The Megyn Kelly Show - Best of the Week: Megyn Breaks Down Kamala's Terrible Interview, Nicole Shanahan, Vivek Ramaswamy, and More

Episode Date: September 29, 2024

Megyn Kelly highlights some segments from The Megyn Kelly Show this week, including her detailed breakdown of Kamala Harris' terrible MSNBC interview, Nicole Shanahan on her political evolution away from the Democratic party, Batya Ungar-Sargon on the political realignment in America favoring Trump, and Vivek Ramaswamy on how the corporate media has been exposed this election cycle.

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and our weekend best of special. We had a busy week with some of our favorite regulars and some first timers. One who joined me for the very first time was Nicole Shanahan. I loved her. She's RFKJ's running mate was, I guess I should say. We got into her Make America Healthy Again movement and her incredible ads around MAGA. She did that, the MAGA people ad that you may have seen everywhere, humanizing Trump supporters. And we got into Nicole's political evolution away from the Democratic Party. Also her marriage

to Sergey Brin, the guy who, uh, started Google, uh, speaking of political evolution, Batya Angar Sargan was also with me this week to talk about the political realignment happening throughout this country as the working class is turning in record numbers toward Trump and the GOP. Oh, and vice president Kamala Harris did an interview this week with MSNBC and she was terrible. I broke it down point by point. Vivek Ramaswamy was also here to talk about NBC's completely absurd interview with First Lady Jill Biden and the state of the media overall. Enjoy, and I'll see you Monday. I can't get over what an interesting background you have

and your political evolution in particular is fascinating. Like a lot of people who are going to pull the lever for Donald Trump in November, you've spent most all of your life as a Democrat, supporting Democrats, even with donations and fundraisers. So tell us a little bit about your migration over to Team Red. Yeah. And I just want to clarify, I consider myself an independent, like 51% of Americans today. And that number is growing. People are re-registering, they're giving up their party affiliation, they're leaving the duopoly.

And I very much consider myself part of that trend. And the power within that trend is to be able to pick a candidate based on the issues they represent, as well as where we'd like to see the direction of the country going. So it's not a your team versus my team. It's who's really thinking about Americans, putting a real understanding of the American family at the forefront, individual liberty at the forefront, and preserving what makes this country so great. And so my political evolution, really, from Democrat to independent, it's come from many directions. But I will say the overarching summary is that something is very, very wrong right now in this country. And there is a group of people, corporatists, cronyists, you can call them what you want to call them, transhumanists, anti-women.

They seem to be collecting around the Democratic Party. And it's something I started noticing as early as eight years ago. And so many inconsistencies that I was seeing, even from areas of climate change, which they hold themselves up as caring so much about. The inconsistencies in how they handle social justice work. They seem to focus on these pro-crime initiatives without really fixing the economy and lifting communities up. So these are areas that I care so deeply about and very invested in. Still am. I still believe that we have to take care of our environment, care about carbon and the climate situation. And there's ways to

do it without adding toxins to our environment. So there's all these common sense ways to address these issues that the Democrats have completely abandoned for something else. And that something else is deeply ideological. It is anti-human in many ways. It's anti-nature. And it's something I can no longer support in good faith. This reminds me so much of when I met Michael Schellenberger on this show four years ago, when we were just getting started, we didn't even have video at that time. And he, like you, was on the left. He was a Democrat. He worked for Greenpeace. He was part of the whole Solyndra initiative at the Obama White House, trying to get all this green energy out there. And as someone who's

who was drawn to that work out of his love for Mother Earth, he slowly but surely had the veil brought down on how these efforts that were being pushed through by the government were doing more harm than good. You know, the the windmills and the solar panels and the toxins and the amount of land that they have to claim and vegetation and bird life and other animal life that has to be wiped out and really just came to a very naturally and organically. And that is what makes somebody a true proselytizer on certain issues, right? Because you tried it the other way. You kind of believed you were a believer only to realize you were wrong. Well, I actually have been working in climate change and evaded a lot of the energy projects because I have a background in economics and the private market will solve for energy issues

through innovation. That's my background. I'm an intellectual property attorney. I've studied the evolution of human innovation. I created an AI to study every patent humans have ever created. And I understand the cost basis economics of certain innovational projects. So energy is something that the government doesn't actually have to be involved in because the private market will oftentimes innovate to solve these issues. Obviously, there's coordination and the grid and regulatory issues. But in a perfect private market environment, you don't need the kind of government spend that the Democrats have been throwing so much money at. And so where I spent my time in climate work is looking at farming and soil, because it's the only category in climate change mitigation that is a true win-win.

If you do it right, you eliminate toxins from the environment, you create food security, you create small businesses. And it is an area, however, that is going to require some government assistance to get away from large corporate farming and large corporate centralization. We have to rewrite how we think about the farm bill. We can't keep supporting big ag and agrochemical companies. And a small injection. I mean, look, our current farm bill is going to be over a trillion dollars at this point. It's going to be the largest farm bill in history. And if they just spent one percent of that on regenerative agriculture, it would do more for climate issues than any of the Inflation Reduction Act or the Green New Deal would do. So why don't they?

Why don't they? Because what we had, I watched the whole hearing, just so the audience knows, there was a great hearing on Monday. Casey Means was there. RFKJ was there. Callie Means, Casey's brother, was there. He's been amazing on this issue. Jillian Anderson, a bunch of people who our audience, sorry, Jillian Michaels, a bunch of people who our audience would know and have been on the show, talking about some of these issues. Casey gets into regenerative agriculture and farming in her book, Good Energy, which everyone should buy and read. But you saw what the media did afterward. I mean, they couldn't have cared less. And the one publication that really wrote it up,

The Atlantic, which bothered to send somebody to it, was absolutely sneering and disgusting in its coverage of it, calling it the woo-woo caucus. Screw you, Elaine Godfrey, because some of us have kids whose very lives are going to depend on these reforms that they were discussing at this hearing. But the reason the Atlantic has to crap on this messaging, Nicole, is they're owned by Steve Jobs's widow, and she's very close with Kamala Harris. And they decided to take a nonpartisan event that spoke about things like the soil and the problems and turn it into some sort of ad for Trump, which it wasn't. And then without considering any of the ideas dumped all over it. Yeah. Lorene Powell jobs. I've, I've met her a few times. I know Emerson collective a bit. I've, I've crossed paths with them. They're here in Silicon Valley. My office used to be around

the corner from their office in Palo Alto. And I think that she is stuck in something. She's created something that she didn't intend to create. You have to recognize all the stuff we're seeing with immigration that came through her foundation, Emerson Collective. Um, she's, she, I think at her root wants to do the right thing, but she's working with bad actors. And I don't think, I think she's aware of some of it, but I don't think she understands the full scope of it. And I say that because it, I ran into similar issues as well. When I started working in the criminal justice reform space. I came in as a good actor. I wanted to reform the infrastructure of the justice system. I wanted to make sure there was balance in it. I will say we do have foreign influences that are directing some of these funds in very bad ways. And, you know, next thing I know, we have all these anarchists claiming to be criminal justice reformers. And they've somehow taken over our politicians who are supposed to

be overseeing these funds and efforts. What do you mean? Because the biggest funder is George Soros, who's not an anarchist, but he's a deeply problematic man who's determined to fundamentally change this country for the worse. I would say that some of the stuff he's done is, is very much in the mindset of anarchy, anti-government, um, or, or sorry. You were saying foreign actors, foreign actors. Yes. So if you look at some of the things that are coming in through Tik TOK, Tik TOK, so a really great example of how young people are being influenced today. Um, a really great example of how young people are being influenced today.

Some of the content creators are being paid by Chinese companies. And you're like, why are some of these influencers getting $200,000 a year to talk about American social issues? And and you look, I think that we need to do a deep, deep dive into exactly how these funds work, what what they're doing to our country. But in the area of criminal justice reform, you know, there's evidence that BLM, for instance, received money from groups affiliated with Chinese entities. And if you look at what BLM did to the criminal justice reform effort, which was going very well, we got the crime rate down, we got incarceration rates down, communities were doing better. This was around 2016. And then by 2020, it turned into just this hellscape. And the good faith actors who are trying to fix the criminal justice system, who are making progress, no longer could make progress anymore. The DAs that were supposed to be doing this great reform work became unreachable.

And I will say, having been on the front lines of that and seeing it and the dynamics and the grassroots groups and and the messaging changing and becoming radicalized, it's it sounds more anarchist than it does a good faith approach to making a fair justice system. Yeah. Well, listen, I take back that George Soros is not an anarchist because he's funded enough upset and rioting across the shores of America that you could make the case, just the foreign actor thing through me. But I mean, right now he's obviously behind all these soft on crime prosecutors. He doesn't want them to prosecute any crime. He's behind a lot of this, the pro-Palestinian protesting that we're seeing on college campuses. He hasn't seen

writing or protesting in America. That's on a left-wing cause that he doesn't want to get behind. And his son just had a meeting with Tim Walls. His son is just like him and is now very close to the Harris-Walz campaign. So I hope you like George Soros if you're voting for Kamala Harris, because you're going to get a whole lot more just like it. But you, I too am an independent, but I've told my audience I'm voting for Trump. You're able, notwithstanding coming from the left to see the truth about the MAGA movement. And you put out, I think the best ad I've seen about MAGA since it was born. I've had many of my friends who consider themselves MAGA forwarded to me so that we would talk about it. And it's absolutely beautiful. Here is part of it, the MAGA people.

Stop 33. Across the Atlantic in the North American country of the United States lies a fascinating and often misunderstood collective. From its northeastern cities to its midwestern towns to its expansive west, this courageous group of individuals are most notably known for their unwavering patriotism. Join us as we explore the fascinating world of the Maga people. Contrary to what we had been told, we found the Maga people to be warm, loving, and even

rather cheeky at times. As we spent time with the Maga people, we learned that their mantra, Make America Great Again, is an optimistic belief that the United States will once again prosper by returning It's quite brilliant, Nicole. Like the sort of the, you know, the 1950s feel of like foreign space alien has come down to America and investigated this odd group. And so absolutely lovely. So why, and there's, you're doing a series of these ads and they're all this quality and this effective. So why did you get behind that? Like, how did that come to you? Yeah, it was very organic. We didn't hire a sophisticated team at all. We have

one editor that we work with. Each of those films cost about $7,000 to produce. That one and TDS were my original idea. And it's in part just comes from a place within my own being of trying to figure it out and explain my own bias. You have to understand, I was fully deep in the Kool-Aid of the left-wing media and believed everything they were telling me about MAGA being a domestic terrorist organization. And the programming was so deep, Megan, that I would see someone with that MAGA cap on and I would feel tension and fear inside. And this is very true for many of those who are still stuck in that mindset and stuck in that programming. And we attempted a few approaches to the who are the MAGA people or what is MAGA. And none of them, a lot of them were like very serious. Some of them were,

they didn't sway me. So I needed something that was going to engage someone from my background and was going to deliver a gentle message and was going to deliver it in a way that felt truthful. And so when we made this one, it was very much about these BBC and investigative anthropological studies of these other people, because that's what's happened in America is that we've been so divided that we're almost different clans. We have to try to figure out how to understand each other in narratives that our consciousness has seen before. And so these BBC anthropology trips seemed like a really great way of helping us rediscover one another here in America. So good.

It's so well done. You referenced TDS. I think our audience knows that stands for Trump derangement syndrome, which is a real thing. And that one's excellent too. Here's a bit of that in SOT 31. Are you or your loved ones suffering from illnesses such as TDS, also known as Trump derangement syndrome? Do you dismiss or deny the current issues facing our country such as historic inflation, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, World War III escalations, and the chronic disease epidemic?

Are you willing to elect someone who was the least popular vice president in modern history and who offers no policy or vision for America simply because your brain keeps telling you anyone but Trump? If so, you might be struggling from TDS. Introducing Independence. Independence allows you the freedom to finally think independently once again. So good.

So do these drop only on YouTube? And how can we get these in front of all of your California neighbors? So interestingly, TDS went super viral in the first 48 hours and has now been viewed close to 90 million times. And then the Who is the MAGA peoples didn't go quite as viral, but people used it to send to their family members or friends or colleagues. And they said, look, I know you think MAGA is a domestic terrorist organization, but just take two minutes of your day and watch this video because this is my understanding of who MAGA is. And that's been really heartening for me to hear the feedback on because that really was the intention of these short videos, just something that, you know, would really tickle people's humor and curiosity and create a forum for having open conversation with one another again, because it is so divided.

We're working on one right now, which is really a love letter from my heart to moms and families out there and to grandparents, because boomers are really hard to reach in this country. Liberal boomers are some of the most stubborn when it comes to changing their opinion on Donald Trump. They're hooked to legacy media. I call it boomer news. Right. That's good. And, you know, this one, it's called the Dear Dad ad. And it's a family story. It's my family story of my sister-in-law trying to communicate with her dad, who's a never Trumper. They're in Arizona. And her son, little boy, Jack, was severely vaccine injured and almost passed away. And this was a clear case of vaccine injury.

And, you know, so dear dad is, is just this gut wrenching letter she wrote that we're going to try to get out there and help people understand that, you know, this is one election cycle, but we've got bigger battles to fight right now. We've got to uncover the depths of the corruption. And this is not vindictive. This is not a vindictive journey. We're not trying to, you know, throw anyone in prison for the rest of their life. But we want freedom. We want our liberty back. We want honest health care. We want our children protected. We don't want to see any more of these one and a half year old, two and a half year old babies struggling to breathe on

ventilators. What's your thought on the latest round of polling in these three critical battlegrounds? It does seem like he's regaining some of the ground that he had before the coup that it's stantiated Harris instead of Biden. In general, it's a very tight race, but it does seem like Trump is polling more the way he did in 2016 than the way that he did in 2020. And Harris is behind Biden and behind Clinton in key demographics that she needs to win, including young voters, voters of color, especially men. You know, we know that polling is not always accurate. We know that there are people who still will not admit to pollsters that they're going to pull the lever for Trump. But I'll tell you what I'm looking at, Megan.

So in 2020, Donald Trump was polling at 8% of Black men, and he ended up winning 18% of Black men. So almost double the people who are willing to admit to pollsters they were going to vote for him, he is now polling at 25% of Black men under the age of 50. And if history, recent history, is any indication, that's really what I am sort of focused on, that so many Black men are willing to admit to pollsters. Actually, I see a home for myself in the MAGA movement. Actually, I think Donald Trump is the unifying candidate. Actually, I see a home for myself in the MAGA movement. Actually, I think Donald Trump is the unifying candidate. Actually, I think my children have a better future under Trump than under Harris. To me, that is extremely significant about the shifting tides in this country. You know, Bajie, you wrote this book, Second Class, and it takes a hard look at the working

class of America and how they've been forgotten by the Democrat Party. And they've migrated much more to the Republicans. And I think you're the perfect person to ask about what happened with the Teamsters last week for that reason. We didn't spend a lot of time on it last week. There was a lot going on. The president was almost assassinated again, President Trump. And so but this was a pretty extraordinary moment in Teamster history. And I realize they didn't wind up actually endorsing Trump. But the mere fact that they couldn't the leadership couldn't endorse Harris, given that some 60 percent of their members wanted Trump really does signal some sort of a sea change here on working class Americans. Absolutely. Let's start with Sean O'Brien, the head of the Teamsters. This man is a national

treasure. He is the first leader in modern history in our era, the first union leader to say, you know what? I'm not just going to do what the elites in the Democratic Party expect me to do. I'm going to represent my rank and file where they're at. What a concept. What a concept that a leader's job is actually to reflect the people who he was elected to give voice to. And what he did with that power and that leadership was he asked both campaigns, can I come to your national convention? Donald Trump said yes with open arms. He gave him a prime time slot, 10 p.m. the first night, which was the first time the nation had seen Donald Trump since the shooting, right? He didn't tell him how long he could speak for. He spoke for about 30 minutes. It was a raucous speech, wildly pro-worker,

challenging in many ways to the Republican establishment. These were unvetted remarks because Donald Trump wanted the representative of the Teamsters to feel at home in his party, true leadership by both men. And what did the Democrats do? They banned the head of the Teamsters union, which represents 1.3 million hardworking Americans from the DNC to punish him for going out there and going to the RNC. And I just think that is so telling, Megan. You have Donald Trump out here with 60 percent of the Teamsters. You know, they didn't endorse him, but that is an endorsement.

Right. And meanwhile, who does Kamala Harris have? Who's she bragging about having in her corner? Goldman Sachs, Oprah, Meryl Streep, Dick Cheney, the tax, the tax union, the tax investigators union. Oh, my God. Who wants to vote for the candidate who the people who work for the IRS are voting for? That's exactly right. This is the political realignment around class lines. Donald Trump has cobbled together a mass populist movement of working class Americans of all races because more unifies us as Americans than divides us. That is the MAGA movement right

now. And meanwhile, Kamala Harris is leaning into the elites who have become the Democrats base. That's what we're seeing. And by the way, just one more quick point, the UAW, the United Auto Workers, right? They're very, very much still in the Democrats camp. The thing you have to understand, Megan, is that over a quarter of UAW members are not auto workers. They work at universities. They are grad students. They are adjunct professors. Yes, because what happened was the UAW realized that autoworkers are Trump voters.

And so they started to basically swell their ranks with college educated elites, effectively trying to become like one of these white collar unions. When I worked at my last job and they tried to get me to join the union, my last job as a journalist, the union that represented them was the UAW. OK, so, you know, there really is. Yes, there is a class divide even within the unions. But the union leadership in America often really does go. They play the political game and they're in the pocket of the Democrats and they ignore their rank and file, unlike Sean O'Brien. And honestly, Megan, this is a watershed moment. You think the electricians unions,

those electricians who are all Trump voters, they're going to let their leaders next time round endorse a Democrat. They won't because they look at what Sean O'Brien did and they say, we want a leader like that. Oh my gosh. That reminds me of my mom who is constantly talking to her electrician, who is definitely a Trump voter. And she gets all sorts of information from him. And I'm like, mom, have you been on the internet again? What are you, what's happening? She's like, no, I talked to the electrician. He's definitely pro-Trump. You mentioned Sean O'Brien at the RNC. Here's a little bit of that for folks who missed it. No other nominee in the race would have invited

the teams into this arena. Now, you can have whatever opinion you want, but one thing is clear. President Trump is a candidate who is not afraid of hearing from new, loud and often critical voices. And I think we all can agree whether people like him or they don't like him. In light of what happened to him on Saturday, he has proven to be one tough S.O.B. Right. So he that is somebody who understands working class guys concern concerns. And he's not the only one, Batya. John Fetterman. I mean, books should be written about John Fetterman's political career so far as a U.S. senator. Like the race, the stroke, him not being able to really speak

well or be understood, the doubts about him on the right in particular. And then as soon as he became very pro-Israel, the left turned on him. The pro-Israel right started to reevaluate him. He reemerged as sort of this working class guy who understands their concerns. And now as a Democrat in the critical state of Pennsylvania, it's not like he's endorsing Trump, but he is offering some hard truths about why Pennsylvanians do love Trump and why this state, even though it's become bluer and bluer over the past 10 years, is still likely or potentially at least going to go for Donald Trump. It's tight. It's tight, tight, tight. She spent all of her time there.

Kamala Harris has basically moved to Pennsylvania. And here's John Fetterman explaining some of what's happened with Trump there. I also want people to understand, you know, and it's not science, but there is, there's energy and there's kinds of anger on the ground in Pennsylvania and people are very committed and strong. Trump is going to be strong. And that's, we have to respect that. You don't, can't even understand it. And it's not like a science that can explain it. But you have to just know that it's real. Trump has created a special kind of a hold within the corner. And he's remade the party. And he has a special kind of place in Pennsylvania. And I think that only deepened after that first assassination.

Very honest. Definitely. It's very amazing. I don't know if you remember this, Megan, but after the debate that John Fetterman did with Dr. Oz, who Trump had endorsed, and Fetterman was right out the stroke. He could barely talk. It was so hard to watch. Your heart really went out for him, Right. But everybody came out of that and was like, wow, Mehmet Oz is going to win, but not Donald Trump. Donald Trump, he watched it with one of his advisors. I don't remember which advisor it was, but they later said that what Trump said was, no, John Fetterman is going to win because people are going to feel sorry for him. I mean, that shows you Trump's real genius for politics and how people operate. He could see that coming. It is very amazing. You know, John Fetterman has this big stroke, you know, faces his maker and comes out like super pro-Israel, right? I think it's very interesting that he's able to both stay a Democrat while facing down the far left of his party. I think that shows real strength and character. I mean, obviously, I want him to find his way to Trump and find his way to understanding why so

many of his own constituents are so solidly in the MAGA camp and why it's because they want a better future for their children and why they're right about that. But I do think that it takes a lot of strength to be attacked so viciously and vociferously from your own side and still toe the line and say, no, I represent where the Democrats ideally should be. And I think, Megan, even for us who are kind of on the other side of things, we should want a better Democratic Party, right? Like we should want the Democratic Party that's represented by John Fetterman to fight against

rather than the Democratic Party that's represented by Rashida Tlaib, because we should want this country to be having debates that are elevated and about the issues and are legitimate and honest rather than whether Jews deserve to exist. Right. Yeah, right. Exactly. How do we get down to that point? So the working class remains a very interesting issue in this campaign in that, yes, Kamala Harris, if she's going to get elected, it's going to be thanks to the elites. It's not going to be thanks to the working class with whom she's doing very poorly, especially in comparison to Joe Biden, who did much, much better in particular with unions than she is doing. She's fallen precipitously with all these union groups that did like Joe Biden because he had a proven history with them. And so now there is a bit of a battle still to get some of them through her vice presidential candidate. She seems to have the big middle finger going for them, like in terms of who she sits with, the messaging that

she gives about herself. But they send Tim Walz out there to be sort of man of the people, you know, in his flannel and like a real regular working class guy, like a teacher you can understand, you can relate to. And the latest effort was him this weekend, like working on his car. He's just like a guy who works on the car and kicks the engine around. Here is a bit a bit of an ad. This is an ad showing him working on this car. Watch. Everything works on here, except one thing I'm still tinkering with, cruise control. So I'm going to show you how to fix that. At the same time, we talk about

creating an opportunity economy so that everybody can get the opportunity to thrive. To be able to work on this thing, you got a manual. It shows you exactly what to do to fix things on this. Okay. So according to LA times, this kind of car sells for anywhere between 39 to $59,000. So he's just a regular working class guy with a $60,000 automobile. He can really, he's just like you, but yeah, that's, that's the, the walls campaigns attempt. It's so amazing because Tim walls is like an over-credentialed rich elites, you know, view of what a working class person looks like and sounds like and talks like and does in their free time. Right. It's all acting just like Harris. Right. She's acting. She's acting like a vice presidential candidate. And the point is that it doesn't matter because

their base doesn't care. Their base are those same over-credentialed college elites, those same rich people, the Hollywood elites, the tech elites, people who work in the knowledge industry and make between $250 and a million dollars a year. That is the Democrats' base. And so to them, he doesn't have to come off as plausible to working class people. He just has to come off as plausible to Meryl Streep, right? That she picked the working class guy, right? It's like it doesn't actually have to convince people who actually are working class because they've effectively ceded those people already to Donald Trump. That's a great point. It was funny because this past weekend, friends of ours had this old Land Rover. It's legit old. It looks like an army

tank. And on the back of it, there's a bumper sticker that read, no airbags. We die like real men. That's great. I thought it was very funny. Don't, don't try that at home folks, get an airbag, but very, a very funny sort of middle finger to the, you know, overly protected new found safety crew on everything. Um, so let's go to Kamala Harris and her outreach to the working class. And that brings me to Oprah. I joke, of course, since Oprah has never, I mean, I would said this on Friday, like when was the last time Oprah actually surrounded herself with actual working class people spent any time with them at all? No, she's on her Montecito mansion ranch with Megan Markle, you know, dining on mimosas midday and taking her Ozempic. This is not somebody, you know, the guys who

actually do work on their cars can relate to it all. And I know you were struck by the most, and it's tough to pick, but the most inane answer from Kamala Harris. As so many were, this answer went totally viral because it's so empty and it promises absolutely nothing. And it somehow encapsulates everything about Kamala Harris that the left loves and the right can't stand. Here is that moment of her with Oprah on Thursday night's Hot One. We love our country. I love our country. I know we all do. That's why everybody's here right now. We love our country. We take pride in the privilege of being American. We are an optimistic people. Americans, by character, are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible.

We believe in what can be. And we believe in fighting for that. That's how we came into being. Because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism is to fight for the ideals of who we are. By the way, I'd give her $10,000 if she could answer this question. Name three of the founding fathers. Just three. Name three. She has no idea. I would say we definitely went up in quality when it comes to the person asking the questions,

though I've got a lot of criticism for Stephanie Ruhle. I do not put her in the same category as those ABC moderators or really even Dana Bash. She did ask some challenging questions. That's basically what I'm saying. But no follow-ups and none of the flip-flops of Kamala Harris's positions. All of this stuff is just left floating in the ether as though it's never happened. It's just incredibly frustrating to watch. But I'm grading on a curve here because when everyone fails the test, someone's got to be given a D plus, I guess. Look, the real story is Kamala Harris and how she answered the question. She was terrible. She was absolutely awful. I actually don't really understand why she can't do the memorization trick that she did for the debate for these interviews. Now she knows she's going to

sit with this for this interview with a woman who has a business news background. She's just, you know, done an economic speech. Why wouldn't you get your little note card team together and come up with a few like actual answers on your economic plan on its weaknesses that you might get asked about, you know, I don't get it unless this is that version. And like those people aren't very good if they're not writing mean note cards about Trump. That might explain it actually. Okay. There's a lot to go to. I have the transcript here. It started off with what I think may have been her worst answer. I actually think I was driving in my car last night, listening to Sirius XM when this was rolling and thank God for Sirius XM and the fact that you can get news live on Sirius XM as a lot of you are doing right now. But in any

event, I, I've heard this whole interview and in particular, the one where she responded to red tape, red, how are we going to get rid of government red tape? We'll get to that, but let's kick it off with what was probably the second worst answer of the entire thing. And it was on question number one. The question you'll hear it here was, okay, you laid out your economic vision, but a lot of Americans don't see themselves in your plans. What do you say to them, to Americans who don't see themselves in your plan? Her plans are so myopic. We talked about that one day. I was like, basically, if you have diabetes, she's got you in mind for something. Yay. And now, since then, she's talking about her economic plan covering first-time homebuyers, K, people who are in the first year of having a baby, K, and people who want to start a small

business. All right. The vast, vast majority of Americans do not fall into one of those three categories. I believe that is what Stephanie Ruhle was trying to get at. Like, what are you going to do about the millions, the hundreds of millions of Americans who are suffering thanks to your policies and your three little proposals don't cover any of them? Would you listen to the nonsense, the repetitive nonsense? And if you've got, you know, a vodka soda with a splash of lime right now, I challenge you to drink every time you hear hardworking dreams, ambitions, or aspirations. Roll it. Madam Vice President, you just laid out your economic vision for the future. Yeah. But still, there are lots of Americans who don't see themselves

in your plans. For those who say these policies aren't for me what do you say to them well if you are hard working if you have i the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what i believe you do um you're in my plan. You know, I have to tell you, I really love and I'm so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people. We have ambition. We have aspirations. We have dreams. We have dreams. We can see what's possible.

We have an incredible work ethic. Work ethic. But not everyone has the access to the opportunities that allow them to achieve those things. But we don't lack for those things. But not everyone, you know, gets handed stuff on a silver platter. it an opportunity economy is about making sure that all Americans, wherever they start, wherever they are, have the ability to actually achieve those, those dreams and those ambitions. Yeah. I mean, I'm, I'm hammered if I'm drinking at home at this point. Okay. So if you're hard working, if you have the dreams, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan.

Got it? Okay. What does that even mean? I have to tell you all the filler I really love. And I'm so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people. You've said nothing. You are wasting time with filler. Just the little duck's legs

underneath the lake, going and going and going and going and going and going. Nothing's happening, though. Nothing. Energize, love, what I know to be, spirit, character, American people. We have ambition. We have aspirations. We have dreams. We can see what's possible. You could see the edit of her. We can be unburdened by what has been. You can see she's been told, don't stop, just stop saying that. You can see the self edit. We can see what's possible. We have an incredible work ethic. Okay. You already said that. If you're hardworking, you have dreams, ambitions, and aspirations. You're in my plan. I love it. And I'm so energized by what I know to be the

spirit and character of the American people. We have ambitions, we have aspirations and dreams, and we have an incredible work ethic. We can see what's possible. So far, we've done nothing. All right. Is everybody with me on what she's doing here? But not everyone has the access to the opportunities. Again, the question was for the people who don't see themselves in your plans, what do you say to them? Not everyone has access to the opportunities that allow them to achieve those things. Achieve what things? Ambition, dreams, and aspirations? What things? You haven't laid any of the things out. Not everyone gets handed stuff on a silver platter. You mean dreams, ambitions, and aspirations? What? So my vision for the economy, I call it an opportunity economy. I love how she's like,

this is my phrase. This is my thing. An opportunity equality. I mean, the true thing that she's running on is equity. If you really read her plan, she's going back to, we don't all start in the same place, but we absolutely have to finish in the same place. It doesn't matter how hard you work. It doesn't matter your level of education. It doesn't matter how well adjusted you are or aren't. You must end in the same place in Kamala Harris's worldview. That's equity. She's on camera saying it more times than I can count. That's what opportunity economy stands for in any event. She didn't say that here. Okay. My vision is making sure all Americans, wherever they start, wherever they are,

here we go again, have the ability to actually achieve those dreams and those ambitions. You can feel the cringey, the cringing of her staff, can't you? At this point, you know, they're back like, stop saying that. It's no, we're not. We're on no card number two now, which include, okay. She's okay. Now she's getting great. She's getting to what the dreams and ambitions actually include, which include for middle-class families. Here we go. What? Just being able to know that their hard work allows them to get ahead. Right? Right. I hate how she says right after all of her sentences. Right? You know? Right? Like she said something truly profound and now we're bonding over what a soothsayer she is, how she really sees the future for us all. Okay. So she's going to make sure we

have the ability to actually achieve our dreams and our ambitions, which include being able to know that our hard work allows us to get ahead. That's what she's going to do as president. That's amazing. I love that she's going to do that for me. What other thought in my mind about how the future could be, just general thought about how I'd like to be. I'd like to be a kinder person. I would like to be more observant in my faith. Can she help me with that? Maybe, maybe she'll work on those opportunities for me to actually achieve my dreams and ambitions and my aspirations. And then she finishes it off with, we didn't play

this, but I come from the middle class. My mother raised my sister and me. She worked hard. No one gives a shit about your mother. They care about themselves. Stop talking about your mother. Start talking about the people who are actually suffering. Okay. So the only thing she said in the whole answer, and this was at the very end was my, so my vision for the economy is let's deal with some of the everyday challenges that people face and address them with common sense solutions. And then we got these four words, such as yes, what affordable housing. Okay. Affordable housing. She's gonna solve that. We're not sure how, but she's mentioned a $25,000 tax break for first-time home buyers only. So if you've already owned a home, you're effed. If you're struggling to pay your

mortgage, but it happens to be your second home, you're effed. That's it. And then she wants to somehow create more houses. We don't know how. We'll get to that later. Okay. Then instead of Stephanie rule saying you did not answer any of my question, you said a bunch of nonsense and did not get substantive. What specifically are you going to do outside of the three myopic tiny proposals you keep mentioning? Nope. that wasn't the follow-up. The follow-up was, ready? Over the last four years, there have been tremendous economic wins and you have just laid out a big plan. What? What? What are the tremendous economic wins? Was it the trillions in spending that we could not afford

that drove us up to double digit inflation? Was it the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden has admitted was falsely named and was really a climate bill, which we all knew at the time? And I look, what? That's sycophantic commenting and questioning. It's not questioning at all. And then she pivots to, okay, this is fine. But still the polling shows most likely voters still think Trump is better to handle the economy. Why do you think that is?

Okay. Then she comes out with, Trump left us the worst economy since the Great Depression. When you look at the employment numbers, to Stephanie Rule's credit, she says that was during COVID. She says unemployment was so high because we shut down the government and we shut down the country. Good for her. Then Harris responds with lies. Even before the pandemic, he lost manufacturing jobs, by most people's estimates, at least 200,000. What does that mean? Most people, Kamala, her husband, Doug, Tim Walls, Joe Biden, because that's just not true. That's actually a

knowable fact. It's not, doesn't have to be an estimate. We actually can look it up. Um, and we don't have to look very far because CNN, which is no fan of Donald Trump, actually fact-checked this itself, saying the loss in manufacturing jobs for Trump's entire presidency was 178,000 manufacturing jobs. But you've got to look at when those came, okay? Because manufacturing employment plummeted at the start of the pandemic, shedding 1.3 million jobs in April 2020 alone. The economy then immediately resumed adding manufacturing jobs, increasing each month from May to December during the pandemic before a small loss in January 2021 when we were splitting over administrations. Okay. But those gains were not enough to make up for the losses of the pandemic in March and April. So what was lost

178,000 was lost during the pandemic. And she is wrong when she says, cause Kamala Harris, you know, says no before the pandemic, before the pandemic, Donald Trump lost those jobs. That's a lie. Stephanie Rule, I'll give her, I'll give her some slack and not having her fact check ready because maybe she didn't know, but she was ready to say, you know, that those unemployment numbers were caused by, by COVID. And so if it had been me, if I get the chance to interview Kamala Harris, you can bet I'm going to run down what she says in response to all these issues. And if there's any lies that she said on record, I, it's my job to fact check her in any event, she lied and got away with it. There we go. And by the way, the truth about Trump is that prior to that point, prior to the pandemic, he presided over a gain, a gain in manufacturing jobs of 414,000, 414,000.

This is a plus for Trump, not a minus as they portrayed on MSNBC. Okay. She goes on to rip on his tax plan. He cut, there were tax cuts for billionaires and top corporations, excuse me, and didn't pay much attention to middle class families. All right. Now, Stephanie Ruhle knows better. She knows better.

She was a business reporter. This is the truth. All income brackets benefited substantially from Trump's tax reforms. However, those who benefited the most were the working and middle class. There was a long article in The Hill that laid out how, according to IRS data, if you look at people's adjusted gross income under Trump, those who made between $15,000 and $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of between 16% and 26%. Those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 had had a tax cut of 15 to 17% under Trump. Those who made between a hundred and 500,000 had a tax cut of 11 to 13%. You can see the numbers are going down. The arrow is going down. They're still all getting tax cuts, but they're not as generous. The more you make those who made over a million, less than 6% tax cut. All right. That's fine. I mean,

they had more to begin with. I'm sure it wasn't quite as painful. It's not quite as painful for them when they have any sort of, you know, tax adjustment, but they had a tax cut indeed, that was by some estimates, 20% less than the tax cut given to the working class. So these are lies and they were not brought up. There was no challenge whatsoever. Um, okay. Then rule asks her, all right, let's talk about taxes. Those tax cuts, they expire next year. And there are many people confused saying, I don't know what's going to happen. Are your taxes going to go up? You know, my tax is going to go up. She says, and under Harris administration at what income level should someone expect their taxes to go up? And Harris says, anyone making less, first of all, anyone making less than 40, 400,000 a year, your taxes will not go up.

Okay. Joe Biden peddled this lie too. And you know what happened? Taxes did go up for everyone in the form of groceries and gas prices, everything you buy, as you well know, energy, your electric bill, the inflationary spending that these two did like drunken sailors for the first few years of their presidency has caused your tax in every corner of your life. So if you believe you weren't taxed by the Biden-Harris administration, if you're making under $400,000, which was a broken promise by Joe Biden, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Then she goes on to say, I'm going to cut taxes actually for 100 million Americans. She's talking about her $6,000 a year child tax credit for young couples with

their first year of their child's life. JD Vance is proposing a 5,000. It's the difference is not significant. And by the way, um, that is not something that's going to apply to the vast majority of Americans here again, here again, right? So the she's, she's being asked a question about income tax, what's going to happen to you? And here she lies about if you're under 400,000, your taxes will not go up. And then she says, I'm going to give you the child tax credit, which is just a, it's like a present, right? I'm going to give you a tax present. So then Stephanie Rule asks her a good question. How are you going to pay for that? You can't just give people a tax credit, like the child tax credit and just pull money off money tree. It's not how it works. So how are you going to pay for

it? She says, expanding that child tax credit that you mentioned, you mentioned housing before the 25 grand for the first time home buyers, giving that extra money for a first home. Same thing. If you can't raise corporate taxes or if the GOP takes control of the Senate, and she basically means if the GOP takes control of the Senate and if the GOP maintains control of the House, either one of those things will screw your plan because they're not going to help her offer these policies without appropriate spending cuts. That's not what's going to happen. And Stephanie Rule's pointing it out. Where do you get the money to do that? All right. That's the question. Where do you get the money to do that? We have this exchange. I have to revise my answer.

Maybe this is the worst. I don't know. There's three top contenders for worst bad. You watch it and you tell me. Watch the light bulb go on after over Kamala Harris's head when she realizes she has no damn plan for if there's divided government and she can't shove through her agenda. Watch. Expanding that child tax credit, or you mentioned housing before giving that extra money for a first home. If you can't raise corporate taxes or if GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do that? Do you still go forward with those plans and borrow? Well, but we're going to have to raise corporate taxes and we're going to have to raise. We're going to have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay

their fair share. That's just it. It's about paying their fair share. She's an idiot. She's an idiot. She has no idea what she's talking about. I don't know if she understood the question. The question is, what if you cannot get this through in a divided government so that corporations pay more? And the answer is they just have to pay more. They have to. That's just it. That is just it. She sounds like one of those moronic TikTokers. You see, that's just it. She sounds like a four-year-old. That's her level of understanding. Don't believe any of these promises. She can't do it. She doesn't have a plan to fund it. And to the extent that that was exposed in the MSNBC interview, good on Stephanie Ruhle. Then they go on. Stephanie chimes in. Bill

Gates just said this week if he was in charge of taxes, he would have paid more. Okay, great. But how do you find that line to make sure corporations are paying their fair share and they're not leaving our country? Because if you tax them through the eyeballs, they'll leave. Plenty of places where you can make widgets. Doesn't have to be in the United States. And then we get a lecture on, I work with a lot of CEOs. I've spent a lot of time with CEOs. Sure, Jan. I'm going to tell you that business leaders who are actually part of the engine of America's economy agree that people should pay their fair share. Oh, I can't. I can't. With the filler. I can't. So much filler. They also agree that we should look at a plan,

when we look at a plan such as mine, about investing in the middle class, investing in new industries, bringing down costs. What is she saying? This is empty, empty calories. Investing in entrepreneurs like small businesses, that the overall economy is stronger and everyone benefits. She said, nothing. Part of my plan for the economy is investing in new industries in a way that we have active partnership with the private sector. I have worked with the private sector my entire career. Okay. She's been in government her entire career. I can't like all the rest goes on. Like, I'm not going to make you go through it the way I had to last night. And then she ends with, so you can take a nice vacation from time to time. She said

nothing about how you avoid taxing the corporations through the eyeballs to the point where they run, which is a real thing. Just ask New York city where this exact thing is underway. Ask California where this exact thing has been underway. Okay. Then we move on to my favorite. This is my favorite. All right. This is truly my favorite part. This is part I was listening on Sirius XM last night. I was like, what? What? As Sarah, my hairstylist would say, what? I didn't get it. Okay. Stephanie Rule. One of the main problems, because they were talking about buying a home, right? And Rule's saying, for people who want to buy a home, yeah, it'd be great to get that $25,000 kicker, only first-time home buyers,

but it's not just affording a home. We don't have enough homes in this country. Absolutely right, says Kamala. Rule. And one of the main problems are regulations and rules, strict, strict rules at a local level. How do the feds cut through all that red tape and help the locals solve housing problems? That's actually a good question. How do they? Watch this. How does the federal government cut through all that red tape and get down to, I know, the suburbs of Pittsburgh and say, we're going to have to build some affordable housing here? Part of my goal and the plan would be to create three million new housing units for rent

and for ownership by the end of my first term. It includes also what we must do to cut red tape. You're absolutely right. I know that we have to reduce the red tape and speed up what we need to do around building. Some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically at the connection

between that and housing and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people. Okay. So how are we going to cut through the red tape? It takes far too long. There's too much bureaucracy. I know we have to reduce the red tape and speed up what we need to do around building. And that is going to require working from the federal level with the state and local government. How? How was the question? That's where she should have jumped in, Stephanie. How was the question? Stop redefining the problem. I just laid out the problem. Now you're the one who's supposed to

be running with solutions. What are they? The question, madam, was how? And it's going to be different in different places, depending on the needs of that community, the needs of that local government, the needs of that municipality, but working in consultation and coordination and also around incentives that we can create. What the fuck did you just say? I'm sorry, I can't. What is that? That's not a how. There's too much bureaucracy. We have to reduce the red tape. I know I said that. Speed up what we need to do around building. I know that was built into my question. And it's going to require working from the federal level with the state and local governments. I know. How? How? It'll be different in different places, depending on the needs of the community, of the local government,

of the local municipality, working in consultation and coordination, and also around incentives that we can create. What? And then just when you think she keeps talking, you're like, maybe, maybe she saved the best for last. Maybe she's got another tool in her arsenal. Maybe she's got another trick up her sleeve. For example, great. An example, I'll take it. Some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments. Okay, I'm waiting for it. Great. Lots of filler, but what? Around transit dollars. What? What? The transit dollars. That's how she's going to get rid of the red tape stopping home building.

Transit dollars. And looking holistically, drink, at the connection between that and housing and looking holistically, drink, at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic drink manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people. I'm out. I'm out. I've heard enough. I can't. I object on every level I have inside of me to object. If you vote for that as president, then you deserve what you're going to get. I do not deserve it. The people who are going to vote for Trump do not deserve it.

It's a calamity how dumb this person is and that she's been placed in this position by her party, by fiat, without anybody. There are smart people in the Democrat Party. She's just not one of them. They weren't allowed to run either when he was seeking to be renominated or once he got cooed right out of office. They elevated her for all the same DEI nonsense principles. They put her in the vice presidency, not to mention the AG position, probably the Senate position and certainly the DA position that led to this path in the first place. She's not a smart person. And that is on display every time she sits down for an interview. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations

with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly. You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app.

It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Kamala Harris won't speak to the media. She gives these, you know, very friendly sit downs to people who she knows are avid Kamala Harris fans. That joke of an interview on CNN and then the Oprah thing. Um, she now most recently sat down with wired and Wired did was ask her a bunch of questions that had become memes on the internet. Like, tell us about your laugh. Tell us about what

makes you joyful. It was, I mean, it's just so frustrating stuff. Yeah. And then you get this, okay. Peter Alexander, the White House correspondent for NBC News, goes to the White House and maybe he could ask some tough questions of Kamala Harris. Maybe he could ask some tough questions of Joe Biden, who had yet another senior moment, to put it charitably, this weekend. No. What does he do? He sits down. He gets a tour of a replica of the White House from Dr. Jill Biden. And they let this guy do this as though he's breaking real news. Just watch what substitutes now for real journalism in America. Stop nine.

Joining us for this special tour. Hi, how are you? Dr. Biden, welcome to the White House. Someone who knows the place well, the First Lady. The public tours take you to these two floors. You live on that one. Does that look pretty?

Is that right on? Oh, perfect. Yeah? Really? The bed's made, so... The bed's always made. It's perfect up there. Why don't you try to sit in the president's...

I mean... Here we go. If the First Lady asks, I think I sort of have an obligation to oblige. So it's a fake overlap. I'm sorry. Like if they had given this to some puff, but this is the White House correspondent. The fails on the journalists are too many to count at this point.

I really do feel it's a thumb on the scale. Well, it's more than a thumb on the scale. It's a bit of a philosophy, Megan. This is one of the core themes in my book, and you're talking about that as lies, as artifice. I named the book Truths for a reason. One of the things that I actually exposed towards the start of this book hits this head on, which is that even if you take the CEO of NPR, for example, one of the things

that she has publicly said is that in some cases, our obsession with the truth may stop us from pursuing more important objectives like bringing people together. Now, you and I may get irritated about that, but before we're angry about it, let's just analyze what's at its core. It is a skepticism of the importance of pursuing truth itself. It is a skepticism of the importance of pursuing truth itself. It is a goal, but on a list of goals and priorities where that may not at times be the top priority. That's a worldview. So when I'm watching that video, that's exactly what I'm seeing, which is that their goal to sort of try their clothing on is to bring people together. That's what they will say. And sometimes an obsessive fixation on the truth. So at NPR, CEO had to say, distracts us from doing what may be more important. That's a debate. It's

a debate worth having. We can be angry about it, but my own view, and I suspect you share it, is that actually the path to bringing people together runs through truth. The pursuit of truth runs through free speech and open debate, runs through the path of getting to the bottom of what's actually going on rather than giving people the sense that they're being lied to. That actually divides people and pushes them apart, even if the truth is at times uncomfortable. So, you know, in any case, one of the things I try to do in writing this book is I want to expose those best arguments for the other side because we can complain about the media all we want. Are they biased? Are they putting their thumb on the scale? Yes, they are. But there's a root philosophy on the other side

that we're up against. And it is one that is skeptical of, if not the existence of objective truth, which some are, it's skeptical of the importance of pursuing it when that comes into conflict with other goals that they deem to be more important. In the case of NPR CEO, I at least give her credit for airing that and being open about that fact, whereas others actually are skeptical of the importance of pursuing truth, but try to pretend like they still are. It's a deeper ideological, philosophical debate about what is the role of the news media. Is it to seek and provide access to truth or is it something else? And if it is something else, okay, that's a view. Let's talk about it in the open. That's one of the things

that I aim to do in this book. And it's part of the reason why, especially after having run for president last year and seen the media front row from a different seat, I really felt compelled to do, which is why we put this out. Here is Peter Alexander doing his job behind the scenes after, what was it? It was at the DNC or was, yeah, it was after the DNC. So the chief, the White House correspondent for NBC News finds himself with exclusive access to Kamala Harris, newly anointed as the Democratic nominee. And does he, at least in that setting, shout a tough question at her? Here's what happened. How do you feel tonight? I feel good. Now on to tomorrow. Good to see you last night. Yeah. Congratulations. Governor Walz, Mrs. Walz, congratulations. Thank you.

It felt good. I mean, listen, we've got 75 days to go. So maybe for better and for worse, that's the way I am. Like that was good. Now we got to move on. Enjoy one night. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. It's like they work for the campaign. It's like they, I mean, that that's your chance to just ask one tough question. Just ask one tough followup. But there's something in the news today showing that she was asked about whether she still holds her earlier espoused position on amnesty for so-called dreamers. And she refused to answer. She refused to answer Axios.

They just wouldn't take a position. She was asked, her campaign was asked because she doesn't get asked anything, whether she still stands by. She wants the taxpayers to fund sex change operations for illegals and also prisoners. And their position was that's not something she has said in this campaign with no acknowledgement of her latest position as espoused by her is that she's in favor. She's never said she reversed it. So this is the disrespect of the American voter that we just don't get to know. They just they just don't they don't have no entitlement to understand her positions. It's just there's two things going on.

One is that they believe her positions don't matter in some in some deeper ironic sense, Megan, that kind of is true. Actually, I don't really see her as an ideologue anyway. I see her as a cog in a system. She's another puppet like Biden was a puppet, frankly, like most politicians and even historical presidents have often been puppets. She's another puppet that's going to be wielded by the special interests that have put her up. So in a certain sense, there's like a deep, ironic truth to the whole thing that her positions don't actually matter. But put the cynical view to one side.

The other thing is that the disparate treatment of a lot of her statements versus things that Donald Trump or J.D. Vance or whoever have said. Right. So you hear about the conflicts in the media's uproar over claims of what's happening with Haitians in Springfield. You get a cats and dogs controversy or whatever. What about Kamala Harris making completely unfounded claims even in this, that women are bleeding in parking lots. Just can you provide one instance of that actually happening? It's a pretty severe thing to say is happening in the streets of America in front of health care clinics that women are left to bleed in the parking lots. Exactly stuff that she said, pretty graphic, pretty specific, not a shred of evidence to suggest that type of thing is happening. So on one hand, if somebody makes an off the cuff comment about what's going on with Haitians in

Springfield, that's going to be the entire news cycle for an entire week, supposedly fact checking that without an iota of even fact checking the things she has said even during this campaign, many of which are factually just downright false. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it. And so I think the thing that's going on with Kamala Harris, a few things. One is that she ran to the left of Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election. I don't know if those are her actual beliefs. Megan, I don't think she has a particular ideology. I think it almost is giving her too much credit to call her ideological.

I think the deeper issue in American politics is that the people we elect to run the government, they're not really even the ones running the government. So in some sense, Biden's cognitive deficits in the same way they weren't a bug, they were a feature to the people who managed him. The same thing goes for Kamala's policy deficits, right? Her policy deficits aren't really a bug. They're a feature for the people who control her and are likely to continue to control her if she becomes the president. And, you know, there's a theme near and dear to my heart. It's not particularly a partisan point, but I do think that that's a deeper failure in American politics. It's, again, a core element of what I discuss in this book,

is how do we restore self-governance in our country. It's not going to be just the fact that we're up against a candidate here. We're up against an entire machine. And part of the reason I'm putting this book out is I want to talk about how do we actually dismantle that machine rather than just focusing on a candidate one at a time, which is a mistake that I think we sometimes fall into. Very smart. I will say before I get into the heart of the book, the truth about Joe Biden being a cog in the wheel appears to be evident every day because it does not appear he's actively the president. It really doesn't. Every window you get into his schedule. And in fact, the rare occasions you get

to see him now, like at a cabinet meeting for the first time in a couple of years, that he let his wife run, not the vice president, his wife. He let the first lady run. Now we see him over the weekend on Saturday, there's a press conference. We've got this group called the Quad. We're having a Quad Summit. This is the group that's supposed to take on

the world challenges like the rise of the Chinese. It's Japan, Australia, India, and the United States. And he gets up there and he's supposed to be introducing Prime Minister Modi of India, obviously forgets. And here's what happened. So I want to thank you all for being here. And now, who am I introducing next? Who's next?

Distinguished guests, the prime minister of the Republic of India. So cringy. You can see all the heads looking around there. The people in the audience are uncomfortable. I'm sure Prime Minister Modi was uncomfortable. I mean, Vivek, who is the sitting president? Do we know? Well, look, I think the idea that Joe Biden

is the functioning U.S. president has been a joke for a long time. That's not specific to this year. That's been true for the entirety of last year and the entirety of the last three years as well. It's just that it became socially acceptable to say so in public once that first debate happened and the media decided this was now

inside the Overton window to talk about. I think that, you know, this is a a it looks more like a case of elder abuse. Now, who's committing the elder abuse? We could we could debate it. You brought up the case of Jill Biden looking like she's heading that cabinet meeting. One thing I will say in Jill Biden's defense is that, you know, Dr. Jill Biden's case, she's gotten approximately as many votes, exactly as many votes for U.S. president as Kamala Harris has, which is to say zero. she has gotten approximately as many votes, exactly as many votes for U.S. president

as Kamala Harris has, which is to say zero. So I think that the idea that the Democratic Party- She actually might be the most competent. Among the three, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Jill, I might actually go for Jill Biden. The reality is the Democratic Party of the present really doesn't care about the Democratic will of voters. Not only do they not care about it,

I think they're somewhat hostile to it. I think the reality is they believe that voters may represent the greatest risk to a democracy, that they may not make the right choice, which is why they're against the SAVE Act right now. But you could go straight down the list of policies or the way they've even conducted their own primary process, the way in which they're making sure the U.S. president, who ultimately even is elected, is constrained enough to make sure that he doesn't actually do something that might represent the democratic will of the voters, because it's this managerial machine that's actually running the show. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show show no bs no agenda and no fear