working under the conditions of presuming that Hillary Clinton would be our next president.

Why they all went along with this and why some were willing to put it in writing is beyond me, but it speaks to the entitlement that they had.

But it makes sense that they felt that way because look at the levels at which the FBI went to advance their fraud by launching the Trump-Russia investigation to begin with and keeping it going even after Trump took office.

And in fact, Andrew McCabe, who was well aware of all this because he was briefed on it, according to the Durham Annex, what did he do in May of 2017 when Trump was in office as the president?

He opened up a brand new counterintelligence investigation of Trump specifically as being an agent of Russia because Trump had recently fired James Comey.

That was basically Andrew McCabe's predicate.

Sure, sure, Andy.

Can I hear you?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah, please.

Okay, I'm so glad you have Aaron here because I don't think there's anybody with a greater mastery of

every detailed fact of this case that amazing that he retains all these years later.

And there was a book, a best-selling book, number one in the the New York Times best-selling list by a Guardian journalist named Luke Harding, claiming to have had smoking gun evidence of Trump and Russia collusion.

Aaron interviewed him.

It's please go watch it on YouTube.

The entire thing falls apart among the most minimal scrutiny.

But I just want to add one thing about

this motive.

Like, why would they be so eager to blame Russia, even if they thought Hillary was going to win?

I think one of the most important things to realize is that the whole Hillary faction had an extremely hawkish obsession with Russia going back years.

They wanted to convince the American people that Russia was our grave enemy to justify wars of the kind we're seeing now.

And so it wasn't all just about undermining Trump.

It was also demonizing Russia, convincing liberals in particular that the evil to our country is Putin and Russia and he's the reason you got Donald Trump in the first place.

And I really think there's a through line between those lies that they told, those intelligence fabrications they disseminated, and a lot of the foreign policy disasters that we're seeing now with our endless involvement in this war and Ukraine and broader antagonism to a new war on Russia.

It's a twofer.

It's a twofer for Hillary.

She accomplishes a lot of goals.

There's really no downside to her, especially if the Intel community will go along with it.

Never mind, help her.

So this is, again, back to today's news in this annex.

Aaron, let me get your take on it, because this seems to, you know, strongly suggest that the FBI, notwithstanding the warnings that she was going to do this, not only only didn't dismiss it when it started happening and say, oh, this is Hillary Clinton propaganda, bullshit, but joined in and were like, cool, great idea.

There's a bunch in here that I don't totally have deciphered.

I don't know if you have thoughts on this, but this is the Schellenberger report, which is helping us make sense of it.

He writes,

a verified email, so something we know is a legit email, dated July 5th, 2016, sent by an unnamed Clinton foreign policy advisor.

I mean, it could definitely be this Julianne,

but we don't know, to campaign advisors asked for help from the intelligence community to smear Trump.

Quote, we're looking for ways to build on Franklin Ford's great and scary peace on Trump and Russia.

And goes on from there about what she'd really like cooperation from them.

In the sentence that follows, the Clinton foreign policy advisor appears to recognize that what she's proposing, getting people in the U.S.

government's intelligence community to help the Clinton campaign, is illegal.

She wrote, I imagine the U.S.

State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research

or intelligence community types might also have some insight.

Obviously, need to be a bit careful here, but eager to get specifics of details.

Schellenberger.

The outreach from the Clinton campaign to the intelligence community appears to have continued through July.

Let's see, there's, and then he goes on from there about the communications between them.

But the Clinton campaign seemed to have so much hubris, Aaron, that they were openly saying we need to reach out to the IC to make sure they work with us on this.

Well, that makes sense, and that tracks with what we know.

It was previously confirmed that in early July, Victoria Newland, who was a senior State Department official under Obama and then under Biden,

that she approved the visit of an FBI agent to go to Rome, which required her approval because of her position in the State Department, to go meet with Christopher Steele.

And it's at that meeting, this is July 5th, that Christopher Steele hands over the Steele dossier.

So at that point, you have a State Department, a senior State Department official, this is July 5th now, communicating with Christopher Steele and receiving his conspiracy theories, which were then disseminated into the FBI.

So that makes sense that at that early stage, you have people talking about communicating and collaborating with their friends in the State Department, because it was already happening at the behest of Victoria Newland.

Now, I have another question for you before I let you go, and that's about Obama, because there are some references in here that I didn't totally understand to what he was doing.

Okay, they write, let's see.

The Russian memos, this is Schellenberger describing the annex.

The Russian memos describe meetings between the chairwoman of the DNC, Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, and two executives with the George Soros Foundation for Eurasia.

So back to Soros and his role in all this.

Wasserman Schultz reportedly said in a January 12th, 2016 meeting, so this is kind of predating all the stuff we discussed, that, quote, Obama has no intention to darken the final part of his presidency and legacy by the scandal surrounding Clinton, end quote.

The president put pressure puts pressure on FBI Director James Comey

through Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Then in a March 16 meeting, Wasserman Schultz reportedly said that, quote, Obama sanctioned the use of all administrative levers to remove possibly negative effects from the FBI investigation of cases related to the Clinton Foundation and the email correspondence in the State Department.

Is this, what is this telling us that he wanted the email scandal whitewashed, that he was the one who gave the order that we heard Loretta Lynch espousing in our, you know, earlier this hour saying, don't worry, Hillary, we won't let it go, quote, too far.

Well, listen, I have to admit, I have not followed this aspect of the story very closely.

I focused on the Russia aspect, but certainly the fact that Hillary Clinton received a tap on the wrist, this would track with all of that, which speaks to the broader impunity that our elites face.

So it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is true.

I can't speak to it at that level.

No, fair enough.

I appreciate your honesty.

It is kind of fascinating, though, to see

Obama early on saying, we're not going to let the administration, because this is his administration.

She was his Secretary of State.

We're not going to let the administration get tarred with these decisions.

So

to me, it sounds like a, we can investigate a little, but we're not going to take it too far, which would dovetail perfectly with

what else is in this annex showing Loretta Lynch allegedly going right to

the FBI and saying, or to Hillary's campaign and saying, don't worry, it's not going to go, quote, too far.

And indeed, it didn't go too far.

James Comey announced that it wasn't going to.

Now, interestingly, he did that.

He made that announcement

like right after he heard this.

There was something, basically, he tried to make it look like he was totally independent of Loretta Lynch when he decided not to pursue the Hillary case.

And I don't know whether he was or he wasn't, but it certainly seems like his boss had made clear previous to that to Hillary's people: don't worry, the fix is in.

Okay, Aaron, thank you.

Appreciate seeing you.

Keep us up to date.

Will do.

Thanks for having me.

All right, Glenn, so before we move this, I've got to play this soundbite for you because I know you'll love it.

Today it's not Michelle Obama Diddies.

Today, it is little ditties from senators like Michigan's newest senator, Alyssa Slotkin, who was on with the newly canceled Colbert.

And this is where she thinks the story needs focus.

This is what she thinks it's all about, SOT6.

Conspiratorially minded people out there like to think that some of the trouble the United States has is because of what they call the deep state.

Right.

Okay, and as a former spy, is there...

Is there a deep state?

First of all, a lot of them are former military.

So, you know, if you can't be like pro-military and and then anti-intelligence community, a lot of the guys are also like wearing mom jeans and white sneakers on the weekends.

Like these are good, corn-fed people.

This idea that there's some network of people that are running the world, it's just, it doesn't really match reality.

And for me, you know, the way that Trump is going after them is just, it's particularly, first of all, it's nasty.

Second of all, it's completely counter to our interest to be demoralizing the people that are protecting us.

Okay,

she's the one that's going to stand up for the CIA, Glenn, against the evil right wing that is unfairly trying to smear them.

I can't help but note, first of all, she is part of this crop of lifelong CIA operatives that the Democratic Party specifically recruited, you know, like Abigail Spanberger, who's running for governor in Virginia, is another,

because The CIA making for decades was anathema to Democratic Party politics.

It was a staple of liberal American liberalism, that the CIA was a sinister force in our politics.

And what changed in 2016 was they began to see the CIA as their allies, precisely because of everything that we're talking about, with James Brennan, with John Brennan in control of it, who politicized it to help Donald Trump be defeated and try and help Hillary Clinton be elected.

And so here you see what is obviously a very liberal audience at Colbert screaming and cheering while a CIA operative defends the honor of the CIA.

this shows how much these agencies have become politicized.

You will never hear a Democratic Party

elected official, not even on the left, with like Rashida Tlaib or AOC or Bernie Sanders, ever criticize the CIA because that is the problem.

They now recognize that these agencies have become domestic political allies of American liberalism and the left.

And so you call on a 20-year CIA operative to say, oh, there's no such thing as a deep state and these are just corn-fed people.

And you know what?

A lot of people who work for the CIA are perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean the leadership isn't sinister.

Just like you criticize, you know, wars in the military, you're not impugning the integrity of the soldiers who go and fight.

You're saying the institution has been corrupted.

This woman is one of the most annoying women in politics, people in politics.

The audience may be familiar.

When she was at that Pete Hegseth confirmation hearing, I wanted to punch her in the face.

She was so condescending to him.

she was saying to the next Secretary of Defense, a guy who's done three tours of duty, who left Princeton to go fight for the country post-9-11.

Nobody leaves Princeton to go put on the uniform and fight for the country.

Okay, most of those people are on the fast track to elitism, but Pete Hexeth did and fought valiantly for us in all over the world, in actual theaters of war.

So she's got him there for the confirmation hearing.

You know, and if you really do care about the people in the military, and I believe believe that you do, I believe that you do, I do, but if you really do care, and every comment was like, I will accept that you might actually care about the men and women in uniform.

F you.

He doesn't need your pat on the head.

All right.

He's been there and done that.

He's got buddies he lost.

He doesn't need you, Alyssa Slotkin, to verify his courage, his patriotism, love of country, and so on.

It's just so infuriating if you watch that whole thing.

It's still, it's a very popular video

that is on our feed right now.

Okay, anyway, I got to move on.

So that's enough of her.

Okay.

There's a lot to go over.

I want to touch on the Cincinnati.

I'm glad to cut me off because I have a lot to say on her.

So in the interest of moving on.

No, no, I will give you a minute on Alyssa Slock in because she's so fucking annoying.

Yeah,

it actually reminds me, it's one of the reasons why to this very day I'm so indignant about them trying to turn Tulsi Gabbard into a traitor and a Saad loyalist and a Putin operative when Tulsi Gabbard, as a young woman, went and volunteered and fought in combat for the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, not like in a lawyer's office, but in real combat.

She does that.

She's still in the U.S.

military, 20 years later in the Army Reserves as a lieutenant colonel.

And then Hillary Clinton, who loves wars, sends people to wars, but never herself or her family goes and fights them, has the audacity to try and impugn Tulsi Gabbard's patriotism.

and imply she's a traitor.

They do this all the time.

Like, I have a lot of disagreements with Pete Hexeth, have disagreements with Tulsi Gabbard, but these are people who put the life on their line for the country.

Like, that deserves a minimal level of respect where you don't imply that their allegiance to the country or their fellow service members are in doubt.

But this is Democratic Party politics.

They don't care about that.

No, not at all.

And yet she's like, she's clever because she's not, she's not a dummy.

You can hear her.

She kind of talks the talk.

She knows like the corn huskers, or like she knows how to sort of make a reference to right-wing politics.

And she keeps saying the same voters who put me in office put voted for donald trump you know she's basically just the same as donald trump with just just like a a different policy edge totally untrue she's a wolf in sheep's clothing and people should know that about her okay over to cincinnati where we had this gang violence if it wasn't an actual gang but it was a gang of people ganging up on um

We counted three victims, a man, a woman, and then another man.

In the write-ups, they keep talking about just a man and a woman.

I do not think it's the same man.

I could be proven wrong.

That's how, like, haphazard the information has been, though, coming out because we have an idiot running the Cincinnati PD.

She came out and, in her only comment on this, decided to chastise the journalists who are covering this beat down, which I'm sure she's very upset about because it's mostly black people.

It's all black people, beating up on a couple of white people.

So you're not allowed to have that in modern-day America.

That can't be commented on.

You can't say it's disgusting.

These people should be arrested.

It's bad.

You can't say that's a hate crime.

You can't say any of that.

If it were the reverse, it'd be leading every newscast in America.

So that's all we've had from her so far.

We've had Vivek Ramaswamy, who's running for governor of Ohio and is from Ohio, saying this is outrageous.

And I've spoken to one of the female victim, and she's extremely hurt.

And he's going to hold a town hall out there, which ought to be kind of interesting.

And then we had the vice president of the United States weigh in on what kind of a man would punch a woman in the face.

Now we're getting the pictures of the woman who did get attacked.

Her name is Holly.

I don't know the full name.

I don't think she's giving the full name, but she did give Bernie Moreno.

Look at this.

I'm sorry to the audience.

This is jarring.

Look what happened to this woman for the listening audience.

Her right eye is entirely black.

It's not purple.

It's black.

Like something you'd see out of like the little rascals.

You know, like that's all overdone it looks, but it's real.

This is right after she got out of the hospital.

And her lips look enormous with the same like black color bruising.

You know, they say black and blue.

Boy, oh boy, is she ever.

Thanks to the beatdown in it, and the entire right side of her face is yellow.

And you can see the bruising there, too, after she got slammed.

Can we show them a video of what happened to this woman?

Which is how this happened to her and on her chest, too.

More bruising, severe bruising, and neck.

Here's the attack:

somebody's getting up, a man in a white shirt.

We do not believe they're together.

She seemed to try to intervene.

She gets shoved to the ground, and before that happened,

one of the assailants

punched her in the face, and then we think kicked her in the face.

And she looked, she lay on the ground, she looks dead.

Thank God she was not dead.

She was severely hurt.

So now you get

a council woman.

A councilwoman, Glenn.

Actually, before I leave the council woman, or before I before I go to the council woman, the police chief chastises us all.

This is because of you.

You don't know what happened on the videos.

You're misrepresenting.

You don't know what came before the videos.

In response to which, literally every journalist alive covering this said, Great, show us what happened before.

Totally open-minded to that.

We got the narrative wrong.

Like most journalists would like to know if they've been completely misled.

And if there's something that would make the white people look bad, times that by 10, right?

Like, great, give us a way we can blame it on the two white people.

We're in.

Did she?

No, she didn't mention anything.

Now we have the Cincinnati detective Barney Blank,

who who does offer more information and what he's saying is this was a coordinated attack by two of the black men who are now under arrest so the more information does not seem to exonerate the two white people who got attacked it seems to further indict two of the assailants who happen to be black here's that cincinnati detective

so this is more uh kind of like an ambush as to

Mr.

Merriweather's involvement in this.

He we believe that he coordinated this with Mr.

Matthews.

So those two, those are two black defendants who have been arrested.

He said

the video shows Meriwether, again, arrested, walking up to Matthews, also arrested now, whispering something to him, and approaching one of the victims from behind before striking him in the face.

Meriweather and Matthews then chase the victim, who is trying to retreat to the ground before punching and kicking him, according to, again, this Cincinnati police detective, Barney Blank.

The detective added that Meriweather then went after another man.

That must be our second man, Banks.

We believe he coordinated this with Mr.

Matthews, now a co-defendant.

We have Mr.

Merriweather coming up behind the victim, striking him in the side of the face from behind.

But then he said police are looking into whether the victim struck Matthews or first struck Matthews because we did see, and I pointed this out to the audience, the white man in the one snippet of video was the first to lay hands on someone when he slapped one of the you know about-to-be gang members so he's looking into that but he does say that this was a coordinated attack by at least these two and um a lot of people started this there's a lot of people that started this uh matthews attorney says what actually happened according to him he's defending one of the people who have been arrested is that Matthews was allegedly standing on the street corner for his business when a fight broke out.

The attorney added that Matthews tried to break up the fight.

And when he returned, a man was kicking his business vehicle.

When Matthews went to confront the man he was slapped in the face so he might have been on the receiving end of that but the detective is saying no no no no no Matthews was coordinating with Meriwether and they had a plan and they chased the victim who was trying to retreat in any event my my point is Glenn there is no big video contrary to what this police chief told us that shows the media got it wrong or that the white man is to blame or that he uttered a racial slur, which was what was all over the internet two days ago.

And the media has moved on.

So your thoughts

in a way i feel like between this and the whole sidney sweeney and then the like dunkin donuts ad i feel like we've been catapulted in this time machine back to the worst excesses of 2020 which we i thought had all left behind i do want to say that one of the things the police chief said just to be fair like that i think is valid like in the abstract just like is worth considering is that

it one should be cautious about assuming everything

based on video circulating on social media.

Like as a lawyer, you know, there's a reason we have an evidential process, an investigation.

Sometimes things can be misleading.

You don't see the beginning of it.

You don't see parts of it.

I think that's a fair warning.

But the issue here is

that there are certain things that cannot be justified no matter the context.

What we saw here is somebody laying on the ground after he's been hit, struck down on the ground, completely motionless.

And then you have people coming over and kicking him in the face, punching him.

And then you have this white woman who also was punched in the face.

And once she's down, like, you know, was repeatedly punched in the face and you saw the damage.

Unless they have a gun or are like able to menace somebody, this has nothing to do with self-defense.

This is savage, barbaric behavior to just try and like kill somebody or crush their skull while on their they're on the ground.

This is inexcusable.

But the re, the reality is, is that the only reason this has even become a controversy is exactly what you said, which is the racial aspect that should not be part of this equation at all.

If, as you said, this was, you know, two black victims, a man and a woman who had gotten pummeled and beaten in the way that we saw by a white crowd, this would be leading every newscast.

We would have all sorts of protests around the country.

We'd have all kinds of meaning driven from this and think pieces and the like.

But because the race is reversed, there's like this discomfort about saying, no, this is actual savagery.

This is barbarism.

And the people who did it ought to be severely punished, even if there's something that we didn't see beforehand.

Like, as you said, that white guy, it was kind of like a slap that didn't look very aggressive or violent, but, you know, it was still a slap.

People have the right to defend themselves.

But this wasn't self-defense.

This was, you know, an incredible amount of savagery and violence.

And there's this discomfort whenever that racial dynamic is where the black people are the villain and the white people are the victims.

It just doesn't comport with the narrative that a lot of people want to have.

And as a result,

you know, you get these kind of excuses.

Yep, and it's not leading the newscasts all over the country.

All right, now let me spend a minute on the city council woman, then we'll take a break.

Her name is Victoria Parks.

She decided to post on Facebook after seeing these same videos.

They begged for that beatdown, expressing that she was grateful for the whole story.

This is a city councilwoman.

They begged for that beatdown.

Now, some Ohio state representatives are calling for her resignation.

She hasn't responded to the blowback.

She has a record of progressive activism, including declaring racism as a public health crisis and making Juneteenth a paid county holiday.

She previously announced she would not seek re-election and would retire at the end of her current term.

The fraternal order of police president Ken Cober called her comment unconscionable, saying it reflects a toxic political climate and urging voters to demand change.

It's really unbelievable.

They beg for that beat down.

This person's been elected to a public post in Cincinnati.

And honestly, it's the same thing with me, like with the police chief.

She gets out there.

She should be saying, I'm sorry I didn't have more officers on patrol in what was obviously a fraught area.

I am sorry we didn't have this area better covered.

Instead, she was like, no one called 911 until too late in the process.

You know, poor us.

Now, great, it would have been nicer if somebody had done that instead of videotaping, true.

But then she had a lecture for journalists.

It's like, you know what?

Maybe you were covering the wrong area of town.

Perhaps you had this particular corner understaffed because there appears to have been scores of people there who were irate and your people completely missed it.

And that's why Holly looks the way she does.

And we haven't seen a picture of the other guy.

But in any event, it's amazing to me to see this celebrated by a city council woman.

Like, what does she know?

She doesn't know anything we don't know.

If there were a videotape of these people saying, you're an N-word or beating mob-like these other, you know, would-be assailants, it would be released by now.

It would be released by the Defense Council.

That's why I say I feel like we've been catapulted back to this weird time warp that I thought we had all agreed to depart from.

And that seems very distant, but apparently it isn't.

The city councilwoman here is black.

She has a history of activism on behalf of the black community and also using the kind of racist discourse against white people that in 2020 was considered noble, but has now sort of been widely recognized as not the kind of racial division against anybody that we want to be promoting.

So again, all you have to do is reverse this as if there's been a crowd of white people bashing the crap out of a black woman and a black man who are on the ground and they're kicking their heads and trying to kill them.

And a white member of the city council had come out and said, yeah, they had it coming.

I'm celebrating this.

They asked for this beatdown.

That person would be ripped limb to limb, figuratively, if not literally.

And, but, you know, there's still this sense that, like, oh, when the races are reversed, there's some kind of like legitimate sentiment that allows a member of a city council to justify and condone savagery of of this type because the victims are white.

And so, in some way, they had it coming.

This to me is the kind of toxicity that 2020 and the whole woke movement produced.

And I think most decent Americans ended up really recoiling from and backlashing against.

And apparently, in some sectors, it's still acceptable because she wouldn't, she said it publicly.

It's not like she got on tape saying it to a friend.

She posted it on Facebook, I think it was.

Yes.

And this

we all have a responsibility to come together and condemn.

Yeah, she anticipated no social penalty.

And she's not being forced to resign.

She's just, you know, some council person is asking for it.

That's not good enough.

She right now remains in power.

It's a shame.

Back in the day, we didn't have Bitcoin or AI.

We worked hard, we saved what we could, and we planned for the future.

That's still smart advice today.

With everything going on in the world, job uncertainty, rising costs, unpredictable markets, there's never been a better time to protect your family's future.

Life insurance through SelectQuote is an easy, affordable way to do it.

For less than the cost of a monthly streaming service, you can get coverage tailored to your needs.

SelectQuote has helped over 2 million Americans for more than 40 years comparing top-rated companies to find the best policy for your health, lifestyle, and budget.

No medical exam needed, and even pre-existing conditions are covered.

Visit selectquote.com today.

They shop, you save.

It's peace of mind you can count on for you and your loved ones.

Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50%,

5-0%

at selectquote.com slash Megan.

Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash Megan today to get started.

Hey there, it's Kelly Ruppa.

And have you been listening to my podcast?

We are knee-deep in season three.

And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board.

After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling.

Where else are you gonna hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of page six?

Ilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Fox.

Nowhere else.

It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera.

And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff.

So download Let's Talk Off Camera with Kelly Rippa now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Are you ready to get spicy?

These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.

Maybe it's time to turn up the heat.

Or turn it down.

It's time for something that's not too spicy.

Try Dorito's Golden Sriracha.

Spicy.

But not too spicy.

Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.

Kamal Harris back in the news.

And who better to discuss Harris with than Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and host of Rumble's system update, Glenn Greenwald.

All right, Glenn.

She's writing a book.

It's called 107 Days.

She's releasing it now, just as the news comes that she has decided not not to run for governor of California and increasing speculation that what she really is going to do is run for the Democratic nomination in 2028.

So she has longer than 107 Days, the title, because that's all she had to actually run and try to seize the presidency.

Here is her little promo online for her book.

Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for President of the United States, 107 days traveling the country, fighting for our future, the shortest presidential campaign in modern history.

It was intense, high stakes, and deeply personal for me and for so many of you.

Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days, talking with my team, my family, my friends, and pulling my thoughts together.

In essence, writing a journal that is this book, 107 Days.

With candor and reflection, I've written a behind-the-scenes account of that journey.

I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned, and what I know it will take to move forward.

In writing this book, one truth kept coming back to me.

Sometimes, the fight takes a while.

And I cannot wait for you to read this.

And I'll see you out there.

Take care.

Oh, my God.

Okay.

It really says something that

they went to her glad and they were like, literally, the only thing that's interesting about you is those 107 days.

You were vice president for eight years.

Four years, sorry.

No one cares.

Look, literally, nobody cares a shit about what you do.

You did nothing.

We know that.

Can you just tell us about what happened when you got drafted and okay?

Bye.

So what do you make of her 107 days book book and her announcement on California?

First of all, I do think there's something kind of

unscrupulous and taughtery about how failed politicians who spend their life in politics are immediately able to go and get mega rich by writing some self-serving book.

We just learned Joe Biden got a $10 million contract for his book, which obviously he is incapable of writing.

And it's like a chronicle of failure.

I don't know what she got, but I'm sure it's many millions of dollars.

The second thing is, what's so grating about this, among other things, is that the title itself is nothing but an excuse.

It's basically a way of saying, yes, I lost, but it's not my fault.

I only had 107 days.

That's the whole point of the framing is to say, I had the shortest campaign in the history.

When in reality, had she

run a good campaign, had she been a interesting person, a substantive person, that could have helped her because a lot of times too much exposure is what reveals your flaws.

She could have ridden that excitement, the whole Brat Summer thing.

It's just that she ruined her campaign by who she is.

The third thing is,

remember the last three months of her campaign, Megan, were based on the explicit appeal to the American voter that Donald Trump is a fascist and a Nazi-like figure.

And if he wins, American democracy is going to be imperiled.

He then wins.

She's the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

Joe Biden's gone.

She's clearly the person who's supposed to do this.

And she completely disappears.

Not a word of anything over eight months.

okay take a month vacation that's understandable the campaign is intense like how do you call somebody a fascist and hitler and say american democracy is ending and then when they win you just disappeared except to show up at some like real estate function where you got paid a couple hundred thousand dollars in australia to give a speech everything about her is a fraud and i think even in this announcement you know it's so free of substance this is supposed to be a person who wants to be president there's not an idea She doesn't have a thing to say.

And the whole book still passes to self-serving.

Yet I was fighting

for our future.

And this book will be about the intense, high stakes and deeply personal journey with candor and inflection.

You've said nothing.

You've once again failed to inspire us or even titillate us, which is a tease you're supposed to be doing at all.

Or even like say, what is in this book that like we should be interested in?

Or like, how about an idea?

You know, she's like, I'm going to stay in this fight.

Like, what fight?

You've disappeared for the last eight months and have been doing nothing but like enriching your

magonitas.

Mom Dani is more, is closer to the leader of the Democrat Party than Kamala Harris is.

I mean, that's very clear.

Wait, I want to show you one more.

At least he has an idea.

He has real views.

He has real passions.

At least he has real views.

You know, yeah, and bachelor people.

Wait, I want to show you her TikTok cringy video teasing the book.

Please watch this.

Okay.

Yeah.

Everyone thinks you've been kicking back, drinking margaritas on the beach, but really, you've been hard at work writing a book, meeting with leaders, thinking about the future of our country.

Who said that?

What was that?

She's doing it for listening audience, like with her hand over her mouth, like she's telling a secret.

I don't even know what we just saw.

If you had to work to get it, it's a fail.

You know what?

The thing that makes me like

feel the most embarrassment for Democratic Party leaders is you can tell they've been told by consultants about how they should reconnect to the younger people.

Like Chuck Schumer, they always tell him, like, go on and like pretend that you're about to curse because you're so angry and out of control.

And he's like, those bastards, I mean, though, those

Republicans, you know, like this whole fake attempt to be like Trump and speak regularly.

So she's trying to be like a TikToker.

And then also this excuse, like, I know you think I've disappeared, but what I've been really doing is writing my book.

It's like, who does that help?

You're being paid many millions of dollars.

You supposedly think there's all these rights endangered and democracy imperiled, and you're trying to pretend like we don't think you've been doing anything, but actually, you've been meeting with world leaders and pondering, and then writing your book that you're getting paid millions of dollars for that will do nothing but justify why you lost and blame everybody else for your defeat.

I mean, and also the TikTok, you know, vibe that she's trying to create.

That's so she's a 60-year-old woman.

It's fine.

We're not 20.

Like, I don't pretend to go on TikTok and be 20.

Right.

They should stop doing that.

You know, it's, it's just, it's all horrible.

It's, it's like a very quick reminder of everything that makes her awful.

I know.

I welcome her back into this spot.

Like, come on in, sister.

The water is fine.

It's great to see you again.

Okay, before we go, I got to show you this.

Martha Stewart, the goddess of home decor and events has weighed in on um megan markle and also gwyneth paltrow for whom she had nice words but when she took a turn to ms markle sounded a little different take a listen

what is it like to watch other celebrities you know gwyneth paltrow megan markle going in your footsteps and and following something that you've really started um i don't mind

i don't mind good luck

and gwyneth's been very successful by the way.

I think she's created

quite an interesting body of businesses.

She's admired.

She's a fantastic.

She won an Oscar, for heaven's sake, as an actress.

She's pretty powerful.

Megan, I don't really know very well.

And

I hope she knows what she's talking about.

Authenticity to me is

everything.

And

to be authentic and knowledgeable about your subject matter is extremely important.

That is such a classic and effective Martha Stewart burn.

She's like, the other is a know-nothing faker who's just glomming onto me and my brand, which, by the way, Maureen Callahan and I discovered firsthand, Glenn, when we did our parody of Megan's stupid Netflix show, trying to make herself into the next Martha Stewart.

And we realized her one-pot pasta is just a blatant rip-off of Martha Stewart's one-pot pasta, which turned out to be like one one of her most famous recipes.

And it's honestly just like an unabashed ripoff.

I'm sure Martha's heard about it and is probably like, who is this fool trying to imitate that she's me as she out of the other side of her mouth complains about how her castle is too small?

It's funny, I was going to do my pitch for Maureen Callahan because as you know, I don't want to say she's my favorite program on YouTube because I have one, you have one, and it's not really political, but she is my favorite program on YouTube because she's the best cultural commentator I've ever seen.

So hilarious, so cutting about the people who deserve it.

But I also want to say, just tying into our other conversation, there's a documentary on Martha Stewart.

uh about her prosecution on netflix came out a couple months ago that i really encourage people to watch because it was a completely unjust prosecution driven by one james comey who decided he was hell-bent on putting her in prison for no reason simply to aggrandize his own career and his own image to rise in in politics and it's really worth watching watching for the Jim Comey angle.

But yeah, Martha Stewart sees exactly what Megan

Markle is.

And one of the things I love about Martha Stewart is she's very blunt and has never hidden what she thinks, but it's very subtle.

She's very good at that.

And you walk away understanding exactly what she thinks.

I think I'm in love with her because she also trolled the Blue Origin crew after they went up there and literally wanted us to call them astronauts.

And that was my inspo for my trolling that I did with Maureen and my stylist and friend Sarah, where we went up on our own space flight, quote unquote, and also became, quote, astronauts

because Martha trolled them by posting her own zero gravity flight.

And she's like, hey, you know, let's not forget about this.

She's like, she's pretty savage, Martha Stewart.

And she knows a loser when she sees one.

I want to tell you this.

With Love Megan, that stupid program on Netflix, failed to rank among Netflix's top 300 most watched titles between January and June.

The Post, New York Post, confirmed Markle's eight-part series ranked 383rd with just 5.3 million views since it debuted on March 4th.

5.3 million.

I've got clips of you, Glenn Greenwald, that have more than that on our feed.

It's crazy how low that was.

Harry's show, Polo, also on Netflix, was watched by only half a million people.

It's at number 3,436.

Losers, enjoy Montecito.

Glenn, I got to run.

A pleasure.

Thanks for being here.

Always great to be with you, Megan.

Thanks.

What a lift today.

Gosh, we covered a lot.

Thanks to all of you for listening.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, The Three Questions with Andy Richter.

Each week, I invite friends, comedians, actors, and musicians to discuss these three questions.

Where do you you come from?

Where are you going?

And what have you learned?

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowen, Ted Danson, Tig Nataro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more.

You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call-In Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.

Listen to the three questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts

at Capella University, we believe accessible education can make a difference in people's lives.

That's why we offer scholarship opportunities to all eligible students.

Whether you're considering a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, our teams will walk you through the process and help you get the savings you're eligible for.

Furthering your education is an investment in yourself.

Entonces, que estás esperando.

Un futuro diferente está mácerca de lo que cres con Capella University.

Learn more at capella.edu.