Who Was NYC Shooter Target, and New Reporting on Russiagate Hoax Collusion, with Buck Sexton and Aaron Mate

I choose to work where everyone can see how busy I am.

I choose pedal power.

I choose the freshest of beats.

I choose to never burrito and drive.

Whatever you choose, choose transit and do your part to spare the air.

With the growing population and the growing popularity of energy-consuming tech like AI, the modern world needs reliable energy sources to meet increasing demand.

Wind and solar are powerful, but not always available.

The unmatched reliability of natural gas makes it vital for our energy needs.

People rely on oil and gas and on energy transfer to safely deliver it through an underground system of pipelines across the country.

Learn more at energytransfer.com.

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

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.

Welcome to to the Megan Kelly Show.

We begin today with a terrifying scene in New York City as we learn new information about the gunman's potential motive.

Around 6:30 p.m.

last night, Monday, a lone gunman armed with an M4 rifle marched into 345 Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, a 44-floor skyscraper that houses the likes of the NFL, private equity behemoth Blackstone, the accounting firm KPMG,

and the management company for the building, and went on the deadliest shooting spree the city has seen in the last 25 years.

This is a picture for the listening audience we were seeing of the suspect walking in very calmly with, you've probably seen the picture by now,

the rifle casually hanging down on his right side.

He looks like he's going for a stroll.

The shooter and we do not name mass shooters here on the Megan Kelly show, killed four individuals, including a police police officer, before turning the gun on himself.

Another victim remains in critical condition.

It is interesting to note that he killed himself with the long gun by shooting himself in the chest.

And there had been some comments wondering last night why, how.

He had a revolver as well that was found in his BMW outside of the building, which, you know, not to put too fine a point on it, but would have been a far easier weapon with which to commit suicide.

But we, I think, are getting some new information on why he did what he did, and I'll get to that in a second.

The 27-year-old male suspect is from Las Vegas, originally born in Hawaii.

He drove across the country directly to New York City to inflict his carnage.

According to the police, the shooter's vehicle was seen in Colorado on Saturday, Nebraska, and Iowa on Sunday, and then in Columbia, New Jersey at 4:24 p.m.

Monday before entering New York City.

And I'm sure our listeners in those places are wondering whether they encountered him and must be feeling some gratitude and relief that their cities were spared.

It does appear he was targeting New York and this building for a reason.

Here's the New York City police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, who, by the way, has received praise from left and right prior to this incident.

She seems to be the one person we can feel good about New York City government.

She's describing here the harrowing scene of how the shooting unfolded.

Watch.

Surveillance video shows a male exit a double-parked black BMW on Park Avenue between 51st and 52nd Streets carrying an M4 rifle in his right hand.

He walks towards the building's entrance.

That individual was seen exiting the BMW alone.

The building security camera footage shows the shooter enter the lobby, turn right, and immediately open fire on an NYPD officer.

He then shoots a woman who took cover behind a pillar and proceeds through the lobby, spraying it with gunfire.

He makes his way to the elevator bank, where he shoots a security guard who was taking cover behind the security desk.

One additional male is shot in the lobby, per his own statement from the hospital.

The shooter then calls the elevator, which opens in the lobby.

A female exits that elevator and he allows her to walk past him unharmed.

He goes up to the 33rd floor, which is root in management, and begins to walk the floor, firing rounds as he traveled.

One person was struck and killed on that floor.

He then proceeds down a hallway and shoots himself in the chest.

Take a look at your screen for our YouTube audience.

You can see the dead shooter on the ground here, his final act of cowardice forever memorialized for the listening audience.

You see a typical office setting with a long runner, a white runner, it looks like,

down in front of the desks and the shooter lying horizontally across it.

Another photo emerged of his weapon smeared with blood.

If you really zoom in, you can see it's got blood on the handle and among other places.

At first, this is so extraordinary, they don't normally release photos like this.

We wondered if it was real, but it is.

According to CNN, the shooter had no significant criminal background and had a concealed carry permit for a handgun, as well as an expired private investigator license in Nevada.

Former NYPD on Fox News this morning was saying he had at least two mental health incidents that had been documented in Nevada and also adding that his information was that this guy worked security at a casino in Las Vegas.

Again, that's from a former NYPD officer appearing on America's Newsroom this morning.

The shooter was a competitive football player in his youth, and Commissioner Tisch in New York said he had a quote documented mental health history.

Without going into details, again, our information now is that there were at least two incidents in Las Vegas that will absolutely lead to appropriate questions about why his gun license was not revoked.

That's not a gun-nut thing.

You got two documented mental health incidents reportedly out in Las Vegas.

You lose your concealed carry permit.

You lose your permit to carry a gun.

And I understand, you know, we can't get them all, but if it's documented, if he's having interactions with officials, with authorities of any kind,

something happened with the system, and we're going to have to figure out what.

There was also reported this morning a three-page note found on the gunman claiming that he suffered from the degenerative brain disease known as CTE from playing football.

CNN reporting the note reads, quote, Terry Long,

and that's a man I'll get into.

He was a Pittsburgh Steeler who had CTE and died by suicide.

But he writes, Terry Long, I guess there's supposed to be kind of a comment as though he's addressing it to him,

football gave me CTE

and it caused me to drink a gallon of antifreeze.

That's also something Terry Long did.

You can't go against the NFL.

They'll squash you.

Okay, so Long was a former offensive lineman for the Steelers and did commit suicide in 2005 by drinking antifreeze.

The note went on to say, study my brain, please.

I'm sorry.

Tell Rick I'm sorry for everything.

We don't know who Rick is.

The New York Times reports investigators are focusing on whether the gunman was targeting the NFL, with Mayor Eric Adams saying this morning the shooter appears to have intended to go to the Football League's offices, but took the wrong elevator bank.

I don't know how it is in your city, but in New York, you basically can't get into a building anymore without selecting like the floor.

All the elevators and virtually all these high-rises, and I've worked in plenty of them, require you to select whether you're going to like floor one through 15 or floor 16 through 30 or floors 31 through 44.

And depending on which one you want, you get into a different elevator.

And if you wanted floor 44, but you got into the first bank that services 1 through 15, you're screwed.

That seems to be what Eric Adams is saying happened, suggesting that it is possible this shooter wanted to go to the floor that housed the NFL

staff, but didn't press the right numbers.

Went up to the 33rd floor, which is where the management company for the building was, and started shooting and did, in fact, shoot one person there.

The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, says one NFL employee was, quote, seriously injured in the incident.

We don't have all the details on where everyone was, but we know that most of the carnage happened in the the lobby.

We're also starting to learn more about the victims, including the NYPD officer who was on duty in uniform and was shot to death in the back.

Here's Commissioner Tish.

But today,

four innocent victims are dead.

Among them, is NYPD police officer Didarul Islam, 36 years old, four years on the job.

Officer Islam was married with two young boys, and his wife is pregnant with their third child.

He's assigned to the 4-7 precinct of the Bronx.

He was doing the job that we asked him to do.

He put himself in harm's way.

He made the ultimate sacrifice, shot in cold blood, wearing a uniform that stood for the promise that he made to this city.

He died as he lived, a hero.

Oh, God, it's so awful.

Two little boys and a third baby on the way, his poor wife.

Take a look at your screen now, this moving picture of Officer Islam's body removed from the building.

Just absolutely heartbreaking.

Beyond the loss of Officer Islam, Bloomberg reporting another victim is Wesley Lapatner, the CEO of Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust.

This is a woman.

Bloomberg's Sonali Bassek writes, quote, she was a rising star in a crown jewel of a business and was caught in the crossfire of an active shooter trying to reach the NFL.

Can I tell you something?

Do you know how hard it is to get hired by Blackstone for anyone, male or female?

And then once there, to actually get promoted to run one of the large groups as a female, no less?

She looks relatively young, too.

I mean,

this person obviously was incredibly driven.

and accomplished and died yesterday for what?

For what?

Clearly she was one of the ones in the lobby.

She was probably terrified as she saw this guy pull out that M4 rifle, point it at her, and shoot.

We know at least one of the victims was trying to hide behind a pillar.

Our understanding is

they shot the cop who was there in uniform, which is allowed by the NYPD, especially with young cops, they let them do it because they need to supplement their income.

So totally blessed by the NYPD, and it helps keep a building safe, ostensibly, because they're there in uniform.

There was also a security guard.

Both of them were shot.

We know that only one of the people, five people were shot.

One survived and is in the hospital now.

We don't know who that is, but we know the cop was shot dead.

A security guard was shot.

We know one of the other victims was the woman I just showed you, Wesley, from Blackstone.

And then there are two more who were shot and killed.

And we believe One of those was shot and killed on the 33rd floor and the other one would have been shot and killed killed in the lobby.

So we'll bring you updates on the other victims and their identities as we learn them.

Joining me now for a reaction is Buck Sexton.

He's a former NYPD employee who worked on counterterrorism, the CIA too, and co-host of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show.

Have you ever heard of Carol Luma?

It's an edible cactus.

Yes, edible cactus that grows in India, and it can be a natural appetite suppressant.

Now you're paying attention.

Carol Luma is just one of the natural ingredients doctors added to a weight loss supplement called lean.

If you have a bold summer weight loss goal, but injections are not for you, here's what the doctors who formulated lean have to say.

They say this supplement is close to the benefits of those popular injections.

Like injections, lean was created to help maintain healthy blood sugar and help control appetite and cravings.

But those who created lean say the rare ingredients in lean are also designed to help burn fat by converting fat into energy, and of course, no needles.

They say it's a healthier way to lose weight by capturing the power of natural ingredients.

Give it a try with 20% off by using the code mk20 at takelean.com.

That's code mk20 at takelean.com.

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease and is not a substitute or alternative for care from a healthcare provider.

Buck, very good to see you.

You know, the thing that jumped out at me and Doug, my husband, as you know, you know him, we were chatting this over this morning, was because it's so odd that he shot himself in the heart with a long gun.

And now that you see the note saying he thought he had CTE and begging for them to study his brain, it makes a bit more sense that he would shoot himself in the chest instead of in the head, potentially.

But this was obviously a mentally unwell man.

There's nothing coming out this morning about connections to terror or radicalization or anything like that.

You're the expert.

What do you think?

Well, he's a crazy person, and trying to understand

his mindset and motivations is going to be complicated, and I think will be debated even by people who study this kind of

mass shooting

for a living.

You know, what I did was ideologically based terrorism, and I worked in the NYPD intelligence division, and it was essentially jihadist terrorism.

That was 90, 99% of what the workload was.

But we would look at mass shooting scenarios around the world, study them.

And in fact, Jessica Tisch, who's now the commissioner of the NYPD, this was now 15 years ago, but she was a rising star in the counterterrorism division, which did assessments to protect buildings like this one at the time.

And I knew Jesse when I was at the NYPD on the Intel Division side working against jihadism.

So

this is something that you can can prepare for at some level in terms of security precautions, but there's never going to be a perfect security cordon that you can have here.

This also, by the way, hits home, Megan.

I know

you know this area well.

I know this area well.

I had a family member who walked across this plaza 10 minutes before the shooting happened.

So last night I was at dinner and I was getting text messages about this and I realized where it was.

I know people who work at Blackstone.

In fact, one of my cousins' husbands works in that building on that floor.

And

it was quite

one of those times when you have to sit there and think, oh my God.

And I had to go through and make sure that everybody that I knew was accounted for.

So I know this area very well.

I know people who work in that building and even on the Blackstone floors, I should say, not on the NFL floors.

As for the shooter himself,

I think that you'll find more about him

in those incidents, likely, the mental health incidents that you noted.

the fact that this guy, I would be curious to know how he was able to transport this long gun, which the New York Post was reporting as an M4.

So I'm assuming it's a civilian version of the M4.

The military version would be fully automatic.

I'd be curious to know how he was able to get around with this as a

clearly a mentally disturbed person without anybody noticing.

Now, it's possible, but in New York City, AR-15s, for example, are all illegal.

You know, you would, it's not like you could walk around.

If I was loading this into my car, I have an AR-15.

I have a couple of them.

If I was loading one into my car in Florida, totally legal, right?

As long as I have a legitimate purpose for it.

This guy, what he's carrying around, that alone would get him sent to prison for years.

So I'm just saying he might have been planning this out with some degree of caution, because at least until he strolled, as you pointed out, into the building.

I think we'll find out more in these mental health incidents, though, that this is somebody who should have been flagged.

I think there'll be more discussion about

what could have been done to

perhaps involuntarily commit him.

I mean, this is the kind of person that should have been historically involved.

And Trump is on this.

And Trump just signed an executive order about this.

And we need to really think more about this.

And people in New York City, you know, my wife was just, I was just in New York, Megan, visiting my family the day, well, day before this happened for my dad's birthday.

And my wife was on the subway.

And there was a stampede into her subway car because in the subway car next to her, there was some complete maniac with no shirt on who smelled like he hadn't bathed in, you know, a couple of years, screaming at everybody.

We actually have to take action and take dangerous, mentally unstable people out of circulation in broader society, get them help.

No one's saying be inhumane, get them, but you can't allow things like this to happen because the ACLU wants to bring down the pillars of civilization and see what happens.

I mean, we have to be able to do things about those who are dangerously, mentally ill, like this individual who now took a number of lives.

They're so worried, the ACLU, about the civil liberties of shooters like this, and not at all about the civil liberties of his victims,

of the right of the rest of us to live a peaceful life without having to worry about getting shot in the lobbies of our building.

I mean, involuntary commitment is the bare minimum we should be doing.

And yet this won't start that conversation, Buck.

You You know it as well as I do.

We're going to go back to it, and it's fine.

We should talk about why this guy still didn't have his firearms taken away from him if he really did have two

mental health incidents with authorities, you know, to the point where it was documented, and our cops have already uncovered them.

We should have that discussion in this, but that's they won't cover it.

They never cover anything on the left other than guns, gun violence.

Well, and as we know, because the shooter is not a white male, this is going to be and has been treated very differently.

I know everyone's pointed out what was said on CNN, which

was quite, yeah, twice, which is quite a moment for CNN to say possibly a white male.

We all understand that in the world of the Democrat

on TV or just the left-wing mindset,

it's much more of a story if it's a white guy who's doing the mass killing, because then you can, maybe you can attach it to Trump more easily, or maybe you can attach it.

We all know the routine and it's pathetic and it's gross.

And it's why those

pre-established media outlets have completely destroyed their credibility and are in a free fall that's not going to stop.

So I don't think there's really a need to spend too much time on that aspect of it.

But I do think that the fact that this guy is

a minority, I saw it reported that they think he's half black, half Japanese.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it's clearly not a white guy.

Well, he's born in Hawaii.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, I mean, whatever the case may be, he's not some white guy, and so therefore, it's not an opportunity to, in bad faith, manufacture a MAGA connection and make it somehow about that, even though there's no real basis for it.

We know that that's what they do all the time.

In this case, they'll try to make it about guns, I think.

But the problem that we keep running into is that I think, Megan,

if you were a serious person about if someone was seriously trying to deal with whether it's crime or even mass shootings,

but there are steps they would take.

And in the mass shooting context,

looking at the mental health component of this, which means involuntary commitment.

I mean, it means that when you've had a few incidents where people are scared to be around you and it's clear that, I mean, this guy thought he was in the NFL.

He was never in the NFL.

He's nuts, okay?

He's nuts.

And now, obviously, he's gone.

But the fact that it would be almost impossible by the laws of really every state, almost impossible to put him on an involuntary psychiatric hold where you could really establish what kind of a risk is he to the public?

Should we really take away any access that he has to firearms?

This kind of a problem, if you're not going to address what could be addressable, you're going to repeat the scenario.

And I think that's likely, unfortunately, to be the case with this, where you have somebody who they're going to do everything they can to find some way to make this about politics in the media that they favor, right?

Whatever it may be.

they'll attack the disfavored group, in this case, gun owners, and they won't deal with the reality, which is this guy is an absolute wacko and should have been flagged and stopped in advance of this.

I mean, the other side of Megan is, you know, you can't, we're a country of 350 million people, give or take, and there's some very bad, very crazy people out there.

You're not going to be able to stop all of them.

You know, it's unfortunate here.

There was a good guy with a gun, so to speak.

There was an NYPD officer on the scene.

But first of all, he's outgunned.

You know, he's going to have just his sidearm or rather his pistol against somebody who's got a long gun like this.

That's going to be very tough.

And he was shot in the back.

He probably didn't even have a chance to react to the unfolding threat.

And even obviously, if he had a ballistic vest on, not enough to stop the 5.56 round that was shot out of this rifle.

So

it's a very tough situation when someone who is a dedicated shooter like this, who has access to that firearm and doesn't care about living, right?

I mean, that's the other part of this.

So that's very tough to neutralize this threat in advance of any casualties.

The only other thing is this could have been, unfortunately, I mean, you always hate saying this, this could have been much worse.

You know, this guy, fortunately,

didn't keep going on this rampage because it's not like they were able to get ESU, which is the New York version of SWAT, there to stop him in time before he could do any of this.

So in a sense, because he's so crazy, he killed himself.

And that, I think, probably spared a number of lives.

I also know there's the photos of people barricading their offices.

I mean, think about the trauma of that, too.

You know, there's an active shooter on your office floor, and you're just trying to take the sofa and the chair and wedge it against the door.

I know.

Those were reportedly Blackstone employees, and those guys must have been in a full panic, you know, hearing gunshots and or maybe having gotten a call to tell them that there was an active shooter in the building.

And what can you do?

You know, it's like

what they did is the right move, by the way.

I mean, I just

told to them, right?

But I imagine that this is going to lead to even more security provisions in some New York City buildings, especially those that have high-target profiles, like a Blackstone, like an NFL.

I mean, I actually did work right across the street from this for three years when I was at Jones Day.

I was at 53rd and Lex for three years of my life.

It's a relatively quiet area of New York.

I mean, it's Midtown, but it's not like the hop in Times Square, which is just a few blocks to the west.

And it's clear that this was targeted.

I mean, we don't know for sure that he was going to the NFL, but if you just wanted to unleash carnage, you'd go to Times Square, which is just a few blocks west.

As I said, you wouldn't go into this particular building.

This guy seemed to have a mission.

It's not like he, I listed the states he had driven through.

He appears to have gotten into New York City, driven right to this building, just left his car and walked right in.

The only way for a cop like this one to protect a building like that would have been for him to be on guard at the door.

And you and I both know, but these guys are there generally as a deterrent and to like intervene once something has happened.

They're not really like a military guy standing at the door to prevent armed intruders like this guy.

I mean, I'm just a civilian who goes to the range regularly, Megan, and I shoot a lot more than 95% of people in the NYPD.

And I was in the NYPD and went shooting with them, just to be clear.

Like I know it's a budgetary thing.

They don't get, they're not, I mentioned ESU, that's emergency services unit.

That's think SWAT.

It's the same thing essentially, but they're called ESU and the NYPD.

Those guys shoot a lot.

Those guys are tactical.

They can handle a threat like this.

They're trained to handle a threat like this.

A beat cop essentially on his own when somebody's ambushing him and got a long gun.

I mean, you know,

they're just human beings trying to do a job on their end.

I mean, you know, they're not Superman.

They're not able to necessarily engage and neutralize a threat of that magnitude.

And, you know, this is now going to have, I think, there'll be more discussion about what about having armed security personnel in more lobbies.

Well, there was an NYPD cop on duty here.

I mean, you had a guy show up with a semi-automatic rifle who wanted to kill a lot of people.

And

that's a major threat to tackle for anybody, no matter what your level of training is.

And so, yeah, on the NYPD side,

I just think that this is one of those times where it was

a terrible scenario that there aren't going to be that many lessons learned in terms of response, in terms of protective procedures.

Essentially,

I don't know what the layout was on the floors, but in most buildings in New York now, you go up to the individual floor and now you have to get through another layer of security where there will be glass and in some cases, bulletproof glass, and you don't get to even see a receptionist unless you can get yourself through the glass.

I can't imagine they would not have that at a place like Blackstone.

He didn't go to that floor.

He went to the floor of the management company.

That's what the cops said, where I imagine the security probably would have been lesser.

So yeah, it's all about layers.

There's room for improvement, but we can't, we've chosen not to live like this in general in America.

Yeah, well, that's that, that's, I think, the critical point, Megan, is that we can't think that we're all going to be going to work in bunkers every day.

You know, look, I would say this

as a former New Yorker for almost 40 years and now a Floridian and a Floridian who often conceal carries, you know, that's that's another good, good, you know, I, I would, I would be, I feel better about these situations, or I think we, we could think that there's a better chance that this could be thwarted if you had people with training who choose to carry, who are law-abiding gun owners.

You know, gun owners are, conceal carry gun owners specifically are incredibly law-abiding by the numbers.

And that may be another,

another thing to consider in a place, unfortunately, that's not New York.

Well, New York's a gun-free zone.

New York's the good guys don't have guns in New York.

This is what I was going to say.

I mean, there are signs up.

I've actually taken photos of this.

It's so preposterous that Times Square is a gun-free zone, which is you can't carry a gun anywhere in New York, really.

I mean, and people will say, oh, but there are very, very few people can get even getting a premise permit is pretty hard, but getting a concealed carry permit is almost impossible.

You have to prove need, and there's all these different steps, and it takes like a year, and the whole thing is a mess.

But I'm reminded of this,

of the old quote, the kind of very harrowing, uh ominous quote from the ira

uh i think after they tried to get thatcher one time they just said you know you have to be lucky all the time we only have to be lucky once and when you're dealing with something like this you know you really want to establish you'd like to establish perfect security perfect deterrence it's just not possible there are always going to be individuals i mean you mentioned the different layers of security and those are important.

They're particularly important for, as you and I know, Megan, like in the media business, maniacs who want to get onto your floor of your, you know and maybe they you know they think that they're uh

a guy showed up at fox news one time ready to kill me with a knife i mean it was like if we didn't have security there it would have been very dangerous situation right so that's just one of many incidents I'm sure.

I mean, but that, so that shows you the security procedures are generally working.

There's no security procedures in these office buildings that are going to be perfect.

And in this context, even if you had, say, the, you know, the elevator go to a floor where there was a secondary barrier to entry.

You know, we have this now, it is standard and most standard in my office in New York where you have to badge in.

Okay, well, this guy, if he gets in the elevator bank, he can take somebody,

he has a gun, he can take somebody and say, All right, you're going to open this for me now, right?

I mean, it's not, there's, there's ways that you can get around this, right?

It's not foolproof, there's always layers of, or, or, I mean, I don't know if the glass or the doors are going to be ballistic, but if you shoot a glass door with enough five, five, six rounds, guess what?

It's going to, it's going to break apart.

So, you know, even if it's supposedly bulletproof.

So, but isn't it more about, isn't it, it, you tell me?

Because when, you know, there was a very dark period in my life where a different guy was stalking me.

And

the one lesson I learned more than any other from all the security we had in our lives back then was it's all about putting layers between you and the back

just to slow the person down.

So it's not that you're assuming they're going to be foolproof.

It's just assuming the more layers, the more I can slow them down.

So if you had cops, if you had civilians in the lobby who actually were carrying, maybe one would have gotten a shot off against the guy.

If you had, you know, that sort of security on the floors, maybe there could have been more advance warning.

And again, we're all lucky it wasn't worse than it was.

I hate to say it with people dead.

But I don't know.

In America, we generally just don't live like that.

We generally live as it's a free country and we know there's going to be some nut cases.

And sadly, we've gotten to assume, because of the ACLU, that they will be roaming around our loved ones because their civil liberties are what is most important.

Well, that's what I think we're doing is we're sitting here and we're going through the layers of security.

And what you said is absolutely correct, which is that at every, and this was true.

So

for people to understand, NYPD, and it may have switched a little bit, but when I was there, the breakdown was there was Intelligence Division, which was doing essentially intel gathering, often using undercovers and sources of active plots against the city of New York.

And then there was something else called CTD, which was counterterrorism division.

The counter-terrorism division, and I know it's confusing because their missions cross over, but CTD, which is where now Commissioner Tisch worked when I was there, they did things like, how secure is the building?

What's the blast radius if somebody parks a car bomb in front of this federal building or that office building or whatever?

They looked at all these layers, did assessments, did secure.

So that was the mission because they recognized New York City is such a target.

That's why you have those huge planters out in front of places like the JCC.

So someone can't ram the buildings with a car bomb.

Or somebody can't do what we've seen where these vehicle attacks, which unfortunately in the past have been horrifically high body counts where somebody will just get into a

vehicle and start mowing people down.

They'll put barriers in the way.

Again, the barriers don't mean that some maniac can't run over one or two people.

The barriers mean some maniac hopefully can't run over 50 or 100.

So this is, it's all about mitigation and it's about layers.

And that is how the professionals do these security assessments in these buildings.

There's different groups.

Some of them are led by former NYPD commissioners, and that is their job where they go in and they look at security.

I'm just looking at what happened here in this instance and saying there's not a, I'm not aware of, at least from the reporting so far, a gaping security vulnerability or a lack of law enforcement response, right?

Or a too slow.

No, no, I get it.

I get it.

I mean, I will say it's just jarring.

It's jarring bad times.

It's jarring to see the guy on the walk-in shot.

with the long gun down at his right side walking across the plaza to enter the building.

And if you zoom out, you can see civilians just walking about.

They clearly don't see that he has a gun on the side of his body because otherwise there would have been some sort of a panic.

They would have screamed, gun, you know, something would have gotten you can see, look at these people, these two guys in the back on the top of the shot.

They can't see.

I don't know whether

on this guy's right side or whether it's one of those situations, Buck, where like you don't believe you're seeing what you think you're seeing.

You know, I've had those situations before where you're like, there's no way that's, and you don't want to be like that hysterical person, you know, like

i reported some guy had a long gun when really it was just like i don't know an umbrella you know like our

new yorkers our instinct is much more to be like everything's fine we're fine

move on yeah there must be something else it's a toy it's a paintball gun it's a gag it's a joke i mean this is where your brain goes unless you're somebody who is trained and looking for these kinds of things and and like i said i mean even even one nypd officer this is this is why i think you know in in some cases you've had in these in the school shooting situations, for example, it's clear that the school shooter had, first of all, this was clear with a terrible Tennessee, the Nashville school shooting, that the shooter was looking for a place where there was nobody who was going to have a gun, right?

We know that schools are generally gun-free zones, which is also preposterous because the bad guys don't care about those laws, but there are armed security at some schools.

That shooter looked for a school where there was no armed security, so they would have total freedom of movement, no chance that anybody would stop them.

You know, in this instance, you have an NYPD guy in the lobby and

that wasn't sufficient to stop this threat.

And

obviously fault of that officer's who died a hero and

he was there really, as you pointed out, it's more of a deterrent and it's also more to deal with some maniac who wants to run upstairs and

cause problems, maybe has a knife.

But when somebody shows up and they're a committed shooter and they have a semi-automatic rifle and this guy obviously

knew how to

work work the gun and understood uh enough of it to do some real damage that's going to be a very challenging thing for any

you know any security assessment to to be able to handle so i know it's unsatisfying to anybody who wants to hear this won't happen again uh that there's not really a lot that could have been done differently here in the moment to stop this but short of new york city changing its laws so you have people that can conceal carry the general population you know the the good guys and gals with a gun um short of putting really substantial.

I mean, it's just not possible.

You're not going to have

well, look, you could, you could, you could, if I'm running Apollo, they have more money than God, or Blackstone, more money than God.

I'm saying we are going to put an armed guard at the entrance to the building to watch out for something like this, in addition to another armed guard inside who watches like the people once they're already in the building.

But nine times out of ten, somebody who's a shooter like this doesn't walk in into a building like this with it totally exposed.

I mean, they just, I think, anticipate something will happen to them.

It would be more concealed.

And look, the worst school shooting in American history was at Virginia Tech, and that guy did not use an AR-15.

He used semi-automatic handguns.

Yeah, so I mean, it's like we can do all we want to protect.

Oh, I'm not.

I'm not.

I'm just saying.

I do want to say this.

No, I know you're not saying that.

I do want to point out that to the point we're making, which is it's a free country, and sadly, this kind of thing happens.

His home state, adopted home state, Nevada, had another shooting not involving him, Reno.

Six people were shot.

Three are dead.

It was outside of a casino, and it happened yesterday.

Three people killed, several others injured in a shooting outside a casino in Reno on Monday morning.

It happened around 7.25 a.m.

in the valet area outside of the Grand Sierra Resort and Casino.

The suspect, an adult man, was found within minutes.

He's been taken to a hospital following an officer-involved shooting.

The shooter walked into the parking lot in the valet area of the hotel and casino, pulled out a handgun, which initially malfunctioned, but after he made it operable, he began firing at victims.

He had multiple magazines.

He ran through the parking lot, said police where he exchanged gunfire with a security guard.

Almost nobody's reporting on this because it didn't happen in New York City, which is the media hub.

They don't care when it happens with a Nevada man who actually lives in Nevada.

You see, that doesn't matter to the Acela media.

What matters is themselves and their safety.

That's why they're super interested in this guy.

But, you know, there's, what are you going to do?

Like, that's, okay, that's you're in a parking lot leaving a casino where you had a good time with your friends and family, and this guy pulls out a gun.

Not for nothing, but all those security guards I work with over the years have told me the best thing, the number one thing, this applies to everybody that you can do to protect yourself,

get a dog.

Get a dog.

They all say that.

Like, there's no better deterrent against somebody coming into your home and potentially your workplace than, you know, a mean-looking guard doc.

Now, I don't have a mean-looking guard.

I have a big galute named Streadwick who is more likely to lick your face and eat your snack.

But a dog in general is a deterrent against someone looking to enter your home and do harm to you.

And they don't know that it's a big galute.

In most cases, they hear barking and they think

the barking is what matters.

You're not looking for, you know, you don't have a malinois with titanium inserts in your house, but you don't need one.

I mean, you can just have a dog that lets everybody know that, hey, there's a bad guy around here because people

element of surprise.

I mean, look, element of surprise for bad guys is

critical.

And

if all of a sudden people know they're at the door, or in this case, if all of a sudden people know that a maniac with a gun is entering a lobby in advance,

then people can take evasive action or even counter the threat much more much more easily.

So it's.

All right, Buck, let's spend a minute on Zoramdani, who's likely to be the next mayor of New York and how this affects.

I'm interested in the politics of it.

I am, but I'm really more interested in just the utter failure that's coming our way in Manhattan because this is a defund the police guy.

And he has the nerve.

He has the nerve yesterday to start tweeting.

Honestly, I think it would have been better if he didn't.

He's trying to look like he cares about the cops.

First he tweeted, oh, I'm so sorry he's in critical condition because there were reports early on that the cop was.

And then

when he learned that he had died, he sent out the appropriate, I'm very sorry, he was a hero kind of tweet.

This guy, Zora Mandami, if he's elected, will get cops and other New York civilians killed with his policies.

He wants to defund when challenged by somebody who said, oh, when we say defund, we don't really mean defund.

We mean like reallocate.

And he said, no, we mean defund.

The police are racist, anti-queer, and endanger Americans.

And so now he tried to soften it when he was running for the actual mayoral nomination because he was running against people who were not for defunding the cops.

But this guy is still saying he wants domestic violence victims to be treated with social workers showing up and not cops and so on.

I'm incensed by it.

I do not believe him that his heart is totally in the right place when it comes to our New York City cops.

I believed him the first time that he thinks they're racist and ought to be defunded.

So what's coming our way in New York if this guy wins as he's overwhelmingly likely to do?

What's coming your way is people like my family who still live in Manhattan, at least half of my family, my immediate family does, are thinking about moving, which even didn't happen during COVID.

Or at least, I mean, I moved because of COVID, but my mom, dad, and my sister decided that they were going to stick it out in New York City, but they're not sure they can stick out a Mom Dani administration.

This is, it's troubling because when you look at the numbers, people, and this is a frustration for me, Megan, people will say, well, New York is getting what it deserves or New York is getting

what it wants.

And it's actually a very small percentage of the 8.5 million residents of New York who want this guy to be mayor, to be clear.

It's depending on, and I know we haven't had the general election and maybe he won't win, but even just based on what just happened in this primary,

you're going to end up having like 20% or 15% of New Yorkers actually end up voting for this guy, maybe.

It's going to be a very small.

Now, you can blame people who don't get off their butts and get up and vote, you know, in the sense that

they should have their voices heard here and not vote for this guy.

But the

disaster that is the Mamdani administration, I think, is unfortunately going to result in not only a lot of really good people fleeing the city, but a lot of people

who stay behind suffering.

And you pointed out what would happen on the crime front.

And one of the things that I find most frustrating about his philosophy, if you can call it that, or his communism,

is

he is appealing to people mostly on the New York is really expensive line, right?

That's the cop stuff.

Yeah, he's anti-cop, and there's a maybe a 10 to 15% of the New York City electorate that are far-left Democrats that like that anti-cop stuff.

But really, he's appealing to people on the New York is so expensive, you can't afford the rent.

I'm going to make it cheaper for you.

And what's so maddening about this is that the approach that someone like Imam Dani takes is only going to make it worse.

And every time this has been shown anywhere,

I mean,

you pick the case, you show me the case study when somebody comes in and decides to play God in the market, right?

They decide what supply and demand really is.

They decide what the price should be.

Price controls.

Price controls is why Venezuela went from one of the richest countries in the Western hemisphere to a impoverished hellhole with a level four advisory from the State Department telling Americans not to go.

That only took about 20 years for that to happen, but price controls were a big part of that.

The idea that Mamdani is going to come in and have city, like have all this housing built for people.

First of all, is it going to be housing anybody's going going to want to live in?

What makes him think he knows how to get this done?

He has no managerial experience whatsoever.

And if you're going to set artificial rates for what people would pay for this housing or just add it to the city's already massive budget for

what is essentially welfare housing, the projects,

you're going to blow a giant hole through the city budget.

You're going to have to raise taxes on people and cause even more people to leave.

And it creates this vortex of destruction.

And how people can't see that is enraging, honestly, at this point.

How any New Yorker, you know, there are some people who, if they tell me they're going to vote for the Megan, I say, all right, I disagree, but like, I get it.

You know, you're like so into being, I don't know, you know, pro-choice or you're so opposed to the Republican foreign policy.

You know, I disagree with you, but I don't think you're insane.

Voting for Mamdani is insane.

It's going to make it worse for everybody.

It actually would make it worse for all the residents of New York City.

There will be no...

I really hope people reconsider.

Now that this has happened, I really hope

they take this as the reminder they needed that safety and security in New York are an absolute essential or New York doesn't exist in the way that we knew it.

Tourism dies.

It's a critical industry of New York.

The New Yorker, 8 million New Yorkers live there full-time, but 20 million New Yorkers, about 22 come in and fill the city on a workday.

And that needs to be able to go on without people

fearing for their lives.

And you take away the cops, you defund the cops in any meaningful way, and it changes.

It changes dramatically.

All right, I want to move on to Cincinnati in the time we have left.

So, Cincinnati had this terrible fight, which we showed yesterday, where we came in and pointing out we didn't know where in the dispute this was, but what we saw was a group of black people beating the hell out of a white man, a white woman, and then a second white man in three different, though it seems,

if not related, at least closely located spots.

In this first video, the white man strikes first.

He reaches across and appears to smack a black man.

And then this mob of black people beats the living daylights out of the white man over and over and over.

And it's obviously disproportionate and it's awful.

And it's women and men who are kicking him and stomping on his head.

And then a white woman tries to save him.

At least that's what the report was, but she appears to be one of the only ones trying to intervene.

And she gets the shit kicked out of her by men and women to the point where the vice president of the United States commented on what kind of a man would punch a woman in the face like this.

And then there's another white man who gets attacked.

Okay, so that's what happened in Cincinnati yesterday.

There were no cops.

Now the Cincinnati police chief, whose name is Teresa Fiji is how you pronounce her last name.

She's the first woman to lead the department.

She took over in January 2023.

She would like us all to know that we've gotten it all wrong.

that we journalists and social media people are the ones really responsible for making this into a thing.

And then when asked by a journalist who was there, how exactly have we misrepresented anything that happened?

We're totally open-minded.

You know, tell us.

Was there a mob beating up the first mob first?

Like, tell what happened that we didn't.

No answers.

Absolutely no additional information.

It appears this woman is just making it up, trying to shame journalists out of covering this story.

She's a woke warrior.

She's already been sued by four white cops in her department for discriminating against white men.

The only one they say she will promote are either women or minorities.

And this is her message for the rest of us in the wake of her city's embarrassment.

Watch.

Social media and journalism and the role it plays in this incident.

And yes, guys, that's you.

That is you.

At times, social media and mainstream media

and their commentaries are a misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding any given event.

Because what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it

distorts the content of what actually happened.

And it makes our job more difficult.

What exactly was distorted?

I think

by

the irresponsibility with social media is it just shows one side of the equation quite frequently.

Without context, without factual context.

And then people run with that, and then it grows legs, and it becomes something bigger that we then have to try to manage as part of the investigation.

What context would make a mob of people in the dozens kicking the living shit out of three people in separate incidents, again, we don't know whether they were related or not, better

or okay.

She failed to tell us.

I hadn't seen that clip until you just played it now.

And I just,

it's good to know that the police commissioner, the police chief of Cincinnati is an absolute moron.

That's helpful going forward to understand how this is going to be covered and talked about.

That was shocking.

I can't believe that that person's in charge of anything.

Never mind men and women who are carrying firearms and trying to keep people safe.

That's really appalling.

But this is unfortunately the reality of a lot of city bureaucracies.

They've elevated.

We're allowed to talk about this now.

And some of us have been talking about it for a long time, Megan.

You have, I have many others, but I mean, broadly in the culture, a lot of people were elevated under DEI principles, especially in large cities in the bureaucracy, whether it's the police commissioner, the mayor, et cetera,

for

the characteristics of skin color and gender.

And that results in what we just saw there, which is people who are completely unqualified.

So

I don't even know what she thinks she's saying other than clearly she's a lib and she thinks that there's some

story that she doesn't want coming out of this.

But there's no context.

That's the critical point.

And I did see a lot of comments online.

You probably saw this too.

Well,

what did the guy say before?

This is also something we might have to address a little bit more as a society.

I don't care what he said before.

I don't care.

There's not some word.

There's not some word, any word that allows people to say, we're going to engage in mob violence and maybe stomp you to death on the street.

There's no word.

Doesn't exist.

Sorry.

So, you know, that's another part of the conversation that I think people need to own up to and have more frequently now, which is you can't just attack somebody because you don't like what they say, if in fact that's what happened.

We don't even know.

Yeah.

There she is in front of the very journalists she says are so evil.

And they're asking, what did we miss?

Please tell us.

And you heard her inane, empty answer.

She seems to just be angry that they're showing the video, which doesn't reflect well on her city, or for that matter, the cops, who were not called until well into it, because apparently the

bystanders were enjoying watching the fight more than they cared about the lives being risked.

Buck Sexton, always a pleasure, my friend.

Thanks for being here with your expertise.

Coming up next, we're going to dig into the latest in the Russia Gate story with an independent journalist who's been covering it extensively for years.

You've heard his name mentioned repeatedly by Matt Taibi.

Well, we wanted to meet him him and he's here next.

If you are stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a mess, don't wait.

The IRS is cracking down.

Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, up to 25% just for not filing.

But there's help.

Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.

They have helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or you haven't filed in years.

Messy books, not a problem.

They have seen it all.

Tax Network USA has direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side.

You're going to get a free consultation, and if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.

I like the eliminate word.

More importantly, they will help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies.

So don't wait for the next scary IRS letter.

Get ahead of it.

Call 800-958-1000 or visit visit tnusa.com/slash Megan to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.

Take the pressure off.

Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.

Cash flow crunch?

OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it.

Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat.

With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently.

Apply today at on deck.com.

Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow.

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank.

Ondeck does not lend to North Dakota.

All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

Oh, I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work.

And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day.

We're big fans.

And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com.

With intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with.

Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.

Now, if there's one thing the left does not want to talk about these days, it is the Russiagate hoax that was perpetrated against Donald Trump.

People like the Pod Save America bros, even National Review, our friends over there, dismiss the latest latest revelations by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as nothing new.

That there's no scandal that warrants an investigation and even go so far as to say this is all just a distraction from either the Epstein scandal or something else, but there's absolutely no there there.

Well, there is there.

There is there there.

But our next guest is a glaring exception to the rule of these leftist naysayers.

Aaron Mate is an independent journalist who has been covering the story from the beginning.

He's been sharply critical of the actions the Obama administration took to investigate claims of Russian election interference.

You may remember his name from last week when Matt Taibbi mentioned he was one of the reporters who cast significant doubt on that Senate Intel Committee report that everyone on the left, including President Obama, has cited to defend their actions.

You remember their saying like in response to Tulsi, hey, you know, the Russians did interfere.

We didn't misstate anything.

And you need only look at Marco Rubio's Senate Intel Committee report to know that we're telling the truth.

Why would he say Russia interfered to help Trump if it weren't true?

Well, Mate has a different view.

He previously worked for left-wing organizations, by the way, like Democracy Now!, Vice News, but now he's an independent journalist where he covers the Trump-Russia story for real clear investigations.

And he's been on Tucker Carlson's show over on when he was still on Fox a bunch of times.

Aaron, welcome to the show.

Thanks for having me.

Okay, so this is really interesting to me.

And there aren't more than a handful of journalists who have been neck deep in RussiaGate from the start.

And you're one of them.

I'm not one of them because I freely confess that when this was all unfolding, I had just started at NBC and I was trying to do not non-political stuff.

And it was a delight not to be immersed in all the Russiagate nonsense back then, which seemed like bullshit, but you really had to get neck deep in order to know one way or another, you know, and there were a few who did it, and you're one of them.

So now that it all comes out, that it was even more of a hoax than we knew, people like you are invaluable who have been on it from the beginning.

So let's go through it because there's new.

Like we've been having Taibbi on.

We had him on twice last week to walk us through the initial tranches of information, what Tulsi released that one Friday night, what we then gleaned from that house intelligence report of 2020 that was stuck in a vault at CIA until it was just declassified and we got a look at it last week.

And we've learned that the intelligence community was preparing a report for Barack Obama, Presidential Daily Brief, that was going to really downplay Russia's interference.

And then Obama said, hold on, hold on, hold on.

They had a big meeting.

And the next thing you know, he received a report saying, oh, Russia did interfere.

It was bad.

It was bad, sir.

And then we got the January of 17 intelligence community assessment that said they interfered and they did it to help Trump.

And now we've learned that that second,

we learned from Matt Taibbi last week, who analyzed the latest releases for us, that that did it to help Trump thing was just completely made up.

They knew it was made up.

Brennan required it based on a bunch of bullshit, the steel dossier, yes, but also three other really flimsy, even more pathetic pieces of so-called analysis or data that were just completely made up and he knew it.

Some of them preceded like 2014 analysis analysis before Trump was even running.

So that and did it to Trump help win thing was completely

made up and nonsense.

And now you've got a piece out talking about how that's not all that was nonsense.

The Russia interfered in the election piece also turns out to be almost entirely bullshit, including the piece we all accepted, which was that they hacked those DNC emails.

They were responsible for hacking the DNC emails that later got posted on WikiLeaks.

So do I accurately state like the overview as to where we are now?

Yes.

And the intelligence that is just being declassified by Tulsi Gabbard gives us some really important new information on the latter piece that you mentioned, the core allegation at the heart of Russia Gate, even before collusion became a public thing.

It was that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks.

That basically broke out in June 2016, followed by the release of the WikiLeaks emails in July 2016.

And at that point, the Clinton campaign, through its contractor CrowdStrike, was the first entity to say that the Russians did it.

And a lot of people in the media just ran with it because that's what they were saying.

And for some reason, if you accuse a foreign actor of something,

then we just have to take it on faith.

That's sort of an established playbook going back to the Iraq war and many other similar propaganda campaigns.

And then the intelligence community assessment that you talked about that was released in January, that formally endorsed endorsed that said with high confidence Russia hacked the DNC gave the emails to WikiLeaks and along with collusion that Russian email hacking allegation was the core plank of Russia gate now we all know by now that collusion was a complete scam uh laundered through the clinton campaign through christopher still nobody even uh in corporate media that was all about it even defends that anymore even adam shiff i think has stopped defending the collusion allegation, even though he was claiming for years he had seen secret evidence of it.

But as you said, they have clung to the Russian email hacking allegation.

And what we get now from Tulsi Gabbard's declassification is that in September of 2016, less than two months before the election, the FBI and the NSA, which are the two premier intelligence agencies that would be able to investigate this hack and leak allegation, the FBI taking the lead in investigating the hacking of the DNC.

And the NSA is, we all know, like the premier surveillance agency in the world.

They can see anything that comes in and out

over cyber warfare.

So they'd be in in the best position to assess whether or not Russia hacked the DNC and gave the email to Wikileaks.

And what they said, and we're only learning this now, nearly nine years later, is that they had low confidence in the Russia hack and leak allegation.

That was suppressed.

Instead of the public hearing about that, the Obama administration put out a report through Clapper, who was then heading the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Jay Johnson, who was heading Department of Homeland Security, on October 7th.

And they said, in the name of the intelligence community, they have high confidence that Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC, suppressing what the FBI and the NSA had said.

And that remains the same after the election.

There was another assessment circulated that we learned about through Tulsi Gabbard that said the picture of the attribution, of doubting the attribution of Russia had not changed at all.

And the reason was, as the FBI and the NSA said, we didn't have the technical evidence for it.

And that was the point that people like myself have been making is like, yes, intelligence officials were telling us Russia did it, but where's the evidence?

We were never told it.

And now we know the reason why is because they had none.

So that gets suppressed.

And as you said, then Obama orders the production of a new intelligence community assessment that gets released in January 2017.

And the low confidence assessment of the FBI and the NSA.

gets buried.

And, you know, someone might argue, okay, well, fine, what if the U.S.

got new intelligence after the FBI and the NSA first made that low confidence assessment?

Well, now we know from the declassified HIPSI report that you mentioned that just came out that basically no House intelligence report from 2020 that was in the vault.

Keep going exactly now we learned from them that basically no new intelligence was collected after the election that most of the intelligence that went into the ica was collected before the uh election which means at the time that the fbi and the nsa made their low confidence assessment that russia hacked the dnc uh no new evidence was collected after that to change their minds and think about it this makes sense at the same time as the clinton campaign was framing Trump as a Russian asset, they were also hiring a firm CrowdStrike, which which first accused Russia of hacking the DNC.

And when the FBI went to CrowdStrike and said, can we investigate the DNC servers for ourselves?

CrowdStrike said no.

And for some reason, the FBI agreed to that.

This would be as if, you know, I accused someone of robbing my house.

And then when the police came, I said, yeah, I think that person did it, but you can't investigate yourself.

You have to rely on my own internal investigation.

But that's what happened.

No, wait, let me jump in because that raises an interesting issue.

Why would the FBI accept that?

Why would the FBI say, okay, we accept your word, Hillary Clinton, that CrowdStrike is saying it was the Russians who hacked the DNC emails, and therefore we accept that it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails.

And it brings me to a report that's just out, or it's coming, it's coming, I guess.

Hold on, I want to make sure I have it right.

Fox News yesterday reported that before the FBI ever launched its probe into

Russia in collusion with Trump and all that, before that, U.S.

Intel agencies had credible foreign sources saying that the FBI would help spread the Russia collusion hoax.

That, in other words, there were going to see documents, according to Fox News, I think this week from Tulsi, that show before the FBI started probing Trump and this alleged collusion nonsense, they

had been told by credible foreign sources that

credible foreign sources that indicated the FBI, one of our intel services, was going to help spread the Russian collusion hoax.

So in other words, is that Russia, Russia's, like they know the FBI is going to help Hillary spread nonsense about them and Donald Trump?

Well, we do know that John Brennan briefed Obama right before the Trump-Russia investigation was open on July 31st, that he had picked up intelligence that Russia was aware of of a plot in which Hillary was going to frame Trump as a Russian asset and tie that to alleged Russian interference.

And Brennan

got that and briefed it to Obama.

And now we learn actually what Brennan was concerned about was not that Hillary was framing Trump as a Russian asset, but that Russia was aware of it.

That's what allies of Brennan have said.

And that's why.

Even when Brennan sent a referral to the FBI making sure that they're aware of this in early September, James Comey later said he couldn't remember it.

He didn't ring any bells.

That was his testimony to Congress.

You're not aware that the CIA told you that a major presidential candidate was framing her rival as a Russian asset, which you happen to be investigating.

And look, just based on what we know already, the FBI claims that the steel dossier had nothing to do with decision to open up Crossfire Hurricane.

But yet we also know.

Which is the investigation by the FBI into Donald Trump and whether he colluded with Russia to win.

Correct.

But we also know that weeks before the FBI opened up its investigation, Victoria Newland, who was then a senior State State Department official and a very hawkish

bureaucrat when it comes to Russia and was really alarmed by Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail where he was criticizing foreign interventions and even talking about getting along with Russia, even saying we don't want to have World War III over Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland approves the deployment of an FBI agent to go to Rome and meet with Christopher Steele and receive his dossier.

And this FBI agent received the dossier.

This is early July 2016 and gives it to his colleagues.

And then three weeks later, the FBI opens up the Trump-Russia investigation, immediately uses Steele's dossier as source material, including for surveillance warrants on Carter Page.

And they want us to believe that this had nothing to do, that the FBI receiving the Steele dossier weeks earlier had nothing to do with opening up Crossfire Hurricane.

And they want us to believe that the official pretext is this ridiculous official predicate of George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign volunteer, receiving, quote, a suggestion of a suggestion of some unspecified Russian help.

It just, it doesn't make any sense.

So if this Fox News is, if this Fox News report is correct, that there's new evidence that the FBI was in on this, it just, it tracks exactly with what we already know because they did everything.

Right, what else?

It explains the behavior that that seems somewhat mysterious right now.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

And by the way, on the issue of crowd strike, what the public also wasn't told until a year after Mueller shut down was that crowd strike in December 2017.

Their president, Sean Henry, who, by the way, used to work with James Comey and Robert Mueller at the FBI, he testified before Congress in December 2017 that CrowdStrike, which at first accused Russia of hacking the DNC, actually had no evidence.

That's a quote, no evidence that these alleged Russian hackers actually took anything from the DNC.

And that's a pretty big admission.

You're accusing Russia of hacking and leaking these emails, but you have no evidence that they actually took anything from your servers.

So how can you possibly make this allegation?

Well, the public wasn't allowed to ask this question because that was buried for almost three years and only got released a year after the mueller probe shut down so that's just another example of countervailing evidence that comes out years after the fact that undermines this explosive allegation that at the time if you recall this it seems so silly now like hacking leaking emails it's you know people were comparing this to pearl harbor in 9-11.

even if russia did do that you you can't compare it to these seismic events and by the way we do i think far worse things around the world to other countries right we do the same sure and by the way russia has done this in in many elections it wasn't just the 16 election in which they tried to sow chaos or amplify you know bad news articles that would make us fight that was when i before i went to interview putin that was one of the main things that i learned was he what he was really interested in doing is sowing chaos like they would amplify for example in 2020 maybe black lives matter articles that would sort of get people fired up and riled up and start like fighting internally that's his real goal is to make us fight each other but like that they'd been doing that for a long time it was nothing new to help trump in 2016.

what i think is documented is that a russian Russian troll farm put out some really dumb memes and ads on social media that nobody saw and that were barely about the election.

That's documented.

That's what Russia actually did.

If you want to call that interference, okay.

I mean, some Russians did do that.

I don't think it impacted a single person in the U.S.

Certainly did not impact a single vote, let alone swing the election, as we were told.

I mean, this was, there were academic studies trying to argue that Russian trolls.

swung the election.

It's an insult to everybody's intelligence.

And it was a way to cover up for the Democratic Party's own failures in that election and their refusal to come to grips with that.

So blaming Russia was a convenient foil.

But the hysteria around this was just, it was unbelievable.

So I don't know if you remember this, but when Trump gave his joint press conference with Putin in July 2018, and Trump next to Putin said that Putin had denied interfering and Trump said, you know, I have no reason to doubt him.

The freak out was unbelievable.

Like the way this was described, this was like the worst thing a president has ever done.

John Brennan described Trump as, quote, nothing short of treasonous, when John Brennan must have known that the FBI and the NSA actually shared Trump's conclusions.

Certainly they had the low confidence assessment that had been buried.

And by the way, we also learned now from the House Intelligence Report that they had, they were aware of Putin's view on the election.

And people close to Putin were saying that Putin didn't care because no matter who won, in Putin's view, it wouldn't really matter.

Policy towards Russia wouldn't change.

And of course, that's one of many pieces of critical information that got suppressed in order to put out this narrative that Russia was backing Trump.

Exactly.

So they were taking out actual human intelligence of somebody close to Putin who was saying he doesn't care who.

And they were putting in nonsense like information from the Steel dossier and little sentence fragments that five different CIA analysts could not agree upon and stuff that predated Trump's even arrival on the political scene from like 2014 and one other statement saying, you know, Trump and Putin could work together as businessmen or something like that.

It was like completely amorphous, empty stuff that they used to try to say he wants Trump to win.

And that's how they got to it.

So it seems very clear that they had an agenda within the intelligence community to make sure this assessment came out as it did, saying Russia interfered and they did it to help Trump, which was to some extent a reversal from where they had been going prior to the Obama meeting.

And this is where you get the Andy McCarthy's, who I really like and admire and respect, but I just really disagree with him on on this, of the world saying it's apples to oranges, because he keeps focusing on the fact that that presidential daily brief they were going to prepare for Obama on December 8th was really just going to say that wasn't downplaying all Russian interference.

It was just going to say that the Russians didn't hack election machines.

And that's...

That's fine.

They didn't, is his point.

And so it's fine.

They were going to say that.

What happened in the ultimate report they didn't come out and say they did hack election machines.

They never reversed on that.

It wasn't a 180 after the Obama meeting on that.

It just simply focused on what the Russians did succeed at doing, like hacking the DNC and interfering in general with the goal of helping Trump.

But hacking the DNC, now we're learning, appears to have been false.

General interference was way overplayed.

It was a bunch of bullshit, like you point out with the farms.

And to help Trump was completely made up.

Correct.

And look, here's the one criticism you can make of Tulsi Gabbard here.

You can criticize her language, like accusing Obama of treason.

Maybe that's not her place to make that determination.

That's for the Justice Department.

And also, she did conflate vote hacking with email hacking in the way that she put out these findings.

So I think that's a fair critique.

But as you point out, it doesn't matter because the fact is we learned from Tulsi's declassification something really important, which is that the intelligence on the email hacking, forget the vote hacking, that was suppressed.

And the two premier U.S.

intelligence agencies who would be best placed to assess who hacked the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks, they had low confidence in the allegation that it was Russia.

That's the bottom line here.

So even if there was a conflation made between vote machine hacking and DNC server hacking, it doesn't matter.

because the intelligence on the email hacking said that we don't have any evidence that Russia did it.

And that was kept from the public.

That's a major scandal because for years we were told this was the intelligence, this was the intelligence consensus.

If you question this, you're a Russian propagandist.

You're treasonous, as John Brennan said of Donald Trump when he questioned this.

And that is the scandal here, the suppression of intelligence to manufacture a lie in the same way that the U.S.

government did in going to war in Iraq.

And by the way, Some of the same players in the Iraq WMD hoax are involved here, including James Clapper, who oversaw the production of the intelligence community assessment along with John Brennan.

In his memoir, memoir, James Clapper writes about how he basically, in the rush to help the Bush administration make its case for invading Iraq, he went and found things that weren't there.

That's almost a direct quote.

I went and found things that weren't there.

So what he was admitting to is manufacturing intelligence.

So why are we surprised that he wouldn't,

why are we surprised that he did the same thing here?

And why are we supposed to take these people's word on faith, especially given their record?

And as a journalist, I mean, look, I'm not a Trump guy.

I'm not a fan, but it's not for unelected intelligence bureaucrats to decide who gets to be in power, what the foreign policy of the U.S.

is.

It's for the elected president.

And what we saw here was just a contemptuous response to an election in which the wrong guy in the eyes of powerful people won.

And so they did work to undermine him.

And no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you shouldn't support that.

The other thing about now learning that Russia hacked the DNC being a lie, or at least being totally unsupported, is it remains to this day one of the main things people

downplaying the Tulsi News rely on to stand up their own conclusions that Russia was trying to help Trump.

They say

he hacked, you know, Putin hacked the DNC.

Putin released through WikiLeaks the dirt, at least some of it, that he had on Hillary.

And therefore, how can you say he had any goal other than to help Donald Trump?

That was not a helpful release for Hillary Clinton.

And that's yet another reason why it is so significant that we're now learning

that we don't actually have the goods on Russia being behind that DNC hack.

Exactly.

Exactly.

We're learning this nearly nine years later.

And this is not the peak of Russia Gay anymore.

People have moved on to other stories.

But at the time, if you read any single news account in establishment media, it's just taken as fact that Russia hacked and leaked those emails.

And there was never any scrutiny whatsoever.

And the point that people like myself and Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taebi and others were trying to make is: you know, Russia might have hacked the DNC.

It's certainly possible, but we've never been given the evidence for it.

And the role of a journalist is not to write down what intelligence officials tell you to say, it's to look for the facts.

And the more facts we get, the more they undermine the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC.

And even on the issue of voting machines, yes, it's true.

You know, the Abadman Russia never said that Russia hacked voting machines.

But if you look at the media clips, like what was the common talking point from Hillary Clinton on down?

Russia hacked the election.

Russia hacked the election.

And it did create an impression among many people, especially Democratic voters, if you look at polls, that Russia had changed the votes.

And that's what happens when you have these propaganda campaigns that you're not allowed to question.

And if you do, you're called names, you're marginalized, you're kicked out of media spaces.

They just create consensus.

Like no one issued an edict saying.

you all have to believe that Russia hacked the DNC, but just

this sort of group mania allowed for this to be pervasive.

And even now, when evidence comes out showing that the intelligence wasn't there to support it, has any mainstream outlet reported on this?

Have they reported that the NSA and the FBI had low confidence in the Russia hacking leak allegation?

Has anyone ever reported that?

They're ignoring all of this.

They're going with the Democrat line of like, there's no there there, the Obama line, there's no there, the Pod Save America line, there's no there, which I'm going to get to in one second.

But let me show a little bit of that.

This is from the Media Research Center and what we were hearing about Russia hacking the election at the time, SAT63.

Russia hacking the election to elect Trump is the end of our democracy.

Votes were definitely affected.

Russia hacked the election to tilt it to Mr.

Trump.

The Russians definitively hacked the election.

Russia did hack the election.

No doubt.

The Russians hacked the election.

Yes, Russia hacked the election.

In fact, Russia hacked the election.

President-elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia hacked the election.

If you can get him to accept that Russia hacked the election, see if you can get him to accept who won the civil war.

The director of national intelligence, the head of the national security agency, the head of the FBI.

All of these intelligence experts saying Russia hacked the intelligence, Russia hacked the election.

The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, I mean, they've all said this.

So to believe that that's wrong, you have to believe they're all involved in an elaborate conspiracy to get Donald Trump.

Oh my God, that's an amazing clip.

I hadn't actually seen it myself, Aaron.

And by the way, the lower third on the CNN clip where they're saying, you know, they hacked.

These are all the officials and the agencies that said they hacked.

The lower third is Trump, colon, unsure if Russia interfered.

So like Trump was the only one who actually was right.

Actually, I'm not quite certain whether they did or they didn't.

And all those media figures, so sure, because the NSA and the CIA and the FBI were undoubtedly leaking to them, telling them that it was so.

and they completely forgot a journalist's obligation, which is to kick the tires, especially on a story that is hand-delivered to you with a big red ribbon on it from any three-letter agency.

It's unlike anything I've ever seen, the level of media subservience to this narrative.

And also, everyone also was convinced that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, too.

I mean, try to challenge that on one of these.

network shows and it was very, very difficult.

In fact, they didn't even allow on guests who would challenge that narrative.

It's just, this was the talking point.

And even though there's no one, like we don't live in a totalitarian society, there's no official telling people what to say, but everybody just intuited that this was the narrative to go with.

This was the way to respond to Trump.

If you wanted to get into media spaces, this is what you had to say.

And it was absolute mania.

And by the way, for me, you know, this, all this fearmongering about foreign interference, like I'm on the left end of the spectrum.

I do think there's foreign interference.

I think Israeli interference in U.S.

democracy is a lot more significant.

APAC spends tens of millions of dollars to elect candidates and defeat candidates based on what it deems to be in the interests of Israel.

Marjorie Taylor Greens called for APAC to be registered as a foreign agent.

I think that's a much more significant foreign interference in U.S.

democracy than whenever Russian trolls put out on social media.

But that all gets completely ignored because that is bipartisan.

And here, because there was this partisan effort

started by Hillary Clinton to frame Trump as a Russian asset and blame Russia for his election, rather than look at the Clinton wing's own dysfunctions, their own failures.

Everybody went along with it and we're still paying the price because now, you know, people still want answers.

And, you know, Trump voters especially were, you know, dismissed with contempt as malleable dupes who were brainwashed by Russia into not voting for, you know, saintly Hillary Clinton.

And so there's also this elitist contempt that underpins all this.

So accordingly, people in the media don't want to be embarrassed.

for going along with a massive scam.

And that's why it's still very difficult to get accountability.

And that's why they're still not reporting on the countervailing facts, the low confidence assessment from the FBI and the NSA.

No one ever acknowledged that CrowdStrike, the Clinton campaign contractor, had admitted under oath they had no evidence of Russian hacking and leaking.

No one.

It's amazing when you pair that with the red

siren warning they'd been given that, hey, Hillary Clinton's team is planning to try to paint Trump as a Russian proxy and agent of some sort in order that the purpose was in order to distract from her email scandal.

If you look at what's unveiled in the intelligence, so our intelligence agencies knew that at a minimum, and if the Fox News reporting turns out to be true, cooperated with it, but at a minimum knew,

and then when the alleged intel started coming in, from Hillary sources like the Steele dossier and the crowd strike thing on who hacked the DNC,

they didn't say, Okay, we were warned this is going to happen.

Here's the bullshit that this woman is orchestrating.

Let's not get hooked on that line like a gullible fish.

They jumped on it, ran with it.

And while an initial report to President Obama was going to say, Well, the Russians didn't really do this much, it took one wood shitting from him from the sound of it.

And they were all on board with, They did it, cite the steel dossier, cite the crowd strike information.

They were were completely on team.

Let's get Trump.

They were.

And that's what the Mueller investigation was for.

Like the Mueller investigation essentially was waged to make this whole narrative look credible.

And they spent tens of millions of dollars making this thing seem somewhat legitimate.

And of course, the media ran with it.

And if you read all the indictments that came out of the Mueller probe, in retrospect, I mean, at the time, they were so dumb.

But even now, especially given all we know now, they're written by really smart people.

People have probably gone to Ivy League schools, law schools and they're basically you know wielding their intelligence to make it appear as if they have something on trump and russia when there was absolutely nothing the indictment of george papadopoulos and um harter page you know and michael flynn michael flynn who was uh accused of lying to the fbi about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

When if you actually read the transcript of his wiretap conversation, they're not even talking about sanctions.

They're talking about the fact that Obama had kicked out a bunch of Russian diplomats.

And all Flynn basically said was, listen, we're going to come in soon.

Things will be different.

So don't retaliate too harshly because we want to have good relations.

We don't want this to go out of hand.

That's all he said.

And he gets indicted and he's forced to resign.

He's basically sabotaged by the FBI and all this.

And they actually, this was, it's pretty well established that this was a deliberate effort.

So, I mean, there's so much malpractice here, so much deception.

And it was, again, no matter what you think about Donald Trump,

why do we accept the intrusion of the national security state into the democratic process?

And geopolitically, it had many consequences.

You know, Trump on the campaign trail was talking about getting along with Russia, which I think is a good thing.

Why do we want to have tensions with another nuclear armed power between the U.S.

and Russia?

Both countries can destroy the world many times over.

So I think it's good to have cooperation and diplomacy with Russia.

And Russia Gate basically made that impossible.

In fact, Trump even complained about that in the fall of 2017.

He said, Russia Gate's going to get people killed because his mandate, as he saw it, which was to cooperate, reduce foreign interventions, that was undermined by people basically urging him to get so-called tough on Russia.

Yeah, now he had something to prove where he didn't before.

All right.

Exactly.

Let me stand you by because there's a couple things I want to go through.

I do want to show you some of the defenses that these Obama acolytes, the Pod Save America guys, have been offering and talk about that Senate Intel report.

And then I've got to show you what happened on MSNBC and Morning Joe.

This morning, this is a must-do.

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.

A lot of people worry about the online platforms and which one to trust for your general online news source, right?

They don't know.

Most of them are left and you can't trust them.

Some are right, but you don't want to be manipulated against righties who like hate Trump, for example.

And this is where ground news comes in.

This is an important app you need to know about right now.

Unlike other platforms amplifying or suppressing certain narratives to shape your worldview, this is an independent platform pulling in perspectives from across the political spectrum to show you the truth mainstream media will not, with more context than you will find in virtually any other place.

I see your comments.

I know you're worried about immigration, the economy, simply finding the truth missing from your online feeds.

Well, Ground News is here to help.

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

That's five bucks a month when you go to groundnews.com/slash Megan.

That's G-R-O-U-N-D news.com/slash Megan.

Ground News helps you think freely and hold the powerful accountable.

Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll?

Ondex small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds, up to $100,000, exactly when your business needs it.

With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat.

Apply today at on deck.com, and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow.

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by ONDAC or Celtic Bank.

ONDAC does not lend in North Dakota all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

Oh, I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work.

And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day.

We're big fans.

And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com.

With intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with.

Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

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, I'm back, 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 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, independent journalist and contributor to Real Clear Investigations.

Erin Mate is back with me now.

Erin, I just want to make something perfectly clear because I think I glossed over it.

We talked and I outlined about the info we got from Tulsi on that Friday night and then the House intelligence report that came out the next week from Tulsi

from 2020 and how it showed the Intel community was about to give Obama this presidential daily brief that kind of downplayed Russia's involvement.

Then he has a big meeting and the next thing you know, they produce a report that says, oh no, Russia, Russia, Russia interfered and did it to help Trump.

What you and I have been discussing is something else, which is the low quality intelligence assessment earlier that fall that Russia hacked the DNC.

And we've talked about how then that low quality assessment was turned into a high confidence assessment for no apparent reason.

But here too,

having reviewed reviewed the documents, you're reporting is that Obama got involved.

Once again, it was Obama stepped in and appears to have said,

that's not the assessment I want.

You outlined it as follows.

On September 12th, 2016, the FBI and NSA expressed low confidence in the core Russia gate allegation that they hacked and leaked these Democratic Party emails.

By December 7th, 2016, that assessment hadn't changed.

Most U.S.

agencies only had moderate confidence at best that Russia was maybe probably behind the hack and the leak.

And that was also concealed from us.

And then Obama had that principals meeting that same day where he did the reversal on all the other stuff we're talking about.

And it was there, too,

that he appears to have decided that he wanted a write-up saying Russia did this anyway.

So, I mean, his fingerprints are all over this reversal in the Russian information.

Obama, to me, was pretty malleable.

So I don't know to what extent this is Obama running the show or just Obama standing down to John Brennan and Hillary Clinton.

But regardless, Obama's fingerprints are on this.

And if you look at the timeline, September 12th, we now know this has just come out from Tulsi Gabbard.

NSA, FBI, say they have low confidence in the Russia

hacking leak allegation.

October 7th, even though that's the view of the FBI and the NSA, Obama gets the Department of Homeland Security and the director of the national intelligence to put out a statement saying the intelligence community has high confidence that Russia is behind the hacking, contradicting what the FBI and the NSA were concluding.

And let me just pause you there.

Just hold on, hold that thought because we do have the Obama sound bite here.

Well, it's former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson talking about Obama approving that statement that Russia was behind the DNC hack, even though he knew that there was at best a low confidence assessment to that effect.

Here it is in SOT 55 when

Jay Johnson, testified before the House Intelligence Committee.

On October 7th, we issued a very clear declaration based upon what we knew at the time that the Russian government was behind the hacks of the DNC.

The October 7th statement was an administration statement.

That was

the result of an intelligence community assessment.

The president approved the statement.

I know he wanted us to make the statement.

So that was very definitely a statement by the United States government, not just Jim Clapper and me.

But he doesn't reveal that the intelligence that had been given to Obama was low confidence, and then somehow Obama interferes and we wind up with a high confidence assessment that they did this.

And it does not appear any additional information was received to change it from low to high.

And that latter point about no additional information being received, that's now documented in the House Intelligence Committee report that's just been released by Tulsi Gabbard, where they say the only new intelligence that came in, their words are, it's, quote, paltry.

So most of the intelligence that was produced for the ISA was collected before the election at a time when the FBI and the NSA were saying that they had low confidence.

And yeah, Jay Johnson's saying there, this was an administration document.

He's saying it speaks in the name of the intelligence community, but that's false because the two premier agencies that were best placed to assess this, the FBI and the NSA, they were dissenting.

on the allegation that Jay Johnson and Obama put out publicly.

And by the way, meanwhile, and the recent CIA review by John Ratcliffe made this point, other key intelligence agencies were excluded altogether.

So the Defense Intelligence Agency of the Pentagon and the State Department's Intelligence Bureau, the INR, they were completely excluded from the process.

And the CIA review by Ratcliffe noted that this was odd, especially if you're talking about the actions of an adversary, Russia.

Why are you excluding the Pentagon's intelligence agency and the State Department, which we presumably have a lot to contribute?

So you have overruling and ignoring the dissenting view of the NSA and the FBI,

the dissenting view of the NSA and the FBI, and completely excluding the Pentagon and the State Department.

Wow.

Okay.

Well, we'll put a pin in that one and see, because it also does raise questions.

If the FBI actually wanted to help participate in a Hillary Clinton lie that Russia interfered, then why would they?

have been coming forward saying, we don't think they hacked the DNC.

We only have low confidence and we're going to dissent from anything that tries to pin it on them.

Well, i can answer that because look um at the time they were relying on crowdstrike to investigate the dnc server hacking and crowdstrike wasn't cooperating and i suspect you know obviously someone like peter strzok who was the lead fbi agent on crossfire hurricane he was all on board with framing trump as a russian agent you know there's text messages of him disparaging trump disparaging trump voters his bias and also talking about the russians as you know, effing savages.

So, you know, his view is pretty clear.

Not everybody in the FBI was on board with this.

And I think what what happened with Comey is this.

So Comey, after Trump wins, he gets blamed because of his handling of the Clinton email investigation when he came out right before the election and talked about the FBI going back into the laptop and uncovering the Anthony Wiener stuff.

So Comey is under a lot of fire now from the Clinton wing.

And

so I think Comey, being the sycophant that he is, decided just to completely shift gears and go along with anything that was asked of him.

And that's why we now learn he was pushing for the steel dossier to be included in the intelligence community assessment.

And funnily enough, I mean, maybe this is a coincidence, but you know, at that December 9th meeting between Obama and his top principals, where all of a sudden the narrative really shifts.

So, you know, James,

James Clapper is there, John Brennan is there, Susan Rice is there.

But representing the FBI and the NSA are not the respective heads of the FBI and the NSA.

James Comey and Mike Rogers were not there at that meeting.

The FBI was represented by Andrew McCabe, who was a hardcore Russia gator.

He's the one who, in May of 2017, opened up a new probe of Trump while he was a sitting president as a potential Russian asset.

So McCabe is there,

not Comey, and the head of the NSA, Mike Rogers, also was not there.

And maybe that's just a coincidence that the heads of these dissenting agencies weren't there, or maybe...

uh they weren't there and they were told basically in their absence afterwards to fall in line and that's at least what i think comey did wow uh just to clarify Obama wasn't personally there, but his chief of staff, Dennis McDonough, was there at that meeting at his behest.

And we have many officials on record after the fact saying these are the orders that they were given were per the president's request.

I mean, it was very clear that McDonough was speaking for Obama and that Obama was on board with the change in intelligence or the representation of the intelligence, which did not look anything like the actual intelligence that they had.

Okay,

there's a couple things I want to get to.

These Pod Save America guys have been running cover for Obama since the story broke.

They're crapping all over it.

They think people like you, like me, like Matt, are completely irresponsible.

I'm going to give you a flavor for it and let you respond SOT 50.

Do you think they can will this scandal into existence just by repeating treasonous coup and false narrative and manipulated intelligence over and over again?

I don't think we should call this a scandal.

Like, I don't even know what else to call it, like a crock of shit.

Like, it's not.

A scandal suggests that there was an allegation of something.

There's a,

at least credible allegation of something.

There's, there is, they can't even explain the allegation.

It makes no sense.

This is the most easily debunked thing in the world.

And the shortest way I would do that is, how could it possibly be that Obama was trying to steal the election from Trump when during the election, the FBI was investigating Trump and told no one, but the FBI instead announced an investigation to Hillary Clinton three weeks before the election?

It's all part of the plan, Dan.

Yeah, it's, I mean, it's, it's so stupid.

Thoughts on that one aaron first of all it's not true that the investigation into trump and russia was suppressed it came out in the new york times shortly before the election so that's not even true and yeah

they couldn't say very much because they didn't have anything it was a scam and i think they were still putting together exactly what kind of conspiracy theory they wanted to go with and what aspects of it because that trump was being framed as a russian asset and so yes uh and the point is whatever they did before the election after the election they ran with this and they basically sabotaged Trump's incoming presidency before it even began.

They released an intelligence assessment saying that basically Trump was the product of Russian interference.

They sabotaged his cabinet by going after Mike Flynn.

And they, through leaks to credulous media stenographers, they basically painted this picture that Trump was being controlled by Vladimir Putin and they made the steel dossier look credible.

So sure, you can say maybe Obama wasn't trying to tip the scales for Trump in the election, but certainly other people were.

John Brennan was.

John Brennan was briefing members of Congress in August, trying to basically say that Russia was backing Trump.

And that's why you had letters from Harry Reid to Obama demanding that Obama put out there what he knew about Russia meddling in the election.

So even if Obama wasn't trying to

help Hillary Clinton out with this, he was allowing it to happen by having a CIA and an FBI.

help frame Trump as a Russian agent.

And he was briefed back in July by Brennan that Russia was aware of a plot to frame Trump.

So really what Obama should have done is called all this out and said, like, we can't have

a baseless investigation, which the FBI had already launched and had massive consequences way into Trump's first term.

Sure did.

By the way, that first guy on there was Jon Favreau of Pod Save America, who has said he really, really, really wants to debate somebody on this issue.

And

I mean, you're the perfect guy.

I'd be happy to host it here.

Has he invited you to go on on his show to actually have the debate he claims he so desperately wants?

No, I've never been invited by any prominent proponent of the Russia Gate controversy because they, because like, you can't.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And that's the problem here.

This was a propaganda campaign.

You know, people make fun of QAnon and all the conspiracy theories are on QAnon.

This was Blu Annon.

This was a Democratic Party conspiracy theory and it had catastrophic consequences, so many of them.

Domestic, it increased polarization.

For me, you know, someone who was very supportive of the policies of Bernie Sanders, I believe in Medicare for all.

I don't support attacking other countries.

I believe in cutting military aid to Israel.

After 2016, that would have been a great chance for Bernie Sanders to take control of the party and say, unlike Trump, I'm a genuine populist alternative.

Like Trump.

appealed to working class people.

I actually have policies that can actually benefit them.

And Bernie Sanders, unfortunately, rather than stand up and say, you know, it's my turn now, he bowed down to the Russiagate narrow and

he paid lip service to it.

And how was he rewarded, by the way, for his obedience?

In 2020, when he was running against Biden in the primaries, the Russia Gate narrative gets used against him

by these same people, including Pod Save America.

Oh, the Democrats have been out to get Bernie from the beginning.

I mean, just ask Tulsi.

That's one of the reasons she got

excised from the Democrat Party because she stood up to it saying, this is wrong.

What are you doing?

We shouldn't be putting our finger on the scale to help one Democrat win over another.

Which raises a great point.

If they don't like the fact that Tulsi is now accusing people of treason, they shouldn't have tolerated it back when they were accusing Tulsi of treason and being a Russian asset.

Hillary Clinton called him a Russian asset.

That's right.

And they were accusing Trump and all his supporters of being Russian assets, too.

So if they don't like that language now, they're getting exactly what they asked for when they're the ones who put this out there in the first place and still don't

account for that.

That's right.

One more from the Pod Save America guys and their attempted defense.

This is on that Senate Intel report that we've seen Obama himself rely on to say, there's no, they're there, move on.

Here it is, SOC 51.

She lays that out in great detail, but then claims somehow

that because the intelligence community

didn't conclude that the voting systems were hacked,

therefore this has all been a conspiracy by Barack Obama to commit some kind of a coup after the fact, even though Donald Trump became president.

I know, I I don't, like, it doesn't mean, it doesn't make any fucking sense.

We all keep having a version of this conversation, which, which is like, am I missing something?

Because I just feel like this doesn't make any sense at all.

Like, they're saying that, yeah, they're releasing new intelligence that shows Russia didn't launch a cyber attack on our election infrastructure that altered the outcome, which is

what the Obama administration has said.

What they said.

And they're trying to make it sound like that's a smoking gun that proves that the Russians didn't interfere in the 2016 election.

But as you mentioned at the top, we know that they did, in part because the Senate Intelligence Committee, then led by Marco Rubio, now the Secretary of State, conducted a three-year investigation that determined Russia waged an aggressive effort to interfere in our election.

Okay, so the entire two-thirds of that was just a straw man misstating Tulsi's argument, your argument, everyone's argument.

No one's saying the ultimate PDB or intelligence committee, community assessment needed to say that the Russians hacked election machines.

No one is saying that, or it's not even about the election machines.

It's about all the other things that we've been discussing, and they're strawmanning it.

But the Senate Intel Committee report, can you speak to that?

Yeah, just last point on the point about the election hacking.

Tulsi and her team, I think, made a narrative mistake in focusing on the intelligence that found there was no Russian hacking of election infrastructure.

But as you say, it's also a complete strawman because what the intelligence she released also shows is that the FBI and NSA were, again, relying on Steele dossier, lying about it.

John Brennan told Congress it was not a part of the intelligence community assessment.

It was.

And also critically, they buried the low confidence assessment that the FBI and the NSA made in the Russian hacking leaking allegation.

And that's not something I've ever seen Pod Save America or any other Russia gate adhering media outlet address.

And so until they address that, they just cannot dismiss this as nothing because what they're doing is simply cherry-picking a conflation that Tulsi made and ignoring the actual real revelations here.

On the issue of the Senate Intelligence Committee,

look,

if you read that report, there is so much that they either missed on purpose or weren't aware of.

So if you look at the House Intelligence Committee report that we've just got, they talk about the fact that intelligence was cherry-picked.

They talk about the fact that the U.S.

had intelligence, that Putin didn't care who won the election, and that was all cherry-picked.

Either the Senate Intelligence Committee had that intelligence, same access, either the Senate Intelligence Committee either had the same access and just simply ignored it, or they didn't have the access.

Either way, the point is the fact that we're still learning new revelations now from Hipsy shows that the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't do its job, and therefore, why should we take their word seriously?

All they really cared about on the Republican side was disproving collusion, and they did.

I think they just ignored the Russian interference side.

But now, thankfully, from this Hipsy report and more disclosures, we're learning the truth that was suppressed.

I've got to go over this.

This guy writes for the new republic.

His name is Michael Tomosky, and he was on Morning Joe this morning

discussing this whole storyline.

And here's his take on it.

The question is, how much does Trump mean this?

We don't really know.

But by God, if he means it, there's every reason to suspect that they will go out and do it.

And by do it, you mean they will indict

former President Obama for something.

Something?

Something for what?

I mean,

that's a good question.

And I was discussing this with a friend who is a former prosecutor.

He said, yeah, but where are they going to find a witness, you know, who's willing to say that Obama did something illegal?

How are they going to actually prosecute the case?

And I said, fair point, but in this instance, maybe that isn't really even the point.

The point's retribution, the point's revenge, the point is the besmirching of Obama's character, and so on and so on.

Okay, and he's very upset about that.

He doesn't want that at all.

And they had him on to discuss the article that he had posted earlier today, right?

Is today the 27th or 20th or 28th?

Yesterday, earlier on the 28th.

And here's what he wrote.

On planet Earth, Obama cannot be indicted, but we live on planet Trump.

The attempted persecution of a former president is both a dangerous line to cross and an expression of this failed administration.

He's very upset about the attempted persecution of a former president.

It's a dangerous line to cross.

It took me about 10 seconds to see what this same guy wrote when Donald Trump was indicted by Alvin Bragg, also a former president, and here's how that went.

The title was the Trump Indictment.

He's had it coming for years,

he writes.

This is historic, he goes on.

He even uses the planet Earth line, only here it goes as follows.

On planet Earth, this means Trump singularly may have, even he is still presumed innocent, violated laws and norms that everyone else has followed.

The bottom line here, and the one big thing that we know above all else, Donald Trump has had this coming for years.

This feels like justice coming.

And he ended with this.

They have to revere the law, these former presidents.

This has been a given throughout our history until Trump.

Then he goes off on a tangent about Nixon, goes on, only Trump knows and respects no law.

He got away with what was in the inherently sleazy business.

He got away with it when he was in the inherently sleazy business of slapping his name on casinos.

But the presidency of the United States is is not an inherently sleazy business, or at least it's not supposed to be.

Trump made it that.

If there's any justice left in this country, he will die in a jumpsuit that matches his cratered skin.

We're far cry from the attempted persecution of a former president, is a dangerous line to cross.

Michael Tomaski.

So

I don't know.

I'm not expecting a piece from him or anybody at the New Republic, or for that matter, the National Review, saying

this may not be a dangerous line to cross.

President Obama and his top

emissaries in particular really do appear to have done something deeply wrong.

It's all projection.

They talk about persecution of political opponents wanting to jail them.

Well, this is what they tried to do with Russia Gate.

And then when that failed, they tried again with the two impeachments and then all the lawfare that followed Trump after he left office, which, again, even if you put aside basic ethics, where we hold ourselves to the same standards that we hold other people to, putting that that aside, just politically, this was a disaster for Democrats to try to use the legal system to go after their political opponent, to try to jail Trump and basically make him unqualified for office.

People rebelled against that because they saw this, I think, rightfully, as an intrusion into the Democratic process where you're supposed to win at the ballot box, not in courts.

And it goes beyond Trump.

I mean, people forget this, but many people in Trump's circle had their lives ruined as a result of this Russia Gates scam.

Rick Gates, who was an associate of Paul Manafort, he was indicted by Mueller on some ridiculous trumped-up charges because, again, Mueller and their team needed to bring charges to justify their existence and justify their investigation.

So Rick Gates, you know, had

went through a lot of trouble and people lost a lot of money.

Roger Stone, if you remember, CNN, you know, very giddily broadcast a raid on his home by armed police officers to arrest him in his case, which is over what?

Lying to Congress.

Who else lied to Congress?

We now know that John Brennan lied to Congress when he got up and said the steel dossier played no role in the intelligence community assessment.

Uh, when we know from the available evidence that, in fact, it did.

And John Brennan even pushed to have it included in the intelligence community assessment.

So, they've normalized this climate now where, yeah, people are going to be persecuted.

And unlike with Russia Gate, RussiaGate fraudsters actually have something to be concerned about because, you know,

John Brennan, I think, committed perjury.

Wait, was it here?

This is May 23rd, 2017, in front of the House Intel Committee.

John Brennan saw 58.

Do you know if the Bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier

as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings?

I have no awareness.

Did the CIA rely on it?

No.

Why not?

Because

we didn't.

It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had.

It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.

It was not.

Was that it, Aaron?

Yeah, yeah, that's it.

And so that's just not true.

It was used as the basis for the intelligence community assessment.

It's referenced in the body of the ICA, we now know, because it was declassified by Tulsi Gabbard.

And the footnote is an annex which has the steel dossier.

So it's just not true that it wasn't used.

And if you look at the language about Putin aspiring to help Trump, and it mirrors a lot of the Steele dossier.

So even if we didn't know from the documents that the Steele dossier was used, it was pretty apparent, especially when you also understand that the FBI was using the Steele dossier to get surveillance warrants on Carter Page and using it for investigative leads.

So yeah, John Brennan has exposed himself here to a perjury case.

And unlike the perjury cases in Russia Gate, this actually is consequential.

and it's substantive.

And all those cases back then were cheered on.

Like, you know, with every, if you remember this, with every indictment of George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn and Rick Gates and Paul Manafort, media loved this.

Everyone was giddy over this because they felt as if Mueller was getting closer and closer to the secret Trump-Russia conspiracy.

In real life, it was just political lawfare to make a fake investigation that was aimed at framing a campaign as Russian assets look credible.

And so anybody who defries now accountability for that, you know, has no like to stand on.

And by the way, you know, I think we should oppose this equally, no matter who's doing it.

So I'm personally opposed to Trump administration criminalizing free speech because they don't like what student protesters are saying about Israel.

But the Russiagate playbook was to normalize that, to say that the government can go after people if they deem to be spreading disinformation or acting on behalf of a foreign power, even when there's no evidence whatsoever.

The CIA director current, John Radcliffe, spoke to What might be the potential charges in this?

Because that's the big question, right?

Question Mark.

Tulsi used the word treason.

That's very very hard to prove you basically have to be like working to undermine the united states with a or

have turned on the the united states with a foreign government but there are a bunch of other charges that could potentially be brought by the doj to which she's made a referral and so they're reviewing that right now now that testimony by john brennan is dated um 2017 and it's been more than five years the federal statute of limitations on perjury is five years but we had mike davis who's very close to the administration he runs the Article III project, which is basically kind of like MAGA law.

They've been right about a lot saying there's really no statute of limitations that would be, that would stop us from bringing conspiracy claims.

And that could envelop Brennan's statement.

That could have been part of the conspiracy.

Perjury charges, the statute of limitations gets told, meaning it won't start running.

If the person who lied did something to make it impossible or near impossible for people to unearth the lie, like taking maybe the House intelligence report that put the lie to what he said and burying it in a safe in a vault at Langley to the point where it took a presidential intervention years later to actually get it out and figure out whether there's a lie.

But having

said all that, here's the thing that's on Trump, too, because Cash Patel tried to get that report released during Trump's first term.

And Trump listened instead to William Barr and Gina Haspel, who did not want that release.

So Trump has responsibility there as well.

That's awful.

Did not know that.

Okay, here's CIA Director Radcliffe.

This is on Fox News Sunday, speaking to the potential charges.

SAT 40.

John Brennan testified to Congress, and so did Hillary Clinton, within five years.

I think it was in 2020, and then again in 2021.

Are those statute of limitations still

live?

What hasn't come out yet, and what's going to come out is

the underlying intelligence that will come out in the John Durham Report Classified Annex.

And what that intelligence shows, Maria, is that part of this was a Hillary Clinton plan, but part of it was an FBI plan to be an accelerant to that fake steel dossier.

And you're right, Maria.

John Brennan testified to John Durham in August of 2020.

He also testified to the House Oversight Committee in 2022.

Hillary Clinton testified before John Durham under oath in 2022.

James Comey testified before the Senate Committee in September 2020.

All of that's within the last five years.

And much of that testimony is, frankly, completely inconsistent with what our underlying intelligence that is about to be declassified in the Durham Annex.

That's very interesting.

And I just want to note, he mentioned September 2020.

One of those other dates was August 2020 in connection with the Durham investigation.

If those dates are operative and they're basing any sort of potential perjury charge or other charge on those dates,

we could see indictments within the next 32 days because the statute is about to run and they have a deadline.

They have to get it in under.

And we're almost there, Aaron.

Yeah, we are.

And can I make a point about media?

The media here has an opportunity to question these key figures if they wanted to.

John Brennan is an analyst at MSNBC, and he's been interviewed now multiple times ever since Tulsi Gabbard's documents were released.

MSNBC has never asked him about his testimony to Congress that the Steele dossier was not used for the intelligence community assessment.

When that's just an obvious question, you told Congress one thing.

This is what the documents say, that you relied on the Steele dossier.

And in fact, Brennan fought to have it included because the quote was, according to one CIA official, that John Brennan said it just feels right, which meant it fell right to the conspiracy theory that he was pursuing as part of a plot to frame.

Can I show you something, Aaron?

Can I?

Please.

Can I show you something?

I got to show you something.

So John Brennan did go on MSNBC just the other day with Jen Saki.

This is last Wednesday.

And the questioning was so pathetic, we did a montage of it because this is the entirety of what she asked him.

Watch this, Sod 44.

I know you have been through a lot, but this is still a lot.

What did I miss that people should understand here?

Don't you think the timing is around the Epstein files and changing the subject?

I mean, I was there just responsible for releasing things, not any of this.

And

President Obama wanted to make sure people understood, as you just said and this is not something that the Russians see through a partisan lens in the sense of they could do it again many times so everybody should have this information which I think is important to know director Brennan I'm so grateful that you're here you never shy away from telling your story oh God is it over Erin oh

well that's what happens when you have a media in which one former government official interviews a former government official colleague and they've all been enlisted in this scam to fool the the public into believing Trump was a Russian asset and won't take responsibility for it.

I mean, the question is so obvious.

You told Congress this.

The documents show otherwise.

What's your explanation?

But this isn't journalism.

It's just stenography.

And it's unfortunate.

And perhaps we'll get accountability through the judicial process.

I got to say, it's very difficult, though, to go after a former director of the CIA.

That's a pretty-

All of it's going to be tough.

But he's a very powerful person.

He does seem determined.

And I mean, that's the problem with having gone after Trump is he's not really, I don't think he cares.

Like, I think he's like, okay, you know, I've got a lot more on you than you guys ever had on me.

And you were full steam ahead against me.

I want to give you one more from that Saki Brennan interview.

It's unbelievable.

Listen to SOP 43.

And the fact that Donald Trump now is saying that Barack Obama was the head of this conspiracy is just so absurd.

Now, I certainly understand why Donald Trump has such a deep-seated inferiority complex vis-a-vis Barack Obama, given their respective records.

And also, it's quite remarkable the coincidence of timing between the release of these documents that seem to have been put together just in a very short period of time,

as compared to these multi-year investigations and reviews that were done about this issue, and the fur that is around the Epstein files.

So, again, I think it's very suspicious as far as the motivations here.

That is incredible.

Well, look, let's say it's true.

Let's say Trump is motivated right now to distract from the Epstein thing because he feels he has something to hide and his base is angry.

Even if that were 100% true, it wouldn't matter.

The question is, is this material significant?

Is it real?

Does it show malfeasance?

But the inferiority contrasts something that is so ridiculous.

Like, that is absurd.

That is a leftist dream.

Well, Brennan's doing psychology.

Look, there's an irony here.

I mean, Trump tried to frame Obama as being born in Africa when, you know, when he wasn't.

So Trump pushed the...

like the birth of conspiracy theory.

How did Democrats respond by their own conspiracy theory that he was being

blackmailed by Vladimir Putin?

It's truly the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time.

And Democrats having to make made the choice to elevate that as the way to resist Trump in his first term, they're still paying the price.

And they should not feign outrage now or claim outrage now when there's demands for accountability, because a lot more people than Trump were hurt.

you know there were a lot of consequences and so we do need these answers at the very minimum these declassifications by tulsi gabbard are very important and should have happened a long time ago but it speaks to the entrenched power of the national security state that this couldn't get out during Trump's first term because people around Trump didn't want him released because they didn't want to embarrass the CIA.

But now, thankfully, we have different people who feel differently and are getting the truth out to the public.

I want to mention before we go, this Susan Miller.

Have you seen her?

She's sort of surfacing around this whole thing.

And Susan Miller is a retired CIA spy who says she led the team that helped draft that controversial 2016 U.S.

intelligence community assessment on Russian election meddling.

I think the one that ultimately hit in 2017, in January 2017.

She says that she led that team.

Well, it comes out now, just the news is Jerry Dunlavey reporting here

that

she's a bit of a partisan hack.

She has called Donald Trump a dictator.

She's called MAGA supporters Nazis.

And she insists that the now discredited Steele dossier, quote, might be be true.

Oh, is that all?

I'm not shocked, but like, it is very interesting to get a closer look at the real feelings of the people who were behind that ultimate assessment, Aaron.

What you had here in all these intelligence officials is a convergence of contempt for average voters who don't vote for the candidate they prefer, which was Hillary Clinton.

We saw that with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page making fun of MAGA voters who go to Walmart, you know, just making fun of people.

James Clapper, he talked about how, in his view, Russians are genetically predisposed to deceit.

So he holds a bigoted view towards Russians.

And he said, you know, I'm a cold warrior.

And also he has a record, as he, I talked about earlier in the main interview, that in his book, he admitted to fabricating.

intelligence for the Iraq WMD hoax.

So you have a convergence of people who have contempt for average voters, the entitlement to believe that they can meddle in an election, and a real pathology, you know, a real just hatred of Russia and a real aversion to talk about cooperation with russia it all converged here into this massive scam and i'm not surprised at all to learn that yet one more official was afflicted by this and yes so partisan hackery is a recurring theme throughout this i mean peter strzok there's that text message where he tells lisa page yeah don't worry we're going to stop trump uh and and basically the russian investigation is an insurance is an insurance policy against him and some reason we're supposed for some reason we're supposed to take these people seriously and take their investigation seriously when she she let me just give you one on this susan miller so they to their credit the folks at just the news reached out to her and her response was long but i'll give you part of it first she says your comments are mean spirited and uninformed she doesn't like that they're that they're and by the way their request for comment was so straightforward they actually weren't mean spirited at all and she didn't like it then she tried to claim that I was originally pro-Trump and a solid Republican since I could start voting.

I even voted for him in his first election, which would have been months before that intelligence community assessment, so close in time.

And then she goes off about how our Constitution limits the president to two terms.

Trump is already talking about a third.

I refuse to put the dossier in our report as it could not be corroborated.

Sorry to ruin your view of me as a left-wing Republican hater.

And then she goes on how she was out of overseas.

I don't know.

All I know is what she's saying, literally, still to almost this day.

July 17th, she gave an interview to Times Radio, and here's what she said: SOT 45.

Have you seen or heard any information which seems to you credible evidence that the president might be a Kremlin asset?

Direct question.

What do you say to that?

I say I have seen some things.

I don't

still working out whether or not it is true, but yes, there has been some information that's out there that's been on the web and some other things like that that make it look like he could be.

Oh.

Okay.

You can't share details of what you're referring to there.

No,

there was some posting, I want to say,

a month or two ago

that made it sound like

there might be something there.

This is what we're dealing with, Aaron.

It's so embarrassing.

It's just so embarrassing.

This has been the norm.

You're allowed to go on tv and accuse someone of being a kremlin asset the president of the united states of being a kremlin asset and not present anything to back it up and she when even given the minimal challenge of saying something she can't offer anything you know adam schiff kept saying he had seen secret evidence of trump-russia collusion which he wasn't allowed to divulge and he went on

establishment networks and kept saying that and the only time i've ever seen him subjected to actual real journalistic scrutiny was when he went on the view and a conservative guest co-host actually challenged challenged him on this and destroyed him because this is the first time that Adam Schiff had actually been challenged to, you know, substantiate his allegation that Trump was committing treason, including with Russia.

And that's the norm here.

It's just like this was abetted by a media class that let people go on TV and say the most insane things, launch the most wild accusations, and this was treated as normal.

And so for people who are tired of the story, because it's been going on now for nearly nine years, it's understandable, but it's not going away because

this is a massive scandal.

A president and his campaign were framed as being agents of a foreign power.

There was so much deceit to

advance this scam.

And amazingly, we're still even learning details of it so many years later.

That conservative person was Morgan Ortegas, who did a great job and was never invited back again.

Aaron, what a pleasure.

Thank you for being so clear and so well informed on this.

It's been a great service to our audience.

I appreciate it.

Thanks for having me.

Yeah, we'll talk again.

Coming up tomorrow, our pal Walter Kern is here.

And also, and you'll figure out why,

the girlfriend of Cash Patel wanted to come on.

You'll find out why.

Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie.

And one thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home.

Because with every fix, update, and renovation, it becomes a little more your own.

So you need all your jobs done well.

For nearly 30 years, Angie has helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter.

From plumbing to electrical, roof repair, to deck upgrades.

So leave it to the pros who will get your jobs done well.

Hire high-quality pros at Angie.com.

Hey, everybody, Conan O'Brien here with an ad about my podcast.

Conan O'Brien needs a friend.

I've had so many fantastic conversations with people I truly admire: people like Michelle Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Maya Rudolph, Tom Hanks.

New episodes are out every Monday, and we have a really good time.

So, subscribe and listen wherever you get your podcasts.