Did Schiff Approve Classified Info Leak, and Melt Down Over Trump's DC Fix, with Klavan and Solomon

Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show. Legacy Media and Democrats continue to go in full panic mode over President Trump wanting to reduce crime in Washington, D.C. That's, yes, that's a headline. In the same way they wouldn't stand for kids who are suffering with cancer at the State of the Union, they feel the need to condemn President Trump's desire to reduce crime and save lives in the nation's capital. Okay.

And this whole story followed a typical Democratic cycle. First they said, crime is non-existent. Crime is not a thing there. Then when challenged with the facts, they bring up January 6th and racism. He's just doing this to black run cities. Okay.

Because, you know, DC has a black mayor, who by the way, has been working with Trump up until now. They've been getting along kind of okay. And he mentioned potentially Chicago, New York. Yes, they both happen to have black mayors. Does anybody think that Trump is biased

against the New York City black mayor, who he just made sure federal criminal charges were dropped against? This is a race thing, you absolute morons. Andrew Klavan is gonna be here soon on all of that and more, but we begin today with a bombshell.

FBI director, Kash Patel has released new documents on how classified information was leaked to the media and weaponized against Donald Trump during his first term as president. Now you remember for the past month plus, we've been discussing the Tulsi Gabbard releases

and how she is proving bit by bit that we had an intel community that was about to report to Barack Obama, right as he was leaving office and Trump was about to take office, that the Russians interfered in that November 16 election, kind of the way they always do,

I like some social media BS, but there was no hacking involved in election, voting machines and so on. And that they stopped the presses, Barack Obama held a meeting with his top staffer, his top staffer brought in all the intel heads,

gave directions from the president. And the very next day, they began on a new assignment, which was to upplay Russia's role in the election. And that was the official kickoff of Russiagate. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.

As they were doing this, they had been told months earlier that they had seen an intel leaked to us by the Dutch that Hillary Clinton had been planning to accuse Donald Trump of colluding with Russia. This is before she knew she was gonna lose, she just wanted to like an insurance policy to distract from her email scandal. So this same administration, the Obama administration, knew that Hillary Clinton was planning on concocting this hoax.

And Barack Obama appears to have been 100% complicit and on board. Because he appears to have been the one who gave the order, the notes say, per the President's directive.

They reversed what they were going to do, the intel community on Russia. They changed it to Russia, interference, collusion, it's an 11, all hands on deck. Trump's a Russian asset. After that meeting between Obama's

chief of staff and top intel heads. And what was really interesting about this story was the December 8th briefing looked like, Russia, not really. And then as of December 9th, there was a new assignment per the president's instructions. And that instruction was clearly to redo it in a way that would upplay Russia. And that official homework assignment got handed in in the beginning of January 2017, before Trump was sworn in.

So, and you'll be surprised to hear that the homework assignment came out exactly the way that Barack Obama wanted it to, and Hillary Clinton wanted it to. Russia, Russia, Russia, interfere to help Trump, to help Donald Trump. That was the goal. All that was made up. There was absolutely no intelligence support for it.

All they had was the Steele dossier, which was a Hillary-generated document, and they knew that. So, all of this has come out and been confirmed in the last month. Spits and pieces have been coming up for years. But one of the interesting things about the story has been before

the homework assignment was completed on December 9th. Okay, a month before the official intelligence community assessment would hit doing what Obama wanted it to do.

All the media had the story, Russia, they interfered, they did it to help Trump. Well, how they know that? How'd they know that? Because the Intel community only got its assignment

like that day and 24 hours earlier, they were going to say something else. Boy, they really have their finger on the pulse, don't they? How did the media know all this? Well, they were leaked the story very, very clearly. They were leaked the story and the question all along

ever since that day to this has been, who leaked? There was a leak, there were multiple leaks, by whom? We have our suspicions. We've always had our suspicions. We believe it was some top Democrats or Intel officials themselves, who knows?

But now we're getting actual possible answers. And if what we're about to report to you is true someone should be going to jail. The only the only thing that would save this person from going to jail is if this whistleblower who's just come forward is bullshit or if the statute of limitations has run and given the fact that we're being told the Trump administration and the DOJ is now kicking

around more conspiracy type claims, which have longer reaches. So in other words, in a conspiracy, you could reach back to acts for which if brought as an individual crime, the statute of limitations would have expired. But when part of the conspiracy, it can be raised again. I'm not sure whether those statute of limitations expiring will save the people, will save the leakers.

We'll have to see. So what's happened over the past 24 hours is Kash Patel has leaked documents that he has found FBI interviews of a whistleblower who has identified himself as a longtime Democratic staffer. He's not a Republican operative, a Democratic staffer who was working in Democratic offices at the time of the alleged leaking in 1617. This staffer was interviewed by FBI agents on several occasions and told those agents

that then Congressman Adam Schiff was the one who approved the leaks to the media. That it was Adam Schiff who approved the leaks to the media. And Eric Swalwell's name is gonna come up too in a minute. Now this staff member began talking to the FBI in 2017 because he said he considered the leaks to be quote, unethical, illegal, and treasonous.

This is a Democrat staffer who is saying to the FBI, he had a holy shit moment when he heard Adam Schiff give the order. These documents that outline the FBI's interview, like the FBI doesn't tape its interviews. They go back and they report what they heard

in their interviews. And this is what they did. And in these documents, they're called 302 interviews. They outline exactly what the whistleblower said. Those 302 documents, write-ups, were released by the FBI and given to reporter John Solomon.

Now, John is the founder of Just the News. And he joins me right now to walk us through why he believes, and so do I, that this is a bombshell. Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook, and X.

You know how much my family and I love our dogs. Yes, even my sweet Strudwick. I cannot imagine life without them. They have a great life, but some dogs are not so lucky. And that's why I'm super glad to tell you about Delta Rescue.

It's the largest no-kill, care for life, animal sanctuary in the world. No-kill, those are the words you wanna listen for before you make any donations to any sort of animal sanctuary. These guys have rescued thousands of dogs,

plus cats and horses too. They provide all of their animals with shelter, safety, and most of all, love. They love these animals. And they've been doing this for more than 45 years now. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions to stay open. And giving can bring tax benefits to you too.

Speak with your estate planner about how you can grow your estate while helping animals in need. And check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more. We love our Thunder and Strudwick,

but want other dogs who need love to find it too. Visit deltarescue.org today to learn more. That's deltarescue.org. John, thank you so much for making the time for us this morning.

Yeah, good to be with you.

So walk us through what the 302 reports that the FBI wrote up after their interviews with this whistleblower say.

Yeah, so let's give you a sense of who this person is. We don't know their name because the name is redacted, but we know their career. They're a career intelligence officer. So they started in the executive branch as an intelligence officer, and then they get detailed to the Democratic side of the House Intelligence Committee. Eventually, this person inherits as his boss, Adam Schiff,

when Adam Schiff takes over as the Democrat minority ranking member on House Intelligence in 2016. And they're working for Adam Schiff. And somewhere in the beginning of the Russia collusion, false narrative building in America, he attends a meeting where Adam Schiff says, we're going to leak this classified information And somewhere in the beginning of the Russia collusion, false narrative building in America,

he attends a meeting where Adam Schiff says, we're going to leak this classified information. He raises some objections. The staff said, don't worry about it. You'll never get prosecuted because we'll just claim the speech and debate clause. That's the independent clause that keeps the executive and congressional branches separate. And so let's just leak.

And he doesn't think that's right because he knows this is not Congress's intelligence to leak. He's a trained intelligence officer. These are equities or intercepts and other information gathered by the CIA, by the FBI, by the NSA. Congress is allowed to see them by virtue of their legislative authority, but it's not their products to leak. And so he comes forward in interviews with the FBI on four occasions, twice in 2017, once in 2018,

and again in 2022. And each time his story is very consistent. I witnessed a member of Congress authorizing the leak of classified information. I think it's treasonous, I think it's illegal, I think it's unethical, and the FBI ends up doing very little with it

They don't ever try to interview Adam Schiff. They don't they do interview one other staffer who is corroborating of This whistleblowers claims and then they take it over to the US Attorney's Office and the US Attorney's Office in Washington DC says amp Let's not bother with it. Let's not even let's not even tackle that one and Adam Schiff walks without any consequence or any further investigation. Now, if you go back at the time, you could see Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray saying, we're taking these leaks very seriously.

We don't like these leaks. We're going to go after them. It turns out they didn't do very much seriously at all. They swept it under the rug, and Adam Schiff is one of many people that the FBI had strong reasons to believe was leaking the nation's most valuable secrets, and they didn't have any consequence.

I think tonight you'll see from me, Megan, another senior well-known name in American history inside the FBI, who the FBI's own people were able to determine, most likely, leaked classified information or authorized the leak of classified information.

Again, no consequence. And so if you want to protect the nation's secrets, this is not the way to do it. If you let people leak and there's no penalty for it, you're going to have more leaks in the future. There's no deterrence.

I mean, didn't we just have a whole criminal investigation of Donald Trump for having documents at Mar-a-Lago that might have classified information in them? And we just can't have that. We can't have classified information running around out there in the hands of people who aren't authorized.

Meanwhile, this is the former president of the United States who can declassify everything. We were told that for two years straight, the past two years by Democrats. And now what you're saying is that one of the most vocal about that, Adam Schiff had been at the helm of releasing classified information to reporters, but that was different, you see, because that hurt Donald Trump.

Yeah, yeah, I think you have your finger on the bigger issue for the American public. And it's at the heart of that grand conspiracy case that Kash Patel's team opened up in March of this year, March and April of this year. It's a wash, rinse and repeat cycle of protecting a Democrat and then projecting some sort of criminal behavior on the Republican to protect the Democrat further. So Hillary Clinton's got a classified email scandal.

James Comey waves his magic wand, even though that's not his call, he's not the Attorney General, and says, I'm going to absolve her, and then immediately they start Russia collusion. We get Hunter Biden's information in early 2019 when I'm at the Hill, I write the first stories about the billion dollars being withheld and a threat to fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden. And then Donald Trump faces the impeachment inquiry from a whistleblower whose information

now looks to be pretty shaky, if not outright inaccurate. And then in 2021, the Biden administration discovers Joe Biden's got classified documents in his garage and in his old office at the University of Pennsylvania in Washington, D.C., and they project that crime on Donald Trump, even though Donald Trump's in a very different legal situation. He's allowed to declassify his documents and take them with him.

The vice president isn't. That wash-repeat cycle looks like you're constantly protecting the Democrats or their friends who do something wrong, and then you try to project a fake scandal on the Republicans to erase the conversation in America. And I think that's why you're looking at a grand conspiracy case right now. It's in Pam Bondi's hands to now decide whether she proceeds forward with it.

Okay, going a little bit more from these documents that you got your hands on. This is exclusively at Just the News.

Thank you.

So the whistleblower was reportedly very specific on the details. Like this doesn't sound like a lie because this person had a lot of details when speaking to the FBI. Quote, when working in this capacity, this whistleblower was called to an all staff meeting by Schiff.

In this meeting Schiff stated, the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Schiff stated the information would be used to indict. Trump. Schiff stated the information would be used to indict President Trump. The whistleblower stated this would be illegal and upon hearing

his concerns unnamed members of the meeting reassured that they would not be caught leaking classified information. Now this is the kind of thing that could potentially be confirmed by other staffers who were present, they would also be Democrats. So what do we think the likelihood is that someone's gonna get subpoenaed

and tell the truth about this?

That is a great question. I just asked that to Jim Jordan a few seconds ago and we're gonna look at it and get back to you. So we'll see what happens. What's described in that meeting is very important for one other reason, because it could affect

the statute of limitations. Now, the easiest way to overcome statute of limitations is to charge a grand conspiracy that allows you to go back outside and take over acts and roll them into things that are inside the statute of limitations right now. So if the mob has been skimming money at casinos in Las Vegas, like the famous movie Casino Showed, and that was based on a real story.

You can go back years and charge things outside of statute of limitations because the skimming was still occurring in the time frame when the charges are brought. That's one way to do it. But the Espionage Act has a unique provision. The Espionage Act is one of the laws that you could potentially apply to these leaks. It says, if someone does it knowing and willfully, the statute is extended to 10 years.

That means things that were leaked in 17 are still within the statute of limitations. What this staffer describes at that meeting is a conscious decision by Adam Schiff to authorize the leak of information. And then people are offering excuses

as to why it's okay to do it, even though your instinct, your training as that career intelligence official tells you what you're about to do is illegal. That could very well be very strong prima facie proof of knowing and willful violations.

It could mean that Adam Schiff's team could be in jeopardy right now. Now, the way you roll it up is the same way you're going to roll it up if you're a mob prosecutor. You start with the little guys and the little gals and you work your way up the chain until you get to the top fish.

So the first question for Pam Bondi is, will she look at this as a 10-year statute of limitations case? Will she assign a prosecutor to it? The evidence is now out there and I think so much of the questions that you and I and everybody else have, they rest with Pam Bondi. What will this Attorney General do?

Will it be the same as what happened under Jeff Sessions and Merrick Garland and Rod Rosenstein and Bill Barr? Or will she break the cycle of no consequences and actually start to create consequences? I think that's the moment we're at. The next few weeks, we're going to find out if Pam Bondi is going to move in the direction of consequences or the traditional Washington game of, well, it's terrible, and let's sweep

it under the rug.

Here's Jonathan Turley writing up your scoop. He says, Schiff has previously been accused of politicization of intelligence, including his claims after the special counsel rejected the Russia collusion claims as unsupported That he had secret evidence in the committee proving such collusion remember This is after the Muller investigation fell apart. He wouldn't let go of it He was like a dog with a bone like no I've got secret evidence

I'm gonna bring forth the double secret probation evidence that shows there really was collusion He never produced that evidence writes Turley And it is widely believed that it did not exist. And he goes on to say the following, this is different. This would be a premeditated criminal act. It is hard to believe that a player like Schiff would be stupid enough to openly discuss such a criminal act in a staff meeting.

However, the fact that the whistleblower made this allegation in a report to the FBI is equally probative. It's a crime to lie to federal investigators too. And so, I mean, what he's saying is either Adam Schiff or the whistleblower has committed a crime from the look of this. One of those two has allegedly committed a crime. And why would this whistleblower time and time again commit this crime over and over and over again just to get Adam Schiff

when repeatedly no prosecutor was doing anything about it? Boy I mean he was like a dog with a bone himself trying to say I'm telling you my fellow party person a Democrat Adam Schiff has committed a crime and someone needs to pay attention to it and he couldn't get any attention under a Republican president or a Democrat president. Because if he came forward in 17 and 18, John,

that was the Trump DOJ. And if he came forward in 22, that was the Biden DOJ.

Yeah, you have it exactly right. Two presidents, same outcome. And I think that that's why so many people talk about a unit party in the deep state, which is they make decisions and they exonerate the elites. And then someone downstream, a National Guard guy

that leaks some documents, he'll get charged under the Espionage Act. But will a lawmaker, will an FBI director, will someone else who there was potentially strong evidence of leaks, will they get prosecuted? And the answer time and again is it doesn't seem to be ever, it never seems to happen. There's a natural dynamic here in Washington that the power brokers and elites, no matter

what they do, get swept under the rug. You're right. Listen, we're going to do something Adam Schiff almost never does for the people he accuses. And that is he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We should get to the bottom of this. That getting to the bottom of it depends on the current Attorney General, Pam Bondi,

breaking the tradition of the last three attorneys generals who didn't bring many consequences and seeing if we can get to the answer. There is a easy way to determine if this happened. First if, we can go back and look at classified leaks in the New York Times.

There are no doubt that classified information that was in the privy of the House Intelligence Committee was leaked to the news media, including in the New York Times. James Comey said so during testimony in May of 2017. The OIG has found evidence of classified leaks

that was in Congress. And I wanna remind people of a story we broke back a couple of years ago that there's a development on today. The Justice Department had no problem looking at the phone records of members of Congress's staff on the Republican side.

Cash Patel was one of them. So was Jason Foster, the former chief investigator for Chuck Grassley. So you've got Cash Patel, his phone records are taken when he's working for Devin Nunes on the House Intelligence Committee side, and you've got Jason Foster.

And now we found out there were dozens of members of Congress whose phone records were taken to see if they were involved in leaks. So we know Congress has been looked at for leaks in the past. The real question is, why wasn't Adam Schiff?

Was Adam Schiff's phone records taken? Was he ever interrogated? Was he ever put before a grand jury the way a National Guardsman or a Pentagon soldier would have been put before a grand jury if they thought they leaked information?

I think that's the double standard that we're gonna be looking at, which is Adam Schiff, perhaps James Comey and others, were given a different standard than other leakers in the traditional history of prosecution on these issues.

John, let me remind me. So what was Cash doing and who was president when Cash's records were subpoenaed?

So Cash was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Intelligence Committee under Devin Nunes. And Devin Nunes, Cash Patel, and a team of other great investigators were the team that was able to help America understand, even though they were ridiculed by the traditional media at the time, that Russia collusion was a giant delusion.

There was no there, there, just like Pete Strzok wrote in Second Institution.

That was under the first Trump administration that he was conducting that investigation.

Trump won. 2018 is when their first report came out. And you mentioned Tulsi Gabbard's declassifications in your opening. One of those declassifications was a 2020 report that went back and said the CIA made up the entire intelligence assessment.

That's the House, that's that House Intel report that got buried in a safe at Langley up until now. That's right. But, but wait, so whose DOJ was investigating Cash's emails? Was it Trump's DOJ or Biden's DOJ?

2017 is when the subpoena comes in. So it is the Trump Justice Department looking at a Republican and then not looking so aggressively at Adam Schiff when they have a whistleblower that come in that fingers them.

But wait, so this is where it gets confusing for me too. I wanna keep it simple for the audience. But because I know what happened under Donald Trump, he won. He was accused of the Russia collusion, Robert Mueller, all that. But Trump, at some point during 1.0

and via his attorney general, Bill Barr, opened up a leak investigation to figure out who did leak that information to the media. That's right. And as far as I can tell, Bill Barr started to investigate it during Trump, like as at least as of 2019, he was doing that.

I'm not sure if it went back further. And then it doesn't seem like he made that much progress, but then it seems he bounced past that to John Durham, a special counsel who Trump appointed to take a deeper, wider look into the whole Russiagate nonsense.

And Durham seemed to be focused primarily on figuring out who came up with the Russiagate nonsense. You know, Trump with the alleged server and Trump Tower linked to Alpha Bank and all the nonsense. Like that was the main, and by the way, it was Hillary and her campaign.

But the secondary thing was who was leaking this nonsense to the media? As far as I can tell, John, neither the Bill Barr initial investigation nor the John Durham bounce pass that he received ever really went anywhere.

I think that's exactly right. As far as we can tell, it didn't go anywhere. And it's possible, based on what I've learned in the last couple of days in reporting on this and looking for these documents and getting them, that career people, the deep staters,

the permanent administrative state, may have made these decisions without alerting their bosses up the chain and then they buried it. So I think that's one of the things that we have to find out. Did the US attorney, appointed by President Trump

in Washington, DC, did Jeff Sessions or Rod Rosenstein, remember Jeff Sessions is conflicted out of the Russiagate question, so this could have gone to Rod Rosenstein. Were they ever aware of the Adam Schiff whistleblower? If not, and was Bill Barr and was John Durham?

I don't see any reference to this in the Durham report. Durham was pretty thorough and methodical in his report, maybe not a great writer, not a great storyteller, but he got a lot of evidence in that report. I don't think, it's very possible that a bureaucratic hand grabbed this at the assistant US attorneys level

or somewhere in the Justice Department bureaucracy and made a decision to say, we're done with this, we're not gonna look at it, and it never rises to the top of the department, which is a dynamic we saw consistently during the Trump first

administration where the deep state didn't do what the president of the United States needed them to do.

Okay, but then, now here's another wrinkle. So then Biden wins and Merrick Garland takes over as attorney general. And they decide that the leak investigations that were started under Trump 1.0 were probably, allegedly, inappropriate. They cast too wide a net in going after too many congressional staffers and, you know, I guess potentially intel heads and so on, and journalists.

And so they come up with like a new protocol on like, we're really going to dial it back and going up to journalists. I mean, I'm sure, right, because the Biden administration knows probably full well what the Obama administration was doing and all their favorites like Adam Schiff. This is my supposition here. And so they pulled the horse back by the bit and said, we're not that interested in leak investigations. And you know what, we actually think we're gonna have an inspector general of the DOJ start investigating the investigators that Trump unleashed.

Who we were looking into who did the leak and the DOJ's inspector general comes back saying they went too far far like it was too aggressive But he seems to say in a report that he finally issued Trump had already won again It was issued on December 10th 2024 and he you know Press print before Trump was actually sworn in but he seems to say that there was some whistleblower He makes a mention of a whistleblower, who they spoke to about the leaks and suggests that they did not deem this guy

to be credible. Do we know whether that's the guy you're looking at and do we have reason to doubt this whistleblower's credibility? Well we don't know much

about him yet right it's hard we don't know the name yet because the name was redacted when it was sent to Congress so we don't know much about him yet, right? It's hard. We don't know the name yet because the name was redacted when it was sent to Congress. So we don't know much more than that. If you interview him four times over four years, you clearly have some belief that he has credibility or you wouldn't keep going to him and asking the question, right? You would say, we don't deem him credible.

They interviewed him again in 2023. I think that that is a very important moment in the investigation. The other important moment of the investigation is the moments when he says leaks occurred are moments where you can see those leaks in the public. There are classified leaks that occurred in the February, March, April 2017 timeframe, right around the time that briefings occurred to the House Intelligence Committee. So when you look at that pattern, there's some prima facie proof that suggests, hey, this guy seems to be talking about something that looks on the face of it to be relevant.

And I think at the end of the day, we're not enough meaningful investigation has been done to really resolve who's telling the truth. Either Adam Schiff is telling the truth, or this whistleblower is. That's the travesty of what happened the last six and seven years. to really resolve who's telling the truth. Either Adam Schiff is telling the truth, or this whistleblower is.

That's the travesty of what happened the last six and seven years. We didn't do thorough investigations to resolve things that are pretty easy to resolve. We had no problem figuring out the National Guardsman leaking documents.

We could easily have figured out who leaked information. In some cases, as you'll see tonight, Megan, in my next story, there are senior government officials who step up to the plate and say, yes, I leaked that information and I did it at the instruction of my boss. You're going to see that tonight in a different case.

And again, there's still no consequence. So the real pattern, the most obvious pattern is, we seem to be outraged by leaks, but we seldom seem to be able to hold elites who are behind the leaks accountable.

And just to amend what I said, the report was that the inspector general revealed that there were two lawmakers targeted by the DOJ when trying to figure out who the leakers were. They say because a Democratic staffer, quote, identified them to investigators as potential leakers but without providing any evidentiary support for the claim.

So it's not necessarily not credible. It's without providing any evidentiary support for the claim. Although that's odd too because verbal testimony is evidentiary support for the claim. Although that's odd too, because verbal testimony is evidentiary support. And it sounds like he gave that three times to the, or at least once in writing to the FBI,

no, three times to the FBI, because we have the 302 reports.

That's right. And he's an eyewitness. He's not a hearsay, right? Isn't like, I heard this when I was in the coffee clatch at the house office building, he attends the meeting where the instructions are given.

He heard the order be given.

That's right. And that is called eyewitness testimony. It's often considered credible testimony if you're an eyewitness. And as I said, one of the things that we do know that the FBI did early on was they went to see did leaks like this occur, right? Was this guy clairvoyant and knew leaks were gonna occur and making it up or did the leaks actually occur and they do see those

leaks occurring and I think that when you yeah, that's that I think that's what's so troubling here, which is yes There's a moment where Adam Schiff you mentioned the famous moment where after Russia the collusion has been completely destroyed. He goes I'm willing to see Russia clues You just got to be willing to see it right? It's there You got to be willing to see it in this case The Justice Department is there's leaks here, but we're not willing to see the leaks

I think that that's the mentality and that's what gives so many people the belief that we have a dual system of justice You can take the same type of evidence and look at it two different ways, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. And that's not blind justice. And I think that's what troubles so many people in our system today.

Your reporting gives a little bit more color, thanks to this whistleblower, on why Adam Schiff was so ticked off and why he was really thrilled, reportedly, or according to the whistleblower, allegedly, to leak this stuff about Trump to the media. And that was, you report, based on the August 2017 whistleblower interview with the FBI, that Schiff believed he was going to be CIA director if Hillary had won, and he really

wanted that job. So he had, he was sour grapes basically. He was ticked off that she didn't win and he didn't get this cush cool job.

Yeah, so what you see in, when you take the four interviews together is that Schiff didn't get the CIA job. By the way, you can go back in history and look at open media, open source media reports in 16 and Schiff was mentioned as being on the shortlist for a senior intelligence post.

So this guy's story has got corroboratability just in the open record source of the time. And then Schiff wants vengeance, right? He wants either a criminal indictment of President Trump or a select committee, something like the Watergate Committee or the 9-11 Committee that he can be a part of. And so the motive is even ascribed to the account based on the conversations he had. Those are troubling things. And I've said often, when I was a young journalist

and I was finishing up my degree at Marquette University, I was lucky enough to study Senator Joe McCarthy. And I've often said what I learned by going through those documents and writing my thesis in my senior year is that the parallels between Joe McCarthy

and his red scare in the 1950s and what Adam Schiff did 40 years later, or 50 years later, very similar. You create the illusion of things without knowing whether they're true or not. You use leaks, you use rhetoric,

and you fool the American people into believing something that may not be there. Now, in the case of Joe McCarthy, there was some actual communist infiltration of government. So he may have had a little bit more in his trickery to corroborate what he was saying.

But when you get to Adam Schiff, he is selling a sizzle of nothing. There is no steak on the grill behind his sizzle We know that now and and yet he has paid no consequence for taking this country through three and four years of torment

He's been elevated to senator. That's what his party does Okay, you fail. I want to correct myself again because the start the report the ID report does question this whistleblowers I don't know if it's your whistleblower But does say something about credit. Oh, no, it sounds like it's a members of Congress the one additional piece of information was that a congressional committee employee later determined by the Department of Justice to have little support for their

contentions and to be of uncertain credibility Had identified them to investigators as potential leakers, but without providing any evidentiary support for the claim now We don't know what that means uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty, ask him who was present when the order was given, and then go to the other members of the committee and ask that.

It doesn't seem like that was done because that would have been in the Inspector General's report. That's a very simple thing. The question is why wouldn't they have done it? And this whistleblower's allegations are so detailed.

He goes on, he's got the thing about how Schiff would have been offered the position of CIA. He talks about a February 13th, 2017 meeting with the House Select Committee on Intelligence where the staff director and general counsel advised the minority staff, which would have been the Dems, that he wanted to drive the Russian involvement issue into a joint inquiry similar to the 9-11 Commission.

This is before we had Mueller, right? This is like, okay, this is Trump's taking office and we gotta drive this into the news. We got to make this such a big deal, that the FBI writes, that they wanted to make the information public

and use the media to compel public opinion to bring about the joint inquiry. And went on to say that, that they were so ticked off, they couldn't believe that Trump won. They viewed it as a constitutional crisis and that by February of 17, quote, all hell broke loose.

So the all of that is from the whistleblower.

Yeah, you go.

Let me tell you what the inspector general could have done rather than put that pithy little thing in there that he was up on certain reliability. He talks about the February 13th meeting, right? On February 15th, Adam Schiff tweets out about Mike Flynn. You can go back and look at this tweet. So exactly what this guy says is happening in the meeting starts to play out in public.

Adam Schiff tweets out about Flynn. On the 16th, the Washington Post writes a story about Mike Flynn off of classified intercepts about saying that Mike Flynn may have lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. By the way, when that was finally investigated, it turns out he didn't lie about it. But those things are being leaked exactly in the public realm right after this whistleblower says what, describes what happens in the meeting.

That looks like pretty credible information. What's really disturbing, now, we don't know. That's one thing I don't know, because we don't know names. We don't know if the IG whistleblower and this whistleblower are the same or different. But when you take a look at what's in the public record, there is the meeting on the 13th.

There's a tweet from Schiff that seems to propel the Flynn thing. There's a leak to The Washington Post the next day, and then it carries on from there.

Fan the flames, fan the flames. Let's get a 9-11 type inquiry into Russia, Russia, Russia. This is all part of the plot to ruin Trump's first term.

And Adam Schiff clearly does a lot of the things that this staffer, this whistleblower was projecting. So we don't know yet, but some basic reporting, just looking at the timetable like I did this morning when I, as I continue working on this, you can see these things happening just as he predicted. So there is some credence to what he has.

And when you say he had no evidence to back it up, if he's in the witness, if he witnesses as an eyewitness what happened, that's often considered prima facie evidence of the Justice Department rules of evidence. Totally. So it's an odd description. It's an odd description for the IG to use if he's referring to the same guy, and we

don't know that.

And what, where does Swalwell come in? Because his name gets mentioned here, but he does. The focus seems to be mostly on Adam Schiff, but we also know that when the Justice Department was looking into who the leakers were, they subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell of California while investigating the classified leaks. So clearly DOJ was looking at those two.

No doubt, probably because of what this gentleman said. So if it is the same whistleblower as the IG is referring to. The information on Eric Swalwell is much more secondhand, which is staffers basically told him that Swalwell was known to be a leaker of classified information.

In fairness to the Congressman, that's not proof, right? That's called hearsay evidence. It wouldn't make it into court, but it's part of the reason. But one of the interesting things when you subpoena Adam Schiff or Suolwa's records is the whistleblower is very clear that Schiff himself doesn't do the leaking.

He instructs the staffers downstream from him to do that. And he says he himself was specifically asked to leak information, which he was uncomfortable about. So it is odd. You look at the lawmaker and say, well, they didn't talk to the reporters. OK.

But that's not what the allegation is. What the allegation is, they had a meeting and they had people downstream for them do the deeds. And I think that that's something again.

I mean, I can speak to that personally as a reporter who receives leaks. It's very rare you get the actual principal calling you to leak something dirty. It's they have their chief of staff do it or they have their comms person do it. All right, last question. President Biden pardoned Adam Schiff at the end of his term,

but unlike the one he gave to Hunter, it was a limited pardon. It was. And it only spoke to J6 and his work on the January 6th select committee. So it would not immunize him

from any of the claims you and I are discussing right now. Right?

That's correct. At least according to the legal experts I've talked to, he's only immunized for what he did related from January 6th, 4 to 2021. So these things occurred in 17 and 18. You've got the mortgage issue,

which is also based on our reporting, a story we broke last October on the accounting two houses as his primary residence to get better mortgage deals. Those would fall outside of the pardon according to the legal experts who've looked at it. And I suspect if those get to the case of criminality at some point that there may be some legal challenges trying to test that pardon's longevity or breadth. And I think that is, you

know, one of the many fights that might be ahead if the Justice Department does something here.

John Solomon, just the news. You're crushing it. We will be refreshing all day to see your next report today. Thank you so much.

Thanks Megan. Appreciate you.

Okay. When we come back, Andrew Klavan is here and I'm going to play you a sound bite of what the vice president is saying now about retribution when it comes to the law fair. It's as explicit as I've heard from him and we'll get Clavin away and he's been listening to this report.

Wow, what a day. Standby, quick break first. Why are elite athletes, business leaders and high performers turning to armora colostrum? Armora colostrum is nature's first whole food packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients

that work at the cellular level to support lean muscle growth, accelerate recovery, and fuel performance, all without artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients. Whether you are training hard, managing a busy schedule, or simply looking for an edge,

Armra says it can help optimize your body for peak output. Armra Cholesterol reports to enhance metabolism, improve nutrient absorption, and to support hormone balance. Wouldn't you like those things? For better energy and fat burning potential.

Additional benefits include support for hair growth, skin radiance, and faster recovery after intense activity, making it a powerful tool for anyone looking to perform at their best. And here's a special offer. Receive 30% off your first subscription order.

Just go to armra.com slash Megan or enter code Megan at checkout. That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Megan to get 30% off your first subscription order. Joining me now, Andrew Klavan. He is the host of the Andrew Klavan Show on The Daily Wire

and author of After That, The Dark. The latest of his Cameron Winter mystery series. Andrew says this is the best one yet and he doesn't say that about every single one. So buy this one for sure. Welcome back to the show, Andrew.

Great to have you. So I know you've been listening to this extraordinary news. The summary of it is that we now have whistleblower interview transcripts from the FBI. They're not exactly transcripts, they're FBI write-ups of the interviews

that they conducted with a whistleblower who's a self-described Democrat, working for the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, who worked for them, by the way, for 10 years, who says that he was there in 17 when he heard Adam Schiff say, we are going to leak classified

documents and intel to the media with the hopes of getting Donald Trump indicted for his alleged collusion with Russia that this man went over and over and as Jonathan Turley put it in his write-up While this is only the unverified allegation of a single former staffer The alleged conduct would involve criminal and unethical conduct of the highest order if proven

Your reaction to this news. Well, it's in keeping with my opinion of Adam Schiff, I've been calling him McCarthyite ever since he started in on Trump. And as John pointed out, McCarthy, at least there had some communists in the government that he was talking about, although he was irresponsible. Adam Schiff repeatedly came out and said, I have seen documents that indict, that link Trump to Russia, but oh, I can't reveal them to you now, but just you wait, I'm going to reveal them. And of course, we know they weren't

there. We know there was nothing there. Now we have this information from the whistleblower, my favorite part of which is when the whistleblower says he objected to the illegality of this, they assured him, well, we're not going to get caught. They didn't assure him, well, we're not going to do it because it's illegal. They assured him they were not going to get caught. So this is, to me, Adam Schiff has been one of the most dishonest actors out there. He was absolutely a spearhead in this hoax that Trump had somehow colluded with Russia, spearhead to legitimize a Steele dossier that was completely ridiculous. And I think, you know, I'm kind of the last person

to feel that we should be looking backward, the last person to feel that we should be throwing people in government and jail for things that they did. But this is a situation where somebody should definitely be held accountable. This really did grind-

Wait, now hold that thought, hold that thought, because that's my next question. I'm gonna tee it up with this soundbite from the vice president, who gave an interview to the Gateway Pundit and said as follows, SOT15.

Well, I think the only thing the far left really responds to is power. The thing that they're actually going to be responsive to is the recognition that there are consequences on the other side. If they get off scot-free, if they're never investigated, if they're never prosecuted when they violated the law, then they're just going to come back and do the exact same thing again. And there are a few different ways, of course. So it's the big tech companies that were censoring conservatives.

They've got to know that's not going to be allowed and there are going to be consequences for it. The banks, the president is really preoccupied with this and rightfully so. And of course, you've got to pay the law fair back in kind. You've got to say to the Comeys and the Brennans of the world, of course, you got to follow the law. You can only prosecute people when they actually broke the law. But we know that a lot of people broke the law in the last administration, and they've got to face real justice, not just words, not just getting hauled before a committee in

Capitol Hill. If people broke the law, they have to actually be prosecuted for because I think that if they do that, if they know that the consequence for breaking the law is go to jail, then the next generation of Democrats, they're not going to be, they're not going to try the same thing.

There it is in that last line, Andrew.

Yeah, yeah. And look, to some degree, this is just simply one of the biggest dirty tricks in American politics. I mean, it always bothers me when people use words like treason or even John Roberts, who's using espionage. I don't think that's what this was, but I do think it was a dirty trickery. People in the Watergate investigation, which was nothing near this, did go to jail, did due time, and there's no reason that can't happen now.

One of the things I find most frustrating is the way that Trump is covered without context again and again. They talk about him looking for retribution, but really it's only justice. You know, it's not retribution if it's justice. The things that were done to Donald Trump, who remember was Joe Biden's chief political opponent, were inexcusable and were reported as if they were legitimate. When he was prosecuted in New York for putting the wrong notation on a check to

his lawyer in order to pay off Stormy Daniels, this was turned into a felony because it was somehow it was somehow election fraud but it was never stated to in the indictment to the jury how this election fraud was different than just simply

running for election. And just if I could just quickly interject, but it's fine for Letitia James to allegedly incorrectly just made a mistake when she applied for her mortgage by saying that her principal residence was down in the south as opposed to in New York where she's attorney general. That was a mistake you see, and we should be forgiving her for that and not prosecuting her. Where was that grace on the Donald Trump documentation of the Stormy Daniels payments?

And we know that with Donald Trump's crowds at his rallies saying, lock her up, lock her up before he was elected the first time, when he was elected, he said, no, we're not going to lock her up because that would be divisive. That was Donald Trump speaking about-

He showed mercy.

He did, he did, he showed mercy. You know, talk about grace. He showed mercy and he showed grace and he showed an understanding that this is not the way we want our politics to run. Even when it's frustrating,

we really do not want former presidents and former senators being thrown in jail on a regular basis. However, at some point, the vice president is right. At some point, these guys respond to nothing but power. They abused the legal system to try and get at Trump. They abused the press to get at Trump. And of course, for me,

the greatest villains of all are media. I mean, this is one of the most, a dirty trick would just be a dirty trick if it weren't for the fact that the media was willing to blow it up and turn it into basically a stated fact.

The New York Times gave itself Pulitzer Prizes for covering a phantom, for covering something that wasn't there. And when they found out it wasn't there, they had to hold a meeting at the New York Times and say to the young staff there,

say, don't worry, we'll get them on racism next time. You know, that is the way the New York Times came to operate by basically telling the story they wanted to tell regardless of the facts and feeling that the facts were secondary to the story that they wanted to tell openly saying that.

So this is dirty trickery, but it's also just a hint of how corrupt our news media has become and what damage it's done to our country. Some of the places, the Washington Post, for instance, are kind of looking at themselves in the mirror and saying, we got to reform a little bit. That would be nice. Some places like the Wall Street Journal, I feel, are going further down the wrong road. But ultimately, ultimately, you know, when Trump won the election the second time,

what you were seeing was the vanquishing of that media. Still, we needed a news media, and we needed a news media that doesn't take sides, that basically reports the news. So I'm in favor of prosecuting, certainly a guy like Adam Schiff,

who really, really stretched, you know, the boundaries of what he was doing. And if he was leaking classified information to get at Trump, I don't see how that's not a crime. I don't see how he doesn't get prosecuted for that. At least dragged through the mud where he belongs.

Yes. And honestly, like Swalwell too. I've read enough in these documents to make me very concerned about him. These things are very detailed. You got to go back and read the just the news reports to the audience members because they're worth your time. Here's here's one example. So the FBI interviewed the guy in December 2017, and he said that during a September 16 staff meeting, other Democratic staffers revealed they had provided

on background information to journalists about their impressions of Russian activity. September 2016. It's already starting. This is right in line with Hillary Clinton's campaign against Trump. They said the mood within the House Select Committee on Intelligence was indescribable after Trump's win.

Schiff was particularly upset, as I mentioned, he thought he was gonna be Hillary's director of the CIA. They said that the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the minority view, this is again the Dems, that the Democrats viewed the 2016 election as a constitutional crisis

and then talked about a particular leak from the summer of 2017, all right? So this is when summer of 2017, Trump is now in, he's been sworn in, that caused this whistleblower to confront the House Committee on Select Intelligence on this issue. He said that a particularly sensitive document was viewed by a small

contingent of staff, as well as Schiff and Swalwell. Within 24 hours, he said, the information appeared in the news almost verbatim. The staffer told the FBI it was suspected that Swalwell played a role in the leak. He noted Swalwell previously had been warned to be careful because he had a reputation for leaking. He said the sensitive document was read by the staffers on that committee and by members of Congress in June or early July. Its contents immediately leaked. The staffer told the Bureau, the general counsel for some spy agency, then read them the riot

act about disclosure. All this behind the scenes with zero consequences. More to come on the opposite side of this break. Andrew Klavan stays with us for the show. Do you have cooking and grilling anxiety? You know that moment of truth when everyone sits down at the table and you brace yourself while they cut

into their meal, will there be raw chicken drama? Did I just ruin $100 worth of steaks? I've been there, these are all so familiar. How bad does salmonella get? Yes, same. Well, that all changes with Chef IQ Sense. This is a wireless cooking thermometer that turns you into a master chef. It works for all types of cooking, grilling, pan searing,

roasting, for everything. You just insert the sensor into your steak, chicken, fish, whatever. You open Chef IQ, the app, and then you choose how you want your steak, chicken, fish, whatever, you open Chef IQ, the app, and then you choose how you want it cooked, rare, medium, well done, whatever your preference. Everyone can get what they want. Then you sit back and relax

and it sends you real time updates. It tells you when to flip, take it off, even how long to let it rest after it comes out of the oven. It's like having a culinary coach in your pocket, like a little mini Gordon Ramsay. No more guessing, no more lid lifting,

no more dinner disasters. Chef IQ Sense is precision cooking for everyone. You're gonna wonder how you cooked without it. And right now you can get 15% off site-wide with code MK at chefiq.com. That's chefiq.com, promo code MK at chefIQ.com. That's chefIQ.com, promo code MK.

Andrew, the federal takeover of the DC law enforcement was met with applause from the DC law enforcement, from the police union, which said, things are out of control and we can't handle it by ourselves any longer. Thank you. They're thrilled. But you would not know that if you listened to the New York Times

The Daily podcast today, which got into the reaction of local officials to Trump's announcement that he was sending in the National Guard and some federal help. And somehow it escaped their notice that the entire police force is saying, we welcome you with open arms. Take a listen here in SOT 6.

The president describes the problem that he says he will fix in pretty apocalyptic terms, which is that supposedly street crime and particularly crimes by juveniles is basically making it unsafe for law-abiding citizens to leave their houses.

Do we have any sense of how local law enforcement in DC has reacted to all of this?

Local officials have reacted very negatively to this decision. The mayor of the city has called it unsettling and unprecedented. You know, there's a real resistance and dislike of this approach. You know, the mayor also said military should not be used against our citizens. That is an argument that has existed in American politics since the founding of this country. But obviously, she can't stop them from doing it.

No mention whatsoever of the police union. Same on NPR, which only cast this in a negative light. Here's a little sampling of how their report sounded this morning, Sot 5.

Let's break down that list of people that Trump mentioned. Tell us more about who he seems to be talking about.

Well, first, Trump is talking about criminals. And in this case, that often means teenagers, many of them black. Washington has struggled at times with violence caused by young men and boys and some girls riding ATVs, motorcycles and four-wheelers. Trump spoke about them at length yesterday. The city's Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith was asked about this issue at a separate press conference yesterday.

We want young people to be safe in our city. We want them to be able to enjoy the activities of our city. But we're not going to tolerate that kind of criminal activity that we've seen in the

past. Now, Michelle Smith says before yesterday's federal takeover of Metropolitan Police by Trump, the city had juvenile curfews and other policies that were working. Again, crime is down here. Experts I've been speaking to says if Trump does as he's threatened here, forcing unhoused people out of Washington, away from families and support networks and their health care,

it really could be devastating. And Michelle, that question, where are these people supposed to go? Trump hasn't answered that. He spoke yesterday not just of purging homeless people from Washington. He also said he plans to clear out what he described as the city's slums.

I don't know where to begin. Okay, so it's just a bunch of young people on ATVs having a good time. Utter bullshit. Juvenile offenders in crimes against persons over the past four years. Fiscal year 2020, this is in DC between 100 and 200,000. Fiscal year 2021, up over 200,000. Fiscal year 2022, now we're getting up to almost 400,000. Fiscal year 2023, now we're up over 400,000. Fiscal year 2024, now we're up at almost 500,000. I could go on, right? The capital homicide rate in DC is 41 per 100,000. That beats Lima, Peru, Havana, Cuba, Nairobi, Brazil, Lagos, Bogota, Mexico City, I could keep going.

And yet these people wanna tell us that there's no problem there. It's just a bunch of juveniles writing their ATVs, so fun. Okay, those were crimes against persons I was reading. And secondly, the lamentations over the homeless people. They're being separated from their healthcare, what?

And their families? Where are their family? Why are they homeless if they have such great families that they cannot be separated from, Andrew?

You know, when you say that you don't know where to begin, that's exactly my feeling too, because whether you take the open borders, whether you take the homeless encampments, or whether you take the crime, nobody ever seems to ask, what good is this for ordinary, hardworking Americans?

People who do the things that are Americans supposed to do, who go to job, who keep homes, who have children and raise their children. How is this helping those Americans? That to me seems the only question. That to me seems government's primary job

is protecting the productive, decent, law-abiding people of their country. So when it comes to crime, most frustrating about this is the reports that crime is dropping. Well, crime is dropping from its pandemic heights,

there's no question about that. But last year, the murder rate in DC, I think was the fourth highest in the nation. And so they're saying, well, this year, it's on pace to be less, but that doesn't mean it will be less.

And it'll still be three times. If it keeps on pace, it'll still be three times higher than New York. I don't understand why, you know, the fact that people do not feel safe in the city and they do not feel safe in Washington, D.C.

Tom Holman, one of the toughest guys on earth, won't go out at night in DC without a gun. So that's not the way a city should behave. I do not see why an effort to clean this place up is somehow a bad thing. And it's like when there was inflation and the press was telling people there was not inflation, inflation is not so bad as if people didn't know whether they could put food on their table or take their kids on vacation as if somehow they were, you know, deluded about what was happening in their own home. You're so right. People are not deluded about being afraid to walk in the streets of Washington, D.C.

You're so right. It's exactly like that. And why should we be deluded? And they were saying the same thing about the crime rate. Remember Rachel Maddow was like, after the crime is down. The FBI is saying it's down at record levels. And meanwhile, people are like, no, we don't feel that. And that turned out to be bullshit anyway. But this is like a Democrat thing now. Like, don't believe your lion eyes.

Believe me, believe what I am telling you is real. And meanwhile, you've got all these DC people coming forward. The police union says they're happy. Even the mayor has, who's getting along with Trump. Those two get along. She said, you know what, we could kind of use the help. She is so far refusing to go along with her party's claims of this is a catastrophe, saying this is actually isn't so bad. She

said, you know, a lot of people don't feel safe. She says it doesn't matter if crime has gone down. If you were a victim, The fact that we have more law enforcement and presence in neighborhoods, that may be positive. That's the DC mayor, so she's not going along with this nonsense. This is one of my favorite soundbites. She's a friend of mine, Kira Phillips.

She works for ABC. And she's married to John Roberts over at Fox. And listen to what she said on the air yesterday, SOT 11.

We've been talking so much about the numbers and yeah, usually that's how you play devil's advocate is you talk about, oh, well, stats say crime is down. However, I can tell you firsthand here in downtown DC where we work right here around our bureau, just in the past six months, you know, there were two people shot. One person died literally two blocks down here from the bureau. It was within the last two years that I actually was jumped walking just two blocks down from

here and then just this morning, one of my coworkers said her car was stolen a block away from the bureau. So we can talk about the numbers going down, but crime is happening every single day because we're all experiencing it firsthand while working and living down here.

Good for her. She's a straight shooter and always has been. Your thoughts on it?

Yeah, well, they're always dismissing things like that as anecdotal evidence, but the choice is between the evidence that is being given to you by ordinary people and the evidence given to you by a corrupt media. That's our choice. And I'm gonna take the people every single time. I mean, I cannot believe, I cannot believe

that nobody ever stops and says, well, how is it good to let a guy out on bail without cash bail if he's a criminal? How is that good for ordinary people? How does that improve the safety of the city? Why are these people, the ordinary people

who do the working and living and paying and dying, as George Bailey once said, how are they not the priority of government?

Well done.

The reason you have a government, the reason you cede power over your life to a government is so they will protect the peace is so they will protect the peace, so they will keep the peace, because otherwise it becomes an endless stream of revenge killings, right?

You kill somebody in my family, my family kills somebody in yours. That's the reason you impose government. You can go back to the ancient Greek literature, it will tell you that is why you have a government. And when the government says,

yeah, we're not gonna do that anymore, we're not gonna protect you anymore, it essentially loses its legitimacy. The stuff that Trump is saying is so basic, it's such common sense, that the fact that they somehow try to make it about Trump, about his personality, about some kind of evil plan he has to dominate the world,

is just absurd, it is absurd.

This is your first priority. Somehow you literally have people like he's managed to get the Democrats to run around saying we like crime.

Crime is good.

Well, they do.

We're against cleaning it up.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, they're doing all of the stuff they do is like this. We're against men being men and women being women. We're against working people. We're against everything.

They have become this little coterie of very elite people. Yeah, we're against the capitalism that has made the world richer and less hungry all over. They're against everything that has shown itself to be decent. And one of the things that they're constantly doing is telling you that these things don't work.

It doesn't work to enforce the law. You know, that doesn't bring down crime. Well, it has. It has ever since Giuliani took over New York in the 90s and brought crime down from a city where I could not walk outside after dark to a city where anybody could stroll around on the streets.

The New York Times specifically has been working to unravel the things that Giuliani did and it has brought crime back. And where does this crime goes first? It goes to our most vulnerable people. It goes to the people who have less money.

It goes to the people who are in less nice neighborhoods, and then it starts spilling out into the wealthier neighborhoods, and that's when people react, and that's what's happening in Washington, D.C. It's spilling out into neighborhoods

where the people, the productive people, and the wealthier people go. And so the Democrats really have gotten themselves into a fascinating situation. The only thing they can do is campaign against Trump. The only thing they can do is say, oh, he's loud, he's big, he's evil.

And here they're saying he's lying. Here it's like, there's no crime problem or the crime's gone down. It's gone down without acknowledging how high it was. It was at record levels. So yeah, maybe it's gone down a little, but there's a real question about whether it actually has gone down a little.

There is a report out now, a former Michigan Congressman made this point on CNN on Monday. We checked it out and it's true. I'll let him tee it up. It's Peter Mehar.

Take a listen to him. My team will find this out.

Soddy. I think Mayor Bowser may also know that there's an ongoing investigation in her police department over the potentially manipulation of those statistics, that there have been a downclassing of some of the crimes. There's been a massaging of the numbers and the reporting in order to fit them more beneficially into the FBI crime stats.

So she may know some things that national Democrats are not paying attention to. Sorry, it's not Mehar, it's Meyer, but it's spelled Meher. In any event, so Peter Meyer says that and he's not wrong. We looked it up. There was a DC police commander who was suspended just in July and accused of changing the crime statistics to make things look safer than they are. They confirmed that Michael Pulliam, commander, was placed on paid administrative

leave in mid-May. They said that, let's see, happened a week, blah, blah, blah. The union claims police supervisors in the department manipulate crime data to make it appear violent crime has fallen considerably compared to last year. Pulliam was placed on leave with pay and told he was under investigation

for questionable changes to crime data, according to five law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation, speaking to news for the NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C. A union official said there is a larger trend of manipulating crime statistics in these ways

and talk about how when our members respond to the scene of a felony offense, they get, there's inevitably a lieutenant or a captain that will show up and direct the lower members to take a report for a lesser offense because they're under pressure to get better crime numbers for the city, which is why Andrew, the people's

experience, it would seem, does not match the stats.

Well, that's, of course that's true, but it's also true. Let's step back for just a minute and add the homelessness into this, because Trump last month, I think it was signed a an executive order trying to make it easier to get the homeless off the streets. Yeah. Why why should there be a single homeless encampment in Washington, D.C. or any other city?

Why should there be one? There's only reason there is. I mean, these are this is not a housing problem, and it's not at all a housing problem. Although there are housing problems in the country, this isn't one of them. This is a problem of mental illness and drug use.

And one of the most heartbreaking things that's happening in this country is if you took these people off the streets and forced them onto medication, you could probably solve a lot of their problems. It's not like the old days where if you have enforced putting people in asylums,

they're going to be living in a snake pit. They could now have a medication that would really help them but you can't take them off the street and so what happens is when you get a mentally ill person who then commits a crime, who then goes off on somebody and attacks somebody, maybe he's on drugs and he's trying to self-medicate and he attacks somebody, he ends up in prison,

which is unbelievable cruelty to put a man in a cage because he's mentally ill, even if he's committed a crime, is just torture, it is torturing people, whereas if you had put that guy in an asylum against his will, you might have medicated him into some semblance of mental health.

Again and again, we have let our cities die because of this fake compassion for the odd men out, the people who commit the crimes, the people who have the mental problems, the people who have the drug problems. We say, oh, those poor people,

but we don't say poor people, but the people who go to work, get up in the morning, who raise their children, who are doing all the things that we need people to do to keep a civil society. So why not have ways of-

Like what about Big Balls?

Why doesn't anybody have any empathy for Big Balls, who got the hell kicked out of him, but he fought to save his girlfriend? Want to correct one thing. When I was giving those stats on juveniles and the increase in the juvenile crime rate, that was USA, not DC. In DC, per the DC Policy Center, the juvenile arrest rate is significantly higher

than the national average, with an average of 52 arrests per 1000 children and youth age 10 to 17. That is nearly double the national rate. They write that while overall juvenile offending has decreased in some areas,

violent crimes, particularly those involving firearms, have seen an increase, specifically among older juveniles, meaning 15 through 17. It's not just good times on the ATVs, okay, which, by the way, are difficult to get around the DC area anyway, given all of the concrete buildings. But here's where the media went. So they went to the stats show that crime has decreased, which they already got burned on.

Like I said, after Trump's first address to the nation as president in February, they tried to say crime is down. They started to cite FBI stats, which turned out to be bullshit, which we all knew. Those of us who've been watching the crime data knew were bullshit. So they got burned. Now here again, they try to say, no, crime's down, way down. Okay, forget that we're the number four in the nation when it comes to homicides.

And then they hedge their bets with, also, you're all racists. Trump is a racist. And anybody who wants crime to decrease in a black-run city like Washington is racist. Here's a couple of examples. The Associated Press, Trump's Washington police takeover echoes history of racist narratives about urban crime.

The New Republic, Trump is taking over DC police because he's a racist thug. We don't have to work hard to understand where they're going with that one. The sub headline is Trump doesn't care about crime, he cares about the fight, sorry, he cares about the right white people being in charge. Goes on to say Trump warned other very bad cities Chicago, LA, New York, Baltimore, Baltimore, Oakland, that after DC that they would be next.

All of these cities have black mayors. We're not going to lose our cities over this said Trump. By the way this is written by Melissa Jira Grant, a white woman who wrote a book in 2014 called Playing the Whore, the work of sex work. So you get her politics. She's very worried about Trump being a racist pig white woman who wrote a book in 2014 called Playing the Whore, the work of sex work. So you get her politics. She's very worried about Trump being a racist pig because he wants to clean up cities that

are run by black mayors. Many of these have predominantly black residents and the nerve of wanting it to be safe for them. You should let the Oakland residents get shot. You should let Baltimoreans suffer. You should let the people of Chicago get shot on the South Side. That's what the non-racist, humane thing

to do is, Andrew. I was listening closely as you were reading that, and I didn't once hear her say that any of this was untrue. I heard her use the word narrative, which is a story, but it doesn't mean it's a lie. All of these things are true. Mostly the phenomenon of white flight is a phenomenon of flight from crime. It's not a phenomenon of flight from black people. I'm a strong believer. Listen, I believe there are racial differences and things and cultural differences, certainly, but I'm a strong believer on in treating everybody the exact same way. And I think if you do that, you basically get a just society.

You get people treated for what they do and reacted to according to how they behave and what they do. And if it turns out that more black people end up in jails, so be it. I mean, you're not putting people in jail

for the color of their skin. You're putting them in jail for their crimes and that's where people who commit crimes belong. I think that the right, the conservatives, have got to make a much, much stronger pitch for this attitude, have got to reject all racial narratives. I think, look, there's no such thing as a noble lie,

but there is such a thing as a workable fiction, and one of the things that we should work with is treating Americans like Americans. That's it, That's it. You're here. You're an American. Great. Now obey the law and try and behave in public and try not to throw litter on the streets. And you'll do fine.

Go to your job, make your money, raise your kids, and you'll be fine. That should be the only way that we can approach these things. And every time I hear the phrase black or white in a pejorative sense that this narrative is not a fair narrative because someone is black or because someone is white. I just reject it out of hand and I think we should do this with crime as well. There is absolutely no reason why people of all colors can't obey the law. And it's infuriating, you know, when you go back for the board for border crossing and people say,

oh, these people are immigrants. They're just looking for a better life. I get it. It's not like I don't feel for people. It is simply that the law is the law. If you want to change the laws, change the laws. As long as they are in place, people should obey them. And it's absolutely infuriating and it's worse for black people than it is for anybody else

to somehow exempt them from the laws that we all have to follow. To somehow say, well, yes, you know, you hit a guy over the head and took his watch, but you're black, therefore you don't have to have bail. And if you never come back to court, there's nothing we can do about it. These are bad things to do to a society, but they're worse for the lowest people, for the people who are most vulnerable.

Whose neighborhood does that crime affect most? It's just amazing how the left's version of compassion is anything but compassionate. I mean, it simply spreads the cruelty, it allows the cruelty to spread. And I just cannot stand, I cannot stand it

when we're talking about criminality, when we're talking about people not obeying the law, when either bigots who don't like black people and say, oh, the black people are inherently criminal, which I think is absurd, or on the left saying, well, they're black,

so you're not allowed to accuse them of committing crimes. To me, racism just makes people stupid. It makes them say stupid things.

Or of being incompetent mayors or governors.

Or incompetent mayors or governors. Judging people by their race just makes people stupid. It's not that there aren't different cultures, it's not that there might not be some racial traits, but judging people by their race makes people stupid, makes them say stupid things, and makes for the worst

possible policy. Well it's like New York. I mean I could speak to this personally as a New Yorker for the past, you know, 14 years, 14 of the past 17. A white man ruined New York. His name was Bill de Blasio, absolutely ruined it. He's the one who made it unsafe. He is the one who drove all the mom-and-pop businesses out. He's the one who turned New York

into a big Starbucks CVS Citibank, instead of a city with all the charm of local businesses that thrive with the you know the freshly made baguettes and pizzas and so on up and down in the small you know stores clothing stores and so he's the one who ruined it and defunded police and wouldn't back the blue so that's why we have a terrible

city and we happen to have a black mayor now who used to be a cop which is one of the reasons he got elected any comments Trump has about New York aren't about Eric Adams, it's just lunatic leftists who happen to be in this case, a white woman who's really worried about the work of sex work, playing the whore. That's who would like to look at his promise to clean up cities like New York next and say it's his racism.

And by the way, where has Trump deployed troops prior to Washington DC? The only other city was Los Angeles, which was launching attacks on ICE agents who were there to arrest people here illegally. And that was a battle not really between Trump and the mayor, but between Trump and the white male governor lady, Ms. Melissa Jira-Grant. So check your weird obsession with race

in writing about your story. San Francisco Chronicle saying, by sending troops to DC and I in Oakland, Trump continues targeting black-led cities. Author is Sarah Libby, a white woman, and on and on it goes.

I'll just give you one other thought on this. Via 7 News DC, they report that someone put a note on their car window asking for their car not to be broken into a fifth time. The person writes, there is nothing of value in this car, only restaurants, supplies and broken dreams.

Please don't break the windows for the fifth time. To me, this gets to something bigger that's happening here, Andrew. I've been thinking about it lately, because you look at unhappiness in different pockets of the country.

And I do think people, I think they're sick of the cities being in the state that they're in. I think Tucker got mocked when he went to Russia and he went through Moscow and he was in the state that they're in. I think Tucker got mocked when he went to Russia and he went through Moscow and he was in the grocery store and he was showing how beautiful everything was.

He was making a different point. He was just making a point that there is a commitment here to cleanliness that we have lost in our major cities across America. And he is not wrong about that. I lived in New York.

The sanitation situation is abhorrent. And it happened under Bill de Blasio, white male Democrat, okay? Not a black man, not a black woman. Chicago, same thing. I lived in Chicago for five years.

You could eat off the sidewalks. It was so clean and well-ordered there when I was there, 95 to 2000, around there. No longer, now it's not even safe, nevermind clean. Baltimore, that's always been a mess. I mean, I lived there too.

I lived there for a year and we called it Baltimore, and more and more people are calling it that. Not because it's not a great city and it's got a lot of lovely people, but because they don't maintain it. It's disgusting. Same thing, problem with the crime and the trash. I mean, I lived in a beautiful area called Fells Point

and I asked a cop when I moved in there, the day I moved in, like, I'm gonna make it through this year without getting like raped or mugged or attacked, right? And he goes, you should. Like, what? What do you mean? Okay, this is just, I'm listing a couple.

But I've always attributed this to Democrat rule. To, you know, the big cities tend to be run by Democrats and have mostly Democrats living in them. And it's just a sad thing that you can't fix from the federal level. It doesn't matter if you get a Trump in there, it doesn't really matter. You have to convince the New Yorkers of the world, the Chicagoans, the San Franciscans, to change leadership.

And Trump, it's like the first president in my lifetime who's like, eh, maybe I'm gonna get involved. I actually, I might get involved. There might be something I can do. That's gonna be harder outside of Washington, which has a specific law that allows the president to do this, and New York and Chicago and Oakland,

they don't have that law. But Trump doesn't seem bothered by that. He was intimating, either you do it or you're gonna hear from me in those cities. And I have to say, what if he did? Imagine if we actually did deploy federal troops, many of whom we apparently are able to spare,

to go in there, start clearing out the homeless. Yes, bring back institutionalization for the ones who are deeply deranged, which Trump says the federal pay for, that they will direct some of our money there. Start doing something potentially about sanitation.

I mean, he's talking about just urban decay. That's part of it. And turned our greatest cities around to something we actually could be proud of again.

And it's totally doable, it's totally doable. Giuliani did it in New York. I lived in New York during the worst, its worst times in the 70s and 80s. Seriously, you had to tell your friends not to come and visit you,

you had to tell them not to go out at night. You know, I saw riots, I saw all kinds of terrible crime just happening right in front of me. And the only person I know who worked the hours that I worked, which was like three in the morning, who didn't get mugged, because I would use all kinds of strategies to keep myself safe. And Giuliani came in and cleaned it up. in office, the New York Times called him a Nazi, called him a fascist, said he was having black people

beaten up by the police. It was all lies, he just actually brought law and order to New York and cleaned it up. The best mayor, seriously the best mayor New York ever had. And it's totally doable, you just have to turn it around and think alternatively of San Francisco,

a city once of heartbreaking beauty that just descended into chaos and filth and people put up with it like the frog being boiled in the pan. They put up with it, it comes on them slowly and they never get the idea that it's all about policy. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, it doesn't matter what your story is, it doesn't matter where you came from, it doesn't matter whether your smile is nice like Zoram Mamdani. If your policies suck, your city will suck.

If your policies suck, your country will suck. And that is exactly what has happened in these cities. It's policy that does this to people. And it's policy that is focused on the criminal and not the victim. It's policy that's focused on the crazy homeless person

instead of the person who has to walk to work on those sidewalks. It is policy that is focused not on the law-abiding citizen, but on all the outsiders. And that's not compassion. That is, you know, that's kindness to the cruel, which is cruelty to the kind. It is not compassion to make sure that every crazy person and every criminal and every person who cannot behave himself in public is treated in the nicest possible way.

It is compassion to make sure you have a city street that is livable for the people who have to live and do the things that make a society work. That's what we're here for. That's what government is here to protect. It has totally lost its way. And I would like to see Trump, I mean, listen, Trump, I think this administration has been absolutely fantastic. I think it is one of maybe the greatest administration of my lifetime. But I do sometimes wish that Trump could be a little bit more clear in defending his policies and saying what it

is his policies are trying to accomplish. That J.D. Vance does a great job of it. But I think it's just about time we just say, like, you know, the majority have rights to, you know, the majority have rights too. You know, the ordinary people have rights too.

Yeah, we don't want to live like this. I like what you said, this kindness to the cruel, which is cruelty to the kind. It reminded me of something I heard once, which is you've heard time heals all wounds, but it also wounds all heals,

which also makes us feel better. All right, stand by. I'm gonna squeeze in a break. We'll come right back with Andrew Klavan. Don't go anywhere. So what do we think the effect of the sparring between President Donald Trump and the Fed is going to be? Can the Fed take the right action at the right time?

Do we trust in that? Or are we going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown as they slow roll any of their moves as they worry about his tariffs. And what exactly does all of this mean for your savings? You might want to consider diversifying right about now with gold through Birch Gold Group. For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, global uncertainty and high inflation.

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

gold.

If you have an IRA or old 401k, you can convert that into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold or just buy some gold to keep it in your safe. First, get educated. Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. Just text MK to the number 989898. Again, text MK to 989898 and you'll start the process of just getting the 411 on what it means to own gold. Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold so if the Fed cannot stay ahead of the curve for the country,

at least you can stay ahead of the curve for yourself. This just hit, Andrew, a very interesting stat here from the latest poll by The Economist YouGov. Just 12% of Americans found the Sidney Sweeney jeans ad offensive. 12. It's the online left that drove the whole thing. They gave themselves an embarrassingly bad black eye by acting like, once again, it was racist and evil and upsetting and about eugenics

as opposed to a hot girl looking great in jeans and embarrass themselves, which is why conservatives had such considerable pullback, because, pushback, because they look like morons. And here is the breakdown. They asked whether they found the advertisement

more offensive or more clever. 39% whether they found the advertisement more offensive or more clever. 39% said they found the ad clever. 12% said it was offensive. 48% or 40% said neither. 8% were unsure. Men were significantly more likely than women

to find the ad clever, 49 to 31. Women were slightly more likely to find it offensive, 17 to seven. The ad performed best among Republicans with 57% finding it clever compared to 7. The ad performed best among Republicans with 57% finding it clever compared to just 22% of Democrats who are just so uptight and such

moral prigs. It's no surprise to anyone. And that brings me, you can comment on the Sydney Sweeney ad too, but I've been meaning to get to this soundbite for two days now and I'm by God I'm going to do it here. Jennifer Welsh is a progressive and she has a podcast called I've Had It and it means with Trump. She weighed in on her feelings

about Trump and those who voted for him recently and here's what she said. I've had it with white people that triple trumped, that have the nerve and the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Indian restaurant, go to perhaps their gay hairdresser. I don't think you should be able to enjoy anything but Cracker Barrel. And if you want to triple trump, and you want to browbeat DEI, and you want to browbeat gay people, and you want to browbeat black people as you've been doing for 400 years, and you want to browbeat this generation of immigrants that come over here and open up

businesses earnestly, pay their taxes, you want to demonize them and call them rapists and felons and all this shit when the felon is the teeny weeny mushroom cock piece of shit, Kangol's McTaco tits at the top of the ticket. I have fucking had it from top to bottom. White people that triple Trump should be banned, boycotted from enjoying the best thing that America has to offer, which is multiculturalism. Get your fat asses out of the Mexican restaurant, get your fat asses

over to Cracker Barrel, because nobody wants to see your fucking smug ass, teeny weeny pink arm, big gut around. Nobody wants to see that shit. No one.

She seems happy. I mean, I think I can speak on behalf of all Trumpers when I say we're going to all those restaurants and we're fully enjoying them and you're just gonna have to put up with it. Ha ha. Too bad. Suck it, Jennifer. Now see, I was gonna say if that lady

says I can't go to a Chinese restaurant then by God, you know, I'm not going to a Chinese restaurant. You know, the statistic, but this is this is the distortion field of social media, because so few people are actually on social media. And so few of the people who are on social media actually speak about things like this. And people share their family photos and they're talking to their friends and all that.

But as when you're talking about political social media, you are talking about the smallest slice of the smallest slice of the population. And because of that, the hateful, the angry, the enraged, the people with the stupidest opinions have learned to make themselves a massive presence. So I'm constantly railing against the anti-Semitism that has risen up mostly on the left, but

now also on the right. And what they do is the minute you say it, they swarm your feed so that it becomes unpleasant to be there. Now, it's probably about 10 people, each one of them with about 100 different bot names

that they do, you know, that they put on so they can make it look like they're a massive force. And then the press starts reporting on it or the podcasters start talking about it and begins to seem like it's an actual thing. It's kind of like the Bolsheviks called themselves the Bolsheviks because it meant the majority. They called themselves that because they were in the minority and it's not that it's not dangerous because a small minority of

loudmouths can take over a country. They can actually force the country by making people think that they are the majority. And that's essentially what's been happening for the last 50 years through the press. But we really do have to remember that when somebody sees a pretty girl selling jeans, which by the way, it's never happened before that anybody has used a lovely woman to sell their product. That's an absolutely original thing.

Didn't happen with Brooke Shields.

Yeah, never, never happened before.

Didn't happen with Cydney Crawford. the absolutely original thing that has never happened. Yeah, never ever happened before.

But when somebody starts talking about that, you have to remember, it's not just 12%, it's 12 people. It's like 12 people with a lot of bots making a lot of noise. And then, you know, it's a good story. So we all jump on the, you know,

I'm just as guilty of this as anybody else. We all jump on the bandwagon and say, what a bunch of idiots. But even that gives them more credibility than they deserve. And all of it has become necessary. And Megan, I know I hammer at this. I know it's a hobby, where's the mind?

All of it's become necessary because the press represents those 12 people. The media represents that small sliver of a small sliver of a percent that actually magnifies the voices of these people and makes you feel like it's a movement.

And that's been their purpose. Their purpose has been to convince 90% of the people that 10% of the people are the majority, that their opinions are the majority. And the interesting thing is, it is actually worked on the left

so that they feel like it's a crime when a comedian like Stephen Colbert is fired because his ratings are bad. They feel like, no, no, no, we have a right to dominate every single corporate comedy workplace in the country. There shouldn't be anybody, if Sidney Sweeney,

if her relatives wear a MAGA hat, that is somehow shows you that she should not be allowed to be an actress. And by the way, she's not only very lovely, she's also actually a very good actress as well. You know, and so this kind of entitlement that you have, if you listen to their podcasts, it's just amazing.

Because I cover the culture, I like to listen to what the left is saying about culture, there are people on the left who know a lot about culture, but the one thing they don't know about the culture is that they're no longer it. They have lost their high ground on the culture and now there are new voices coming up and with the internet and with the new AI ways

of making movies and making videos, they're going to dominate very quickly the people who basically have ignored them all these years in Hollywood and in the publishing industry. In the publishing industry now, white men have a hard time publishing novels.

It's not going to matter because they'll publish them themselves. In the movie industry, the unions have demanded that you-

That's what's happening with Joseph Massey, who we love. He's our favorite poet who got canceled over a bullshit Me Too whole thing. And now he's self-publishing and he's more successful than 99% of the poets out there. Yep, they are way behind the times.

It's like people can just do this stuff without the gatekeepers and without even the publishing entities. And so these people need to reform or die, you know? And I don't care which they do really. I mean, I actually, look,

I know a lot of people in publishing and movies. I hope they reform. I hope they live. I hope their movies come back. But right this minute, right this minute, you have seen the absolute destruction of a monoculture.

And we're waiting to find out.

Wait, I wanna ask you about that.

I wanna ask you about that because this is good for you. Before I do that, I just wanna say, to me, this is so interesting because that 12% shows the left has lost all its power, as did Trump's re-election in November. more and more signs of it. But I'm just gonna give you a couple of, let me list the entities that wrote very disapproving articles and headlines about the Sidney Sweeney ad.

MSNBC, unbridled cultural shift towards whiteness. Vox, unsettling legacy of the blonde bombshell. Yahoo, her ad's been slammed as Nazi propaganda. Goes on for her tone deaf messaging are there and American Eagles BuzzFeed same Boston Globe the ad went all wrong slate of course I was always gonna come to this salon new campaign draws fire for racial undertones and eugenics USA Today this talk about being blonde and blue-eyed

feels like a reference to eugenics Vanity fair, a sinister message lurking beneath the pun, entertainment weekly fretted that the commercial promoted an ideology supporting forced sterilization of marginalized groups. We had experts all over the media talking about it. The Washington Post style section writer went,

I mean, I could keep going. That's how the Sidney Sweeney ad became controversial. All of these left-wing loons wrote articles about it, trying to turn the public on it, and they failed. And so this is why I defend the right wing mocking them, because otherwise, as it used to be,

they would be the only voices out there, and they can. They used to be able to shape public opinion, but you had people like you, people like me out there saying this is utter nonsense Stop it sit down. It's fine to enjoy this ad and People do they went with their natural instincts which were obviously to enjoy it at least if you're a Republican or an independent Okay, but I want to ask you about woke Hollywood. I saved this for you from yesterday

woke Hollywood may be over. New York Times on Saturday, Hollywood is now hot, horny, and white. It's a guest essay by Sharon Waxman, founder and editor in chief and CEO of The Wrap. But this is good news.

She writes, the progressive snowflake era of Hollywood has officially melted. She points to a recent deal for a new version of Basic Instinct, where the writer, Joe Esterhaus, received two million bucks for what he calls

an anti-woke reboot. This is the guy who did Sliver and Showgirls, Basic Instinct, as I mentioned. And she writes about how, let's see, that Sidney Sweeney controversy has not provoked a backlash among the Hollywood elite,

and that queer writers of color are no longer in so much demand, and that no longer are preferred pronouns expected on your email signature. She also points to a new series on Netflix called The Hunting Wives, which has Malin Ackerman dressing up as the saucy Texas wife of a rich businessman,

complete with big hair and a big rifle, not to mention a southern twang, and an affair with the teenage son of a pastor. Nearly everyone in the show is hot, horny, and white. I mean, the point is well taken. She's trying to make the point that that couldn't have gotten made five years ago. And I totally agree with that. And is this potentially a harbinger of things to come? And the fact that Sidney Sweeney is not canceled, nor is American Eagle,

nor did they offer an apology? Oh, yeah, no, it's definitely a change. I mean, everybody's calling it a vibe shift and I think that that's a fair way to describe it. I mean, things have definitely changed, but they're not going to continue to change unless the right also acts.

I mean, the right also learns to create and make art and not just complain about art and not just complain about the culture. And part of that, you know, Hollywood is not going to reform itself in any real way unless it has competition, unless there are new studios built, unless there are new methods of distributing arts, and unless new publishing companies come into being, they're not going to reform

themselves because they're the same people who were there before. They were cowed before, but they were always in sympathy with being cowed. And these are the people who have created the mess in the first place. And all I would like to see is I would like to see more people on the right fulfill Andrew Breitbart's vision of cultural awareness, you know. We have no one who gives awards to artists.

We have no one who writes really knowledgeable reviews about the arts. When you listen, I mean, one of the things that's very frustrating to me is when I listen to Slate, I mean, there's a good example. They are the most culturally sequestered group of people I've ever heard. They have no idea that anybody but themselves exists. And yet, they do know a lot about the movies. You know, I listen to them and say, yes, this is a knowledgeable person talking about the movies. Whereas when I listen to people, conservatives, they know what makes them angry. They know what makes them happy, but they don't really know anything about

what they're talking about. And so we need an infrastructure for the arts. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's really, it really is a tough world. Having seen it from the inside, having been an artist all my life and worked in Hollywood and worked in publishing. I know that you need people to actually step up and not just support you, but to love you. Artists work for love, they want you to work for love.

I'm sure, I think conservatives, I mean, maybe many feel as I do, which is like, that whole industry hates me and my belief system, so I'm really not, I don't wanna get neck deep in their world. not so much as the past few years, but yeah, like growing up, I consider myself an amateur movie aficionado, given all the screens

that I was in front of growing up, small and large, different kind than we have today. But I agree with you, because I think most conservatives have turned on Hollywood and their product.

Yeah, and you know, I was recently at a Broadway play and the house was packed, and there was a line in the play about standing up to fascism. And it was just kind of a throwaway line, and the audience erupted with applause. I turned to my wife and I said, the reason they're applauding

is they think they're living under fascism. They think Trump is a fascist. Every single person, except I saw Jesse Waters was in the audience too, so I'm gonna accept him and me. Every single person in that theater thought that they were living under fascism. And until the right shows up for the arts, until they make themselves not just artists,

but also an audience for the arts, you know, it's going to go back to being woke. It's gonna go back into the hands, into the monopoly of the left. And it shouldn't. There's nothing inherently leftist about the arts.

There's something inherently liberal in the greatest sense of that word in that the arts are sympathetic to all mankind. They accept the other as part of the world. They accept differences and all that stuff. But the art is not, arts are not leftist and they have been dominated by the left and they've been killed by the left. I mean, think about the last five years. Think about how few good movies there have been. Think about how few

good television shows. There have been almost no good novels at all if Fierce truly wasn't writing them. But I think that this is something that killed the arts, that kind of ideological lockstep that you had to say certain things, that you couldn't believe other things,

that you couldn't have a hero who basically stood up against the monoculture. That is broken. We've shattered it. There's no question about it. It is lying in dust and rubble on the battlefield.

The question now is will we move in to start to create things? And this is going to take money, it's going to take people who are aware, it's going to take people who are alert, and it's going to take creative people who have been blacklisted from these businesses. You know, when you close the door, when you slam the door on people for 50 years, which is essentially what's happened, and then you open it, it's not like people are going to be waiting outside online,

waiting to get in. You've got to nurture them. You've got to bring them back. You know, artists are hard to make, and they're hard to keep, and they're hard to nurture into success and we've got to start doing that. We've got to start caring about it. I've been making this speech for 20 years. Things have gotten better over that time, but not quite good enough because this is the moment. This is the moment and the field is open because we've got all these new things, all these new ways of making art in our houses without going to the gatekeepers and without going

to the studios and the big manufacturers of art. It's a beautiful moment. I'm really excited about it. I think it's gonna go great, but I think we have to be alert to it.

We need less Emilia Perez and more Porky's. We need a little lowbrow, like red blooded American male humor. And we need to bring back like the John Hughes type films. That's my pitch for the next gen. What a pleasure.

And everybody needs, speaking of improving our culture on the right, need to read Andrew's new book. It's called After That, The Dark. There is a reason why he is an award-winning writer, both for the screen and the written page. And he's our friend, so we want to support him

because he will not be getting booked on Good Morning America because his views are just too offensive, or they're still pretending that over there. So buy the book, both to support Andrew and because it's great. After that, The Dark. Thank you so much for being here, my friend.

Thanks a lot, Megan.

It's great to see you.

All right, we're back tomorrow with NR Day, and Steve Hilton will also be here. All right, we're back tomorrow with NR Day, and Steve Hilton will also be here. We'll see you then.